"Tell me about the last time you saw another man's sack." (2 Viewers)

[Jutz]

feelin like a sabertooth ti---GRRRRRRRRRRR

Sippin on a warm Bud wi ZER

 

[TobiasFunke]

I hope the main thing I can shed some light on is the leap you, and others, are making about people's actions and attitudes towards others simply based on a comment like, "Yes, I think that's a sin."

Believing something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to shaming others. Believing something is a sin doesn't require an organized attack by Christians or a lobbying effort. Yes, it clearly does for some people and, honestly, I can't help explain where they are coming from because that's not where I am. I believe if Jesus walked in on the situation you describe, he'd come down hard on those doing the shaming. There are several Biblical examples of Jesus displaying harsher words and judgment towards those throwing the stones than those being stoned.

So what does it mean if I say something is a sin? All it really means is that I think that's something God says not to do (or failing to do what he says to do). That's it. There's really no reason, on its own, to read more into it than that. I'm not trying to hide any deeper feelings by labeling something as a "sin". Me saying "X is a sin" is not a way to hide from wanting to say "X is absolutely filthy and I am so much better than anyone who does X and God hates anyone who does X more than me because I don't do X."

Claiming something is a sin does not say anything about what I think that person's worth is or how I think that person should be treated or whether I think their sin is worse than someone else's sin. The assumption is that believing homosexuality is a sin automatically indicates that the person looks down upon homosexuals. But, that assumption is wrong for many people. I'd guess most of the Christians here who would say they think homosexuality is a sin would also defend the person being shamed and not join those doing the shaming.

People don't like to hear the tired line of "love the sinner, hate the sin" but that is the position. It is possible to think something is a sin and have that not affect how you feel about the person. In fact, as you know, it happens all the time. As you say, many Christians appear to be a-okay with many sins and the people who commit those sins. Unfortunately, many Christians have picked out homosexuality as a "special" sin. My only advice to them would be that they need to listen to and try to understand the other side. They then need to worry more about their own actions and their impacts than the actions of others. Whatever they do, they should do it in love. If they are not capable of discussing homosexuality and acting in love at the same time, then I'd suggest they back away and stop discussing homosexuality.

All that to say, some of your assumptions about people may be wrong. (Just like a Christians assumption about a homosexual may be wrong.) Saying something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusions that are usually reached.

I think I understand this, and I appreciate the effort here. I understand that the Christians who pick homosexuality as a "special" sin don't speak for the majority or the actual belief system.

But here's the problem I still have: let's compare the sin of homosexual acts to the sin of premarital heterosexual sex. In the case of the latter, you're telling the person that their desire to have sex is sinful, but that they will ultimately be able to indulge that desire in a way that is not sinful. I don't think that's a very healthy attitude towards sexuality and I think it causes some problems, but it's not the worst thing in the world either. There are even benefits to it too, I suppose. But for a homosexual, you are telling them that their desire is sinful and that they will never ever be able to indulge in it without sinning. That's a totally different and much more destructive thing to tell someone. Wanting to have sex isn't like wanting to gamble or coveting your neighbor's wife. It's something that's with you all the time. Its a very basic human desire. Whether you love the sinner or not, you're telling them that something so basic is sinful and it always will be even if they fall in love and want to settle down start a family. That strikes me as really unhealthy.

Imagine if all sex was considered a sin, even sex in marriage. Setting aside the obvious problem of keeping humanity around, can you imagine how preposterous that would be? Any sex is sinful? What a bleak, depressing, confusing and frustrated world that would be. Well, that's essentially the position many Christians (and Muslims, and some Jews) take towards homosexuality, since most homosexuals don't want to have sex with members of the opposite sex. You're telling them that a very basic human need is sinful and they shouldn't want to do it. I'd got bat#### crazy in about a month in a world where I was told I should never ever have sex until the day I die. Frankly it's a miracle we don't have more teen suicides among homosexuals in religious communities. How is that an acceptable result for a belief system?

 

[B-Deep]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8258/8704857546_1182c16b68.jpg

 

[eurotrashman]

There are plenty of bad in the world. Look at a how jammed packed your prisons are. I'm sure someone can pull the numbers but I'd guess that 90%+ would identify themselves as religious. Guess the good book didn't help them.

I'm reluctant to jump back into a thread that now seems to mostly involve LB44, MOP, and Woz,

Sig material?

 

[SWC]

her remake of moondance is pretty fantastic brohans

 

[B-Deep]

I admit i am completely intolerant of people that do not think this song/video freaking rule

 

[B-Deep]

cats, bunnies, hamsters, duckies

it's awesome

 

[Hang 10]

Why did this become a Ke$ha song thread?

It was the only way to make it gayer.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I hope the main thing I can shed some light on is the leap you, and others, are making about people's actions and attitudes towards others simply based on a comment like, "Yes, I think that's a sin."

Believing something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to shaming others. Believing something is a sin doesn't require an organized attack by Christians or a lobbying effort. Yes, it clearly does for some people and, honestly, I can't help explain where they are coming from because that's not where I am. I believe if Jesus walked in on the situation you describe, he'd come down hard on those doing the shaming. There are several Biblical examples of Jesus displaying harsher words and judgment towards those throwing the stones than those being stoned.

So what does it mean if I say something is a sin? All it really means is that I think that's something God says not to do (or failing to do what he says to do). That's it. There's really no reason, on its own, to read more into it than that. I'm not trying to hide any deeper feelings by labeling something as a "sin". Me saying "X is a sin" is not a way to hide from wanting to say "X is absolutely filthy and I am so much better than anyone who does X and God hates anyone who does X more than me because I don't do X."

Claiming something is a sin does not say anything about what I think that person's worth is or how I think that person should be treated or whether I think their sin is worse than someone else's sin. The assumption is that believing homosexuality is a sin automatically indicates that the person looks down upon homosexuals. But, that assumption is wrong for many people. I'd guess most of the Christians here who would say they think homosexuality is a sin would also defend the person being shamed and not join those doing the shaming.

People don't like to hear the tired line of "love the sinner, hate the sin" but that is the position. It is possible to think something is a sin and have that not affect how you feel about the person. In fact, as you know, it happens all the time. As you say, many Christians appear to be a-okay with many sins and the people who commit those sins. Unfortunately, many Christians have picked out homosexuality as a "special" sin. My only advice to them would be that they need to listen to and try to understand the other side. They then need to worry more about their own actions and their impacts than the actions of others. Whatever they do, they should do it in love. If they are not capable of discussing homosexuality and acting in love at the same time, then I'd suggest they back away and stop discussing homosexuality.

All that to say, some of your assumptions about people may be wrong. (Just like a Christians assumption about a homosexual may be wrong.) Saying something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusions that are usually reached.

I think I understand this, and I appreciate the effort here. I understand that the Christians who pick homosexuality as a "special" sin don't speak for the majority or the actual belief system.

But here's the problem I still have: let's compare the sin of homosexual acts to the sin of premarital heterosexual sex. In the case of the latter, you're telling the person that their desire to have sex is sinful, but that they will ultimately be able to indulge that desire in a way that is not sinful. I don't think that's a very healthy attitude towards sexuality and I think it causes some problems, but it's not the worst thing in the world either. There are even benefits to it too, I suppose. But for a homosexual, you are telling them that their desire is sinful and that they will never ever be able to indulge in it without sinning. That's a totally different and much more destructive thing to tell someone. Wanting to have sex isn't like wanting to gamble or coveting your neighbor's wife. It's something that's with you all the time. Its a very basic human desire. Whether you love the sinner or not, you're telling them that something so basic is sinful and it always will be even if they fall in love and want to settle down start a family. That strikes me as really unhealthy.

Imagine if all sex was considered a sin, even sex in marriage. Setting aside the obvious problem of keeping humanity around, can you imagine how preposterous that would be? Any sex is sinful? What a bleak, depressing, confusing and frustrated world that would be. Well, that's essentially the position many Christians (and Muslims, and some Jews) take towards homosexuality, since most homosexuals don't want to have sex with members of the opposite sex. You're telling them that a very basic human need is sinful and they shouldn't want to do it. I'd got bat#### crazy in about a month in a world where I was told I should never ever have sex until the day I die. Frankly it's a miracle we don't have more teen suicides among homosexuals in religious communities. How is that an acceptable result for a belief system?

but then again, consider it from the angle that Christianity is right.

I agree, none of this makes sense if its wrong and God doesn't exist. But if we're right, what are we supposed to do?

BUT, beyond that, if we are right, that means that there is an almighty God who can do anything who is going to provide a way out. I personally know a number of formerly gay men who are happily married to women with children and completely satisfied with every aspect of their life.

I also know people who are happily celibate for the same reason.

Beyond that, if the Bible is true, you're aiming the "that's unhealthy" at the wrong end of the issue. If God is real, and He created us, and homosexuality is a spiritual thing, then it isn't God that is making it unbearable or unhealthy, its actually the gay person who needs help. Help like any other person stuck in a sinful life, but still help.

 

[B-Deep]

Here's the issue larry

we have seen time and time again where Chritian morality has changed, this leavbes 2 options...

1) God's morality evolves

2) Human's (and the prevailing church's) understanding of god's morality changes

in either case it leaves open the door that 20 years from now homosexuality will not be considered a sin and your position will be considered wrong.

It has happened time and time again on issues from subjugation of women to slavery to inner-racial marriages, and it IS happening now. Already some denominations have made the switch and more will come.

If you fail to admit this is possible you are simply being dishonest.

Now tell us your favorite Ke$ha song and let us know what jesus would think of Ke$ha

 

[larry_boy_44]

Here's the issue larry

we have seen time and time again where Chritian morality has changed, this leavbes 2 options...

1) God's morality evolves

2) Human's (and the prevailing church's) understanding of god's morality changes

in either case it leaves open the door that 20 years from now homosexuality will not be considered a sin and your position will be considered wrong.

It has happened time and time again on issues from subjugation of women to slavery to inner-racial marriages, and it IS happening now. Already some denominations have made the switch and more will come.

If you fail to admit this is possible you are simply being dishonest.

Now tell us your favorite Ke$ha song and let us know what jesus would think of Ke$ha

I realize it can happen. My only point is that you can't just assume that Christians are going to realize they are wrong, because if God is real and actually feels this way, there will ALWAYS be people who follow Him correctly. (and, frankly, the rest of the world really would be better off obeying Him)

I admit its possible we are wrong, I always have. That's why I said "IF God is real and IF He feels that homosexuality is wrong"...

As far as Ke$ha, I can't get get "Your Love is My Drug" and "Tik Tok" out of my head, and from the time or two I've heard it "Die Young" is the same way.

And her music is not morally ok. Its raunchy and encourages sinful behavior.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I hope the main thing I can shed some light on is the leap you, and others, are making about people's actions and attitudes towards others simply based on a comment like, "Yes, I think that's a sin."

Believing something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to shaming others. Believing something is a sin doesn't require an organized attack by Christians or a lobbying effort. Yes, it clearly does for some people and, honestly, I can't help explain where they are coming from because that's not where I am. I believe if Jesus walked in on the situation you describe, he'd come down hard on those doing the shaming. There are several Biblical examples of Jesus displaying harsher words and judgment towards those throwing the stones than those being stoned.

So what does it mean if I say something is a sin? All it really means is that I think that's something God says not to do (or failing to do what he says to do). That's it. There's really no reason, on its own, to read more into it than that. I'm not trying to hide any deeper feelings by labeling something as a "sin". Me saying "X is a sin" is not a way to hide from wanting to say "X is absolutely filthy and I am so much better than anyone who does X and God hates anyone who does X more than me because I don't do X."

Claiming something is a sin does not say anything about what I think that person's worth is or how I think that person should be treated or whether I think their sin is worse than someone else's sin. The assumption is that believing homosexuality is a sin automatically indicates that the person looks down upon homosexuals. But, that assumption is wrong for many people. I'd guess most of the Christians here who would say they think homosexuality is a sin would also defend the person being shamed and not join those doing the shaming.

People don't like to hear the tired line of "love the sinner, hate the sin" but that is the position. It is possible to think something is a sin and have that not affect how you feel about the person. In fact, as you know, it happens all the time. As you say, many Christians appear to be a-okay with many sins and the people who commit those sins. Unfortunately, many Christians have picked out homosexuality as a "special" sin. My only advice to them would be that they need to listen to and try to understand the other side. They then need to worry more about their own actions and their impacts than the actions of others. Whatever they do, they should do it in love. If they are not capable of discussing homosexuality and acting in love at the same time, then I'd suggest they back away and stop discussing homosexuality.

All that to say, some of your assumptions about people may be wrong. (Just like a Christians assumption about a homosexual may be wrong.) Saying something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusions that are usually reached.

I think I understand this, and I appreciate the effort here. I understand that the Christians who pick homosexuality as a "special" sin don't speak for the majority or the actual belief system.

But here's the problem I still have: let's compare the sin of homosexual acts to the sin of premarital heterosexual sex. In the case of the latter, you're telling the person that their desire to have sex is sinful, but that they will ultimately be able to indulge that desire in a way that is not sinful. I don't think that's a very healthy attitude towards sexuality and I think it causes some problems, but it's not the worst thing in the world either. There are even benefits to it too, I suppose. But for a homosexual, you are telling them that their desire is sinful and that they will never ever be able to indulge in it without sinning. That's a totally different and much more destructive thing to tell someone. Wanting to have sex isn't like wanting to gamble or coveting your neighbor's wife. It's something that's with you all the time. Its a very basic human desire. Whether you love the sinner or not, you're telling them that something so basic is sinful and it always will be even if they fall in love and want to settle down start a family. That strikes me as really unhealthy.

Imagine if all sex was considered a sin, even sex in marriage. Setting aside the obvious problem of keeping humanity around, can you imagine how preposterous that would be? Any sex is sinful? What a bleak, depressing, confusing and frustrated world that would be. Well, that's essentially the position many Christians (and Muslims, and some Jews) take towards homosexuality, since most homosexuals don't want to have sex with members of the opposite sex. You're telling them that a very basic human need is sinful and they shouldn't want to do it. I'd got bat#### crazy in about a month in a world where I was told I should never ever have sex until the day I die. Frankly it's a miracle we don't have more teen suicides among homosexuals in religious communities. How is that an acceptable result for a belief system?

but then again, consider it from the angle that Christianity is right.

I agree, none of this makes sense if its wrong and God doesn't exist. But if we're right, what are we supposed to do?

BUT, beyond that, if we are right, that means that there is an almighty God who can do anything who is going to provide a way out. I personally know a number of formerly gay men who are happily married to women with children and completely satisfied with every aspect of their life.

I also know people who are happily celibate for the same reason.

Beyond that, if the Bible is true, you're aiming the "that's unhealthy" at the wrong end of the issue. If God is real, and He created us, and homosexuality is a spiritual thing, then it isn't God that is making it unbearable or unhealthy, its actually the gay person who needs help. Help like any other person stuck in a sinful life, but still help.

Whatever greater power you choose to believe in gave us all the ability to reason and question and understand. If there's a belief system that directs you to think this way about something as obviously involuntary as your sexuality (and it is involuntary, whether you think it's the product of nurture or nature or both) then you should exercise your God-given ability to question the belief system, rather than to blindly accept it. This isn't "don't eat hot dogs" or "don't try to nail your buddy's wife" or "don't rape babies." This is a fundamental aspect of what it is to be a human being, something that does no harm to anyone else. If your belief system don't have the ability or flexibility to allow human beings to be happy, it's a bad belief system. A God that wants human beings to be unhappy for their entire lives about something they cannot change is no God of mine, and shouldn't a God of anyone with the ability to think rationally.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

There are plenty of bad in the world. Look at a how jammed packed your prisons are. I'm sure someone can pull the numbers but I'd guess that 90%+ would identify themselves as religious. Guess the good book didn't help them.

I'm reluctant to jump back into a thread that now seems to mostly involve LB44, MOP, and Woz, but I feel compelled to point out that this is a fallacious argument. "X is a bad person and X is religious, so I guess religion didn't help" doesn't work because for all we know, X would be even worse if he or she wasn't religious. CS Lewis pointed this out a long time ago, and I'm sure he had himself in mind when he was thinking this through.

Yeah, I'm on my way out. I agree that this is not a perfect argument by any means. But when LB is running around screaming that people can't have morals without religion, it is a quick counter to say that not all people using religion to provide their morals are better because of it. Yes, it may have helped a few. But we're also talking about some people who couldn't get much worse who had the religious background (ie murders, pedos, rapists) Then he threw out the 'no true scotsman' and probably something about dragons, then shader tries to wedge creationism in and that about wraps it up for me.

FYI, Die Young would be the best Ke$ha song.

 

[Jutz]

And her music is not morally ok. Its raunchy and encourages sinful behavior.

C'mon

 

[larry_boy_44]

I hope the main thing I can shed some light on is the leap you, and others, are making about people's actions and attitudes towards others simply based on a comment like, "Yes, I think that's a sin."

Believing something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to shaming others. Believing something is a sin doesn't require an organized attack by Christians or a lobbying effort. Yes, it clearly does for some people and, honestly, I can't help explain where they are coming from because that's not where I am. I believe if Jesus walked in on the situation you describe, he'd come down hard on those doing the shaming. There are several Biblical examples of Jesus displaying harsher words and judgment towards those throwing the stones than those being stoned.

So what does it mean if I say something is a sin? All it really means is that I think that's something God says not to do (or failing to do what he says to do). That's it. There's really no reason, on its own, to read more into it than that. I'm not trying to hide any deeper feelings by labeling something as a "sin". Me saying "X is a sin" is not a way to hide from wanting to say "X is absolutely filthy and I am so much better than anyone who does X and God hates anyone who does X more than me because I don't do X."

Claiming something is a sin does not say anything about what I think that person's worth is or how I think that person should be treated or whether I think their sin is worse than someone else's sin. The assumption is that believing homosexuality is a sin automatically indicates that the person looks down upon homosexuals. But, that assumption is wrong for many people. I'd guess most of the Christians here who would say they think homosexuality is a sin would also defend the person being shamed and not join those doing the shaming.

People don't like to hear the tired line of "love the sinner, hate the sin" but that is the position. It is possible to think something is a sin and have that not affect how you feel about the person. In fact, as you know, it happens all the time. As you say, many Christians appear to be a-okay with many sins and the people who commit those sins. Unfortunately, many Christians have picked out homosexuality as a "special" sin. My only advice to them would be that they need to listen to and try to understand the other side. They then need to worry more about their own actions and their impacts than the actions of others. Whatever they do, they should do it in love. If they are not capable of discussing homosexuality and acting in love at the same time, then I'd suggest they back away and stop discussing homosexuality.

All that to say, some of your assumptions about people may be wrong. (Just like a Christians assumption about a homosexual may be wrong.) Saying something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusions that are usually reached.

I think I understand this, and I appreciate the effort here. I understand that the Christians who pick homosexuality as a "special" sin don't speak for the majority or the actual belief system.

But here's the problem I still have: let's compare the sin of homosexual acts to the sin of premarital heterosexual sex. In the case of the latter, you're telling the person that their desire to have sex is sinful, but that they will ultimately be able to indulge that desire in a way that is not sinful. I don't think that's a very healthy attitude towards sexuality and I think it causes some problems, but it's not the worst thing in the world either. There are even benefits to it too, I suppose. But for a homosexual, you are telling them that their desire is sinful and that they will never ever be able to indulge in it without sinning. That's a totally different and much more destructive thing to tell someone. Wanting to have sex isn't like wanting to gamble or coveting your neighbor's wife. It's something that's with you all the time. Its a very basic human desire. Whether you love the sinner or not, you're telling them that something so basic is sinful and it always will be even if they fall in love and want to settle down start a family. That strikes me as really unhealthy.

Imagine if all sex was considered a sin, even sex in marriage. Setting aside the obvious problem of keeping humanity around, can you imagine how preposterous that would be? Any sex is sinful? What a bleak, depressing, confusing and frustrated world that would be. Well, that's essentially the position many Christians (and Muslims, and some Jews) take towards homosexuality, since most homosexuals don't want to have sex with members of the opposite sex. You're telling them that a very basic human need is sinful and they shouldn't want to do it. I'd got bat#### crazy in about a month in a world where I was told I should never ever have sex until the day I die. Frankly it's a miracle we don't have more teen suicides among homosexuals in religious communities. How is that an acceptable result for a belief system?

but then again, consider it from the angle that Christianity is right.

I agree, none of this makes sense if its wrong and God doesn't exist. But if we're right, what are we supposed to do?

BUT, beyond that, if we are right, that means that there is an almighty God who can do anything who is going to provide a way out. I personally know a number of formerly gay men who are happily married to women with children and completely satisfied with every aspect of their life.

I also know people who are happily celibate for the same reason.

Beyond that, if the Bible is true, you're aiming the "that's unhealthy" at the wrong end of the issue. If God is real, and He created us, and homosexuality is a spiritual thing, then it isn't God that is making it unbearable or unhealthy, its actually the gay person who needs help. Help like any other person stuck in a sinful life, but still help.

Whatever greater power you choose to believe in gave us all the ability to reason and question and understand. If there's a belief system that directs you to think this way about something as obviously involuntary as your sexuality (and it is involuntary, whether you think it's the product of nurture or nature or both) then you should exercise your God-given ability to question the belief system, rather than to blindly accept it. This isn't "don't eat hot dogs" or "don't try to nail your buddy's wife" or "don't rape babies." This is a fundamental aspect of what it is to be a human being, something that does no harm to anyone else. If your belief system don't have the ability or flexibility to allow human beings to be happy, it's a bad belief system. A God that wants human beings to be unhappy for their entire lives about something they cannot change is no God of mine, and shouldn't a God of anyone with the ability to think rationally.

You go right to "think rationally", but you also eliminate the ability to consider anything spiritual or supernatural because it isn't "rational". You aren't considering most of what makes us who we are.

The fact is that there is nothing that is "involuntary". Our actions, our feelings, our everything that be controlled and brought into subjection. Is it hard? Yes. But it can be done. We choose who we are (no matter how we "felt" initially).

Proverbs 14:13

There’s a way of life that looks harmless enough;

look again—it leads straight to hell.

Sure, those people appear to be having a good time,

but all that laughter will end in heartbreak.

It isn't about having a good time and being "happy", happiness is fleeting and meaningless. Its about forever being fulfilled, content, and full of joy and peace. And those things are only found in God.

And I'm not saying this to try and convince you, I know that won't happen. But I think we'd all be better off if we understood where other people are coming from. Hopefully if you read any of what I've said, you understand where people who think like me come from and can use that in your life to try and deal with things that happen around you.

 

[Disco Stu]

I personally know a number of formerly gay men who are happily married to women with children and completely satisfied with every aspect of their life.

I also know people who are happily celibate for the same reason.

Beyond that, if the Bible is true, you're aiming the "that's unhealthy" at the wrong end of the issue. If God is real, and He created us, and homosexuality is a spiritual thing, then it isn't God that is making it unbearable or unhealthy, its actually the gay person who needs help. Help like any other person stuck in a sinful life, but still help.

Oof. "Happily celibate" in particular.

Band name?

 

[Jutz]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8258/8704857546_1182c16b68.jpg

Yeah we gettin' row dee... git git gittin' row dee

 

[B-Deep]

And her music is not morally ok. Its raunchy and encourages sinful behavior.

C'mon

I think it just discusses raunchy behavior

 

[B-Deep]

10 out of 12 apostles would have loved Ke$ha

Judas was into death metal and Luke was a music snob that would never listen to anything that the kids were listening too

 

[larry_boy_44]

There are plenty of bad in the world. Look at a how jammed packed your prisons are. I'm sure someone can pull the numbers but I'd guess that 90%+ would identify themselves as religious. Guess the good book didn't help them.

I'm reluctant to jump back into a thread that now seems to mostly involve LB44, MOP, and Woz, but I feel compelled to point out that this is a fallacious argument. "X is a bad person and X is religious, so I guess religion didn't help" doesn't work because for all we know, X would be even worse if he or she wasn't religious. CS Lewis pointed this out a long time ago, and I'm sure he had himself in mind when he was thinking this through.

Yeah, I'm on my way out. I agree that this is not a perfect argument by any means. But when LB is running around screaming that people can't have morals without religion, it is a quick counter to say that not all people using religion to provide their morals are better because of it. Yes, it may have helped a few. But we're also talking about some people who couldn't get much worse who had the religious background (ie murders, pedos, rapists) Then he threw out the 'no true scotsman' and probably something about dragons, then shader tries to wedge creationism in and that about wraps it up for me.

FYI, Die Young would be the best Ke$ha song.

I never said you can't have morals without religion. I said you can't have an absolute moral right and wrong without there being an ultimate source of what is right and wrong. Without some "ultimate decider", everything is relative. Morals still exist, but there is no "right" and "wrong" to it, it just is.

You would still have a moral code, and I would still have a moral code, but there would be no "right" moral code, no "good" moral code. Because everything is subjective, there is no real way to decide which is "good" and which is "evil" other than which one you like better, but even then it only decides things for you.

To explain better, who do you support: cops or robbers. With an absolute morality, one is doing right and one is doing wrong. HOWEVER, if there is no absolute morality, there is no reason that the robbers are wrong, they just are. The rest of people can decide they don't like that and don't want them in their group, but there is nothing saying that "group" is right.

Does that make sense? I'm not saying morals don't exist without religion, I'm saying everything is relative and nothing truly "good" or "evil" without some sort of ultimate decider that decides what is actually right and wrong.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I personally know a number of formerly gay men who are happily married to women with children and completely satisfied with every aspect of their life.

I also know people who are happily celibate for the same reason.

Beyond that, if the Bible is true, you're aiming the "that's unhealthy" at the wrong end of the issue. If God is real, and He created us, and homosexuality is a spiritual thing, then it isn't God that is making it unbearable or unhealthy, its actually the gay person who needs help. Help like any other person stuck in a sinful life, but still help.

Oof. "Happily celibate" in particular.

Band name?

I don't understand how happily celibate happens, either.

But I do know that it does.

 

[Jutz]

And her music is not morally ok. Its raunchy and encourages sinful behavior.

C'mon

I think it just discusses raunchy behavior

Exactly! Also... when she says things like "I don't wanna go to sleep, I wanna stay up all night, I just wanna screw around" I mean... I know people automatically think she means sex when she says "screw around" but screwing around could mean a lot of different things. She could be saying that she wants to stay up all night and play video games... like wii or something.

 

[Disco Stu]

I personally know a number of formerly gay men who are happily married to women with children and completely satisfied with every aspect of their life.

I also know people who are happily celibate for the same reason.

Beyond that, if the Bible is true, you're aiming the "that's unhealthy" at the wrong end of the issue. If God is real, and He created us, and homosexuality is a spiritual thing, then it isn't God that is making it unbearable or unhealthy, its actually the gay person who needs help. Help like any other person stuck in a sinful life, but still help.

Oof. "Happily celibate" in particular.

Band name?

I don't understand how happily celibate happens, either.

But I do know that it does.

It's possible that the "converted" or the "happily celibate" aren't as completely satisfied as they appear to you. Maybe they are. Or maybe they're like Ted Haggard.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

There are plenty of bad in the world. Look at a how jammed packed your prisons are. I'm sure someone can pull the numbers but I'd guess that 90%+ would identify themselves as religious. Guess the good book didn't help them.

I'm reluctant to jump back into a thread that now seems to mostly involve LB44, MOP, and Woz, but I feel compelled to point out that this is a fallacious argument. "X is a bad person and X is religious, so I guess religion didn't help" doesn't work because for all we know, X would be even worse if he or she wasn't religious. CS Lewis pointed this out a long time ago, and I'm sure he had himself in mind when he was thinking this through.

Yeah, I'm on my way out. I agree that this is not a perfect argument by any means. But when LB is running around screaming that people can't have morals without religion, it is a quick counter to say that not all people using religion to provide their morals are better because of it. Yes, it may have helped a few. But we're also talking about some people who couldn't get much worse who had the religious background (ie murders, pedos, rapists) Then he threw out the 'no true scotsman' and probably something about dragons, then shader tries to wedge creationism in and that about wraps it up for me.

FYI, Die Young would be the best Ke$ha song.

I never said you can't have morals without religion. I said you can't have an absolute moral right and wrong without there being an ultimate source of what is right and wrong. Without some "ultimate decider", everything is relative. Morals still exist, but there is no "right" and "wrong" to it, it just is.

You would still have a moral code, and I would still have a moral code, but there would be no "right" moral code, no "good" moral code. Because everything is subjective, there is no real way to decide which is "good" and which is "evil" other than which one you like better, but even then it only decides things for you.

To explain better, who do you support: cops or robbers. With an absolute morality, one is doing right and one is doing wrong. HOWEVER, if there is no absolute morality, there is no reason that the robbers are wrong, they just are. The rest of people can decide they don't like that and don't want them in their group, but there is nothing saying that "group" is right.

Does that make sense? I'm not saying morals don't exist without religion, I'm saying everything is relative and nothing truly "good" or "evil" without some sort of ultimate decider that decides what is actually right and wrong.

That is a lots of words to say that without god my, and every other heathens, morals are useless.

 

[larry_boy_44]

There are plenty of bad in the world. Look at a how jammed packed your prisons are. I'm sure someone can pull the numbers but I'd guess that 90%+ would identify themselves as religious. Guess the good book didn't help them.

I'm reluctant to jump back into a thread that now seems to mostly involve LB44, MOP, and Woz, but I feel compelled to point out that this is a fallacious argument. "X is a bad person and X is religious, so I guess religion didn't help" doesn't work because for all we know, X would be even worse if he or she wasn't religious. CS Lewis pointed this out a long time ago, and I'm sure he had himself in mind when he was thinking this through.

Yeah, I'm on my way out. I agree that this is not a perfect argument by any means. But when LB is running around screaming that people can't have morals without religion, it is a quick counter to say that not all people using religion to provide their morals are better because of it. Yes, it may have helped a few. But we're also talking about some people who couldn't get much worse who had the religious background (ie murders, pedos, rapists) Then he threw out the 'no true scotsman' and probably something about dragons, then shader tries to wedge creationism in and that about wraps it up for me.

FYI, Die Young would be the best Ke$ha song.

I never said you can't have morals without religion. I said you can't have an absolute moral right and wrong without there being an ultimate source of what is right and wrong. Without some "ultimate decider", everything is relative. Morals still exist, but there is no "right" and "wrong" to it, it just is.

You would still have a moral code, and I would still have a moral code, but there would be no "right" moral code, no "good" moral code. Because everything is subjective, there is no real way to decide which is "good" and which is "evil" other than which one you like better, but even then it only decides things for you.

To explain better, who do you support: cops or robbers. With an absolute morality, one is doing right and one is doing wrong. HOWEVER, if there is no absolute morality, there is no reason that the robbers are wrong, they just are. The rest of people can decide they don't like that and don't want them in their group, but there is nothing saying that "group" is right.

Does that make sense? I'm not saying morals don't exist without religion, I'm saying everything is relative and nothing truly "good" or "evil" without some sort of ultimate decider that decides what is actually right and wrong.

That is a lots of words to say that without god my, and every other heathens, morals are useless.

That's not what I said. I said that they are all relative and there is no "right" or "wrong", there just are things.

It'd be like doing algebra with no number. We can know what X is when X+7=10. But we can't know what X is when X+Y=Z.

If there is a God, we can know what moral is absolutely the right one, and what moral is absolutely the wrong one. Without some kind of God-like decider, however, there is no way to determine a right moral and a wrong one, because it doesn't matter. There is no right and there is no wrong, there just is what is.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

There are plenty of bad in the world. Look at a how jammed packed your prisons are. I'm sure someone can pull the numbers but I'd guess that 90%+ would identify themselves as religious. Guess the good book didn't help them.

I'm reluctant to jump back into a thread that now seems to mostly involve LB44, MOP, and Woz, but I feel compelled to point out that this is a fallacious argument. "X is a bad person and X is religious, so I guess religion didn't help" doesn't work because for all we know, X would be even worse if he or she wasn't religious. CS Lewis pointed this out a long time ago, and I'm sure he had himself in mind when he was thinking this through.

Yeah, I'm on my way out. I agree that this is not a perfect argument by any means. But when LB is running around screaming that people can't have morals without religion, it is a quick counter to say that not all people using religion to provide their morals are better because of it. Yes, it may have helped a few. But we're also talking about some people who couldn't get much worse who had the religious background (ie murders, pedos, rapists) Then he threw out the 'no true scotsman' and probably something about dragons, then shader tries to wedge creationism in and that about wraps it up for me.

FYI, Die Young would be the best Ke$ha song.

I never said you can't have morals without religion. I said you can't have an absolute moral right and wrong without there being an ultimate source of what is right and wrong. Without some "ultimate decider", everything is relative. Morals still exist, but there is no "right" and "wrong" to it, it just is.

You would still have a moral code, and I would still have a moral code, but there would be no "right" moral code, no "good" moral code. Because everything is subjective, there is no real way to decide which is "good" and which is "evil" other than which one you like better, but even then it only decides things for you.

To explain better, who do you support: cops or robbers. With an absolute morality, one is doing right and one is doing wrong. HOWEVER, if there is no absolute morality, there is no reason that the robbers are wrong, they just are. The rest of people can decide they don't like that and don't want them in their group, but there is nothing saying that "group" is right.

Does that make sense? I'm not saying morals don't exist without religion, I'm saying everything is relative and nothing truly "good" or "evil" without some sort of ultimate decider that decides what is actually right and wrong.

That is a lots of words to say that without god my, and every other heathens, morals are useless.

That's not what I said. I said that they are all relative and there is no "right" or "wrong", there just are things.

It'd be like doing algebra with no number. We can know what X is when X+7=10. But we can't know what X is when X+Y=Z.

If there is a God, we can know what moral is absolutely the right one, and what moral is absolutely the wrong one. Without some kind of God-like decider, however, there is no way to determine a right moral and a wrong one, because it doesn't matter. There is no right and there is no wrong, there just is what is.

And you just said the same thing again.

 

[mad sweeney]

There are plenty of bad in the world. Look at a how jammed packed your prisons are. I'm sure someone can pull the numbers but I'd guess that 90%+ would identify themselves as religious. Guess the good book didn't help them.

I'm reluctant to jump back into a thread that now seems to mostly involve LB44, MOP, and Woz, but I feel compelled to point out that this is a fallacious argument. "X is a bad person and X is religious, so I guess religion didn't help" doesn't work because for all we know, X would be even worse if he or she wasn't religious. CS Lewis pointed this out a long time ago, and I'm sure he had himself in mind when he was thinking this through.

Yeah, I'm on my way out. I agree that this is not a perfect argument by any means. But when LB is running around screaming that people can't have morals without religion, it is a quick counter to say that not all people using religion to provide their morals are better because of it. Yes, it may have helped a few. But we're also talking about some people who couldn't get much worse who had the religious background (ie murders, pedos, rapists) Then he threw out the 'no true scotsman' and probably something about dragons, then shader tries to wedge creationism in and that about wraps it up for me.

FYI, Die Young would be the best Ke$ha song.

I never said you can't have morals without religion. I said you can't have an absolute moral right and wrong without there being an ultimate source of what is right and wrong. Without some "ultimate decider", everything is relative. Morals still exist, but there is no "right" and "wrong" to it, it just is.

You would still have a moral code, and I would still have a moral code, but there would be no "right" moral code, no "good" moral code. Because everything is subjective, there is no real way to decide which is "good" and which is "evil" other than which one you like better, but even then it only decides things for you.

To explain better, who do you support: cops or robbers. With an absolute morality, one is doing right and one is doing wrong. HOWEVER, if there is no absolute morality, there is no reason that the robbers are wrong, they just are. The rest of people can decide they don't like that and don't want them in their group, but there is nothing saying that "group" is right.

Does that make sense? I'm not saying morals don't exist without religion, I'm saying everything is relative and nothing truly "good" or "evil" without some sort of ultimate decider that decides what is actually right and wrong.

That is a lots of words to say that without god my, and every other heathens, morals are useless.

That's not what I said. I said that they are all relative and there is no "right" or "wrong", there just are things.

It'd be like doing algebra with no number. We can know what X is when X+7=10. But we can't know what X is when X+Y=Z.

If there is a God, we can know what moral is absolutely the right one, and what moral is absolutely the wrong one. Without some kind of God-like decider, however, there is no way to determine a right moral and a wrong one, because it doesn't matter. There is no right and there is no wrong, there just is what is.

That doesn't seem to be the case now, even with God.

 

[larry_boy_44]

There are plenty of bad in the world. Look at a how jammed packed your prisons are. I'm sure someone can pull the numbers but I'd guess that 90%+ would identify themselves as religious. Guess the good book didn't help them.

I'm reluctant to jump back into a thread that now seems to mostly involve LB44, MOP, and Woz, but I feel compelled to point out that this is a fallacious argument. "X is a bad person and X is religious, so I guess religion didn't help" doesn't work because for all we know, X would be even worse if he or she wasn't religious. CS Lewis pointed this out a long time ago, and I'm sure he had himself in mind when he was thinking this through.

Yeah, I'm on my way out. I agree that this is not a perfect argument by any means. But when LB is running around screaming that people can't have morals without religion, it is a quick counter to say that not all people using religion to provide their morals are better because of it. Yes, it may have helped a few. But we're also talking about some people who couldn't get much worse who had the religious background (ie murders, pedos, rapists) Then he threw out the 'no true scotsman' and probably something about dragons, then shader tries to wedge creationism in and that about wraps it up for me.

FYI, Die Young would be the best Ke$ha song.

I never said you can't have morals without religion. I said you can't have an absolute moral right and wrong without there being an ultimate source of what is right and wrong. Without some "ultimate decider", everything is relative. Morals still exist, but there is no "right" and "wrong" to it, it just is.

You would still have a moral code, and I would still have a moral code, but there would be no "right" moral code, no "good" moral code. Because everything is subjective, there is no real way to decide which is "good" and which is "evil" other than which one you like better, but even then it only decides things for you.

To explain better, who do you support: cops or robbers. With an absolute morality, one is doing right and one is doing wrong. HOWEVER, if there is no absolute morality, there is no reason that the robbers are wrong, they just are. The rest of people can decide they don't like that and don't want them in their group, but there is nothing saying that "group" is right.

Does that make sense? I'm not saying morals don't exist without religion, I'm saying everything is relative and nothing truly "good" or "evil" without some sort of ultimate decider that decides what is actually right and wrong.

That is a lots of words to say that without god my, and every other heathens, morals are useless.

That's not what I said. I said that they are all relative and there is no "right" or "wrong", there just are things.

It'd be like doing algebra with no number. We can know what X is when X+7=10. But we can't know what X is when X+Y=Z.

If there is a God, we can know what moral is absolutely the right one, and what moral is absolutely the wrong one. Without some kind of God-like decider, however, there is no way to determine a right moral and a wrong one, because it doesn't matter. There is no right and there is no wrong, there just is what is.

And you just said the same thing again.

Yes, because if you think i said your morals are useless you misunderstood.

Without some decider of what is right or wrong that is absolute, ALL morals (mine and yours) are incapable of being declared absolutely good or absolutely evil (because those things don't exist).

It has nothing to do with heathen or not, or how useful or useless they are. I'd say your morals are probably useful even if a deity doesn't exist, simply because other people could exist in your morals, I like that. But that doesn't make them good if "good" and "evil" don't really exist.

 

[larry_boy_44]

There are plenty of bad in the world. Look at a how jammed packed your prisons are. I'm sure someone can pull the numbers but I'd guess that 90%+ would identify themselves as religious. Guess the good book didn't help them.

I'm reluctant to jump back into a thread that now seems to mostly involve LB44, MOP, and Woz, but I feel compelled to point out that this is a fallacious argument. "X is a bad person and X is religious, so I guess religion didn't help" doesn't work because for all we know, X would be even worse if he or she wasn't religious. CS Lewis pointed this out a long time ago, and I'm sure he had himself in mind when he was thinking this through.

Yeah, I'm on my way out. I agree that this is not a perfect argument by any means. But when LB is running around screaming that people can't have morals without religion, it is a quick counter to say that not all people using religion to provide their morals are better because of it. Yes, it may have helped a few. But we're also talking about some people who couldn't get much worse who had the religious background (ie murders, pedos, rapists) Then he threw out the 'no true scotsman' and probably something about dragons, then shader tries to wedge creationism in and that about wraps it up for me.

FYI, Die Young would be the best Ke$ha song.

I never said you can't have morals without religion. I said you can't have an absolute moral right and wrong without there being an ultimate source of what is right and wrong. Without some "ultimate decider", everything is relative. Morals still exist, but there is no "right" and "wrong" to it, it just is.

You would still have a moral code, and I would still have a moral code, but there would be no "right" moral code, no "good" moral code. Because everything is subjective, there is no real way to decide which is "good" and which is "evil" other than which one you like better, but even then it only decides things for you.

To explain better, who do you support: cops or robbers. With an absolute morality, one is doing right and one is doing wrong. HOWEVER, if there is no absolute morality, there is no reason that the robbers are wrong, they just are. The rest of people can decide they don't like that and don't want them in their group, but there is nothing saying that "group" is right.

Does that make sense? I'm not saying morals don't exist without religion, I'm saying everything is relative and nothing truly "good" or "evil" without some sort of ultimate decider that decides what is actually right and wrong.

That is a lots of words to say that without god my, and every other heathens, morals are useless.

That's not what I said. I said that they are all relative and there is no "right" or "wrong", there just are things.

It'd be like doing algebra with no number. We can know what X is when X+7=10. But we can't know what X is when X+Y=Z.

If there is a God, we can know what moral is absolutely the right one, and what moral is absolutely the wrong one. Without some kind of God-like decider, however, there is no way to determine a right moral and a wrong one, because it doesn't matter. There is no right and there is no wrong, there just is what is.

That doesn't seem to be the case now, even with God.

Just because we disagree doesn't mean the answer isn't out there. You just have to be willing to listen.

 

[Bonzai]

I personally know a number of formerly gay men who are happily married to women with children and completely satisfied with every aspect of their life.

I also know people who are happily celibate for the same reason.

Beyond that, if the Bible is true, you're aiming the "that's unhealthy" at the wrong end of the issue. If God is real, and He created us, and homosexuality is a spiritual thing, then it isn't God that is making it unbearable or unhealthy, its actually the gay person who needs help. Help like any other person stuck in a sinful life, but still help.

Oof. "Happily celibate" in particular.

Band name?

I don't understand how happily celibate happens, either.

But I do know that it does.

No you don't.

Theres a part of me that wants to write you off as an endearing goofball, but this is disgusting. Horrible.

 

[mad sweeney]

There are plenty of bad in the world. Look at a how jammed packed your prisons are. I'm sure someone can pull the numbers but I'd guess that 90%+ would identify themselves as religious. Guess the good book didn't help them.

I'm reluctant to jump back into a thread that now seems to mostly involve LB44, MOP, and Woz, but I feel compelled to point out that this is a fallacious argument. "X is a bad person and X is religious, so I guess religion didn't help" doesn't work because for all we know, X would be even worse if he or she wasn't religious. CS Lewis pointed this out a long time ago, and I'm sure he had himself in mind when he was thinking this through.

Yeah, I'm on my way out. I agree that this is not a perfect argument by any means. But when LB is running around screaming that people can't have morals without religion, it is a quick counter to say that not all people using religion to provide their morals are better because of it. Yes, it may have helped a few. But we're also talking about some people who couldn't get much worse who had the religious background (ie murders, pedos, rapists) Then he threw out the 'no true scotsman' and probably something about dragons, then shader tries to wedge creationism in and that about wraps it up for me.

FYI, Die Young would be the best Ke$ha song.

I never said you can't have morals without religion. I said you can't have an absolute moral right and wrong without there being an ultimate source of what is right and wrong. Without some "ultimate decider", everything is relative. Morals still exist, but there is no "right" and "wrong" to it, it just is.

You would still have a moral code, and I would still have a moral code, but there would be no "right" moral code, no "good" moral code. Because everything is subjective, there is no real way to decide which is "good" and which is "evil" other than which one you like better, but even then it only decides things for you.

To explain better, who do you support: cops or robbers. With an absolute morality, one is doing right and one is doing wrong. HOWEVER, if there is no absolute morality, there is no reason that the robbers are wrong, they just are. The rest of people can decide they don't like that and don't want them in their group, but there is nothing saying that "group" is right.

Does that make sense? I'm not saying morals don't exist without religion, I'm saying everything is relative and nothing truly "good" or "evil" without some sort of ultimate decider that decides what is actually right and wrong.

That is a lots of words to say that without god my, and every other heathens, morals are useless.

That's not what I said. I said that they are all relative and there is no "right" or "wrong", there just are things.

It'd be like doing algebra with no number. We can know what X is when X+7=10. But we can't know what X is when X+Y=Z.

If there is a God, we can know what moral is absolutely the right one, and what moral is absolutely the wrong one. Without some kind of God-like decider, however, there is no way to determine a right moral and a wrong one, because it doesn't matter. There is no right and there is no wrong, there just is what is.

And you just said the same thing again.

Yes, because if you think i said your morals are useless you misunderstood.

Without some decider of what is right or wrong that is absolute, ALL morals (mine and yours) are incapable of being declared absolutely good or absolutely evil (because those things don't exist).

It has nothing to do with heathen or not, or how useful or useless they are. I'd say your morals are probably useful even if a deity doesn't exist, simply because other people could exist in your morals, I like that. But that doesn't make them good if "good" and "evil" don't really exist.

Except that even now, with God, morals aren't absolute. Just take the debate about "Thou Shalt Not Kill" for one easy example.

Also, way to stick to your guns and just claim people don't understand when you have nothing else to go on.

 

[mad sweeney]

There are plenty of bad in the world. Look at a how jammed packed your prisons are. I'm sure someone can pull the numbers but I'd guess that 90%+ would identify themselves as religious. Guess the good book didn't help them.

I'm reluctant to jump back into a thread that now seems to mostly involve LB44, MOP, and Woz, but I feel compelled to point out that this is a fallacious argument. "X is a bad person and X is religious, so I guess religion didn't help" doesn't work because for all we know, X would be even worse if he or she wasn't religious. CS Lewis pointed this out a long time ago, and I'm sure he had himself in mind when he was thinking this through.

Yeah, I'm on my way out. I agree that this is not a perfect argument by any means. But when LB is running around screaming that people can't have morals without religion, it is a quick counter to say that not all people using religion to provide their morals are better because of it. Yes, it may have helped a few. But we're also talking about some people who couldn't get much worse who had the religious background (ie murders, pedos, rapists) Then he threw out the 'no true scotsman' and probably something about dragons, then shader tries to wedge creationism in and that about wraps it up for me.

FYI, Die Young would be the best Ke$ha song.

I never said you can't have morals without religion. I said you can't have an absolute moral right and wrong without there being an ultimate source of what is right and wrong. Without some "ultimate decider", everything is relative. Morals still exist, but there is no "right" and "wrong" to it, it just is.

You would still have a moral code, and I would still have a moral code, but there would be no "right" moral code, no "good" moral code. Because everything is subjective, there is no real way to decide which is "good" and which is "evil" other than which one you like better, but even then it only decides things for you.

To explain better, who do you support: cops or robbers. With an absolute morality, one is doing right and one is doing wrong. HOWEVER, if there is no absolute morality, there is no reason that the robbers are wrong, they just are. The rest of people can decide they don't like that and don't want them in their group, but there is nothing saying that "group" is right.

Does that make sense? I'm not saying morals don't exist without religion, I'm saying everything is relative and nothing truly "good" or "evil" without some sort of ultimate decider that decides what is actually right and wrong.

That is a lots of words to say that without god my, and every other heathens, morals are useless.

That's not what I said. I said that they are all relative and there is no "right" or "wrong", there just are things.

It'd be like doing algebra with no number. We can know what X is when X+7=10. But we can't know what X is when X+Y=Z.

If there is a God, we can know what moral is absolutely the right one, and what moral is absolutely the wrong one. Without some kind of God-like decider, however, there is no way to determine a right moral and a wrong one, because it doesn't matter. There is no right and there is no wrong, there just is what is.

That doesn't seem to be the case now, even with God.

Just because we disagree doesn't mean the answer isn't out there. You just have to be willing to listen.

 

[Henry Ford]

But what if we're wrong?

I mean, we've been wrong before, right?

All I'm saying is it makes more sense to me when I make an absolute statement and say "The Creator of everything says...." and then finish the sentence than when I hear someone else say "I feel....." and then make a statement and act like its an absolute and without any question.

I understand that you feel the way you do (and you are free to feel that way), I just question how you get to the point that you feel like you or any human (or group of humans) alive right now are an authority on morality... Especially if there is no "higher purpose" so morality is just whatever makes us happiest on earth. (which brings up the question of why I should care if anyone else is happy if I'm happy, among other questions)

Honest question - without referencing god or the Bible, why is homosexual behavior between consenting adults immoral? What is it specifically that makes it immoral?

While I don't agree with it, the logical utilitarian answer would be that it is bad because, if applied to all of us, homosexuality would essentially end civilization (well, at least until we discovered artificial insemination). Again, I don't agree with this at all, but it's a non-God argument against the "goodness" of homosexuality.

I don't think you understand utilitarianism, homosexuality, logic, artificial insemination, or the difference between "the freedom to..." and "the requirement to at all times..."

Other than that, this is a great post.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I hope the main thing I can shed some light on is the leap you, and others, are making about people's actions and attitudes towards others simply based on a comment like, "Yes, I think that's a sin."

Believing something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to shaming others. Believing something is a sin doesn't require an organized attack by Christians or a lobbying effort. Yes, it clearly does for some people and, honestly, I can't help explain where they are coming from because that's not where I am. I believe if Jesus walked in on the situation you describe, he'd come down hard on those doing the shaming. There are several Biblical examples of Jesus displaying harsher words and judgment towards those throwing the stones than those being stoned.

So what does it mean if I say something is a sin? All it really means is that I think that's something God says not to do (or failing to do what he says to do). That's it. There's really no reason, on its own, to read more into it than that. I'm not trying to hide any deeper feelings by labeling something as a "sin". Me saying "X is a sin" is not a way to hide from wanting to say "X is absolutely filthy and I am so much better than anyone who does X and God hates anyone who does X more than me because I don't do X."

Claiming something is a sin does not say anything about what I think that person's worth is or how I think that person should be treated or whether I think their sin is worse than someone else's sin. The assumption is that believing homosexuality is a sin automatically indicates that the person looks down upon homosexuals. But, that assumption is wrong for many people. I'd guess most of the Christians here who would say they think homosexuality is a sin would also defend the person being shamed and not join those doing the shaming.

People don't like to hear the tired line of "love the sinner, hate the sin" but that is the position. It is possible to think something is a sin and have that not affect how you feel about the person. In fact, as you know, it happens all the time. As you say, many Christians appear to be a-okay with many sins and the people who commit those sins. Unfortunately, many Christians have picked out homosexuality as a "special" sin. My only advice to them would be that they need to listen to and try to understand the other side. They then need to worry more about their own actions and their impacts than the actions of others. Whatever they do, they should do it in love. If they are not capable of discussing homosexuality and acting in love at the same time, then I'd suggest they back away and stop discussing homosexuality.

All that to say, some of your assumptions about people may be wrong. (Just like a Christians assumption about a homosexual may be wrong.) Saying something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusions that are usually reached.

I think I understand this, and I appreciate the effort here. I understand that the Christians who pick homosexuality as a "special" sin don't speak for the majority or the actual belief system.

But here's the problem I still have: let's compare the sin of homosexual acts to the sin of premarital heterosexual sex. In the case of the latter, you're telling the person that their desire to have sex is sinful, but that they will ultimately be able to indulge that desire in a way that is not sinful. I don't think that's a very healthy attitude towards sexuality and I think it causes some problems, but it's not the worst thing in the world either. There are even benefits to it too, I suppose. But for a homosexual, you are telling them that their desire is sinful and that they will never ever be able to indulge in it without sinning. That's a totally different and much more destructive thing to tell someone. Wanting to have sex isn't like wanting to gamble or coveting your neighbor's wife. It's something that's with you all the time. Its a very basic human desire. Whether you love the sinner or not, you're telling them that something so basic is sinful and it always will be even if they fall in love and want to settle down start a family. That strikes me as really unhealthy.

Imagine if all sex was considered a sin, even sex in marriage. Setting aside the obvious problem of keeping humanity around, can you imagine how preposterous that would be? Any sex is sinful? What a bleak, depressing, confusing and frustrated world that would be. Well, that's essentially the position many Christians (and Muslims, and some Jews) take towards homosexuality, since most homosexuals don't want to have sex with members of the opposite sex. You're telling them that a very basic human need is sinful and they shouldn't want to do it. I'd got bat#### crazy in about a month in a world where I was told I should never ever have sex until the day I die. Frankly it's a miracle we don't have more teen suicides among homosexuals in religious communities. How is that an acceptable result for a belief system?

but then again, consider it from the angle that Christianity is right.

I agree, none of this makes sense if its wrong and God doesn't exist. But if we're right, what are we supposed to do?

BUT, beyond that, if we are right, that means that there is an almighty God who can do anything who is going to provide a way out. I personally know a number of formerly gay men who are happily married to women with children and completely satisfied with every aspect of their life.

I also know people who are happily celibate for the same reason.

Beyond that, if the Bible is true, you're aiming the "that's unhealthy" at the wrong end of the issue. If God is real, and He created us, and homosexuality is a spiritual thing, then it isn't God that is making it unbearable or unhealthy, its actually the gay person who needs help. Help like any other person stuck in a sinful life, but still help.

Whatever greater power you choose to believe in gave us all the ability to reason and question and understand. If there's a belief system that directs you to think this way about something as obviously involuntary as your sexuality (and it is involuntary, whether you think it's the product of nurture or nature or both) then you should exercise your God-given ability to question the belief system, rather than to blindly accept it. This isn't "don't eat hot dogs" or "don't try to nail your buddy's wife" or "don't rape babies." This is a fundamental aspect of what it is to be a human being, something that does no harm to anyone else. If your belief system don't have the ability or flexibility to allow human beings to be happy, it's a bad belief system. A God that wants human beings to be unhappy for their entire lives about something they cannot change is no God of mine, and shouldn't a God of anyone with the ability to think rationally.

You go right to "think rationally", but you also eliminate the ability to consider anything spiritual or supernatural because it isn't "rational". You aren't considering most of what makes us who we are.

The fact is that there is nothing that is "involuntary". Our actions, our feelings, our everything that be controlled and brought into subjection. Is it hard? Yes. But it can be done. We choose who we are (no matter how we "felt" initially).

Proverbs 14:13

>There’s a way of life that looks harmless enough;

look again—it leads straight to hell.

Sure, those people appear to be having a good time,

but all that laughter will end in heartbreak.

It isn't about having a good time and being "happy", happiness is fleeting and meaningless. Its about forever being fulfilled, content, and full of joy and peace. And those things are only found in God.

And I'm not saying this to try and convince you, I know that won't happen. But I think we'd all be better off if we understood where other people are coming from. Hopefully if you read any of what I've said, you understand where people who think like me come from and can use that in your life to try and deal with things that happen around you.

This is a total cop-out. You can justify any awful treatment of your fellow man simply saying that God directs it and being fulfilled, content and full of joy and peace can only be found in God. I don't accept that justification for shabby treatment of your fellow man from Muslims, I don't accept it from Orthodox Jews and I'm not gonna accept it from Christians. You are no different from them in my opinion. It's a bull#### position and we need to get rid of it. And we will, that's how progress works.

 

[Plorfu]

NcCommish thinks Ke$ha is iconic.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I personally know a number of formerly gay men who are happily married to women with children and completely satisfied with every aspect of their life.

I also know people who are happily celibate for the same reason.

Beyond that, if the Bible is true, you're aiming the "that's unhealthy" at the wrong end of the issue. If God is real, and He created us, and homosexuality is a spiritual thing, then it isn't God that is making it unbearable or unhealthy, its actually the gay person who needs help. Help like any other person stuck in a sinful life, but still help.

Oof. "Happily celibate" in particular.

Band name?

I don't understand how happily celibate happens, either.

But I do know that it does.

No you don't.

Theres a part of me that wants to write you off as an endearing goofball, but this is disgusting. Horrible.

Yeah, I do.

Not only do i know people who are happy and very late in life and single, but there are examples in history and other places as well.

Is it abnormal? Absolutely. But it does happen. Just because it isn't how you and I would choose to live life doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

You wouldn't choose to be gay, but you believe people do and are happy, right?

So why automatically assume someone can not possibly be celibate and happy?

 

[B-Deep]

I think if we examine one of Ke$ha's tunes we'll see she is not being sinful at all (though none of us are truly without sin)....



Saw you leaning against that old record machine
Saw the name of your band written on the marquee
It's a full moon tonight so we getting rowdy
Yeah we getting rowdy, g-g-getting rowdy

nothing wrong there, what youngsters don;t want to get rowdy after listening to some Christian Rock on the ole jukebox

get rowdy for Jesus!


Feeling like I'm a high schooler
Sipping on a warm wine cooler
Hot 'cause the party don't stop
I'm in a crop top
Like I'm working at hooters
We been keeping it PG
But I wanna get a little frisky
Come gimme some of that yum like a lollipop
Let me set you free

She is young at heart and enjoying some wine, much like the wine Jesus peddled at the wedding.
Perhaps the crop top is a tad revealing, but she is clearly keeping her naughty bits covered, and she explicitly states that they have been keeping everything PG. Frisky or not, Jesus would be ok with PG

and she enjoys candy

C'mon 'cause I know what I like
And you're looking just like my type
Let's go for it just for tonight
C'mon, c'mon, c'mon
Now don't even try to deny
We're both going home satisfied
Let's go for it just for tonight
C'mon, c'mon, c'mon

If I am not mistake her and her friend are going to immerse themselves in the scriptures. He knows what she likes (I am guessing she is a Psalms girl) and a night of Bible study always leaves the soul satisfied. She even warns him not to try and deny her the word of God.

Write our names on the wall in the back of the bar
Steal some bubblegum from the corner Maxi-Mart
Yeah, we laughing like kids causing trouble in the dark
Causing trouble in the dark, t-t-trouble in the dark

One can only assume there is a whiteboard on the wall. What you need to understand about the next line is that stealing with this frame of reference is not the same kind of theft as you assume. When translated from the original Ke$hian the word roughly means "getting a great deal". There as probably a BOGO going on at the Circle K and the deal is so good they feel like it was almost theft! They then laughingly joke about causing "trouble" but that is sarcasm, they really just made a frugal purchase


Feeling like a saber-toothed tiger
Sipping on a warm Budweiser
Touch me and give me that rush
Better pack a toothbrush
Gonna pull an all-nighter
We been keeping it kosher
But I wanna get it on for sure
Come gimme some of that yum like a lollipop
Baby don't be scared

Ke$ha is 26, there's nothing wrong with sipping a cold beer with her brother in Christ. The touch of the Holy Spirirt provides her such a rush that they want to do an all night Bible study. While they have been keeping it "kosher" by focusing on the old testament they plan on expanding into the new testament tonight. This frightens her friend, so she reassures him.

and she still likes candy.


C'mon 'cause I know what I like
And you're looking just like my type
Let's go for it just for tonight
C'mon, c'mon, c'mon
Now don't even try to deny
We're both going home satisfied
Let's go for it just for tonight
C'mon, c'mon, c'mon

I don't wanna go to sleep
I wanna stay up all night
I wanna just screw around
I don't wanna think about
What's gonna be after this
I wanna just live right now

Just more Bible study talk, until the screw around part. After spending so much time in deep study of the scripture they just need to blow of some steam by [playing some good christian games, like pin the raptor under the Messiah, or name that hymn, or maybe Uno

 

[larry_boy_44]

There are plenty of bad in the world. Look at a how jammed packed your prisons are. I'm sure someone can pull the numbers but I'd guess that 90%+ would identify themselves as religious. Guess the good book didn't help them.

I'm reluctant to jump back into a thread that now seems to mostly involve LB44, MOP, and Woz, but I feel compelled to point out that this is a fallacious argument. "X is a bad person and X is religious, so I guess religion didn't help" doesn't work because for all we know, X would be even worse if he or she wasn't religious. CS Lewis pointed this out a long time ago, and I'm sure he had himself in mind when he was thinking this through.

Yeah, I'm on my way out. I agree that this is not a perfect argument by any means. But when LB is running around screaming that people can't have morals without religion, it is a quick counter to say that not all people using religion to provide their morals are better because of it. Yes, it may have helped a few. But we're also talking about some people who couldn't get much worse who had the religious background (ie murders, pedos, rapists) Then he threw out the 'no true scotsman' and probably something about dragons, then shader tries to wedge creationism in and that about wraps it up for me.

FYI, Die Young would be the best Ke$ha song.

I never said you can't have morals without religion. I said you can't have an absolute moral right and wrong without there being an ultimate source of what is right and wrong. Without some "ultimate decider", everything is relative. Morals still exist, but there is no "right" and "wrong" to it, it just is.

You would still have a moral code, and I would still have a moral code, but there would be no "right" moral code, no "good" moral code. Because everything is subjective, there is no real way to decide which is "good" and which is "evil" other than which one you like better, but even then it only decides things for you.

To explain better, who do you support: cops or robbers. With an absolute morality, one is doing right and one is doing wrong. HOWEVER, if there is no absolute morality, there is no reason that the robbers are wrong, they just are. The rest of people can decide they don't like that and don't want them in their group, but there is nothing saying that "group" is right.

Does that make sense? I'm not saying morals don't exist without religion, I'm saying everything is relative and nothing truly "good" or "evil" without some sort of ultimate decider that decides what is actually right and wrong.

That is a lots of words to say that without god my, and every other heathens, morals are useless.

That's not what I said. I said that they are all relative and there is no "right" or "wrong", there just are things.

It'd be like doing algebra with no number. We can know what X is when X+7=10. But we can't know what X is when X+Y=Z.

If there is a God, we can know what moral is absolutely the right one, and what moral is absolutely the wrong one. Without some kind of God-like decider, however, there is no way to determine a right moral and a wrong one, because it doesn't matter. There is no right and there is no wrong, there just is what is.

And you just said the same thing again.

Yes, because if you think i said your morals are useless you misunderstood.

Without some decider of what is right or wrong that is absolute, ALL morals (mine and yours) are incapable of being declared absolutely good or absolutely evil (because those things don't exist).

It has nothing to do with heathen or not, or how useful or useless they are. I'd say your morals are probably useful even if a deity doesn't exist, simply because other people could exist in your morals, I like that. But that doesn't make them good if "good" and "evil" don't really exist.

Except that even now, with God, morals aren't absolute. Just take the debate about "Thou Shalt Not Kill" for one easy example.

Also, way to stick to your guns and just claim people don't understand when you have nothing else to go on.

I was assuming I wasn't saying what I meant clearly (not that he was incapable of understanding). Just to clarify.

As far as not absolute. IF there is a God, there is an absolute right answer to every moral question, even if we don't know the answer.

If there is no God (or decision maker of some sort), there is no absolute right answer to any moral question because there is no absolute moral authority.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I hope the main thing I can shed some light on is the leap you, and others, are making about people's actions and attitudes towards others simply based on a comment like, "Yes, I think that's a sin."

Believing something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to shaming others. Believing something is a sin doesn't require an organized attack by Christians or a lobbying effort. Yes, it clearly does for some people and, honestly, I can't help explain where they are coming from because that's not where I am. I believe if Jesus walked in on the situation you describe, he'd come down hard on those doing the shaming. There are several Biblical examples of Jesus displaying harsher words and judgment towards those throwing the stones than those being stoned.

So what does it mean if I say something is a sin? All it really means is that I think that's something God says not to do (or failing to do what he says to do). That's it. There's really no reason, on its own, to read more into it than that. I'm not trying to hide any deeper feelings by labeling something as a "sin". Me saying "X is a sin" is not a way to hide from wanting to say "X is absolutely filthy and I am so much better than anyone who does X and God hates anyone who does X more than me because I don't do X."

Claiming something is a sin does not say anything about what I think that person's worth is or how I think that person should be treated or whether I think their sin is worse than someone else's sin. The assumption is that believing homosexuality is a sin automatically indicates that the person looks down upon homosexuals. But, that assumption is wrong for many people. I'd guess most of the Christians here who would say they think homosexuality is a sin would also defend the person being shamed and not join those doing the shaming.

People don't like to hear the tired line of "love the sinner, hate the sin" but that is the position. It is possible to think something is a sin and have that not affect how you feel about the person. In fact, as you know, it happens all the time. As you say, many Christians appear to be a-okay with many sins and the people who commit those sins. Unfortunately, many Christians have picked out homosexuality as a "special" sin. My only advice to them would be that they need to listen to and try to understand the other side. They then need to worry more about their own actions and their impacts than the actions of others. Whatever they do, they should do it in love. If they are not capable of discussing homosexuality and acting in love at the same time, then I'd suggest they back away and stop discussing homosexuality.

All that to say, some of your assumptions about people may be wrong. (Just like a Christians assumption about a homosexual may be wrong.) Saying something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusions that are usually reached.

I think I understand this, and I appreciate the effort here. I understand that the Christians who pick homosexuality as a "special" sin don't speak for the majority or the actual belief system.

But here's the problem I still have: let's compare the sin of homosexual acts to the sin of premarital heterosexual sex. In the case of the latter, you're telling the person that their desire to have sex is sinful, but that they will ultimately be able to indulge that desire in a way that is not sinful. I don't think that's a very healthy attitude towards sexuality and I think it causes some problems, but it's not the worst thing in the world either. There are even benefits to it too, I suppose. But for a homosexual, you are telling them that their desire is sinful and that they will never ever be able to indulge in it without sinning. That's a totally different and much more destructive thing to tell someone. Wanting to have sex isn't like wanting to gamble or coveting your neighbor's wife. It's something that's with you all the time. Its a very basic human desire. Whether you love the sinner or not, you're telling them that something so basic is sinful and it always will be even if they fall in love and want to settle down start a family. That strikes me as really unhealthy.

Imagine if all sex was considered a sin, even sex in marriage. Setting aside the obvious problem of keeping humanity around, can you imagine how preposterous that would be? Any sex is sinful? What a bleak, depressing, confusing and frustrated world that would be. Well, that's essentially the position many Christians (and Muslims, and some Jews) take towards homosexuality, since most homosexuals don't want to have sex with members of the opposite sex. You're telling them that a very basic human need is sinful and they shouldn't want to do it. I'd got bat#### crazy in about a month in a world where I was told I should never ever have sex until the day I die. Frankly it's a miracle we don't have more teen suicides among homosexuals in religious communities. How is that an acceptable result for a belief system?

but then again, consider it from the angle that Christianity is right.

I agree, none of this makes sense if its wrong and God doesn't exist. But if we're right, what are we supposed to do?

BUT, beyond that, if we are right, that means that there is an almighty God who can do anything who is going to provide a way out. I personally know a number of formerly gay men who are happily married to women with children and completely satisfied with every aspect of their life.

I also know people who are happily celibate for the same reason.

Beyond that, if the Bible is true, you're aiming the "that's unhealthy" at the wrong end of the issue. If God is real, and He created us, and homosexuality is a spiritual thing, then it isn't God that is making it unbearable or unhealthy, its actually the gay person who needs help. Help like any other person stuck in a sinful life, but still help.

Whatever greater power you choose to believe in gave us all the ability to reason and question and understand. If there's a belief system that directs you to think this way about something as obviously involuntary as your sexuality (and it is involuntary, whether you think it's the product of nurture or nature or both) then you should exercise your God-given ability to question the belief system, rather than to blindly accept it. This isn't "don't eat hot dogs" or "don't try to nail your buddy's wife" or "don't rape babies." This is a fundamental aspect of what it is to be a human being, something that does no harm to anyone else. If your belief system don't have the ability or flexibility to allow human beings to be happy, it's a bad belief system. A God that wants human beings to be unhappy for their entire lives about something they cannot change is no God of mine, and shouldn't a God of anyone with the ability to think rationally.

You go right to "think rationally", but you also eliminate the ability to consider anything spiritual or supernatural because it isn't "rational". You aren't considering most of what makes us who we are.

The fact is that there is nothing that is "involuntary". Our actions, our feelings, our everything that be controlled and brought into subjection. Is it hard? Yes. But it can be done. We choose who we are (no matter how we "felt" initially).

Proverbs 14:13

>There’s a way of life that looks harmless enough;

look again—it leads straight to hell.

Sure, those people appear to be having a good time,

but all that laughter will end in heartbreak.

It isn't about having a good time and being "happy", happiness is fleeting and meaningless. Its about forever being fulfilled, content, and full of joy and peace. And those things are only found in God.

And I'm not saying this to try and convince you, I know that won't happen. But I think we'd all be better off if we understood where other people are coming from. Hopefully if you read any of what I've said, you understand where people who think like me come from and can use that in your life to try and deal with things that happen around you.

This is a total cop-out. You can justify any awful treatment of your fellow man simply saying that God directs it and being fulfilled, content and full of joy and peace can only be found in God. I don't accept that justification for shabby treatment of your fellow man from Muslims, I don't accept it from Orthodox Jews and I'm not gonna accept it from Christians. You are no different from them in my opinion. It's a bull#### position and we need to get rid of it. And we will, that's how progress works.

Except there are two commands in Christianity that everything else is built on, that is to love God with everything we have and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

If you're treating someone badly, you aren't loving them and you aren't following God with that action.

 

[larry_boy_44]

NcCommish thinks Ke$ha is iconic.

 

[Henry Ford]

I was assuming I wasn't saying what I meant clearly (not that he was incapable of understanding). Just to clarify.

As far as not absolute. IF there is a God, there is an absolute right answer to every moral question, even if we don't know the answer.

If there is no God (or decision maker of some sort), there is no absolute right answer to any moral question because there is no absolute moral authority.

1. Your first conclusion is only true if God is what you think He is. There can be a God who does not make morality absolute.

2. Your second conclusion is only true if an absolute authority is required for absolute right answers. That doesn't seem to be the case in any other area of study - why is it the case for morality in your mind?

 

[Jutz]

I think if we examine one of Ke$ha's tunes we'll see she is not being sinful at all (though none of us are truly without sin)....



Saw you leaning against that old record machine
Saw the name of your band written on the marquee
It's a full moon tonight so we getting rowdy
Yeah we getting rowdy, g-g-getting rowdy

nothing wrong there, what youngsters don;t want to get rowdy after listening to some Christian Rock on the ole jukebox

get rowdy for Jesus!


Feeling like I'm a high schooler
Sipping on a warm wine cooler
Hot 'cause the party don't stop
I'm in a crop top
Like I'm working at hooters
We been keeping it PG
But I wanna get a little frisky
Come gimme some of that yum like a lollipop
Let me set you free

She is young at heart and enjoying some wine, much like the wine Jesus peddled at the wedding.
Perhaps the crop top is a tad revealing, but she is clearly keeping her naughty bits covered, and she explicitly states that they have been keeping everything PG. Frisky or not, Jesus would be ok with PG

and she enjoys candy

C'mon 'cause I know what I like
And you're looking just like my type
Let's go for it just for tonight
C'mon, c'mon, c'mon
Now don't even try to deny
We're both going home satisfied
Let's go for it just for tonight
C'mon, c'mon, c'mon

If I am not mistake her and her friend are going to immerse themselves in the scriptures. He knows what she likes (I am guessing she is a Psalms girl) and a night of Bible study always leaves the soul satisfied. She even warns him not to try and deny her the word of God.

Write our names on the wall in the back of the bar
Steal some bubblegum from the corner Maxi-Mart
Yeah, we laughing like kids causing trouble in the dark
Causing trouble in the dark, t-t-trouble in the dark

One can only assume there is a whiteboard on the wall. What you need to understand about the next line is that stealing with this frame of reference is not the same kind of theft as you assume. When translated from the original Ke$hian the word roughly means "getting a great deal". There as probably a BOGO going on at the Circle K and the deal is so good they feel like it was almost theft! They then laughingly joke about causing "trouble" but that is sarcasm, they really just made a frugal purchase


Feeling like a saber-toothed tiger
Sipping on a warm Budweiser
Touch me and give me that rush
Better pack a toothbrush
Gonna pull an all-nighter
We been keeping it kosher
But I wanna get it on for sure
Come gimme some of that yum like a lollipop
Baby don't be scared

Ke$ha is 26, there's nothing wrong with sipping a cold beer with her brother in Christ. The touch of the Holy Spirirt provides her such a rush that they want to do an all night Bible study. While they have been keeping it "kosher" by focusing on the old testament they plan on expanding into the new testament tonight. This frightens her friend, so she reassures him.

and she still likes candy.


C'mon 'cause I know what I like
And you're looking just like my type
Let's go for it just for tonight
C'mon, c'mon, c'mon
Now don't even try to deny
We're both going home satisfied
Let's go for it just for tonight
C'mon, c'mon, c'mon

I don't wanna go to sleep
I wanna stay up all night
I wanna just screw around
I don't wanna think about
What's gonna be after this
I wanna just live right now

Just more Bible study talk, until the screw around part. After spending so much time in deep study of the scripture they just need to blow of some steam by [playing some good christian games, like pin the raptor under the Messiah, or name that hymn, or maybe Uno.

I often break down Ke$ha lyrics in my head during car rides with the radio on.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I think if we examine one of Ke$ha's tunes we'll see she is not being sinful at all (though none of us are truly without sin)....



Saw you leaning against that old record machine
Saw the name of your band written on the marquee
It's a full moon tonight so we getting rowdy
Yeah we getting rowdy, g-g-getting rowdy

nothing wrong there, what youngsters don;t want to get rowdy after listening to some Christian Rock on the ole jukebox

get rowdy for Jesus!


Feeling like I'm a high schooler
Sipping on a warm wine cooler
Hot 'cause the party don't stop
I'm in a crop top
Like I'm working at hooters
We been keeping it PG
But I wanna get a little frisky
Come gimme some of that yum like a lollipop
Let me set you free

She is young at heart and enjoying some wine, much like the wine Jesus peddled at the wedding.
Perhaps the crop top is a tad revealing, but she is clearly keeping her naughty bits covered, and she explicitly states that they have been keeping everything PG. Frisky or not, Jesus would be ok with PG

and she enjoys candy

C'mon 'cause I know what I like
And you're looking just like my type
Let's go for it just for tonight
C'mon, c'mon, c'mon
Now don't even try to deny
We're both going home satisfied
Let's go for it just for tonight
C'mon, c'mon, c'mon

If I am not mistake her and her friend are going to immerse themselves in the scriptures. He knows what she likes (I am guessing she is a Psalms girl) and a night of Bible study always leaves the soul satisfied. She even warns him not to try and deny her the word of God.

Write our names on the wall in the back of the bar
Steal some bubblegum from the corner Maxi-Mart
Yeah, we laughing like kids causing trouble in the dark
Causing trouble in the dark, t-t-trouble in the dark

One can only assume there is a whiteboard on the wall. What you need to understand about the next line is that stealing with this frame of reference is not the same kind of theft as you assume. When translated from the original Ke$hian the word roughly means "getting a great deal". There as probably a BOGO going on at the Circle K and the deal is so good they feel like it was almost theft! They then laughingly joke about causing "trouble" but that is sarcasm, they really just made a frugal purchase


Feeling like a saber-toothed tiger
Sipping on a warm Budweiser
Touch me and give me that rush
Better pack a toothbrush
Gonna pull an all-nighter
We been keeping it kosher
But I wanna get it on for sure
Come gimme some of that yum like a lollipop
Baby don't be scared

Ke$ha is 26, there's nothing wrong with sipping a cold beer with her brother in Christ. The touch of the Holy Spirirt provides her such a rush that they want to do an all night Bible study. While they have been keeping it "kosher" by focusing on the old testament they plan on expanding into the new testament tonight. This frightens her friend, so she reassures him.

and she still likes candy.


C'mon 'cause I know what I like
And you're looking just like my type
Let's go for it just for tonight
C'mon, c'mon, c'mon
Now don't even try to deny
We're both going home satisfied
Let's go for it just for tonight
C'mon, c'mon, c'mon

I don't wanna go to sleep
I wanna stay up all night
I wanna just screw around
I don't wanna think about
What's gonna be after this
I wanna just live right now

Just more Bible study talk, until the screw around part. After spending so much time in deep study of the scripture they just need to blow of some steam by [playing some good christian games, like pin the raptor under the Messiah, or name that hymn, or maybe Uno

 

[mad sweeney]

There are plenty of bad in the world. Look at a how jammed packed your prisons are. I'm sure someone can pull the numbers but I'd guess that 90%+ would identify themselves as religious. Guess the good book didn't help them.

I'm reluctant to jump back into a thread that now seems to mostly involve LB44, MOP, and Woz, but I feel compelled to point out that this is a fallacious argument. "X is a bad person and X is religious, so I guess religion didn't help" doesn't work because for all we know, X would be even worse if he or she wasn't religious. CS Lewis pointed this out a long time ago, and I'm sure he had himself in mind when he was thinking this through.

Yeah, I'm on my way out. I agree that this is not a perfect argument by any means. But when LB is running around screaming that people can't have morals without religion, it is a quick counter to say that not all people using religion to provide their morals are better because of it. Yes, it may have helped a few. But we're also talking about some people who couldn't get much worse who had the religious background (ie murders, pedos, rapists) Then he threw out the 'no true scotsman' and probably something about dragons, then shader tries to wedge creationism in and that about wraps it up for me. FYI, Die Young would be the best Ke$ha song.

I never said you can't have morals without religion. I said you can't have an absolute moral right and wrong without there being an ultimate source of what is right and wrong. Without some "ultimate decider", everything is relative. Morals still exist, but there is no "right" and "wrong" to it, it just is. You would still have a moral code, and I would still have a moral code, but there would be no "right" moral code, no "good" moral code. Because everything is subjective, there is no real way to decide which is "good" and which is "evil" other than which one you like better, but even then it only decides things for you. To explain better, who do you support: cops or robbers. With an absolute morality, one is doing right and one is doing wrong. HOWEVER, if there is no absolute morality, there is no reason that the robbers are wrong, they just are. The rest of people can decide they don't like that and don't want them in their group, but there is nothing saying that "group" is right. Does that make sense? I'm not saying morals don't exist without religion, I'm saying everything is relative and nothing truly "good" or "evil" without some sort of ultimate decider that decides what is actually right and wrong.

That is a lots of words to say that without god my, and every other heathens, morals are useless.

That's not what I said. I said that they are all relative and there is no "right" or "wrong", there just are things. It'd be like doing algebra with no number. We can know what X is when X+7=10. But we can't know what X is when X+Y=Z. If there is a God, we can know what moral is absolutely the right one, and what moral is absolutely the wrong one. Without some kind of God-like decider, however, there is no way to determine a right moral and a wrong one, because it doesn't matter. There is no right and there is no wrong, there just is what is.

And you just said the same thing again.

Yes, because if you think i said your morals are useless you misunderstood. Without some decider of what is right or wrong that is absolute, ALL morals (mine and yours) are incapable of being declared absolutely good or absolutely evil (because those things don't exist). It has nothing to do with heathen or not, or how useful or useless they are. I'd say your morals are probably useful even if a deity doesn't exist, simply because other people could exist in your morals, I like that. But that doesn't make them good if "good" and "evil" don't really exist.

Except that even now, with God, morals aren't absolute. Just take the debate about "Thou Shalt Not Kill" for one easy example. Also, way to stick to your guns and just claim people don't understand when you have nothing else to go on.

I was assuming I wasn't saying what I meant clearly (not that he was incapable of understanding). Just to clarify. As far as not absolute. IF there is a God, there is an absolute right answer to every moral question, even if we don't know the answer. If there is no God (or decision maker of some sort), there is no absolute right answer to any moral question because there is no absolute moral authority.

So having a god be the arbiter if moral absolutes despite the fact that we are incapable of knowing his will (ie what those absolutes are) is a better moral system than if we relied on ourselves. Maybe god should rethink his position on letting us know the plan so that we could, you know, take advantage of the fact that we have a god to decide our morals for us.

 

[Henry Ford]

So having a god be the arbiter if moral absolutes despite the fact that we are incapable of knowing his will (ie what those absolutes are) is a better moral system than if we relied on ourselves. Maybe god should rethink his position on letting us know the plan so that we could, you know, take advantage of the fact that we have a god to decide our morals for us.

He did. Two thousand years after Jesus died he sent Eugene Peterson to give us the actual English translation of his unerring word so Larry could use it on a message board.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I was assuming I wasn't saying what I meant clearly (not that he was incapable of understanding). Just to clarify.

As far as not absolute. IF there is a God, there is an absolute right answer to every moral question, even if we don't know the answer.

If there is no God (or decision maker of some sort), there is no absolute right answer to any moral question because there is no absolute moral authority.

1. Your first conclusion is only true if God is what you think He is. There can be a God who does not make morality absolute.

2. Your second conclusion is only true if an absolute authority is required for absolute right answers. That doesn't seem to be the case in any other area of study - why is it the case for morality in your mind?

1. So what? A god that says "Just go do whatever you want!"? I guess, God could choose to not make decisions as to absolutes, but then we'd be in the same situation.

2. Because then what decides?

If there is no ultimate authority and life just ends when it ends, how can we really say it is wrong for me to murder you? Yes, it ends your life, but life is meaningless, it has no real purpose. Its just random chance and there is no reason to hold it as sacred or important.

We could make an agreement (say, social contract) that says I won't do these things if you don't either. And we could violate that social contract. But that doesn't necessarily make something moral or not, only against the agreement we made.

But even then, it just ends. no end result. no right or wrong. It just was what it was.

as far as area of study, I don't think Morality isn't an area of study. It can be studied (I guess), but without an ultimate "measure" of right/wrong that gets to decide officially what is right and wrong, there really isn't much to study other than various opinions on the matter. And my opinion and your opinion don't matter, really, they're just opinions. Without an ultimate truth, there can't be ultimate morality.

Like I said, it'd be like doing algebra where x+y=z. There's no way to solve that, there are no numbers and no clues as to what those values mean.

 

[Henry Ford]

Incidentally, I don't mean to just be flippant, but if you think Proverbs 14:12-13 (and yes, Larry, you included two completely separate Proverbs in your quote) is supposed to read the way Peterson translated it, it's impossible to have a conversation about the words of the Bible.

The same translation you used has this as the 23rd Psalm:

God, my shepherd!

I don’t need a thing.You have bedded me down in lush meadows, you find me quiet pools to drink from.

True to your word, you let me catch my breath and send me in the right direction.
Even when the way goes through Death Valley,I’m not afraid when you walk at my side.Your trusty shepherd’s crook makes me feel secure.

You serve me a six-course dinner
right in front of my enemies.You revive my drooping head; my cup brims with blessing.
Your beauty and love chase after me every day of my life.I’m back home in the house of God for the rest of my life.

 

[TxBuckeye]

larry_boy_44, on 03 May 2013 - 09:28, said:Without some decider of what is right or wrong that is absolute, ALL morals (mine and yours) are incapable of being declared absolutely good or absolutely evil (because those things don't exist).

I really, really, really hesitate to get drawn in to this because I hate religious and politcal discussion on this board. But I have to ask, why is it important, even remotely so, for morals to be labeled absolute? If morals are defined by the population at large through laws or whatever, and if they serve the betterment of man, why is it in any way relevant as to whether they are "absolutely good" or "absolutely evil?" Is the ability to label something that important? Or even remotely important? I don't get this at all.

 

[larry_boy_44]

So having a god be the arbiter if moral absolutes despite the fact that we are incapable of knowing his will (ie what those absolutes are) is a better moral system than if we relied on ourselves. Maybe god should rethink his position on letting us know the plan so that we could, you know, take advantage of the fact that we have a god to decide our morals for us.

We aren't incapable of knowing His will.

You just have to want to know His will and stop worrying about what you think so much in order to figure it out.

 

[shader]

Here's the issue larry

we have seen time and time again where Chritian morality has changed, this leavbes 2 options...

1) God's morality evolves

2) Human's (and the prevailing church's) understanding of god's morality changes

in either case it leaves open the door that 20 years from now homosexuality will not be considered a sin and your position will be considered wrong.

It has happened time and time again on issues from subjugation of women to slavery to inner-racial marriages, and it IS happening now. Already some denominations have made the switch and more will come.

If you fail to admit this is possible you are simply being dishonest.

Now tell us your favorite Ke$ha song and let us know what jesus would think of Ke$ha

Wrong