Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (114) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 196099  
Subject: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 12:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Timothy Kurek, Straight Christian Man, 'Comes Out' And Pretends To Be Gay For A Year

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/13/timothy-kurek-strai...

.

While Kurek claims that after he "came out" nearly 95 percent of his friends stopped talking to him, it was his mom who initially took the experiment the hardest.

"I snooped in my mother's journal one day after I had come out and she'd written, 'I'd rather have found out from a doctor that I had terminal cancer than have a gay son.'"


Wow. I wonder what would have happened if he had pretended to be an Atheist.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183589 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 1:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
'I'd rather have found out from a doctor that I had terminal cancer than have a gay son.'

Very sad.

Interesting that she came around and changed her views. It's often knowing someone who is gay that does this.

Wow. I wonder what would have happened if he had pretended to be an Atheist.

Probably about the same reaction. What do you think?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183591 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 1:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Wow. I wonder what would have happened if he had pretended to be an Atheist.

Probably about the same reaction. What do you think?

-------------


I'm not sure.
I'm pretty sure he would have lost his friends.
But I don't know the mind-set of the Christian community with regard to reactionary differences toward a gay person and an Atheist.

I think that somewhere, deep down, they know the gay person can't help being what he/she is. But I suspect they feel the Atheist is just being stubborn and, therefore, deserves to lose his/her friends.

But I could be wrong.
That's why I said "I wonder what would happen."
Because I don't really know.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183592 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 1:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I think that to many christians, being gay is worse than being an atheist. One is merely "misguided" or "confused" about the existance of god, while the other seems to be taken as an unforgivable sin (and is sometimes called that).

It obviously would depend on the christian. But I suspect this gentleman's mother would have preferred him to be an atheist.


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183593 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 1:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I think that to many christians, being gay is worse than being an atheist. One is merely "misguided" or "confused" about the existance of god, while the other seems to be taken as an unforgivable sin (and is sometimes called that).

Which one is "merely "misguided" or "confused" about the existance of god"? I know several gay Christians. I know two openly gay Christian pastors. Come to think on it, all the gay people I know are Christians.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183595 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 2:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The big question for me is: WHY did he lose 95% of his friends when he came out as "gay"? Friends don't just stop being friends because of something the person has no control over. It's like saying you will never be my friend again once you find out I'm left-handed.

People in minority situations need MORE friends and support - not fewer.
I'm puzzled by their response. But I'm not surprised.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183597 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 2:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
As I said, my problem is they love their water direct from the faucet. So I'm trying to get them to drink from a bowl which is not their favorite method.

She's not thinking straight (pun intended). Steve Harvey's "Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man" teaches women when they start dating a man/get married they need to require he put them above their mother - if he's a "mama's boy".

With a gay son, she could practically get a second son someday!

For a mother raising a son, "I'm gay" is the second best thing he can say to her - "I want to be a doctor" being the first of course.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183598 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 2:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<
But I don't know the mind-set of the Christian community with regard to reactionary differences toward a gay person and an Atheist.
>>

There are certain phobias or bigotries that relate to gays that are not associated to atheists. If you have a close friend that is an atheist no one asks you if you are an atheist.
The core problem is that many who claim to be christian try to please people rather than God. They care what people may say about them.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183599 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 2:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<
I think that to many christians, being gay is worse than being an atheist. One is merely "misguided" or "confused" about the existance of god, while the other seems to be taken as an unforgivable sin (and is sometimes called that).
>>

I do not think I have ever heard it called unforgivable. Many do not consider it a sin to be gay. Sexual immorality is a sin not being gay.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183600 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 2:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The big question for me is: WHY did he lose 95% of his friends when he came out as "gay"?

Because he wasn't gay - he was trying to run an experiment on them and you're assuming none found out or didn't realize he didn't seem to be authentic.

It's like the "Sex in the City" episode where Charlotte is hanging out with lesbian women because she loves their company and Samantha tells her "you can't go to Wonder Woman Island and not go native" and eventually one of the lesbian women flat out ask her if she's a lesbian.

How likely is it for a year his aunt and another friend "playing his boyfriend" told no one else, and no gays in the community figured he wasn't really gay and they didn't know any of his other friends?

Are you really telling me if one of your friends, who always seemed heterosexual just all of a sudden came out as gay you'd believe them and wouldn't have doubts if there were never signs they might not be heterosexual and if there were no signs, then you wouldn't wonder if they were really gay or not, and if not then what are they trying to pull?



Soon after Kurek decided to go under cover and "come out" as a gay man.
------------------
Kurek even "got a job in a gay cafe, hung out in a gay bar and joined a gay softball league, all the while maintaining his inner identity as a straight Christian.
----------------------
i>


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183602 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 2:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Probably about the same reaction. What do you think?

I would think that anyone who would "un-friend" because of gayness would likely also do so because of atheism.

I wish I could remember if it was someone on the boards here, or elsewhere. But I am aware of one example where a son came out as atheist to his fundy parents, and the mother responded with "well that was 20 years wasted"**. As I recall the parents (particularly the mother) broke off further contact.

That's not a mentality I understand, so I can't really comment further (except that I think it is dysfunctional). If 1poorlady did that to 1poorkid when she finally finds out 1pk is not a believer, I'd probably divorce her. Fortunately, while she would be upset and angry for days or weeks, I don't think she could ever shun her baby.

1poorguy

**Or twenty-something...the guy was twenty-something years old, I'm thinking still in college when this event occurred.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183605 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 3:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Are you really telling me if one of your friends, who always seemed heterosexual just all of a sudden came out as gay you'd believe them and wouldn't have doubts if there were never signs they might not be heterosexual and if there were no signs, then you wouldn't wonder if they were really gay or not, and if not then what are they trying to pull?


I would absolutely believe them.
They certainly know themselves better than I do.
And I don't pass judgment on people for that kind of thing.
Maybe you do.
I don't.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183608 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 4:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I would absolutely believe them.
They certainly know themselves better than I do.
And I don't pass judgment on people for that kind of thing.
Maybe you do.
I don't.


I pass judgement on people not telling the truth - which is exactly what this guy was doing.

He didn't come out as gay - he came out as a liar. So it's hard to say he lost 95% of his "friends" for coming out as gay - because that's assuming his friends all believed he was really gay. Maybe some didn't and some learned or assumed he was a liar.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183610 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 4:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
He didn't come out as gay - he came out as a liar. So it's hard to say he lost 95% of his "friends" for coming out as gay - because that's assuming his friends all believed he was really gay. Maybe some didn't and some learned or assumed he was a liar.

Really?

What percent of his friends do you think assumed he was a liar; seeing he told them he was gay, got a boyfriend, worked at a gay cafe, hung out at a gay bar, and even managed to fool his mother? 5% if that? So only 90% of his friends dropped him for being gay?

I think you're working awfully hard to avoid the fact that it was being gay that upset his friends.


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183611 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 4:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I do not think I have ever heard it called unforgivable. Many do not consider it a sin to be gay. Sexual immorality is a sin not being gay.

Yes, some don't consider it a sin. I'm glad you're one of them.

And I'm glad you've never heard it described as unforgivable. That means you're hanging out with a better class of people than I have in the past. Try googling "unforgivable sin" or "unpardonable sin" and see what the various conjectures are. Homosexuality is on the list.


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183612 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 4:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What percent of his friends do you think assumed he was a liar; seeing he told them he was gay, got a boyfriend, worked at a gay cafe, hung out at a gay bar, and even managed to fool his mother?

No one knows - including him. We don't even know if he fooled his mother - we only know of a comment she made alledgely made in a journal - which HE reported, not her.

Gay isn't about pretending to have a boyfriend, working in a gay cafe, and handing out at gay bars those things don't make a person gay.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183614 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 4:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
No one knows - including him. We don't even know if he fooled his mother - we only know of a comment she made alledgely made in a journal - which HE reported, not her.


So you conjecture that he lied about everything, or if he didn't lie about his mother's journal then she lied when she wrote in it.

Yeah, that makes a lot more sense.


Gay isn't about pretending to have a boyfriend, working in a gay cafe, and handing out at gay bars those things don't make a person gay.

Of course not. But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, AND tells you it's a duck, one might be forgiven for thinking it's a duck... unless you are also suggesting that people went into his bedroom to see if he has sex like a duck. Which also, for the record, doesn't make a person gay. In fact, the only person in the world who can tell if he's gay is him. And he said so.

Personally, I don't go around assuming my friends are lying to me. Perhaps you've got a different class of friends.


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183615 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 4:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Of course not. But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, AND tells you it's a duck, one might be forgiven for thinking it's a duck... unless you are also suggesting that people went into his bedroom to see if he has sex like a duck. Which also, for the record, doesn't make a person gay. In fact, the only person in the world who can tell if he's gay is him.

Exactly, than you agree with me that he wasn't gay - since he said in the article "all the while maintaining his inner identity as a straight Christian".

Therefore he was always a straight Christian, and just a liar.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183616 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 4:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Exactly, than you agree with me that he wasn't gay - since he said in the article "all the while maintaining his inner identity as a straight Christian".

Therefore he was always a straight Christian, and just a liar.



MC,

The goalposts are over here ------------------------------>
Quit moving them, please. It makes conversation difficult.

Yes, I agree he wasn't gay. He said so. (Though perhaps you should question whether or not that's a lie?)

The question isn't whether or not he was actually gay. The question was why his friends, who believed he was gay because he told them so, would end their friendship over it.

Perhaps they dropped him because they believed him, and therefore also believed he'd been lying the whole prior time he'd claimed to be straight. That would, at least, make more sense.


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MetroChick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183618 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 4:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The question was why his friends, who believed he was gay because he told the

And how do we know that - where in the article were interviews with his friends?

All we know is why HE believed they dropped him as a friend - we do not have comments from the actual ex-friends.

Perhaps they dropped him because they believed him, and therefore also believed he'd been lying the whole prior time he'd claimed to be straight. That would, at least, make more sense.

Sure - because anyone off the street could just easily come off as the opposite sexuality of what they really are and be 100% convincing to everyone.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: RayKinsella Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183619 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 4:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Personally, I don't go around assuming my friends are lying to me. Perhaps you've got a different class of friends.

I think this guy needs a better class of friends. Of course he lied to all of them then snooped through his mom's diary.

I get it - there is a lot of prejudice against homosexuals in the Christian community. But there is support. You have to chose your friends well and communicate openly.
This guy was rejected by his friends and family. Family you can't do anything about.

But this guy was rejected by his friends. This isn't a Christian problem - the dude needs to do a better job picking friends.
And not snooping through his mom's journal as a grown man.

I'm a Christian man and I have enough gay friends that people ask my wife if she's sure about me (she is). There are openly gay people at our church and I live in Kansas.
Ray

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183621 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 5:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
And not snooping through his mom's journal as a grown man.

Actually, that's the first thing that struck me also. It really bothered me that he'd do that.


I get it - there is a lot of prejudice against homosexuals in the Christian community. But there is support. You have to chose your friends well and communicate openly.
This guy was rejected by his friends and family. Family you can't do anything about.

But this guy was rejected by his friends. This isn't a Christian problem - the dude needs to do a better job picking friends.


True enough. Though it's hard to know what people will do in those situations*.

I can't say what would have happened while I was a church-goer. I can say now that if I announced I were gay, the only thing that would bother my friends or family would be the fact that I just got married last week. They'd all think that was a pretty crappy thing to do to him.


*This whole story hits me a little closer to home because I know someone it happened to. The guy was a gym-buddy of my then-husband's. Not a religious man that I know of, but I probably wouldn't have known. I didn't go to the gym, and barely knew the guy except through tDH. tDH had been mildly homophobic when we'd met, and I'd been working for 20 years to change that, with partial success.

So this friend announced one day that he and his wife were divorcing. Amicably. He was gay and had decided to stop trying to pretend otherwise.

Surprisingly, tDH not only didn't drop the friendship, but was deeply hurt that he was one of the few who didn't. He was shocked that so many people who had claimed such strong friendship with NowGayMan would treat him that way. I was incredibly proud that tDH (who wasn't known for being empathetic, or for putting himself to any trouble for his friends) worked extra hard to show his support and friendship for NowGayMan. It's like tDH tried to be the whole group of now-missing friends all by himself. And all homophobia disappeared. He realized how stupid it had been, and stopped.

NowGayMan moved about an hour away, to an area with a high gay population. He fell in love with another man, they moved in together, and the man died about a year later. tDH had meanwhile changed jobs so he was working in that area, and he and NowGayMan kept in touch pretty regularly for a while, until NowGayMan developed a close group of friends out there. He and tDH still run into each other now and then, but the friendship ran a very natural course to a gentle ending.

NowGayMan was one of the nicest, most caring people tDH and I knew. And to have so many people drop him over his sexual orientation was disturbing. But it made me aware that such things aren't as rare as we'd like to believe.


Frydaze1

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaRunner Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183624 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 5:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The big question for me is: WHY did he lose 95% of his friends when he came out as "gay"? Friends don't just stop being friends because of something the person has no control over.
=======================================================================

Yes they do AM. When I came out, I was lucky, 99% of my friends had no problem, and in the 1980s that was rare. One friend though told me he wasn't sure he could handle it. Sure enough he couldn't handle it. He stopped talking to me, and also stopped hanging out with our group of friends.

In the end I came to the conclusion that he wasn't a friend in the first place.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: RayKinsella Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183625 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 5:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
In the end I came to the conclusion that he wasn't a friend in the first place.

THIS. My guess is you are very good at choosing friends. Not because you are gay, but because that's who you are - a good friend.
Ray

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaRunner Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183626 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 5:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
My guess is you are very good at choosing friends. Not because you are gay, but because that's who you are - a good friend.


Being gay means I have FABULOUS friends.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183630 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 6:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
And I'm glad you've never heard it described as unforgivable. That means you're hanging out with a better class of people than I have in the past. Try googling "unforgivable sin" or "unpardonable sin" and see what the various conjectures are. Homosexuality is on the list.

I'm not geting it. Could you provide a link?

I am getting "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit", as expected.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183631 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 7:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Yes they do AM. When I came out, I was lucky, 99% of my friends had no problem, and in the 1980s that was rare. One friend though told me he wasn't sure he could handle it. Sure enough he couldn't handle it. He stopped talking to me, and also stopped hanging out with our group of friends.

In the end I came to the conclusion that he wasn't a friend in the first place.

Charlie

--------


And you were right, Charlie. :)

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183633 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 7:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
And now I'm having trouble finding links that I found earlier and planned to include with my post. Sigh...

The church I was in for 5 years taught that homosexuality was the unforgivable sin.

Here's the deal:
Many people believe that the Unforgivable Sin is being unrepentant. Since some people believe that being gay is a sin, self-identifying as gay is being unrepentant about that sin.

Work day is over. I'll come out and play more tomorrow. ;-)


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183640 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 9:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The church I was in for 5 years taught that homosexuality was the unforgivable sin.

I find that hard to fathom. They were wrong.

I could see how a church might teach that calling oneself an atheist is the unforgivable sin. That's what confused me about your post earlier today.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183642 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 9:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

I think that to many christians, being gay is worse than being an atheist. One is merely "misguided" or "confused" about the existance of god, while the other seems to be taken as an unforgivable sin (and is sometimes called that)


reminds me of a time a good-Christian friend
said when she learned I was athiest:
Atheist? well at least you're not Mormon or
Catholic so there's SOME hope for you

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183646 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 9:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I could see how a church might teach that calling oneself an atheist is the unforgivable sin.


I just don't understand that at all.
If I understand it correctly, faith and/or belief in God comes from the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit hasn't seen fit to give a person that faith and/or belief, then how is it that it's the person that has committed an unforgivable sin?

Sounds like a no-win situation for the poor guy that's being ignored by the Holy Spirit. Like me. The Holy Spirit has, apparently, just happily passed me over.


AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183648 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 9:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If I understand it correctly, faith and/or belief in God comes from the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit hasn't seen fit to give a person that faith and/or belief, then how is it that it's the person that has committed an unforgivable sin?



??? because some Believe the faith is given to everyone and the Atheist rejects it. thus, a rejection of HS

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183649 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 10:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
??? because some Believe the faith is given to everyone and the Atheist rejects it. thus, a rejection of HS

--------


Obviously, I don't believe that.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183650 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 10:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Obviously, I don't believe that.


which is beside the point that you don't see how "calling oneself an atheist is the unforgivable sin"


you probably don't believe it's a sin at all

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183651 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 10:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
you probably don't believe it's a sin at all

---------


Of course I don't.
How can something you can't help be a "sin"?
As I've said many times, you can't make yourself believe something you just don't believe. It's impossible. It's not that I CHOOSE not to believe it. It's that I don't believe it. I also don't believe in the tooth fairy. Not because I choose not to believe. I just don't believe because it makes no sense. The "light switch" has never clicked on wrt either god or the tooth fairy. Or Santa Claus. Or Thor. Or ....you get the picture.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183652 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 11:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<
Sounds like a no-win situation for the poor guy that's being ignored by the Holy Spirit. Like me. The Holy Spirit has, apparently, just happily passed me over.


AM
<<

The Holy Spirit does not happily pass anyone over, especially you... you have some interest in truth.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183653 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 11:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<
which is beside the point that you don't see how "calling oneself an atheist is the unforgivable sin"


you probably don't believe it's a sin at all
>>

I think we each commit enough sins without thinking a lack of faith is a sin... only someone dedicated to making others feel guilty would teach such a doctrine. Most people that I know are burdened with far more guilt than they can bear already. I am more interested in lifting the burden of guilt from people that piling more on....

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183654 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/15/2012 11:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<
How can something you can't help be a "sin"?
>>

Some would tell you that they cannot help abusing children... I am certain such actions are sins.

I think inaction is only a sin if you know the good that you should do and choose not to do it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaRunner Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183656 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/16/2012 8:25 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I think that to many christians, being gay is worse than being an atheist.



I don't know about many, but a good deal of them. One need only read the history of posts on this board to find out that conservative Christians rank sins, and homosexuality is pretty close to the top if you were to believe them.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183657 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/16/2012 9:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<
How can something you can't help be a "sin"?
>>

Some would tell you that they cannot help abusing children... I am certain such actions are sins.

I think inaction is only a sin if you know the good that you should do and choose not to do it.

-------------


And what good should the homosexual do to avoid being "in sin"?

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183658 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/16/2012 9:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<
I don't know about many, but a good deal of them. One need only read the history of posts on this board to find out that conservative Christians rank sins, and homosexuality is pretty close to the top if you were to believe them.

Charlie
>>

I think lying would be ranked higher if you were ranking... but I am not.... of course the guy in question had no problem with being a liar I guess.....

Revelation 21:8
"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183659 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/16/2012 9:47 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<

And what good should the homosexual do to avoid being "in sin"?

AM
>>

I have had people tell me that they are not sinning when I thought their action was a sin. Each of us including myself will have to give an account of the good or bad that we have done. It is not my job to approve nor to condemn someone's actions. I do have a responsibility to warn someone if I think they are sinning. But only they know if they have a good relationship with our Father in Heaven, if Jesus accepts them, who am i to argue the point, I require grace just as they do, maybe more....

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183660 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/16/2012 9:53 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

I have had people tell me that they are not sinning when I thought their action was a sin. Each of us including myself will have to give an account of the good or bad that we have done. It is not my job to approve nor to condemn someone's actions. I do have a responsibility to warn someone if I think they are sinning. But only they know if they have a good relationship with our Father in Heaven, if Jesus accepts them, who am i to argue the point, I require grace just as they do, maybe more....




That's really a kind of non-answer. Except for the warning part.
DO you think the homosexual is in sin and would you warn him?
Isn't he the way God made him?
What kind of warning would you give him? What would you say?

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183662 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/16/2012 9:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<
What kind of warning would you give him? What would you say?
>>

If I knew someone like the guy that ya'll have been posting about, i would warn him about being a liar.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183663 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/16/2012 10:05 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If I knew someone like the guy that ya'll have been posting about, i would warn him about being a liar.

--------


What if he was just a homosexual.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183666 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/16/2012 11:19 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"I could see how a church might teach that calling oneself an atheist is the unforgivable sin. "

I just don't understand that at all.

It could be derived from this:

Matt 12
31"Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32"And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come,"

I don't understand how a church could call homosexuality the "unforgivable sin"*. Why would it be any more unforgivable then, say, adultery? Plenty of that in the church!.

Suspect some confusion with the above passage.

* Not that I believe homosexuality is a sin, of course. Just to be clear.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183669 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/16/2012 1:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Using Matt 12 the "Blasphemy Project" was a big thing a couple of years ago. YouTube filled up with people stating publicly that they rejected the "Holy Spirit".

Is that sufficient to qualify as "speaking against the Holy Spirit"? Is it a blasphemy? If not, what is?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183674 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/16/2012 2:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<

What if he was just a homosexual.

AM

>>

It is not a sin to be a homosexual.


Sexual immorality is a sin. Adultery is a sin. Jesus instructed us that looking at another to lust after them is the same as adultery.

So the question for me is whether someone can be homosexual and not sexually immoral? Are they married? Maybe I do not know? I do believe that God is able to make it clear to those who that is an issue for.

I know this, I have no more issue with gay marriage than I have with divorce and remarriage.

There is so much sexual immorality and promiscuity in this country, so much divorce and remarriage, so much pornography, strip clubs that I do not give gay marriage a lot of thought. I struggle with not sinning as a heterosexual. I am much more concerned about overcoming the sins in my life that categorizing things that I am not struggling with.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183679 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/16/2012 7:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<

What if he was just a homosexual.

AM

>>

It is not a sin to be a homosexual.


Sexual immorality is a sin. Adultery is a sin. Jesus instructed us that looking at another to lust after them is the same as adultery.

So the question for me is whether someone can be homosexual and not sexually immoral? Are they married? Maybe I do not know? I do believe that God is able to make it clear to those who that is an issue for.

I know this, I have no more issue with gay marriage than I have with divorce and remarriage.

There is so much sexual immorality and promiscuity in this country, so much divorce and remarriage, so much pornography, strip clubs that I do not give gay marriage a lot of thought. I struggle with not sinning as a heterosexual. I am much more concerned about overcoming the sins in my life that categorizing things that I am not struggling with.




You know what, lhaselden? I think I really like you. :)
(Sorry it took so long for my answer but I've been away from my computer most of the day.)

But during the day today I was thinking about these posts and wondering what you would answer to my question. And the thing is... I kept thinking that we agree, probably, on much more than we disagree about. At least I think so based on the little I know about you so far.

While I don't believe that lying is a "sin", I do believe it is extremely bad manners and is ultimately a very wrong and disrespectful thing to do. Stealing is just as bad if not worse. Cheating, same-same. I try never to do any of those things. I agree with you about pornography, strip clubs, and other sleazy pastimes. These do not make for a decent, healthy environment.

I think a lifetime is a very long time, however, to be married to just one person. It's great when it works. But often people grow apart and become absolutely miserable together. So I have no problem with divorce. I have been divorced and I'm still a pretty good person.

Having said what I just said about pornography, etc., I do have to make it crystal clear that I'm not for censorship. I do not believe in book-burning or in book-banning. I believe that adults should be able to decide for themselves what they read.

I've been to Las Vegas at least twice and I very much enjoyed playing roulette and the slots. I enjoy a drink once in a while. But I'm neither a gambling addict nor a drunk. But ... a little of what you fancy does you good - or so it should...as AngelSpouse says (via Jethro Tull). Of course if you fancy stealing from or killing people, I have to take issue with that. :)

I'd love to see society return to a kinder and gentler time. But I might be accused of wishing for the "good old days" that weren't really all that good if you make note of the bad along with the good from back then.

Human beings can be extremely cruel to each other. We tend to judge others and basically stick our noses into other people's business - where they do not belong. If we would tend to our own business and try to live good lives ourselves, we just might find things would improve enormously.

So I think we probably agree on a lot of things (even though religion is not one of them). And even though I would like to see a more decent society - I do not believe you can legislate such things and I object very much when some political factions try to do just that.

If we put our own houses in order, we won't have time to worry about what our neighbors are doing.

AM

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183680 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/16/2012 10:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
<<
And even though I would like to see a more decent society - I do not believe you can legislate such things and I object very much when some political factions try to do just that.
>>


I do not think morality can be legislated. Laws are put in place to make for a more stable society. I think passing laws that a majority does not support does little to prevent the activity and only causes people to form a habit of breaking the law. Alcohol prohibition was one example of that. I think the current drug laws needs to be revisited, especailly marijuana prohibition.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183681 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/16/2012 11:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<
I think a lifetime is a very long time, however, to be married to just one person. It's great when it works. But often people grow apart and become absolutely miserable together. So I have no problem with divorce. I have been divorced and I'm still a pretty good person.
>>

I understand, but think about our courageous politicians that pass a DOMA that does nothing to limit divorce.

When I was a boy the only grounds for divorce in this state was adultery.

I think in Ireland only in the last few years have people been able to get a divorce.

There are many instructions on marriage in the Bible, including "God hates divorce." Yet our politicians pass a DOMA that does nothing except limit rights to a small minority of the population while the majority of our population goes about violating their marriage vows. Pretending they are supporting Biblical marriage.

By the way the Apostles agreed with you....

Matthew 19:9-11
9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for [b]immorality, and marries another woman [c]commits adultery[d].”
10 The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.”

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183682 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/16/2012 11:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<
I think a lifetime is a very long time, however, to be married to just one person. It's great when it works. But often people grow apart and become absolutely miserable together. So I have no problem with divorce. I have been divorced and I'm still a pretty good person.
>>

I understand, but think about our courageous politicians that pass a DOMA that does nothing to limit divorce.

When I was a boy the only grounds for divorce in this state was adultery.

I think in Ireland only in the last few years have people been able to get a divorce.

There are many instructions on marriage in the Bible, including "God hates divorce." Yet our politicians pass a DOMA that does nothing except limit rights to a small minority of the population while the majority of our population goes about violating their marriage vows. Pretending they are supporting Biblical marriage.

By the way the Apostles agreed with you....

Matthew 19:9-11
9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for [b]immorality, and marries another woman [c]commits adultery[d].”
10 The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.”

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183683 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/17/2012 9:23 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2

I understand, but think about our courageous politicians that pass a DOMA that does nothing to limit divorce.

When I was a boy the only grounds for divorce in this state was adultery.

I think in Ireland only in the last few years have people been able to get a divorce.




Why would you want to limit divorce?
Think about living with someone that you simply cannot stand.
Think about the lies that were told in order to end marriages that were simply intolerable even though there was no adultery - back when, as you say, adultery was the only way out.

Why does marriage need defending in the first place by our government?
Marriage is a very personal relationship between the parties involved. The government, the community, the family of the people involved should have absolutely nothing to say about it at all.

Under the conditions you have named, I would never marry - no matter how much I loved the other person. I simply do not want anyone - ever - with that much power to restrict my life and cause me misery. The abuse that comes with that kind of power is just too frightening.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183685 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/17/2012 10:15 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<
Why would you want to limit divorce?
Think about living with someone that you simply cannot stand.
Think about the lies that were told in order to end marriages that were simply intolerable even though there was no adultery - back when, as you say, adultery was the only way out.
>>
I was making a point that DOMA had little to do with biblical teaching, it was about bigotry and political expediency.


<<
Why does marriage need defending in the first place by our government?
Marriage is a very personal relationship between the parties involved. The government, the community, the family of the people involved should have absolutely nothing to say about it at all.
>>
I consider what our governments at all levels call marriage has little to do with biblical teachings on marriage.
I think the RCC does not consider a civil ceremony to be an actual marriage but I may be incorrect? I think an RCC priest will sometimes do a blessing on a couple where only one member is RCC but not the marriage ceremony.
I suggested on this board months ago that the goal should be to drop 'marriage' from our laws and replace it with 'civil unions' but no one here seemed to like that idea.

<<
Under the conditions you have named, I would never marry - no matter how much I loved the other person. I simply do not want anyone - ever - with that much power to restrict my life and cause me misery. The abuse that comes with that kind of power is just too frightening.
>>
As I pointed out to you previously you're in excellent company, the Apostles agreed with you.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183686 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/17/2012 10:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I suggested on this board months ago that the goal should be to drop 'marriage' from our laws and replace it with 'civil unions' but no one here seemed to like that idea.

Similarly, I've suggested in several places that the goal should be to drop 'marriage' from religions and replace it with 'religious unions' but no one seemed to like that idea. Go figure.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183688 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/17/2012 10:22 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<
Similarly, I've suggested in several places that the goal should be to drop 'marriage' from religions and replace it with 'religious unions' but no one seemed to like that idea. Go figure.
>>

The scriptures teach that marriage was instituted by God so make your case with HIM. I care little about religious unions or religious marriage ceremonies. The marriage that I was talking about is a joining of 2 to become 1. I know that it does not often occur but it is a function that God does still perform and is why HE 'hates divorce'.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183689 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/17/2012 10:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I was making a point that DOMA had little to do with biblical teaching, it was about bigotry and political expediency.


<<
Why does marriage need defending in the first place by our government?
Marriage is a very personal relationship between the parties involved. The government, the community, the family of the people involved should have absolutely nothing to say about it at all.
>>
I consider what our governments at all levels call marriage has little to do with biblical teachings on marriage.
I think the RCC does not consider a civil ceremony to be an actual marriage but I may be incorrect? I think an RCC priest will sometimes do a blessing on a couple where only one member is RCC but not the marriage ceremony.
I suggested on this board months ago that the goal should be to drop 'marriage' from our laws and replace it with 'civil unions' but no one here seemed to like that idea.




Ah! I misunderstood what you were saying.
It seems we are in agreement on yet another thing. :)

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183690 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/17/2012 10:30 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The marriage that I was talking about is a joining of 2 to become 1.


This is something I don't quite understand.
My husband and I are married, but we are definitely still two individual people with our own ideas, likes, and dislikes. In no way am I subservient to him - or he to me. We are partners and we work things out. Neither of us owns the other. Neither of us has to ask permission of the other for anything. We have separate bank accounts and separate investment accounts. We are equal partners. And that's the only way I would ever want it.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183691 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/17/2012 11:17 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The scriptures teach that marriage was instituted by God so make your case with HIM.

I give no credence to your scriptures. History shows that marriage was instituted long ago, by people. Make your case with them.


The marriage that I was talking about is a joining of 2 to become 1.

The marriage that I am talking about is the one described by laws. I don't care if any religion or religious group recognizes my marriage or not.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183692 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/17/2012 11:22 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<
This is something I don't quite understand.
My husband and I are married, but we are definitely still two individual people with our own ideas, likes, and dislikes. In no way am I subservient to him - or he to me. We are partners and we work things out. Neither of us owns the other. Neither of us has to ask permission of the other for anything. We have separate bank accounts and separate investment accounts. We are equal partners. And that's the only way I would ever want it.

AM
>>

Like i tried to point out, what our government recognizes is 'civil unions' using the term 'marriage' as a label.

What the Bible describes is something much different and I do not understand it either, but I have observed it a few times. A man who gets morning sickness before his wife knows she is pregnant, she never had morning sickness. Couples whom you seldom see not together except when they are at work.
It is not about subservience, as with many things in the Christian life it is about submission. I know the term 'submission' may seem no different to you than subservience but it is not the same, and the scriptures teach me about submission not subservience, subservience has a connotation of power/weakness, for me submission has a connotation of love and reverence.

Ephesians 5:21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183693 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/17/2012 11:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<The scriptures teach that marriage was instituted by God so make your case with HIM.
><
I give no credence to your scriptures. History shows that marriage was instituted long ago, by people. Make your case with them.
>>

I give no credence to your lack of credence...

History does not show that marriage was instituted long ago by people. Marriage is every culture predates all historical accounts or records.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183694 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/17/2012 12:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
My husband and I are married, but we are definitely still two individual people with our own ideas, likes, and dislikes.

My uncle performed our marriage 1.5 weeks ago, and I gave him leeway to add in some paragraphs of his own into the script we'd given him. He did a brilliant job. But one of the things he said was so perfect, I wonder what he would have done if I'd let him write the whole script.

He talked about how so many ceremonies say that the two shall be made one... but that isn't really how it works. We're still two people. We still have two opinions, two personalities, etc. And the real challenge of marriage is accepting that we are - and will remain - two people, not one. And working with that. Respecting that.

He said a bunch of other great stuff, and I hope the video came out clear enough for me to listen again.

But he's right. We are two people.

Back when women were considered property, it wasn't a question. Women were expected to do what their husbands told them to. They weren't made one; the *one* existed before and continued to exist afterward. In our modern world that shouldn't happen.

DH and I will get a joint bank account for bill paying. We'll maintain separate accounts and credit cards for personal spending because I learned in my last marriage that it works well for me. (I'm a control freak, and it's important to clearly deliniate my areas of control even though DH is much better with money than xDH was.) It's not the right system for everyone, but it is for us.

We have many goals in common... but a few individual ones. And since we are not the same person, those individual goals need to be respected and nurtured by both of us.

And for heaven's sake, the stench that comes out of his hind end proves we are not one flesh!


Frydaze1

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: MacNugget Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183695 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/17/2012 12:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Marriage in every culture predates all historical accounts or records.

All the more reason that your religion's definition of marriage should not be forced upon the rest of society. Marriage pre-dates Christianity and the institution is broader than your religion.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183696 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/17/2012 1:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<
All the more reason that your religion's definition of marriage should not be forced upon the rest of society. Marriage pre-dates Christianity and the institution is broader than your religion.
>>

All the more reason that your government's definition of marriage should not be forced upon the rest of society. Marriage pre-dates government and the institution is broader and deeper than your government can fathom.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MacNugget Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183698 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/17/2012 1:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
All the more reason that your government's definition of marriage should not be forced upon the rest of society. Marriage pre-dates government and the institution is broader and deeper than your government can fathom.

A swing and a miss...

Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem. --Alan McKay

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183699 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/17/2012 2:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
History does not show that marriage was instituted long ago by people.

I don't think anyone believes homo erectus or australopithecus engaged in marriage...pretty sure it's exclusively a homo sapiens concept. So I'll revise: history and science show that marriage was instituted long ago, by people.

In short, you're trying to say that my marriage - performed by a government official with both participants not considering anything about God - shouldn't be called marriage. It is some lesser thing. To denote its lesser status, you wish to call it a 'civil union' instead.

If you don't want to share the word 'marriage' such that it encompasses both your religious understanding and my secular understanding, you can re-label your religious understanding as 'religious unions' (or whatever.) You don't get to re-label mine just because you don't want to share anymore.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183700 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/17/2012 2:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<: history and science show that marriage was instituted long ago, by people. >>

That is an assumption on your part and not verifiable by science nor history. Unless you know of a culture where there is no type of marriage?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183701 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/17/2012 3:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<
If you don't want to share the word 'marriage' such that it encompasses both your religious understanding and my secular understanding, you can re-label your religious understanding as 'religious unions' (or whatever.) You don't get to re-label mine just because you don't want to share anymore.
>>

I can define words anyway I want... you do.... and our culture does. Our government wants to!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183702 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/17/2012 3:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
That is an assumption on your part and not verifiable by science nor history. Unless you know of a culture where there is no type of marriage?

I don't know of such a culture. Can you show me a non-person engaging in marriage?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183703 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/17/2012 3:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<
I don't know of such a culture.
>>

I thought so!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183704 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/17/2012 4:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
In short, you're trying to say that my marriage - performed by a government official with both participants not considering anything about God - shouldn't be called marriage. It is some lesser thing. To denote its lesser status, you wish to call it a 'civil union' instead.

If you don't want to share the word 'marriage' such that it encompasses both your religious understanding and my secular understanding, you can re-label your religious understanding as 'religious unions' (or whatever.) You don't get to re-label mine just because you don't want to share anymore.



it is interesting that the religious don't worry about all sorts of non-religious marriage being called 'marriage'..
just some complaining about some

Print the post Back To Top
Author: RayKinsella Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183705 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/17/2012 5:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
I am a Christian.
I am not a conservative.
In fact, I'm pretty moderate. I know this because conservatives figure me a socialist hippie and liberals think I'm a fascist Reagan hugger.

I support gay marriage. I voted against my state's constitutional amendment 'defining' marriage as between a man and a woman.

First, marriage is a right that we have no business taking away.
Secondly, and this is an old argument but one that resonates for me - but you can predict the future with this one.
Back in my grandparents day, interracial marriage was frowned upon and often illegal. People (wrongly of course) used the bible to justify their racism. Fast forward to 2012 and pretty much no one is openly against inter-racial marriage.
To do so would be quite obviously racist.

We're going to have same sex marriage in this country. I'm wildly optimistic that freedom is our destiny.
Why be among the last to embrace it?
Ray

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183706 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/17/2012 8:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

DH and I will get a joint bank account for bill paying. We'll maintain separate accounts and credit cards for personal spending because I learned in my last marriage that it works well for me. (I'm a control freak, and it's important to clearly deliniate my areas of control even though DH is much better with money than xDH was.) It's not the right system for everyone, but it is for us.

We have many goals in common... but a few individual ones. And since we are not the same person, those individual goals need to be respected and nurtured by both of us.



First of all - congrats and best wishes for the marriage. I hope you will be very happy and successful at it.

Secondly, I have argued many times on these boards that every woman - every person - should have her own bank account and her own investment accounts - in other words, she should have her own money. Money is power and without it she has no power. She cannot leave an abusive relationship, because she would have no resources with which to leave. Everyone thinks when they get married that it will be the most wonderful thing that ever happened - and their husband (or wife) will never cheat on them or be cruel. But one day they wake up and find they are in the middle of a nightmare with no escape route - no way out.

Having one's own money also teaches you how to invest and handle finances - something EVERYONE needs to know.

We also have one joint bank account from which bills are paid. But our own accounts and wholly individually owned. I urge every woman to insist on having her own money. I urge every man who cares about his wife to see to it that she does.

This is where you find out who trusts their spouse and who does not. This is where the men are separated from the boys. :)

AM

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183707 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/17/2012 9:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
The scriptures teach that marriage was instituted by God so make your case with HIM. I care little about religious unions or religious marriage ceremonies. The marriage that I was talking about is a joining of 2 to become 1. I know that it does not often occur but it is a function that God does still perform and is why HE 'hates divorce'.

That's one way to look at it. Of course, scripture repeatedly fails the historical accuracy test, so why use it as such?

Marriage provides some reasonable assurance of legitimacy of offspring, hence the payment for brides, and also reduces the need for competition for mating once a mate is selected. It's an adaptation for a species that is both social, aggressive, and has a higher rate of success through genes being passed along by many rather than from a single alpha male who sires as many offspring as possible until the next alpha can knock him off.

That's why marriage predates recorded history.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183708 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/18/2012 7:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<
Marriage provides some reasonable assurance of legitimacy of offspring, hence the payment for brides, and also reduces the need for competition for mating once a mate is selected. It's an adaptation for a species that is both social, aggressive, and has a higher rate of success through genes being passed along by many rather than from a single alpha male who sires as many offspring as possible until the next alpha can knock him off.
>>

Possible theory, however many will tell you that our species is not well adapted to marriage, evidence seems to point to a lack of that particular adaptation.

Some species are adapted to monogamy. some species are not.

My theory is that marriage was instituted by God. I am not aware that HE gave us HIS reasons...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183709 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/18/2012 10:02 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Possible theory, however many will tell you that our species is not well adapted to marriage, evidence seems to point to a lack of that particular adaptation.

And many people offer opinions from ignorance, rather than from study. Theories are developed from observable data. An easy place to observe archaic human mating patterns is in aboriginal tribes, which live all over the globe and developed their social habits independent from each other. They generally pay a bride price, and generally only have offspring with one partner. Not being subjected to the prudish mores established by almost all western religion, it is not frowned upon for the partners to have sex with others, particularly when they are separated due to hunting. So, it would certainly appear normal to bear offspring with only one mate, live an entire life with one primary partner, but be able to have casual sex with whoever may be available at any given time. The fact that western society has such a high incidence of divorce, and extra marital affairs are far from uncommon, I would suggest that whoever wrote the bible didn't understand God too well. If he created us, he gave us these traits.

A million years ago, a massive ice age sent cold weather and glaciers all the way into Africa. Chimps and early humans lived north of the Congo river, which due to volume of flow and width creates a very formidable barrier to crossing, and saw their environment change from bountiful to severe. We both have fairly aggressive dispositions, and are quite capable of killing our own, necessary for survival when food is scarce. South of the river, there was little change. Bonobo chimps followed an entirely different evolutionary pathway, continuing to be shaped by an environment plentiful in food. They are non-aggressive, and enjoy multiple partners without incident. If we'd been south of the river, rather than north, I doubt we'd have the same mores and social structures we have today.


My theory is that marriage was instituted by God. I am not aware that HE gave us HIS reasons...

And that, my friend, is the great divide. When faced with no reason, many of us search for one beyond, "HE did it." As time and history has shown, there is, in fact, a reason and a how for everything.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183710 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/18/2012 10:16 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<
And that, my friend, is the great divide. When faced with no reason, many of us search for one beyond, "HE did it." As time and history has shown, there is, in fact, a reason and a how for everything.
>>

You certainly have not demonstrated any evidence for your assumptions.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183711 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/18/2012 10:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
And many people offer opinions from ignorance, rather than from study. Theories are developed from observable data. An easy place to observe archaic human mating patterns is in aboriginal tribes

How do you define "archaic human mating patterns" ? Patterns in use 100,000 years ago?

All study of modern aboriginal tribes tells you is what modern aboriginal tribes are like. You can't know what mating patterns were like 50,000-100,000 years ago from that.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183712 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/18/2012 10:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
First of all - congrats and best wishes for the marriage. I hope you will be very happy and successful at it.

Thank you!


Having one's own money also teaches you how to invest and handle finances - something EVERYONE needs to know.

I totally agree. The problem in my relationships is actually the opposite: I will take over all money handling, which leaves my SO without any independence. Also unhealthy.

I'm a huge fan of the his/mine/ours setup. Right now we only have his/mine, and it's already causing problems. Just this morning I had to request that he make a payment on his half of the wedding expenses (I paid for the whole thing, with the understanding that he'd reimburse me for half) and he wanted to know how much he owed. I set up a shared spreadsheet for all the expenses, I've showed him where it was multiple times, and he still turned to me to ask instead of looking at it himself. And when I reminded him that we have a spreadsheet, he asked if he has access to it. Which tells me he hasn't ever opened it.

A joint account into which he deposits a set amount regularly (or into which we both put our money before withdrawing a set allowance) will keep me from having to play bill collector on a regular basis. I hope. Meanwhile, it's a good thing I like handling the money. ;-)


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: RayKinsella Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183713 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/18/2012 11:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
We have two joint checking accounts. In practice, it is a hers and his account. I pay certain bills and my wife pays certain bills. Her paychecks go in her account and mine go in my account. Legally, they are joint checking accounts but I haven't looked at her checkbook in years and she writes maybe five checks a year out of mine.
This gives us privacy and autonomy, but legally if something happened to one of us there would be less untangling to do.
If she wants to buy gifts or such without me knowing, no big deal really.

Separate, but together.
Like marriage.
Ray

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183714 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/18/2012 11:50 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
You certainly have not demonstrated any evidence for your assumptions.

Yes I did. You've provided no counter examples at all.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183715 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/18/2012 11:55 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
All study of modern aboriginal tribes tells you is what modern aboriginal tribes are like. You can't know what mating patterns were like 50,000-100,000 years ago from that.

Aboriginal tribes are hunter gatherers. No reason to assume they are different if they are not influenced by modern social behavior.

But we can't go back in time, so why bother to think, right?

Why bother with anthropology, archeology, evolutionary biology, and sociology when you have the writings of laymen from 2,000 years ago?

So, show me an example of a society that lives without divorce and affairs outside of marriage. Since it's god's will, it should be easy to provide examples.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183716 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/18/2012 12:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2


You certainly have not demonstrated any evidence for your assumptions.

Yes I did. You've provided no counter examples at all.



THAT is the great divide: what counts as evidence

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183721 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/18/2012 12:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Aboriginal tribes are hunter gatherers. No reason to assume they are the same!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183723 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/18/2012 2:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
All study of modern aboriginal tribes tells you is what modern aboriginal tribes are like. You can't know what mating patterns were like 50,000-100,000 years ago from that.
-------
Aboriginal tribes are hunter gatherers. No reason to assume they are different if they are not influenced by modern social behavior.


So how would you test your hypothesis that they didn't change? Sounds like an untestable assumption to me.

But we can't go back in time, so why bother to think, right?

No need to get all in a huff. I'm asking questions, isn't that part of the scientific process? Or do you think we just need to swallow everything fed to us by you?

Why bother with anthropology, archeology, evolutionary biology, and sociology

I'm challenging your assumptions, you'd think science could withstand a little scrutiny.

So, show me an example of a society that lives without divorce and affairs outside of marriage. Since it's god's will, it should be easy to provide examples.

The one doesn't follow from the other, unless you think God programmed us like robots to follow a script.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183724 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/18/2012 3:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
...unless you think God programmed us like robots to follow a script.

Well, I don't think a deity did it. But it is well established at this point that your brain makes a decision long before your conscious mind rationalizes it. ("Long before" being relative...in this case on the scale of time of synapses firing.) This has been observed using fMRI.

But you are correct that he is inferring behavior of ancient tribes based on behavior of modern (but isolated) ones. The assumption would seem to be that what a modern isolated tribe needs for survival is much like that of an ancient clan. They live without any infrastructure or technology to speak of (yes, spears are technically "technology", but hopefully you know what I mean), getting what they need from the land as hunter-gatherers. Just like the ancient tribes did. The unknown factor might be environmental stresses in a given region, and those could affect behavior. But otherwise one would expect such groups to adopt similar social conventions because they work (or at least are survival neutral). If some behavior had deleterious effects it would be discouraged by the clan members and/or selected against by lack of survival of the members (or entire clan).

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183727 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/18/2012 4:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
No need to get all in a huff.

Not in a huff, Bryan. It was a legitimate response to the line of reasoning. Why bother with physics? Replicating the Big Bang doesn't demonstrate what actually happened 14 billion years ago.

Abiogenesis in a lab? Same thing.

So, let's focus on the fact that all over the globe, we find similar mating traits in aboriginal tribes. And, all over the globe, we see similar patterns in more advanced society.

It's fairly common for partners to venture outside of their primary relationship, or switch primary relationships over a lifetime, with or without the complexities of a sophisticated social structure. Sure sounds like human nature at work to me.

We see the concept of harems in some societies, but there is no culture that insists all females must mate with the Sultan/Caliph/alpha male. Most humans are involved in procreation. Sure sounds like human nature at work.

So, how do all these sperms have any reasonable guarantee that they are passing dad's gene pool along? How does that sperm have any confidence that the egg might not already be an embryo, or it might be involved in a swim over, kind of like fish do, and who knows who's what is landing where? And how does that fertilized egg have any guarantee it will have two, not one, adult working to ensure it's survival once it leaves the womb? Some kind of social institution has to exist to offer a reasonable assurance, because it's certainly in all life's nature to pass along genes, and it seems rigid monogamy is not a universal human trait.

We managed to do this long before religion and god were introduced, but well after we had developed the traits that require some kind of social convention to manage procreation.

Unless you're suggesting that humans 50,000 years ago just ran around and had sex with anyone they could find. Considering we're the same as them, I don't see where that follows.

Considering the bluntness of this post, you might want to find an analogy that doesn't use the word "swallow" in any response.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183728 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/18/2012 4:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<
But you are correct that he is inferring behavior of ancient tribes based on behavior of modern (but isolated) ones. The assumption would seem to be that what a modern isolated tribe needs for survival is much like that of an ancient clan.
>>

I know of no aboriginal tribes that have not been pushed onto less attractive lands by modern land pressures and uses. Even coastal food supplies have been decimated by industrial trawlers. So I am not sure you can assume anything about ancient tribes not under land use and population pressures.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183729 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/18/2012 4:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<
We managed to do this long before religion and god were introduced, but well after we had developed the traits that require some kind of social convention to manage procreation.
>>

You continue to make assumptions based on no evidence. Most of the earliest artifacts are either weapons are religious in nature.

I know of no social convention needed to manage procreation, it is a very natural act that occurs in the presence of social conventions or in violation of social conventions or in their absence such as during wars. Raping and pilaging or ancient human traditions but I would not call them social conventions.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183730 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/18/2012 5:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Actually, there still are some. Not many, but a few. I will see if I can dig up some info. I saw a program within the past few years of a researcher who visits one in particular because they have been isolated for centuries (or longer), and I believe they are now protected by the national government so no one can go try to "squeeze them out". The researcher is one of the few outsiders the villagers have ever seen. South America, I think. Or maybe New Guinea.

There was one in the Philippines, but in recent years there has been enough contamination that they wear logo t-shirts and such now.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183732 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/18/2012 10:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I know of no social convention needed to manage procreation, it is a very natural act that occurs in the presence of social conventions or in violation of social conventions or in their absence such as during wars. Raping and pilaging or ancient human traditions but I would not call them social conventions.

Really? So, spreading your more powerful seed by killing the males and raping the females isn't an integral part of human behavior? My tribe is better has driven man to horrible places whether in the name of country or god, and always under the social conventions of the conquering group.

Yes, sex is quite natural and will occur under any circumstances, but we are cognitive, we are aggressive, and once we settle into larger groups, the social conventions of procreation avoid an awful lot of issues.

Or, as you suggest, we could just kill off rival males and rape their females. It would be a neighborhood thing.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183733 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/19/2012 7:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I do not moral conventions for my behavior. Seeing how many children in this country are being raised in single parent homes, many others being raised in homes without both of their biological parents, I have no idea what our social conventions are but I see no evidence they are based on ancient cultures.

My moral conventions however are based on some very old teachings.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183734 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/19/2012 9:33 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
but I see no evidence they are based on ancient cultures.

They are not based on ancient culture, they are based on biological behavior which was shaped by evolution.

My moral conventions however are based on some very old teachings.

Nope. Your moral conventions are based on subconscious predispositions, same as everyone else. That's why atheists, christians, muslims, and buddhists all tend to share many mores. You can claim very old teachings all you want, but the teachings were shaped by the brain chemistry, and that was shaped by the environment over millions of years.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183735 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/19/2012 11:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
My moral conventions however are based on some very old teachings.
----------
Nope. Your moral conventions are based on subconscious predispositions, same as everyone else. That's why atheists, christians, muslims, and buddhists all tend to share many mores.


Nigel's right in part, our sense of right and wrong do come from predispositions. The question is, which explanation (Christian theism or evolution) best explains the data.

Humans being made in God's image, which would include a moral "instinct" if you will, explains it rather nicely. That's why we intuitively know that "doing [evil thing] to [other human]* is morally evil.

That's also why we don't always follow what we know to be right. We're in various stages of rebellion against the moral law.

Under Nigel's view, there can't be anything like "moral evil" in the sense we use it. Evolution does not care about morality, it only cares about passing on the genes. Some have even argued that rape passes on DNA as good or better than other methods, which is why we have evolved it as a behavior. But evolution doesn't make it wrong, and under a naturalistic view, it doesn't always get justice.

-Bryan

*specifics deleted so Ray can read the post ;-)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183741 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/19/2012 2:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Humans being made in God's image, which would include a moral "instinct" if you will, explains it rather nicely.

Sure, as long as you can't follow the rules of simple logic, and resort to the Genuine Scott fallacy.

That's also why we don't always follow what we know to be right. We're in various stages of rebellion against the moral law.

Yep. There it is. Along took to the next sentence.

Under Nigel's view, there can't be anything like "moral evil" in the sense we use it. Evolution does not care about morality, it only cares about passing on the genes. Some have even argued that rape passes on DNA as good or better than other methods, which is why we have evolved it as a behavior. But evolution doesn't make it wrong, and under a naturalistic view, it doesn't always get justice.

You seem to forget we are a cognitive species. We provide reason to everything. We slap a big smiley face on the universe to better understand it. We look for patterns in everything. We also define as bad behaviors those things won't allow for an aggressive species to live in close quarters. Don't kill except. Don't rape. Treat everyone else the way you'd like to be treated. These definitions are ours.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183744 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/19/2012 3:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Humans being made in God's image, which would include a moral "instinct" if you will, explains it rather nicely.
-------------------------
Sure, as long as you can't follow the rules of simple logic, and resort to the Genuine Scott fallacy.


Sounds like the windbag tactic: when someone can't answer the point, make up some logical fallacy and claim your opponent broke the rules


BTW, it's known as the "No true Scottsman" fallacy.

Look, don't get me wrong. I think your stories about how evolution explains morality also fit the data. It's just that in explaining morality, it ends up destroying the whole concept.

That's why I think Christian theism explains it better

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MDGluon Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183748 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/19/2012 7:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Why be among the last to embrace it? - Ray

Fear?

md (Bigotry, hatred, and prejudice are the other side of the coin of fear)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183749 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/19/2012 8:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
BTW, it's known as the "No true Scottsman" fallacy.

Yeah....I read ox using it the other day and I thought I'd try it. Kind of like a kid wearing Dad's suit coat. I got the idea right, but the fit was off.

That's why I think Christian theism explains it better

Except for all the folks who don't fit the explanation, and that's were the fallacy comes in to play. Brain chemistry and physiology explains all behavior, both normal and abnormal.

And which god's moral code are we using? Does it include rejecting homosexual relationships? How about killing anyone who blasphemes the name or image of the Prophet Muhammad? I bring this up because brain chemistry and physiology can explain each of these. That's the problem with the Christian explanation. It only explains morality for those of you who follow it, then just sorta tosses everyone else out with the bath water. To me, that's not an explanation.

Along the lines of this entire discussion, my daughter is taking a psych class. Recent studies have shown that conservative and liberals have different brains physiologically(not a lot different, but different).

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/03/conservatives-...

There's a study being put together to try and test for conservative/liberal traits at earlier stages to determine if we're born with it, or learn it.

My conclusion; there is an explanation of how and why we function the way we do that explains all behavior, all humans everywhere, and all animals. Maybe god created the machine and gave it its physical laws for operation, or maybe nature did it all by itself, but either way, it started running about 14 billion years ago and the physical laws have shaped it all the way since.

Dogs nip at ears to enforce their own sense of of social structure, we write laws and books. I don't see how that destroys anything. There is nothing sacred about morality. We've altered and modified it for millennium as our behavior changes and evolves.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183750 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/19/2012 9:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
BTW, it's known as the "No true Scottsman" fallacy.
========
Yeah....I read ox using it the other day and I thought I'd try it.



thought it sounded familiar <g>

i was punning ... writing for an audience with a sense of humor *



That's the problem with the Christian explanation. It only explains morality for those of you who follow it, then just sorta tosses everyone else out with the bath water.

splains what they're supposed to do ... then tosses them in to hell.











* my own dumb self

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183751 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/19/2012 9:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
That's why I think Christian theism explains it better
------------
Except for all the folks who don't fit the explanation, and that's were the fallacy comes in to play. Brain chemistry and physiology explains all behavior, both normal and abnormal.


Who doesn't fit the explanation? What do you think the explanation is? You're missing something important...

And which god's moral code are we using?

And now the light finally went off in my head ... no, I'm not arguing that we all agree and adhere to specific moral commands. That would be stupider than I think you really think I am.

Call it the moral intuition itself, the fact that we are bothered by questions like "Is it morally good to do x"

Sure, your favorite evolutionary psychology tall-tale can give reasons why evolution may have tricked our ancestors into thinking something is moral, but it can't give any deeper meaning to morality than "what is good for survival".

If you can't see or acknowledge the problem with that, then I guess I don't have anything else to add .

-Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183752 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/20/2012 12:19 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
And now the light finally went off in my head ... no, I'm not arguing that we all agree and adhere to specific moral commands. That would be stupider than I think you really think I am.

Call it the moral intuition itself, the fact that we are bothered by questions like "Is it morally good to do x"


No, I don't underestimate your intellect Bryan. Two people can look at opposite sides of a coin and be bewildered by what the other sees, but it doesn't make them stupid.

So, dogs, chimps, and other social animals have moral intuition? You sure have dressed simple behavior up in some fine clothing, but from where I'm sitting the emperor has no clothes.

And that's the point I'm making right now, sans scottsman. Christians say homosexuals are sinners. Muslims say anyone who draws a cartoon caricature of Muhammad is a sinner. Both positions claim it is god's will, yet neither can demonstrate nor prove the point. That's why various religions have resorted to crusades, swords, guns, and airplanes. When push comes to shove, might makes right is the only way to prove something that is real only within someone's mind. There is no replicable experiment to prove that there is only one god and his name is Allah.

Science can show how and why both separate paths came about, can offer experiments, brain scans, chemical levels, archeological and anthropological data, environmental and geologic data. If others follow the same trail and come up with the same answers, you get a Higgs Boson. If they don't, you get the cold fusion fiasco, or the ooops, that neutrino didn't really exceed the speed of light, my bad incident. Problem solving and resolution without need for bloodshed or fist-a-cuffs. Although egos may get badly bruised on occasion.

but it can't give any deeper meaning to morality than "what is good for survival".

But there you have it. That's why thou shalt not kill is a universal more/behavior because it's good for survival and stuff like having to worship a particular god is not universal because it offers no more benefit to survival than being part of any other group. The trivial stuff is localized. The long term survival stuff pops up everywhere. You must be a part of this group, local, it's good to part of a group, universal.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183753 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/20/2012 9:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Sure, your favorite evolutionary psychology tall-tale can give reasons why evolution may have tricked our ancestors into thinking something is moral, but it can't give any deeper meaning to morality than "what is good for survival".

Sure your favorite theological MUS tall-tale can give reasons why a hypothetical God may have dictated a given morality, but it can't give any deeper meaning to morality than "following orders."

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183754 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/20/2012 1:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
That's why I think Christian theism explains it better

Let's pull this one out.

An evolutionary approach assumes all morality is a function of human physiology. It can explain behaviors in every geographic locale, within every culture, and can account for abnormal and aberrant behavior.

How does Christian theism explain what happened in Cambodia? Under the evolutionary approach, Pol Pot moved away from the norm, the new moral system decreased the ability to survive, and Cambodia reverted back toward the norm.

How does the Christian theistic approach explain such things? Cambodia most certainly hasn't reverted back to a Christian moral approach, nor has it ever had one. It was originally Hindu, and for the past thousand years been primarily Buddhist. China has a rich and long moral system without Christianity, and Arab countries don't recognize Christian morality. In fact, most people in the world do not follow Christian morality and never have in their entire cultural history. BUT, they've all been human, past and present.

How can a Christian explanation of morality be a better explanation when is can't reasonably account for most of the world's population?

Sounds to me like your fluffing your feathers and insisting your god is bigger and better. That's another easily explainable phenomenon from an evolutionary standpoint.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183755 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/20/2012 4:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Sure, your favorite evolutionary psychology tall-tale can give reasons why evolution may have tricked our ancestors into thinking something is moral, but it can't give any deeper meaning to morality than "what is good for survival".

If you can't see or acknowledge the problem with that, then I guess I don't have anything else to add .





If 100% of mankind decided that all redheads must die, then it would be moral.



Just as Christians insist that if God declared that all redheads must die, then it would be moral.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183756 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/20/2012 11:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<
Just as Christians insist that if God declared that all redheads must die, then it would be moral.
>>

Why?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183757 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/21/2012 12:01 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
<<
Just as Christians insist that if God declared that all redheads must die, then it would be moral.
>>

Why?


Because God ordered it. Bryan (and fundy coworker) have both told me that if god decrees it, then it is by definition "good" (and moral). Though both are usually quick to add that god would never do such a thing. Even though he did many times throughout the OT (i.e. order massacres, not specifically against red-heads).

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183758 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/21/2012 12:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

, not specifically against red-heads).


because there weren't any redheads in the Middle East ??

( ISTR reading recently they think redHair gene from
Neanderthals )



though there was that Flood

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183760 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/21/2012 12:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<
Just as Christians insist that if God declared that all redheads must die, then it would be moral.
>>

Why?





Because Christians claim that morality is whatever God says it is. Why they say this, I don't know. You'd have to ask them.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183765 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/21/2012 7:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<
Because Christians claim that morality is whatever God says it is.
>>

I did not know that... I am not sure morality applies to God. HE is good, I do not know if HE is moral.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183774 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/22/2012 1:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Bryan,

I think the point you made was overlooked. Please allow me to check if I got it:

Call it the moral intuition itself, the fact that we are bothered by questions like "Is it morally good to do x"

This is what I refer to as applied empathy (which is all I believe morality is anyway). But it sounds like you're suggesting that the reason we *have* empathy is God.

Did I get that right?

(My response will be on a different post, because I don't want to dilute this one.)


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183775 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/22/2012 1:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
So my response to the "source of empathy" question:

I don't have an explanation for it. If you choose to believe that we have empathy because God gave it to us to help us to be moral, that's cool. I don't see where it's different from saying that God gave us eyesight so we could appreciate the beauty of his creation. It all boils down to "we have x, and some people believe it was developed over time through evolution and as a survival purpose while others believe it is from God and has a holy purpose".

But the "from God" side does raise an interesting question: How do you explain the people who don't have empathy or eyesight or x?"

The obvious answer, of course, is that God has his reasons and I'm not advanced enough to understand them. But I'm sure you can see what that kind of answer is unsatisfactory.

What happens is either everything is from God, even evil, because God created everything... or some things are from God and some aren't, and we have zero way of telling which is which because even rules and exceptions are no guideline; God could have done the exceptions intentionally. Or they could be the result of free will, even those things you ascribe to God. You're left with no answer and no guidelines within which to deduce answers. It ends up boiling down to: If I think it's good (which is, of course, subjective) then I'll say God did it. If I think it's bad (also subjective) I'll either say God did it for reasons I can't know, or it's the result of free will. All non-answers without anything to stand on except subjective opinions.

Example: Man A saves man B's life. Is this a good act? What if man B was a serial killer? What if man A does it by sacrificing a third party? What if man B was supposed to die as part of God's plan to do some great thing? In other words, how good the act was depends entirely on OUR understanding of the context. Subjective.

Which means at the end of the day it doesn't matter if you think empathy comes from God or not. We still agree that the morality that springs from it is subjective.


Frydaze1

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockemup Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183791 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/24/2012 1:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
RayKinsella says...

We're going to have same sex marriage in this country. I'm wildly optimistic that freedom is our destiny.
Why be among the last to embrace it?


I will be among those never to embrace just to poll this out. I want to be obedient to God and not among those thumbing their nose at Him.



Stockemup

Print the post Back To Top
Author: RayKinsella Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183792 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/24/2012 2:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 30

I will be among those never to embrace just to poll this out. I want to be obedient to God and not among those thumbing their nose at Him.


The bible doesn't address your political responsibility to defend marriage. This political issue is at least four levels removed from anything at all that the bible has to say about sexuality.
Ray

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183793 of 196099
Subject: Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date: 10/24/2012 4:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
It is so interesting in this country that some conservatives will jump all over defending biblical principles.... unless it it concerns 'greed'!

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (114) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement