So what you're saying is that you don't believe your beliefs are correct for everyone, and therefore your beliefs (given that almost all religions place themselves as the sole truth) are internally inconsistent? We as humans are inconsistent and fallible according to the bible. I am not an authority on the bible. Hapuka may believe that Christianity is the correct religion for her. It may not be for others. I know gays who were raised in christian homes who mentally tortured themselves because they couldn't come to grips with 'who they were'. And I don't think thats right for anyone, of any religion, to live a life like that. You believe it's wrong, that's the bit I take issue with whether you act upon that belief or not. If you have children, you will teach them the same belief and continue the cycle of ignorance.[/QUOTE] The bible tells us as parents to lead our children to Christ, they must make the decision as to whether they will become Christians or not. I'm not saying you are, but couldn't your view of Hapuka being ignorant and bigoted be considered ignorant and bigoted itself against anyone who believes in any religion? I think more people have been killed in the name of religion than probably anything else, which I believe is wrong. But using your own reasoning, anyone who murders a Christian or a religious person in general because they are athiests or members of the 'wrong' religion should be applauded because they are trying to act upon their beliefs in a black and white manner? I fully accept your right to be a non-religious person. I accept someone elses right to be an islamist or buddhist or whatever for that matter. But just because Hapuka or myself, or any Christian doesn't act against someone who believes differently than the way we do, doesn't make us bigoted or ignorant.
Of course they don't, but none of them believe that anything about me, other than my choices, is fundamentally wrong, evil and condemned by an almighty god. Yes, fine, if I make a choice they disagree with then they'll tell me, but they don't try and tell me that I'm a sinner and condemned to hell because I have blonde hair (they've got plenty of other reasons to tell me I'm condemned to hell). Ah yes, the quiet disapproving curtain-twitcher type. The fact that you keep your dislike of someone else's biologically-imposed sexuality to yourself is, I will admit, better than those who are vocal about their hatred - but it is still condemnation of the lifestyle on some level. Were there to be an attempt to remove the civil partnership laws (they still can't get married thanks to people who think the same way as yourself) then would you be quietly cheering it on, or trying to fight it on the principle that it applies a judgment? Sexuality is not a belief, or a choice. It isn't your place to agree or disagree with their lifestyle, or approve or disapprove. The fact that you say you do not approve is sitting in judgment - whether you're vocal about it or not. Do you have any reason to do so other than an ancient bit of writing, or do you just get to say 'well, I disagree with their lifestyle but I can tolerate them wallowing in sin - they'll get their comeuppance when judgment day comes'? Oh please, this is a pathetic argument that I've heard countless times. There are two things which are essential - informed consent and no harm. So long as those two rules are in place, then there is no need to quibble about fine lines. And seriously now, did you basically just say that approving of homosexuality is like a gateway drug to pedophilia and bestiality? I know exactly where mine come from - principle of least harm. How does she know you disagree if you've not told her, and don't act any differently because in your eyes she's sinful? And that's why I'm vocal in my condemnation of such hateful beliefs. It's the acceptance of these beliefs, unchallenged, which causes such suffering. No. Because I'm not saying that religion is ignorant and bigoted - I'm saying that taking it upon yourself to disagree with the homosexual lifestyle is ignorant and bigoted. Nope, they're harming someone. I don't particularly agree with beliefs about destroying other religions (pretty universal in most monotheistic holy texts in one place or another) either, surprisingly enough. However I do find it disturbing that the quiet condemnation which occurs is tolerated and put up with because people get too upset when you actually try to challenge their beliefs - their beliefs which they chose, about things which other people did not choose. I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer. I have no problem whatsoever with people being criticised, condemned or punished for choices they have made - I do have an issue where anything comes even close to the same to condemn something about which a person does not have a choice (where it is non-harmful, harmful traits are a somewhat different and more complicated matter which'd be a whole separate discussion). You're not really paying attention to what I've said. It's the condemnation, whether vocal or quiet, of homosexuality which I'm calling bigoted or ignorant. If you see that belief as fundamental to the religion then I suppose you can extend my criticism to the religion as well. I felt no differently about this aspect back when I was Christian - it was the quiet tutting and silent disapproval of snakes with a polite smile on their face, when they were confronted with something which harmed no one, that solidified my views. Of course, none of them would ever say anything aloud, that would be rude and argumentative, just mutter, tut and whisper among themselves. I should also add that I was never the target of such disapproval, so my anger has nothing to do with having been a victim of such. It is a pure and simple rage against such venomous beliefs.
So you are allowed to have your beliefs, but Hapuka and I are not allowed to have ours since they disagree with what you believe in? I really do like this discussion, you make your points very well. I disagree with some of the things you're saying, but I feel it is your right to have them! I guess close to the bottom line for me is that anyone can believe whatever they want to as long as those beliefs aren't causing anyone else harm. I know that goes against most 'religious' beliefs and theology. But like I said a few posts back, I'm not really a hardcore Christian. I believe a higher power created the universe but beyond that, I'm not sure about the who, what, when, and wheres. And with me being a Christian who is also a scientist, I take my share of mental beatings from fellow co-workers.
Hell is completely empty. Think about it. There are many religions out there each having their own version of a positive and negative afterlife, right? Speaking in terms of the Christian's version of Heaven and Hell, only Christians would be able to go there because Christians are the only ones who believe it exists (being that it pertains only to their religion). One would think a Christian wouldn't be condemning themselves to Hell, or else there wouldn't be a point on being a Christian in the first place. So if only Christians believe in Heaven and Hell, and all of those Christians's end goal in life is to 'make it to Heaven', then there should technically be no one on the Christian's version of Hell. Problem solved.
Then why is it your place to disapprove of a homosexual lifestyle? If it's informed consent and she's passed through puberty, I don't see a problem. That's a whole separate debate though. No, because rape causes harm. If someone chooses to harm others, then yep, they're open to attack. If, for example, someone openly disagrees with another's (non-harmful) way of life then they are contributing to harm done to that person, and all others who share that way of life. They will teach their children to believe the same bigotry, they may support measures taken to repress that lifestyle, they may actively attack the members of that lifestyle, or their beliefs may make other's believe that it is acceptable to judge and condemn members of that lifestyle. So yes, it's all about harm. Your beliefs are doing them harm. Disagreeing with a lifestyle without giving a reason beyond 'this book some people wrote says so' is ignorant. Neither of you have yet given me a single valid reason that you disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. You sure? You've already said that you'll reveal your prejudice if asked. If someone more militant than you asks you, will you tell them that they're wrong and should accept the homosexual lifestyle, or will you reveal your dislike of it? I've got no issue with most of your beliefs at all - I take issue with the ones that cause direct or indirect harm. Mine don't, whereas your beliefs about homosexuality do. And there's the key to it. You don't think your beliefs are causing harm. I do. If in no other way, then your beliefs are validating those of others who will cause harm more directly. Do you think your lesbian assistant is really happy and accepting that her lifestyle is distasteful to you, or might the jokes about you sleeping with women be a self-defense to make light of the situation that you disagree with her core makeup? I'll happily attack religion as well in a separate thread, but this one was much more about a specific belief which is not unique (nor essential) to any particular religion.
Societies that function well do so partly because there are well defined boundaries of acceptable behaviour. Those boundaries naturally shift to and fro through time. In ancient Greece, homosexuality was considered perfectly acceptable. But then things changed and people had to reconsider how the live their lives in public. So long as society is collectively making the decisions then it's our place to question these things. When we get to the stage where a vocal minority with power is making the decisions then we have a problem. In any case, what is and isn't acceptable to society should always be open for debate. A soon as we start telling people they have no right to an opinion we're starting down a very dangerous path. Nobody really knows what makes people homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual. Common sense dictates it should be a simple biology. But that's not always the case. What does seem to be the case is that sexuality is determined at a very early age. At the moment the world over all at least in western societies seems to deem homosexual behaviour acceptable or at the very least harmless. That being the case detractors should accept societies decision and let these people live their lives. If homosexual Christians are find life tough being accepted by other Christians then perhaps they need to reconsider their faith. That doesn't mean they need to abandon Christianity or God. They could create their own denomination. After all that's how most Christian denominations came to be. Somebody didn't like they way things were run or interpreted or taught and so decided to do something about it. I'm all for standing up for your rights and all. But I also think it's idiotic to continue to walk into a fight time and again that you just don't need to be fighting.
See we're hashing some of these issues out. We're never going to agree but we at least understand where the other is coming from.
Not sure if you've ever read the banned spam log, but I think Frodo needs to take a shot at it. I don't talk about it much, but the creative spam bans are a definite source of chuckles.
Or- everyone goes to hell. No exceptions. Anybody who isn't christian? heresy. And even if you are, you stand next to no chance of having followed all the rules all of your life. And the ones who have in any fair world should be sent to hell for inflicting their views on others.
Sounds like a BYOB event. It's a good point, though. But once everyone's in Hell, does the judgement passing stop?
But you CAN'T go to Hell if you're not a Christian because Hell only exists TO the Christians. Same reason why no Christian ever expects to end up in Summerland or wherever it is that Wiccans go.
