Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

An Apology From An Aspie Methodist

Page 4 of 5 [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

06 May 2012, 8:11 am

AngelRho wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Based on scriptural evidence, two things are wrong about homosexuality: 1) It is marked clearly as one form of idolatry in the OT.

Idolatry? As in idol worship? That doesn't make sense.

It's all in Torah.


It most certainly ain't.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

06 May 2012, 8:19 am

AngelRho wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
Quote:
2) It is an expression of human dissatisfaction with God's purpose for making human beings male and female. In principle, it is a very similar kind of dissatisfaction that led to the fall of Satan and Adam's fall in Eden.

This seems like an incredible stretch to me. Also, it would make anyone who is single wrong, which seems an absurd conclusion to me.

THAT wouldn't make anyone wrong who is single. And, besides, being single is a temporary condition that most people in general can't help at one stage of life or another. I'm not opposed to people who feel the need to remain celibate, nor am I opposed to birth control, which does have its obvious benefits. But remaining single and the consequences of using birth control long-term are in violation of the first commandment. (Note: Being unattached would mean total devotion to God if one so chose. But being unattached carries its own risks of leading the celibate into temptation, as Paul aptly noted).



The first commandment reads: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Remaining single and using birth control would not violate the first commandment.

By the way, Paul saw celibacy as the preferred state for Christians, but concluded that it was "better to marry than to burn."



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

06 May 2012, 8:47 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
Quote:
2) It is an expression of human dissatisfaction with God's purpose for making human beings male and female. In principle, it is a very similar kind of dissatisfaction that led to the fall of Satan and Adam's fall in Eden.

This seems like an incredible stretch to me. Also, it would make anyone who is single wrong, which seems an absurd conclusion to me.

THAT wouldn't make anyone wrong who is single. And, besides, being single is a temporary condition that most people in general can't help at one stage of life or another. I'm not opposed to people who feel the need to remain celibate, nor am I opposed to birth control, which does have its obvious benefits. But remaining single and the consequences of using birth control long-term are in violation of the first commandment. (Note: Being unattached would mean total devotion to God if one so chose. But being unattached carries its own risks of leading the celibate into temptation, as Paul aptly noted).



The first commandment reads: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Remaining single and using birth control would not violate the first commandment.

By the way, Paul saw celibacy as the preferred state for Christians, but concluded that it was "better to marry than to burn."

That's not the first commandment. That's the first commandment of the Decalogue. The first commandment is "be fruitful and multiply."



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

06 May 2012, 9:00 am

AngelRho wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
Quote:
2) It is an expression of human dissatisfaction with God's purpose for making human beings male and female. In principle, it is a very similar kind of dissatisfaction that led to the fall of Satan and Adam's fall in Eden.

This seems like an incredible stretch to me. Also, it would make anyone who is single wrong, which seems an absurd conclusion to me.

THAT wouldn't make anyone wrong who is single. And, besides, being single is a temporary condition that most people in general can't help at one stage of life or another. I'm not opposed to people who feel the need to remain celibate, nor am I opposed to birth control, which does have its obvious benefits. But remaining single and the consequences of using birth control long-term are in violation of the first commandment. (Note: Being unattached would mean total devotion to God if one so chose. But being unattached carries its own risks of leading the celibate into temptation, as Paul aptly noted).



The first commandment reads: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Remaining single and using birth control would not violate the first commandment.

By the way, Paul saw celibacy as the preferred state for Christians, but concluded that it was "better to marry than to burn."

That's not the first commandment. That's the first commandment of the Decalogue. The first commandment is "be fruitful and multiply."


Neither Jesus nor Paul were big on being fruitful and multiplying. Quite the opposite.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

06 May 2012, 11:41 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
Quote:
2) It is an expression of human dissatisfaction with God's purpose for making human beings male and female. In principle, it is a very similar kind of dissatisfaction that led to the fall of Satan and Adam's fall in Eden.

This seems like an incredible stretch to me. Also, it would make anyone who is single wrong, which seems an absurd conclusion to me.

THAT wouldn't make anyone wrong who is single. And, besides, being single is a temporary condition that most people in general can't help at one stage of life or another. I'm not opposed to people who feel the need to remain celibate, nor am I opposed to birth control, which does have its obvious benefits. But remaining single and the consequences of using birth control long-term are in violation of the first commandment. (Note: Being unattached would mean total devotion to God if one so chose. But being unattached carries its own risks of leading the celibate into temptation, as Paul aptly noted).



The first commandment reads: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Remaining single and using birth control would not violate the first commandment.

By the way, Paul saw celibacy as the preferred state for Christians, but concluded that it was "better to marry than to burn."

That's not the first commandment. That's the first commandment of the Decalogue. The first commandment is "be fruitful and multiply."


Neither Jesus nor Paul were big on being fruitful and multiplying. Quite the opposite.


Why that is true in his day Jesus was viewed as some what liberal because he preached against the evils of greed and valued the poor more then the rich. Also he preached about social justice.



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

06 May 2012, 1:25 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
snapcap wrote:
While I'm not implying that it should be a big issue, I think that the lack of remorse for belonging to an organization that you don't agree with implies that it's basically fine by them.

Talking about a 'lack of remorse' implies that there is something that someone should be remorseful over.


I guess there's not.

Quote:
I don't think you can conclude that something isn't a big issue just because people aren't leaving over it. Lots of people in the US have disagreed with the Iraq/Afghanistan wars and the Vietnam war, but did not leave the country.


I don't think that's a good analogy. You don't have to leave the country if you disagree with the religious organization you belong to.


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

06 May 2012, 1:38 pm

AngelRho wrote:
That's not the first commandment. That's the first commandment of the Decalogue. The first commandment is "be fruitful and multiply."

"The first commandment" is generally taken to mean the first of the ten commandments by almost everyone.

In any case, I think on a planet with over 5 billion people we can consider that one fulfilled.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

06 May 2012, 1:39 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
That's not the first commandment. That's the first commandment of the Decalogue. The first commandment is "be fruitful and multiply."

"The first commandment" is generally taken to mean the first of the ten commandments by almost everyone.

In any case, I think on a planet with over 5 billion people we can consider that one fulfilled.


:lol:



edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

06 May 2012, 1:46 pm

crmoore wrote:
The first two issues, while somewhat discearning, don't really bother me that much. But yesterday's issue, probably for the first time in my life, made me ashamed to be a Methodist. Even though I'm straight and don't have any friends who are LGBT, I personally felt that not only it was a shortsided move but the manner in which it was handled was completely unprofessional. Personally, I don't view people of the LGBT community as sinners or wrongdoers. I may not agree with their views of sexuality, but I also feel I, as a human, am not fit to judge them the way that they were judged by the delegates yesterday.


It's people like you who remind me to be tolerant of the religious - I need to be reminded every now and then that many (perhaps even most, or at least a very signifigant minority) of you actually are honourable and respectable people.

Sorry to hear you have to deal with a coup by the dishonourable idiot chimpanzees in your organization. They seem to do that a lot, everywhere, nobody's immune. It's their fecund nature, I think, that poses the problem.



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

06 May 2012, 2:09 pm

snapcap wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
Talking about a 'lack of remorse' implies that there is something that someone should be remorseful over.


I guess there's not.

Are you making irrelevant comments for no reason, or are you trying to imply something here? If you're trying to imply something, I wish you'd just go ahead and say it already.

Quote:
I don't think that's a good analogy. You don't have to leave the country if you disagree with the religious organization you belong to.

If you don't like that one, it's not hard to create another analogy. People frequently don't leave marriages even though things have been going badly. People frequently don't stop talking to relatives who have said something they disagree with. People frequently stay in political parties when there is not a perfect match between their views and the party platform.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

06 May 2012, 2:17 pm

edgewaters wrote:
dishonourable idiot chimpanzees

<sigh> Well, I guess we couldn't have a thread in PPR involving a controversial topic and religion that's free of insults forever. It had to end sometime.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

06 May 2012, 2:17 pm

I disagree with things my country does but that doesn't mean I will live my country.



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

06 May 2012, 2:19 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
Are you making irrelevant comments for no reason, or are you trying to imply something here? If you're trying to imply something, I wish you'd just go ahead and say it already.


It's not an irrelevant comment, it was a question originally geared towards the OP of this thread, but I let Joker answer it because s/he is a Methodist with a similar opinion.

You're seeing something that isn't there. I've already said what I wanted to say, what do you want me to say?

Quote:
If you don't like that one, it's not hard to create another analogy. People frequently don't leave marriages even though things have been going badly. People frequently don't stop talking to relatives who have said something they disagree with. People frequently stay in political parties when there is not a perfect match between their views and the party platform.


Just because you leave an organization or create an offshoot doesn't mean you have to stop mingling with the people that stayed, although I'd assume some people wouldn't want to anymore.


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

06 May 2012, 2:41 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
dishonourable idiot chimpanzees

<sigh> Well, I guess we couldn't have a thread in PPR involving a controversial topic and religion that's free of insults forever. It had to end sometime.


You're parsing what I said wrong. They're in every organization, as I stated. "Nobody's immune" I said. Naturally that would include atheist groups, as well as knitting circles or anything else you could think of (given sufficient numbers).

I.e. there's nothing unique about their presence in religious organizations. I can't see how you could misinterpret what I said in the way you have done. I think you're just looking for a reason to feel offended/persecuted/etc, fits nicely into your "nasty atheist" stereotype, and to hell with the facts.

It's only insulting to dishonourable idiot chimpanzees, not any particular group which they have infiltrated.



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

06 May 2012, 4:14 pm

edgewaters wrote:
You're parsing what I said wrong.

I don't think so. "Dishonourable idiot chimpanzees" is not something that's easily parsed as a non-insult.

Quote:
I.e. there's nothing unique about their presence in religious organizations. I can't see how you could misinterpret what I said in the way you have done.

I didn't miss that you'd said they were everywhere. How is it misinterpreting to say there was an insult when the phrase "dishonourable idiot chimpanzees" was used?

Quote:
I think you're just looking for a reason to feel offended/persecuted/etc, fits nicely into your "nasty atheist" stereotype, and to hell with the facts.

My problem was with an insult showing up in a thread that had been free of them. Threads in PPR over controversial topics and mentioning religion that get to several pages in length are rarely so nice.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

06 May 2012, 4:19 pm

If people could give opinons instead of attacks about topics on WP their will be less insults from both parties.