Posted on 02/14/2005 12:32:30 AM PST by RWR8189
"Without that, all you're doing is attempting to undermine the veracity of the other person's philosophical premise. You're not showing any faults, you're just trying to get them to accept YOUR question mark instead of THEIR period. Without a reason to do so, there's no reason to do so."
I think the whole Question/Period thing is quite cool. But I don't really understand it. Are you saying that I'm asking them to accept my questioning of the Bible, rather than me accept their assertion that the Bible is right? Or are you saying that I'm asking them to accept my questioning of the Bible, but I'm unwilling to get them to accept their own assertion of the Bible? If the latter, then yes that's what i'm doing. Else it all comes down to the totology, "I believe what I believe" or "it's true because it's true".
And I do "have a reason to do so". My reason is because in any discussion of morality, I'm often presented with arguments in the form of quotations from the Bible, as if that were all that was needed. How can you argue with that? If its in the Bible, I'm immediately wrong. If its not in the Bible...oh wait, that's right, there's always something in the Bible. I'd have to be the Pope to argue anything with someone quoting the Bible.
"My opinion that homosexuality is not the equal of heterosexuality is bourne out and echoed by virtually all recorded history, the antics of a small class of privedged ancient Greeks, scattered hunter-gatherer tribes, and Bonobo Chimps notwithstanding. If you dismiss me as some uninformed redneck, you dismiss 99.9% of all humans in recorded history similarly. And if you think that there is anti-gay hostility today in the USA, just see what happens if the 'right' to a non-heterosexual (and/or non-monagamous) marriage is forced down the throats of the public. Would you prefer mandatory and legally obligatory celebration of homosexuality, or informal and widespread private tolerance? Because you can't have both."
I tend to agree with most of this, actually, despite my seemingly "gay loving" comments above. (my quotes, not anyone here).
" Iw ill say that I disapprove of Alan Keyes and his wife cutting her off.. a parent's love should be unconditional and the 'tough love' approach backfires as often as not... BUt pushing her to keep exclusively company that agrees with her sexual orientation and politics is no way to either treat her generally, or 'salvage' her eventually, if that's the right word.
Isn't that the bone of contention we're all gnawing on? Do you bring any new support for your claims?"
What claim do you mean? I just said that I disagree on principle with kicking out one's child from the house and/or ceasing all support just because they announce that they are gay. That it has caused her to keep exclusive company with fellow sexual travellers and their sympathizers is a reasonable supposition from reading her site. If there is soemthing else you are agguing I didn't see it though I didn't scroll too far bac in the posts
You say all that as if it's rhetorical. It's not, but suffice to say comprehensive treatment is beyond the scope of a news forum, and it also ignores the peculiar facet called faith.
The system has been deliberately constructed in such a way that those who prefer will have reason to deny the validity of the proofs. They won't be good reasons, but they're only required to provide the user plausible deniability in their own mind anyway.
That being said, She wouldn't have much claim on us if She didn't make her mind known now would She? But if she DID make Her mind known, and you choose to ignore it... I guess that would make you, you.
The Bible says in order to please G-d, you must believe that He is, and that He rewards those that diligently seek Him. You should think about the philosophical implications of that statement with respect toward your observable universe.
"The Bible says in order to please G-d, you must believe that He is, and that He rewards those that diligently seek Him. You should think about the philosophical implications of that statement with respect toward your observable universe."
But perhaps by not accepting the Bible line for line I am seeking God. And actually, I am.
Its interesting that you said that She wouldn't have much a claim on us unless she made her mind known. By this I'm guessing, if you'll pardon me, that you mean "The Bible". I'm not convinced that She made Her mind known to us, or even cares what we think. God created fish, but does he ("she's" getting irritating) care what a fish thinks? I don't know - maybe. But lets say you are right and that God cares what we think, and has made his mind known to us. Why does it have to be in the Bible only? Couldn't the word of God be revealed in every day human discourse? Or found in the quiet of the soul? Or the sound of one hand clapping? Or the smile on a dog?
Why would you want to accuse me of being a liar?
Cool! You're sharper than I thought.
And I do "have a reason to do so".
I said definable reason. As you present it, your "reason" is circular. The only possibility you won't allow is that the Bible is accurately communicating what the deity wants to communicate.
As for "there's always something in the Bible," no there isn't, but there is subtlety that escapes those unfamiliar with the plan of the book (yeah, I know, and I'll answer when you ask), it's idioms, or possessing their own agenda. There's also a component missing, but we can address that later.
If you are trying to negotiate price with a seller, what other mechanism does the seller possess to convince you the asking price is the selling price besides withholding the desired item?
Thanks, that's just the point I'm getting at. Just because your child or another family member comes out doesn't mean that you can just disown that person. One of my best friends in high school announced that he was gay, and I remember the problems that he had with his dad and stepmom. It was just heartwrenching for me to watch, because he was such a smart, funny guy and was a much better friend than any of the "saintly" straight Catholic kids that we went to school with (the ones who did drugs in the school parking lot, came to prom drunk, whored themselves out, etc...).
Why?
Thank you for the welcome.
Tigerseye in posts 251 and 255 provided text of Keyes comments.
I don't see how the rest of your post relates to mine. Documentation of slave ancestors isn't the point. I assume that.
The more affluent and successful a descendant of slaves, the greater the reward in the form of tax cuts. That doesn't make sense to me.
I considered his statements weasel-worded...not reparations, just money they would not otherwise have.
And, as I stated in another post, the money comes out of my pocket unless there are budget cuts that equaled the cost of the program.
1) human flight
A scientific achievment, not a cultural shift.
2) antibiotics
A scientific achievment, not a cultural shift.
3) interracial marriage
A cultural shift. And not necessarily a good one.
4) freedom from slavery
A cultural shift that brought us INTO alignment with God's wishes, not one that propelled us farther away.
5) the fight against racism
A cultural shift that has been marred by repeated abuses on the "victim" side.
6) capitalism (by your 4000 year scale)
You're daft. Capitalism -- in one form or another -- has existed since the dawn of time. True, it required an Industrial Revolution to give it its present incarnation, but people have been buying and selling at a profit for eons.
7) spongebob
A cultural mistake.
By the way, the Bible never condemned human flight, antibiotics, capitalism, or Sponge Bob (sadly). On the other hand, it does criticize bigotry and the abuses of slavery (although it is oddly ambivalent on the actual institution).
Your moral equivalency argument doesn't wash.
Are most pressts and nuns gay? I think that might be the reason God created them.....
That's ridiculous.
Why would you want to promote homosexual addiction and activism ?
The religion is homosexual addiction which is so unnatural that it tries to turn others, hence the seduction and activism, especially preying on the young, as in this case.
I don't.
If you think you're a mind-reader, I hope you aren't trying to make a living from it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.