MERGED--> He became straight + I despise... - Page 14 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-13-2007, 04:08 PM   #261
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Well, there is a shortage of new priests in the Church...
__________________

Diemen is offline  
Old 07-13-2007, 04:12 PM   #262
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 10:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON



I would prefer that the laws mirrored all of my moral beliefs, but that's simply not realistic in this case.
Would you want my moral beliefs to have the effect of Law on you and your family?
__________________

deep is offline  
Old 07-13-2007, 04:52 PM   #263
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




you're dodging the question.

you've said i'm immoral. that i fall short from god. that everyone does this, sure, but doesn't sin require conscious choice? it is not a choice to be gay, though i suppose it is a choice to live as gay, to have relationships with members of the same gender. so, in order not to sin, i must remain celibate?

is that what needs to be done?
Remember, core to my belief is that EVERYONE without faith in Christ falls short of God. It has nothing to do with individual behavior, it's the premise of original sin. The only way out of the condition is through faith.

Now, we can debate this all you want, but it is a central Protestantand Catholic Christian belief - that we have no choice in being fallen creatures but we can choose to have faith.
AEON is offline  
Old 07-13-2007, 04:55 PM   #264
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


Would you want my moral beliefs to have the effect of Law on you and your family?
It depends on your moral beliefs. So far I am pleased that the Judeo-Christian moral beliefs have carried the day more than other options.
AEON is offline  
Old 07-13-2007, 04:59 PM   #265
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 02:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Remember, core to my belief is that EVERYONE without faith in Christ falls short of God. It has nothing to do with individual behavior, it's the premise of original sin. The only way out of the condition is through faith.

Now, we can debate this all you want, but it is a central Protestantand Catholic Christian belief - that we have no choice in being fallen creatures but we can choose to have faith.


you're still avoiding the question.

if i had, under your definition, faith in Christ, would i still be homosexual?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-13-2007, 05:06 PM   #266
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


It depends on your moral beliefs. So far I am pleased that the Judeo-Christian moral beliefs have carried the day more than other options.
Which ones? Genital mutilation, slavery, killing people for sexual deviancy etc.

Even the concept that by accepting Christ forgives sins is full of flawed, it doesn't undo anything at all and certainly doesn't make someone guiltless by the standards of whomever they wronged.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-13-2007, 05:13 PM   #267
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:44 AM
AEON, Irvine already asked this:

Don't you have to choose to sin?
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 07-13-2007, 05:31 PM   #268
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 10:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
It depends on your moral beliefs. So far I am pleased that the Judeo-Christian moral beliefs have carried the day more than other options.
so if my moral beliefs are the same as yours, it's fine


and if law's are based on religious beliefs that are different than yours

Let's say Jewish divorce law that says a woman is not granted a divorce unless her husband agrees?
deep is offline  
Old 07-13-2007, 06:10 PM   #269
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 02:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Many people share Melon's interpretation. Many people (outside of interference.com) share my interpretation. I tend to believe that my own interpretation is more “objective” because I have nothing to gain or lose in the result of the research (since I am not gay). But I’m certain that Melon would think he is more objective because he is not brainwashed by the Conservative Christian scholars.
You tend to believe that your interpretation is more "objective," because it maintains the status quo and pleases your conservative Christian comrades. After all, you wouldn't want to risk being "shunned."

The fact that you have nothing to gain or to lose is precisely why you have zero interest in going beyond the surface of this issue and are prepared to casually write off all homosexuals as "sinners." It doesn't affect you, so why should you care?

Tangentially, this kind of apathetic moral conservatism accents precisely why it will be very difficult to eradicate radical Islam. Why should they challenge what they have been taught when hating Jews, women, and Westerners makes them no better or worse in the end? I guess that makes them as "objective" as you.
Ormus is offline  
Old 07-13-2007, 06:25 PM   #270
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus


You tend to believe that your interpretation is more "objective," because it maintains the status quo and pleases your conservative Christian comrades. After all, you wouldn't want to risk being "shunned."
This is a bit unfair as you don't know what risks I have taken on other issues. For instance, I have been "shunned" to various degrees for my more "liberal" stances on women holding leadership positions and my acceptance of theistic evolution (and the fact the universe is billions of years old). I am more than willing to challenge the status quo when I am convinced that I am correct.
AEON is offline  
Old 07-13-2007, 06:33 PM   #271
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 02:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I though Natural Selection requires variation along with the ability to produce offspring. Without the ability to create offspring, the variation cannot benefit the survival of the species.
This model works with Mendellian genetics, because it presumes that an undesirable trait will be weeded out and removed from the genetic family tree.

The key here, however, is that an "undesirable trait" is defined as anything that prevents reproduction completely. Looking at the Kinsey model of sexuality, which defines sexuality as a series of gradients between "100% heterosexuality" and "100% homosexuality," with a wide range of bisexuality in between, there's ample opportunity for these traits to spread through hypothetical "carriers"--assuming that sexuality conforms to Mendellian genetics.

However, if it ends up being the result of "genetic mutation," then "natural selection" is completely out of the picture. Lest you forget, all fetuses in the first trimester of development, regardless of whether they have XX or XY sex chromosomes, have both male and female reproductive organs. Yes, AEON, you too once had a uterus and ovaries. By the end of the third month, sexual differentiation occurs and all those hermaphroditic fetuses, in theory, should become strictly "male" or strictly "female," based on the presence or absence of a Y chromosome.

The key phrase, however, is "in theory." To achieve this, a series of genes between the mother and child must coordinate a series of hormones produced by the mother and child in a narrow timespan. If a gene is absent in the mother or the child, the "ideal" collapses. If a hormone from the mother or the child is released after that narrow timespan has passed, it is effectively worthless and does nothing to the child. The child, itself, might be missing a gene, so even if the correct hormones are present, the missing gene means that there's no receptor and, again, the hormone is effectively worthless. As a result, there are those who are born with immature male and female sex organs (the intersexed, due to the hormones triggering destruction of the other set of sex organs failing). There are those born with no sex organs (the hormones triggering the destruction of sex organs works, but the hormones to trigger the maturity of them do not). There are those who are genetically male (XY), but are physically female (the presence of the Y chromosome is supposed to trigger "masculinization"; the absence automatically leads to "feminization" if the hormone to detect the Y chromosome fails or the gene to receive the hormone is absent).

We have heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, and asexuals, which effectively cover the entirety of the sexual spectrum, and fully represents what a scientist would expect to see in nature: every possible variation.

Your view of "natural selection" and genetics, as a whole, is far too basic and limited, compared to the scientific reality.
Ormus is offline  
Old 07-13-2007, 06:36 PM   #272
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus


Yes, AEON, you too once had a uterus and ovaries.
AEON is offline  
Old 07-13-2007, 06:43 PM   #273
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 02:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


This is a bit unfair as you don't know what risks I have taken on other issues. For instance, I have been "shunned" to various degrees for my more "liberal" stances on women holding leadership positions and my acceptance of theistic evolution (and the fact the universe is billions of years old). I am more than willing to challenge the status quo when I am convinced that I am correct.


and, hopefully, i can convince you that i am correct on this one, and you'll stand up for what's right on this issue as well.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-13-2007, 06:46 PM   #274
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




and, hopefully, i can convince you that i am correct on this one, and you'll stand up for what's right on this issue as well.
There's always a chance. Although you would certainly have a better chance from the Biblical scholarship angle.
AEON is offline  
Old 07-13-2007, 06:46 PM   #275
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 02:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
I kind of feel like this is a discussion that might have taken place a couple of hundred years ago in Europe.

and Aeon is the gentle inquisidor speaking cordially to the heathen Jew, Irvine.

Irvine, just come over and be saved, all you have to do is publicly renounce and stop all those Jewish behaviors, and never speak Hebrew or read Torah again.

Or keep choosing sin and suffer the consequences.
Actually, the reality is that this was never sufficient. After the end of the Spanish Reconquista in 1492, all Jews and Muslims were forced to convert to Christianity or be forcibly expelled out of Spain. Most Muslims and Jews chose expulsion, and the newly flourishing Ottoman Empire (having fully vanquished the Byzantine Empire and seized the cultural and historical crown jewel of Constantinople only a few decades prior) took advantage of this by encouraging these exiles--many of which were the the brightest minds of their day--to live in their new Empire.

However, many chose to stay in Spain, and, as such, converted to Christianity. Nonetheless, Spain and the "Old Christians" never once trusted these "New Christians," and marginalized them by constant accusations that they were secretly practicing their old religions in secret. The Spanish and Portuguese Inquisition, as such, was fueled by their hatred and suspicion of these "New Christians." Institutionalized marginalization of the "New Christians" ended in 1772 in Portugal (their ruler was influenced by the big bad Enlightenment) with Spain's laws fading away not long after that.
Ormus is offline  
Old 07-13-2007, 06:47 PM   #276
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


This is a bit unfair as you don't know what risks I have taken on other issues. For instance, I have been "shunned" to various degrees for my more "liberal" stances on women holding leadership positions and my acceptance of theistic evolution (and the fact the universe is billions of years old). I am more than willing to challenge the status quo when I am convinced that I am correct.
Well your stance on women and evolution isn't very "liberal" in most denominations so it's probably a much easier challenge to the status quo. Now the evolution one may not be as easy as the female one, but it's still very common enough that you really aren't sticking your neck out too much.
BVS is offline  
Old 07-13-2007, 06:48 PM   #277
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 02:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


If you are this genuinely surprised by that, then I strongly suggest you study this aspect of fetal development. I think you might find the idea of homosexuality to be a part of nature much more plausible.

It is a pity that most people are not aware of this indisputable fact.
Ormus is offline  
Old 07-13-2007, 06:58 PM   #278
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Well your stance on women and evolution isn't very "liberal" in most denominations so it's probably a much easier challenge to the status quo. Now the evolution one may not be as easy as the female one, but it's still very common enough that you really aren't sticking your neck out too much.
Sort of like being a pro-lifer at a women's rights march? The concept of sticking your neck out is very relative to group, denomination, church, region...etc.

My point was that it is not fear of being shunned that keeps from accepting Melon's interpretation of the Bible concerning homosexual issues. Scriptural interpretation is a combination of study and Holy Spirit illumination. Thus far, I have not reached the same conclusions as Melon. If I do, well, then I'll stick my neck out as I would for anything else I believe to be true.
AEON is offline  
Old 07-13-2007, 07:12 PM   #279
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 02:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


There's always a chance. Although you would certainly have a better chance from the Biblical scholarship angle.


may i direct you to any dozen Melon/Ormus posts?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-13-2007, 07:42 PM   #280
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 02:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
Don't you have to choose to sin?
This idea came out of the vibrant intellectual environment of the 12th century. Spain had been conquered by the Islamic Moors for the past 400 years, and while they were most officially hated by Christian Europe, they were more than happy to draw upon their intellectual environment.

Islamic conquest and expansion had flourished under the Mu'tazili school, which, although Islam was considered the final answer to all questions, they happily collected the knowledge of all the cultures that they neighbored and conquered, from Indian knowledge to Mesopotamian knowledge to Persian knowledge to Greek philosophy. Islamic intellectualism thrived in Moorish Spain, and, thanks to their relative acceptance of Jews, Jewish intellectuals thrived in Spain. Jewish scholars, having access to a wide range of Islamic and Greek philosophy, translated them from Arabic into Hebrew, which then found their way into Christian intellectual communities. It was this environment that St. Thomas Aquinas encountered Greek philosophy, most particularly Greek stoicism.

Aquinas and his contemporaries treated Greek knowledge paradoxically. They admired the Greeks as a great civilization, filled with great knowledge. They simultaneously hated them, because they had to: they were pagans, and Christians, by default, were automatically superior. As such, Aquinas set out to do his Christian duty by taking the "great knowledge" of ancient Greece and "Christianizing" it. Thus, Christians could then claim to be greater than the ancient Greece.

Greek stoicism is summed up as this:

Quote:
Stoicism teaches that self-control, fortitude and detachment from distracting emotions, sometimes interpreted as an indifference to pleasure or pain, allows one to become a clear thinker, level-headed and unbiased. A primary aspect of Stoicism would be described as improving the individual’s spiritual well-being.

Virtue, reason, and natural law are prime directives. By mastering passions and emotions, Stoics believe it is possible to overcome the discord of the outside world and find peace within oneself. Stoicism holds that passion distorts truth, and that the pursuit of truth is virtuous.
Aquinas latched onto this fiercely, and thus declared that all emotions--pleasure and pain alike--were the creation of Satan. As I've stated before, this is the origin of modern Christian hatred of homosexuals, not the Bible, as Aquinas' "Christian stoicism" has pervaded the Christian consciousness ever since.

I've gone on a pretty long tangent, so let's get back to your original question:

"Don't you have to choose to sin?"

As a consequence of this newfound fascination with Greek stoicism, Aquinas then set out to define "natural law." The specifics are unimportant, mainly because his methodology, while acceptable in the blissful ignorance of the Middle Ages, is horrendously flawed and discredited in light of the modern scientific method (in fact, by the time European scientists were emerging 300 years later, they had to fight against all the "Thomists" who vigorously thought of their work as "heretical"). But the main summary became:

"What is natural is moral, and what is moral is created by God."

This, indirectly, established the principle that sin was not inherent, and, as such, any sin must be a conscious choice. This idea was mainly expounded by Jewish theologians, particularly Moses Maimonides, back in Moorish Spain (just as classical and Islamic knowledge found its way north, notable Christian scholarship trickled down south, as well), who then declared that those born with traits contrary to "the Law" (which, in this case, referred to the various idiosyncrasies that make up Mosaic Law) were not violating it. Between this precedent and probably the shared experience of centuries of persecution, this is likely why Jews have been far quicker to embrace the modern understanding of homosexuality than Christianity (the Jews that are most hostile are Orthodox Jews and similar sects, which reject the Talmud and other medieval scriptures, and, as such, they wouldn't be exposed to this kind of philosophy).

Yolland, of course, is free to correct me if I've misrepresented Judaism at all. This is what I've surmised through my own reading.

Back to the Moors and medieval Islamic scholarship for a moment, their advanced civilization started its collapse when the traditionalist Ash'ari school of Islam overtook the Mu'tazili, and rejected non-Islamic knowledge. With the arrival of these conservative Muslim sects, tolerance of the "dhimmi" became less reliable and Muslim power and civilization soon became marginalized. With the end of Moorish Spain in 1492, Western Europe no longer needed them, and it led to the Renaissance and our intellectual and cultural domination that we enjoy today.

Yet, as I see it in America today, we have our own "Ash'ari" present in born-again, fundamentalist Protestantism. We have large amounts of these Christians who reject the knowledge and contributions of anyone they perceive to be "non-Christian," whether that be foreigners, "secular progressives," or scientists. And they are using their increasing numbers to assault reason, knowledge, and science in American society. This pervasive anti-intellectualism was destructive back then, and it is certainly destructive now. While it won't happen overnight, there is already a growing economic and cultural "Renaissance" in the Far East, and I won't be surprised if nations like China, India, Japan, and South Korea become the dominant economies of the 22nd century and beyond. And, like the faded glories of the Middle East, with nations dominated by autocrats who exist mainly to suppress the violent tendencies of their religious fanatics, I can certainly see America becoming a bitter former world power populated by religious extremists, if they continue to ignore reality.
__________________

Ormus is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×