Re: Should one Christian be reponsible for Christianity?

[Voter]

However, he's trying to use this argument to say that if being gay isn't about sex then they should just date members of the opposite sex to gain society's/"God's" approval,

That part's correct. The love argument sounds cute and cuddly but it doesn't stand to examination.

and if it is about sex then it's okay to discriminate against them since it isn't the same thing at all as discriminating against people based on their skin color (I think...tell me if I've gotten your position wrong).

No, this isn't my position, although some would take it that way as we have different ideas of discrimination. Some of my opponents seem to think it's discrimination if you don't roll over and give gays everything they ask for. I disagree. I think the existing legislative processes are suitable for defining marriage, for example.

[Voter]

I see sex and love as two different things however sex can be a result of love or can be affected by love. But sex can also be void of love.
I was certainly trying to gain clarity on the Christian point of view (through Voter and his assumed alignment with Christian POV) and whether the issue they have with homosexuality is based on love or simply sex. Voter has made a personal statement that the issue as he sees it is simply Sex and not love. Hence I think Voter is stating that if love were based on personality that same gender people could fall in love. However Voter would go on to suggest that people should then avoid situations where same gender relationships develop and progress and should simply put themselves into situations where opposite gender relationships develop.

Actually, no, I've pointed out that if you play the it's about love, not sex card the argument above counters it easily. My personal statement has been that it's a complex issue.

[Voter]

I didn't know prejudice could only exist toward colors. I was also unaware no one is ever suspected of even possibly being gay or accused of it for acting more like the opposite sex.

Prejudice exists toward much more than color. SOme people are prejudiced against religion in general, or specific religions, for example.
 

What if I were to respond, "How dare you desire the right marry! I don't think Christians should be allowed to. After all, by your logic it's not discrimination because I only know you're a Christian if you tell me." In which case I would hope you would respond "how dare you think that!" So, yes, I am proudly intolerant of some opinions.

Think whatever you like. That's part of why I go to atheist rather than Christian forums. I'm not outraged by alternative opinions. Not many, anyway.

[Voter]

Well if Voter is saying that homosexuality and homosexuals are Okay as long as they don't have sex, then I would not agree. What two consenting adults do with their own bodies and to each others bodies is entirely up to them. Saying one adult is better than another because of their consensual sexual habits is simply a personal perception.

The clarification I would like from Voter would be the following:
1. Do you think it is OK for same sex people to fall romantically in love with each other? If not, why not?
2. Do you think it is OK for same sex people to have sexual intercourse with each other? If not, why not?
3. Do you think it is OK for people to discriminate against people doing 1 or 2 or both of the above? If it is OK, please explain?

BTW My intent on these questions is to understand your position better, not to judge you (although other people on this forum might). I may however make an attempt to try and change your mind  

First I need clarification on the questions, as OK and discriminate are ambiguous.

[Sophus]

What do you mean by "intolerant"? Do you think people shouldn't be allowed to have certain opinions?

I'm not anti-free speech, no.

[TheJackel]

Most people condemn the worst excesses of fundamentalism.
Some atheists harangue moderate theists for not taking their book literally.
Some atheists are rabid in their attacks, mention any belief and it's out with
the baby eating and paedophilia accusations.
I prefer to leave dogmatic and intolerant attitudes to theists.

The tone of argument here seems reasonable to me.
Religion does harm that I would like to see minimised.
Rabid atheists, fired up by Dawkins words, but with none of his subtlety, are not helping to reduce harm.

After a forum encounter I have seen visiting theists and deists, left thinking Atheists are a bunch of assholes.  
Forum regulars keep the thread going long after driving off the visitor, congratulating themselves like an
adolescent street gang.

I have made posts here lacking in subtlety, I will try to do better.

However, I see a lot of theists leave thinking we are assholes because we simply argue rationally and logically while holding them to that standard. It is rare that a theist will stay on those terms btw because they contradict much of what is the basis of their belief system. It really comes down to the fact that anything against their ideological beliefs or constructs is somehow offensive on some level to where it would be irrelevant how you engage them. They know circular arguments, deflections, and avoidance games are not tolerable by many atheists, and yet they choose to engage in dishonest discourse on a regular basis. These are common fundamental problems when they come here to discuss various topics, and this ultimately leads to them leaving thinking many of us are assholes simply because their beliefs and opinions are not shared or even taken into consideration in some or all respects. It's kind of like when a theist comes here and claims there are no transitional fossils to prove evolution, and then they leave pissed off when proven completely incorrect while still rejecting and denying the reality that there are. I've seen the same person go from one forum to another with the same argument and repeatedly get owned on the subject. It makes you wonder how many are phishing for ignorance and how many are here for actual honest discourse.

I personally don't care what someone believes, but if they come here looking for discourse on various subjects, they ought to know what they are about to engage in. And that includes view points that reject the base of their ideological dogmas, and beliefs. However if you are a Christian and come here with the intent on a rational and honest debate, I don't think anyone here is going to treat them poorly.

At any rate, I take it one person at a time. I don't agree with equivocating all Christians to other Christians even if the religious ideological construct is inherently destructive or manipulative.

[Stevil]

Well if Voter is saying that homosexuality and homosexuals are Okay as long as they don't have sex, then I would not agree. What two consenting adults do with their own bodies and to each others bodies is entirely up to them. Saying one adult is better than another because of their consensual sexual habits is simply a personal perception.

The clarification I would like from Voter would be the following:
1. Do you think it is OK for same sex people to fall romantically in love with each other? If not, why not?
2. Do you think it is OK for same sex people to have sexual intercourse with each other? If not, why not?
3. Do you think it is OK for people to discriminate against people doing 1 or 2 or both of the above? If it is OK, please explain?

BTW My intent on these questions is to understand your position better, not to judge you (although other people on this forum might). I may however make an attempt to try and change your mind  

First I need clarification on the questions, as OK and discriminate are ambiguous.

Hmmm.
Lets say that OK means that you as an individual would not protest against, would not give any dissapproving comments or dissapproving looks towards these people, would not talk behind their backs and pass judgment as to the morality or sinful nature of these people or their actions with regards to the items in question. You would not support a referendum that would look to outlaw this situation. OK means any of these items, not necessarily all.
Lets say discriminate would meant that you think these people should be treated in all ways equally to people in the same situation who were from opposite gender. e.g. same rights to be have feelings of love, same rights to be displaying affection, same rights to be celebrating love (e.g. marriage, child adoption), same rights to hold job positions (e.g. early childcare provider, school teacher, doctor, preist, any position in the army)

[Stevil]

At any rate, I take it one person at a time. I don't agree with equivocating all Christians to other Christians even if the religious ideological construct is inherently destructive or manipulative.

The strange thing though is that it seems the vast majority hold on to similar thoughts taught by their faith, e.g. disapproval of same gender relationships. These issues are almost a given. Even moderately religious people hold some truely worring ideas, we have some friends who have said all the poverty and starvation and disease in Africa is gods punishment. It seems to me Christians take on most of what they are taught within their Faith based circles propogating, promoting and living these wrongs however never taking personal responsibility. Never wanting to better the Church or faith, never wanting to rise above, they simply look for guidance and accept unquestionly what they are told. They then deliver this message without consideration to others outside their faith circles. There are often victims but the Christians don't seem to care, they possibly feel if they are doing god's will then they are operating righteously and that can never be wrong, regardless.
Note how predictably Voter and AnimatedDirt (more silent on this matter) are against same gender romantic relationships.

BTW. Voter, AnimatedDirt and others please feel free to change my opinion on this.

[TheJackel]

At any rate, I take it one person at a time. I don't agree with equivocating all Christians to other Christians even if the religious ideological construct is inherently destructive or manipulative.

The strange thing though is that it seems the vast majority hold on to similar thoughts taught by their faith, e.g. disapproval of same gender relationships. These issues are almost a given. Even moderately religious people hold some truely worring ideas, we have some friends who have said all the poverty and starvation and disease in Africa is gods punishment. It seems to me Christians take on most of what they are taught within their Faith based circles propogating, promoting and living these wrongs however never taking personal responsibility. Never wanting to better the Church or faith, never wanting to rise above, they simply look for guidance and accept unquestionly what they are told. They then deliver this message without consideration to others outside their faith circles. There are often victims but the Christians don't seem to care, they possibly feel if they are doing god's will then they are operating righteously and that can never be wrong, regardless.
Note how predictably Voter and AnimatedDirt (more silent on this matter) are against same gender romantic relationships.

BTW. Voter, AnimatedDirt and others please feel free to change my opinion on this.

Actually I have some Christian friends that don't agree with man made religious dogmas even though they believe their GOD exists. But those kinds of religious people are very rare indeed because religion is essentially about power and control to where the deity represents every aspect of that. It's simply a symbol of what they think they have the right to do and enforce upon others in regards to their ideological constructs. The Bible is essentially about the servitude to the will and power of the ideology, and servitude to will and power in general. It's the finest example of written material the explicitly uses brainwashing and subliminal programming as a contextual structure. That is all religion is, servitude to power. So technically speaking, every religion is a cult in some form or another. And this is why I got out of religion.

[TheJackel]

BTW. Voter, AnimatedDirt and others please feel free to change my opinion on this.

On same sex romance ectra.. Voter and AnimatedDirt might possibly feel that Dolphins and many other animals are the work of the devil to which seemingly defies an "all powerful" and all "knowing" god. The rationality that goes into such nonsense is amazing should they actually think same sex relationships are somehow sinful. Those that do simply want to use their ideology as the power and excuse to enforce everyone into their religious ideological constructs, dogmas, beliefs, or morals. Religions are Theocracies looking to have power over the masses according to their own skewed morals and beliefs as if they are magically righteous, or the authority over everything. Its really simple, it's about Power and control.

[LegendarySandwich]

That part's correct. The love argument sounds cute and cuddly but it doesn't stand to examination.

It is about love. Sex is a part of that love.

No, this isn't my position, although some would take it that way as we have different ideas of discrimination. Some of my opponents seem to think it's discrimination if you don't roll over and give gays everything they ask for. I disagree. I think the existing legislative processes are suitable for defining marriage, for example.

You could use this exact argument to say that the segregation of whites and blacks in the first half of the 20th century wasn't discrimination. I don't buy it.

[elliebean]

No, this isn't my position, although some would take it that way as we have different ideas of discrimination. Some of my opponents seem to think it's discrimination if you don't roll over and give gays everything they ask for. I disagree. I think the existing legislative processes are suitable for defining marriage, for example.

You could use this exact argument to say that the segregation of whites and blacks in the first half of the 20th century wasn't discrimination. I don't buy it.

That exact argument was used.

[Stevil]

So I would contend that to support this forum's mission statement people should see other people first and their world view second. We should ask questions about why somebody holds a particular view on a particular subject rather than presume to tell them based on prejudice and past experience with other people as we are unique and should be treated and respected as such. That's what I will try to do, I will of course fail at times as I am simply a fallible ape.

Thanks Tank for opening this thread and setting this positive tone and outlook.

I do have some specific issues with Christianity and do tend to ask individual people with theist worldview on this forum with regards to those issues. Without fail they have thus far been aligned with the Christian faith. Without fail I have been surprised by each individual 's response as the issues I have are so obviously wrong I struggle to understand how a thinking person can align with them and I always assume the individual rather than a collective thought. I know that outside of theism people are overwhelmingly against these issues hence the Christian view doesn't fall into a theoretical objective morality and actually would be contrary to that. Hence my view of "should one Christian be responsible for Christianity" would be that it is far more complex than that.

We cannot make the assumption that Christians have free thought. I feel that absolute free thought is a falicy with regards to everyone however certain groups of people are further away from free thought than others. We all have cultural, family, and environmental constraints with regards to our ability to form thoughts. Christian's thoughts have an added contraint with regards to the influence of their faith and church. We can know this by seeing a large alignment with regards to their moral structure which differs from non Christians.

One big beef that I have is that I have an ideal that all people should be treated fairly, with respect and tolerance regardless of race, skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, age, lineage, religious beliefs, political views, wealth, education, etc. I feel this ideal is fairly intuitive and accepted by most atheists although there is no atheist book of ideals or teachings to promote this, hence it could be considered part of an objective morality if ever there was one.

Christianity does not promote this ideal and in fact they discourage it. Christians (for the most part) seem to accept the Christianity stance which is counter to this ideal. This is an indicator to me that Christians (for the most part) do not possess free thought with regards to this. If the individual does not possess free thought then how can they be held accountable for their stance? I feel there are measures in place to indoctorine the Christians with thoughts that are not their own and of which they then live by but are unable to break away from. Who should be made accountable? If they are not acting of free will and mind then we must look to those that have the free will and mind and are acting to intentionally implant these thoughts into the minds of others.

The problem is that it is difficult to know if a person is acting of free will and mind or not. I feel the individual themself doesn't even know if these thoughts are there own or have been implanted by others.

EDIT: Case in point, although this is only potentially the thoughts of one individual. (Thanks LegendarySandwich for pointing this out)

He<the devil> takes from them trust in God and begins to afflict them with self-assurance, logic, thinking, criticism. Therefore we should not trust our logical minds. Never believe your thoughts. Live simply and without thinking too much, like a child with his father. Faith without too much thinking works wonders. The logical mind hinders the Grace of God and miracles. Practice patience without judging with the logical mind.

[Voter]

Hmmm.
Lets say that OK means that you as an individual would not protest against, would not give any dissapproving comments or dissapproving looks towards these people, would not talk behind their backs and pass judgment as to the morality or sinful nature of these people or their actions with regards to the items in question. You would not support a referendum that would look to outlaw this situation. OK means any of these items, not necessarily all.

Some are yes, some are no. Not sure by that last sentence whether I'm OK with them or not. If not, I don't see it as very meaningful as some are a very low bar.

Lets say discriminate would meant that you think these people should be treated in all ways equally to people in the same situation who were from opposite gender. e.g. same rights to be have feelings of love, same rights to be displaying affection, same rights to be celebrating love (e.g. marriage, child adoption), same rights to hold job positions (e.g. early childcare provider, school teacher, doctor, preist, any position in the army)

By this, yes, I would discriminate, but you're merely defining your view as correct with this definition, thereby bypassing the actual debate. Again, not very meaningful.

[LegendarySandwich]

discrimination: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

I would say you're practicing discrimination here, Voter.