Fundamentalism is not always a bad thing.

[allan]

This is where the thread inevitably has to end up: We can scream all day at each other "my morality is right!", "No, MINE is!", back and forth, and really get nowhere (FL2 will never convince me, and I will never convince FL2)--because we are both men, and objectively speaking both our views could be considered equally valid on their face, and also equally valid under the assumption that we both came up with our moral views under similar painstaking deliberation and thoughtfulness.

We each see what makes sense to us--what more can we do?

So the question becomes, whose morality should dominate, through force of law, over everyone else's? I say NO ONE'S. Aside from necessary controls to keep people safe from force or fraud from others (necessary if you are to have any kind of social cohesion at all), all other force is really the assertion that some person or group of people are inherently superior to others--a notion I reject. I don't claim to be better than anyone else, or more knowing or more wise--I used to have such tendencies in my youth, but life experience has shot me off my high horse enough times that I know better. And honestly, being a constructive critic here, it doesn't seem to me that FL2 has learned the same kinds of lessons very well. Maybe, although I can't claim to intimately know his life experiences to judge for sure. But he is fond of saying "I'm right, I know I'm right, so quit whining" and the like--something that no reasonable person boasts.

Anyhow, FL2 actually seems like a decent person overall, but that is one flaw of his that will irk people, turn people off to the religion he represents, and get them to WANT to ambush, attack, and humiliate him in forums like these--because EVERYONE likes to knock a "know-it-all" down a few pegs....

Jesus taught HUMILITY, FL2. There's no getting around that, if you claim to be a follower of His teachings.

So be a better example.
[end of constructive criticism]

 

[allan]

"...and he then proceeds to volify me in every way he could think of."

How so? Honestly, you've had a lot more coming to you than anything I've dished out.

How do you expect people to react to arrogance?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

As to your first reply (and this kind of addresses your second), once again, you are arguing relativism to me.

Morality is not, and cannot be, relative. It has to be absolute. At it's base morality is best described as rules. For rules to be valid, they must be fair. Fair rules must apply equally to everyone. Therefore, the same rules must apply to everyone. If it is wrong for me to bang my neighbor's wife, then it must be equally wrong for him to do the same to mine.

When I speak of rules, I am not talking about worship services, or flag dedication ceremonies, or cryptic rituals of a secret society. I am talking about the basic principles that everyone should adhere to to make this a functioning society, and not a group of anti-social animals thrust into proximity with each other. The rest of that stuff shouldn't matter. If everyone follows the same rules of social conduct, then we'll all get along fine.

Now I know you're just itching to reply with something along the lines of "But who says your rules are the right ones?" Fair question. Propose an alternative set of rules, that aren't based on '...above all else, love thy neighbor...', and try to sell them to me.

This isn't even about Christianity vs. Other Religions (including atheism) anymore. This is about Right vs. Wrong. You show me a social system that you think is better than 'love thy neighbor', and I'll take a look at it. But if you don't have anything better, or anything period, in mind to replace it, then just stop now.



---------------------
It's not arrogance when I'm right. The arrogance lies in merely saying I'm right, and not demonstrating that fact, because I hold it to be self-evident. Well, this is how I plan to put my money where my mouth is. I have invited you to shoot down my chosen model of society. I await your first volley.

(Maybe we should put this in another topic. But it really is still about Fundamentalism, isn't it?)

 

[allan]

You've been missing my whole argument, FL2.

My basic question is: When is it suitable to put the force of law (i.e. force, by men with guns or whatever) behind morality? THAT is really all I'm concerned about, and it seems fundies want to use force on people in MANY circumstances.

I believe that use of force should be limited to bare necessities. The only MORAL use of force is to defend oneself or others from aggression, or to deter fraud. Both aggression and fraud are things which threaten other people and destroy people's good faith in their fellow man--and any society must guard against these things in order to function even minimally.

All other use of force is immoral itself. In other words, homosexuality may be a sin, but using force against homosexuals IS ALSO a sin. Jesus said, "He who is without sin may cast the first stone." In that sentence, he revolutionized the ancient concept of using force of law (stoning, in that case) to enforce religious morality. He basically did away with that concept. However, humans unfortunately don't catch on to things like this very fast, do they. And for this and all the other things Jesus revolutionized, he was nailed to a cross....

And as for my statements that you mistook for relativism, all I said was that YOUR interpretation of God's will or laws or whatever is just that--an INTERPRETATION. Many theologians who have spent lots of time studying these things may disagree with you. I may disagree with you. Many of your fellow Christians may disagree with you. And they all, likewise, have INTERPRETATIONS. And like it or not, God left us some room for interpretations, hence different ones exist, by people just as faithful as you are. Claiming that your interpretation is the only correct one is pretty arrogant, because it is tantamount to claiming that you are closer to God, or more knowledgeable of God, than anyone else. I believe that there IS a correct interpretation somewhere, but none of us know what it is 100% because none of us have perfect understanding of God--and according to the Bible itself we will not have such understanding until we meet Him "face to face" in Heaven. We can only follow each of our limited understandings the best way we know how--and it is our personal effort that is important to God.

And I'm not going to argue interpretations with you--it is irrelevant to this discussion, because the only beef I have with fundies (it's a BIG one, but it's the only one) is that they wish to put their personal interpretations of their religion into LAW--i.e. send men with guns to confront those who see things, and live, differently. They can have whatever interpretation they wish, and live by that--so long as they don't put a gun to my head (or anyone else's) to do the same. THAT is all I am worried about here.

I don't care how you interpret the scriptures--using force upon others to abide by your interpretation is still immoral. Did Jesus ever minister that way?

Look at Jesus' example--I think all fundies really need to do that, if they want to claim to represent Him like they (think they) do.

 

[allan]

"Propose an alternative set of rules, that aren't based on '...above all else, love thy neighbor...'"

Hmmm, but isn't that what Jesus said? So what's YOUR problem with that?

Hypocrite.

As for an alternative set of rules, I think I stated the most important one already: do not use force, unless it is in self-defense (of your person or property) or defense of others. That goes for governments (who are made up of people) as well as individuals, and that is the only one relevant to this discussion.

And in fact, it does deviate somewhat from what Jesus taught: HE taught that one should "turn the other cheek" when faced with opposing force. So do you like apples, FL2? Since I don't call myself a Christian, I'm not bound to this the way you (who DO call yourself a Christian) are, since I wouldn't be preaching differently than what I practice....

So how 'bout THEM apples?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

...that you didn't take the time to comprehend what you just read.

Originally posted by allan
"Propose an alternative set of rules, that aren't based on '...above all else, love thy neighbor...'"

Hmmm, but isn't that what Jesus said? So what's YOUR problem with that?

Hypocrite.

My point is, you don't like my rules. You must therefore have some of your own. Mine are based on 'love thy neighbor'. What set of rules will you be proposing, and what will they be based upon? Now do you understand? YOU are the one who seems to have the problem.

Originally posted by allan
As for an alternative set of rules, I think I stated the most important one already: do not use force, unless it is in self-defense (of your person or property) or defense of others. That goes for governments (who are made up of people) as well as individuals, and that is the only one relevant to this discussion.

So while everyone else is following the rules, if anyone does not, nothing can be done to prevent them? Rules need something behind them to make people follow them. Not everyone is altruistic enough to follow the rules just because of the Golden Rule. So how are we going to enforce the rules if there are no punishments for violators?
Additionally, I find your objections specious to begin with. If the rule is good, then why not make it a law? If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

Originally posted by allan
And in fact, it does deviate somewhat from what Jesus taught: HE taught that one should "turn the other cheek" when faced with opposing force. So do you like apples, FL2? Since I don't call myself a Christian, I'm not bound to this the way you (who DO call yourself a Christian) are, since I wouldn't be preaching differently than what I practice....

So how 'bout THEM apples?

First off, let's set the record straight. I call myself a lousy Christian at best. Secondly, I have never struck anyone in anger, even when they struck me. I'm not counting petty squabbles with my brothers, since those were the acts of a child. I am speaking of my adult life.
Third, apple is my second favorite pie, right behind pumpkin.

 

[allan]

"So while everyone else is following the rules, if anyone does not, nothing can be done to prevent them? Rules need something behind them to make people follow them. Not everyone is altruistic enough to follow the rules just because of the Golden Rule. So how are we going to enforce the rules if there are no punishments for violators?"

Why do there need to be EARTHLY penalties for things like homosexuality? Again, do you have no faith that your God will deal with these things in the afterlife, or by "divine intervention" on earth as He sees fit?

Why must humans draw guns and usurp the role of God?

Again, Jesus said, "He who is without sin may cast the first stone"--in that sentence effectively doing away with MAN punishing MAN for breaches in religious morality. I see you couldn't figure out a way to address that.

"Additionally, I find your objections specious to begin with. If the rule is good, then why not make it a law? If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander."

Again, because use of force itself is immoral, unless used to prevent other force.

Do we put people in jail for lying about their weight? For eating unhealthy foods? For smoking cigarettes? For doing "non-necessary" paid work on Sundays? OBVIOUSLY we draw a line somewhere, and consider SOME behaviors immoral but not within the scope of legal intervention. I am just drawing a line at what I see as a more logical place....

And of course, *I* know you are convinced that your interpretation of God's morality is the correct one. And thus you have no interest in how other people interpret it. However, other people still WILL interpret it differently. So which is better: using force everywhere to MAKE people conform to your interpretations, and having others do the same so that there is violence (particularly government violence) everywhere, and we become effectively a police state? Or living your own life the best way you see fit (i.e. following the morals you believe in, because you WANT to please God, not because you HAVE to), and letting others live their lives as they will, and having a relatively peaceful society?

*I* would prefer the latter, thank you very much. Homosexuals really don't affect me enough (heck, they don't AT ALL) where I would sacrifice peace to persecute them. If they bother God, then GOD will deal with them--that's fine with me....

God GAVE US free will--He wants people to CHOOSE to follow His rules, not FORCE them to. The role of judgment, once people have made their choices, is really HIS alone.

"First off, let's set the record straight. I call myself a lousy Christian at best."

Good that you admit that. But that is NO excuse for not paying attention to Jesus' example when aspects of it are pointed out to you, is it. If you are striving to be a better Christian, you should consider these things, shouldn't you. YOU have taken on the burden of representing your religion, by going out on a limb to support the fundamentalist movement. Therefore YOU must account for that movement's discrepancies.

If you don't "walk the walk", I will not listen to you "talk the talk". That's the way I am, I guess.... And no apologies for it.

So follow these "rules" you speak of IN THEIR ENTIRETY (i.e. EVERYTHING Christ taught), THEN I'll be more receptive (i.e. I'll listen, not necessarily agree). Are you without sin, FL2? Whenever you are, THEN cast the first stone....

 

[allan]

"Secondly, I have never struck anyone in anger, even when they struck me. I'm not counting petty squabbles with my brothers, since those were the acts of a child. I am speaking of my adult life."

That's good of you. However, you fundies support INITIATING force (through the government) against people like homosexuals, pot smokers, adulterers, etc.

If Jesus commanded that one not even RETURN force, what do you think He meant about INITIATING force? The answer, again, is in part how He dealt with the situation of the people (under sanction of old religious law) about to stone the adulterer.

A broad example is also given in looking at the life He lived--He ministered to people in peace, commanded His disciples to "walk away" if their message was rejected, and never sought earthly power over people. Are Christians not commanded to live their lives as close to Christ's example as possible? If so, then fundies are not doing a good job of that, are they.

THAT'S what I mean by "walking the walk".

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Sorry this took so long. Been busy.

Ok, your main theme seems to be on homosexuals, so let's go there, shall we?

You said...

Homosexuals really don't affect me enough (heck, they don't AT ALL) where I would sacrifice peace to persecute them. If they bother God, then GOD will deal with them--that's fine with me....

While it is true that unless you're the guy getting his ass pounded, homosexualtiy has little direct impact on you, there is a great deal of 'collateral damage'.

Homosexuality is based upon the concept of using sex as a form of recreation. Sex is not recreation. Recreation is an act or situation that has no consequences, and is enjoyable. While sex is certainly enjoyable, it DOES have consequences.

Once you have engaged in sex, your innocence is irrevocably forfeited. Childhood is over, period. Childhood is arguably the best part of life, and anything that cuts it short is bad. Children mimic their elders to learn their social skills. If children see sex as being a socially acceptable recreational activity, they will have sex.

Children having sex also does not directly affect you, unless you area child. Fair enough. But let's not forget that sex has physical consequences as well as emotional ones. Pregnancy and social diseases like AIDS are physical consequences. When a teen girl becomes pregnant, she drastically reduces her chances of becoming a college graduate, and dramatically improves the likliehood that both she and her child will spend a good deal of time on Welfare. It is a demonstable fact that Welfare demoralizes its recipients and destroys their value to society by teaching them that a handout can take the place of a paycheck.

Assuming you obey the laws, you pay taxes. Taxes are used to pay Welfare recipients. Homosexuality leads to higher taxes, both for Welfare, and for medical treatment of AIDS patients. That's right, when some guy pounds another guys ass, you are feeling it in the wallet. Is my point starting to seep through yet? It is not a 'victimless' crime. It is a starting point for all sorts of social problems. Yes, it is only a small snowball when it first starts rolling down the hill, but it takes other things with it.

Why is it that no one will acknowledge that the big picture exists, let alone look at it? What's the matter, is this tree blocking your view of the forest?

 

[allan]

"Sorry this took so long. Been busy."

Ah, so unlike what I said in another thread (that recent one about "rose-colored glasses"), I HAVEN'T finished this discussion. YET....

"Ok, your main theme seems to be on homosexuals, so let's go there, shall we?"

Actually the main theme of fundies seems to be homosexuals (these days at least), so therefore I address it. Anyway....

"While it is true that unless you're the guy getting his ass pounded, homosexualtiy has little direct impact on you, there is a great deal of 'collateral damage'."

Actually I look at it as maybe having some positive impact on me--less competition for the good-looking ladies.... (As for the lesbians, they're usually butt-ugly anyway, so hold little interest for me.)

"Homosexuality is based upon the concept of using sex as a form of recreation. Sex is not recreation. Recreation is an act or situation that has no consequences, and is enjoyable. While sex is certainly enjoyable, it DOES have consequences."

Football playing can have some pretty bad consequences--injuries that in some cases can have debilitating consequences for the remainder of a person's life. Even moreso boxing, or auto racing, or downhill skiing, or mountain climbing. Yet we would call these activities "recreation" as well. Try another definition....

"Once you have engaged in sex, your innocence is irrevocably forfeited."

No argument there.

"Childhood is over, period. Childhood is arguably the best part of life,"

Speak for yourself. I try to make each year of my life somehow better than the last--it's called "growth"--and have largely succeeded. Childhood for me wasn't all that great--I was kind of an awkward nerd then and all that--whereas adulthood has been a lot better, meeting the challenges and in most cases BEATING them. I thrive on that, but maybe you don't....

I'd say that I'm better off now than I was then, in every aspect of my life....

"and anything that cuts it short is bad."

Not necessarily. For example, you may be forced to work at the age of 16 (or even younger) due to your family being poor. While you could say such poverty is bad in and of itself, learning a work ethic and responsibility--the major stuff of adulthood--while it inhibits your ability to be a "carefree child", is certainly a GOOD thing. I had a job at 16 even though my family didn't need me to work--and I'm quite glad I started that young. I see some people close to MY age (lower 30s) who still live with their parents and are jobless. Childhood in a way hasn't ended for them yet, and it's SAD....

"Children mimic their elders to learn their social skills. If children see sex as being a socially acceptable recreational activity, they will have sex."

ROTFLMAO!!

Even children of parents who teach that unmarried sex is EVIL often end up having unmarried sex! Talk about not understanding conventional wisdom....

At age 14 or so, pretty much everything (well, most things) that parents try to teach goes out the window. It's called "adolescent rebellion"....

"Children having sex also does not directly affect you, unless you area child."

As for kids having sex with kids, well it will affect me if my teenaged daughter came home pregnant, or my teenaged son became financially responsible for a child--and hence I too would have to lend support. And yes it would affect me emotionally, you can believe that. And so as a parent it would be my responsibility to TRY as best I can to at least make sure my rebellious teen is SMART enough not to get him or herself into such a situation. And I would impose some household rules (curfews and such) that would make it a bit harder for my kids to get themselves into those situations. Minding my own business DOES mean MINDING that business--and my kids WOULD be my business....

But what has this to do with the original topic, two adult, consenting homosexuals, having a peaceful relationship in some bedroom somewhere that I'LL never step into?

"Fair enough. But let's not forget that sex has physical consequences as well as emotional ones. Pregnancy and social diseases like AIDS are physical consequences. When a teen girl becomes pregnant, she drastically reduces her chances of becoming a college graduate, and dramatically improves the likliehood that both she and her child will spend a good deal of time on Welfare."

My own sister was an exception to that rule (but my sister is quite a remarkably strong lady too, in many ways more an "adult" than I even though I'm older), but I agree that the chances probably increase.

But the exception PROVES that it is not impossible.... Just a bit harder.

But is the SEX to blame for the welfare, or the welfare system itself? If there were no welfare system, it wouldn't be a problem.

"It is a demonstable fact that Welfare demoralizes its recipients and destroys their value to society by teaching them that a handout can take the place of a paycheck."

Then let's talk about how we can eliminate the welfare system, at least the way it operates now. I think you and I agree on this issue....

"Assuming you obey the laws, you pay taxes. Taxes are used to pay Welfare recipients. Homosexuality leads to higher taxes, both for Welfare,"

Whoa whoa whoa! We WERE talking about teenagers getting pregnant leading to higher welfare rolls. And last I checked, homosexual sex cannot lead to pregnancy, lol....

Come on now, don't make me have to explain the birds and bees to you--it COULD get ugly....

"and for medical treatment of AIDS patients."

More heterosexuals than homosexuals have AIDS. And once we find a vaccine or cure (which some say we are rather close to doing), it will go the way of the clap and syphilis--easily and cheaply cured.

Besides, I probably pay MUCH more for people's medical problems for smoking cigarettes or eating high-fat diets than I do for a small minority of a fringe crowd getting AIDS from pounding each other in the ass, or even heteros pounding the poon....

Besides, most homosexuals I'VE known about seem to be well-off professional types, "yuppified" or at least in steady jobs--not the types who live off welfare and breed lots of children....

"That's right, when some guy pounds another guys ass, you are feeling it in the wallet. Is my point starting to seep through yet?"

You've made no point. Is it starting to seep through yet that perhaps you CAN'T? But keep trying if you want.

"It is not a 'victimless' crime. It is a starting point for all sorts of social problems. Yes, it is only a small snowball when it first starts rolling down the hill, but it takes other things with it."

I could make a more valid argument about the eating of red meat, driving cars, and all sorts of things that could "snowball", with better causality arguments than these ones of yours I've just demolished.... Not that I DO go around making such arguments though.

"Why is it that no one will acknowledge that the big picture exists, let alone look at it? What's the matter, is this tree blocking your view of the forest?"

I DO see a big picture, but that picture does not show me the sky falling. Get a grip....

 

[Simon Darkshade]

As said by FL2:
"Homosexuality is based upon the concept of using sex as a form of recreation. "
No, sorry, that is not the case. At all.

"Homosexuality leads to higher taxes, both for Welfare, and for medical treatment of AIDS patients. That's right, when some guy pounds another guys ass, you are feeling it in the wallet."
Untrue, and at times, uncouth, sillyness. I've seen people blame a lot of things for high taxes an welfare, but this is a first. How in hell can you make that connection with a straight face? Wherever I put it, or anyone puts it, or chooses not to put it, is their business and not a contributing factor to welfare or otherwise. Sorry, but some of that persuasion do not indulge in that particular activity, or anything for that matter, so to say that they contribute to your tax burden is a fallacy. Not every homosexual has sex, or has AIDS. Sorry to spoil the illusion.

 

[Hamlet]

Anybody ever informed you that heterosexuals can get AIDS too, Mr leader?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

allan-
You and I disagree on whether adequate parenting can prevent teen sex. Allow me to inform you that I was raised by devout Witnesses. While I have since fallen by the wayside, it was not until I was 29 that I engaged in sexual activity. My younger brother came into his late teens as my parents entered their 60s. They did not have the energy to properly parent him, and as a result, he is now 25, with three kids, and is maried to a professional welfare recipient. My two older brothers are a fellow bachelor (and almost certainly still a virgin) and a married man with two kids.

Clearly, I have seen what good parenting can do for a child, raging hormones or no. Shall we simply agree to disagree, or will you accept that my evidence is a powerful argument in my favor?


Simon-
If homosexuality isn't sex as recreation, then what is it? There is no point to it. No child will come of it. When two humans line up their genitalia and start moaning, biology steps in and tries to reproduce them via a mixing of genetics and nine months in the oven. The fact that their conscious intent may be otherwise, or that they may use technology to thwart biology is of small matter. If the purpose of sex is not reproduction, then it has to be recreation. Saying otherwise is callow and disingenuous.

Hamlet-
Your lack of subtlety aside, allow me to congratulate you upon finding a hair to split. Hopefully everyone will forget about the logs...

 

[Simon Darkshade]

"Simon-
If homosexuality isn't sex as recreation, then what is it? There is no point to it. No child will come of it. When two humans line up their genitalia and start moaning, biology steps in and tries to reproduce them via a mixing of genetics and nine months in the oven. The fact that their conscious intent may be otherwise, or that they may use technology to thwart biology is of small matter. If the purpose of sex is not reproduction, then it has to be recreation. Saying otherwise is callow and disingenuous."

I think I see where you are coming from, equating homosexuality with homosexual sex. In my mind this is not the case. A person can be homosexual or heterosexual with even having sexual intercourse. Even if they are a virgin, or practicing abstinence. As I regard it, sexuality and sex are two different things, even though they are linked.
Take the example of a 25 year old man who has never engaged in sexual relations, yet regards himself as 100% heterosexual. This is not an illogical case, in my opinion.
Now take the same 25 year old man, still no sexual relations, yet he is sure he is gay. Again, no logical problems.

That is why I take umbrage with the suggestion that homosexuality is sex as recreation. I also remain to be convinced of your quite bizarre assertion that homosexuality leads to higher taxes, or welfare dependency.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Very well Simon, I concede this irrelevant point to you, and hereby amend all statements I have made on the subject to read 'homosexuality' as 'sex of a homosexual nature'.

We happy?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Apologies. Somehow this post was duplicated.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Very well, that is cool, but I am still confused about the thing about me paying more taxes because of one gentleman banging another in the bottom...

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I thought I explained it pretty good here:
It's the Dec15 post, 5:24. For some reason, I can't link to it. It's got a really long post by allan after it,

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Can't get that link to work for some reason.

 

[pavelsu]

Allan, are you really a cabron??