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

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

Well you kinda make that into a nonsense statement by saying that if he indeed has the authority over the world then it is reasonable that he has the authority over the world.

It is certainly reasonable that if statement A is true it continues to be true 2 seconds later when you state it again. That of course ignores the issue of whether statement A is true or not

The issue here is you Jakkass (or any Christian for that matter) claim that you have some how determined that God exists, is never wrong, never lies, is the creator of the universe, has authority over the world (because he created it one imagines), and decides what is right or wrong.

The argument for this quite astounding proclamation appears to be that you have followed Christianity and it improved your life, which I should probably point out is the argument for every other religion as well, including Scientology.

Which is fine, you can believe what ever you like.

The problem of course with that is then you (and most Christians for that matter) proceed to proclaim to everyone else, including people dealing with quite difficult social issues such as homosexuality, that because you have determined this you know what is best for them. And by telling them this you are acting in a compassionate fashion.

If you actually want to help people, rather than simply reaffirm your own theological beliefs, the very first thing you need to admit is that you don't actually know any of this.

You don't know God exists. Though you may have strong suspicision no one in the history of humanity has ever been able to demonstrate to anyone who doesn't already believe, that God exist. That is not an argument he doesn't exist, it is simply a realization that no one has ever demonstrated he does.

And you certainly don't know he is never wrong or never lies. Such a piece of knowledge is far beyond human ability given that to accurately judge such a assert a person would have to have access to far more information that is available to any single person in this universe. I would point out that we are constantly reminded of this fact any time anyone on this forum dares to suggest that God has lied or was wrong. It is impossible to judge that because we do not have all the facts. What appears to be a lie or incorrect act on God's part may simply be lack of understanding on our part. It is impossible to have all the facts so we cannot judge God to have lied or be wrong. The gate swings both ways.

The assertion that because he exists and made us he has authority over us appears to be a dogma that is simply accepted for reasons I still cannot fathom. Wolfsbane I think sometimes puts a delete "d'uh!" at the end of his comments discussing this. But why does God have authority over us? He made us? So? We make lots of things that we don't then claim authority over? He is a god, they by definition have authority over things? That is just a human conceit, a betrayal more of why we would imagine up gods (a 3rd party to decide things we can't decide ourselves, like asking your parent who would win in a fight, Darth Vader or a Borg drone) than an argument for God's actual authority. He can? That makes him a tyrant. He knows what is best for us? How do you determine that?

That would be a very good start. Leave that dogma at the door as it were.

So we come back to homosexuality and compassion. What do you, in your compassion, want to do for homosexuals?

philologos

Wicknight, I added those conditions to my post, precisely for a reason. You haven't been understanding my point of view. I thought if I explained to you more what my view was and put it as a condition on understanding the situation of God's law on us, that you might contemplate it differently.

As for you saying that I assume several things such as:
1. God's existence
2. God's omnipotency
3. God's fidelity to mankind

I have already clarified these answers for myself and I have taken a position on them, I have thought about all these things for quite some time. It's not as if I am intellectually devoid and I run into believing things without thinking about them first. I don't think any Christian on boards.ie does.

However, you return to the same old banging on about leaving the dogma at the door. I addressed this in my post, I actually addressed all of what you have just written again. I cannot leave this at the door, I believe it can genuinely help, I don't do this to affirm my own faith, but to give faith to others, and to give people the benefit of believing and following Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

Look I'm going to say this, and I don't want you going ring a ring a rosey unless you have something new to put to the table:

The only reason you dismiss this, is because you do not have faith that it is true. If I believe it to be helpful, surely I am doing it out of a compassionate conscience.

You cannot say that is not true.

Wicknight wrote:

So we come back to homosexuality and compassion. What do you, in your compassion, want to do for homosexuals?

This is a good point. I want to witness to people regardless of sexual orientation, to tell them that there is a God that loves them, there is a God that has a plan for their lives, and there is a God that can give them answers and to make them spiritually fulfilled. I also if they wanted to keep in correspondence with me, would want to be there incase they had any issues and they wanted someone to speak to.

At university, since I have started, I have talked to a range and a multitude of people. I made it clear that I was a Christian, without being forceful, but I haven't ever denied my belief in Jesus Christ when asked. I've had several people who may disagree with me, come and ask me questions in the interest of truly seeking more. Why can't we develop such an understanding with eachother out of compassion? Or do you consider this compassion at all, caring for one another and seeking the best for eachother. That's what I believe that Christ has called me to do. To be there for other people, and to try and understand them more, and to help them in any way I can. That's the best answer I can give you in general. Not just for homosexuals. I don't contend that there is a simple formula, but I do believe that Christ's message can help everyone.

BrianCalgary

MatthewVII wrote: »

Well I stated two things, one that women were subservient, which you agreed with, and two that they were subject to harsher punishments. Although, respectfully, I don't have your command of quotations, when I first went through the bible I seem to remember laws about how to deal with women if they do certain things, such as disobey their husbands or stay out late etc.

Love =/= Rights

On the matter of straying off topic, this tangent merely reflects how the church's views are hard to accept in a changing society

Women are not subservient at all. This is a gross misunderstanding of the message given to a married couple.

How can I as a husband make my wife subservient if I am instructed to: love her as Chris loved the church?

You are making no sense.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Women are not subservient at all. This is a gross misunderstanding of the message given to a married couple.

How can I as a husband make my wife subservient if I am instructed to: love her as Chris loved the church?

You are making no sense.

The same way you make your children subservient while still, presumably, loving them. You tell them what to do and they are suppose to follow you, do what they are told and respect it. Honour thy father and thy mother.

And before you say they are children, your wife is an adult, that is different ... yes, yes it is. I think that is the point

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

You haven't been understanding my point of view.

I understand your point of view completely.

Your point of view is that God isn't wrong. My point of view is that you don't, and cannot, know that.

Your point of view is that you believe that to be true. My point of view is that because you cannot determine that in any fashion believing it to be true is foolish and counter productive if you are genuinely interested in helping people.

That is when things get a bit murky because we are into the area of me, an atheist, trying to get you a Christian, to denounce your faith.

Its nuts isn't it.

You say "Wicknight, I think the best thing for homosexuals is that they abstain from sexual attivity with other homosexuals"

I reply "Could not agree less Jakkass, study after study has shown that abstaining from sex leads to depression, possibly even suicide, along with a host of other issues such as low self esteem. I can't see any harm in allowing two homosexuals to have sex and plenty of evidence that discouraging it leads to harm"

You go "Umm, interesting, I was not aware of that. While I'm certainly not jumping straight to your side on this I will certainly look at those studies and have a thing about my position and what could be best for homosexuals"

Now lets run this conversation through the religious-o-matic

"Wicknight, I know from God that the best thing for homosexuals is that they abstain from sexual activity with other homosexuals. And I know that God knows everything and is never wrong"

"Could not agree less Jakkass, study after study has shown that abstaining from sex leads to depression, possibly even suicide, along with a host of other issues such as low self esteem. I can't see any harm in allowing two homosexuals to have sex and plenty of evidence that discouraging it leads to harm"

"Irrelevant. God has instructed that the best course of action for homosexuals is that they don't engage in homosexual activity with other homosexuals. I know God is never wrong and and I know he knows everything"

If people want to see what my objection to religion is, that is it.

Jakkass wrote: »

I have already clarified these answers for myself

Yes but you are wrong.

The nuts thing (again) is that if I was saying you were wrong about a claim that homosexuals abstaining from sex leads to better, happier, homosexuals this wouldn't be an issue. It would be a short thread on the Humanities forum. You and I would both be asked to produce evidence in support of our positions. I can show you the reports. You might not listen to me, but no one would bat an eyelid.

But because you put something along the lines of "because my god told me so" at the end of your position then any reply I say I am an atheist trying to get you to renounce your faith.

Because that is what is boils down to. Once you put "God says.." at the start of anything you guys claim the only way to get a change of position is to get you to renounce your faith.

Do you have any idea how nuts that is. So darn right I return to leaving dogma at the door.

I don't care about any Christian renouncing their faith. I do care about Christians claiming, in the name of compassion, that the best thing for a homosexual is that they abstain from sexual practice with other homosexuals. The biggest problem with that debate is not the argument "you are wrong" but the argument "your god is wrong" Your god is wrong. But then you have already decided, some how, that he can't, ever, be wrong, about anything.

That is the ball game, everyone goes home.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not as if I am intellectually devoid and I run into believing things without thinking about them first. I don't think any Christian on boards.ie does.

Again this is the nonsense of all this. You are wrong about homosexuals. The best thing for them is not to abstain from homosexual sex. That is in fact one of the worst things they can do.

But then the problem is that that isn't your position, so you are not wrong about homosexuals. Your god is wrong about homosexuals, but your god can't be wrong about anything. You have thought that through, you are not "intellectually devoid" for believing in your religion. How dare I suggest such a thing, yada yada yada yada.

Can your god be wrong about this specific thing? No. Can I show you are report demonstrating that he probably is? Yes, but it won't change anything, so really no.

Instead of a debate about homosexuals it becomes an argument about proving to you that your god doesn't exist and then you might listen to me.

It becomes the you don't care about homosexuals Wicknight you are just an angry atheist who hates God and wants me to dismiss my faith argument.

I swear this stuff makes me so annoyed I want to scream, and guess what there are billions of you.

I don't say stuff like this because I don't like religion. I don't like religion because of this stuff. Changing your position on the best way to help homosexuals becomes a debate about why I want you to renounce your god. The really nuts part is your god probably doesn't even exist. Again, I don't say these things because I'm an atheist, I'm an atheist because of these things.

Arrrrraagggghhhhhh

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

I understand your point of view completely.

Your point of view is that God isn't wrong. My point of view is that you don't, and cannot, know that.

Your point of view is that you believe that to be true. My point of view is that because you cannot determine that in any fashion believing it to be true is foolish and counter productive if you are genuinely interested in helping people.

I believe God to be true with cause. You seem to think that I suddenly woke up one morning and said, why not God today? It was never like that for me. Accepting Jesus seriously came after a long period of doubts, thought, confusion. You seem to think it was entirely irrational for me to do this. However, that just doesn't make sense to me as I indeed did use my cognitive functions in determining not only that Christianity was the one for me if you will, but that it was the most probable conclusion.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is when things get a bit murky because we are into the area of me, an atheist, trying to get you a Christian, to denounce your faith.

Its nuts isn't it.

Not particularly nuts, since we're both trying to convince eachother that our viewpoint is the most reasonable viewpoint to deal with the world and with those around us. I quite honestly can tell you, I've never had this much faith for Christ in my life, and your input in the past amongst other atheists has caused me to think more about my positions, and to find answers. So whether or not we agree or disagree. You actually played a role in strengthening my faith Wicknight, not in causing me to consider denouncing it. I think a lot of Christians would say this of atheists, you have consistently challenged us to sharpen our arguments.

Wicknight wrote: »

You say "Wicknight, I think the best thing for homosexuals is that they abstain from sexual attivity with other homosexuals"

I reply "Could not agree less Jakkass, study after study has shown that abstaining from sex leads to depression, possibly even suicide, along with a host of other issues such as low self esteem. I can't see any harm in allowing two homosexuals to have sex and plenty of evidence that discouraging it leads to harm"

You go "Umm, interesting, I was not aware of that. While I'm certainly not jumping straight to your side on this I will certainly look at those studies and have a thing about my position and what could be best for homosexuals"

Wicknight, if you could cite me some of these studies I would look towards them and to give them a serious look. Really, even if they are in academic journals etc, I can check them out. I will give it a look, but I think the issue is more that we have different perceptions of homosexuality from the outset and that more than anything is causing us to disagree. I'm quite happy to be open minded and read any material you give me. Honestly. However, I will not guarantee I will adopt any position that you put forward. I think that is reasonable on my part.

Wicknight wrote: »

Now lets run this conversation through the religious-o-matic

"Wicknight, I know from God that the best thing for homosexuals is that they abstain from sexual activity with other homosexuals. And I know that God knows everything and is never wrong"

"Could not agree less Jakkass, study after study has shown that abstaining from sex leads to depression, possibly even suicide, along with a host of other issues such as low self esteem. I can't see any harm in allowing two homosexuals to have sex and plenty of evidence that discouraging it leads to harm"

"Irrelevant. God has instructed that the best course of action for homosexuals is that they don't engage in homosexual activity with other homosexuals. I know God is never wrong and and I know he knows everything"

If people want to see what my objection to religion is, that is it.

I don't know for a fact what you are saying about these studies is even true Wicknight, how can I adopt a position that hasn't been substantiated with sources like that if you claim studies say something, bring the studies onboard. I'm serious when I say I will look at them.

I know that studies also suggest that regular church attendance decreases the likelihood of suicide, that regular church attendance increases lifespan amongst other things. So why am I wrong if that is indeed true, and I am willing to substantiate these claims if asked. Indeed there has been much research into health benefits from regular church attendance etc. Would you be willing to accept this, instead of accepting the claim that religion is harmful?

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but you are wrong.

The nuts thing (again) is that if I was saying you were wrong about a claim that homosexuals abstaining from sex leads to better, happier, homosexuals this wouldn't be an issue. It would be a short thread on the Humanities forum. You and I would both be asked to produce evidence in support of our positions. I can show you the reports. You might not listen to me, but no one would bat an eyelid.

Why am I wrong?

I didn't actually say that Wicknight, I said that adopting the Gospel is a positive thing in peoples lives. What I have said about church attendance previously would indicate that that is indeed true in some respects in terms of health.

As for showing me the reports, I've told you I'll gladly receive them. You honestly think I am here to just mute everything you say. I'm not. Honestly.

Wicknight wrote: »

But because you put something along the lines of "because my god told me so" at the end of your position then any reply I say I am an atheist trying to get you to renounce your faith.

I didn't exactly no.

Wicknight wrote: »

Because that is what is boils down to. Once you put "God says.." at the start of anything you guys claim the only way to get a change of position is to get you to renounce your faith.

You won't get me to renounce my faith, I'm fairly confident of that. You've actually sharpened it along with the other atheists here. However, keep on going. You are waiting for the day I post a long topic in the A&A forum claiming I am an atheist and have rejected God. I think it's highly improbable of it ever happening.

Do you think that there is hope (or despair) depending on how you view it for me? My views of what atheism could offer me are in the parentheses.

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you have any idea how nuts that is. So darn right I return to leaving dogma at the door.

Well evidently I don't since I disagree with your views on it.

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't care about any Christian renouncing their faith. I do care about Christians claiming, in the name of compassion, that the best thing for a homosexual is that they abstain from sexual practice with other homosexuals. The biggest problem with that debate is not the argument "you are wrong" but the argument "your god is wrong" Your god is wrong. But then you have already decided, some how, that he can't, ever, be wrong, about anything.

I've explained to you the distinction I have made between the benefits of the Gospel, and the sacrifices that may have to be made for it. I made sacrifices to accept God's standards for me, and I still have much more to do.

Wicknight, my problem with your position of God being wrong is merely this, you haven't explained elequently how God is wrong at all. That's my problem with your past posts. They aren't convincing.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again this is the nonsense of all this. You are wrong about homosexuals. The best thing for them is not to abstain from homosexual sex. That is in fact one of the worst things they can do.

I'll consider the studies once provided.

Wicknight wrote: »

But then the problem is that that isn't your position, so you are not wrong about homosexuals. Your god is wrong about homosexuals, but your god can't be wrong about anything. You have thought that through, you are not "intellectually devoid" for believing in your religion. How dare I suggest such a thing, yada yada yada yada.

See above. This is basically going around in circles.

Wicknight wrote: »

Can your god be wrong about this specific thing? No. Can I show you are report demonstrating that he probably is? Yes, but it won't change anything, so really no.

Again see above.

Wicknight wrote: »

Instead of a debate about homosexuals it becomes an argument about proving to you that your god doesn't exist and then you might listen to me.

If you prove that God doesn't exist, I'll be dazzled. There is no objective proof either way, we have both surely learned that by now. So you use evidence based on indication, not evidence based on proof. They are two different things.

For example, if someone is murdered on a beach, and if they find your jacket near the body. Is that evidence that you murdered the victim? Yes. Is it proof that you murdered the victim? No. There would have to be further analysis done.

This is evidence by indication as opposed to evidence by proof.

Wicknight wrote: »

It becomes the you don't care about homosexuals Wicknight you are just an angry atheist who hates God and wants me to dismiss my faith argument.

I don't think you don't care. I contend that we both care for a start, we just have different ideas in mind for what is best in both situations.

Wicknight wrote: »

I swear this stuff makes me so annoyed I want to scream, and guess what there are billions of you.

Go ahead and scream, it might save the tension in the posts next time

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't say stuff like this because I don't like religion. I don't like religion because of this stuff. Changing your position on the best way to help homosexuals becomes a debate about why I want you to renounce your god. The really nuts part is your god probably doesn't even exist. Again, I don't say these things because I'm an atheist, I'm an atheist because of these things.

You do say these things because you are an atheist. That's the entire point, you only reason as you do as you have a different understanding of the role of Christianity in peoples lives. I've experienced it first hand in my life, it's not just something I can dismiss as being false after these experiences. That's the issue with atheists arguing against Christians, they actually think that "we're so easy to demolish" because nobody challenges them in public when they make statements about Christianity except for the ones who are willing to stomach it and defend themselves.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

If you actually want to help people, rather than simply reaffirm your own theological beliefs, the very first thing you need to admit is that you don't actually know any of this.

Hold on Wick, are you trying to say that if Christians want to be genuinely compassionate to people, then they have to renounce their faith?

Now I'm not talking about forcing one's faith on someone you claim to be filled with compassion for, in which case I would agree with you. I don't think that anyone is saying that "someone will be made happier if I force my religion on them, see I have this formula that says so".

Wicknight wrote: »

But why does God have authority over us? He made us? So? We make lots of things that we don't then claim authority over? He is a god, they by definition have authority over things? That is just a human conceit, a betrayal more of why we would imagine up gods (a 3rd party to decide things we can't decide ourselves, like asking your parent who would win in a fight, Darth Vader or a Borg drone) than an argument for God's actual authority. He can? That makes him a tyrant.

Believing that God has more moral authority than we ourselves do actually sounds like a rather humble confession to me; not much of a conceit really.

If God is entirely morally good, and omniscient, then he cannot be a tyrant.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

That is when things get a bit murky because we are into the area of me, an atheist, trying to get you a Christian, to denounce your faith.

Its nuts isn't it.

That's OK. As an atheist modernist out to kill supernatural metaphysics of every kind, you need to let us know that there is only one correct, rational way to view the world. You have no other choice. :pac:

Wicknight wrote: »

"Wicknight, I know from God that the best thing for homosexuals is that they abstain from sexual activity with other homosexuals. And I know that God knows everything and is never wrong"

"Could not agree less Jakkass, study after study has shown that abstaining from sex leads to depression, possibly even suicide, along with a host of other issues such as low self esteem. I can't see any harm in allowing two homosexuals to have sex and plenty of evidence that discouraging it leads to harm"

"Irrelevant. God has instructed that the best course of action for homosexuals is that they don't engage in homosexual activity with other homosexuals. I know God is never wrong and and I know he knows everything"

In all fairness Wick, you appear to be simply putting these studies (which presumably have some sort of "scientific credibility") in exactly the same place as Jakass is putting his god.

Splendour

Jakkass wrote: »

Interestingly, Christians aren't meant to hate homosexuals at all. We are just told not to engage in such a lifestyle if we are truly to pick up our cross and follow Christ.

I read through some of the posts on thread but didn't have the time nor the inclination to read it all thoroughly, but here's my tuppence worth:

Christians, if they are truely Christ like, cannot hate ANYONE never mind homosexuals. I firmly believe, because of the fall, some people are born with gay tendancies just as some people are born with a predisposition to cancer or depression etc...

However, Christ refers to himself as the bridegroom and the church as his bride thus equating marriage with the church's relationship to God. We read of this symbolism in the new testament and therefore it obviously has some significance. Christ is the 'head' the church is 'the body'.

When a man and a woman come together in marriage this is pleasing to God as it reflects his relationship with us. When a man and a man come together this is not a reflection of a 'head' and a 'body' so it is not pleasing to God as this is two 'heads' (no smart quotes here!) and does not make a 'whole'.
When a man and a woman commit adultery, this too is not pleasing to God as they have not commited themselves as a 'whole' under God's care, ergo making light of God's commitment to us.

As a Christian who has commited adultery, I really sympathise with Christian homosexuals. I have maybe some hope of finding a life long partner and marriage, but what does the Christian homosexual do? Stay on their own forever? Having said that, there are plently of hetrosexuals who also are on their own for life.
I firmly believe though, that God realises our human-ess, hence Him sending his Son to us, and He looks deeper than our physical beings right into our hearts...

metrovelvet

This thread is terrible. Shouldnt someone be discussing the nature of compassion first? What it means to be compassionate? What is sufferring? How we select whom we are compassionate for, strangers or neighbors, what we are compassionate for, for things we ourselves have sufferred or for things we haven't?

Morality in religion is a guideline to avoid sufferring. It does not mean you are not compassionate to those who have sufferred by not following the guidelines.