Don't you just hate it when that happens? For what it's worth I'm happy to let him express his opinion. I'm also happy to call him a fuckwit--silly or not.
This is a fun post to latch on to. I know it wasn't meant for me, but I hope nobody minds me throwing my two cents in.
Calm down there slugger. I'm not interested in a fight. If we can't do this calmly this thread goes bye-bye.
I'm one, and the Anglican Church of Canada is a few more. We're a minority, but let's be fair: a global movement of two billion followers is a lot of inertia to redirect, and the whole gay rights thing is only ... what, fifty years old?
/sigh
My point is not about the possibility of propagation, but I haven't got to that part yet. Lets continue:
It does make sense, but there is a detail I don't get. What is it that you see fine?: not renting for a gay marriage (activity), not renting to LGBT group (organisation), not renting to people who just happen to be gay but want to use it for something entirely unrelated with that (just people of a specific condition).
I think this type of argument needs more personal touches to it. Too often it's a hidden pain. All we get to see are the extreme cases. Here on this board we have at LEAST three examples of families who were torn apart and just plain evil towards one of their own simply because of their sexual preference. It's sad and happens too often.
That is in no way an inverse of what my church teaches about homosexuality, just for the record.
Whoever told you this is a fool, and does not know what love is. What I know from scripture is that there are none who deserve God's love, but that He loves us anyway. Because He loves us, He commands us to love each other in the same way. Now, there are many who would try and change the definition of what love is from what God has shown us, so to truly examine this issue would take a long discussion on what love really is, as it is far more than just a platitude, but the idea that God does not love those who commit homosexual acts simply because He says that such acts are wrong, and wants them to stop, is patently untrue.
Sure, what you are describing is how difficult of a thing it is. It's very, very hard to determine these kind of things. Such as: "Did that person not get that job because they weren't qualified or due to 'X'?"
first: Atheist here, I think that you whole concept of god is just make-believe to give you hope and counters your fears. Are you fine with that "religious" view?
Don't worry about it. That's what it means to enter into dialogue.
I'm not really sure where to go with that. I would oppose any group that was so bigoted, no matter what side of the sexuality, gender, or racial divide they lay on. That bullshit is not what the world, or even individuals need. So I wouldn't be okay if a sect did that, no. But I'm not okay with denominations that do the opposite, either. There's an issue of love that doesn't get solved there, and reversing the positions just throws contrasting colors on the exact same problem.
seriously?
thank you dave...
1. I am fine with you holding and voicing that view. You're welcome to try and convince whoever you want that you're right. I think you're wrong, so I guess in that respect I'm not fine with it, but there are lots of things I think people are wrong about. I don't spend all day dwelling on those things.
and I dislike him for an almost completely different reason. So?
yeap, pretty much that.
because they use the theology to justify the acts of legislation. I would love to have a long debate as to the nature of the secular civil union issues at hand, but NOM for example, presents anti-gay marriage efforts as an attempt to save "religious liberty."
Because most people in this discussion, have a rudimentary set of skills that allow them to realize a obvious conclusion:
Yes, seriously. What I meant was that what is true is true regardless of who believes it. Simply disagreeing with something does not make it false. I'm sorry that I came across as claiming that what I know to be true is absolutely true regardless of evidence, but I'm rather used to getting the argument that "I don't agree with you, therefore anything you've said is absolutely wrong and can't even be examined to see if it's self-consistent." Especially in regards to Christianity. EDIT: in fact, we've already seen quite a bit of that in this thread. I've been responded to with insults, mockery, and people claiming that Christianity can't be true simply because it doesn't sit right with them. end edit
Well, I think your prejudice is holding you back from understanding. I certainly don't teach that God's command's can't be understood. While I will say that fully understanding God is humanly impossible, I don't hold that God wants us to follow unquestioningly. In fact a recurring theme in scripture is "come let us reason together". God wants us to be active participants, and tells us that over and over again. The fact that God has already told us what is right and wrong is no reason for us to think that our understanding plays no role in how we relate to Him. Simply because we have concrete declarations of what is right and wrong, foreverandeveramen, does not mean that such declarations are automatically wrong at some point and therefore wrong altogether.
I second it.
That's exactly how your sentence came through!
I don't understand the bolded part. I am not saying that they are ALL necessarily wrong, just that they are more easily challenged. For instance, you say that God invites us to reason and to understand his commandments. You do understad that the bible you read has gone though several translations and sometimes contradicts itself, right? From this it is obvious to me that the commandments are open to interpretation, even if in the smallest bit. And since many churches rewrite them in slightly or strongly different ways, it is difficult to know which set is the right one (if there is one).
If that were the sole extent of my argument, that would be pretty weak. I don't believe the Bible simply because it exists and people told me to believe in it. There is ample evidence that the Bible is what it claims to be, while other books and belief systems are not.
Actually, that remains to be seen. Time will tell what will be known from psychological and scientific studies, sociological impact of homosexuality and other sources besides religion. Just because you assume that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and similiarly assume that all evidence against is solely based on religious bias does not make it so.
That's the crux of the problem. I believe that the bible is much more than just a book, others do not. Why on earth should they take it seriously like we do? They shouldn't! They have no reason to.
