Framing religious debates

The Daily Princetonian (Princeton U.) ^ | 12/9/03 | Julie Park

[sunryse]

>Oh, my! You mean something has to be illegal before it's >stigmatized? There's no other way to discourage an adverse >social practice other than to outlaw it, right?

Well, so let's not even say illegal, let's say "stimatized". WHY DO YOU CARE!?! Other than your own personal desire to control other's actions.

>That would certainly give you a great talking point, now >wouldn't it? It also allows you to dodge the point I made >it my post.

I'm still trying to figure out your point.

[sunryse]

>You and others like you may want to establish a Sodomite >paradise, but myself and millions like me won't allow you >to take America to the place Sodom and Gomorah went.

Thank you for proving my point that the whole basis (ultimately, no matter how much you want to seem to make other issues the point) of your prejudice against someone's rights to decide who they sleep with, is biblical. It is BASED in biblical reasons. This is exactly my point and has been from the start.

[Map Kernow]

I'm still trying to figure out your point.

Uhhh...you're right, you don't. Say "good-night," sunryse.

[scripter]

I'm still trying to figure out why you care about what someone else does in thier bedroom?

Nice little misdirection there. I'm trying to figure out why you hate gays so much you don't discourage a behavior that results in a deadly contagious disease.

I see ArGee was right.

You said: I will send you links to PHYSIOLOGICAL studies that show that homosexuality is genetic, not mental.

I won't play your game. You said you would send the links so do it. Support your position or stop supporting the homosexual agenda.

[easytree]

Interesting comments. So to be a Christian I must not think about how the Bible was written, what we know and don't know about the Bible and follow it blindly? I believe God gave us a brain to use and not follow the Bible blindly. Faith is a personal relationship between God and me. The Bible is a guide not an absolute.

[AnalogReigns]

"I would suggest that there are acts--such as some of these--that are generally detrimental to society as a whole. And that it is good if there are laws to punish some of them. And finally, that "consenting adults" should not be considered to be a magic bullet for killing all morality arguments."

Excellent point with excellent (if bizarre) examples to back it up. However, I think your points fall on deaf ears to those who don't believe, "The earth is the Lord's, and fullness thereof!" (which includes human beings).

Without an assumption of God and His right of ownership, morality of all kinds (private morality first) breaks down. Everything becomes the "who says!?" argument. (who are you to say killing such-and-such kind of people is wrong!?)

I heard a very good economic argument on this too---why socialists/communists/collectivists invariably strongly tend to be atheists/agnostics. If there is no God overseeing the world--then wealth seems to occur RANDOMLY, therefore its redistribution seems logical and necessary--at least if you're "kind" (objectivists excepted). With the great majority of Europe being agnostic or atheist, its no wonder they are socialists...

[Jotmo]

Please define "rich".

I'm interested because compared to most people in the world, nearly every single American would be considered "rich". I'll go out on a limb here and assume you you'd be included in that group. (You do have a computer and Internet access after all.)

Or rather define Christs idea of "rich". What? Cant do it? So how do you know when you've reached that magic point where you've become "rich" and can no longer get into heaven, EVEN through the blood of Christ. You're insisting that there is such a point aren't you?

Your arguments indicate to indicate that you have little to no understanding of Christian theology. Or perhaps you do, but are just being intentionally confrontational.

Are you suggesting that a Christian must have NO material possessions? No house, cloths, or shoes? No food? Don't you have to posses food before you can eat it? Unless you're naked, sleeping outside and starving to death there will always be someone with less than you and you'll then be "rich" compared to them.

Or do you think Jesus might have been making some other point?

[Belial]

Please define "rich".

The thing is, I didn't come up with the aphorism about the rich having a hell of a time getting into heaven. Jesus did. Now, I know that plenty of people presume to speak for Jesus. I'm not going to do that. But is it really necessary to parse what the word "rich" means?

[easytree]

Interesting comments. So to be a Christian I must not think about how the Bible was written, what we know and don't know about the Bible and follow it blindly? I believe God gave us a brain to use and not follow the Bible blindly. Faith is a personal relationship between God and me. The Bible is a guide not an absolute.

[Jotmo]

Yes it is necessary in my opinion. Otherwise, how will we know when we're "gone too far" with possessions.

The point is that if Jesus has given us what amounts to a rule, (rich men can't get into heaven) and provides no way to determine if we've violated that rule (the definition of "rich" is VERY subjective) the either we're misunderstanding his words and intent, or he's being very cruel indeed.

I say, there's another explanation other than the one you seem to be expressing.