I did, in fact, read the entire article. There is no reason to be pedantic about my use of the word "likely". That is super annoying. You look into the biblical text already assuming that it is fallible in the same way that you are accusing me of the opposite. This will be my last post regarding our current conversation. Thank you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH Decks
RFeldon of the Third PathR UBWrexial, the Risen DeepUB BGWDoran, the Siege TowerBGW (2/W)(2/U)(2/B)(2/R)(2/G)Reaper King(2/W)(2/U)(2/B)(2/R)(2/G)
"Icky" or "weird" doesn't render something harmful. You're creating a straw an by implying that I said only Christians believe homosexuality is wrong. That's incorrect, Christians don't believe it's "wrong", bigots do. There are both Christian and non-Christian bigots.
I'm sure you understand why DADT was implemented. It's just one of, and one of the more visible, effects of how people believe "icky" and "weird" supposedly causes harm. Enough harm that people decide to ban said "icky" and "weird" people from serving.
Anyways, I don't pretend to know exactly why people think homosexuals lead to social degeneration. What I do know is that it's an argument made by both Christian and non-Christian individuals, and is pretty much the mainstay of reasons used against acceptance of homosexuality.
Again, I'm completely uninterested in why an ancient text of myths says why something is wrong in this instance.
You asked for what "homosexuality entails in the real world" and so I gave you what are common Christian (more probably Evangelical Protestant because that's what I'm more familiar with) beliefs towards homosexuality and what they believe it causes.
In this particular instance it doesn't matter what you're interested in. What matters is that there are people who believe in what the Bible says about homosexuality. After all, you're dealing with their beliefs. They clearly believe that homosexuality is not only wrong, but that it can also have a negative effect on the world.
And at this point bitterroot pretty much wrote everything that I could write, so bleh.
This is a much more cogent statement. Yes, I realize that to people of faith their faith is reality. I suppose I'm simply calling for individuals who hold these beliefs about things such as homosexuality to try and look outside of their faith into the actual happenings of the world to then make a descision on whether they should condemn something so benign. Which is a bit of a tall order.
Do you consider yourself open-minded?
DADT was implemented to keep lgbt individuals out of service because the military believed that other soldiers harassing their fellow lgbt soldiers would break unit cohesion. I don't even understand what you're trying to do here. DADT was implemented at the fault of other soldiers for being aggressive and hateful towards lgbt volunteers, meaning that it has nothing to do with any harm homosexuality could conceivably cause, rather it's an example of how toxic bigotry is.
No, I don't consider myself open minded to view points which proport that individuals commiting benign actions are somehow wrong or that individuals are somehow lesser or morally corrupt by things such as homosexuality. On most other topics I will say yes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Pop in, find a dragon, roast a dragon."
-Chandra Nalaar
[quote from="magickware99 »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/religion/577276-the-pope-and-evolution?comment=75"]DADT was implemented to keep lgbt individuals out of service because the military believed that other soldiers harassing their fellow lgbt soldiers would break unit cohesion. I don't even understand what you're trying to do here. DADT was implemented at the fault of other soldiers for being aggressive and hateful towards lgbt volunteers, meaning that it has nothing to do with any harm homosexuality could conceivably cause, rather it's an example of how toxic bigotry is.
No, DADT wasn't implemented to protect LGBT service members.
Wiki explains it-
"The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by President Bill Clinton who campaigned in 1992 on the promise to allow all citizens to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation.[30] Commander Craig Quigley, a Navy spokesman, expressed the opposition of many in the military at the time when he said, "Homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous" and that in shared shower situations, heterosexuals would have an "uncomfortable feeling of someone watching".[31]"
-From the wiki page on DADT.
[quote from="magickware99 »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/religion/577276-the-pope-and-evolution?comment=75"]DADT was implemented to keep lgbt individuals out of service because the military believed that other soldiers harassing their fellow lgbt soldiers would break unit cohesion. I don't even understand what you're trying to do here. DADT was implemented at the fault of other soldiers for being aggressive and hateful towards lgbt volunteers, meaning that it has nothing to do with any harm homosexuality could conceivably cause, rather it's an example of how toxic bigotry is.
No, DADT wasn't implemented to protect LGBT service members.
Wiki explains it-
"The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by President Bill Clinton who campaigned in 1992 on the promise to allow all citizens to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation.[30] Commander Craig Quigley, a Navy spokesman, expressed the opposition of many in the military at the time when he said, "Homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous" and that in shared shower situations, heterosexuals would have an "uncomfortable feeling of someone watching".[31]"
-From the wiki page on DADT.
Skewing what I said once again. I didn't say that dadt protected lgbt servicemen (Although, it did protect closeted lgbt soldiers, by forcing them to keep their sexuality under wraps. Wiki states that too in the very first paragraph on the page.) what I did say is that it kept potential lgbt volunteers out of service because the military believed it would put a strain on the cohesion of their units and make some straight soldiers feel uneasy. Which isn't at all a problem with homosexuality, rather it is a problem of the soldiers who did/would harass lgbt servicemen or thought their gay servicemen would come on to them. Essentially this is a problem of misinformation and bigotry, not homosexuality. Proposing that homosexuality is the problem here is like saying that being black is a harmful because it would have put a strain on unit cohesion to have black and white soldiers in the same unit. It isn't the soldiers being black that was the problem, it was the traditionalized discriminatory attitudes of the other soldiers that was causing harm. This is the same concept.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Pop in, find a dragon, roast a dragon."
-Chandra Nalaar
Interesting.
I always thought creationism and the theory of evolution were generally mutually exclusive, as they have been in the past.
Now the Pope seems to think otherwise.
I applaud the Pope for his open mind in recent times, not just on this topic.
It has not. Theistic Evolution is a thing.
I wonder how his speech will be received the world over, considering how many believe creationism to be the absolute truth regarding how man and woman came to be?
Thoughts?
It should not be any news for a reasonably philosophical engaging Christian.
Theistic evolution is a position people have taken, yes, but as I've demonstrated, the idea that Genesis and evolution can be reconciled is not a tenable position.
You can still posit a cause to the universe even if some sort of explanation as to how he created is unconvincing. If we have no explanation as to how life on earth came about we can still have certainty on what (Or who) created it.
I myself hold the position of agnosticism in regards to how a life sustaining was created. I do not believe our limited faculties as humans have the ability to understand creation in all it splendor and wonder. That being said I do think that this universe we find ourselves in has a structure to it. Almost a purpose. It is not random. It does not work by chance. It seeps design from every pour and this structure asks for an explanation.
Design can occur without a designer. Order can emerge from chance on its own; purpose from chaos. That is the paramount metaphysical lesson of the theory of evolution by natural selection. If you think you understand evolution, and you still think that the appearance of design necessitates a designer somewhere, then you do not understand evolution. And if you accept that it is possible for design to occur without a designer in one field, that ought to cast extreme doubt on the necessity of a designer in other fields.
Theistic evolution is possible. It is a consistent theory; it doesn't contradict itself or any other theories its proponents hold. Darwin did not prove God impossible. But he did prove God was not necessary.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think it's worth noticing that among the conclusions from the Synod on the Family was that the term "objective disorder" should not be used anymore when talking about hoxosexuality.
That being said I do think that this universe we find ourselves in has a structure to it. Almost a purpose. It is not random. It does not work by chance. It seeps design from every pour and this structure asks for an explanation.
Theistic evolution is possible. It is a consistent theory; it doesn't contradict itself or any other theories its proponents hold. Darwin did not prove God impossible. But he did prove God was not necessary.
I'm really confused as to one point, which is whether theistic evolutionists also believe in Biblical infallibility.
Because if theistic evolution also affirms infallibility of Scripture, then I would challenge that and say it is contradictory, both because the Bible contradicts itself, and evolution contradicts the Bible and vice-versa.
If it doesn't, then no, there there isn't necessarily a contradiction.
(This probably serves as a response to Highroller as well)
Sorry, magickware99, I missed this part.
Basically, it's a flaw to think that only Christians think homosexuality is wrong/weird. The point is that Christians do take it a step further and call it a sinful (as in not condoned by God) behavior.
More on point-
Afaik, there are two direct reasons why homosexuality is considered sinful behavior by Catholics, and Christians in general.
-It is probably the behavior exhibited by the Sodomites that the OT claims pissed God off enough for him to destroy Sodom.
-It goes against God's command for people to go forth and be fruitful and multiply as written in some part in Genesis.
These are the two that I'm aware of, there may be more; I dunno.
Furthermore, Protestants (particularly Evangelicals) believe that the sin perpetuates sinful behavior and leads to a more depraved/sinful world. This is probably the reason why most Evangelicals in the U.S. condemn homosexuality- they believe its very existence and condoning of said existence leads to a more sinful world. And from what I've heard from many mothers, they don't want their children to grow up in a sinful world.
So, this essentially comes down to whether you believe in Christianity or not.
You mean "whether or not you believe homosexuality is immoral and sinful behavior or not," right? Because not all Christians believe this.
I think it's worth noticing that among the conclusions from the Synod on the Family was that the term "objective disorder" should not be used anymore when talking about hoxosexuality.
Sure, but only because they think it's bad PR. Not because they've changed their mind on whether it's true.
That being said I do think that this universe we find ourselves in has a structure to it. Almost a purpose. It is not random. It does not work by chance. It seeps design from every pour and this structure asks for an explanation.
Huh? Examples?
Ask and you will receive.
Also the low entropy state and the fine tuning of the cosmological constant
That being said I do think that this universe we find ourselves in has a structure to it. Almost a purpose. It is not random. It does not work by chance. It seeps design from every pour and this structure asks for an explanation.
Huh? Examples?
Ask and you will receive.
Also the low entropy state and the fine tuning of the cosmological constant
Seems like that just boils down to our lack of perspective. The fine-tuning argument approaches the issue from our extremely limited perspective as the outcomes of that particular set of circumstances. This indulges the ego inherent in all of us, that wants to believe that it was created for us, not the other way around. But if you look at what science has shown us on this rock, you will quickly see that it is the latter, at least in this tiny speck of the universe we have actually explored.
Now it is certainly possible, likely even, that life AS WE KNOW IT, doesn't exist without particular constants. But the logical conclusion from that is not that the universe was fine-tuned to create us. No moreso than it was fine-tuned to create the chair I'm sitting on. It simply tells you that we are an expression of self-replicating matter that arose from this version of the universe. In another version maybe a different form of life exists. Maybe none does.
Another way to look at it: hypothetically what would a universe that wasn't fine-tuned look like from our perspective?
Another way to look at it: hypothetically what would a universe that wasn't fine-tuned look like from our perspective?
There's a version of the anthropic principle that covers that.
Basically the universe we exist in has to be one of the ones that appears fine-tuned because we're capable of existing in it.
As a result, unless someone figures out planeswalking, we'll never see a universe that wasn't one where it was impossible for humans to evolve, because for us to be having this conversation a human-possible universe has to be one that we live in.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Ask and you will receive.
Also the low entropy state and the fine tuning of the cosmological constant
I'm sure it's much easier to just say the fine-tuning argument indicates the existence of God, rather than have to actually defend it in the thread dedicated to that purpose.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Nonsense. You haven't said a single word about the fine-tuning argument. (And what you said about the cosmological argument scarcely qualified as a "defense", but that's beside the point.) It's rather silly of you to just wave your hands here and say "fine-tuning argument" when you know that argument is under fire.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I did, in fact, read the entire article. There is no reason to be pedantic about my use of the word "likely". That is super annoying. You look into the biblical text already assuming that it is fallible in the same way that you are accusing me of the opposite. This will be my last post regarding our current conversation. Thank you.
RFeldon of the Third PathR
UBWrexial, the Risen DeepUB
BGWDoran, the Siege TowerBGW
(2/W)(2/U)(2/B)(2/R)(2/G)Reaper King(2/W)(2/U)(2/B)(2/R)(2/G)
No, I don't consider myself open minded to view points which proport that individuals commiting benign actions are somehow wrong or that individuals are somehow lesser or morally corrupt by things such as homosexuality. On most other topics I will say yes.
-Chandra Nalaar
No, DADT wasn't implemented to protect LGBT service members.
Wiki explains it-
"The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by President Bill Clinton who campaigned in 1992 on the promise to allow all citizens to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation.[30] Commander Craig Quigley, a Navy spokesman, expressed the opposition of many in the military at the time when he said, "Homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous" and that in shared shower situations, heterosexuals would have an "uncomfortable feeling of someone watching".[31]"
-From the wiki page on DADT.
-Chandra Nalaar
It has not. Theistic Evolution is a thing.
It should not be any news for a reasonably philosophical engaging Christian.
I myself hold the position of agnosticism in regards to how a life sustaining was created. I do not believe our limited faculties as humans have the ability to understand creation in all it splendor and wonder. That being said I do think that this universe we find ourselves in has a structure to it. Almost a purpose. It is not random. It does not work by chance. It seeps design from every pour and this structure asks for an explanation.
Theistic evolution is possible. It is a consistent theory; it doesn't contradict itself or any other theories its proponents hold. Darwin did not prove God impossible. But he did prove God was not necessary.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think it's worth noticing that among the conclusions from the Synod on the Family was that the term "objective disorder" should not be used anymore when talking about hoxosexuality.
Huh? Examples?
Because if theistic evolution also affirms infallibility of Scripture, then I would challenge that and say it is contradictory, both because the Bible contradicts itself, and evolution contradicts the Bible and vice-versa.
If it doesn't, then no, there there isn't necessarily a contradiction.
Sorry, magickware99, I missed this part.
You mean "whether or not you believe homosexuality is immoral and sinful behavior or not," right? Because not all Christians believe this.
Sure, but only because they think it's bad PR. Not because they've changed their mind on whether it's true.
Ask and you will receive.
Also the low entropy state and the fine tuning of the cosmological constant
Seems like that just boils down to our lack of perspective. The fine-tuning argument approaches the issue from our extremely limited perspective as the outcomes of that particular set of circumstances. This indulges the ego inherent in all of us, that wants to believe that it was created for us, not the other way around. But if you look at what science has shown us on this rock, you will quickly see that it is the latter, at least in this tiny speck of the universe we have actually explored.
Now it is certainly possible, likely even, that life AS WE KNOW IT, doesn't exist without particular constants. But the logical conclusion from that is not that the universe was fine-tuned to create us. No moreso than it was fine-tuned to create the chair I'm sitting on. It simply tells you that we are an expression of self-replicating matter that arose from this version of the universe. In another version maybe a different form of life exists. Maybe none does.
Another way to look at it: hypothetically what would a universe that wasn't fine-tuned look like from our perspective?
Basically the universe we exist in has to be one of the ones that appears fine-tuned because we're capable of existing in it.
As a result, unless someone figures out planeswalking, we'll never see a universe that wasn't one where it was impossible for humans to evolve, because for us to be having this conversation a human-possible universe has to be one that we live in.
Art is life itself.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.