Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422689 is a reply to message #422683] |
Thu, 18 March 2010 11:41   |
 |
reborn
Messages: 3231
Registered: September 2004
Location: uk - london
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 11:40 |
i think there's no "might" about it. i'm pretty confident that a far greater proportion of heterosexual adults are overly homophobic than homosexual adults.
|
Yeah, you're probably right. There could be some special cases, but pretty much across the board, I would imagine you're right.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 11:40 |
i'd like to think that all parents had unconditional love for their children, but i suspect it isn't always the case.
|
Yeah, it's a sad truth. But having said that, I would guess there is a proportionate amount of homosexual parents lacking this same instinct, too.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 11:40 |
and i think it's a much higher number than you probably think.
|
Hmm, I would aim pretty high. Some friends of the family are in their 60's and they never told their parents. It's very sad, his mother actually passed in January, and he never found the courage to let her know about that side of him.
Two friends of the family in their late Forties do not tell people at work, and at work functions they have a friend to take as their partner. They live a lie, for whatever reasons, this is sad.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 11:40 |
as for whether it's justified, well, it would be difficult to know in advance for sure how your parents would react if you told them you were gay. i wonder how much thought your brother put into it before telling you and your parents?
|
My parents made a point of letting us both know they would love us no matter what we chose. This I believe was in part because they knew (or suspected) my Brother was homosexual from a young age, and felt it would make it easier for him.
However, my Brother still felt he could only tell my Mum, and asked her to let me and my Dad know, he didn't want to talk about it because he was embarrassed. I however felt it was important to tell him I loved him and broke the ice immediately. I think it was the right thing to do.
This only further strengthens your arguement about just how many people tell their parents. My brother and I was fortunate to be raised in such a loving environment, and he still struggled with it.
Although, I kinda pretty much knew much much earlier than when he let me know through my Mum.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 11:40 |
i must admit i think i should be having an easier time refuting it.
|
Well, I suppose it's logical in terms or maths, statistics or whatever. But emotionally and in terms of depth of character it's a pretty dumb argument. Avoiding enlightenment purposefully? lol...
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 11:40 |
i'll be honest, if you had tried to make the point without giving a touching example of someone close to you, i probably wouldn't have thought the argument was worth much.
that is probably more my fault than anything else.
|
I too am guilty of assuming the worst in people. I often think people hide behind arguments that actually hold no stock in themselves, just to avoid saying what they really feel.
I'm glad you can see that I am speaking truthfully, and not just giving possible reasons for the sake of arguing.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422690 is a reply to message #422616] |
Thu, 18 March 2010 11:44 |
|
|
As to whether homosexuality may beget more homosexuality:
In my experience, which when it comes to people who've been abused, which is regrettably extensive, as well as with people who've had happier lives, I've found that sexuality cannot be "learned", enforced, or changed. It is most definately innate.
@WubWub:
As to being made fun of for having same-sex parents, children at school are made fun of for any reason whatsoever. That's a sad fact of life. My repsonse (to bullies in general) often used to relate to how my parents were still in a happy marriage. School includes a pointless game of one-up-manship, it's nothing new.
Are you sure all children need a male rolemodel? I know someone whose father was a drug-taking psychopath who murdered someone in front of her... I wouldn't want her following his lead... (Oh, BTW, she's heterosexual, despite having this negative male influence in her life...)
General point:
Good parents (of either sexuality) should not be concerned for which gender their children (adopted or not) express a preference for (or indeed either gender), but should be concerned with their children being happy in whatever relationship(s) they find.
I'm not homosexual (despite what JohnDoe (probably) thinks) but I could easily tell my parents I was, and there wouldn't be a problem. I guess I'm lucky. I remember when my cousin "came out" as being a lesbian, and my Mum said "What bothers us is that you felt you couldn't tell us.".
Renguard is a wonderful initiative
Toggle Spoiler
| BBC news, quoting... |
Supporters of Proposition 8 will argue California does not discriminate against gays, as the current law allows them to get married - as long as they wed a partner of the opposite sex.
|
| halokid wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 08:46 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 15:35 |
|
the hell is that?
|
[Updated on: Thu, 18 March 2010 11:45] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422691 is a reply to message #422638] |
Thu, 18 March 2010 11:50 |
 |
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 17 March 2010 17:42 |
You say beliefs shouldn't be considered... does that include if they were neo-nazis, for example? Or, to take a more likely (and more relevant) case, if they are a member of an organisation with a policy and history of systematically protecting child rapists from the law and permitting them to continue raping the children in their care? Isn't membership of an organisation as evil as that worth consideration?
|
No, their beliefs still should not be considered. If you start disallowing services to people of certain groups or beliefs, then you are:
1. Doing the exact same thing that Christians are doing against homosexuals.
2. Giving Christians ammunition for arguments concerning why their way of thinking is correct.
It does not matter what group or party or orientation the would-be parents are. If you take another look at the list of priorities I made, you will notice that I said that the child's safety and future should be made first priority. If said organization is indeed into such heinous acts against children, then it stands to reason that they wont meet the qualifications for the first priority that I laid out.
No one should be disallowed a service based on some superficial appearance. They have to be physically proven to actually be either a bad influence or just a bad parent living in poor conditions. And even after a child has been adopted, there should be like a weekly or monthly visit from a child-service agent to check up on the child for at least the first year.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422699 is a reply to message #422667] |
Thu, 18 March 2010 14:34 |
 |
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 02:43 |
Christianity is automatically given a whole block of seats in Parliament. 20-something of them, I believe. (There's never ever been a vote about this - it was set up when the king ran the show and elections were never even thought of.) We the people can vote for one MP for our region, as opposed to Americans who can vote for a senator and a congress member...
And despite all this, despite the fact it's got all this land (which it didn't buy... it was given it by the monarchy), despite the fact it doesn't pay taxes, despite its dodgy financial dealings, it's still financially fucked and it's still always begging the taxpayer to pull it out. Well, I'm sorry, but if a company is doing as badly as that, then going belly-up would be a mercy. I don't see the Archbishop of Canterbury offering to sell either of his two palaces, for example, and living somewhere a little more modest. And this is a man who loves, absolutely loves to lecture we Brits on the dangers of "materialism", which is the best knock at atheism he can think of. That's right - he's basically the CEO of a company which insists on not paying taxes, which has very shady investment practices, which is if not the biggest landowner in the country must come pretty close, and he himself has two palaces both funded by the taxpayer. By comparison, I don't aspire to great wealth or extravagant possessions - give me my basic human rights, the freedom to live my life unharrassed and the freedom to examine and question the world, and to write and play my music, and I'm happy. Who's the materialistic one here, I wonder?
|
Nicely written summary... I think that's way too much involvement in government. I wish you didn't have to put up with that every day.
I don't really have any other comment here, unless you want one.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 02:43 |
What about children, what do you tell them about Christianity?
As for the blasphemy law, well, as ridiculous and immoral as blasphemy laws are, it's in line with Christian teaching. Blasphemy is very sternly prohibited in the Bible, is it not?
|
We teach our Children the faith, yes - that's how I was taught - but we don't go overboard with it, although I suppose the term is open to interpretation. That Jesus camp video posted awhile ago - We'd never do anything like that. My parents took me to church and taught me the religion and that's basically it. I could stop going right now if I wanted to and they probably wouldn't put up much of a fight, maybe a discussion at most.
What do you mean by blasphemy being prohibited? If I'm reading you right, then I see no problem if someone mouths off about Christianity - I can't make them believe, and I wouldn't badmouth atheism or other back at the person.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 02:43 |
I am perfectly happy to recognise the differences between the innumerable flavours of Christianity, so long as they don't deny the similarities (which tend to outnumber the differences)
|
True. As far as I know, there are only a few differences separating Church of Christ and Baptists, mainly the "no-baptism" and "faith-only" beliefs they have (which is why they're a larger group, I suspect).
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 02:43 |
This seems a rather contradictory position.
|
It's hard to explain. Abortion might be a good example... when abortion was legalized in some states of the US, we fought the passage of the law because we don't believe abortion is right. But I would not physically attempt to stop someone from getting an abortion, neither would I attack the clinic, as I've heard some do before.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422707 is a reply to message #422689] |
Thu, 18 March 2010 15:53 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| reborn wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 13:41 |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 11:40 |
as for whether it's justified, well, it would be difficult to know in advance for sure how your parents would react if you told them you were gay. i wonder how much thought your brother put into it before telling you and your parents?
|
My parents made a point of letting us both know they would love us no matter what we chose. This I believe was in part because they knew (or suspected) my Brother was homosexual from a young age, and felt it would make it easier for him.
However, my Brother still felt he could only tell my Mum, and asked her to let me and my Dad know, he didn't want to talk about it because he was embarrassed. I however felt it was important to tell him I loved him and broke the ice immediately. I think it was the right thing to do.
This only further strengthens your arguement about just how many people tell their parents. My brother and I was fortunate to be raised in such a loving environment, and he still struggled with it.
|
yeah, exactly. he was fortunate to have understanding parents and a great brother. you say he suffered a lot over his sexuality - imagine how much worse it would have been for him if his family, the only people in the world who you ought to be able to expect to love you for who you are, had been less tolerant of homosexuality.
i'm sure a lot of people aren't so lucky.
there are a distressing number of parents, particularly christians in the US (though it happens here too) who think that homosexuality ought to be and can be cured through counselling, and send their kids there. i think that this is the worst thing a parent can do in the situation. the kid knows he's gay and isn't going to magically become straight, and in response to all the bullying he may have suffered from ignorant kids at school, he's basically getting the message that: you're tempted to an immoral lifestyle, you're the one here who needs to change your ways, not the pricks who pick on you.
sure, the parents probably have good intentions but i still think it's the last thing the child needs to hear.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 11:40 |
i must admit i think i should be having an easier time refuting it.
|
Well, I suppose it's logical in terms or maths, statistics or whatever. But emotionally and in terms of depth of character it's a pretty dumb argument. Avoiding enlightenment purposefully? lol...
|
just saying that your argument wasn't really any different than the one put forward earlier, i.e. the only real objection is that the kid is more likely to be picked on.
my initial reaction to it was basically that we just need to combat homophobia (and you don't do that by taking the child aside and saying these bullies are basically justified in having a go at you every day), and that kids bully each other for all sorts of reasons. it wasn't until you gave a very moving example that it gave me pause.
| CarrierII wrote |
As to whether homosexuality may beget more homosexuality:
In my experience, which when it comes to people who've been abused, which is regrettably extensive, as well as with people who've had happier lives, I've found that sexuality cannot be "learned", enforced, or changed. It is most definately innate.
|
no shit. the quickest response to anybody who is confused as to whether sexuality is a choice or not is to tell them simply to ask a gay person, preferably one who's your friend already so you don't come across as hostile.
| Quote: |
@WubWub:
As to being made fun of for having same-sex parents, children at school are made fun of for any reason whatsoever. That's a sad fact of life. My repsonse (to bullies in general) often used to relate to how my parents were still in a happy marriage. School includes a pointless game of one-up-manship, it's nothing new.
|
Good one. Quite cheap, but it's a good response.
| R315r4z0r wrote |
No, their beliefs still should not be considered. If you start disallowing services to people of certain groups or beliefs, then you are:
1. Doing the exact same thing that Christians are doing against homosexuals.
2. Giving Christians ammunition for arguments concerning why their way of thinking is correct.
It does not matter what group or party or orientation the would-be parents are. If you take another look at the list of priorities I made, you will notice that I said that the child's safety and future should be made first priority. If said organization is indeed into such heinous acts against children, then it stands to reason that they wont meet the qualifications for the first priority that I laid out.
|
it was basically a rhetorical answer. the real issue is that this condemnation of homosexuality in regards to the welfare of children is coming from an organisation whose policy and track record of the children in its care is about as bad as it gets. i wasn't really talking about a catholic couple being about to adopt a kid; that should be fine. i'm talking about the fact that a catholic group (an adoption agency, a school) ought to be given authority over kids' welfare at all should be quite alarming, and yet it has enormous control.
| Altzan wrote |
Nicely written summary... I think that's way too much involvement in government. I wish you didn't have to put up with that every day.
I don't really have any other comment here, unless you want one.
|
i'm curious to hear your response to what i said about religions having control over schools.
| Quote: |
We teach our Children the faith, yes - that's how I was taught - but we don't go overboard with it, although I suppose the term is open to interpretation. That Jesus camp video posted awhile ago - We'd never do anything like that. My parents took me to church and taught me the religion and that's basically it. I could stop going right now if I wanted to and they probably wouldn't put up much of a fight, maybe a discussion at most.
|
That's what I thought. How objectively did they "teach you the faith"? For example, did they teach it as though it were revealed truth? Did they tell you right from the start that there's no evidence at all that the judeo-christian/islamic god even exists, let alone that this book and this religion is a reflection on what he expects of us? Did they point out to you that the book itself can't even get its own story straight? Did they tell you right from the start that there are all these other religions, as well as the possibility of living your life without one? (They probably had to say that two particular religions - Islam and Mormonism - are specifically untrue, because if they were true then you can't really avoid converting to them away from Christianity). Did they tell you the absolutely incalculable damage that the various flavours of Christianity have caused? Just off the top of my head... persecution of other religions every time it thought it could get away with it, two thousand years of horrific anti-semitism and anti-gay people, violently standing in the way of scientific progress, the crusades, the inquisition, willing tool of imperialism and of a huge list of dictators throughout the ages, enthusiastic ally of fascism in europe, and the enormous death toll it's helped to rack up by assisting the spread of AIDS by absurd rules on condoms, especially in africa?
if they didn't tell you all that, then you weren't taught fairly.
and here's something that you may have been taught: were you at any point told that "faith" is a good thing?
| Quote: |
What do you mean by blasphemy being prohibited? If I'm reading you right, then I see no problem if someone mouths off about Christianity - I can't make them believe, and I wouldn't badmouth atheism or other back at the person.
|
when I say blasphemy is prohibited, i refer to the stern warnings in the bible that your god isn't going to put up with it. the death penalty is mentioned a few times. this would appear to be a "sin", then (as is worshipping a different god, or having doubts about your god)
| Quote: |
It's hard to explain. Abortion might be a good example... when abortion was legalized in some states of the US, we fought the passage of the law because we don't believe abortion is right. But I would not physically attempt to stop someone from getting an abortion, neither would I attack the clinic, as I've heard some do before.
|
actually, abortion isn't a good example of what i meant, because there are genuine arguments against abortion. when i say genuine argument i mean something better than "god doesn't want this happening", which is a totally meaningless statement until you've proven that -a- your god exists, -b- he does indeed feel that way, and then you still have to make the case that what he wants is more important than democracy.
no, i'm talking about things like homosexuality, blasphemy, dietary requirements etc, for which the genuine secular case against them has yet to be made. if these are things that your religion doesn't like, then you avoid doing them yourself, leave the rest of us alone and the town is big enough for the both of us, hmmm?
sadly that's not the case with so many religious people, and your statement implied that it's the same sort of thing with you... i.e. if it's a "sin" then you ought to fight to keep it banned.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422709 is a reply to message #422707] |
Thu, 18 March 2010 16:57 |
|
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 16:53 |
i'm curious to hear your response to what i said about religions having control over schools.
|
I don't think religious schools work well, or at all - a school implies they are teaching fact, whereas religion is a belief that another may not share. So school and religion don't really mix.
If anything, everyone should have a choice as to whether or not they want to attend.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 16:53 |
That's what I thought. How objectively did they "teach you the faith"? For example, did they teach it as though it were revealed truth? Did they tell you right from the start that there's no evidence at all that the judeo-christian/islamic god even exists, let alone that this book and this religion is a reflection on what he expects of us? Did they point out to you that the book itself can't even get its own story straight? Did they tell you right from the start that there are all these other religions, as well as the possibility of living your life without one? (They probably had to say that two particular religions - Islam and Mormonism - are specifically untrue, because if they were true then you can't really avoid converting to them away from Christianity). Did they tell you the absolutely incalculable damage that the various flavours of Christianity have caused? Just off the top of my head... persecution of other religions every time it thought it could get away with it, two thousand years of horrific anti-semitism and anti-gay people, violently standing in the way of scientific progress, the crusades, the inquisition, willing tool of imperialism and of a huge list of dictators throughout the ages, enthusiastic ally of fascism in europe, and the enormous death toll it's helped to rack up by assisting the spread of AIDS by absurd rules on condoms, especially in africa?
if they didn't tell you all that, then you weren't taught fairly.
|
If I had to learn all that first, I'd be too overwhelmed to make an informed decision.
The only time it can be taught 'fair' is if you learn it all for yourself, because it's obvious that if anyone teaches you, they'll present their own biased view along with it.
Also, I have to point out that all that horrible occurrences you mentioned are committed by men. It's unfair to blame it all on the religion when it's the people's fault, who want to pin all of it on their religion and saying they were commanded to do so, when they often weren't.
If I were present at any of the above listed persecution or tyranny, I'd be actively against it as well.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 16:53 |
and here's something that you may have been taught: were you at any point told that "faith" is a good thing?
|
Seeing as how most, if not all, religions are based on faith, then yes.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 16:53 |
when I say blasphemy is prohibited, i refer to the stern warnings in the bible that your god isn't going to put up with it. the death penalty is mentioned a few times. this would appear to be a "sin", then (as is worshipping a different god, or having doubts about your god)
|
Blasphemy = sin, then? We don't act against sinners. We believe God will, so I'm guessing that's where the problem lies. There are apparently a lot of people in Christianity who want to take God's judgment and wield it themselves against others.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 16:53 |
actually, abortion isn't a good example of what i meant, because there are genuine arguments against abortion. when i say genuine argument i mean something better than "god doesn't want this happening", which is a totally meaningless statement until you've proven that -a- your god exists, -b- he does indeed feel that way, and then you still have to make the case that what he wants is more important than democracy.
no, i'm talking about things like homosexuality, blasphemy, dietary requirements etc, for which the genuine secular case against them has yet to be made. if these are things that your religion doesn't like, then you avoid doing them yourself, leave the rest of us alone and the town is big enough for the both of us, hmmm?
sadly that's not the case with so many religious people, and your statement implied that it's the same sort of thing with you... i.e. if it's a "sin" then you ought to fight to keep it banned.
|
I'd be against it just as much as a non-believer who is also against homosexuality would be. I'm talking in terms of letting our voices be heard. If I don't believe homosexuality is right, I'll stand up and say so, same as those who don't think a religion is right will stand up and say so.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422711 is a reply to message #422709] |
Thu, 18 March 2010 17:55 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 17:57 |
I don't think religious schools work well, or at all - a school implies they are teaching fact, whereas religion is a belief that another may not share. So school and religion don't really mix.
If anything, everyone should have a choice as to whether or not they want to attend.
|
and should this not apply to parents too? would it not also make sense for parents not to fill the head of a child with religion before they're old enough to think critically about it?
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 16:53 |
If I had to learn all that first, I'd be too overwhelmed to make an informed decision.
|
but you can't make an informed decision without it, can you?
furthermore, is belief really a "decision"? most christian sects say that you will suffer the most horrific punishment imaginable if you believe the wrong thing, or to phrase it differently, if you don't believe the right thing. well, i could make an outward display of christianity. i could pretend i believed all this, i could probably fool anyone who took the time to wonder what my religious beliefs were, but if this god of yours can see and know everything including the contents of our minds, then i wouldn't be fooling god and i wouldn't be avoiding hell. what i can't do is flick a switch and make myself believe any of this, it's not the way the mind works, or at least not the way my mind works.
| Quote: |
The only time it can be taught 'fair' is if you learn it all for yourself, because it's obvious that if anyone teaches you, they'll present their own biased view along with it.
|
then see above re: protecting kids from it.
i'm an adult. you preach to me as much as you like, you present your case for believing what you believe and why you think it would be a good idea for me to believe it too, i would never tell you to shut up and i don't want anyone else telling you on my behalf. but i'm old enough to think critically, to hear a thing from someone and recognise that it might not be true, they might be mistaken or they might be plain lying, it might not be exactly as they say it is, it's worth asking why they think it or how they think they know it, etc etc etc, as well as what the implications are.
it's not the same for children. they're taught to take in what their parents and teachers say. without that idea, education falls apart.
| Quote: |
Also, I have to point out that all that horrible occurrences you mentioned are committed by men. It's unfair to blame it all on the religion when it's the people's fault, who want to pin all of it on their religion and saying they were commanded to do so, when they often weren't.
If I were present at any of the above listed persecution or tyranny, I'd be actively against it as well.
|
firstly, i did not include events done by people who simply happened to be christian. that would be unfair. only when christianity had a real part in influencing the actions.
if you'd like to hear a justification for any of the examples i mentioned, feel free to challenge any of these and i'll defend them. here are all the ones i cited off the top of my head:
- two thousand years of horrific anti-semitism and anti-gay people
- violently standing in the way of scientific progress
- the crusades
- the inquisition
- willing tool of imperialism and of a huge list of dictators throughout the ages
- enthusiastic ally of fascism in europe
- the enormous death toll it's helped to rack up by assisting the spread of AIDS by absurd rules on condoms, especially in africa
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 16:53 |
| Quote: |
and here's something that you may have been taught: were you at any point told that "faith" is a good thing?
|
Seeing as how most, if not all, religions are based on faith, then yes.
|
So what's "faith" (i'm just checking that your definition is the same as mine), and why is it a good thing?
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 16:53 |
Blasphemy = sin, then?
|
i'm sorry, but you speak as someone who is not familiar with your bible. the depiction of god is as a ruthless maniac at the best of times, but the things that really, really piss him off the most are worshipping other gods, having doubts about him, and blaspheming him.
| Quote: |
We don't act against sinners. We believe God will, so I'm guessing that's where the problem lies.
|
Two questions, then.
1. Why oppose other things that are "sins" being made legal, if you believe God's going to sort it out? That's what you said earlier.
2. Are you OK with the belief that God will act against it? Myself, for example? If your religion is true then I've got a bit of trouble ahead; you've alluded to it yourself. Do you approve of that?
| Quote: |
There are apparently a lot of people in Christianity who want to take God's judgment and wield it themselves against others.
|
And how exactly can you fault them? My case against them is pretty straightforward - i don't think the god's real, i think that even if the god is real it would not mean that this book is anything to do with him, and i think a lot of the rules are bullshit anyway. I'm curious to hear what your objection to that is if you do believe in god, if you do believe that the bible is a good reflection of what he expects of us.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 16:53 |
I'd be against it just as much as a non-believer who is also against homosexuality would be.
|
Really? Most non-believers who are against homosexuality generally just don't want to do it themselves. They don't want to restrict the rights of those who are homosexual, and they don't insist on filling the minds of children with homophobia in schools, and those are the real problems.
| Quote: |
I'm talking in terms of letting our voices be heard. If I don't believe homosexuality is right, I'll stand up and say so, same as those who don't think a religion is right will stand up and say so.
|
and i absolutely defend your right to say that.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Thu, 18 March 2010 17:56] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422730 is a reply to message #422711] |
Thu, 18 March 2010 22:02 |
|
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 |
and should this not apply to parents too? would it not also make sense for parents not to fill the head of a child with religion before they're old enough to think critically about it?
|
It makes sense, yes. Unfortuantely, I don't think the chances of that will rise anytime soon.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 |
but you can't make an informed decision without it, can you?
|
Nope. But I have yet to meet or hear of a parent who will give all this info before asking their child to make a decision.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 |
furthermore, is belief really a "decision"? most christian sects say that you will suffer the most horrific punishment imaginable if you believe the wrong thing, or to phrase it differently, if you don't believe the right thing. well, i could make an outward display of christianity. i could pretend i believed all this, i could probably fool anyone who took the time to wonder what my religious beliefs were, but if this god of yours can see and know everything including the contents of our minds, then i wouldn't be fooling god and i wouldn't be avoiding hell. what i can't do is flick a switch and make myself believe any of this, it's not the way the mind works, or at least not the way my mind works.
|
Why would it not be a decision? You've seen arguments on both sides and you've decided what you want to believe. That's a decision on your part, and you can't 'flip a switch' because it's considered an important decision, therefore you won't change your mind without heavy consideration.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 |
then see above re: protecting kids from it.
i'm an adult. you preach to me as much as you like, you present your case for believing what you believe and why you think it would be a good idea for me to believe it too, i would never tell you to shut up and i don't want anyone else telling you on my behalf. but i'm old enough to think critically, to hear a thing from someone and recognise that it might not be true, they might be mistaken or they might be plain lying, it might not be exactly as they say it is, it's worth asking why they think it or how they think they know it, etc etc etc, as well as what the implications are.
it's not the same for children. they're taught to take in what their parents and teachers say. without that idea, education falls apart.
|
Very true.
I'm curious - if you were to have a child of your own, what method would you use to teach him what theories there are about the origin of man and Earth while being neutral?
I'm not asking for a huge explanation. But you support the idea of letting a child become old enough to understand that there are many ideas and theories out there, and allow them to decide for themselves.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 |
firstly, i did not include events done by people who simply happened to be christian. that would be unfair. only when christianity had a real part in influencing the actions.
if you'd like to hear a justification for any of the examples i mentioned, feel free to challenge any of these and i'll defend them. here are all the ones i cited off the top of my head:
- two thousand years of horrific anti-semitism and anti-gay people
- violently standing in the way of scientific progress
- the crusades
- the inquisition
- willing tool of imperialism and of a huge list of dictators throughout the ages
- enthusiastic ally of fascism in europe
- the enormous death toll it's helped to rack up by assisting the spread of AIDS by absurd rules on condoms, especially in africa
|
I can tell by the list that you know your history. I do not possess such knowledge (yet). If you want to defend a few, go ahead, but I won't pick and choose myself.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 |
So what's "faith" (i'm just checking that your definition is the same as mine), and why is it a good thing?
|
Hebrews 1:11
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (KJV)
I know that you don't consider faith to be good enough, that you want proof before belief. I respect that decision.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 |
i'm sorry, but you speak as someone who is not familiar with your bible. the depiction of god is as a ruthless maniac at the best of times, but the things that really, really piss him off the most are worshipping other gods, having doubts about him, and blaspheming him.
|
In the Old Testament, he was active against those who didn't believe. This was mainly because he was giving them proof he existed. For example, he threw 12 plagues at Pharoh to convince him to let the Israelites go. Not too long later, Moses goes up Mt. Sinai to talk with God, and they build and start worshipping a golden cow. They knew for a fact he existed, but were against him just the same.
(Note that I speak in context of the Bible, in token with your examples being pulled from the Bible as well.)
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 |
1. Why oppose other things that are "sins" being made legal, if you believe God's going to sort it out? That's what you said earlier.
2. Are you OK with the belief that God will act against it? Myself, for example? If your religion is true then I've got a bit of trouble ahead; you've alluded to it yourself. Do you approve of that?
|
1. Because I don't think they're morally right. We've seen many cases where a person hears what we have to say and genuinely is interested to learn about it - but they shy away later, because they have this one 'pet sin' (homosexuality, drinking, fornication, etc) that they are too attached to and would rather take the easy road.
2. I don't see why a God should pander to those who refuse to believe in him. If you decide he doesn't exist, I won't bang my head on the wall trying to change your mind (I'd make some effort, but not an overbearing one). But why should he cater to those who disregard him?
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 |
And how exactly can you fault them? My case against them is pretty straightforward - i don't think the god's real, i think that even if the god is real it would not mean that this book is anything to do with him, and i think a lot of the rules are bullshit anyway. I'm curious to hear what your objection to that is if you do believe in god, if you do believe that the bible is a good reflection of what he expects of us.
|
I don't have an objection to your belief. Unlike others, I won't persecute you because you don't believe in God, even if I had the power to.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 |
Really? Most non-believers who are against homosexuality generally just don't want to do it themselves. They don't want to restrict the rights of those who are homosexual, and they don't insist on filling the minds of children with homophobia in schools, and those are the real problems.
|
Bad wording on my part, then. Look to my earlier comment on 'pet sins'.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 |
and i absolutely defend your right to say that.
|
Good to know 
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422731 is a reply to message #422730] |
Thu, 18 March 2010 22:57 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:02 |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 |
and should this not apply to parents too? would it not also make sense for parents not to fill the head of a child with religion before they're old enough to think critically about it?
|
It makes sense, yes. Unfortuantely, I don't think the chances of that will rise anytime soon.
|
it's good to hear a religious person who agrees with this view.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 |
but you can't make an informed decision without it, can you?
|
Nope. But I have yet to meet or hear of a parent who will give all this info before asking their child to make a decision.
|
says it all, really, doesn't it?
| Quote: |
Why would it not be a decision? You've seen arguments on both sides and you've decided what you want to believe. That's a decision on your part, and you can't 'flip a switch' because it's considered an important decision, therefore you won't change your mind without heavy consideration.
|
see above re: not how the mind works. finding something believable or finding something incredible really isn't a 'decision'.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 |
Very true.
I'm curious - if you were to have a child of your own, what method would you use to teach him what theories there are about the origin of man and Earth while being neutral?
I'm not asking for a huge explanation. But you support the idea of letting a child become old enough to understand that there are many ideas and theories out there, and allow them to decide for themselves.
|
well, i don't want kids of my own but i'll answer anyway. this would also apply to educational policies.
nothing religious, nothing that is dependent on 'faith' belongs in a science class. certainly you can tell people that a lot of people believe the genesis story, for example, just so long as you point out that we don't know who even wrote it, when, why, and how they knew what to write. and on that basis, and the fact there's no evidence at all to support the writing, it does not qualify as a "theory", as for example the big bang and evolution do.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 |
I can tell by the list that you know your history. I do not possess such knowledge (yet). If you want to defend a few, go ahead, but I won't pick and choose myself.
|
there's no need so long as you acknowledge that christianity does have a bad side. i expect that even if you aren't convinced of everything on my list, you're probably nodding at a couple of them. and if you're really teaching someone about the religion, it's only fair to include the bad bits as well as the good, the way the religion behaved when it really had power.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 18:55 |
So what's "faith" (i'm just checking that your definition is the same as mine), and why is it a good thing?
|
Hebrews 1:11
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (KJV)
|
I thought you'd say that. I have no idea why people can't see what a really, really stupid sentence it is.
Evidence simply means seen, something observable to support a claim. It's a completely nonsensical statement.
I generally hear faith to mean the willingness to believe something without proof, and I've never, ever, ever heard why that would be a good thing. Especially since it's usually applied to propositions that, if they were true, would have enormous consequences - things like heaven and hell. So someone says: he'd make a good president because he's a person of faith. You're telling me he's willing to believe extremely important things without having a good reason to believe them? I can't imagine why anyone considers faith a good thing other than the fact they've been told it is. But I'm about to take this in a different direction... read on.
| Quote: |
I know that you don't consider faith to be good enough, that you want proof before belief. I respect that decision.
|
It's not that simple. Someone trustworthy tells me they went to the supermarket yesterday, no proof is required.
Here's a claim.
The one true god has actually provided an update since Christianity, through a series of revelations involving a prophet in the 7th/8th century. The holy books arising from this revelation make it clear that the only way to heaven now is to follow the new religion, and those people who stay Christian are going to end up in hell with all the other infidels.
I assume you don't believe that this is true, that you are not convinced that the Prophet Mohammed actually was the real deal. So I'm not the only one who wants proof before believing certain things. Have a good think about why it is you don't believe this.
| Quote: |
In the Old Testament, he was active against those who didn't believe. This was mainly because he was giving them proof he existed. For example, he threw 12 plagues at Pharoh to convince him to let the Israelites go. Not too long later, Moses goes up Mt. Sinai to talk with God, and they build and start worshipping a golden cow. They knew for a fact he existed, but were against him just the same.
|
He also instructed his followers that if they find a city containing people who worship other gods, that everyone in the city ought to be slaughtered. Everyone in the city.
The same objection can be made to the two examples you mention. Pharaoh and the plagues. Specifically the death of the first-born.
The slaughter of innocent children as punishment for the crime of their dictator. Well, why not just kill Pharaoh? Why kill innocent people? Same could probably be said for the golden calf; moses instructs every man to kill his brother, ec etc etc. They were all worshipping the golden calf, were they? And is it really just to have half the men slaughtered and the other half turned into executioners?
But hey, I don't regard the bible as being a good source of morals, nor do I have any particular reason to think that any of the stories are true, so these aren't problems from my perspective.
(Note that I speak in context of the Bible, in token with your examples being pulled from the Bible as well.)
| Quote: |
1. Because I don't think they're morally right. We've seen many cases where a person hears what we have to say and genuinely is interested to learn about it - but they shy away later, because they have this one 'pet sin' (homosexuality, drinking, fornication, etc) that they are too attached to and would rather take the easy road.
|
Well, I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality. I'm not attached to that, but I see the right of gay people to live their lives unharrassed under the same laws as the rest of us as a basic human right, as is free speech (see blasphemy laws). I'm not attached to a homosexual lifestyle, I'm attached to basic human rights. As for taking the easy road, I personally think turning over all moral decisions to a book would count as an easy road instead of using our brains to actually think about actions, which are wrong, and why they're wrong, such as whether they actually cause suffering or not.
| Quote: |
2. I don't see why a God should pander to those who refuse to believe in him. If you decide he doesn't exist, I won't bang my head on the wall trying to change your mind (I'd make some effort, but not an overbearing one). But why should he cater to those who disregard him?
|
Firstly, it's not a case of God "not doing you any favours then". We're told that he will visit appalling punishments upon us. That's not simply god deciding he's not going to give me any more pocket money.
Secondly, if disregarding him and thinking he doesn't exist makes him angry, he should have taken the time to come up with a less ridiculously incompetent revelation.
Thirdly, what kind of moral system is this? You said religions depend on faith (and you probably didn't realise what a deathblow you dealt when you said that). Here's an extraordinary claim, we aren't going to show you any evidence, you've got to decide it's true and you'll be horribly punished if you've got your doubts? What the fuck?
| Quote: |
I don't have an objection to your belief. Unlike others, I won't persecute you because you don't believe in God, even if I had the power to.
|
Yeah, but my question was how are you going to say that these other people are doing anything wrong if they did try that?
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422732 is a reply to message #422616] |
Thu, 18 March 2010 23:02 |
raven
Messages: 595
Registered: January 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
I find it absolutely appalling that the Churches have this much influence over governments. Religion has no place in the lawmaking and decision-making bodies of todays governments.
I also see this as not a step backwards from acceptance of homosexuality, but a step towards homosexuality becoming illegal again. I'm gay. Does that mean I can't do things as well as someone who is straight? Does it mean that I can't raise a child with all the love and support it needs? Does it mean I can't be a role model for the child? Quite frankly, I could probably do a better job than a lot of straight couples could. Would this mean a child might grow up to be a homosexual because his/her parents are? Probably not. I am a firm believer that homosexuality is something that you are born with, it's NOT a choice. I didn't choose this lifestyle.. who would? It's hard to live as a homosexual. Although more people are open minded nowadays, its still seen as taboo in a lot of places.
I could go on for pages on this subject so I'll stop there. Just giving my view on this :>
-Jelly Administrator
-Exodus Administrator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422744 is a reply to message #422742] |
Fri, 19 March 2010 01:58 |
|
reborn
Messages: 3231
Registered: September 2004
Location: uk - london
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Kimb wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 03:34 |
I do believe thats what I said. Does it matter?
|
nope, just checking[/quote]
LOL, you have a book of who's gay and who isn't or something? 
Raven, as a gay man, do you believe that you're either born homosexual, or not, and that's the only possibility?
Or is there any room to become homosexual due to environment?
I believe you already answered that quite clearly already, but I just want to make sure.
I have always believed that people can be born homosexual, and this probably makes up for most of all homosexuals, no doubt. However, I also am inclined to think that people can become homosexual due to environment. Is this at least plausable, or infact insulting to even suggest?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422745 is a reply to message #422744] |
Fri, 19 March 2010 02:31 |
 |
Herr Surth
Messages: 1684
Registered: July 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| reborn wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 02:58 |
LOL, you have a book of who's gay and who isn't or something? Razz
Raven, as a gay man, do you believe that you're either born homosexual, or not, and that's the only possibility?
Or is there any room to become homosexual due to environment?
I believe you already answered that quite clearly already, but I just want to make sure.
I have always believed that people can be born homosexual, and this probably makes up for most of all homosexuals, no doubt. However, I also am inclined to think that people can become homosexual due to environment. Is this at least plausable, or infact insulting to even suggest?
|
the thing is, IT DOESNT FUCKING MATTER EITHER WAY.
[Updated on: Fri, 19 March 2010 02:32] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422750 is a reply to message #422732] |
Fri, 19 March 2010 04:34 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| raven wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 00:02 |
I find it absolutely appalling that the Churches have this much influence over governments. Religion has no place in the lawmaking and decision-making bodies of todays governments.
I also see this as not a step backwards from acceptance of homosexuality, but a step towards homosexuality becoming illegal again. I'm gay. Does that mean I can't do things as well as someone who is straight? Does it mean that I can't raise a child with all the love and support it needs? Does it mean I can't be a role model for the child? Quite frankly, I could probably do a better job than a lot of straight couples could. Would this mean a child might grow up to be a homosexual because his/her parents are? Probably not. I am a firm believer that homosexuality is something that you are born with, it's NOT a choice. I didn't choose this lifestyle.. who would? It's hard to live as a homosexual. Although more people are open minded nowadays, its still seen as taboo in a lot of places.
I could go on for pages on this subject so I'll stop there. Just giving my view on this :>
|
mmhmm ^^
i think that not only is there little reason to think that a homosexual adult would be a worse parent than a heterosexual, there's one particular quality in which a homosexual parent is probably going to do better.
take the chance that the child is homosexual. not at all a small chance, i'm not sure what the figures are. everyone ought to read reborn's posts earlier on, for a real story about real suffering homosexual people often put up with, but reborn's brother was very lucky in that he had understanding parents and brother. well, a lot of people are actively homophobic, and let's be honest, homosexuals are not going to give someone grief for being gay, are they? heterosexuals might well do that, even to their kids, especially if they're religious.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422752 is a reply to message #422744] |
Fri, 19 March 2010 04:36 |
 |
Kimb
Messages: 607
Registered: August 2009
Location: There is no greater power...
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| reborn |
| Kimb wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 09:58 |
| Raven wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 03:34 |
I do believe thats what I said. Does it matter?
|
nope, just checking
|
LOL, you have a book of who's gay and who isn't or something?
Raven, as a gay man, do you believe that you're either born homosexual, or not, and that's the only possibility?
Or is there any room to become homosexual due to environment?
I believe you already answered that quite clearly already, but I just want to make sure.
I have always believed that people can be born homosexual, and this probably makes up for most of all homosexuals, no doubt. However, I also am inclined to think that people can become homosexual due to environment. Is this at least plausable, or infact insulting to even suggest?
|
@your fail quote, what i ment, is that i was just cheking if he ment it, or if it was an example
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is what we do.
| CarrierII wrote on Fri 21 May 2010 06:58 |
This doesn't meet the minimum standards of spam.
|
[Updated on: Fri, 19 March 2010 04:37] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422779 is a reply to message #422744] |
Fri, 19 March 2010 12:17 |
raven
Messages: 595
Registered: January 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| reborn wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 02:58 |
| Kimb wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 03:34 |
nope, just checking
|
LOL, you have a book of who's gay and who isn't or something?
Raven, as a gay man, do you believe that you're either born homosexual, or not, and that's the only possibility?
Or is there any room to become homosexual due to environment?
I believe you already answered that quite clearly already, but I just want to make sure.
I have always believed that people can be born homosexual, and this probably makes up for most of all homosexuals, no doubt. However, I also am inclined to think that people can become homosexual due to environment. Is this at least plausable, or infact insulting to even suggest?
|
I believe that you are born as either gay or straight (or both) and that is indeed the only possibility.
Environment may influence a choice one makes, to try and experiment in different types of relationships, but at the end of the day you are born as you are born and nothing can change that.
It's not insulting to suggest; solid scientific evidence or research hasn't been done in this area that I am aware of so its perfectly fine for people to hypothesize 
-Jelly Administrator
-Exodus Administrator
[Updated on: Fri, 19 March 2010 12:18] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422780 is a reply to message #422616] |
Fri, 19 March 2010 12:26 |
 |
GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605
Registered: March 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
I don't really buy into the "you're born homosexual" thing, but obviously they're not pretending either.
I think of it being like discovering you have a new sexual fetish- you weren't necessarily "born" with it, but you're hardly faking it when you enjoy it.
That being said, if anything, an environment makes you LESS likely to be homosexual- considering how overly homophobic society is, and all.
Toggle Spoiler| Scrin wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 13:22 |
| cAmpa wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 12:45 |
Scrin, stop pming people to get the building bars.
|
FUCK YOU AND THIS SHIT GAME WITH YOUR SCRIPTS!!! I HAVE ASKING YOU AND ANOTHER NOOBS HERE ABOUT HELP WITH THAT BUILDING ICONS FEATURES FOR YEARS, BUT YOU KEEP IGNORING ME AND KEEP WRITE SHIT, SO BURN YOU AND YOUR ASSLICKERS FRIENDS, THIS TIME I'M NOT COME BACK!!!!!!!!!   
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422787 is a reply to message #422616] |
Fri, 19 March 2010 13:43 |
|
reborn
Messages: 3231
Registered: September 2004
Location: uk - london
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
I suppose to suggest that if a hetrosexual can become homosexual due to environment, then it would also suggest that a homosexual can become hetrosexual due to environment also. I don't think the latter is possible, so therefore the former must not be possible either.
Then again, look at religion and how parents affect children in this regard. Islam anyone?
I am using this example because it demonstrates so clearly the affect parents have on their children, please understand I am not trying to suggest that homosexuals go around trying to brainwash young children.
[Updated on: Fri, 19 March 2010 13:50] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422804 is a reply to message #422731] |
Fri, 19 March 2010 19:37 |
|
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 |
there's no need so long as you acknowledge that christianity does have a bad side. i expect that even if you aren't convinced of everything on my list, you're probably nodding at a couple of them. and if you're really teaching someone about the religion, it's only fair to include the bad bits as well as the good, the way the religion behaved when it really had power.
|
But I still want to know why it's Christianity's fault for most of these - take a look at what happened, what these people did, and I'll see if there's anyplace in the Bible where they were commanded to do them. And I'm talking New Testament here, not the fools who think the Old Testament is still in power and sacrifices are still demanded and whatnot.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 |
I thought you'd say that. I have no idea why people can't see what a really, really stupid sentence it is.
Evidence simply means seen, something observable to support a claim. It's a completely nonsensical statement.
I generally hear faith to mean the willingness to believe something without proof, and I've never, ever, ever heard why that would be a good thing. Especially since it's usually applied to propositions that, if they were true, would have enormous consequences - things like heaven and hell. So someone says: he'd make a good president because he's a person of faith. You're telling me he's willing to believe extremely important things without having a good reason to believe them? I can't imagine why anyone considers faith a good thing other than the fact they've been told it is.
|
The religion isn't bound to pure blind faith. The problem is that our faith is founded on several factors you consider to be theories. (And honestly, theories probably is a good word for them because I can't provide explicit certain proof that, say, the Bible was written by the will of God.)
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 |
It's not that simple. Someone trustworthy tells me they went to the supermarket yesterday, no proof is required.
Here's a claim.
The one true god has actually provided an update since Christianity, through a series of revelations involving a prophet in the 7th/8th century. The holy books arising from this revelation make it clear that the only way to heaven now is to follow the new religion, and those people who stay Christian are going to end up in hell with all the other infidels.
I assume you don't believe that this is true, that you are not convinced that the Prophet Mohammed actually was the real deal. So I'm not the only one who wants proof before believing certain things. Have a good think about why it is you don't believe this.
|
Quick answer? The Bible we follow was paved with examples, demonstrations. From Old Testament to Christ. The final version of the Bible that we follow today was finalized shortly after Jesus' death, If I recall correctly. And all up to that point, there were involvements by God and Jesus, and mmiracles by the apostles.
Mohammed offered nothing like that at all.
But the problem - I didn't see God's message to Mohammed. I also didn't see Jesus himself or the apostles. Our faith, essentially, is built on our ancestor's experiences.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 |
He also instructed his followers that if they find a city containing people who worship other gods, that everyone in the city ought to be slaughtered. Everyone in the city.
The slaughter of innocent children as punishment for the crime of their dictator. Well, why not just kill Pharaoh? Why kill innocent people? Same could probably be said for the golden calf; moses instructs every man to kill his brother, ec etc etc. They were all worshipping the golden calf, were they? And is it really just to have half the men slaughtered and the other half turned into executioners?
|
They weren't wiped out by God purely for nonbelief. They weren;t wiped out by God just because they worshipped false gods, either. They were doing far worse things, such as sacrificing their children to their gods.
As for the children dying - they didn't go to hell. Since they weren't old enough to understand, they went to heaven. If they had lived, though, it would be far worse - they'd have a warped view of what happened that day, and probably rebelled against those people by instinct.
Only other option is to let all the people live, and continue their false worship and human sacrifice. Good idea.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 |
Firstly, it's not a case of God "not doing you any favours then". We're told that he will visit appalling punishments upon us. That's not simply god deciding he's not going to give me any more pocket money.
|
Okay, but still, why shouldn't he act the way he has promised he will? Are you saying the punishment should be less severe?
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 |
Secondly, if disregarding him and thinking he doesn't exist makes him angry, he should have taken the time to come up with a less ridiculously incompetent revelation.
|
How is it incompetent?
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 |
Thirdly, what kind of moral system is this? You said religions depend on faith (and you probably didn't realise what a deathblow you dealt when you said that). Here's an extraordinary claim, we aren't going to show you any evidence, you've got to decide it's true and you'll be horribly punished if you've got your doubts? What the fuck?
|
re: not just faith alone.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 |
Yeah, but my question was how are you going to say that these other people are doing anything wrong if they did try that?
|
Sorry, you lost me...
EDIT: Can I get your opinion on this passage I found?
| Quote: |
Our pre-suppositions can be self-destructive! One is at risk of having built a house on sand. When the rains of existence come down, the house may not stand. We argue that you may have claimed the right to judge the rationality and morality of things. But consider that apart from God you cannot make any of your claims stick beyond your own subjective state. This is so because you cannot explain rationality itself. Why do the laws of logic seem to work? Who says so? Why do we all have moral ideas about right and wrong and the desire to impose them? Why do we expect nature to act uniformly? The skeptic cannot provide a satisfactory explanation for the "why" of the most basic "laws," the very criteria he wants to impose. He has to admit that either he made them up or that he accepts them on the authority of other finite creatures.
http://tinyurl.com/yjp4vrx
|
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
[Updated on: Fri, 19 March 2010 19:48] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #422814 is a reply to message #422804] |
Fri, 19 March 2010 21:46 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 20:37 |
But I still want to know why it's Christianity's fault for most of these - take a look at what happened, what these people did, and I'll see if there's anyplace in the Bible where they were commanded to do them. And I'm talking New Testament here, not the fools who think the Old Testament is still in power and sacrifices are still demanded and whatnot.
|
firstly, the old testament is no longer in effect, is it? well, jesus said that every jot and tittle of the old laws must be carried out. the closest i can think of to a repudiation of old testament law is he without sin cast the first stone, which essentially means the law's still there but you can't enforce it.
secondly, i suppose i do have to justify the examples i cited, to explain how christianity played a credible role in causing such appalling behaviour.
here's the list.
- two thousand years of horrific anti-semitism and anti-gay people
well, the worst anti-semitism throughout history has always come directly from christianity. in modern times, islam is catching up fast, but christianity still takes the gold. christianity's sole basis for anti-semitism is one line in one of the gospels which says that, at the trial, the jewish religious authorities actually called for the blood of christ to be on their heads and on the heads of all successive generations.
any atheist will regard this as immoral bullshit. even if the whole story is true, it's a stupid thing to say. i could claim responsibility for a crime, whether i was guilty of it or not. what i can't do is say "and my children, who haven't been born yet, are guilty of it too, as will be their children, and their children..."
and yet this one line is the root cause of unbelievable anti-semitism throughout the ages in every society where christianity has ever had power. killing jesus seems like quite a big crime for a christian, and according to the bible, all jews have that guilt, not just the ones who were involved in the trial and crucifixion.
you probably weren't taught in schools how dangerous it used to be to be jewish around easter time most years, including in america. like i said, you never get taught the bad side of religion. when you do, you're told that it was somehow a corruption of religion, of an unscrupulous person deciding that he wanted to do something evil and tried to find a religious passage to help him get away with it...
- violently standing in the way of scientific progress
well, if you take the christian view that you must believe the right things about god and jesus otherwise you'll go to hell, and if you really, really believe in hell, you'll do a great deal to stamp out anything that might make people question the religion.
imagine it. imagine you have a child. someone like me who speaks critically of religion, or someone involved in scientific research on the origins of the earth and of the human species... what they say could make your child turn away from christianity. they can make your child liable to suffer the most horrific punishment ever imagined! would this not make us the very worst of criminals, even worse than someone who tried to murder the child, or tried to rape them? would you not do anything to stamp this out? if not, then you probably don't really believe in hell.
- the crusades
see the particular old testament law i cited earlier, about if a city contains people who worship a different god, you must put the entire city and everyone in it to slaughter. keeping that in mind, the bloodshed of the crusades looks rather tame. it must be pointed out that the christians were not the original aggressors - islam had conquered about half the christian world by the time the crusades finally started - but that's hardly a problem for my side of the argument.
- the inquisition
see my above commentary on scientific research.
if believing the wrong thing sends you to hell, then a little torture to set people straight is basically doing them a favour. if you really, really buy the concept of hell, this is the sort of thing you'll do to protect people from it. blasphemy laws are only the beginning.
- willing tool of imperialism and of a huge list of dictators throughout the ages
whenever you read about the great historical european empires, you'll find them to be christian monarchies, or successors to them, in every single case. again, if you really believe in heaven and hell, then taking over some foreign country and converting them to christianity, by force if necessary, would be the kindest thing you could do to them.
- enthusiastic ally of fascism in europe
in every single fascist country in europe leading up to the second world war, and there were a hell of a lot more than just germany and italy, in every single case the fascist powers were either set up directly in collusion with the vatican or the vatican became enthusiastic collaborators with them after they'd taken power. fascism was essentially an exact synonym for "catholic right wing". the very first major treaty hitler signed upon taking power was with the vatican, giving the catholic church all sorts of powers in germany, and that was one of the few treaties hitler didn't break. mussolini did the same in italy, croatia was a catholic puppet state of hitler, salazar was in holy orders, etc etc etc. the last time the catholic church supported a "just war" was when hitler and mussolini helped franco overthrow the spanish republic. the catholic church's relationship with every single fascist country was far stronger than its ties with any non-fascist country. the church even ordered hitler's birthday to be celebrated in churches all over, right up until the very end of nazi germany. even after germany was defeated, the vatican helped numerous nazi war criminals escape to south america.
what about hitler himself? well, when he was rising to power, he said over and over and over again that the reason he hated jews so much was because he was a christian. the bible readily accommodates this, as i've outlined above. he said he was doing god's work in combating the jew, and that resonated with a huge number of christians in germany. hitler didn't just flick a switch and made everyone in germany suddenly hate jews... anti-semitism had been bubbling away under the surface for two thousand years, thanks to europe's christian history.
- the enormous death toll it's helped to rack up by assisting the spread of AIDS by absurd rules on condoms, especially in africa
well, i'd really love to know the christian justification for spreading lies about the effectiveness of condoms, when millions of africans die of aids every year. in other words, you tell me. i can't figure it out, it doesn't make sense to an atheist, especially since christians generally call themselves pro-life.
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 20:37 |
The religion isn't bound to pure blind faith. The problem is that our faith is founded on several factors you consider to be theories. (And honestly, theories probably is a good word for them because I can't provide explicit certain proof that, say, the Bible was written by the will of God.)
|
| Quote: |
Quick answer? The Bible we follow was paved with examples, demonstrations. From Old Testament to Christ. The final version of the Bible that we follow today was finalized shortly after Jesus' death, If I recall correctly. And all up to that point, there were involvements by God and Jesus, and mmiracles by the apostles.
Mohammed offered nothing like that at all.
But the problem - I didn't see God's message to Mohammed. I also didn't see Jesus himself or the apostles. Our faith, essentially, is built on our ancestor's experiences.
|
So it's not faith at all, then, is it? It's just you're considering things to be evidence when they're either dubious or outright untrue.
For starters, the bible you have today was by no means finalised shortly after Jesus' death. the gospels themselves were written decades after the crucifixion is supposed to have happened, and i'd like you to tell me exactly who by, please, and how they knew what to write, and why they contradict each other so often.
and they aren't even all the gospels. quite a lot more than just the new testament four existed... it was a council of men, politicians, who decided which bits went into the bible, and this was centuries after the time jesus was supposed to have lived.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 |
They weren't wiped out by God purely for nonbelief. They weren;t wiped out by God just because they worshipped false gods, either. They were doing far worse things, such as sacrificing their children to their gods.
|
Firstly how do you know? All you have is an account supposedly written by their slaughterers.
Secondly, do you quarrel with the idea of sacrificing a child to your god? The bible appears to be in favour of that. Or is it only if it's the right god?
| Quote: |
As for the children dying - they didn't go to hell. Since they weren't old enough to understand, they went to heaven. If they had lived, though, it would be far worse - they'd have a warped view of what happened that day, and probably rebelled against those people by instinct.
|
Firstly, we're still talking about the old testament here, and there is no mention of hell in the old testament. Either god hadn't made it yet, or he hadn't thought it worth telling anybody about it - which seems implausible, given his general enthusiasm for extravagant punishments in the old testament, and his quickness in threatening them.
Secondly, I just want to quote the fact that you just attempted to justify the slaughter of innocent children. A rebuttal isn't really necessary - simply quoting the statement for all to see will probably do.
| Quote: |
Only other option is to let all the people live, and continue their false worship and human sacrifice. Good idea.
|
There's no small print about human sacrifice in the instructions for genocide on religious grounds. So that just leaves: "the only other option is to let all the people live and continue their false worship, and we can't have that". Oh dear. Bit of a departure from your position on the previous page.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 |
Okay, but still, why shouldn't he act the way he has promised he will? Are you saying the punishment should be less severe?
|
I'm saying that there should not be a punishment at all. Disagreeing with him or his rules, or having doubts in his existence, or having doubts that the books which claim to reflect his mind or that the people who claim to speak for him actually do so, is not a crime at all by any sane definition.
| Quote: |
How is it incompetent?
|
For starters, it took place in bronze-age Palestine. Not in China, where people could read and write. That was by far the greatest civilisation in the world at the time, and yet it took hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years for the message of Christianity to reach China, at which point the Chinese asked the pretty good question of what took you so long.
To continue, the fact it's so garbled and inconsistent, and to cut a long story short, ridiculous. A huge number of people are not trying not to believe it, as you've put it, but simply find it too stupid to believe. Furthermore, many people think it would be quite horrible if it was true... the greatest dictatorship ever imagined.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 |
Thirdly, what kind of moral system is this? You said religions depend on faith (and you probably didn't realise what a deathblow you dealt when you said that). Here's an extraordinary claim, we aren't going to show you any evidence, you've got to decide it's true and you'll be horribly punished if you've got your doubts? What the fuck?
|
re: not just faith alone.
|
ah, yes. faith based on evidence. well, any time the evidence wants to present itself, there's no rush. it's only been two thousand years.
but the important part of that statement was the second half.
"Here's an extraordinary claim, we aren't going to show you any evidence, you've got to decide it's true and you'll be horribly punished if you've got your doubts"
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 23:57 |
Yeah, but my question was how are you going to say that these other people are doing anything wrong if they did try that?
|
Sorry, you lost me...
|
it's simple.
we were talking about whether christians should impose their rules on non-believers. you said that many christians don't. well, can you find any fault with the christians that do?
| Quote: |
EDIT: Can I get your opinion on this passage I found?
|
k.
| Quote: |
Our pre-suppositions can be self-destructive! One is at risk of having built a house on sand. When the rains of existence come down, the house may not stand.
|
sure, that's a rather poetic way of describing the decline of religion, though i don't think that's what the author is talking about. still, it's a nice image... "the rains of existence", we're learning more and more about the world and the universe and ourselves, and "the house" of religion is crumbling more and more by the day.
| Quote: |
We argue that you may have claimed the right to judge the rationality and morality of things. But consider that apart from God you cannot make any of your claims stick beyond your own subjective state.
|
Why apart from God?
| Quote: |
This is so because you cannot explain rationality itself. Why do the laws of logic seem to work? Who says so?
|
We're doing our best to understand them. It doesn't help that faith gets in the way.
| Quote: |
Why do we all have moral ideas about right and wrong and the desire to impose them?
|
Because most of us care about ourselves, our families, and humanity in general.
| Quote: |
Why do we expect nature to act uniformly?
|
Who expects that?
| Quote: |
The skeptic cannot provide a satisfactory explanation for the "why" of the most basic "laws," the very criteria he wants to impose.
|
Uh? Science is basically the attempt to find out why things happen. As for "wants to impose", he really has lost me there.
| Quote: |
He has to admit that either he made them up or that he accepts them on the authority of other finite creatures.
|
Made what up, sorry? As for accepting on authority of people who have no sensible claim to knowledge, well, that's religion in a nutshell.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Jun 26 03:08:47 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01264 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
