babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » rabble content   » rabble news features   » Choice without churchly authority

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Choice without churchly authority
Sharon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4090

posted 10 March 2004 12:55 PM      Profile for Sharon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A panelist at a recent event on same-sex marriage introduced himself as a homosexual who denied himself participation in homosexual sex. Now, I wonder about that. I mean, why would God go to all the trouble of creating homosexual people and tell us that's okay, as long as they don't follow the sexual predilection God also created for them in their homosexuality? Reason tells me that doesn't quite add up.

Full story


From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 March 2004 01:02 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, the answer to that question is easy from the point of view of a fundamentalist: God DIDN'T create people "gay". He created them straight, and their aberration from their straightness is either due to pathology or sinful choices.

I'm not saying this is true, but it's the answer you're going to get to that question when you ask it.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 10 March 2004 01:10 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But Christianity (or any other religion) is a choice itself, so it's always struck me as odd that fundamentalists would hang so much of their case against gays on the contention that being gay is a choice.
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 10 March 2004 04:48 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it is pretty simple. If homosexuality is a choice, then fundamentalists can maintain it involves choosing evil. Fundamentalists must oppose that choice!

If God made people gay, then it would be disrespectful of creation and of God's handiwork to harbour prejudices against them.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 March 2004 04:56 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Possibly. But then again, there are lots of instances in the bible of God making people evil - even temporarily - in order to fulfill His purposes. Judas is the prime example from the New Testamant - God forordained that he betray Jesus, and at the last supper, Jesus even acknowledged Judas' plot as something he must do in order to fulfill prophecy.

And in the Old Testament, there was the Pharoah whose heart God "hardened" through all those plagues. There is the suggestion in the passage that God hardened Pharoah's heart so that the successively gruesome miraculous plagues could showcase the power of God.

So I don't think whether or not God "made" people that way really has much to do with whether fundamentalist Christians will consider them evil.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
MightyTonwheel
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2286

posted 10 March 2004 10:07 PM      Profile for MightyTonwheel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...it's always struck me as odd that fundamentalists would hang so much of their case against gays on the contention that being gay is a choice.

I don't think any Christians see being gay as a choice. Liberal Christians say being gay isn't a choice, ergo it must be ok because God made me that way. Conservative Christians say being gay isn't a choice, but that doesn't because it's the act and not the desire that counts.

Liberal Christians have the more difficult argument, philosophically. Everybody has a desire not of their own choosing, I would think it would be an alarming precedent if Christians suddenly decided all such unchosen desires are ok simply because we were "made that way".

A footnote: Jack McAndrew has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to Luther. "...freedom for Christians to read and interpret scripture as they chose..."? Mercy, brother, have another quick look at your church history. Luther courted death and led a massive rebellion against the Catholic church because -- you reading this, Jack? -- because the church had endulged itself in a bizarre and wrong interpretation of Scripture.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wellington
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4462

posted 10 March 2004 10:34 PM      Profile for Wellington     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To give equal time to the "better angels" of Anglicanism, have a look at a Sermon by Archbishop Desmond Tutu

"To discriminate against our sisters and brothers who are lesbian or gay on grounds of their sexual orientation for me is as totally unacceptable and unjust as Apartheid ever was."

(edited to fix link)

[ 10 March 2004: Message edited by: Wellington ]

[ 10 March 2004: Message edited by: Wellington ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 10 March 2004 10:38 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Martin Luther as a champion of free conscience is a bit much, yeah. Lutherans have come a long way since then, now they want to share communion with other churches....

There are fundies who say being gay is a choice, and a wrong choice, like Michelle says. Then there are the Anglicans this article's talking about and a lot of others who are more of the "love the sinner, hate the sin" variety. Obviously i think both these positions are theologically and morally twisted, but there's a difference between them.

Good article, anyways. The closing paragraphs are especially apt. How does same-sex marriage take anything away from anyone else's marriage?


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
MightyTonwheel
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2286

posted 11 March 2004 04:52 AM      Profile for MightyTonwheel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There are fundies who say being gay is a choice, and a wrong choice, like Michelle says. Then there are the Anglicans this article's talking about and a lot of others who are more of the "love the sinner, hate the sin" variety. Obviously i think both these positions are theologically and morally twisted, but there's a difference between them.

I guess I don't know what Michelle means by "fundy". To me, it's just a derogatory term.

I can understand why "love the sinner, hate the sin" might be unpalatable to you, but ponder the alternatives. Hate the sinnner, hate the sin? That doesn't seem very Christian. Love the sinner, love the sin? Hmmm, no. Hate the sinner, love the sin?

I think alot of people who say they can't stand "love the sinner, hate the sin" wind up raising their children that way. If you love your child and approve of everything they do no matter how nasty, they'll grow up self-centred and uncharitable. If you turn every little tiny indescretion into WWIII, they're grow up insecure and afraid. So how to find the balance? Love the child but don't accept it when they do the wrong thing.

This is a central part of Christian theology, which says Christians are to love one another no matter how awful or nasty or difficult they are, or unacceptable to society. But Christian love doesn't equal endorsement. No love equals endorsement.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Penguin
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5124

posted 11 March 2004 09:16 AM      Profile for Penguin        Edit/Delete Post
As a person who has done a fair bit of reading on this particular topic within the Anglican Church, I have found it interesting that consistently some patterns emerge with regard to the discussion. This is what I have observed:

a) The tone of most "traditional"/"biblical" (for lack of better terms) Anglicans is normally well reasoned and respectful

b) The tone of most "revisionist" (again for lack of a better term) Anglicans is often derogatory and cliched. Thus I am very hesitant to refer to revisionists as "liberals" because there is a rigid exclusivism about most revisionist thinking on this issue.

The article being currently discussed and the comments in this discussion illustrate the point well.

Many traditional Christians are not as mean spirited and narrow as revisionists might like to portray them. Most biblical Anglicans are actually quite open minded, but they also deeply desire to be faithful to God and struggle with what the will of God is on this issue. Most see the gray areas, but have come to the place of believing that homosexual practice is contrary to the will of God. They may or may not be wrong. Out of a desire to be faithful to God in the midst of incredible cultural pressure to think otherwise, biblical Christians are often the target of ridicule and stereotyped attack.

When the disagreements between "Christians" are rooted in an equally sincere desire to understand AND be faithful to the will of God, then traditionalist Christians must listen carefully and be challenged on that basis. However, when the disagreements are rooted in a debate between what the culture says versus what the revealed will of God is, I'm afraid I personally have little desire to engage in dialogue. "As for me and my house, we have chosen to serve the Lord" ...even when that means resisting cultural pressure and taking the name calling and use of derogatory terms like "fundamentalist" and "bigot" and "fearful" and "hateful" etc etc


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 March 2004 09:28 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, if you espouse homophobic policies in the name of a 2000 year-old book you're taking literally, then you're a fundamentalist bigot. And there's nothing "respectful" about the Anglicans I know who talk trash about gay people.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 11 March 2004 10:16 AM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I find the language and behaviour of some folks on both sides of this issue to be deplorable.
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 March 2004 10:24 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, except I'm more inclined to excuse strong language from the people who side with the persecuted.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
windymustang
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4509

posted 11 March 2004 11:15 AM      Profile for windymustang     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't understand why the Anglicans are being bashed. They along with the United Church sent a letter to the PM endorsing the Ontario decision to uphold the gay marriage ruling.

Edited to specify: Aglican Church of Canada

[ 11 March 2004: Message edited by: windymustang ]


From: from the locker of Mad Mary Flint | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 March 2004 11:19 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Who is bashing the Anglican church?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 11 March 2004 11:41 AM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Yeah, except I'm more inclined to excuse strong language from the people who side with the persecuted.

Wouldn't both sides claim that?


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 11 March 2004 11:43 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, the only Anglican I know particularly well happens to be lesbian.

It was penguin who framed the argument in terms of Anglicanism. From my point of view, the Anglican Church seems to be going through a somewhat similar internal debate that lead the United Church to it's progressive stand on homosexuality some years ago. I don't think the Anglican Church maintains a strongly literalist tradition when interpreting scripture that so limits some Protestant denominations in their thinking. Here's hoping they can find it within themselves to also evolve in such a positive way like the UCC.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Penguin
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5124

posted 11 March 2004 02:24 PM      Profile for Penguin        Edit/Delete Post
Wow...nice, Michelle.

Hmmm...guess you didn't read my first comment, or else you didn't realize your comments simply reinforced my point, by showing your own narrow understanding and inability to control the cliches which are both typical of revisionists.

Anyway, if you really believe traditionalists are also biblical literalists you live a sheltered life, and I'm sorry.

There actually are many people out there who see the Bible, not as a simplistic human text confined by history, but as a dynamic and living Word capable of speaking truth to all people. That is where the difference in this discussion arises. It is not really about sexuality...it is about what we base our life and our thinking on. For some, myself included, I sincerely desire to seek, to understand, and to live the will of God. I will make mistakes, and my ability to discern and understand the will of God is seriously flawed, but I am trying. The other approach is to try to live life on our own terms, seeking only what "appears" to be self fulfillment and telling God his revealed will is only for the simple minded bigots and can therefore be trumped by my human desire. Well, if that is how you wish to live, I know there is nothing I could say to convince you of its limitations--those limitations can only be discovered as one actually experiences a life lived in that way. I have tried it, and it doesn't work. I have chosen instead to live by seeking first the way of God (as 'revealed' not as 'I want God to be'). If you think that makes me homophobic, well...I don't think you know me and are choosing to attack and insult rather than trying to understand.

Have a great day (and try not to be so rigid and narrow--thanks!)


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 March 2004 02:31 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by paxamillion:
Wouldn't both sides claim that?

Sure they would. The number of times I've heard some North American Christians whine about being "persecuted" are numerous.

But I would say that the ones who hate gays and actively try to deny them equal rights are the ones doing the persecuting, not the people who call them on it.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 11 March 2004 02:33 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Penguin:
Wow...nice, Michelle.

......

Have a great day (and try not to be so rigid and narrow--thanks!)


Matthew 7:1-5

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Penguin
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5124

posted 11 March 2004 02:36 PM      Profile for Penguin        Edit/Delete Post
And by that you mean?

cheer up


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Penguin
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5124

posted 11 March 2004 02:38 PM      Profile for Penguin        Edit/Delete Post
I think I indicated quite clearly that I do not consider myself one who knows the will of God with a degree of certainty that would allow me to judge another...
As I read the earlier comments here, I have to ask who is acting as "judge" and who is trying to understand ...
hmmm...maybe you would want to reread the last 20 comments here and ask that question

From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 March 2004 02:42 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't say all traditionalists are literalists. What I'm saying is that Christians who use their religion as an excuse to gay bash, or to try to deny gays and lesbians equal rights before the law, or who exclude gays and lesbians from their churches because they're sinful, are homophobic bigots.

I certainly DON'T believe all Christians are like that. I know many who aren't. I certainly never was during my churchgoing days, although I went to church with a bunch who were. But the ones who are like that, and then cry about persecution can go suck eggs for all I care.

I have no problem with people trying to seek the way of God, or believing in God. I certainly don't judge people who believe in God the way you judge those who don't believe in God, saying that it "doesn't work" and that they're living "limited lives". Well guess what. I believed very strongly in God for many years. But upon examination of my beliefs, I just don't find Christian theology very convincing anymore, and I am much happier now that I don't have to try to reconcile my personal moral beliefs with a religion that is not consistent with them.

So you can have a nice day yourself, smugly believing that as a believer you are living a richer life than non-believers do. And I will still continue to call those who support the persecution of gays and lesbians for religious reasons fundamentalist bigots.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Penguin
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5124

posted 11 March 2004 02:51 PM      Profile for Penguin        Edit/Delete Post
Well, I am sorry if you consider my desire to be sincere in my faith as being "smug". I suppose if I didn't want to be sincere I would then be labelled a "hypocrite".

We will just have to disagree as to whether life should be lived so that "God fits into the way I want to live" or whether God should guide the way I ought to live. That is the real disagreement, and in your experience to this point you believe that if God's revealed way doesn't fit the way you want to live, then God should be left behind. Well, I choose the other approach, but I won't call you a self-centred pagan for that reason....so please don't call those who seek to understand and live by the will of God as "judgemental" and "smug" etc etc ...ok ...


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 11 March 2004 02:53 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I believe Michelle was discussing a Christian view of God, and not God per se.
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 March 2004 03:10 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You WERE being judgmental and smug.

quote:
The other approach is to try to live life on our own terms, seeking only what "appears" to be self fulfillment and telling God his revealed will is only for the simple minded bigots and can therefore be trumped by my human desire. Well, if that is how you wish to live, I know there is nothing I could say to convince you of its limitations--those limitations can only be discovered as one actually experiences a life lived in that way. I have tried it, and it doesn't work.

So you're saying that people who don't believe in God live lives that only "appear" to be fulfilled. And that living a life without bending your human will to that of God's as "limited", and that those limitations can only be discovered by experiencing how limited that life is. And you said that life without belief in God "doesn't work". You didn't say it doesn't work FOR YOU, you said it doesn't work. Period.

Which is smug and judgmental. And then you have the nerve to call ME narrow and rigid. You can blow me.

I said nothing against people who try to live their lives with a deep faith in God. It's not my choice now, but it was for many years, and I can respect that choice in others, and I certainly wouldn't call them "limited" or say that it "doesn't work" even though it didn't work for me, and even though I found it limiting for me. What works for me doesn't work for everyone else, and vice versa. The only problem I have is with Christians who use their faith as an excuse to persecute gays and lesbians.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Penguin
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5124

posted 11 March 2004 03:40 PM      Profile for Penguin        Edit/Delete Post
Wow...someone pissed in YOUR cornflakes today ...
I guess to you judgemental must mean "any opinion which differs from my own". Well I would say the following comes as close to "judgemental" as I would understand it:

quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Sorry, if you espouse homophobic policies in the name of a 2000 year-old book you're taking literally, then you're a fundamentalist bigot. And there's nothing "respectful" about the Anglicans I know who talk trash about gay people.

Anyway...you really have a major chip on your shoulder and I really don't want to turn the chip into a boulder as I seem to be doing.

I don't mean to be smug, or judgemental, or biggoted, or fundamentalist or anything else. Call me crazy, but all I want is to try and live the way God wants me to live and yes, I do believe that God's way IS the best way for everyone...not just me...and I suppose that again makes me a judgemental bigot...but of course you are not judgemental to think the same of me. If you are HONESTLY living a happy and good life and are at peace within yourself by choosing to live without God...well I am truly impressed and I will be more than willing to admit that you must be the exception to the rule. I don't doubt that there may be some who are able to pull that off (in this life anyway), but my personal hunch is there are not many like you.

Have a good day...really...


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 11 March 2004 03:48 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Wow...someone pissed in YOUR cornflakes today ...
I guess to you judgemental must mean "any opinion which differs from my own". Well I would say the following comes as close to "judgemental" as I would understand it:

One of the hardest things for me to do has been to try to stick to my own side of things and not wag fingers at others. I believe this is some of what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 7.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 11 March 2004 03:49 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
For some, myself included, I sincerely desire to seek, to understand, and to live the will of God.

Penguin, i think you are setting up a false dichotomy: those who are guided by their faith versus those who are guided by the views of today's culture. I could have written your sentence above myself. I believe that my sexuality is a gift from God, and that it would be an insult to God to reject that gift. To me, those in the mainline churches who try to oppose equality for lesbian and gay people (including lesbian and gay Christians) are making a mistake. They're sincere in many cases, sure. They have a right to their beliefs, but i don't see that they have any exclusive claim to being the ones who follow the word of God. Lesbian and gay Christians are trying to follow God's call at least as much as those who think we are sinning by our very existence.

A respectful debate within the churches is not something that can be expected on this board, but it will require the "hate the sin" crowd to be able to move beyond its binary thinking and accept that they are not the only ones trying to be good Christians.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Penguin
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5124

posted 11 March 2004 03:51 PM      Profile for Penguin        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by paxamillion:

One of the hardest things for me to do has been to try to stick to my own side of things and not wag fingers at others. I believe this is some of what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 7.


Which of course, is what you just did (since now you are wagging your finger at me by making the comment)


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Penguin
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5124

posted 11 March 2004 03:54 PM      Profile for Penguin        Edit/Delete Post
Good comments swallow.

However, if I lived out all of my inate "God given" sexual desires...yikes....


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 11 March 2004 03:58 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Penguin:
Which of course, is what you just did (since now you are wagging your finger at me by making the comment)

So now you're psychic, too?

***PLONK***


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 11 March 2004 04:00 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Penguin:
I do believe that God's way IS the best way for everyone...not just me...and I suppose that again makes me a judgemental bigot.

Correct.
quote:

If you are HONESTLY living a happy and good life and are at peace within yourself by choosing to live without God...well I am truly impressed and I will be more than willing to admit that you must be the exception to the rule. I don't doubt that there may be some who are able to pull that off (in this life anyway), but my personal hunch is there are not many like you.


I, and many others, do quite fine without trying to please an imaginary being that some humans wrote about thousands of years ago. Thanks for the concern though.

[ 11 March 2004: Message edited by: Andy Social ]


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Penguin
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5124

posted 11 March 2004 04:06 PM      Profile for Penguin        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by paxamillion:

So now you're psychic, too?

***PLONK***


Hey you got it!


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Penguin
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5124

posted 11 March 2004 04:10 PM      Profile for Penguin        Edit/Delete Post
Well Andy
Clearly, as the non-judgemental person you are...and not only that...you are one of those who are apparently able to live life better than God suggests...
congratulations...I can't say anything more about that...

From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 11 March 2004 04:12 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"God is dead"

Did Marx write that? Or was it a post-modernist?


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 11 March 2004 04:18 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It was Nietzsche, who also wrote "Fat is Dead", according to the Onion.

I also used to see the following on t-shirts and other billboards of modern philosophy:

"God is Dead" - Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is Dead" - God


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 11 March 2004 04:24 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Penguin:
However, if I lived out all of my inate "God given" sexual desires...yikes....

Now don't you think that's a tiny bit dismissive? I'm left wondering exactly what you're trying to equate with (say) the lesbian couple in California who got married after being together for more than 50 years. I suspect you are equating a loving relationship with something less savoury. I can speculate you think that those two are giving themselves over toa wanton orgy of self-indulgence simply by being true to themselves. But i can only guess what you mean, since all you've given is innuendo.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 11 March 2004 04:48 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Call me crazy, but all I want is to try and live the way God wants me to live and yes, I do believe that God's way IS the best way for everyone.

Ok, you're crazy, but unless proper referrals are made, that's really none of my business. If you want to live your life based on some arcane documents that's fine. You have lots of company. As an atheist however, I take strong exception to anyone attempting to impose and influence public policy which effects me, based on their own faith based belief system. If you don't like homosexual acts then I defend your right not to engage in them. In the unlikely event you're invited to a gay wedding I defend you're right not to attend. Heck, don't even send a gift!

With regards to being smug, the proposition that I or others should come to adhere to your christian belief system is smug, as it suggests your spirituality is better than mine. All religious proslytizing is rude at best, and culturally genocidal at worst.

I have no problem with religion per se. In fact I was educated by penguins from kindergarten to grade 8, but a while after that I lost the ability to suspend my critical judgement to the point where I could believe in anything like the Judeo/Christian/Muslim God.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 11 March 2004 04:57 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can appreciate your frustration, Penguin. I remember as a small boy, trying to convince my parents that my own imaginary friend, "Gord", was real, and that they should give him more respect.

"We play cars together!", I'd state as they smirked condescendingly. "He wants us to have Ice Cream for lunch!", I'd insist, but they gave me a sandwich anyway. "Gord hates babysitters!", I'd say, but my parents would have none of it.

Even though I was clearly happy having met and formed a personal relationship with Gord, my judgemental, limited parents just wouldn't even make the effort to become friends with him, and even went so far as to insist that maybe he wasn't real. Just an outward expression of my own inner wants and beliefs, they claimed. A crutch that I turned to when I needed to bolster my own opinions. Why? Just because he happened to like all the same things I liked, and hated all the same things I hated? That could happen, right? What good's an imaginary friend if they won't support you and back you 100%?

I'm not sure what finally happened to Gord, other than to say that once I made real friends with real people, I pretty much forgot about him.

I realize now that my parents were right. I felt alone, and insecure, and I needed something to cling to and believe in, and Gord gave me that. He knew what I should do and what I shouldn't, and he knew who was bad and who was good, so when I was to immature to make up my own mind, he helped. Now that I'm an adult, I certainly don't need him to tell me who's good and who's bad, and I realize that the world isn't nearly as black and white as Gord made it out to be, but I certainly couldn't begrudge a good friend like Gord to any other child who needed him.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Penguin
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5124

posted 11 March 2004 05:19 PM      Profile for Penguin        Edit/Delete Post
Well old goat...
Sorry to offend you...even if you can't see yourself doing exactly what you accuse me of. Read your message again and have a good day

From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Penguin
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5124

posted 11 March 2004 05:24 PM      Profile for Penguin        Edit/Delete Post
Mr Magoo
Thanks...but your assumption is that God is make believe. If God is make believe, you are absolutely right. As person with a PhD and having come to faith in God myself, I think there is every good reason to believe. I am more than willing to engage in respectful debate, but not in slanderous name calling. Further the last few posts imply that those with faith in God are simple minded people who haven't "progressed" to their level of atheism and instead cling to a childish belief in the imaginary. I don't believe I fit that category, nor do many other people of Christian faith. So, if we can all stop the patronizing and name calling then hey...maybe we can really talk...

From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 11 March 2004 05:25 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sorry to offend you

The preponderance of evidence is that you're lying. Anyone who is as smooth, practiced and downright oily at being offensive as you is unlikely to be sorry.

Some think that lying is a sin. I suggest you look within yourself Mr. Penguin.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 March 2004 05:28 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
"God is Dead" - Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is Dead" - God


"God AND Nietzsche are dead" - Sartre


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Penguin
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5124

posted 11 March 2004 05:29 PM      Profile for Penguin        Edit/Delete Post
wow...nice people here...geez
old goat..ok..i'm not sorry...i'm oily and all the other nice things you said
Have a good day

From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Penguin
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5124

posted 11 March 2004 05:30 PM      Profile for Penguin        Edit/Delete Post
me thinks lack of faith effects character...especially as I read the tone of the messages posted here. I am not here to be attacked, believe me...I just want to chat with intelligent people.
This is my last post here...sorry...way to much anxiety and hate in this spot

now...watch everyone attack me once I leave...look at all the posts below


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 11 March 2004 05:35 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Kudos to oldgoat.
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 11 March 2004 05:36 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nah, Magoo's more fun.

quote:
I'm not sure what finally happened to Gord, other than to say that once I made real friends with real people, I pretty much forgot about him.


Psst... Magoo, they're not really your friends. They talk behind your back. Gord is the only one who realy understands you. He's waiting. He wants you to burn things!


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 March 2004 05:39 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
my judgemental, limited parents just wouldn't even make the effort to become friends with him, and even went so far as to insist that maybe he wasn't real.

Oh, Mr Magoo, it upsets me so much to read this, and yet I feel it helps me to understand you better. I think that was awful of your parents, to tell you that Gord wasn't real. I will never forget how furious my mum became with a neighbour lady who told her that her little darling couldn't be exposed to mad me any longer because I made things up, imaginary playmates especially (Pinky, Blueflower, and Panchel Adanchel). Mum sent that twit off with a flea in her ear and then came to talk reassuringly to me. I really loved her for that, although Pinky, Blueflower, and Panchel Adanchel went away that day and never came back again.

But your parents laughed at you?

quote:
I realize now that my parents were right.

I don't know what to say.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 11 March 2004 05:48 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Penguin:
Further the last few posts imply that those with faith in God are simple minded people who haven't "progressed" to their level of atheism and instead cling to a childish belief in the imaginary. I don't believe I fit that category, nor do many other people of Christian faith. So, if we can all stop the patronizing and name calling then hey...maybe we can really talk...

Although i disagree with everything else Penguin said on this thread, i think she's got a solid point here, and this is part of the problem in each and every one of these discussions.

[edit to add: and yes, i'm aware that this can cut both ways]

[ 11 March 2004: Message edited by: swallow ]


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 March 2004 05:52 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, that's the only post I agree with Penguin about as well. I think it's pretty patronizing to compare people of religious faith (which can be amazingly complex and spiritual and mystical in all sorts of amazing ways) with an immature child.

However, I also think it's pretty funny that Penguin would dismiss other people's belief systems as "limited" existences but then get upset when someone does the same to her.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 11 March 2004 05:58 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with that swallow, but my only point was my feelings about proslytising, and the christian right interposing itself in the debate on same sex marriage. That's what this thread was about.

Obviously there are many highly intellegent people around who are deeply religious. I don't think faith and rational faculties need or should be in conflict. My parents were well educated well read and highly articulate people who were devout Catholics.

I have friends who are quite religious, and we maintain a mutual respect. Attempting to foist faith based or any other kind of beliefs on others is the opposite of respect.

[ 11 March 2004: Message edited by: oldgoat ]


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 11 March 2004 06:02 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My genuine apologies to anyone of faith who has never equated atheism with shallowness, self-centredness, ignorance, narrowmindedness or evil. You end up flying in under my radar simply because you don't try to teach me, hector me, save me or judge me, so I sometimes don't notice you there quietly watching.

However, Penguin? That ain't you.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 March 2004 06:10 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Penguin is/was a woman?!?!?

Oops. My sexist prejudices are showing. I've always assumed that pompous windbags were, y'know, male. Mea culpa.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 11 March 2004 06:25 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Checked the profile. Penguin is male. I was just using affirmative action pronouns since i couldn't be bothered to check.

[or: i have nuns on the brain]

[ 11 March 2004: Message edited by: swallow ]


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 11 March 2004 09:42 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by swallow:
Although i disagree with everything else Penguin said on this thread, i think she's got a solid point here....

...and a little problem with practising what is preached.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 12 March 2004 09:10 AM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
I think the conversation got side-tracked with whether Penguin or his opponents were the more accepting, rational people.

The article raised an interesting point: The conference the writer went to identified 'homosexuality' as a fact (ie. a 'former lesbian' and a non-practising 'homosexual ["still attracted to men]' man).

This seems different from those who call it a 'lifestyle choice' (which we all presumably reaffirm every morning when we wake up).

So, to the conferee's (sp?) who say that homosexuality is not a choice, the writer asks, 'Why would God make them be something evil?'

I suppose they could answer that God has given them a greater 'test' in life, but why and to what end?

Regardless, politicians are supposed to legislate on political, constitutional-legal grounds, not religious grounds. Constitutionally, same-sex marriages are a right.

Personally, I think there's a supreme being, but i don't think it cares about us.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
windymustang
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4509

posted 12 March 2004 12:14 PM      Profile for windymustang     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Originally posted by Penguin:
quote:
but I won't call you a self-centred pagan for that reason....

I am a Christian and a pagan, and completely welcomed in my church, which is the United Church of Canada. Not all Christians are as close minded as you are Penguin. Christians are not supposed to be judgemental either which you clearly are.
Originally posted by Swallow:
quote:
I believe that my sexuality is a gift from God, and that it would be an insult to God to reject that gift.

Right on Swallow. God made us in His image. That means you were born perfect. He made you a perfect gay woman.
Originally posted by Penguin:
quote:
However, if I lived out all of my inate "God given" sexual desires...yikes....


Are you so ashamed of who you are? I'm sorry for you then.
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
quote:
I'm not sure what finally happened to Gord, other than to say that once I made real friends with real people, I pretty much forgot about him

That's too bad that you can not have friends that you disagree with and have fun and enlightening debates and conversations with. It must get pretty boring sitting around agreeing over everthing.

From: from the locker of Mad Mary Flint | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 12 March 2004 12:29 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Gord" was satirical. Although I do recall having some kind of imaginary friend when I was very small. I also had a doll, that I think my parents may have taken away from me, but I can't be sure.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 12 March 2004 02:07 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
God made us in His image. That means you were born perfect.

Perfect? What's with the appendix?


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Penguin
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5124

posted 12 March 2004 03:05 PM      Profile for Penguin        Edit/Delete Post
DICTIONARY--select the best definition...

"JUDGEMENTAL BIGOT":

a)

quote:
Originally posted by swallow:

There are fundies who say ....Obviously i think both these positions are theologically and morally twisted

quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Sorry, if you espouse homophobic policies in the name of a 2000 year-old book you're taking literally, then you're a fundamentalist bigot.

quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
What I'm saying is that Christians who use their religion as an excuse to gay bash...are homophobic bigots.
...But the ones who are like that, and then cry about persecution can go suck eggs for all I care.
... I will still continue to call those who support the persecution of gays and lesbians for religious reasons fundamentalist bigots.

quote:
Originally posted by paxamillion:

So now you're psychic, too?
QB]


quote:
Originally posted by oldgoat:
[QB]

Ok, you're crazy... If you want to live your life based on some arcane documents that's fine. You have lots of company. As an atheist however, I take strong exception to anyone attempting to impose and influence public policy...
the proposition that I or others should come to adhere to your christian belief system is smug... All religious proslytizing is rude at best, and culturally genocidal at worst.


quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
I can appreciate your frustration, Penguin. I remember as a small boy, trying to convince my parents that my own imaginary friend, "Gord", was real, and that they should give him more respect.
...I certainly couldn't begrudge a good friend like Gord to any other child who needed him.

quote:
Originally posted by oldgoat:

...you're lying. Anyone who is as smooth, practiced and downright oily at being offensive as you is unlikely to be sorry.

quote:
Originally posted by windymustang:
Not all Christians are as close minded as you are Penguin. Christians are not supposed to be judgemental either which you clearly are.

...Are you so ashamed of who you are? I'm sorry for you then.



OR ...Definition b)

quote:
Originally posted by Penguin:

...Most see the gray areas, but have come to the place of believing that homosexual practice is contrary to the will of God. They may or may not be wrong.
When the disagreements between "Christians" are rooted in an equally sincere desire to understand AND be faithful to the will of God, then traditionalist Christians must listen carefully and be challenged [/QB]


quote:
Originally posted by Penguin:
I think I indicated quite clearly that I do not consider myself one who knows the will of God with a degree of certainty that would allow me to judge another...

quote:
Originally posted by Penguin:
...If you are HONESTLY living a happy and good life and are at peace within yourself by choosing to live without God...well I am truly impressed and I will be more than willing to admit that you must be the exception to the rule. I don't doubt that there may be some who are able to pull that off (in this life anyway)...

Nice group of people...


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 March 2004 03:11 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yep, that's right. I have no problem calling people on it when they persecute others because the Bible tells them those people are bad. And yes, that is making a judgment. People make decisions every day of their lives about ethical problems. There is not a person alive who doesn't use their judgment to make decisions or to solve ethical dilemmas.

In fact, I think it's pretty hypocritical of you to whine about the fact that people are judgmental when your last post was judgmental as well.

Tolerance doesn't mean having no opinion whatsoever and letting people get away with persecuting people who aren't hurting anyone. Those Christians who push for legislations against gays are hurting other people. Gays, on the other hand, aren't hurting anyone by being what they are. Damn right I'm making a judgment on who's right. And it sure as hell isn't you, Penguin.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 12 March 2004 03:13 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Penguin:
This is my last post here

Yet another lie from a lying liar.

From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 12 March 2004 03:18 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andy Social:
Yet another lie from a lying liar.

You expect differently?


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 12 March 2004 03:21 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you are HONESTLY living a happy and good life and are at peace within yourself by choosing to live without God...well I am truly impressed and I will be more than willing to admit that you must be the exception to the rule.

This, right here, is why you attract rebuttals like dung attracts flies. The condescension alone would be worth verbally spanking you until my hand is sore. Nevermind the false bonhomie and mock surprise. If you aren't going to deal with people straight-up, with none of this "Oh, I guess you're the exception to the rule" bullshit, you should probably expect to be argued with from now until the end of days. I know that our arguments are only further proof of our godlessness, and only serve to redouble your resolve to demonstrate that your God is the right God for everyone, but I can still hope that one day you weary of alienating and offending those around you in the name of pleasing Gord.., er, God.

You believe my life is incomplete without your God.

I believe yours was incomplete, so you invented your God.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Penguin
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5124

posted 12 March 2004 03:23 PM      Profile for Penguin        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andy Social:

Yet another lie from a lying liar.

Hey ... you're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

Just so you know...I was actually conducting an experiement...

I have joined 10 web chats on current controversial subjects and took a position contrary to the prevailing viewpoint in an online discussion and I am comparing "conservative" approaches to current issues vs "liberal" approaches and watching how each argues its position.

I am collecting data based on "reasoned" arguement vs "irrational and attacking" approaches to supporting a particular position on several different issues.

I am actually not going to tell you my true thinking, but thanks for the brilliant data.

Sincerely yours
Penguin


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 12 March 2004 03:24 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
It seems the disconnect is between someone who believes in Christian traditions as being morally correct, therefore, homosexual behaviour (being traditionally frowned upon), is wrong.

and those who do not believe this, and who therefore see nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour (and the official sanction for it of state marriage).

What some people consider a natural, healthy, inescapable aspect of themselves, you consider to be "sin." Put it this way; say that the dominant religion found heterosexual love (disregarding the minimum of contact for reproductive purposes) to be sinful.

They express antipathy towards the behaviour of people such as yourself, and wish to restrict your
expressions of love to your partner. The fact that they honestly believe their standards are moral doesn't change the fact that you feel persecuted. How would it hurt them if they left you, and others like you, alone to your own concerns?

That might explain the impatience of some of your correspondents.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 12 March 2004 03:30 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Penguin:
I am actually not going to tell you my true thinking, but thanks for the brilliant data.

I'm more concerned with how his colon looks. I imagine he's got a great view.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 12 March 2004 03:50 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Penguin:

Just so you know...I was actually conducting an experiement...

I have joined 10 web chats on current controversial subjects and took a position contrary to the prevailing viewpoint in an online discussion and I am comparing "conservative" approaches to current issues vs "liberal" approaches and watching how each argues its position.

I am collecting data based on "reasoned" arguement vs "irrational and attacking" approaches to supporting a particular position on several different issues.


Is this for a university sociology course or something? If so, I'd like to see an outline of your methodology, such as your definitions of "conservative", "liberal", "controversial subjects", "reasoned" and "irrational." What kind of measurement scale are you using?

I'd also be interested to know what other forums you conducted your experiment on, and if you used the the same tone of discourse when posting messages there as you did here.

.... or did I just call your bluff?


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 12 March 2004 03:52 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andy Social:
.... or did I just call your bluff?

Ding. Ding. Ding.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 12 March 2004 03:55 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
but thanks for the brilliant data.

Methodologically, of course, your approach is entirely invalid. But please, keep spending more and more time on it. In fact, don't tell anyone else about it until you've done lots and lots more work... then surprise everyone!


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Penguin
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5124

posted 12 March 2004 04:08 PM      Profile for Penguin        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Methodologically, of course, your approach is entirely invalid. But please, keep spending more and more time on it. In fact, don't tell anyone else about it until you've done lots and lots more work... then surprise everyone!


Thank you for your analysis, Magoo.

As a Yale PhD in philosophical social theory and political science, I think I am more than capable of developing a methodology for conducting a study.

Have a good day...
Now I really am finished here, but thanks again
Penguin


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 12 March 2004 04:20 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hahahahaha! Well I might not be enjoyin' the fruits of all that fancy book learnin' like you, but my Bachelor's of Common Sense is enough for me to know that you can't possibly control for your own bellicose attitude, and the fact that it's directly responsible for any "irrational" responses you get as a result.

It's like noting that "When I talked to those Republicans they were very civil and logical, but when I insulted those Lefties they became very combative".

In simpler terms more befitting a non-PhD like myself: you influenced your own experiment, dumbass.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 12 March 2004 04:20 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Now I really am finished here, but thanks again

Anyone want to organize a pool?


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 March 2004 04:24 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
you influenced your own experiment, dumbass.

A textbook case, eh? Even those not of "the prevailing" opinion were insulted.

pax, put me down for "tomorrow, same time, same station." Ta very much.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 12 March 2004 04:27 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I am actually not going to tell you my true thinking

Damn. And I really, really, reeeaaaalllllyyyy wanted to know.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 12 March 2004 04:53 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For some reason this thread reminds me of that thread. Or at least, that thread makes me feel much better after reading this one.
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 12 March 2004 05:01 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by albireo:
For some reason this thread reminds me of that thread. Or at least, that thread makes me feel much better after reading this one.

He probably intentionally picked his name so that we would be so reminded -- what with his Yale PhD and all.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 March 2004 05:05 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
In simpler terms more befitting a non-PhD like myself: you influenced your own experiment, dumbass.

Not to mention that running an experiment without informing the participants wouldn't get past any ethics committee.

Nice try though, Penguin!


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 12 March 2004 08:12 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well Penguin, when you do come back: some people made an honest attempt to engage you within your own stated religion. You condescended to them and ignored their arguments.

But if it will help you to divide the folks on this thread into yourself and everyone else: Get down off the cross. Someone needs the wood.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Freedom Fighter
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5179

posted 15 March 2004 06:28 PM      Profile for Freedom Fighter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
<Quote: "I mean, why would God go to all the trouble of creating homosexual people and tell us that's okay, as long as they don't follow the sexual predilection God also created for them in their homosexuality? Reason tells me that doesn't quite add up.">

[QUOTE]


Perhaps it "doesn't add up" in the author's mind, but if you cross this line, you must also accept that if God created pedophiles, or people with incestuous desires,(or pyromania, or whatever) He must also want them to follow their predilection. The issue is not as straightforward as the author is making it out to be
[ 15 March 2004: Message edited by: Freedom Fighter

[ 15 March 2004: Message edited by: Freedom Fighter ]


From: Trochu, Alberta | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Freedom Fighter
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5179

posted 15 March 2004 06:40 PM      Profile for Freedom Fighter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Also, another aspect which has not been addressed: The question has been asked "how is anyone harmed by two "gay" people marrying each other?".

The quick answer to that is, in the short term, probably no one. But in the long term, it will have an enormous impact on the very fundamental structure of our future society. What is at stake is the future of children. Up until this millenium, the "family" has been the most basic unit for the upbringing of children. And women and men provide emotional support from different, though complimentary gender strengths. This provides a balance which same sex marriages will not have in the upbringing of children. When marriage takes on this fundamentally new characteristic, that complimentarity is compromised. This may or may not be significant in the long run. But the issues deserves serious rational and non-emotive discussion.

We do not yet know what the impact of that will be on our future generations. The limited data which there is, does raise concerns which should not simply be written off as "fundamentalist homophobia".


From: Trochu, Alberta | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 15 March 2004 08:42 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But the issues deserves serious rational and non-emotive discussion.

Last time I checked, homosexual couples having sex didn't actually have a negative impact on heterosexual people having sex. The union of gay people will not lower the sperm count of straight men. Children will still result from the 90% (or so) of marriages that are hetero. So your premise on the demise of the family unit is just so much bupkiss. Ditto for the assertion that gay couples will somehow make hetero parents into bad parents. Hetero parents tend to be good or bad on their own merits. Rational discussion over.

[ 15 March 2004: Message edited by: Sarcasmobri ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 March 2004 09:03 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sarcasmobri, this projection of gays and lesbians always making up 10% of the population depends on whether you think homosexuality is a genetic thing or a socialized thing. I tend to lean more towards the socialized thing than the genetic thing myself, so I'm not necessarily convinced that the percentage will always hover around the 10% mark the more socially acceptable it becomes to have same sex relationships, and more people are raised from the time they're babies in a society where it is normal for people to have opposite and same sex desires.

However, I couldn't care less if it even became a 50/50 gay-straight ratio. First of all, lots of gays and lesbians manage to procreate right now, and that probably won't change in the future. Secondly, even if it DID mean that gays and lesbians wouldn't have children, so what? The world's overpopulated as it is.

And there is absolutely no proof that children raised by two same sex parents will be affected any more positively or negatively than children raised by two opposite sex parents. So this idea that somehow children need one of each gender of parent is completely unsubstantiated. Children have a myriad of adults in their lives - caregivers, parents, teachers, relatives. They will have just as much exposure to adults of both sexes as most of them do now.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Freedom Fighter
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5179

posted 16 March 2004 12:22 AM      Profile for Freedom Fighter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The world's overpopulated as it is.


This sounds like a line straight from the "Club of Rome".

In fact, many parts of the world which are most underdeveloped are also underpopulated. The best science would argue that the world could feed and sustain a population of over 50 billion people, given current technology. The problem is a disequilibrium between resources and population. In otherwords, people are messing up

[ 16 March 2004: Message edited by: Freedom Fighter ]


From: Trochu, Alberta | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Freedom Fighter
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5179

posted 16 March 2004 12:32 AM      Profile for Freedom Fighter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And there is absolutely no proof that children raised by two same sex parents will be affected any more positively or negatively than children raised by two opposite sex parents. So this idea that somehow children need one of each gender of parent is completely unsubstantiated

The argument from silence cuts both ways. The onus of proof, when society embarks on any major change, is on those promoting change to ensure that there will be no negative repercussions. While there may not be proof, there is substantial evidence that gay marriage will lead to negative consequences.

What is most likely to happen, if the example of Sweden is any indication, is that marriage itself will loose any real meaning. Divorce and single parenting is skyrocketing. Children are increasingly being raised in institutions managed by the state. I know that to some people, that is a desireable goal; but it brings with it a whole new range of social issues which need to be addressed. I think most children would prefer a family to an institution.

[ 16 March 2004: Message edited by: Freedom Fighter ]


From: Trochu, Alberta | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 16 March 2004 12:50 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Freedom Fighter:
The argument from silence cuts both ways. The onus of proof, when society embarks on any major change, is on those promoting change to ensure that there will be no negative repercussions.

In a democracy, the onus of proof is on those who would curtail the rights of a minority. Always.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 16 March 2004 01:11 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is actually an amazing idea: that we will presume the status quo is just.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 March 2004 07:40 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Freedom Fighter:
What is most likely to happen, if the example of Sweden is any indication, is that marriage itself will loose any real meaning. Divorce and single parenting is skyrocketing.

Measured by those terms, marriage has already lost much of its meaning, at least its traditional meaning. People are realizing that you don't have to be married to the same person for the rest of your life in order to have a successful life or a successful family.

The problem isn't that there's too much divorce; the problem is that there's too much marriage, or at least marriage of the "love you forever" sort. Too many people vowing when they're 25 (or even younger!) that they'll love each other forever when it's obvious that people's lives and loves and interests are always evolving and changing, which is probably a lot more responsible for divorce than anything else. Money problems are supposed to be the number one cause of divorce. But what's behind money problems? Power struggles, and the desire to have financial independence. Wanting to do with money as you wish. Single people don't have that problem.

I'm not even against co-habiting. I think it would be nice to live with someone again someday - maybe. Maybe not. But certainly not with a promise of "love you forever". I can't possibly know how I'm going to feel about life and love in 20 years, and neither can anyone else. Some people are lucky and their feelings never change and they always love their partners. More power to them; I hope they live together forever. But with the divorce rate (and the number of unhappy marriages that stay together for the mortgage or the kids or because it's too daunting to think of divorcing), I would say that happy together forever is not the norm. This is why marriage vows are outmoded. A lot of people like to take them (I did) but really, they don't mean much. Nor should they; they are unrealistic and a guilt trip for people who want to get out of a miserable marriage.

[ 16 March 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Freedom Fighter
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5179

posted 16 March 2004 09:29 AM      Profile for Freedom Fighter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is actually an amazing idea: that we will presume the status quo is just.

There is no presumption here at all. Only the acknowledgment of evidence that we could be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Change does not always mean progress. Sometimes society takes a turn down a dead end street. I also agree that in a true democracy (which doesn't apply to Canada since we are ruled by corporations and a corporate controlled media and intellectual "elite") the rights of minorities should always be protected. But what about the rights of children? Children have the right to be raised in the most nurturing and healthy environment possible. Also, there is a huge difference between fundamental rights, and other "rights". The right that children have to a family, with a mother and father, supercedes other "rights" which are less compelling.


From: Trochu, Alberta | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Freedom Fighter
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5179

posted 16 March 2004 09:35 AM      Profile for Freedom Fighter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I would say that happy together forever is not the norm. This is why marriage vows are outmoded. A lot of people like to take them (I did) but really, they don't mean much. Nor should they; they are unrealistic and a guilt trip for people who want to get out of a miserable marriage

I agree with you Michelle, that marriage is already losing ground in the "west". This is a tragedy in my view, because without the commitment or a mother and father to build and maintain a stable family environment, children suffer. Divorce is not always avoidable, but it is always, when children are involved, traumatic and hurtful. Our society needs to find ways to better protect children from what often amounts to selfish squabbling and inconsiderate parents who place their own desires above those of their children.


From: Trochu, Alberta | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 16 March 2004 07:36 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
FF, your evidence is also wrong.

code:
 Country	Year	Divorce Rate per 1000 people
Italy 2000 0.6
Greece 2000 0.9
Portugal 2000 1.9
France 1999 2.0
Netherlands 2001 2.1
Japan 2001 2.27
Germany 1999 2.3
Sweden 2000 2.4
Denmark 1999 2.5
U.K. 2000 2.6
Belgium 2000 2.6
Switzerland 2000 2.8
United States 2000 4.1

The USA, certainly the country with the worst gay-rights situation among all of these, has the highest divorce rate. I don't think this proves anything, but it certianly disproves any claim that equality-minded European countries have higher divorce rates.

As an aside, two Unitarian ministers are now facing criminal charges in New York State for performing same-sex marriages. Which seems to me to show that the only people in this debate interfering with freedom of religion are the ones who oppose equal marriage. In Canada, churches that don't want to perform same-sex marriage will be allowed to set their own rules even once marriage rights are available to all. In the USA, churches like the Unitarians that wish to set their own rules and perform marriage for anyone, are going to be persecuted by the state.

Ironic, that.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Freedom Fighter
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5179

posted 16 March 2004 11:24 PM      Profile for Freedom Fighter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You failed to indicate the source of your divorce statistics....none of which match up with what I've seen.

The Unitarian ministers were arrested because they broke the law. The laws in the US are clear. In Canada they were clear as well, until activist judges took it upon themselves to create rights ipse diksit, "reading in" rights which weren't there, and interpretting the constitution in ways which the Canadian people, who brought in the constitution, never intended.

Now, with Bill C-250 coming in, people can be arrested and made to spend 5 years in jail for criticizing homosexuality. You talk about rights, what about the right to freedom of speech and belief? These are fundamental rights, which are paramount in a civilized society.


From: Trochu, Alberta | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
MightyTonwheel
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2286

posted 16 March 2004 11:30 PM      Profile for MightyTonwheel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In Canada, churches that don't want to perform same-sex marriage will be allowed to set their own rules even once marriage rights are available to all.

I doubt you've tested this alleged protection. The government hasn't even drafted the legislation. How are you so sure it's going to work if you haven't even seen the law? And how sure are you that it will survive a sufficiently motivated and well-funded litigant who insists on getting married in a Methodist church?


quote:
In the USA, churches like the Unitarians that wish to set their own rules and perform marriage for anyone, are going to be persecuted by the state.

Bull. The mayor of San Francisco has been issuing gay marriage licences like they're going out of style. Unless you consider appearances on CNN to be "persecution", he's suffered no consequences whatsoever. It's the churches that refuse to marry gays that risk persecution.

As an aside -- I'm ashamed to ever have signed up to this board after seeing the treatment of Penguin in recent days. What's the point of having a discussion if you can't respect dissenting views without chasing the dissenters away with insults and hatred? It's easily to dismiss those who disagree with you as narrow, bigoted, judgemental, whatever. But all you've done is shrink your own world to include those that see things your way. It's a key ingredient in fascist states. I counted only one or two posts that debated Penguin in a respectful and dignified way, engaging directly in points instead of hurling insults. If Babble becomes (or has become, or always was) a place where people gather to regurgitate the same old views, what's the point?

It's too bad about Penguin. He actually added some colour and depth to what is otherwise a thoroughly monocromatic debate.

Michelle, you are without question the queen of ad hominem arguments. If you don't know what that means, look it up. Ad hominem arguments, that is, not queen.

[ 16 March 2004: Message edited by: MightyTonwheel ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 March 2004 11:45 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know exactly what ad hominem means. Could you please show me an example from this thread where I used an ad hominem argument? Surely not because I said that people who use their religion to discriminate against gays are fundamentalist bigots - that is not ad hominem because I am attacking them for their actions (persecuting gays), not because I dislike them.

Those who take the bible literally ARE fundamentalists. Those who use religious literature to attack gay people because they're different, even though gays aren't hurting them with their actions, are being bigoted. There is no other reason for persecuting gays other than bigotry, because homosexual sex hurts nobody, especially those who do not participate in it, such as fundamentalist Christians.

Maybe it's YOU who needs to look up "ad hominem". I learned it way back in my frosh year philosophy course, thanks.

[ 16 March 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
MightyTonwheel
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2286

posted 17 March 2004 01:21 AM      Profile for MightyTonwheel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Could you please show me an example from this thread where I used an ad hominem argument?

quote:
Those who take the bible literally ARE fundamentalists...I am attacking them for their actions (persecuting gays), not because I dislike them.

Heh...this is almost too good to be true. It's like t-ball.

Michelle, ad hominem does not mean you attack someone because you don't like them. It means you dismiss their argument on some irrelevant fact about the person making the argument. There are two steps to the ad hominem argument. 1) You attack the character or actions of the person making the claim. Example: Penguin is a biblical literalist and fundamentalist bigot. 2) You use these irrelevant characteristics as evidence against their argument. Example: Penguin is a fundamentalist and bigot, therefore nothing he says about same-sex marriages is right.

I took a few minutes and found four easy examples of ad hominem fallacies. You decline to make arguments in any of these examples, you simply resort to name calling.

Examples:

if you espouse homophobic policies in the name of a 2000 year-old book you're taking literally, then you're a fundamentalist bigot.

Never mind the arguments, Michelle, get straight to the name-calling. You might just as well have said he's a prick because he's an asshole.

Well, the answer to that question is easy from the point of view of a fundamentalist

Classic ad hominem. You've dismissed him from the start because he's a "fundamentalist", whatever that means. Of course, even if he is a fundamentalist, that really has nothing to do with the arguments, does it?

And I will still continue to call those who support the persecution of gays and lesbians for religious reasons fundamentalist bigots.

See above.

You WERE being judgmental and smug.

Well then he MUST be wrong, mustn't he?

Michelle, if you were to stick to facts and arguments, you might actually be a good debater. Try it sometime, it'll be fun.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 17 March 2004 01:31 AM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Now, with Bill C-250 coming in, people can be arrested and made to spend 5 years in jail for criticizing homosexuality

You really should get your facts straight before posting you know. If you actually read bill c-250 you would know that it has nothing to do with criticising gays and lesbians. It will put add promotion of hate against gays and lesbians in the same category as hate against jews and blacks. No one will be charged under that law for disagreeing with same-sex marriage rights. No one is even suggesting that.


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 17 March 2004 01:51 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ad hominem means attacking the person instead of their argument. I wasn't attacking Penguin, I was attacking what he posted.

First quote: I used "you" in the rhetorical sense. I wasn't calling Penguin a fundamentalist bigot.

Second quote: Penguin hadn't even posted when I wrote that. I was saying that the answer to the question posed by the article was easy from the point of view of a fundamentalist. I wasn't attacking anyone, just answering a hypothetical question from the article.

Third quote: There is nothing wrong with calling people who use religion to persecute gays and lesbians "fundamentalist bigots". They are fundamentalist because they take the Bible literally. They are bigots because they're persecuting people who choose a different lifestyle than them, even though their lifestyle doesn't hurt them. That is not ad hominem in the least.

Fourth quote: When I said Penguin was being judgmental and smug, I explained exactly what it was he said that was judgmental and smug. I was attacking his attitude that was displayed through his post, not just attacking him personally for the hell of it. It wasn't ad hominem at all. He WAS being judgemental and smug.

quote:
Heh...this is almost too good to be true. It's like t-ball.

Yes, that sounds right about your level. Once you start reading for comprehension, then maybe you should come to the big kids' field and play some hardball.

MightyTonwheel, once you learn to tell the difference between attacking what someone posted, and attacking them personally, then you will be able to tell a good debater from a hole in the ground. A first year logic course might help you. Good luck with that!

[ 17 March 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
MightyTonwheel
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2286

posted 17 March 2004 04:16 AM      Profile for MightyTonwheel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ad hominem means attacking the person instead of their argument. I wasn't attacking Penguin, I was attacking what he posted.
First quote: I used "you" in the rhetorical sense. I wasn't calling Penguin a fundamentalist bigot.

It doesn't matter WHO you're attacking. If you're attacking ANYONE's viewpoint on the basis that you've dismissed them as a fundamentalist bigot, that's an ad hominem fallacy. Someone who disagrees with same-sex marriages may or may not be a fundamentalist bigot, but that has nothing to do with the validity of their argument.

quote:
Third quote: There is nothing wrong with calling people who use religion to persecute gays and lesbians "fundamentalist bigots". They are fundamentalist because they take the Bible literally. They are bigots because they're persecuting people who choose a different lifestyle than them, even though their lifestyle doesn't hurt them. That is not ad hominem in the least.

We agree that some people persecute gays and lesbians. We agree that some people read the bible literally. So what? That has nothing to do with the argument at hand. The question is whether same-sex marriage is right in the eyes of God. You seem incapable of answering that simple question without letting the rhetoric fly. You must address them on their arguments, not whether or not you perceive them to be bigots or fundamentalists. That is, if you intend to be taken serious beyond the walls of babble.

quote:
Fourth quote: When I said Penguin was being judgmental and smug, I explained exactly what it was he said that was judgmental and smug. I was attacking his attitude that was displayed through his post, not just attacking him personally for the hell of it. It wasn't ad hominem at all. He WAS being judgemental and smug.

It doesn't matter if Penguin is judgemental and smug. If you dismiss his views on the basis of his alleged smugness, even if he really is smug, it's still ad hominem. It's like dismissing his argument because he's tall, then coming back later and saying he really WAS tall. So what? Tall or not, it's irrelevant to the discussion.

quote:
MightyTonwheel, once you learn to tell the difference between attacking what someone posted, and attacking them personally, then you will be able to tell a good debater from a hole in the ground. A first year logic course might help you. Good luck with that!

I think it's amusing that you made your point by attacking me personally, but anyway...in your message:

quote:
Sorry, if you espouse homophobic policies in the name of a 2000 year-old book you're taking literally, then you're a fundamentalist bigot.

Hopefully, this isn't the kind of logic you advocate. Where's the argument? Better yet, where's the sense? Read it. You're saying absolutely nothing at all. It's pure rhetoric, a completely empty statement. Not once, in all your postings, have you clearly plainly stated why Christians should support same-sex marriages. You spend almost all of your time attacking your opponents -- sometimes with legitimate points, but often in an effort to discredit or insult them.

[ 17 March 2004: Message edited by: MightyTonwheel ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Mr. Ben
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3265

posted 17 March 2004 09:20 AM      Profile for Dr. Mr. Ben   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't really think that literalism is the real problem -- few in mainstream evangelical circles actually do read the Bible literally. Rather, the aim is to read the Bible in such a way as to prove its inerrancy. So the days in the Genesis creation story are seen as a metaphor for geological ages, during which God did his thing.

But, as much as I am not a fan of inerrancy, it is not the real problem. The problem is that few people read the Bible well. One of my mentors, who Mighty TonWheel knows as well, once draughted a list of fifteen or so questions (though, not an exhaustive list) which he felt were necessary to have answers to before one could say that one was representing the Biblical position of homosexuality. However, there is unfortunately very little in the way of a questioning culture in mainstream Christianity. If John Q. Youthpastor says this means that "God hates fags," then too many Christians are likely to take him at his word without doing the work themselves to decide what the scripture is saying and what the place of the particular passage is in the context of the Bible as a whole.

Ultimately, for me, the issue of same-sex marriage comes down to two issues. The first is that God shows no partiality. If we claim to represent such a God, I don't think we should be advocating discrimination toward anyone. The second is that Christians have generally seemed to accept that we can't force our beliefs on people. For those who disagree with same-sex marriage, fine, make not getting married to another person of the same sex another mark of Christian holiness, along with not drinking, not listening to secular music, and not having unnecessary pleasure on a Sunday, and then go to a church that agrees with you.


From: Mechaslovakia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 17 March 2004 09:21 AM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But gay marriage will destroy life as we know it. Just look at what it did to this family.

http://irregulartimes.com/mymarriage.html


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 17 March 2004 11:40 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Uhm, all this concern for Penguin, who ended up telling us all he was having us on for an experiment. He was in fact needling babblers and got called on it and some how this makes MightyTonwheel ashamed to be a babbler! Oh, the horror. I always giggle at those who claim to be ashamed to be a member of babbler still continue to scold, I mean post.

A little background, Penguin is responding to a post about being a liar.

quote:
Hey ... you're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

Just so you know...I was actually conducting an experiement...

I have joined 10 web chats on current controversial subjects and took a position contrary to the prevailing viewpoint in an online discussion and I am comparing "conservative" approaches to current issues vs "liberal" approaches and watching how each argues its position.

I am collecting data based on "reasoned" arguement vs "irrational and attacking" approaches to supporting a particular position on several different issues.

I am actually not going to tell you my true thinking, but thanks for the brilliant data.

Sincerely yours
Penguin



From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 17 March 2004 02:30 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
yeah. and this is long.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca