Christian compassion or: 'It shook the foundation of your hatred'

Boston

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So you believe in sin, then? And this is your criterion for not reading the bible? Tell me, can you name any book that was written by someone without sin? Failing this, I can only advise that you avoid reading altogether, including internet forums.

The koran.

In all seriousness, those who wrote the bible weren't recording the unbiased word of the lord, they had their own small prejudices, and that is reflected in the bible. Do you believe that everything the bible says is a sin is in fact a sin? Different Christian religions believe different things to be a sin. Jakkass there can go out and use condoms while my religion tell me its a serious sin.

Fanny Cradock

Boston wrote: »

The koran.

In all seriousness, those who wrote the bible weren't recording the unbiased word of the lord, they had their own small prejudices, and that is reflected in the bible. Do you believe that everything the bible says is a sin is in fact a sin? Different Christian religions believe different things to be a sin. Jakkass there can go out and use condoms while my religion tell me its a serious sin.

I would say that the authors of the bible had their own perspectives, yet those inspired by God. If you believe that this really means biases, then so be it.

As for your religion - I assume you are referring to Catholicism? Their stance on contraception etc., afaik, is completely ex-biblical.

Boston

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would say that the authors of the bible had their own perspectives, yet those inspired by God. If you believe that this really means biases, then so be it.

So these where magical mystical men from the land of make believe and fairy tales? Of course they where biased.

As for your religion - I assume you are referring to Catholicism? Their stance on contraception etc., afaik, is completely ex-biblical.

Seed on the sand and all that millarky

PDN

Boston wrote: »

Why would I read the words of sinful men? What truth could I find there?

If you don't want to read the Bible then that's up to you.

However, if you want to enter into debates on the Christianity forum then, since Christian beliefs are based on the Bible, all you will be doing is displaying your own ignorance.

Boston

PDN wrote: »

displaying your own ignorance.

I'll be in good company.

PDN

Boston wrote: »

I'll be in good company.

Indeed you will. Other trolls pop in here fairly frequently.

BTW, anyone got a good collective noun for a group of trolls? Like any preacher worth his salt I go in for a bit of alliteration. So I propose a tribe of trolls, or a tedium of trolls. Any other suggestions?

Boston

Maybe you should get back to equating homosexuality to infidelity and incest? rather then calling me a troll.

PDN

Boston wrote: »

Maybe you should get back to equating homosexuality to infidelity and incest? rather then calling me a troll.

I have made no such equation. You are either a liar, extraordinarily dim, or you haven't read my posts. I will be charitable and assume the latter.

You are free to disagree with myself or other posters here. However, I would ask that you do so without misrepresenting us. If your views are as right as you think they are then you shouldn't have to resort to such tactics.

kiffer

PDN wrote: »

Indeed you will. Other trolls pop in here fairly frequently.

BTW, anyone got a good collective noun for a group of trolls? Like any preacher worth his salt I go in for a bit of alliteration. So I propose a tribe of trolls, or a tedium of trolls. Any other suggestions?

I would like to put forward "A Trammel of Trolls"...
Trolls tend to go in circles and a trammel is a device used to draw circles and ellipses, as well as meaning a "hindrance or impediment to free action", and best of all "a contrivance hung in a fireplace to support pots or kettles over the fire."
It's also a fishing net, representing the trolls key activity of fishing for responses.
It's got it all, talking in circles, hindering the conversation, pots and kettles, being hung in a fire!

metrovelvet

I cant see why you wouldnt have compassion for someone who sins, they have most likely sinned, erred, whatever you want to call it as a product of sufferring or pain. I am limited here too, I cannot have compassion for pedophiles, I just cant do it. I'd like to see them all put on an island and blown up, but I know at some level they live in their own hell.

However, the more complex question of forgiveness, atonement, is what is more interesting to me. I have been thinking about this alot over the past few months since Yom Kippur, the jewish day of atonement, and has intensified at Christmas and the upcoming Christian new year, as we pass the holidays of forgiveness.

Incidentally, I was taught in Catholic school that sin is not to disobey god's law but to alienate.

Oh and another thing - for the Jews sin is an act, for Christians it is an act and/or a state of mind.

PDN

kiffer wrote: »

I would like to put forward "A Trammel of Trolls"...
Trolls tend to go in circles and a trammel is a device used to draw circles and ellipses, as well as meaning a "hindrance or impediment to free action", and best of all "a contrivance hung in a fireplace to support pots or kettles over the fire."
It's also a fishing net, representing the trolls key activity of fishing for responses.
It's got it all, talking in circles, hindering the conversation, pots and kettles, being hung in a fire!

Very good!

If there are only three in a group then I like the sound of "a troika of trolls". It's old fashioned yet has that slight whiff of Stalinism.

Fanny Cradock

Alliteration aside, I was thinking of something more puerile. A scutter of trolls, maybe?

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

Very good!

If there are only three in a group then I like the sound of "a troika of trolls". It's old fashioned yet has that slight whiff of Stalinism.

You can just smell the self righteousness and smugness. PDN you were accused of equating homosexuality with adultery, you have denied it and then changed the subject. Indeed like any preacher worth his salt....

PDN wrote: »

I have made no such equation. You are either a liar, extraordinarily dim, or you haven't read my posts. I will be charitable and assume the latter.

But you have many times equated the "immorality" of these issues...

PDN wrote: »

I see Christians calmly, when challenged, restating the biblical belief that they don't see homosexual acts as being morally good.

PDN wrote: »

Jesus did indeed hang out with prostitutes - but that does not mean he saw prostitution as morally acceptable. He also specifically condemned adultery, which is two consenting adults being together.

So although you have stated that Jesus (you say) condemned homosexuality, adultery and prostitution as immoral. You don't equate the three?

This is very slippery logic on your behalf. Either a liar, dim, or haven't read your own posts.

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

As an atheist who was brought up a Christian I think myself sufficiently qualified in the rights and wrongs of scripture, seeing the wrongs and rejecting them as unacceptable.

Then argue your points using the Bible. It's available to everyone. Here is a good site to copy and paste from.

What is arrogant is constantly claiming the moral high ground because you adhere to a code which is unhealthy in a modern society.

Besides you, who is claiming to be morally better than anyone else? Why is Christianity unhealthy? What's so special about modern society that I must bow to its demands and its anti-Christian bigotry?

Obviously, my experience extends only to the Catholic Church in which I was brought up in

Then stop lecturing all Christians.

I see plenty wrong with the Catholic Church. That's why I found a church which is more in line with what I think is the true Christian message (I go to a Baptist church). I didn't sit around waiting for the Catholics to change. If the church changes, will you renounce atheism? Not very likely. So I do not see why you think you have the credibility to tell them what to do.

MatthewVII wrote: »

I fail to see why god's will is the best for humanity, when one thinks of the division and conflict it creates. I fail to see why a system bent on making people suffer imposed guilt for the human condition should be the gold standard way of life for humanity.

Yet another post demonstrating that you don't know Christian teaching.

God opposes pride, self-righteousness, and the other causes of conflict. This is well documented throughout the Bible. God loves peace and justice.
Jesus Christ came to release us from guilt, not impose it upon us. Seriously, read the book you're claiming to speak from.

MatthewVII wrote: »

It's sort of like him being your manager at work who'll only give you a promotion if you butter him up.

Again, you don't know Christian teaching.

Matthew 6:7 wrote:

7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

You can just smell the self righteousness and smugness. PDN you were accused of equating homosexuality with adultery, you have denied it and then changed the subject. Indeed like any preacher worth his salt.....

I denied it because it is a totally baseless accusation. As for changing the subject - you think I should avoid posting anything else but wait with bated breath for someone to repeat the same false accusation? In your dreams.

But you have many times equated the "immorality" of these issues...

I have not. I challenge you to substantiate your accusation or withdraw it.

So although you have stated that Jesus (you say) condemned homosexuality, adultery and prostitution as immoral. You don't equate the three?

Where on earth did I say that Jesus condemned homosexuality? Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Another poster said that Jesus would have hung around with homosexuals. I pointed out that Jesus hanging around with someone does not mean approval of their actions. To demonstrate this I used the example of Jesus both hanging out with prostitutes and also condemning the practice of prostitution - thus proving my point. Now, I fail to see how even a drunken monkey could somehow construe that as saying that homosexuality, adultery and prostitution are somehow equivalent.

Good grief! Do schools not teach people to think anymore? When I went to school we had a subject called English Comprehension - it measured not just your ability to read but also to demonstrate that you understood what you read. High time to bring that subject back, I think.

Even if I had said that Jesus condemned homosexuality (which I didn't) that still would not mean that I was asserting a moral equivalence. Jesus condemned both lying and murder - but that does not for a moment mean that they are morally equivalent. I disapprove of both genocide and bad logic - but that does not make them morally equivalent.

I'm beginning to think this subject of homosexuality is so sensitive that it is impossible to have a rational debate on the subject. Posters seem to get hysterical, jump to the silliest conclusions and make false accusations at the drop of a hat.

This is very slippery logic on your behalf. Either a liar, dim, or haven't read your own posts.

My logic is fine - but yours is more a case of downhill skiing rather than slippery. You've obviously read my posts in order to (mis)quote me - so that leaves us with the other two alternatives. Which is it? My money is on dim.

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

I have not. I challenge you to substantiate your accusation or withdraw it.

You are being accused of equating. Not as you say putting words in Jesus' mouth.
Here's another...

I don't think Scripture gives any hard and fast ruling about this - but I think Jesus' words about committing adultery in our hearts can legitimately be applied to other moral issues.

And before you go off on another one regarding your above quote, I'll remind you that you were discussing homosexuality at the time. Of course you are going to be deliberately obtuse about your point. So maybe you'd be better off considering communication before you start ranting about comprehension as it simply confuses your posts . Although this is most likely purposeful.

The subject of homosexuality isn't really the sensitive issue here PDN, it's the christian POV that's the issue . When that POV is brought into question is where the rational debate goes out the window.

Now lets look at the harm done by this christian point of view.

• 1. The majority of homophobic abuse suffered by gay men and lesbians in the UK is supported by the words and actions of the Christian churches.
  
• 2. Such homophobia has a serious and daily effect on the health and well-being of the gay and lesbian population of this country, sometimes leading to absence from work, depression, physical harm and even suicide.
  
• 3. Christian churches have a disproportionate influence on legislation affecting gays and lesbians and have, at every turn, tried to frustrate the will of parliament, defy the international consensus on human rights, and to gain exemptions for themselves from the fair and equal treatment of lesbians and gay men.
  
• 4. That in their methods and organisation, conservative Christian groups in the UK now amount to a 'Christian Right' similar to that which has been active in the US for some years.
  
• 5. Bishops and other church leaders act hypocritically in regard to the lesbian and gay members and clergy of their churches, knowing that they are licensing and ordaining gay clergy whilst publicly denying this.
  
• 6. That such hypocrisy rewards deceit and dishonesty and is deleterious to the health and well being of those who are forced into such a lifestyle.
  
• 7. That a significant number of clergy have been dismissed, made homeless and forced to rely on state benefits because of their sexuality.
  
• 8. That lesbian and gay church members are being expelled from congregations, lesbian and gay groups have been refused the use of church premises, church run welfare and housing organisations have specifically excluded gay men and lesbians.
  
• 9. That sermons and Christian resource material supporting gay men and lesbians have been censored or destroyed, and that young people in church youth groups and other Christian settings are being indoctrinated into homophobia.
  
• 10. That there are significant numbers of counselors, psychologists and other health professionals whose 'Christian' beliefs lead them to attempt the 'changing,' 'curing,' or 'exorcising' of gay men and lesbians against all the advice of reputable profess ional associations.
  
• 11. That there are occasional instances of heroic and truly Christian people within the churches taking a stand to support the lesbian and gay community. There are many gay and lesbian Christians who are prepared to work for the redemption of the churches from the sin of homophobia, often at great personal cost.

Source: Report from the Commission on Christian Homophobia - The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement [LGCM] (Nov. 2000)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1026429.stm

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

You are being accused of equating. Not as you say putting words in Jesus' mouth.

studiorat wrote:

you have stated that Jesus (you say) condemned homosexuality

The accusations, and the untruths, are plural - not singular.

PDN wrote:

I don't think Scripture gives any hard and fast ruling about this - but I think Jesus' words about committing adultery in our hearts can legitimately be applied to other moral issues.

Kindly explain how that, in this or in any other universe, can possibly be construed as saying that homosexual acts are equivalent to adultery or prostitution?

I'm still waiting for any evidence of me making such an assertion. I wonder why you haven't produced it?

And before you go off on another one regarding your above quote, I'll remind you that you were discussing homosexuality at the time. Of course you are going to be deliberately obtuse about your point. So maybe you'd be better off considering communication before you start ranting about comprehension as it simply confuses your posts and drags them off topic. Although this is most likely purposeful.

The best communicator in the world (which I am not) would still be frustrated if others choose to misrepresent them. I have stated on numerous occasions that I am not equating homosexuality with paedophilia, bestiality, adultery or prostitution. I have explained why references to such sins form a logical rebuttal to a particular argument.

As for ranting - yes, I feel very strongly about this. How would you feel if others were lying about something you had posted?

The subject of homosexuality isn't really the sensitive issue here PDN, it's the christian POV that's the issue being discussed. When that POV is brought into question is where the rational debate goes out the window.

I disagree. You can question the Christian POV all you like. However, it should be possible to do that without misrepresenting others and indulging in amateur dramatics.

Now lets look at this...
I'll concur that the accusation of Homophobia and Homophobic abuse (considering it's attachment to actual violence) is a little strong, I'd still call it discrimination.
I think it's only a pity the report doesn't cover the other religions impact on peoples lives.

Commission on Christian Homophobia
The Key Findings

* 1. The majority of homophobic abuse suffered by gay men and lesbians in the UK is supported by the words and actions of the Christian churches.
* 2. Such homophobia has a serious and daily effect on the health and well-being of the gay and lesbian population of this country, sometimes leading to absence from work, depression, physical harm and even suicide.
* 3. Christian churches have a disproportionate influence on legislation affecting gays and lesbians and have, at every turn, tried to frustrate the will of parliament, defy the international consensus on human rights, and to gain exemptions for themselves from the fair and equal treatment of lesbians and gay men.
* 4. That in their methods and organisation, conservative Christian groups in the UK now amount to a 'Christian Right' similar to that which has been active in the US for some years.
* 5. Bishops and other church leaders act hypocritically in regard to the lesbian and gay members and clergy of their churches, knowing that they are licensing and ordaining gay clergy whilst publicly denying this.
* 6. That such hypocrisy rewards deceit and dishonesty and is deleterious to the health and well being of those who are forced into such a lifestyle.
* 7. That a significant number of clergy have been dismissed, made homeless and forced to rely on state benefits because of their sexuality.
* 8. That lesbian and gay church members are being expelled from congregations, lesbian and gay groups have been refused the use of church premises, church run welfare and housing organisations have specifically excluded gay men and lesbians.
* 9. That sermons and Christian resource material supporting gay men and lesbians have been censored or destroyed, and that young people in church youth groups and other Christian settings are being indoctrinated into homophobia.
* 10. That there are significant numbers of counselors, psychologists and other health professionals whose 'Christian' beliefs lead them to attempt the 'changing,' 'curing,' or 'exorcising' of gay men and lesbians against all the advice of reputable profess ional associations.
* 11. That there are occasional instances of heroic and truly Christian people within the churches taking a stand to support the lesbian and gay community. There are many gay and lesbian Christians who are prepared to work for the redemption of the churches from the sin of homophobia, often at great personal cost.


Source: Report from the Commission on Christian Homophobia - The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement [LGCM] (Nov. 2000)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1026429.stm

Hardly a balanced source is it? You might as well print a Report from a Commission set up by pig farmers with the intent of intimidating Jews into relaxing their dietary laws.

I utterly condemn homophobia wherever it occurs. That includes in the Church, or indeed in atheistic regimes (Cuba, China, North Korea) where you get really bad violence and homophobia.

The fact is that homophobia exists in most societies. There are, sadly, a percentage of people who will express hatred, and even violence, towards anyone who is different from themselves. I believe even one homophobe in the Church would be one too many - but my experience is that you find more homophobia outside the Church than inside. I have never met a single person who was tolerant of homosexuals before their conversion to Christianity and, as a result of their conversion have become hateful or violent towards homosexuals. However, I know several individuals who participated in 'gay bashing' prior to their conversion and are now horrified by, and repentant of, their past actions.

Húrin

PDN wrote: »

Hardly a balanced source is it? You might as well print a Report from a Commission set up by pig farmers with the intent of intimidating Jews into relaxing their dietary laws.

The fact that the source does not come from an "balanced" organisation (such a thing may not exist on this topic) does not make their claims untrue. Better to examine their evidence rather than dismiss them outright.

I also don't think that this group is as biased as you think. They may be a gay group, but they are also a Christian group; not a Dawkins-inspired atheist troop just using the homosexuality issue as a bludgeon with which to attack Christianity generally.


Alright, maybe we can change tack now from just being a smackdown between studiorat and PDN.

Why do you think that churches even in Ireland campaign for the government not to permit same-sex marriages? Is this not a secular society, where Bible-based arguments should have no place in the law? I'm not just talking about the Catholic church either.

PDN

Húrin wrote: »

Why do you think that churches even in Ireland campaign for the government not to permit same-sex marriages? Is this not a secular society, where Bible-based arguments should have no place in the law? I'm not just talking about the Catholic church either.

One reason is that many churches see marriage as a religious act. Indeed the Catholic Church sees marriage as a sacrament. There is an overlap in many western societies between the roles of the State and the Church when it comes to marriage. For example, when I conduct a marriage I am acting both on behalf of the church (as a minister) and on behalf of the State (as a licensed solemniser). I actually preferred the old system (where our people would get married legally in a Register Office and then came to the Church for the religious ceremony) but felt it was discriminatory because it afforded a special status to the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Ireland.

Another reason is that many of the churches (wrongly IMHO) do not want a secular society and wish to enforce their morality on non-Christians. This is why the Roman Catholic Church, for example, speaks out against gay civil unions as well as against gay marriage.

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

The accusations, and the untruths, are plural - not singular.

Kindly explain how that, in this or in any other universe, can possibly be construed as saying that homosexual acts are equivalent to adultery or prostitution?

I'm still waiting for any evidence of me making such an assertion. I wonder why you haven't produced it?

The fact that you see all the above as immoral and against god's law plus the use of these examples together is equating them. Maybe you don't know you are doing this but my your judgement of their very immorality you choose to equate them.

PDN wrote: »

I disagree. You can question the Christian POV all you like. However, it should be possible to do that without misrepresenting others and indulging in amateur dramatics.

Hardly a balanced source is it? You might as well print a Report from a Commission set up by pig farmers with the intent of intimidating Jews into relaxing their dietary laws.

You are questioning the report? A balanced source? That's discriminating right there. Why wouldn't their methodology be sound?

PDN wrote: »

I utterly condemn homophobia wherever it occurs. That includes in the Church, or indeed in atheistic regimes (Cuba, China, North Korea) where you get really bad violence and homophobia.

That sounds more like a little poke at atheistic regimes. So would you condem the likes of Joel Edwards of the Evangelical Alliance?

As recently as February 2007, The Evangelical Alliance’s General Director, Joel Edwards, wrote to the government asking for exemptions from having to comply with equality legislation in the provision of goods and services for lesbian and gay people. Specifically, it asked that Christian agencies be allowed to opt out of dealing with gay couples.

http://www.eauk.org/northern-ireland/public-affairs/upload/adoption_response_feb_07.pdf

PDN wrote: »

but my experience is that you find more homophobia outside the Church han inside. I have never met a single person who was tolerant of homosexuals before their conversion to Christianity and, as a result of their conversion have become hateful or violent towards homosexuals. However, I know several individuals who participated in 'gay bashing' prior to their conversion and are now horrified by, and repentant of, their past actions.

We are not talking about violence here, we are talking about discrimination. Let's not have too much amateur dramatics.

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

The fact that you see all the above as immoral and against god's law plus the use of these examples together is equating them. Maybe you don't know you are doing this but my your judgement of their very immorality you choose to equate them.

Poppycock. I believe that a woman lying about her age and also acts of genocide are both immoral in that they break God's law. However that does not mean that I equate them.
Both murder and breaking the speed limit are against Irish law and therefore illegal. However, only a complete buffoon would argue that, by stating they are both illegal, that I am implying any kind of equivalency.

Both 'equate' and 'equivalent' carry the sense of equality. Christians believe that different acts, while immoral, certainly vary in degrees of sinfulness.

I'm getting pretty sick of this nonsense. Either put up or shut up. Where have I said that homosexual acts equate to prostitution, adultery, paedophilia or bestiality?

You are questioning the report? A balanced source? That's discriminating right there. Why wouldn't their methodology be sound?

Because they are a pressure group seeking to slant everything towards a certain goal. I would not accept a report by Fred Phelps on homosexuality as impartial. I would not accept a report on the medical consequences of eating meat as impartial if it was produced by the Vegetarian Society. I would not accept a report on Islam as impartial if it was produced by the Southern Baptist's Missions Board.

That sounds more like a little poke at atheistic regimes.

A poke that is well deserved, particularly when those who live in glass houses are throwing stones. Atheistic regimes are far more homophobic than most churches. Homophobia is a human problem, and it is dishonest to pretend it is somehow caused or promoted by Christianity.

So would you condem the likes of Joel Edwards of the Evangelical Alliance?

Joel knows me well enough to know that I wouldn't hesitate to condemn him if he made a homophobic statement.

However, you are very wrong to misrepresent his stance on Christian adoption agencies as homophobia. Such agencies exist for the purpose of placing children in loving Christian homes. This is usually at the request of the birth mother who believes her child will be better cared for in a Christian environment. Since homosexual acts are incompatible with Christian teaching, the charters of Christian adoption agencies obviously prevent them from placing children with gay couples. The proposed government legislation would effectively prevent such agencies from operating according to their charter. Joel was spot on to point out that such agencies should not be forced to place children with gay couples who, by definition, are not practising Christianity as understood by the agencies concerned.

If the government proposed legislation outlawing adoption agencies from discriminating against divorced couples then Catholic adoption agencies would, quite rightly, seek exemption so that they could continue to fulfil their charter of placing children with practicing Catholics (now some halfwit will probably accuse me of equating homosexuality with divorce).

If the government proposed legislation outlawing adoption agencies from discriminating against people who eat bacon then Jewish adoption agencies would, quite rightly, seek exemption so that they could continue to fulfil their charter of placing children with practicing Jews (now some halfwit will probably accuse me of equating homosexuality with eating bacon sandwiches).

Homophobia is an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals or homosexuality. Labelling as 'homophobic' everyone who doesn't jump up and down on Oprah's sofa proclaiming gay sex to be the best thing since sliced bread does not advance gay rights. It actually cheapens the very term 'homophobia' and ultimately causes people to shrug their shoulders when they should be getting worked up over genuine homophobia.

We are not talking about violence here, we are talking about discrimination. Let's not have too much amateur dramatics.

I thought we were talking about homophobia - which involves fear or hatred.

Húrin

PDN wrote: »

One reason is that many churches see marriage as a religious act.

Yes, I'm well aware that marriage is a religious institution. However this leaves no room for those who see it as a secular one if churches who otherwise respect secularism, try to prevent the secular dimension of marriage from being extended to same-sex couples.

Húrin

studiorat wrote: »

That sounds more like a little poke at atheistic regimes. So would you condem the likes of Joel Edwards of the Evangelical Alliance?

an organisation called the Evangelical Alliance sounds like it comes within the bounds of the church, which PDN also notes as being up for criticism.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, I think you're indulging in a slight misrepresentation there. My point is that heterosexuals, as well as homosexuals, do not have to indulge every urge they might have. That does not equate to repression nor to somehow being untrue to ourselves.

Yes but you know perfectly well that the question isn't whether they have to or not, but whether they can.

By equating (and yes you are equating the two) homosexual acts with infidelity you are saying that we expect a husband not to cheat on his wife so it is not unreasonable to expect a homosexual not to have sex. The equation comes from the implication of this statement that both homosexual acts and infidelity are immoral acts that we reasonably expect a person not to engage in.

Which is poppycock, as you like to say. A husband abstaining from cheating on his wife is nothing like a homosexual man abstaining from ever having preferential sexual intercourse with another person.

PDN wrote: »

Now you're totally misrepresenting me. I have not tried to equate homosexuality with selfishness at all.

Yes PDN you have.

The alternative is that you simply keep randomly mentioning a completely unrelated selfish act (infidelity) in discussion of homosexuals abstaining from sexual intercourse for no particular reason.

To claim ignorance now is rather insulting. Stand over what you said or withdraw it.

philologos

Húrin wrote: »

Yes, I'm well aware that marriage is a religious institution. However this leaves no room for those who see it as a secular one if churches who otherwise respect secularism, try to prevent the secular dimension of marriage from being extended to same-sex couples.

You can only separate church and state so far. You cannot insist that religious people do not show their true opinions in referendums as that is anti-democratic to the core. Likewise you cannot insist that people do not carry out activism on behalf of their true opinions. Secularism only goes so far as saying that religious institutions cannot have direct influence on how the Government runs, but religious people can and rightfully should have their input.

Secularism can be abused as we have seen in countries such as France or Turkey. As such, I'm always very wary about anything that uses "secularism" as justification.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

If I have benefited immensely from the Gospel why wouldn't I want that for other people?

Because you aren't gay.

The idea that because you have benefited from modelling your life on the instruction of the gospel this some how equates to the gospel being true and good for all people is a jump of logic that falls down at the first hurdle.

You are the demographic of the authors of scripture. It is not particularly surprising that your life fits perfectly fine with how the authors wished you to live.

Again this comes back to leaving dogma at the door if you really want to help people. The Bible fitted with your life and what you wanted from it. Great, wonderful. Find a nice woman, get married, have lots of kids.

Why do you assert that the Bible will help anyone else, particularly people fundamentally different outlook to you?

The purpose of Christian compassion is not to help them but to make them live a life that fits one that you find appealing. Find a nice woman, get married, have lots of kids is not find for a homosexual man. The idea that he should do this because it is the correct way to live because you live this way and you are very happy is a ridiculous jump in logic.

Jakkass wrote: »

I would be selfish if I wasn't going to tell people that God is for all, from those who are considered by society to be first to the ones who are considered by society to be last.

It wouldn't be selfish at all. It would be not being arrogant to assume that you have some how figured out all the answers through the particular religion that you happen to find appealing to what you personally want out of life.

This is what is ultimately comes down to, the arrogance of asserting that because you have found Christianity appealing that this some how means Christianity must be universally true and a benefit to all man kind.

Again such a belief is incompatible with the idea of feeling genuine compassion for helping people. Your belief that Christianity is true is your own belief. Often the first step of genuine compassion is holding your hand up and saying you don't have the answers. That you are going to first learn what the problem is.

People on this forum attack atheists for arrogance, but the words I most commonly hear from the months of atheists is "I don't know"

Jakkass wrote: »

I want all people to embrace the walk with God, it's the most incredible thing that mankind has to experience.

Given that you have no possible way of determining that (have you experienced everything that mankind has to experience?) that is just meaningless hyperbole.

And it is statements like this that lead one to conclude that Christians evangelise their religious dogma more as a confirmation of their own beliefs than a rational desire to help others.

Jakkass wrote: »

Let me ask you a question Wicknight, parents disagree with the acts of their children, but in most cases their parents still love them and want what's best for them. The same is the case for God, and for God's people on earth in most cases.

Parents admit they can be wrong. Does God? Or his followers?

A parent may have it in his head that the best way for his son to live is to get a college degree, find a nice girl, get married to her, have lots of kids.

Just before his son goes off to college he tells his father that he is in fact gay and the thing that makes him most happy is playing the piano. He doesn't want to go to college to get a workman like degree. And he certainly doesn't want to meet a nice girl.

Now imagine if the father said "It doesn't matter what you want or what you think is best for you. You are wrong. I already know what is best for you, and that is finding a nice girl, getting married to a nice girl and have lots of kids. That is what worked for me, it made me happy, so it is the way to make yourself happy"

If that was a Hollywood movie the ending would not be the son finally going with what the father said, marrying a girl he doesn't love, getting a degree in something he hates doing and having lots of children into a loveless marriage.

It would be the father realising that he is wrong, and that he has to change his own views about his son to realise what actually makes the son happy, not what the father asserts should make the son happy.

You do exactly the same thing when you assert that because Christianity has made you happy you know that it is true and should make everyone else happy as well.

Again you aren't gay. You are the father standing in his happy life proclaiming to your son that because you did X Y Z and it made you happy that X Y Z is universally true and his son should do X Y Z as well to find true happiness.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Because you aren't gay.

The idea that because you have benefited from modelling your life on the instruction of the gospel this some how equates to the gospel being true and good for all people is a jump of logic that falls down at the first hurdle.

So what if I'm not gay, that's irrelevant. All Christians have to reconsider their sins and eventually conform to the will of the Father. I did it, no doubt every single Christian on this forum, had to attempt somewhat to change their ways so that they may follow the lead that God has intended for their lives.

Wicknight wrote: »

You are the demographic of the authors of scripture. It is not particularly surprising that your life fits perfectly fine with how the authors wished you to live.

How am I the demographic of the authors of the Bible? Were the authors of the Bible Gentiles from Northern Europe between the 18 - 24 age bracket? I don''t think I am in any of the demographics of any of the authors of the Bible, except for maybe being male and hetereosexual, and I certainly wasn't in any of the brackets apart from the two I have mentioned when I started to read the Bible for the first time.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again this comes back to leaving dogma at the door if you really want to help people. The Bible fitted with your life and what you wanted from it. Great, wonderful. Find a nice woman, get married, have lots of kids.

See this is a common phrase of yours. If I am a Christian, am I not meant to follow the example of Christ, and be a light unto the world so that people may praise their Father in Heaven (Matthew 5:16)? See Wicknight you make the presumption, that the will of the authors of the Bible is not best for people, obviously you know this is going to conflict with my view that it is. Why should I leave Christianity behind at the door if I believe that it can change people's lives for the better, and ultimately end in their spiritual fulfilment if received? For me there is a fallacy with this section of this post.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why do you assert that the Bible will help anyone else, particularly people fundamentally different outlook to you?

The purpose of Christian compassion is not to help them but to make them live a life that fits one that you find appealing. Find a nice woman, get married, have lots of kids is not find for a homosexual man. The idea that he should do this because it is the correct way to live because you live this way and you are very happy is a ridiculous jump in logic.

Why do you assert that the Bible won't help anyone else? All the questions you have given me in this post have a two way street. They need to be answered in two ways. Let me answer this though. Why do I assert that the Bible can help others? Well, the answer quite simply is because I have heard of a multitude who the Bible has helped from differing backgrounds and from all walks of life. Even people who are of a homosexual disposition who follow Christ. So why shouldn't I tell people that it works, if one only has to look around the Christian community to tell them that people of all different backgrounds and different situations in life have all received benefit from the Gospel. Why not them?

That much also answers why it isn't a jump in logic. You make the ridiculous assertion that the only reason that Christianity appeals to me is that I am from the same demographic as the Biblical authors. That's all fine and dandy, but I'm not Jewish as far as I know of anyway, I'm not middle-aged as Paul was when he was writing his Epistles. It also doesn't explain why people of all different demographics in life have accepted faith in Christ. If anything your response is a logical fallacy just as much as you claim my post was.

Wicknight wrote: »

It wouldn't be selfish at all. It would be not being arrogant to assume that you have some how figured out all the answers through the particular religion that you happen to find appealing to what you personally want out of life.

This is what is ultimately comes down to, the arrogance of asserting that because you have found Christianity appealing that this some how means Christianity must be universally true and a benefit to all man kind.

Again such a belief is incompatible with the idea of feeling genuine compassion for helping people. Your belief that Christianity is true is your own belief. Often the first step of genuine compassion is holding your hand up and saying you don't have the answers. That you are going to first learn what the problem is.

People on this forum attack atheists for arrogance, but the words I most commonly hear from the months of atheists is "I don't know"

See Wicknight, but this is precisely your issue. I'm not saying that to be rude, but you have the constant assumption that I actually don't put forward this solution out of compassion just because you don't believe it works! You know it's true, and I know it's true. If I think that my beliefs can save them, or can help them to live a fulfilled life. Surely it is compassionate to put forward such a view if it is out of the context of helping them. Just because you don't believe it to be true doesn't mean that it is any less out of compassion.

Wicknight, I had to use the bold. I don't intend to be patronising, but you are drumming out the same assumption again and again. I had to make it clear. It would be hugely selfish if I genuinely did have something that could help them (and I believe that I have), and that I didn't share it with anyone. Hugely so. The only thing that seems to be clouding your judgement to suggest otherwise is that you don't believe the Gospel.

Wicknight wrote: »

Given that you have no possible way of determining that (have you experienced everything that mankind has to experience?) that is just meaningless hyperbole.

And it is statements like this that lead one to conclude that Christians evangelise their religious dogma more as a confirmation of their own beliefs than a rational desire to help others.

I think I have sufficiently explained my position on your suggestion to "leave dogma at the door", and about Christianity being a "rational desire" to help others. I have my beliefs yes, but I do genuinely believe they can help others should they adopt them.

Wicknight wrote:

Parents admit they can be wrong. Does God? Or his followers?

A parent may have it in his head that the best way for his son to live is to get a college degree, find a nice girl, get married to her, have lots of kids.

Just before his son goes off to college he tells his father that he is in fact gay and the thing that makes him most happy is playing the piano. He doesn't want to go to college to get a workman like degree. And he certainly doesn't want to meet a nice girl.

I can admit that I am wrong in my own devices, but I don't believe the Gospel to be wrong no certainly not.

A parent may have preconceptions, but God doesn't. God has a plan for your life, and He is willing to let you find Him for yourself. Which is especially why the Epistle of Paul to the Romans says that God gave them over to shameful desires, because God want's people to find Him for themselves, so that they may enter into a relationship with Him out of their own freewill, and I think that is the most beautiful thing about Christianity. God is willing to love everyone irrespective of the amount of times they have transgressed His law. I can tell you now God is more patient than any living being I have known, if I were in His position, I would be fuming with frustration at humanity.

As for the situation of a child telling his father that he is gay, if I were in the fathers shoes, I would still disagree with him, but I would still love my child all the same I think. Funny because in comparison, although we run away continually from God, and although God disagrees with much of what we do, God will always love us and through His Son he has given every human being the chance to restore their relationship with Him. I find that amazing, again the most beautiful thing about the Christian faith. People can disagree with peoples decisions but still show compassion towards them. You don't seem to grasp that Wicknight, as you say I don't show compassion to people I disagree with (in this case homosexuals). But how can I when I am just as guilty myself for transgressing God's law, when I have failed to do things right time and time again. Who am I to hate homosexuals? I think homosexual activity is wrong, but it is important that our God desires "mercy not sacrifice" (Hosea 6:6).

Wicknight wrote: »

Now imagine if the father said "It doesn't matter what you want or what you think is best for you. You are wrong. I already know what is best for you, and that is finding a nice girl, getting married to a nice girl and have lots of kids. That is what worked for me, it made me happy, so it is the way to make yourself happy"

This isn't what God does so I find it quite irrelevant. I've explained this in the previous paragraph.

Wicknight wrote: »

If that was a Hollywood movie the ending would not be the son finally going with what the father said, marrying a girl he doesn't love, getting a degree in something he hates doing and having lots of children into a loveless marriage.

It would be the father realising that he is wrong, and that he has to change his own views about his son to realise what actually makes the son happy, not what the father asserts should make the son happy.

You're being totally ridiculous now for two reasons. 1) I don't take my values from Hollywood films. 2) You seem to suggest that the father has to realise that he is wrong to love his child. That's ridiculous and you know it. Why can't the child be wrong?

Compassion isn't about forcing yourself to think you are wrong. It's about loving unconditionally. Which both God, and no doubt many fathers would.

Boston

You talk about absolutes like the way "God has intended for their lives". But their are none. God has never directly spoken to you and told you to do X,Y or Z. He gave you free will to choose your own path. You've read the bible and you yourself have interpreted to mean you have to live a certain way. Other people may read the bible and take something completely different away from it. There are no absolutes, not hard facts. That's why they call it faith.

PDN

Boston wrote: »

You talk about absolutes like the way "God has intended for their lives". But their are none.

The statement that there are no absolutes is in itself an absolute. So, Boston, are you absolutely sure that there are no absolutes?

There are no absolutes, not hard facts. That's why they call it faith.

Untrue. They call it faith because it comes from the Latin fidem which means trust. Trusting in someone is totally consistent with absolutes and hard facts. Faith, in the religious sense, means that we put our trust in God.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

You are the demographic of the authors of scripture. It is not particularly surprising that your life fits perfectly fine with how the authors wished you to live.

Jakkass is the demographic of the authors of Scripture? What nonsense.

The authors of Scripture were a diverse group of people from many ages in history. They include married people, single people, murderers, adulterers, kings, fishermen, prophets, a tax collector and a physician. There is no one demographic of the authors of Scripture - and certainly not one that includes a Gentile living in Ireland in the 21st Century.

Boston

PDN wrote: »

The statement that there are no absolutes is in itself an absolute. So, Boston, are you absolutely sure that there are no absolutes?

In the sense that jakkass meant, yes. The bible is not an absolute guide on how to live, its open to interpretation.

Untrue. They call it faith because it comes from the Latin fidem which means trust. Trusting in someone is totally consistent with absolutes and hard facts. Faith, in the religious sense, means that we put our trust in God.

Seems like you require Faith to believe that "someone" exists in the first place.

philologos

Boston wrote: »

You talk about absolutes like the way "God has intended for their lives". But their are none. God has never directly spoken to you and told you to do X,Y or Z. He gave you free will to choose your own path. You've read the bible and you yourself have interpreted to mean you have to live a certain way. Other people may read the bible and take something completely different away from it. There are no absolutes, not hard facts. That's why they call it faith.

Interesting, I would contend that Jesus has spoken to every single person through the Bible though.

Boston

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting, I would contend that Jesus has spoken to every single person through the Bible though.

But Jesus didn't write the bible. Afair it wasn't written by anyone who was even alive when Jesus was. So the bible started off as an interpretation.

philologos

Boston wrote: »

But Jesus didn't write the bible. Afair it wasn't written by anyone who was even alive when Jesus was. So the bible started off as an interpretation.

You'd be incorrect if you are talking about the Gospels. As far as I know most of the writers of the New Testament were alive when Jesus was alive.

Jesus is also extensively quoted in the Gospels.

Boston

Jakkass wrote: »

You'd be incorrect if you are talking about the Gospels. As far as I know most of the writers of the New Testament were alive when Jesus was alive.

I don't think your right. From memory I think the first was written 50 years after his death and last 200 years.

Jesus is also extensively quoted in the Gospels.

You realise they we're speaking English back then, right? Just as a minor point like.

I raise on the commandment, thou shall not kill apparently that's a miss translations, and the actual commandment was thou shall not murder. Just as an example.

philologos

Boston wrote: »

I don't think your right. From memory I think the first was written 50 years after his death and last 200 years.



You realise they we're speaking English back then, right? Just as a minor point like.

I raise on the commandment, thou shall not kill apparently that's a miss translations, and the actual commandment was thou shall not murder. Just as an example.

Boston, any decent Bible will show you contention in translation in the footnotes. Anyhow that's irrelevant, Jesus is quoted in the Gospels irrespective of what language you read the Bible in. If you want to be extra safe, get yourself the New Testament in Ancient Greek, and the Old Testament in Biblical Hebrew.

Paul's first letter to the Corinthians was written circa 55AD, subtract 33 from 55 and you get the amount of years it was from Jesus' death.

Some of the Gospels were written less than 50 years after Jesus' death.

Boston

Ok, I'll tell you want. Why don't you list the completion date for each gospel.

PDN

Boston wrote: »

I don't think your right. From memory I think the first was written 50 years after his death and last 200 years.

Your memory is certainly wrong.

wikipedia wrote:

Estimates for the dates when the canonical Gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the Gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the consensus or majority view as follows:

* Mark: c. 68–73,[11] c 65-70[2]
* Matthew: c. 70–100.[11] c 80-85.[2] Some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
* Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[11], c 80-85[2]
* John: c 90-100,[2] c. 90–110,[12] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts does not mention the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles, who was later put to death by the Romans c. 65.[citation needed] Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible (for a fuller discussion see Augustinian hypothesis):

* Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
* Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
* Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
* John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70

You realise they we're speaking English back then, right? Just as a minor point like.

You realise that nobody has suggested they were speaking English back then, right? So, just as a minor point like, STOP TROLLING!

robindch

PDN wrote: »

boston wrote:

You talk about absolutes like the way "God has intended for their lives". But their are none.

The statement that there are no absolutes is in itself an absolute. So, Boston, are you absolutely sure that there are no absolutes?

A splendidly sophistic response -- ignore the meat of the question, and have a go at the language instead!

Gorgias, and indeed, Euthydemus, would have been proud of you

PDN

robindch wrote: »

A splendidly sophistic response -- ignore the meat of the question, and have a go at the language instead!

Gorgias, and indeed, Euthydemus, would have been proud of you

Well, to be fair, the post had less meat than a vegetarian quiche.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

Because you aren't gay.

The idea that because you have benefited from modelling your life on the instruction of the gospel this some how equates to the gospel being true and good for all people is a jump of logic that falls down at the first hurdle.

You are the demographic of the authors of scripture. It is not particularly surprising that your life fits perfectly fine with how the authors wished you to live.

Again this comes back to leaving dogma at the door if you really want to help people. The Bible fitted with your life and what you wanted from it. Great, wonderful. Find a nice woman, get married, have lots of kids.

Why do you assert that the Bible will help anyone else, particularly people fundamentally different outlook to you?

The purpose of Christian compassion is not to help them but to make them live a life that fits one that you find appealing. Find a nice woman, get married, have lots of kids is not find for a homosexual man. The idea that he should do this because it is the correct way to live because you live this way and you are very happy is a ridiculous jump in logic.

I agree with a lot of what you have said Wicknight, and I think that a lot of the Christian answers being peddled here do not really suffice. I think that it may be too much for heterosexuals to expect of most gay Christians to remain celibate for life. Not knocking those who do with God's help, but it doesn't seem to work for everyone.

On the other hand I find your implication that the happiest aspect of life is sex to be ridiculous. The assertion that this should be the basis of acceptance or rejection of such an important and eternal narrative as the Christian gospel claims to be.

Evangelism of the gospel is not based on the assumption that what works for one will work for all, at least not in a rigid sense. Christians do not all live identical lifestyles as we can see. But at the same time, if we were all created by any God, we were all created by the same God. According to Jesus, God wants to be in our lives, and us in his.

That is the ultimate happiness, because it's what we were made for and it lasts beyond this life.

To really help people, we cannot, as you say, insist upon rigid dogma. Christians should not be legalistic. However, none of us just leaves everything at the door. Turning one's mind into a blank slate just can't be done. If it were possible I doubt it would be desirable.

Again, this is why we are instructed to explain the Gospel but not to convert people. If you love them, let them free!

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

By equating (and yes you are equating the two) homosexual acts with infidelity you are saying that we expect a husband not to cheat on his wife so it is not unreasonable to expect a homosexual not to have sex. The equation comes from the implication of this statement that both homosexual acts and infidelity are immoral acts that we reasonably expect a person not to engage in.

Do you really believe the stuff you post? Or are you deliberately attempting to wind me up by posting nonsense?

I think that a woman lying about her weight and acts of genocide are both immoral acts that we can reasonably expect a person not to engage in. However, nobody who uses English as their first language would argue that I am thereby asserting that lying about your weight is morally equivalent to committing genocide.

A Jew may argue that murder and eating bacon sandwiches are both immoral acts that we can reasonably refrain from. But I am not enough of a drama queen to claim that Jews are therefore claiming that my bacon sandwich habit is morally equivalent to murder.

The alternative is that you simply keep randomly mentioning a completely unrelated selfish act (infidelity) in discussion of homosexuals abstaining from sexual intercourse for no particular reason.

To claim ignorance now is rather insulting. Stand over what you said or withdraw it.

Like I 'randomly' keep mentioning bacon sandwiches? I think you know very well that we all use different illustrations to demonstrate points. I have no more asserted that homosexuality is morally equivalent to infidelity than I have asserted that it is morally equivalent to eating bacon sandwiches. You are intelligent enough to know that - so I am assuming that you are deliberately acting dim.

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

Anyhow that's irrelevant, Jesus is quoted in the Gospels irrespective of what language you read the Bible in.

And we know these quotes are accurate, or indeed real, how?

MrP

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Do you really believe the stuff you post? Or are you deliberately attempting to wind me up by posting nonsense?

I think that a woman lying about her weight and acts of genocide are both immoral acts that we can reasonably expect a person not to engage in. However, nobody who uses English as their first language would argue that I am thereby asserting that lying about your weight is morally equivalent to committing genocide.

Yes but correct me if I am wrong PDN but when engaging in a thread about women lying about their weight you haven't constantly brought up the topic of mass genocide, have you? :rolleyes:

An illiterate monkey could figure out what your intention with the comparison with infidelity is, the idea that we are a culture that excuses immoral sexual actions with the idea that sex is some kind of right that over rides other moral standards.

You lump people trying to justify homosexuals have sex with other homosexuals in with the idea of trying to justify affairs and adultery precisely because you know the latter is not justifiable. It is a guilt by association. Look at our modern society obsessed with sex! We excuse all sorts of immoral behaviour these days! Well my mate Bill can manage to not cheat on his wife, why can't the gays manage to go their entire lives without ever having expressing the physical act of love making with someone they deeply care about?

You use infidelity to demonstrate that desire to have sex does not over ride other moral responsibilities, ignoring the fact that homosexuality and infidelity are comparing chalk with cheese. You ignore why infidelity is not justifiable and ignore the fact that this reason doesn't hold to homosexuality.

It is ridiculous and insulting and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

It is ridiculous and insulting and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I think both of you probably need to calm down. It's just a bloody internet forum!

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but correct me if I am wrong PDN but when engaging in a thread about women lying about their weight you haven't constantly brought up the topic of mass genocide, have you? :rolleyes:

An illiterate monkey could figure out what your intention with the comparison with infidelity is, the idea that we are a culture that excuses immoral sexual actions with the idea that sex is some kind of right that over rides other moral standards.

You lump people trying to justify homosexuals have sex with other homosexuals in with the idea of trying to justify affairs and adultery precisely because you know the latter is not justifiable. It is a guilt by association. Look at our modern society obsessed with sex! We excuse all sorts of immoral behaviour these days! Well my mate Bill can manage to not cheat on his wife, why can't the gays manage to go their entire lives without ever having expressing the physical act of love making with someone they deeply care about?

You use infidelity to demonstrate that desire to have sex does not over ride other moral responsibilities, ignoring the fact that homosexuality and infidelity are comparing chalk with cheese. You ignore why infidelity is not justifiable and ignore the fact that this reason doesn't hold to homosexuality.

It is ridiculous and insulting and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Why is the infidelity of others unacceptable to you?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

A Jew may argue that murder and eating bacon sandwiches are both immoral acts that we can reasonably refrain from. But I am not enough of a drama queen to claim that Jews are therefore claiming that my bacon sandwich habit is morally equivalent to murder.

Last year in Jakarta during Ramadan, islamic militants bombed bars, cafes and restaurants in the south of the city for the twin moral crimes of serving alcohol and permitting men and unmarried women to speak with each other.

To the best of my knowledge, jews in general don't view the consumption of certain ritually impure foodstuffs as being morally equivalent to murder. But there certainly are islamic religious out there who are prepared to murder people in order to protect their religious tabu -- clearly suggesting that to these dangerous and deluded idiots, murder certainly is the lesser of the two moral evils.

metrovelvet

robindch wrote: »

Last year in Jakarta during Ramadan, islamic militants bombed bars, cafes and restaurants in the south of the city for the twin moral crimes of serving alcohol and permitting men and unmarried women to speak with each other.

To the best of my knowledge, jews in general don't view the consumption of certain ritually impure foodstuffs as being morally equivalent to murder. But there certainly are islamic religious out there who are prepared to murder people in order to protect their religious tabu -- clearly suggesting that to these dangerous and deluded idiots, murder certainly is the lesser of the two moral evils.

The deluded idiots probably did not see it at all as the lesser of two evils, as they probably didnt see what they did at all to be evil, but good, since they are killing for a reason and for a reason which they think is good.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why is the infidelity of others unacceptable to you?

Infidelity is the betrayal of a promise, explicit or iimplicit, to another person that cause, like most betrayals, hurt.

How much a person is hurt, and how much the other cares that they were depends on the situation. Obviously a man sleeping with his friend who he has known for 10 years while trapped for the last 40 years in a loveless bitter marriage with a woman who has grown to hate him (I'm a big believer in divorce) is different to a fresh faced Casanova swanning around Paris with a model while his young none the wiser wife sits patiently at home mind the new born.

But ultimately what ever way one looks at it it is an act of betrayal. Sex really isn't crutial beyond being the common most obvious method of the betrayal, but it can take other forms.

While I wouldn't go so far as Jesus to say that any man who looks at another woman with lust commits adultery, I would agree that whether you sleep with another woman or simply really want to sleep with another woman, your relationship has problems.

And before anyone says it a homosexual man sleeping with another homosexual man is not a betrayal to God, any more than me sleeping with my girlfriend is a betrayal to the girl on the Luas who may or may not have a crush on me.

philologos

Wicknight it's rather simple, if God is indeed the creator of the world, and if He indeed has authority over it, surely it's quite reasonable that He has the authority to set rules, just as much the governments of respective states have the right to set rules over it's citizens for their own interests.