Rage is an emotion.

Melissia wrote:Rage is an emotion.

True, but stabbing is an action.

feeder wrote:

Melissia wrote:Rage is an emotion.

True, but stabbing is an action.

Especially when you tare out the throat with a pencil.

Never knew taring the throat from someone was an emotion.

It's a form of rage, duh

Rage, by definition, is violent, uncontrollable anger. The desire to rip someone's throat out is a form of rage.

Relapse wrote:

MrDwhitey wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:Im Christian. And i seriously dont give a frak whenever someone is gay, lesbian, black, white or whatever else.

I just want America to agree as a Christian nation to outlaw the intermarriage between gays and straights.

What movie are the clapping dudes from?

It's from Citizen Kane, with the addition of Gary Busey's face.

Melissia wrote:It's a form of rage, duh

Rage, by definition, is violent, uncontrollable anger. The desire to rip someone's throat out is a form of rage.

And acting on that desire is an action, duh

Melissia wrote:It's a form of rage, duh

Rage, by definition, is violent, uncontrollable anger. The desire to rip someone's throat out is a form of rage.

Acting on it is an action.

Taring someones throat out or any form of assault is not emotion, but action generally caused by extreme emotion.

DAaddict wrote:As expected, my statement is sliced and reduced to one facet. If it is wrong to have sex out of marriage, indeed to view another person with lust. Explain to me how gay activity is God-pleasing? I am not demonizing someone for being Gay anymore than some other fault or limitation that someone may be dealing with. Talk about allowing gay marriage and perhaps we have a cause. As far as sex outside of marriage, it is pretty much not considered God-pleasing. So if you want me to expand, the gay lifestyle is no more wrong than any guy shacking up with a girl. THAT is my point.

The other point is that we all have failings. My problem with the evangelicals is not their anti-gay stance per se. It is that they add degrees to one or another sin/fault of another. As if this is number 1 whereas this is number 555 on the list of bad things to do. They are all wrong, equally. So don't go pointing fingers at one person or another for their failings... You have your own failings. Stop worrying about what other people do and start thinking about how you can make yourself right with God. Don't care about making yourself right with some other humans perception of you.

Are you saying that being gay is a failing?

Are you saying that being gay is a failing?

Depends on ones perspective and influences in life. If being gay is a failing then the desire to achieve more money flow is a failing to.


edit
refering to greed.

So, basically I've learnt from this thread that opening up religious debate to a different question, in this case that perhaps Christianity should consider moving away from the homosexuality issue in order to do good and have more meaning in other areas of life... is basically a waste of time.

People will ignore what you wrote in order to claim offence at something, or just plain old ignore the topic in order to make the same old religious arguments that get made in every thread that touches on religion.

Ah well, dakka, 'twas not to be. Maybe in another year we can try again... after all this is still a much more improved effort than where we were a year or two ago.

generalgrog wrote:To the question regarding Incest and how come the immediate descendants of Adam and Eve, or even the descendants of the Ark survivors weren't handicapped after XX generations. The classic young earth view is that incest(brother/sister) was acceptable in the beginning, because the human race's gene pool hadn't degenerated yet. It wasn't until many years after creation that the debilitating effects of the Eden curse started to show. This is also an explanation as to why the patriarchs of the Bible lived so long. I think Methuselah was between 700 and 970(depending on which manuscript you use) years old before dying right before the flood.

GG

So you give some nice founding fiction for how the early origin stories in the Bible might have really happened, and ignore the point that the story is steeped in symbolism and metaphor, and has no meaning at all if taken as a literal statement of what really happened.

Metaphor is a powerful and important thing. It is okay to believe your book has some of it in there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blood reaper wrote:Also, the world was flooded after God decided that everyone was "EVIL", including the blind, the disabled, the deaf, the children, the babies and mentally disabled, and in order to start over, God got his garden hose and told a six hundred year old man to gather two of every animal on earth. There are currently 20,000 species of fish, 6,000 species of reptiles, 9,000 birds, 1,000 amphibians, and 15,000 species of mammals, however, he only took the 21,000 reptiles and mammals with him, then he built the boat and went a rowing, but ignoring food supplies, the fact he's six hundred and has crossed the entire planet, and the current life time of a man in his age was a maximum of 25 on average, survived. Also, if rain water and salt water mix, they form a deadly chemical which would have wiped out all fish life, so they would have had to held their breath. Then Noah, and his six wives and his 3 sons, got busy and made the entire human race again, with incest.

As much as some Christians only show their inability to read when they attempt to invent things to try and make obviously metaphorical stories into literal re-tellings of fact and should not be let off for such basic illiteracy... nor should skeptics be let off for showing the exact same illiteracy when they read those same stories literally and then complain how they're not very convincing.

It's metaphor. Ulysses is not actually about two Irish guys walking around Dublin. Noah's Ark is not actually about a storm that really happened that only two people and some animals survived.

Now, now. Let's not be mean. He can't post on this thread to reply.

AustonT wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:Im Christian. And i seriously dont give a frak whenever someone is gay, lesbian, black, white or whatever else.

I just want America to agree as a Christian nation to outlaw the intermarriage between gays and straights.

Please oh please be joking.

Yes, he is joking.

Now can we please have a nice big shiny brass padlock and bring this train wreck of a thread to an end?

xole wrote:Now, now. Let's not be mean. He can't post on this thread to reply.

The person you're thinking of is not the person I'm thinking of. I was thinking more of the people earlier in the thread who decided to believe I was bashing Christians, and the folk who came in to claim religion is dumb or whatever it was this time.

This topic is almost as flammable as a box of cheerios, which are surprisingly flammable.

On that note, can someone explain to me why burning cheerios would make a relevant protest against gay marriage, does the company who produce cheerios support gay marriage? Are cheerios seen as a homosexual cereal in the US? Or were they just his choice of tinder?

The company making that brand of cereal donated money in support of same-sex marriage.

sebster wrote:So, basically I've learnt from this thread that opening up religious debate to a different question, in this case that perhaps Christianity should consider moving away from the homosexuality issue in order to do good and have more meaning in other areas of life... is basically a waste of time.

Could you really be trolling so hard that you don't even realize it anymore? It's like you've trolled yourself into some dimension where trolling is actual discussion and actual discussion is trolling. Come back to us sebster! In our dimension, Christian churches and other organizations do an enormous amount of real social good instead of focusing most or all of their energy on opposing gay marriage. In Dimension X, where you have troll-warped yourself to, it could be the opposite, which explains how you could possibly think your OP in this case is a legitimate point rather thank just treating a ridiculous stereotype as a fact.

In our dimension, Christian churches and other organizations do an enormous amount of real social good instead of focusing most or all of their energy on opposing gay marriage.

I doubt sebster actually disagrees with this. I suspect what he's trying to say is that any time spent on opposing gay marriage is wasted and counterproductive, as it doesn't help anyone, and serves only to make themselves and the church look bad, and look like they think that's more important than the real charitable and socially good work they do.

Think of two scenarios:

News report or random internet video shows someone doing charity work feeding homeless people, or building houses in New Orleans. Viewer comments guess "I bet that guy's a Christian". Later evidence comes out to confirm they were right; he is.

News report or random internet video shows someone doing a stupid stunt and ranting about gays being bad. Viewer comments guess "I bet that guy's a Christian". Later evidence comes out to confirm they were right; he is.

Obviously the former scenario is preferable.

Of course, to some extent this is an unfair challenge. Videos showing people building houses or volunteering at shelters aren't exactly funny and exciting, and so are far less likely to be passed around and commented on. Inspiring videos usually need to be really well shot and edited, maybe including a really good musical score, to get any real play. To get passed around a lot as funny a video pretty much just needs one idiot behaving badly. So the idiots are always going to get a greater share of the airtime. Also, commercial-driven media and news thrive on drama and conflict, and so negative stories get more press. Which is probably a big part of why we hear more about anti-gay Christians than we do about homeless-feeding Christians.

But still, it's got to suck that Christianity gets associated so much with its more bigoted, intolerant adherents. And maybe it's not totally crazy for outsiders to wonder if and how Christians are working to change that.

I'm going to lump same sex marriage in the same column as making english the official language of the US. Bring either up and people go off on the bend either saying "hater, bigot, or extremist". Does God himself forgive all if one embrace the faith with conviction?....wait someone said that God, his only son Jesus and the Holy Spirit is one....but I perfer God being first. I'm sure him and Zues along with other God like beings play 40K in a neutral plane.


went a bit off topic....

Mannahnin wrote:News report or random internet video shows someone doing a stupid stunt and ranting about gays being bad. Viewer comments guess "I bet that guy's a Christian". Later evidence comes out to confirm they were right; he is.

News report about murder in New Orleans. Viewer comments guess "I bet the perp's black." Later evidence comes out to confirm they were right; he is. Post thread on Dakka: "Black people need to take a stronger stand against crime." Would you pat him on the back?

Of course, to some extent this is an unfair challenge.

Yes, that is true and it accurately and comprehensively summarizes the situation. So why post the following after showing that you actually get it?

But still, it's got to suck that Christianity gets associated so much with its more bigoted, intolerant adherents. And maybe it's not totally crazy for outsiders to wonder if and how Christians are working to change that.

So I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you don't in fact get it. It isn't just hypothetical, that statement "it's got to suck." It does suck. It does suck that outsiders form their views based on internet videos that get passed around because they're funny or otherwise outrageous rather than representative or even relevant to any meaningful use of the term Christian. It does suck that otherwise intelligent and sensitive people really can't see how callous and intolerant they can be allegedly for the sake of inclusivity and tolerance.

If an obviously crazy person goes around saying they are a math professor and attempts to teach you about calculus by burning Cheerios, do you say "well, math is pretty lame these days"? Does anyone start a thread saying "mathematicians need to disassociate themselves with nutters"? And it doesn't really matter how many nutters say they're Christians. Are you or are you not aware enough to know what Christianity actually teaches? If so, then you know the bigots aren't actually drawing on the teachings of Jesus. And you know that the authentic Christian objection to redefining marriage isn't actually about bigotry. Rather, it's about theology. If you pre-load the terms with statements like "well, Christian theology is bigoted because it does not account for my political agenda" you are yourself the problem. You will never be able to understand any person on your own idiosyncratic terms. Whatever failings individual Christians have, the idea that you need to go outside of yourself to experience otherness is at the very heart of Christianity, summed up in the incarnation of God in the person of Jesus Christ. As such, Christianity has a unique insight into the travails of marginalized people. The trouble is not that our culture is too hung up on Christianity to "move forward" -- rather, it is that our culture was never sufficiently Christian to seriously denounce marginialization.

Bigotry is a gun lying on the table: you can pick it up and point it at me or maybe, if I am fast enough or have some kind of head start, I can pick it up and point it at you. The key, of course, is that neither of us should desire any recourse to the thing. But in a culture of fear, promoted by (for example) people taking the burning of Cheerios as a serious ideological position or public officials using their prominence to attack and exclude rather than resolve and include, how can you trust me not to go for the gun? And how can I trust you? If you actually go out to a parish and see how Christians are not frothing to murder gays, you might be able to develop that trust. But the fact that you or anyone (I'm not just speaking to Mannahnin here or even to supporters of gay marriage; opponents of gay marriage, including Christians, are also guilty) want to take this Cheerios thing as a sign of the times speaks to me that you don't care about developing that trust -- you just want the gun. You just want to "make them pay." You just want to "teach them a lesson."

In that world, no one is safe for long. Maybe you're safe today. But the tables have turned once -- there's nothing to stop them turning again except good will.

Manchu wrote:If an obviously crazy person goes around saying they are a math professor and attempts to teach you about calculus by burning Cheerios, do you say "well, math is pretty lame these days"? Does anyone start a thread saying "mathematicians need to disassociate themselves with nutters"? And it doesn't really matter how many nutters say they're Christians. Are you or are you not aware enough to know what Christianity actually teaches? If so, then you know the bigots aren't actually drawing on the teachings of Jesus.

The problem isn't dismissing the crazies. None of us think that cheerio-burning guy is mainstream. The problem is the large number of non-crazy people who seem to be on his side, just not expressing it in his crazy way. But still bigoted enough to go out and do stuff like vote for Constitutional amendments to enshrine in state constitutions their prejudice. A prejudice which they somehow draw from and base on their understanding of their religion. You as a Christian can say they're misguided and wrong, but there's a nontrivial number of them. It's not just the fringe crazies. These people seem to be in the mainstream of the politically-active members of their religion. Maybe they're just the loud minority, but certainly from the perspective of people outside the church, they're the ones who present themselves as representatives of the faith. How about we ask The Bringer whether he supports gay people having the right to get married, with all the same legal status and protections as straight couples? He seems to be a kind, patient and decent Christian. I'm curious what he thinks and if he's voted in relation to it.

Manchu wrote:If And you know that the authentic Christian objection to redefining marriage isn't actually about bigotry. Rather, it's about theology.

A theology which refuses to render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, no? An objection seemingly based on laying exclusive claim to a custom and practice which other cultures and religions also practice and have practiced, in different ways.

To the best of my understanding you won't deny me the right to get married within my faith, or at city hall without the trappings of faith, but the Christian objection to anyone else or civil society being able to use a definition of marriage outside of theirs is not a good or moral one, from my perspective.

Manchu wrote:The trouble is not that our culture is too hung up on Christianity to "move forward" -- rather, it is that our culture was never sufficiently Christian to seriously denounce marginialization.

Christianity is the dominant religion in our country and culture, and has always been. This is feeling a bit No True Scotsman.

Manchu wrote: And how can I trust you?

You can trust me because neither I nor a large number of members of a group in which I claim membership have tried to restrict your freedoms or legal protections. And no, I don't believe it's a religious freedom to deny your employees coverage for birth control. It's the opposite, because the employer is taking away the choice from the employee. If the employee holds the same religious principle, they just don't use that part of the coverage.

Manchu wrote: If you actually go out to a parish and see how Christians are not frothing to murder gays, you might be able to develop that trust.

Are we moving the goalposts a little here? I'm not all that concerned about cheerios guy, or the Phelps clan. Those guys are disturbing, but in the greater scheme of things they are not really dangerous. People who actively go out and seek to murder gays are thankfully getting rarer and rarer. I'm more concerned with the normal, nice, everyday, inoffensive Christians who oppose their neighbors' right to the same family status and legal protections in our society, and who vote that way.

Manchu wrote: But the fact that you or anyone (I'm not just speaking to Mannahnin here or even to supporters of gay marriage; opponents of gay marriage, including Christians, are also guilty) want to take this Cheerios thing as a sign of the times speaks to me that you don't care about developing that trust -- you just want the gun. You just want to "make them pay." You just want to "teach them a lesson."

I want truth, justice, love, kindness and beauty. I want people of different religions or no religion at all to be able to come to common agreement on laws independent of our varying religious faiths or lack thereof, based on common values and principles which hold true whether you're religious or not. This shouldn't be too much to ask.

Good people should get better at marketing.

Manchu wrote:Could you really be trolling so hard that you don't even realize it anymore?

Nope, that's impossible given the definition of trolling, and what I actually wanted out of this thread.

Just please read what I'm actually saying. I'm not having a go at you or any other Christians. As I already explained to you I am married to a Christian, and it was out of conversation with her and another Christian that I thought of the idea behind this thread (as both people noted the increasing tendency for any homophobic bigotry to be assumed to be Christian homophobic bigotry, and there seemed to be no shortage of reason to justify that tendency).

It's like you've trolled yourself into some dimension where trolling is actual discussion and actual discussion is trolling. Come back to us sebster! In our dimension, Christian churches and other organizations do an enormous amount of real social good instead of focusing most or all of their energy on opposing gay marriage. In Dimension X, where you have troll-warped yourself to, it could be the opposite, which explains how you could possibly think your OP in this case is a legitimate point rather thank just treating a ridiculous stereotype as a fact.

Yeah, I know Christian groups do a lot of good. I don't know how many of these threads I have to spend time pointing out that I have a lot respect for Christians and the good work they do before Christians like you will stop taking the lazy shortcut of 'he has something to say that I don't want to hear therefore he's just a Christian basher'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:I doubt sebster actually disagrees with this. I suspect what he's trying to say is that any time spent on opposing gay marriage is wasted and counterproductive, as it doesn't help anyone, and serves only to make themselves and the church look bad, and look like they think that's more important than the real charitable and socially good work they do.

I think that's exactly what I did say, to be perfectly honest. That people don't want to hear that, and instead just dismiss any such comment as Christian bashing is another issue entirely.

Of course, to some extent this is an unfair challenge. Videos showing people building houses or volunteering at shelters aren't exactly funny and exciting, and so are far less likely to be passed around and commented on. Inspiring videos usually need to be really well shot and edited, maybe including a really good musical score, to get any real play. To get passed around a lot as funny a video pretty much just needs one idiot behaving badly. So the idiots are always going to get a greater share of the airtime. Also, commercial-driven media and news thrive on drama and conflict, and so negative stories get more press. Which is probably a big part of why we hear more about anti-gay Christians than we do about homeless-feeding Christians.

Yeah, and I did point out in this thread, complete with an example, that Christian calls for social justice and aid for the poor, even from major Christian groups, tend to be utterly ignored, while any video from any nutter no matter how marginal he is to the faith will get a whole lot of attention if he shouts something homophobic. So Christians are working against a stacked deck... but then so are Muslims and every other religious group. But you have to work within the rules of the game, and there's no denying that if that homophobic element could be reduced, well then it's coverage would still be overblown, but it'd be less than it is right now.

But still, it's got to suck that Christianity gets associated so much with its more bigoted, intolerant adherents. And maybe it's not totally crazy for outsiders to wonder if and how Christians are working to change that.

I wouldn't have thought so...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:News report about murder in New Orleans. Viewer comments guess "I bet the perp's black." Later evidence comes out to confirm they were right; he is. Post thread on Dakka: "Black people need to take a stronger stand against crime." Would you pat him on the back?

That is, of course, a real stereotype that black people suffer. And it's one that black groups attempt to counter every day, but their success in countering it is limited by the fact that they're just a bunch of people born with black skin with no authority or leadership that can sensibly claim authority.

Whereas Christians have a wealth of leaders, and are a group with, more or less, a shared group of values.

So when a stereotype starts to form that could negatively impact Christians and just as importantly negatively impact the good work they look to do, I'd think it'd be entirely sensible to say 'perhap people within the faith should try to do some things to prevent them becoming known as those guys who really don't like gay people'.

If an obviously crazy person goes around saying they are a math professor and attempts to teach you about calculus by burning Cheerios, do you say "well, math is pretty lame these days"?

There's two big problems with your hypothetical. First up, the guy didn't say he was an Evangelical Christian, people just assumed that. No-one is going around assuming anyone is a mathematician after they say homophobic things, whereas that is a real thing that really happens with Christians and homopobia.

Second up, mathematicians aren't pulling crazy stunts to protest homosexuality. In the real world that's what's some Christians are doing. If some mathematicians were doing crazy nonsense to protest homophobia then I'd think it'd be perfectly sensible for mathematics bodies around the world to speak against those nutters, and to perhaps take that as a lesson to stop worrying so much about the gay and get back to their real mission - studying maths.

And it doesn't really matter how many nutters say they're Christians. Are you or are you not aware enough to know what Christianity actually teaches? If so, then you know the bigots aren't actually drawing on the teachings of Jesus.

Yes, I happen to be quite aware of the teachings at the core of Christianity. I happen to have a great of respect for it. I wouldn't have posted this thread if I didn't admire those teachings, and the people they've inspired.

It appears I can't say any of that often enough to convince you its true.

Bigotry is a gun lying on the table: you can pick it up and point it at me or maybe, if I am fast enough or have some kind of head start, I can pick it up and point it at you.

Talk of bigotry is a shield as often as its a gun. Too often claims of bigotry are used to dismiss any comment an outsider might make of a community, to avoid that community asking questions of itself.

So please, take it from a guy who wants Christians to continue their good work, and continue to be seen as a moral authority in society - the focus on homosexuality makes that harder.

Mannahnin wrote:I'm more concerned with the normal, nice, everyday, inoffensive Christians who oppose their neighbors' right to the same family status and legal protections in our society, and who vote that way.

I think this is what it boils down to. You insist on the distinction at issue being baseless and therefore bigotry and therefore immoral. Your everyday, inoffensive Christian neighbors consider the distinction a matter or natural law and ignoring the distinction to be an arbitrary act of political will. Just because you don't share their worldview doesn't make you enlightened and them bigots. The readiness with which you condemn others as bigots undermines your claims to support the rights of others.

Mannahnin wrote:I want people of different religions or no religion at all to be able to come to common agreement on laws independent of our varying religious faiths or lack thereof, based on common values and principles which hold true whether you're religious or not. This shouldn't be too much to ask.

This is incredibly disingenuous. You're saying that people should agree on values independently from their religious traditions. The values of religious people come from their religious traidtions. Whether you meant it or not, this comes off as "I want people to abandon their own values and accept mine. This shouldn't be too much to ask."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:Yes, I happen to be quite aware of the teachings at the core of Christianity. I happen to have a great of respect for it. I wouldn't have posted this thread if I didn't admire those teachings, and the people they've inspired.

It appears I can't say any of that often enough to convince you its true.

Simply put, it is not convincing because it does not square with the rest of what you are saying. If you understood and respected Christianity, then you would understand and respect why the opposition of homosexual marriages from an actual Christian perspective is not a matter of bigotry and that the burden to not associate homophobia with Christianity is not on Christians but rather with the prejudiced people who make such an assumption in the first place.

Actually, the theological argument against gay marriage is something I don't accept as legitimate. Then again, I'm by no means your traditional Christian-- while I've been baptized and have gone to various churches over my life (especially before I left high school), including sunday school, I have always questioned everything that the various pastors told me, especially since they frequently contradicted eachother. And now that I'm adult, and there's the internet here to allow me to do more effective research (including scholarly research), I've even less reason to listen to the average pastor preacher dude, when I can instead look at various copies of the original texts, how they're translated over the years, why they were translated as such, the various cultures during the time of the texts' writing, etc.

I don't even think I really qualify as Christian anyway (I don't worship, which probably dooms me to begin with), but that said, I do like researching stuff and the philosophy behind the religion fascinates me.

Mannahnin wrote:The problem isn't dismissing the crazies. None of us think that cheerio-burning guy is mainstream. The problem is the large number of non-crazy people who seem to be on his side, just not expressing it in his crazy way. But still bigoted enough to go out and do stuff like vote for Constitutional amendments to enshrine in state constitutions their prejudice.

State? Actually, Ron Paul and other such evangelistic nutjobs (And yet people still try to lie to themselves to claim Ron Paul is a Libertarian, go figure) are continually pushing for federal amendments.

Ron Paul is absolutely a libertarian. Are you trying salvage the word "libertarian" or something?

Regarding, looking at the book for yourself and all that -- it should be pretty obvious that reading through a pile of English translations of the Bible doesn't give you an understanding of anything except maybe the publishing industry in the anglophonic world. Interpretation happens inside of context. That context is tradition. The church pre-exists the texts. One cannot simply read it for oneself.

Back on topic, disagreeing with the theological argument and calling it bigotry (as if that was an argument) are two different things. Of course there will be many who disagree and in fact many who seem to agree with it also seem not to really understand it, so it ends up being a very complex situation.

Whenever i see someone use the bible to win an argument i think back to stargate sg-1, When tomin is trying to convert Vala by reading a passage of the book of origin, he then speaks to a prior, who quotes the passage he just read, but with the opposite meaning, tomin says its wrong, but the prior says its not and uses his magical powers to make the passage true to his word.
Point is, religious people will always construe teachings to make it coincide with their goals.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Whenever i see someone use the bible to win an argument i think back to stargate sg-1, When tomin is trying to convert Vala by reading a passage of the book of origin, he then speaks to a prior, who quotes the passage he just read, but with the opposite meaning, tomin says its wrong, but the prior says its not and uses his magical powers to make the passage true to his word.
Point is, religious people will always construe teachings to make it coincide with their goals.

This is true of anyone fanatically adhering to an ideology.

Manchu wrote:Ron Paul is absolutely a libertarian.

Ron Paul isn't libertarian. He's a states rights activist (and not even a very consistent one). They are not hte same thing.

Manchu wrote:Interpretation happens inside of context. That context is tradition.

Tradition has about the same value to me as dog turds.

I haven't been following this thread that closely, but have you guys heard the guy in the OP has died?

He died of a heart attack. I can't imagine what he could have been so stressed out about?

Here is what I want to know, do these kind of political attacks by churches increase their membership and contributions opposed to churches who avoid such confrontations?

In a Facebook tribute, one of Leisner’s nephews--a missionary in Costa Rica--wrote in Spanish that Leisner was as “bold as a lion of God,” though some would remember him as “a flaming Elijah.” Unfortunately, an English translation on the Facebook page mangled part of the tribute. “Please pray for the family of Mike to feel the spirit of God as dildo in this time of a loss,” the Bing translation notes.

Best thing from Bing, EVER.

Melissia wrote:.

Mannahnin wrote:The problem isn't dismissing the crazies. None of us think that cheerio-burning guy is mainstream. The problem is the large number of non-crazy people who seem to be on his side, just not expressing it in his crazy way. But still bigoted enough to go out and do stuff like vote for Constitutional amendments to enshrine in state constitutions their prejudice.

State? Actually, Ron Paul and other such evangelistic nutjobs (And yet people still try to lie to themselves to claim Ron Paul is a Libertarian, go figure) are continually pushing for federal amendments.

I believe you have the wrong Paul... http://www.ronpaul.com/2012-05-09/ron-paul-on-gay-marriage-none-of-the-states-business/

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:Interpretation happens inside of context. That context is tradition.

Tradition has about the same value to me as dog turds.

I can tell.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:I believe you have the wrong Paul...

No, I don't think so.

Ron Paul wrote:I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected. I supported the Defense of Marriage Act

http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2011/02/ron-paul-condems-obamas-decision-to-abandon-doma/

Apparently Ron Paul disagrees with himself?

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:Interpretation happens inside of context. That context is tradition.

Tradition has about the same value to me as dog turds.

I can tell.

A traditional practice has no value merely because it is traditional. Such an argument is logically fallacious. The practice/belief must have value only on its own merit, not merely because it is tradition.

Melissia wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:I believe you have the wrong Paul...

No, I don't think so.

Ron Paul wrote:I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected. I supported the Defense of Marriage Act

http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2011/02/ron-paul-condems-obamas-decision-to-abandon-doma/

Apparently Ron Paul disagrees with himself?

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:Interpretation happens inside of context. That context is tradition.

Tradition has about the same value to me as dog turds.

I can tell.

A traditional practice has no value merely because it is traditional. Such an argument is logically fallacious. The practice/belief must have value only on its own merit, not merely because it is tradition.

Got a legit source for that? We just heard from the man himself with video, so you'll pardon me for ignoring a hard right blog.

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/169709/national-organization-for-marriage-targets-ron-paul-for-not-being-bigoted-enough/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/07/congressman-ron-paul-says-he-supports-defense-of-marriage-act/

http://www.dailypaul.com/158515/is-paulagianst-gay-marriage

http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Paul/Same-Sex.php

Probably a dozen more at least.

Melissia wrote:http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/169709/national-organization-for-marriage-targets-ron-paul-for-not-being-bigoted-enough/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/07/congressman-ron-paul-says-he-supports-defense-of-marriage-act/

http://www.dailypaul.com/158515/is-paulagianst-gay-marriage

http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Paul/Same-Sex.php

Probably a dozen more at least.

Two of those links say Paul is targeted for saying in short "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but it's not my business or government's business". NOM even hates the man which is an endorsement on the other side of the fence if I've ever heard one.

Paul's repeatedly stated stance mirrors my own which is that there should be no marriage by the federal government, gay or straight.

Melissia wrote:A traditional practice has no value merely because it is traditional. Such an argument is logically fallacious. The practice/belief must have value only on its own merit, not merely because it is tradition.

Tradition is context. Practices make no sense outside of context. The written text of the Bible makes no sense outside of the context of the communities to whom it means something. The same can be said of religion more broadly. Robert Bellah once said:

The Latin word for faith, fides, means trust, not belief, and I think a religious life is very much a form of practice, a form of relationship. Religious truth is not something you sit in your private room and decide, “oh, does God exist or not?” You will never understand God unless you are involved in some kind of community where that word begins to make sense in the life of that community.

Hope that helps clarify the issue.

Manchu wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I'm more concerned with the normal, nice, everyday, inoffensive Christians who oppose their neighbors' right to the same family status and legal protections in our society, and who vote that way.

I think this is what it boils down to. You insist on the distinction at issue being baseless and therefore bigotry and therefore immoral. Your everyday, inoffensive Christian neighbors consider the distinction a matter or natural law and ignoring the distinction to be an arbitrary act of political will. Just because you don't share their worldview doesn't make you enlightened and them bigots.

It's not that "I insist" based on nothing. My and my gay neighbor don't have the same rights under the law. That's demonstrable. Now why is that so? If I claim that my neighbor does not deserve the same right to get married, share retirement benefits, visit their injured partner in the hospital, (etc.) that I get, is not the burden on me to show how and why that discrimination has a just basis? The baseline should be for me and my gay neighbor to be treated equally before the law, and discrimination between us, if it exists at all, should be based on some kind of documentable evidence, which people of other faiths or no faith can also see and agree on, if we're going to enshrine it in laws which apply to all of us.

Manchu wrote:The readiness with which you condemn others as bigots undermines your claims to support the rights of others.

I don't support the "right" to discriminate based on unjust prejudice. My right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins. My religious freedom is protected except where it becomes harmful to my neighbor.

Manchu wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I want people of different religions or no religion at all to be able to come to common agreement on laws independent of our varying religious faiths or lack thereof, based on common values and principles which hold true whether you're religious or not. This shouldn't be too much to ask.

This is incredibly disingenuous. You're saying that people should agree on values independently from their religious traditions. The values of religious people come from their religious traidtions. Whether you meant it or not, this comes off as "I want people to abandon their own values and accept mine. This shouldn't be too much to ask."

Baloney. If you think that, then it's incredibly disingenuous of you to participate in our political process. I'm a religious person. I have studied and am capable of comprehending and working with moral and ethical systems which are not dependent on my religion. Our laws apply to and bind people of many religions and of none. To make laws which justly do so, we need to be able to draw some distinction between religious strictures which apply to a given religion's members by voluntary adherence, and governmental laws which bind all of us, based on a common ground and mutual agreement on justice and societal benefit. If you're Catholic, you have the right to follow your religion's strictures by not marrying someone of the same sex. That's not a sound basis for making a law which prevents a gay person of a different religion (which allows and sancitifies marriage between gay people) from gaining the same legal rights and benefits which you or I enjoy.

Baloney. If you think that, then it's incredibly disingenuous of you to participate in our political process. I'm a religious person. I have studied and am capable of comprehending and working with moral and ethical systems which are not dependent on my religion. Our laws apply to and bind people of many religions and of none. To make laws which justly do so, we need to be able to draw some distinction between religious strictures which apply to a given religion's members by voluntary adherence, and governmental laws which bind all of us, based on a common ground and mutual agreement on justice and societal benefit. If you're Catholic, you have the right to follow your religion's strictures by not marrying someone of the same sex. That's not a sound basis for making a law which prevents a gay person of a different religion (which allows and sancitifies marriage between gay people) from gaining the same legal rights and benefits which you or I enjoy.

Nicely wrote

what did the cheerio's do to warrant such a failed torchure?

Manchu wrote:Tradition is context.

That's a novel way of defining tradition. Novel, however, doesn't really equate to good. Your definition sounds like the cop-out that it is.

In order to understand the meaning behind any text, you have to understand who wrote them, their culture, and the meaning behind what was written at the time it was written. Traditional Christian interpretations of the Bible often doesn't even bother to attempt to do that in the case homosexuality.

Manchu wrote:The written text of the Bible makes no sense outside of the context of the communities to whom it means something.

The written text of the bible can mean someone to anyone who makes the effort to read it and has the linguistical knowledge to understand it. Claiming that only your community really understands it is arrogance of the highest order.

In fact, I would argue that someone who goes in to reading the text without any such base assumptions would have a good chance of understanding it FAR better than someone who has been indoctrinated by their community's traditions.

brainscan wrote:what did the cheerio's do to warrant such a failed torchure?

That has been explained a couple of times in this thread already.

Mannahnin wrote:discrimination between us, if it exists at all, should be based on some kind of documentable evidence

You don't think that the difference between two people of different sexes marrying one another and two people of the same sex marrying one another is documentable? I mean -- clearly there is a difference. What you are really saying -- assuming actually -- is that the difference does not matter. You are further assuming that anyone to whom the difference does matter opposes gay marriage as a matter of bad faith -- clearly they are just willfully blind to the correctness of your position.

we need to be able to draw some distinction between religious strictures which apply to a given religion's members by voluntary adherence, and governmental laws which bind all of us, based on a common ground and mutual agreement on justice and societal benefit.

That's not actually how it works. It works like this: a "nebula" of cultural values heavily inspired by Christianity is the majority position and that gets enacted. The connection between Christianity and that majority position is getting (1) harder for contemporary people to understand and (2) less and less fashionable. Your appeal to "justice and societal benefit" cannot exist outside of a cultural context, which will be inevitably shaped by religion -- most likely Christianity in the West. (As Habermas said, you might not like Christianity but the truth is no one has come up with a better set of values.)

If you're Catholic, you have the right to follow your religion's strictures by not marrying someone of the same sex. That's not a sound basis for making a law which prevents a gay person of a different religion (which allows and sancitifies marriage between gay people) from gaining the same legal rights and benefits which you or I enjoy.

As you well know, you are preaching to the choir. But what you and I agree is not a sound basis for a law is not necessarily the only possible reasonable position in this pluralistic society we're touting. We can't have our cake and eat it, too. We can't say that we value the diversity of our society and then bully all the people who disagree, assuming they have no rational basis for their beliefs and act partly, mostly, or even wholly from ignorance and hatred.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:Tradition is context.

That's a novel way of defining tradition.

No it isn't. This has been the basis of Christianity since its beginning: that religion is relational, that God exists in communities, that the experience of those communities -- like the experience of the man Jesus -- is primary to its account, whether in scripture, or doctrine, or law. But I don't think there's much point continuing this line of thought with you here. You seem committed to a different understanding of tradition as an a priori limitation rather than as an essential context for understanding. Suffice it to say, we're talking about different things.

Manchu wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:discrimination between us, if it exists at all, should be based on some kind of documentable evidence

You don't think that the difference between two people of different sexes marrying one another and two people of the same sexes marrying one another is documentable? I mean -- clearly there is a difference. What you are really saying -- assuming actually -- is that the difference does not matter. You are further assuming that anyone to whom the difference does matter opposes gay marriage as a matter of bad faith -- clearly they are just willfully blind to the correctness of your position.

In some cases I do think the blindness is wilful. In others I think it's sincere ignorance. In others I think it's an unwillingness or inability to separate their religious restrictions, which should apply only to themselves, from the laws which apply to us all.

I've yet to see any real evidence that discriminating in this way, which is manifestly harmful to gay folks, has a benefit. There are numerous real world examples of this harm. For example long term gay couples who were in their own eyes married, but couldn't get that recognized legally, then had the situation arise where one of them was hospitalized and the other could not access them or act as a spouse in that situation because they were not legally a spouse. There is clearly a harm here in preventing them from getting married. Where is the societal benefit to this restriction which justifies what appears to be a harmful injustice? If it can't be demonstrated, then the discrimination appears to be unjust and based on prejudice. This particular subject is one I've had some interest in and studied for a decent length of time (15+ years). I'm not basing my judgment on assumptions. I put in a decent amount of work and reading to study a problem in our society, and came to a conclusion.

Manchu wrote:

we need to be able to draw some distinction between religious strictures which apply to a given religion's members by voluntary adherence, and governmental laws which bind all of us, based on a common ground and mutual agreement on justice and societal benefit.

That's not actually how it works. It works like this: a "nebula" of cultural values heavily inspired by Christianity is the majority position and that gets enacted. The connection between Christianity and that majority position is getting (1) harder for contemporary people to understand and (2) less and less fashionable. Your appeal to "justice and societal benefit" cannot exist outside of a cultural context, which will be inevitably shaped by religion -- most likely Christianity in the West.

Christianity is a massively influential cultural force, but it's certainly not the only influence our modern society and laws are based on. In studying ethics and morality one can easily go back to the ancient Greeks, the ancient Chinese, and others, and study concepts and practices which predate Christianity. Some of the concepts Christianity has passed on to our modern society predate it, such as the Golden Rule.

Manchu wrote: (As Habermas said, you might not like Christianity but the truth is no one has come up with a better set of values.)

If that were true, people wouldn't dislike Christianity. In reality, I don't dislike Christianity in general but I disagree with Habermas.

Manchu wrote:

If you're Catholic, you have the right to follow your religion's strictures by not marrying someone of the same sex. That's not a sound basis for making a law which prevents a gay person of a different religion (which allows and sancitifies marriage between gay people) from gaining the same legal rights and benefits which you or I enjoy.

As you well know, you are preaching to the choir. But what you and I agree is not a sound basis for a law is not necessarily the only possible reasonable position in this pluralistic society we're touting. We can't have our cake and eat it, too. We can't say that we value the diversity of our society and then bully all the people who disagree, assuming they have no rational basis for their beliefs and act partly, mostly, or even wholly from ignorance and hatred.

Is it bullying to stand up to a bully? I don't think I'm bullying them. They've got the position of power. Jim Morrison sang "They got the guns, we've got the numbers"; but in this debate, as demonstrated in the alteration of quite a few state constitutions in 2004 (and other elections), the folks who want to enshrine prejudice against gays appear to have the numbers. I'm trying to stand up to them on behalf of the people who have fewer rights and less power. I'm trying to talk them out of that prejudice. Maybe I get too strident and judgemental at times. Maybe that's my sense of morality and passion for justice talking. Maybe it's something less noble, like a prejudice against bullies, and a sense of satisfaction gained from fighting them. I do think I'm fighting the good fight. I do think I can objectively demonstrate that the position I'm arguing would result in less harm and greater benefit, for society and individuals.

WAT

What I think we need to remember, especially us younger folks, as homosexuality becomes more and more socially acceptable is that no one who has ever been part of a marginalized group can be safe in a society that considers marginalization a valid means to the end of social change.

Mannahnin wrote:

Manchu wrote: (As Habermas said, you might not like Christianity but the truth is no one has come up with a better set of values.)

If that were true, people wouldn't dislike Christianity.

People dislike good things all the time.

I think think it's not bullying to stand up to a bully.

It's not prejudice to say you don't like the KKK and that their ideas are immoral and objectionable.

Bullying a bully is still bullying. I agree that there's a difference between standing up to a bully and bullying him back. The turn in the public rhetoric seems a lot more like the latter than the former to me.

Melissia wrote:

In a Facebook tribute, one of Leisner’s nephews--a missionary in Costa Rica--wrote in Spanish that Leisner was as “bold as a lion of God,” though some would remember him as “a flaming Elijah.” Unfortunately, an English translation on the Facebook page mangled part of the tribute. “Please pray for the family of Mike to feel the spirit of God as dildo in this time of a loss,” the Bing translation notes.

Best thing from Bing, EVER.

Mistranslation strikes again.

Manchu wrote:This has been the basis of Christianity since its beginning:

The basis of Christianity is... the teachings of Christ. It's in the name. These teachings are contained in the various excerpts that have been put together in various vetted books that collectively are referred to as "the bible", and whose number and content have occasionally changed over history due to political reasons.

Unless you think the changes made for political reasons are somehow motivated by god-- to which I would gladly laugh in your face-- I would still suggest that the only meaningful way to understand the gospel of Christ is through trying to understand what was actually said, and the context of what was said.

Not through ecclesiastical tradition, which has oftentimes been motivated more by politics internal and external than theological accuracy.

Manchu wrote:Bullying a bully is still bullying. I agree that there's a difference between standing up to a bully and bullying him back. The turn in the public rhetoric seems a lot more like the latter than the former to me.

As a pagan and a gamer, I remember and experienced active oppression of myself and people like me by Christians in my youth. Maybe this has made me overly sensitive to it happening to other people. I really try to make a point of not judging all Christians by the hateful, ignorant and harmful ones.

Mannahnin wrote:

Manchu wrote:Bullying a bully is still bullying. I agree that there's a difference between standing up to a bully and bullying him back. The turn in the public rhetoric seems a lot more like the latter than the former to me.

As a pagan and a gamer, I remember and experienced active oppression of myself and people like me by Christians in my youth. Maybe this has made me overly sensitive to it happening to other people. I really try to make a point of not judging all Christians by the hateful, ignorant and harmful ones.

As much as I hate to go off topic, you're pagan?

My only experience with pagans are teenage girls or general crazies (live alone, have lots of cats and cover every possible shelf with fairy/dragon statues) but you seem quite well adjusted, care to talk about your beliefs a little?

As a pagan and a gamer, I remember and experienced active oppression of myself and people like me by Christians in my youth. Maybe this has made me overly sensitive to it happening to other people. I really try to make a point of not judging all Christians by the hateful, ignorant and harmful ones.

But when they find out your a "pagan" its more of a curousity questions then actual being informed we're (pagans) are wrong in our belief. Also though there's the maturity level involve.

Corpsesarefun wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Manchu wrote:Bullying a bully is still bullying. I agree that there's a difference between standing up to a bully and bullying him back. The turn in the public rhetoric seems a lot more like the latter than the former to me.

As a pagan and a gamer, I remember and experienced active oppression of myself and people like me by Christians in my youth. Maybe this has made me overly sensitive to it happening to other people. I really try to make a point of not judging all Christians by the hateful, ignorant and harmful ones.

As much as I hate to go off topic, you're pagan?

My only experience with pagans are teenage girls or general crazies (live alone, have lots of cats and cover every possible shelf with fairy/dragon statues) but you seem quite well adjusted, care to talk about your beliefs a little?

As with most groups, the silly ones are the most visible. You may know other pagans who are perfectly sensible and ordinary people, who you just don't notice because they don't feel the compulsion to broadcast about their beliefs.

I've talked a bit about my beliefs in the past. Maybe I can dig up a couple of links to older posts and send them to you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:

As a pagan and a gamer, I remember and experienced active oppression of myself and people like me by Christians in my youth. Maybe this has made me overly sensitive to it happening to other people. I really try to make a point of not judging all Christians by the hateful, ignorant and harmful ones.

But when they find out your a "pagan" its more of a curousity questions then actual being informed we're (pagans) are wrong in our belief. Also though there's the maturity level involve.

Nowadays, as a confident adult, nobody attempts to browbeat me or tell me I'm a tool of Satan. But that's partially because I don't go around telling everyone I meet about my religious beliefs, and because I live in the relatively-secular Northeast, and because I mostly socially associate with gamers and other open-minded types.

I'd appreciate that.

Maybe start here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/268286.page#1162456

And read through that thread/my posts in it? Sorry to not be in a mood for a capsule summary.