a friend of mine commented me to stop saying that morality comes from the bible. I actually said that our standards of morality in America (a vague idea- i meant legally and generally held beliefs, the most universal belief systems we have) have come from the Bible. How could they not have? How many signers of the declaration of independence were christian? "Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, nearly half (24) held seminary or Bible school degrees" These were not people who had a fleeting knowledge of Christianity, but an in depth study.
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event."
-Thomas Jefferson
What Thomas Jefferson, arguably the most godless of the founding fathers, realized was that if there were a god who was evil, or no God at all, then personal liberties are meaningless. He did not believe in the God of the old testament, or that Jesus was born of a virgin. But he did believe that God was good and just, and that life was a gift from. Sound familiar to any religions you know of? He obviously could not get the idea from atheism, or Buddhism, but the culture that he was raised in. it would be impossible to know if Jefferson would have gotten his ideas of a perfect God from Islam or Judaism, but it is implausible that he reached his conclusion through nothing apart from his own logic. He saw Christianity, then picked out and chose what he liked. although this does not prove anything true about Christianity, it does show his view of everything was vastly guided by what he saw in everyday life, and most of that was christian.
Think of how open minded the founding fathers must have been to allow a person who did not agree with the majority on matters of the Bible and Christianity. Are there any Islamic governments that would let a man who is not a Muslim create their basic foundation? I honestly do not know, but have never heard of one, and the strict laws, based immediately on the Koran, are evidence that not many of their countries have been founded largely by an agnostic.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
nah, i'm good...
Christianity is not meant to make you a better person. if you follow all of the commands exclusively, this would be the result, but that is impossible, not even the Apostle Paul could do it. I sin no less than most unbelievers, i struggle in every way that i can imagine and do not know how to stop it. but i know that i am safe from judgement because
i accept that I am a sinner.
i accept that in the eyes of a perfect person, i am no better than hitler, stalin, osama, etc.
i accept that my actions deserve consequences, but
i accept that i dont have to pay these consequences, because God has provided a way out that does not involve my own ability to be good.
I am like a toddler trying to push a car, while my dad is standing there about to start it with the keys. the only way to move the car is to swallow my pride and ask my father's help.
i accept that I am a sinner.
i accept that in the eyes of a perfect person, i am no better than hitler, stalin, osama, etc.
i accept that my actions deserve consequences, but
i accept that i dont have to pay these consequences, because God has provided a way out that does not involve my own ability to be good.
I am like a toddler trying to push a car, while my dad is standing there about to start it with the keys. the only way to move the car is to swallow my pride and ask my father's help.
Monday, January 25, 2010
But, if God is good...
(this is a response comment to dug from chinaparace.blogspot.com that was to big to fit there, and contains to much effort to be soley wasted on him. he has a good sense of humour and a character that is easy to pick on by bullies like me, and he does raise excellent questions, and i frequent his blog often.)
You are referring to an argument that C.S. lewis wrote about in his book, "The Problem of Pain". it goes something like this:
If God were good, he would want his creatures to be happy.
If God were powerful, he would have the ability to make his creatures happy.
I am not Happy. Other creatures are not happy.God is either not good, or not all powerful.
everything comes down to free will, as i will try to demonstrate
What you say by "There is more evil than good." from a social science perspective is that people choose evil over good. alternatively, from a physical scientist' standpoint , that nature itself is evil in the sense that hurricanes, tornadoes, and volcanoes kill people who do not deserve it compared to people who do deserve it. i would like to save the latter for a later time, dismissing it quickly by the christian belief that nature itself was perverted by the fall of man into sin.(dodged that one) we will focus on evil as any choice that is not good.
But why Does God not remove evil with his power? I am almost sure the following statement is an original which hasnt been disproven yet,but it is based closely on CS Lewis' view, and may be plagerized. i would much rather have heard it somewhere else so i could not exclude these doubts about it. please comment below if you know this to be written by anyone credible so i can remove this stupid paragraph about who wrote what. Also tell me if it is false, because i will correct it in the face of any convincing argument or, much more preferably, a Biblical passage.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/evil.html#LULJBABnN3bA is a good place to go in depth for the skeptics with KJV Bibles, as evil was a synonym for disaster. please read before sending me a passage.
In the same way that a shadow is "created" by obstructing a light, God shows us there is evil where ever his goodness is obstructed, he did not need to "create" evil because the desire to make obstructions come from the the hearts of all fallen men and beings. So in the unbelievable light of God's goodness, we make evil shadow puppets. Take away these desires and you contaminate a person's free will, as i will address later. He certainly is able, but does not seem willing to do what we think is best. The real question is, "how can God make us happy while keeping our free will intact along with an accurate concept of evil". any limiting of our free will or ability to conceive evil would be like taking a part of our brain out of our body, it is destructive, not constructive. If we had a computer with free will, it would be much easier to strip the software that allows it to be into a state without it. If you think about it, that is what happens to a body in death. we need to remember that the way in which free will was forced upon us in the same way the mind is forced to live within the brain, it simply could not exist in any other way. That is not to say the soul could not exist outside of the body. the soul is like a three dimensional object sitting on a sheet of ice facing down. it could be picked up and moved, but how could you explain this feeling to something that has only ever slid back and forth? It is not conceivable to it in its natural environment. i am about to comment on your first post at the end of this. but back to the "real question". How would you like God to make life less evil, without removing free will? I'd love to hear suggestions from you but i'll offer some i've heard.
Take away the evil choices.
by doing this, he is creating an environment in which there is no ability to choose, a person who chooses put in an environment without choice, in is like being an active mind in a parapalegic's body. Is he a saint because he does not beat his wife? He may be good, but is he good for such reasons that he has no choice in? Even if he desired to beat her, he still could not.
Correct evil choices.
If God corrected evil choices no choice would have consequences, but without consequences how would we know when we have done wrong? The most immediate satisfaction would be the one always chosen, and who could blame them? Raping someone in the office would result in no greater harm to her than holding a door open for her. Any person who has met such a victim knows this is not the case, and the evil of the action is shown by the consequential years of trauma and fear. In this respect we are lucky to know that what we may do is evil based on sources not from God's word. Imagine dying and realizing God was sending you to hell because of actions you had no idea were wrong. We are to judge a deed by it's consequences the same way we judge a man by his actions. All actions are judged by their consequences, murderers get executed, robbers pay back what they owe through years of their lives. it comes down to either paralyzing people's ability to choose or removing right and wrong altogether. The first goes against God's design for us, the second is a false representation of what he knows.
in addition, what most people want should be phrased "take away the cosequences of my bad choices"
Take back my bad choices. to take back choices that were false seems like a good idea, just let people make the mistake then let them learn from it, make the same decision, but should people be given an infinite amount of "take backs" until they get the right answer? I am reminded of a multiple choice gamme i plyed in gradeschool that involved teams. if the team that chose A got it wrong the next would say B, then C and so on. but does this show our intelligence, we were destined to get it right one of the times, so we had only an illusion of intelligence. in the same way we would be given only the illusion of free choice if we were dstined to get it right some time.
Provide only innocent choices.
This is how God created us to be in the Garden of eden, with only one, single wrong option to make. Some may argue that it is impossible for us to have existed perfectly forever because, given enough time we would have chose the wrong decision, like the mentioned kids in school. This is what he wants to restore us to in heaven.
God could have us perpetually wandering the earth wondering what type of ice cream we should have, and one day we would choose vanilla, the next chocolate, and randomly choosing between things without evil consequences. God would watch us and be amused, laughing and chuckling with us like a senile old grandfather, not caring one way or another. Theoretically we could exist like this, our free will would be satisfied, but God did not design us to do this, and God's first priority is not what type of ice cream you like, or what shirt you will wear, and God is not a senile old grandfather.He wants a relationship with his creation, he wanted that and indulged in it while he walked the earth with Adam. the relationship he had in mind when he made us was one of intimacy, but we desired to be better than him. Now He wants a straight answer, Will you love Me and follow My commands? everything created by definition as a purpose, every painting, hammer, toy, paper, or any other creation is designed to do what the master wants it to do. if you don't believe me, just try to think of one thing, just one thing, that you have made that had no purpose, whether to provide amusement, pass time, get a good grade,get a mediocre grade, get any grade better than a zero... if you think of one let me know, but if you cannot, it seems pretty good evidence that our creator wants us to serve a purpose.
this last paragraph goes a little off track, thinking of removing it, but just in case it helps someone...
if we are not created, then i don't know what to believe, but i can not believe that a creature with free will has an advantage over a creature that does every decision off instinct. i cannot understand how an animal that thinks twice before mating could ever be more productive than an animal that will hop on top based on instinct. if we are the heirs of the most successfully reproducing members of our species, then we should become more sexual each generation. and because we should be the at least the billionth generation, we should have been blatantly sexual creaturesfor the entire existence of humanity.
almost this whole post is based off of the book i mentioned earlier, "The Problem of Pain"-CS Lewis. Doug, i'll lend it to you if you'll read it
You are referring to an argument that C.S. lewis wrote about in his book, "The Problem of Pain". it goes something like this:
If God were good, he would want his creatures to be happy.
If God were powerful, he would have the ability to make his creatures happy.
I am not Happy. Other creatures are not happy.God is either not good, or not all powerful.
everything comes down to free will, as i will try to demonstrate
What you say by "There is more evil than good." from a social science perspective is that people choose evil over good. alternatively, from a physical scientist' standpoint , that nature itself is evil in the sense that hurricanes, tornadoes, and volcanoes kill people who do not deserve it compared to people who do deserve it. i would like to save the latter for a later time, dismissing it quickly by the christian belief that nature itself was perverted by the fall of man into sin.(dodged that one) we will focus on evil as any choice that is not good.
But why Does God not remove evil with his power? I am almost sure the following statement is an original which hasnt been disproven yet,but it is based closely on CS Lewis' view, and may be plagerized. i would much rather have heard it somewhere else so i could not exclude these doubts about it. please comment below if you know this to be written by anyone credible so i can remove this stupid paragraph about who wrote what. Also tell me if it is false, because i will correct it in the face of any convincing argument or, much more preferably, a Biblical passage.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/evil.html#LULJBABnN3bA is a good place to go in depth for the skeptics with KJV Bibles, as evil was a synonym for disaster. please read before sending me a passage.
In the same way that a shadow is "created" by obstructing a light, God shows us there is evil where ever his goodness is obstructed, he did not need to "create" evil because the desire to make obstructions come from the the hearts of all fallen men and beings. So in the unbelievable light of God's goodness, we make evil shadow puppets. Take away these desires and you contaminate a person's free will, as i will address later. He certainly is able, but does not seem willing to do what we think is best. The real question is, "how can God make us happy while keeping our free will intact along with an accurate concept of evil". any limiting of our free will or ability to conceive evil would be like taking a part of our brain out of our body, it is destructive, not constructive. If we had a computer with free will, it would be much easier to strip the software that allows it to be into a state without it. If you think about it, that is what happens to a body in death. we need to remember that the way in which free will was forced upon us in the same way the mind is forced to live within the brain, it simply could not exist in any other way. That is not to say the soul could not exist outside of the body. the soul is like a three dimensional object sitting on a sheet of ice facing down. it could be picked up and moved, but how could you explain this feeling to something that has only ever slid back and forth? It is not conceivable to it in its natural environment. i am about to comment on your first post at the end of this. but back to the "real question". How would you like God to make life less evil, without removing free will? I'd love to hear suggestions from you but i'll offer some i've heard.
Take away the evil choices.
by doing this, he is creating an environment in which there is no ability to choose, a person who chooses put in an environment without choice, in is like being an active mind in a parapalegic's body. Is he a saint because he does not beat his wife? He may be good, but is he good for such reasons that he has no choice in? Even if he desired to beat her, he still could not.
Correct evil choices.
If God corrected evil choices no choice would have consequences, but without consequences how would we know when we have done wrong? The most immediate satisfaction would be the one always chosen, and who could blame them? Raping someone in the office would result in no greater harm to her than holding a door open for her. Any person who has met such a victim knows this is not the case, and the evil of the action is shown by the consequential years of trauma and fear. In this respect we are lucky to know that what we may do is evil based on sources not from God's word. Imagine dying and realizing God was sending you to hell because of actions you had no idea were wrong. We are to judge a deed by it's consequences the same way we judge a man by his actions. All actions are judged by their consequences, murderers get executed, robbers pay back what they owe through years of their lives. it comes down to either paralyzing people's ability to choose or removing right and wrong altogether. The first goes against God's design for us, the second is a false representation of what he knows.
in addition, what most people want should be phrased "take away the cosequences of my bad choices"
Take back my bad choices. to take back choices that were false seems like a good idea, just let people make the mistake then let them learn from it, make the same decision, but should people be given an infinite amount of "take backs" until they get the right answer? I am reminded of a multiple choice gamme i plyed in gradeschool that involved teams. if the team that chose A got it wrong the next would say B, then C and so on. but does this show our intelligence, we were destined to get it right one of the times, so we had only an illusion of intelligence. in the same way we would be given only the illusion of free choice if we were dstined to get it right some time.
Provide only innocent choices.
This is how God created us to be in the Garden of eden, with only one, single wrong option to make. Some may argue that it is impossible for us to have existed perfectly forever because, given enough time we would have chose the wrong decision, like the mentioned kids in school. This is what he wants to restore us to in heaven.
God could have us perpetually wandering the earth wondering what type of ice cream we should have, and one day we would choose vanilla, the next chocolate, and randomly choosing between things without evil consequences. God would watch us and be amused, laughing and chuckling with us like a senile old grandfather, not caring one way or another. Theoretically we could exist like this, our free will would be satisfied, but God did not design us to do this, and God's first priority is not what type of ice cream you like, or what shirt you will wear, and God is not a senile old grandfather.He wants a relationship with his creation, he wanted that and indulged in it while he walked the earth with Adam. the relationship he had in mind when he made us was one of intimacy, but we desired to be better than him. Now He wants a straight answer, Will you love Me and follow My commands? everything created by definition as a purpose, every painting, hammer, toy, paper, or any other creation is designed to do what the master wants it to do. if you don't believe me, just try to think of one thing, just one thing, that you have made that had no purpose, whether to provide amusement, pass time, get a good grade,get a mediocre grade, get any grade better than a zero... if you think of one let me know, but if you cannot, it seems pretty good evidence that our creator wants us to serve a purpose.
this last paragraph goes a little off track, thinking of removing it, but just in case it helps someone...
if we are not created, then i don't know what to believe, but i can not believe that a creature with free will has an advantage over a creature that does every decision off instinct. i cannot understand how an animal that thinks twice before mating could ever be more productive than an animal that will hop on top based on instinct. if we are the heirs of the most successfully reproducing members of our species, then we should become more sexual each generation. and because we should be the at least the billionth generation, we should have been blatantly sexual creaturesfor the entire existence of humanity.
almost this whole post is based off of the book i mentioned earlier, "The Problem of Pain"-CS Lewis. Doug, i'll lend it to you if you'll read it
Friday, January 22, 2010
everybody loves gay men.
a play on "everybody loves raymond" --complete with an equally humorless writer, and a catchy title, skip to blue (the deep stuff) if you 'd rather not read intro.
I feel it obligatory, although i know only my sympathetic friends will be reading this, to state the fact that i do not dislike gays, If you read the entire thing, you probably will think i am calloused towards homosexual supporters, especially, and i do not deny this, the democratic party.
The purpose of this post is only to point out holes in the logic and hypocrisy of certain well known arguments for homosexuality, or things that many people accept about various sexual lifestyles without thinking twice. To clarify, i will not include arguments against homosexuality, only faulty logic within it's supporters own statements, methods and ideas.
i have chosen this subject, knowing how touchy it is. We have no reason to assume that any group of people would intentionally lie about their sexuality. We also know that people can believe false things, with perfectly sincere intentions. As a starting point, we must assume both supporters and denouncers of homosexuality are well meaning, that christians are just trying to help people find salvation, and gays are trying to live their lives in the best way possible. Any assumption that judges their character before looking at evicence is unjustly founded and bigoted.
I WAS BORN THAT WAY.
i have never been able believe that a condition which impairs sexual reproduction could be passed on successfully,taking a semester in biology reaffirmed these beliefs. but many gays have children in heterosexual relationships before "coming out of the closet".
considering this, the homosexual community would be small, but it would not ever be gone entirely.
A far more interesting example, one which i never would have thought of personally, is the study of twins. One is gay, one straight, identical DNA. So the genetic material does not play a role in every case, and if it is not in every case, then there is no scientific way to distinguish. considering the evidence that they are genetically the same person, this proves undeniably that inherited traits dont definitely destine everyone to be gay or straight. So this proves either
1) that people have an existence from conception apart from the physical DNA (a soul),
2) that it is a fightable and winnable battle by children born with genetics providing an orientation towards being gay, or
3) that homosexuality is caused by other factors.
Furthermore, if all sexual destiny is determined at birth, what are we to do with pedophiles? Is only the distinction between straight and gay sexuality genetically predestined? Isn't that a convenient fact for a homosexual to recently dicover without offering solid scientific data, almost too good to be true? I once heard a converted homosexual speak, and it was the most intense message i can remember hearing. He told us how he had heard that homosexualtiy was caused by an enlarged part of his brain, i can't possibly tell the story better than he can, and i'm now searching for his link. It is a message both sides should hear. It is a relitively safe hypothesis to say that if homosexuality naturally exists in genetic material, then there is genetic material that creates pedophiles. So how are we to rehabilitate pedophiles? That would be literally impossible, because the act of rehabilitation is to put something back into it's natural state after it has been disfigured from something on the outside, like drugs, or violence. But you cannot restore what was never there. If he was born a pedophile, you must alter something about him, to change him from what he was born, into something manufactured and fake. If that is true, then it is a horrible fact. You can't fix something that is not broken, if they are behaving evilly, and that is what they were made for, they must be trained to act unnaturally. it would be like training a dog to be a cat, or a straight person to be gay. (i say a straight person to be gay because of my heterosexuality, as it is almost impossible to imagine being attracted to man in the way i am to a woman) to this some people may say,
"Only gay or straight is determined at birth, but any perversion is caused by circumstances, and those affected are the victims of those circumstances". But who is to say what a perversion is? who is to say that incest, polygamy are wrong? what of beastiality? if animals can be raised for their meat, (get it?) and slaughtered, like animals, why couldn't they be raised for pleasure? If you say that animals would find it cruel, that never stopped the majority of us from eating them, and i have the highest respect for the few vegitarians who do not. Actions speak louder than words, and nothing is more infuriating than open hypocrisy.
Homosexuality is natural
If i were my nature to be homosexual, i would be entitled to the right not to be looked at as a person who chooses to be homosexual.
But, who is to be villanized in an argument about something they cannot change, i could just as easily say
If it were my nature to be homophobic, i would be entitled to the right not to be looked at as a person who chooses to be a homophobe. I cannot speak for you, but when sexual actions of gays are brought to my attention, my first instinctive response is being disgusted. But if you (the reader) are now disgusted with me, then you are judging me by my nature. No one ever told me that homosexuality was gross, i was told it was wrong in the same matter as fornication, a sin in which only consenting people are harmed. So where did i get the feeling of repulsion toward their sex lives and not heterosexual? i would say culture, accept that i can remember the feeling i got the first time i realized what gay sex consisted of. And is it my fault if my mind starts to associate gay people with their actions? I wish that i could choose not to associate disgust with them, if I could choose to look at them exactly as any other person in need of salvation, i would. But I accept that my natural condescencion toward gays is hypocritical and evil and would never conciously act on it, if it werent for my pathetic weakness in control over my will. So i try to deny my nature, while they accept it willingly. Even if gays were born inclined to that way, all that proves is that they have a sinful nature at birth, just like my sinful nature and every other person on the planet. I try to deny myself because i know that i am a terrible sinner who is no better than anyone in the sight of a perfect God, and that God's son .
So the very nature of christianity is not to give in to sinful naturul urges, while the nature of homosexuality is to give in to sinful natural urges.
I AM JUST DOING WHAT IS RIGHT FOR ME.
"Who says who marriage is to be defined by?...The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to do so is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights."- argument for gay marriage from http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm
"The Dems' complaint seems to be that Santorum insulted gay Americans when, in the AP's words, he "compared homosexuality to bigamy"-http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003397
"Some students had urged the Jesuit university to rescind Santorum's invitation after he likened gay behavior to bigamy, polygamy"-http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Rick%20Santorum
I am sure most of the readers already see my point on hypocrisy forming, but to those who do not:
"Supporters of rights for gays have expressed a strong desire that no one should judge them based on sexual preference, but then are offended when gays are mentioned along with bigamists or polygamists. Instead of deeming themselves better than these other groups, why not just say that bigamists should have the same human rights as them, the same basic rights to love and to be loved? There is obviously a bigotry toward these groups that far surpasses that faced by homosexuals, and even a bigotry recieved from homosexuals. This bigotry coming from people fighting for equal rights is nothing short of hypocritical." -me
Who is to say that bigamy is wrong? Who are these bigots, and more importantly, "what makes them think they're better than anyone else based on sexual preference"? these are all painfully familiar questions. I have never heard any gay rights activist or other open minded person fighting for the rights of any religious sect that supports bigamous marriages. i would expect this type of hatred from republicans and conservatives, but liberals? if anyone could understand the pain and frustration of being denied such a basic right to marriage, it should be the gay community. and yet, under the bus the bigamists go. I believe: "dont force your idea of love on us!" should equally mean "don't force our idea of love on them." but this is not what we hear. Who's intolerant now? why is there so much more discussion of rights of gays than bigamists? It is true that the bigamists make up a very small percentage, but, is the entitlement of minorites for rights based on the size of their populations? If that is true, white protestants and catholics should have the most rights, followed by hispanic catholics, then black christians, all the way down the line. Denying that evil stereotype was what the first civil rights movement was soley about. Both do what they feel is right. both are rejected. and yet both reject each other. Where is the outcry against them for tyranically excluding good people from happiness? this double standard is no suprise to someone like me who encounters it all the time. maybe most supporters of gay rights really are better than bigamists, but they undoutedly, undeniably believe that they are. and anyone who disagrees, go to the 2nd and third website links to see for yourself in perfect context.
----------BUT WHY dont they have support?
POLITICAL ASPECTs constant--( a right to marry) > (no right to marry)
As for the conservative Republicans, they collectively believe that things are fine the way they are and should not be changed, so there is no hypocrisy.
if (no marriage for gays)=(no marriage for bigomists) then (rights of gays)=(rights of bigomists)
and also then, (bigomists)=(gays)
As for liberal democrats, they collectively beilieve that it is alright for gays to have marital rights such as health benefits, raise children, etc., while bigomists rights are ignored.
(rights of gays) > (rights of bigomists) > = greater than
(gays) > (bigomists)
For them to have the support of gays (=2-3%), is a political advantage, and most people (60-70%) approve of gay rights, while the small support of actual bigamists(= not much), and the large amount of people that would be repulsed from the party ( Who wants be in the same party as dirty rotten bigamists?) would have an incredibly negative affect politically.
Evangelicals hate gays.
This is a peculiar subject when looked at with the context of other religious sects. when a set of 21 terrorists who claimed to be muslim attacked our country, every media outlet, (and rightly so), said that these were individuals, and not ambassadors of the muslims. so in the aftermath of nearly three thousand dead, americans looked at their muslim neighbors in a remarkably restrained, understanding manner. we have never judged any group of religious people by the most radical of the zealots. i have never seen a bombing or pile of bodies at a gay pride parade, but even if there was, that would only prove that an individual hated gays.
To deny a person the right to love is a hateful action. Those who perform hateful actions have hatred toward those that the actions are directed. I am not saying that homosexuality is right, i am just asking when does disagreement constitute hatred? I personally do not hate people who drink more than me, smoke marijuana, or have promiscuous sex; though i have never agreed with these actions. So anyone who says that i am hateful toward gays has made an assumption about who i hate based on my beliefs. In order to understand the christian perspective, you have to realize that the worst thing that any christian could do to a gay is to condone what he does and say, "to hell with him". Any effort to convince him he is wrong is a mission to save him from the worst fate imaginable.
This view admittedly is not held by all evangelicals, they do many things out of frustration and ager instead of love.
i know my arguments will not change many opinions, if any. the truth is that most people hardly ever look for the most logical decision, but the nicest immediate results, like a person gratified by greasy food who never learns to foresee imminent heartburn(terrible metaphor, not feeling creative tonight).
Just stay out of my life, they're my decisions, not yours. I have never picked a fight with anyone and would love to say one of the following:
"your right, whatever, do what you want to, it's your life", "whatever makes you happy", and "It's none of my business" but somethings fishy...
this is not
a manner that a person would ever honestly talk to a friend,
a statement of concerned well being,
There is no better way to tell if a man is a good friend than if he confronts you. "You need to stop smoking" is something a spouse or best friend is more likely to say than an aquaintance you hardly know from work.
but is a way to...
dismiss someone you do not care about,
gain favor in the eyes of someone to get something out of them, (think political, but more on that later)
The hardest thing for anygentle, loving person to do is to confront the ones they care about because of their decisions. YOU CAN'T UNDERSTANDS WHAT IT'S LIKE, SO BE TOLERANT.
refer back to bigamy, they have it much, much worse than gays do, even gays hate being compared to them, as the websites show. I'll bet that makes a little kid feel just great!! How would you like hearing that your two moms and a dad are all perversions of nature because they love each other!? The hypocrisy of these people literally makes me sick. i honestly cannot express my frustration in any way conferable through clean language, and i will spare you the other option in exchange for these questions.
Please ask yourself: "Why have i never thought of the rights of bigamists or polygamists?" It is probably because you have never seen their crying little children after they have been told that mommy, daddy, and mommy2 are fundamentally perverted. To add insult to injury, even gay people, who preach from every mountain top and valley that bigotry is the greatest evil, cannot stand to be associated with them. It's probably because you have never seen them on TV begging their basic right to love-but why havent you? Why don't they get attention from TV, News Paper, MEDIA? Besides the amusement of the occasional religious nut, (we've all heard of one, with eight young wives who's combined ages add up to less than his), no one cares. but why would they be soley portrayed as fanatics rather than an alternate lifestyle choice? Please, tell me if you know,
I DO NOT BELIEVE POLYGAMY IS RIGHT, BUT CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY THERE ARE LEGAL STATUTES AGAINST IT. Maybe someday the "open minded" will treat everyone equal, not just those with the biggest mouths, or those that can help them get elected, but those genuinely in need of justice.
If you get nothing else out of this post do not assume anything is right based soley on your feelings, what you see on TV, or a fear of being hurtful. i know that it sounds rough but if the truth was always nice, there would never have been a holocaust, war, or any other great evil.
what this blog is about is
1 Trying out another's shoes and seeing whose shoes fit.
2 Expanding logical conclusions to previously unthought of points,
3 Stripping people of assumptions and most importantly,
4 Always keep thinking. the greatest mistakes are made by people who believe they have the right answer but don't
most people think twice, but never a third time. We live in a time where conventional wisdom is rejected for what makes the most people feel good. if anyone is wrong, why should anyone have the right to be correct? thank you for reading.
I feel it obligatory, although i know only my sympathetic friends will be reading this, to state the fact that i do not dislike gays, If you read the entire thing, you probably will think i am calloused towards homosexual supporters, especially, and i do not deny this, the democratic party.
The purpose of this post is only to point out holes in the logic and hypocrisy of certain well known arguments for homosexuality, or things that many people accept about various sexual lifestyles without thinking twice. To clarify, i will not include arguments against homosexuality, only faulty logic within it's supporters own statements, methods and ideas.
i have chosen this subject, knowing how touchy it is. We have no reason to assume that any group of people would intentionally lie about their sexuality. We also know that people can believe false things, with perfectly sincere intentions. As a starting point, we must assume both supporters and denouncers of homosexuality are well meaning, that christians are just trying to help people find salvation, and gays are trying to live their lives in the best way possible. Any assumption that judges their character before looking at evicence is unjustly founded and bigoted.
I WAS BORN THAT WAY.
i have never been able believe that a condition which impairs sexual reproduction could be passed on successfully,taking a semester in biology reaffirmed these beliefs. but many gays have children in heterosexual relationships before "coming out of the closet".
considering this, the homosexual community would be small, but it would not ever be gone entirely.
A far more interesting example, one which i never would have thought of personally, is the study of twins. One is gay, one straight, identical DNA. So the genetic material does not play a role in every case, and if it is not in every case, then there is no scientific way to distinguish. considering the evidence that they are genetically the same person, this proves undeniably that inherited traits dont definitely destine everyone to be gay or straight. So this proves either
1) that people have an existence from conception apart from the physical DNA (a soul),
2) that it is a fightable and winnable battle by children born with genetics providing an orientation towards being gay, or
3) that homosexuality is caused by other factors.
Furthermore, if all sexual destiny is determined at birth, what are we to do with pedophiles? Is only the distinction between straight and gay sexuality genetically predestined? Isn't that a convenient fact for a homosexual to recently dicover without offering solid scientific data, almost too good to be true? I once heard a converted homosexual speak, and it was the most intense message i can remember hearing. He told us how he had heard that homosexualtiy was caused by an enlarged part of his brain, i can't possibly tell the story better than he can, and i'm now searching for his link. It is a message both sides should hear. It is a relitively safe hypothesis to say that if homosexuality naturally exists in genetic material, then there is genetic material that creates pedophiles. So how are we to rehabilitate pedophiles? That would be literally impossible, because the act of rehabilitation is to put something back into it's natural state after it has been disfigured from something on the outside, like drugs, or violence. But you cannot restore what was never there. If he was born a pedophile, you must alter something about him, to change him from what he was born, into something manufactured and fake. If that is true, then it is a horrible fact. You can't fix something that is not broken, if they are behaving evilly, and that is what they were made for, they must be trained to act unnaturally. it would be like training a dog to be a cat, or a straight person to be gay. (i say a straight person to be gay because of my heterosexuality, as it is almost impossible to imagine being attracted to man in the way i am to a woman) to this some people may say,
"Only gay or straight is determined at birth, but any perversion is caused by circumstances, and those affected are the victims of those circumstances". But who is to say what a perversion is? who is to say that incest, polygamy are wrong? what of beastiality? if animals can be raised for their meat, (get it?) and slaughtered, like animals, why couldn't they be raised for pleasure? If you say that animals would find it cruel, that never stopped the majority of us from eating them, and i have the highest respect for the few vegitarians who do not. Actions speak louder than words, and nothing is more infuriating than open hypocrisy.
Homosexuality is natural
If i were my nature to be homosexual, i would be entitled to the right not to be looked at as a person who chooses to be homosexual.
But, who is to be villanized in an argument about something they cannot change, i could just as easily say
If it were my nature to be homophobic, i would be entitled to the right not to be looked at as a person who chooses to be a homophobe. I cannot speak for you, but when sexual actions of gays are brought to my attention, my first instinctive response is being disgusted. But if you (the reader) are now disgusted with me, then you are judging me by my nature. No one ever told me that homosexuality was gross, i was told it was wrong in the same matter as fornication, a sin in which only consenting people are harmed. So where did i get the feeling of repulsion toward their sex lives and not heterosexual? i would say culture, accept that i can remember the feeling i got the first time i realized what gay sex consisted of. And is it my fault if my mind starts to associate gay people with their actions? I wish that i could choose not to associate disgust with them, if I could choose to look at them exactly as any other person in need of salvation, i would. But I accept that my natural condescencion toward gays is hypocritical and evil and would never conciously act on it, if it werent for my pathetic weakness in control over my will. So i try to deny my nature, while they accept it willingly. Even if gays were born inclined to that way, all that proves is that they have a sinful nature at birth, just like my sinful nature and every other person on the planet. I try to deny myself because i know that i am a terrible sinner who is no better than anyone in the sight of a perfect God, and that God's son .
So the very nature of christianity is not to give in to sinful naturul urges, while the nature of homosexuality is to give in to sinful natural urges.
I AM JUST DOING WHAT IS RIGHT FOR ME.
"Who says who marriage is to be defined by?...The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to do so is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights."- argument for gay marriage from http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm
"The Dems' complaint seems to be that Santorum insulted gay Americans when, in the AP's words, he "compared homosexuality to bigamy"-http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003397
"Some students had urged the Jesuit university to rescind Santorum's invitation after he likened gay behavior to bigamy, polygamy"-http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Rick%20Santorum
I am sure most of the readers already see my point on hypocrisy forming, but to those who do not:
"Supporters of rights for gays have expressed a strong desire that no one should judge them based on sexual preference, but then are offended when gays are mentioned along with bigamists or polygamists. Instead of deeming themselves better than these other groups, why not just say that bigamists should have the same human rights as them, the same basic rights to love and to be loved? There is obviously a bigotry toward these groups that far surpasses that faced by homosexuals, and even a bigotry recieved from homosexuals. This bigotry coming from people fighting for equal rights is nothing short of hypocritical." -me
Who is to say that bigamy is wrong? Who are these bigots, and more importantly, "what makes them think they're better than anyone else based on sexual preference"? these are all painfully familiar questions. I have never heard any gay rights activist or other open minded person fighting for the rights of any religious sect that supports bigamous marriages. i would expect this type of hatred from republicans and conservatives, but liberals? if anyone could understand the pain and frustration of being denied such a basic right to marriage, it should be the gay community. and yet, under the bus the bigamists go. I believe: "dont force your idea of love on us!" should equally mean "don't force our idea of love on them." but this is not what we hear. Who's intolerant now? why is there so much more discussion of rights of gays than bigamists? It is true that the bigamists make up a very small percentage, but, is the entitlement of minorites for rights based on the size of their populations? If that is true, white protestants and catholics should have the most rights, followed by hispanic catholics, then black christians, all the way down the line. Denying that evil stereotype was what the first civil rights movement was soley about. Both do what they feel is right. both are rejected. and yet both reject each other. Where is the outcry against them for tyranically excluding good people from happiness? this double standard is no suprise to someone like me who encounters it all the time. maybe most supporters of gay rights really are better than bigamists, but they undoutedly, undeniably believe that they are. and anyone who disagrees, go to the 2nd and third website links to see for yourself in perfect context.
----------BUT WHY dont they have support?
POLITICAL ASPECTs constant--( a right to marry) > (no right to marry)
As for the conservative Republicans, they collectively believe that things are fine the way they are and should not be changed, so there is no hypocrisy.
if (no marriage for gays)=(no marriage for bigomists) then (rights of gays)=(rights of bigomists)
and also then, (bigomists)=(gays)
As for liberal democrats, they collectively beilieve that it is alright for gays to have marital rights such as health benefits, raise children, etc., while bigomists rights are ignored.
(rights of gays) > (rights of bigomists) > = greater than
(gays) > (bigomists)
For them to have the support of gays (=2-3%), is a political advantage, and most people (60-70%) approve of gay rights, while the small support of actual bigamists(= not much), and the large amount of people that would be repulsed from the party ( Who wants be in the same party as dirty rotten bigamists?) would have an incredibly negative affect politically.
Evangelicals hate gays.
This is a peculiar subject when looked at with the context of other religious sects. when a set of 21 terrorists who claimed to be muslim attacked our country, every media outlet, (and rightly so), said that these were individuals, and not ambassadors of the muslims. so in the aftermath of nearly three thousand dead, americans looked at their muslim neighbors in a remarkably restrained, understanding manner. we have never judged any group of religious people by the most radical of the zealots. i have never seen a bombing or pile of bodies at a gay pride parade, but even if there was, that would only prove that an individual hated gays.
To deny a person the right to love is a hateful action. Those who perform hateful actions have hatred toward those that the actions are directed. I am not saying that homosexuality is right, i am just asking when does disagreement constitute hatred? I personally do not hate people who drink more than me, smoke marijuana, or have promiscuous sex; though i have never agreed with these actions. So anyone who says that i am hateful toward gays has made an assumption about who i hate based on my beliefs. In order to understand the christian perspective, you have to realize that the worst thing that any christian could do to a gay is to condone what he does and say, "to hell with him". Any effort to convince him he is wrong is a mission to save him from the worst fate imaginable.
This view admittedly is not held by all evangelicals, they do many things out of frustration and ager instead of love.
i know my arguments will not change many opinions, if any. the truth is that most people hardly ever look for the most logical decision, but the nicest immediate results, like a person gratified by greasy food who never learns to foresee imminent heartburn(terrible metaphor, not feeling creative tonight).
Just stay out of my life, they're my decisions, not yours. I have never picked a fight with anyone and would love to say one of the following:
"your right, whatever, do what you want to, it's your life", "whatever makes you happy", and "It's none of my business" but somethings fishy...
this is not
a manner that a person would ever honestly talk to a friend,
a statement of concerned well being,
There is no better way to tell if a man is a good friend than if he confronts you. "You need to stop smoking" is something a spouse or best friend is more likely to say than an aquaintance you hardly know from work.
but is a way to...
dismiss someone you do not care about,
gain favor in the eyes of someone to get something out of them, (think political, but more on that later)
The hardest thing for anygentle, loving person to do is to confront the ones they care about because of their decisions. YOU CAN'T UNDERSTANDS WHAT IT'S LIKE, SO BE TOLERANT.
refer back to bigamy, they have it much, much worse than gays do, even gays hate being compared to them, as the websites show. I'll bet that makes a little kid feel just great!! How would you like hearing that your two moms and a dad are all perversions of nature because they love each other!? The hypocrisy of these people literally makes me sick. i honestly cannot express my frustration in any way conferable through clean language, and i will spare you the other option in exchange for these questions.
Please ask yourself: "Why have i never thought of the rights of bigamists or polygamists?" It is probably because you have never seen their crying little children after they have been told that mommy, daddy, and mommy2 are fundamentally perverted. To add insult to injury, even gay people, who preach from every mountain top and valley that bigotry is the greatest evil, cannot stand to be associated with them. It's probably because you have never seen them on TV begging their basic right to love-but why havent you? Why don't they get attention from TV, News Paper, MEDIA? Besides the amusement of the occasional religious nut, (we've all heard of one, with eight young wives who's combined ages add up to less than his), no one cares. but why would they be soley portrayed as fanatics rather than an alternate lifestyle choice? Please, tell me if you know,
I DO NOT BELIEVE POLYGAMY IS RIGHT, BUT CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY THERE ARE LEGAL STATUTES AGAINST IT. Maybe someday the "open minded" will treat everyone equal, not just those with the biggest mouths, or those that can help them get elected, but those genuinely in need of justice.
If you get nothing else out of this post do not assume anything is right based soley on your feelings, what you see on TV, or a fear of being hurtful. i know that it sounds rough but if the truth was always nice, there would never have been a holocaust, war, or any other great evil.
what this blog is about is
1 Trying out another's shoes and seeing whose shoes fit.
2 Expanding logical conclusions to previously unthought of points,
3 Stripping people of assumptions and most importantly,
4 Always keep thinking. the greatest mistakes are made by people who believe they have the right answer but don't
most people think twice, but never a third time. We live in a time where conventional wisdom is rejected for what makes the most people feel good. if anyone is wrong, why should anyone have the right to be correct? thank you for reading.
There are things in this world that are accepted and condoned illogically, because logic does not affect every decision.
I will try to sort things out through logic that most people take for granted. the principle idea of my blog is to investigate every argument that i encounter that is held by a large percentage of the population which believe it due to wishful thinking.
I will also try to explain the views of the groups that i disagree with.
I will fail. There is no person able to understand every mind that is in the world besides the God that made them. I believe that logic is the only way to understand the world because
all emotion, first impressions, and other natural responses function serve one's self.
One example of this is an example of racism, which i will blog of later this week. I will offend some people because of the nature of this blog, but so did MLK. I will hold myself to my own judgement and people that i trust, and try with as much effort as i can to imply.
Though i am a Christian, i will try to only talk about the blogs in a manner that is logical based on what i know of history, the sciences and, most importantly, your logic. i know that you will understand my reasoning, if you don't it is purely err on my part. I will post my first "real" blog in a short while, definitely within the week due to my teacher's requirements.
I will try to sort things out through logic that most people take for granted. the principle idea of my blog is to investigate every argument that i encounter that is held by a large percentage of the population which believe it due to wishful thinking.
I will also try to explain the views of the groups that i disagree with.
I will fail. There is no person able to understand every mind that is in the world besides the God that made them. I believe that logic is the only way to understand the world because
all emotion, first impressions, and other natural responses function serve one's self.
One example of this is an example of racism, which i will blog of later this week. I will offend some people because of the nature of this blog, but so did MLK. I will hold myself to my own judgement and people that i trust, and try with as much effort as i can to imply.
Though i am a Christian, i will try to only talk about the blogs in a manner that is logical based on what i know of history, the sciences and, most importantly, your logic. i know that you will understand my reasoning, if you don't it is purely err on my part. I will post my first "real" blog in a short while, definitely within the week due to my teacher's requirements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)