heckofajobbrownie Posted May 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 Clearly the Obama announcement, along with the NAACP, has already moved black voter opinion substantially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 Bunker, you're a moron You slow mankind's progress I hope you didn't homeschool your kids... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 I'd love to hear more from John and Tupa. We had a little something going there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 What, woodpecker isn't making you happy? btw, who IS Davles, and does he live with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 What, woodpecker isn't making you happy? btw, who IS Davles, and does he live with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 Whose.... Speech to text typo.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 This thought just occurred to me. Most of those who would be extremely offended by the idea that gays can be cured are also proponents of rehabilitation and treatment for pedophiles...... Does that sound inconsistent to anyone? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Well pedos are trying to have sex with someone that can't consent, and that's wrong. That's a lot different than two grown men or women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 This thought just occurred to me. Most of those who would be extremely offended by the idea that gays can be cured are also proponents of rehabilitation and treatment for pedophiles...... Does that sound inconsistent to anyone? WSS It does sound inconsistant, and Im sure neither can be cured. The difference is gays should just be left alone to their gayness, whereas pedophiles should be shot behind the right ear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 This thought just occurred to me. Most of those who would be extremely offended by the idea that gays can be cured are also proponents of rehabilitation and treatment for pedophiles...... Does that sound inconsistent to anyone? WSS Steve, this is a brain fart. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, like heterosexuality. It can't be treated. Pedophilia is not an orientation. It's a psychological disorder that can be treated, but with very low rates of success. It's not really inconsistent at all, and any psychologists or medical professional would happily admit that pedophilia is very difficult to treat. I don't know who this person is who is on your theoretical page - "Boo, gay reparative therapy! Yay, changing the hearts of pedophiles!" Who is this person you're imagining? Serious pedophiles have to be removed from the general population, and if they're released they have to be monitored closely. Please don't equate homosexuality with pedophilia like Bunker. Don't be that guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 It does sound inconsistant, and Im sure neither can be cured. The difference is gays should just be left alone to their gayness, whereas pedophiles should be shot behind the right ear. I see we have a winner. Maybe we should ship of the gays to re-eduction camps behind some very large walls so nobody has to see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 They are different, but a bit the same. Social perversions acted out and psychological/physical disorders. They both think they are entitled to be "different" in a culturally and biologically, and spiritually demented way.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We need Tom Tupa Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Clearly the Obama announcement, along with the NAACP, has already moved black voter opinion substantially. It has clearly moved their responses to polling questions. It will take time to discover how much it actually changed opinions. See for example: http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/obamas-marriage-maneuvers/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We need Tom Tupa Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 I think I ended on a question. I'm not sure what you're driving at with your questions about what type of sin homosexual sex is. I will cut to the chase on the comparative religion stuff and admit that it comes down to faith in the end. I do think you can compare religions based on how well they fit the world we really live in, but faith is underlying any choice of religious belief. On believing the Bible, I think reason and rationality play a significant role, and I do think that believing the entirety of the Bible is more reasonable than believing some. You know the CS Lewis quote I go to in this arena, and I still think he's right. I know you like the Jeffersonian approach, but I dont think there is much ground to stand on once you start deciding to pick and choose which parts of the book to believe. You're merely telling us what you like or dislike; as much narrative as someone can put around why they choose to cut out parts they don't like, they don't actually have any good reasons other than personal preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 I think I ended on a question. I'm not sure what you're driving at with your questions about what type of sin homosexual sex is. I will cut to the chase on the comparative religion stuff and admit that it comes down to faith in the end. I do think you can compare religions based on how well they fit the world we really live in, but faith is underlying any choice of religious belief. On believing the Bible, I think reason and rationality play a significant role, and I do think that believing the entirety of the Bible is more reasonable than believing some. You know the CS Lewis quote I go to in this arena, and I still think he's right. I know you like the Jeffersonian approach, but I dont think there is much ground to stand on once you start deciding to pick and choose which parts of the book to believe. You're merely telling us what you like or dislike; as much narrative as someone can put around why they choose to cut out parts they don't like, they don't actually have any good reasons other than personal preference. I've heard that Jefferson example before, usually from agnostics or atheists who wish to seem respectful to their Christian friends. If in fact Jesus was a great moral teacher, possibly the greatest of all, just exactly which of those teachings do they adhere to or reject out right? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 It's not really inconsistent at all, and any psychologists or medical professional would happily admit that pedophilia is very difficult to treat. I don't know who this person is who is on your theoretical page - "Boo, gay reparative therapy! Yay, changing the hearts of pedophiles!" Who is this person you're imagining? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CGEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsipp.wa.gov%2Frptfiles%2F06-01-1205.pdf&ei=AG-_T7f3J-216AHnl724Cg&usg=AFQjCNFYNkaiUnwitpvrKcLt8kxzsn3j7Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CGEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsipp.wa.gov%2Frptfiles%2F06-01-1205.pdf&ei=AG-_T7f3J-216AHnl724Cg&usg=AFQjCNFYNkaiUnwitpvrKcLt8kxzsn3j7Q I fail to see how a public policy outfit in Washington's study on recidivism rates makes your point at all. Especially since they're talking about sex offenders, not pedophiles. It's okay. You had a brain fart. We don't have to dwell on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 I think I ended on a question. I'm not sure what you're driving at with your questions about what type of sin homosexual sex is. I will cut to the chase on the comparative religion stuff and admit that it comes down to faith in the end. I do think you can compare religions based on how well they fit the world we really live in, but faith is underlying any choice of religious belief. On believing the Bible, I think reason and rationality play a significant role, and I do think that believing the entirety of the Bible is more reasonable than believing some. You know the CS Lewis quote I go to in this arena, and I still think he's right. I know you like the Jeffersonian approach, but I dont think there is much ground to stand on once you start deciding to pick and choose which parts of the book to believe. You're merely telling us what you like or dislike; as much narrative as someone can put around why they choose to cut out parts they don't like, they don't actually have any good reasons other than personal preference. I'm wondering what you think the nature of the sin is. "Because the Bible says it is" is an answer I'll accept from you. But what I'm wondering is why it's a sin according to the church. What's the rationale behind it - the nature of the sin? What are they doing that is wrong aside from not being married? Or is that all it is? Do you believe there is any sort of erotic love that can be expressed by two unwed people? What do you allow for? As for the second part, I think this is exactly right, and I'm happy to not believe the supernatural claims in the Bible in their entirety. But I think you're sort of missing the point, and you're also off on the ground Jefferson is standing on. Because he, nor I, are saying "some supernatural things in the Bible happened and some didn't" based on what we like. He's denying the New Testament stories about Jesus' divinity - all of them - and subtracting those parts out because he believes them to be myths, and therefore unnecessary. It's not so different from looking at the charitable works stressed by the Mormon Church (even if some are self-serving) and think those are wonderful things to do for others, but understanding that this doesn't mean Joseph Smith wasn't telling an elaborate lie. He believes that the parts regular men added on to make Christ a God actually detracts from their power rather than adds to it. And by stripping those layers away you're left with something that's still very powerful, yet more rational. We could go a million different ways in this and I hope we do. So I'll ask another thing for now: do you believe, as the Catholic Church does, that a woman suffering from cancer was cured when a beam of light emanated from her Mother Teresa locket, and this intercession eliminated her tumor? And do you believe what Joseph Smith claimed happened to him in the woods in upstate New York sometime during the Monroe administration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 I see that Heck is attacking Romney through this thread with his statements about Joseph Smith. Who gives a shit about the mans religion when our economy is in the shitter and millions of people are unemployed or under employed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 I suspect Tupa knows what I'm getting at, and that's all that matters to me, T. But congratulations on protecting Mitt Romney from any perceived slight against his religion on a message board that ten people read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We need Tom Tupa Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 I'm wondering what you think the nature of the sin is. "Because the Bible says it is" is an answer I'll accept from you. But what I'm wondering is why it's a sin according to the church. What's the rationale behind it - the nature of the sin? What are they doing that is wrong aside from not being married? Or is that all it is? Yes, because the Bible says it is. I'm sure the church could give a list of made up reasons, but all that matters is that God decided that reserving sex for marriage was right and not doing that was wrong. And it also seems that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, so no, getting married wouldnt resolve the issue for homosexuals. Do you believe there is any sort of erotic love that can be expressed by two unwed people? What do you allow for? I think the ideal that should be strived for is a complete lack of erotic love outside of marriage. I havent held to that, and I dont know many who have. I won't be particularly upset when my kids don't. But I'd recommend that they try. As for the second part, I think this is exactly right, and I'm happy to not believe the supernatural claims in the Bible in their entirety. But I think you're sort of missing the point, and you're also off on the ground Jefferson is standing on. Because he, nor I, are saying "some supernatural things in the Bible happened and some didn't" based on what we like. He's denying the New Testament stories about Jesus' divinity - all of them - and subtracting those parts out because he believes them to be myths, and therefore unnecessary. It's not so different from looking at the charitable works stressed by the Mormon Church (even if some are self-serving) and think those are wonderful things to do for others, but understanding that this doesn't mean Joseph Smith wasn't telling an elaborate lie. He believes that the parts regular men added on to make Christ a God actually detracts from their power rather than adds to it. And by stripping those layers away you're left with something that's still very powerful, yet more rational. That's fine if you want to tell me that you just like how some of it sounds. Like I said, you're just keeping what you like. But I'd take issue with the position that the words of Jesus are accurate but the rest of it is myth (a position Jefferson either adopted or flirted very heavily with). There is no factual basis for that position, and what evidence we do have (dead sea scrolls, etc) seems to contradict some of Jefferson's views. If you want to think that the Biblical documentation of Jesus is true, then the most reasonable conclusion is that of Lewis: Jesus was either the son of God or a madman. We could go a million different ways in this and I hope we do. So I'll ask another thing for now: do you believe, as the Catholic Church does, that a woman suffering from cancer was cured when a beam of light emanated from her Mother Teresa locket, and this eliminated her tumor? And do you believe what Joseph Smith claimed happened to him in the woods in upstate New York sometime during the Monroe administration? I've never heard that story about Mother Teresa. I have a hard time believing it. I don't believe Joseph Smith's story, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 I fail to see how a public policy outfit in Washington's study on recidivism rates makes your point at all. Especially since they're talking about sex offenders, not pedophiles. It's okay. You had a brain fart. We don't have to dwell on it. Actually I think it proves that there is a great deal of evidence that treatment is often prescribed for other sexual deviances. I think that there are a great many varied sexual urges that people respond to. I would imagine that it's a very tiny number of cases in which therapy can change that, no matter what it may be. I posted it because you seemed incredulous that anyone would think so. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 So clearly you believe that people, hundreds of millions of them, believe in religions that are based on supernatural fictions created by man. And surely you are correct. It's quite easy to find otherwise intelligent people, like Mitt Romney and Clayton Christensen, who wholeheartedly believe in stories that, for me and many others possibly including you, are almost laughable in how obviously false they are. (God's command to Joseph Smith's wife Emma to stop nagging him about taking other wives, as told to her by Joseph Smith, is a personal favorite.) They'll devote their lives and a percentage of their salaries to believe in stories, some of which are demonstrably false. (Ex: Too bad Joseph Smith didn't know about DNA before making his foundational claim that a group of Israelites made it to America.) I think you'd also agree that the planet's one billion Muslims believe in an ancient falsehood, and that something that never actually occurred did occur. Clearly, this is something humans are drawn to believing, even when it's false, and especially when it's the prevailing religion in the area where they're born. Obviously, if you were born in Utah to a Mormon family it's quite likely you'd be arguing with me that the Book of Mormon contains the truth, and not just the Bible. And if you'd been born in Yemen, you'd probably believe that Jesus didn't ascend to heaven, but that Mohammed did, and on a white horse with wings on it. Which is a much cooler way to ascend to heaven, I might add. Essentially, you're a non-believer like myself when it comes to all religions but one, whereas I'm a non-believer in all religions. It makes me feel good knowing we're not all that far apart. As for the famous quote from Lewis, I'm not sure that the choices must be so stark. The third option would be that the transcriptions of what Christ said are somewhat to mostly accurate, with some errors and some embellishments. But if forced to face Lewis' two choices, I'd suggest that the far, far more likely scenario is that he was a bit mad. When determining how the law should treat homosexuals, whose "sins" I can neither understand nor divine, turning to Leviticus, which is madness, or Paul, whose writings are in my opinion built on the fallacy of Christ's divinity, yields me nothing. I know you think this leaves us untethered to God's morality, and that morality cannot be subjective or relative, but I happen to think that depriving human beings of the chance to fulfill the most basic human needs, committing to the person you love, and to claim that God has made them intrinsically disordered, to be the immoral part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Actually I think it proves that there is a great deal of evidence that treatment is often prescribed for other sexual deviances. I think that there are a great many varied sexual urges that people respond to. I would imagine that it's a very tiny number of cases in which therapy can change that, no matter what it may be. I posted it because you seemed incredulous that anyone would think so. WSS Steve, I'm sure you could go to a therapist every day and he/she could tell you that you shouldn't be heterosexual. She might even be able to convince you that you're not a heterosexual, or to not act on your heterosexuality. This would not change the fact that you're a heterosexual. That is your orientation. It's no different for homosexuals. There's no straight person in there waiting to come out. There's just a gay person. And pretending that you can change this with therapy can do immense harm, and has thousands and thousands of people. This is why no mainstream psychologist performs such a function, and you have to go someone like Marcus Bachmann to get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 So clearly you believe that people, hundreds of millions of them, believe in religions that are based on supernatural fictions created by man. And surely you are correct. It's quite easy to find otherwise intelligent people, like Mitt Romney and Clayton Christensen, who wholeheartedly believe in stories that, for me and many others possibly including you, are almost laughable in how obviously false they are. (God's command to Joseph Smith's wife Emma to stop nagging him about taking other wives, as told to her by Joseph Smith, is a personal favorite.) They'll devote their lives and a percentage of their salaries to believe in stories, some of which are demonstrably false. (Ex: Too bad Joseph Smith didn't know about DNA before making his foundational claim that a group of Israelites made it to America.) I think you'd also agree that the planet's one billion Muslims believe in an ancient falsehood, and that something that never actually occurred did occur. Clearly, this is something humans are drawn to believing, even when it's false, and especially when it's the prevailing religion in the area where they're born. Obviously, if you were born in Utah to a Mormon family it's quite likely you'd be arguing with me that the Book of Mormon contains the truth, and not just the Bible. And if you'd been born in Yemen, you'd probably believe that Jesus didn't ascend to heaven, but that Mohammed did, and on a white horse with wings on it. Which is a much cooler way to ascend to heaven, I might add. Essentially, you're a non-believer like myself when it comes to all religions but one, whereas I'm a non-believer in all religions. It makes me feel good knowing we're not all that far apart. As for the famous quote from Lewis, I'm not sure that the choices must be so stark. The third option would be that the transcriptions of what Christ said are somewhat to mostly accurate, with some errors and some embellishments. But if forced to face Lewis' two choices, I'd suggest that the far, far more likely scenario is that he was a bit mad. When determining how the law should treat homosexuals, whose "sins" I can neither understand nor divine, turning to Leviticus, which is madness, or Paul, whose writings are in my opinion built on the fallacy of Christ's divinity, yields me nothing. I know you think this leaves us untethered to God's morality, and that morality cannot be subjective or relative, but I happen to think that depriving human beings of the chance to fulfill the most basic human needs, committing to the person you love, and to claim that God has made them intrinsically disordered, to be the immoral part. [/quote Gays are all going to hell, and you with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 There's that loving thy neighbor so many Christians are famous for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Common Heck, I had to liven up your rant's with something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 Does a complete lack of erotic love outside marriage include things like kissing? Like, say, Richie Cunningham necking on Blueberry Hill is Biblically verboten? This seems rather extreme, no? Again, what is the underlying sin there? I know you say that you won't mind if your children fall short, but why would you even hold them to that standard? Perhaps I must misunderstand your position, but surely you must also pick and choose which Bible passages you follow and which you don't. Take Deuteronomy 25:11-12 for a blatant example. I can't imagine you think this is the word of God speaking here, but rather a man issuing laws in a rather primitive society. Why wouldn't you discard this kind of passage? What good is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We need Tom Tupa Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 So clearly you believe that people, hundreds of millions of them, believe in religions that are based on supernatural fictions created by man. And surely you are correct. It's quite easy to find otherwise intelligent people, like Mitt Romney and Clayton Christensen, who wholeheartedly believe in stories that, for me and many others possibly including you, are almost laughable in how obviously false they are. (God's command to Joseph Smith's wife Emma to stop nagging him about taking other wives, as told to her by Joseph Smith, is a personal favorite.) They'll devote their lives and a percentage of their salaries to believe in stories, some of which are demonstrably false. (Ex: Too bad Joseph Smith didn't know about DNA before making his foundational claim that a group of Israelites made it to America.) I think you'd also agree that the planet's one billion Muslims believe in an ancient falsehood, and that something that never actually occurred did occur. Clearly, this is something humans are drawn to believing, even when it's false, and especially when it's the prevailing religion in the area where they're born. Obviously, if you were born in Utah to a Mormon family it's quite likely you'd be arguing with me that the Book of Mormon contains the truth, and not just the Bible. And if you'd been born in Yemen, you'd probably believe that Jesus didn't ascend to heaven, but that Mohammed did, and on a white horse with wings on it. Which is a much cooler way to ascend to heaven, I might add. Essentially, you're a non-believer like myself when it comes to all religions but one, whereas I'm a non-believer in all religions. It makes me feel good knowing we're not all that far apart. Yes, that's accurate. When determining how the law should treat homosexuals, whose "sins" I can neither understand nor divine, turning to Leviticus, which is madness, or Paul, whose writings are in my opinion built on the fallacy of Christ's divinity, yields me nothing. I don't turn to Leviticus, much of which Christ threw out along with the rest of the clean/unclean distinction. But I obviously believe in the divinity of Christ, so turning to Paul makes perfect sense. Now, I want to draw a distinction here: I don't want the law to be used to enforce Biblical morality - I don't think I have much responsibility to worry about the personal choices of non-Christian strangers. But I do think that increased social support for homosexuality will result in greater temptation to homosexual sex, and I think it makes sense to oppose government actions that will increase temptation to sin for an entire country. I know you think this leaves us untethered to God's morality, and that morality cannot be subjective or relative, but I happen to think that depriving human beings of the chance to fulfill the most basic human needs, committing to the person you love, and to claim that God has made them intrinsically disordered, to be the immoral part. Yes, as someone born in America after 1960, most likely educated at a large university, and living in CA after 2002, you are likely to hold that view. Of course, I think it's a gross exaggeration as well as a brutalization of the word morality, but you were born where you were born, so here we are. Which basic human needs are met by a piece of paper declaring two people to be married? I'm sure you dont think marriage certificates are necessary for commitment between lovers. And my claim is that all humans are instrinsically disordered. Does a complete lack of erotic love outside marriage include things like kissing? Like, say, Richie Cunningham necking on Blueberry Hill is Biblically verboten? This seems rather extreme, no? Again, what is the underlying sin there? I know you say that you won't mind if your children fall short, but why would you even hold them to that standard? I don't hold them to that standard, I merely point them to it as an example. I sin every single day. We all fall short. I can't possibly find a Biblical standard that they could ever live up to - that's the whole point of the Bible (we can't do it ourselves. salvation comes through Christ's sacrifice). Perhaps I must misunderstand your position, but surely you must also pick and choose which Bible passages you follow and which you don't. Take Deuteronomy 25:11-12 for a blatant example. I can't imagine you think this is the word of God speaking here, but rather a man issuing laws in a rather primitive society. Why wouldn't you discard this kind of passage? What good is it?I think that is the word of God. I don't think God asks us to comply with it any more. Again, a topic long enough that we could be here for years at the rate I'm typing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 26, 2012 Report Share Posted May 26, 2012 Yes, because the Bible says it is. I'm sure the church could give a list of made up reasons, but all that matters is that God decided that reserving sex for marriage was right and not doing that was wrong. There is no factual basis for that position, and what evidence we do have (dead sea scrolls, etc) seems to contradict some of Jefferson's views. I want factual basis. The Bible is factual basis... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.