Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Several threads now have degenerated into:

• mention of scripture
• OMG NO WAI
• more unsupported religious arguments
• more overreacting

Here's the deal. People have religious beliefs. People even have religious beliefs about what government should be that aren't supported by anything except faith and some interpretation of scripture. These people should be allowed to state their opinion and their reasons for that opinion in a thread about a certain topic, just to throw their voice out there. The problem, I think, isn't with the mention of scripture, but the OMG NO WAI. There are so many people out there that hold an opinion solely based on scripture that you can't just brush it aside like that. You have to either try to engage it properly or just ignore it. Otherwise you make debate-martyrs out of them.

So here's a good place for bringing these kinds of things when they pop up in threads. Something like this comes up in a thread that's supposed to be more political than religious, then get out that thread and come here at first toastpaint.

So, to get this started, some devil's advocacy: People seem to assume that political decisions need to be made through a completely rational approach, and that faith, intution, feeling, and other kinds of thoughts shouldn't enter into it. Why should that be the case? To make perfect rational decisions, we would need perfect information, and that's just not possible for any voter in a democracy. Why is rational thought more helpful here than anything else?

Similarly, if someone, through their government sanctioned freedom of religion, believes that something is absolutely wrong, isn't it strange to ask them not to fight for that?

I have my own answers to these questions, but I don't have time right now and I don't want to kill any discussion too quickly (you see, I think they're really good answers ). So... here's the topic.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

Am I the only person in the universe who has no idea WHY God would have a problem with homosexuality? O_o I mean, it's not really HURTING anyone (at least, no more so than a heterosexual relationship might), and I honestly don't see how exactly it's incompatible with Christianity. Yeah, I know, the Bible and all that, but...I don't understand why that'd be in there.

_________________

I've struggled with this idea myself, and I've come to a conclusion. I'm not always going to understand why God does the things He does, or why He commands us to do or not do certain things. But I know that He is God, and it's important that I follow His commands, whether I fully understand them or not.

_________________

Good on ya, Ex-A. It's good to know the "why's." However, the "why's" shouldn't be an obstacle. Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son, Isaac? He didn't ask why, he just proceeded to do it, and ended up being commanded to stop int he end after all.
Now I know that story doesn't apply entirely with your beef with the "why's," Mandy, but it's good to keep in mind.

_________________

Right, if you follow a faith, you should follow the faith. But to what degree does or should your faith inform your political decisions?


This is what I don't get about the whole brou-ha-ha over on the other thread. Is it so surprising that people have different religious beliefs? If you're a Muslim, you might not believe people of certain other religions can go to heaven. If you're a Christian, you might not think Hindus are going to heaven. These are dogmatic questions. But no one's saying that any religion should be shut down just because they disagree with it. Wes' comments in the other thread were toastpaintable, but they weren't offensive or odd or even unexpected. And I'm theoretically a Catholic myself. Obviously I disagree with him, but c'mon guys, chill out. Flipping out isn't gonna convince him to change his position, it's just gonna trigger the "aha, persecution, this means I'm right!" reflex.

Just to repeat incase the question above got lost in all that: to what degree does or should your faith inform your political decisions?

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

Thank you, Inverse. It's like I said in the other thread, (which admittedly I should have brought here), ramrod said that it's bigoted and "downright stupid" of Wes to say that Catholic beliefs have no power over God, but I doubt ramrod thinks that Muslim beliefs have power over God. That doesn't make ramrod bigoted, and I doubt he thinks it's stupid.

_________________

Actually, I do think there are some Muslims that have power with God, just as there are Christians and Jews that do too. I've always said that in my opinion it doesn't matter what, if any, religion you practice, as long as you live a good, moral life. Helping others, not being a total jerk, being an all around nice person is the ultimate determinant on whether you receive the gift of Heaven. This, naturally, is what caused the disagreements between myself and dids a while back.

_________________

It's not power over God, it's power with God. No religion or denomination has power over God, and it is kind of blasphemous to believe that. I do think, no I don't think, I know ramrod would say that most Muslim beliefs have power with God, but that is besides the point. The point is that it is stupid and bigoted to think that anyone's beliefs are superior to another's.

_________________

Precisely. That's what I was talking about. BTG, you hit the nail right on the head.

_________________

I don't think Wes' comments towards beliefs differing from his own, stating them as "wrong," made him a bigot so much as it is his general attitude of "I'm COMPLETELY FLAWLESS IN MY PERSONAL BELIEFS!" He gives absolutely zero room for anyone to even remotely suggest that he could have something wrong or mistaken. THAT'S what makes someone a bigot. And with the exception of a few cases, I mostly see those attitudes with the extremely young or extremely old...so I gotta wonder if Wes is 8 or 80 years old.

As for "moral politics"...statements like Wes' about trying to impose the Bible (and specifically, his own personal interpretation of the Bible) upon not just one nation, but the world entire, as absolute LAW...THAT is also ludicrous. Sorry to say it, but hearing such suggestions makes me wanna slap the suggester until his/her IQ goes up at least 10 points. Theocracy is always bad, no matter what religion it is. Even Atheism as a theocracy is bad, since we all saw what Polpot did.

Now, with less extreme cases...I think that someone (I wanna say Strong Rad--I can't recall) said it best here in the Gay Marriage thread some months ago, saying that when it comes to using your morality as prescribed specifically by religious beliefs to create and/or vote for/against any law, you should take into account what the damage will be for equality and fair treatment of all individuals and groups. If it becomes a matter of your world view being challenged by the rights of a group of people who, honestly, aren't causing any harm to anyone through whatever it is that unites them as that group...then the group should win. I may have the world view that cauliflower tastes nasty. That doesn't mean that cauliflower afficianados should be denied rights, since there is no secular/objective way to derive their hurt on society.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

I'll take a stab at an answer:

In the beginning, God created them Man and Woman. When he did so, he sanctified sexual union between Man and Woman, declaring them to be one flesh. Since sex is his creation, it makes sense that he would have the right to tell us how we can and cannot use it, just as I would if you wanted to use my car. Now, considering that his intended purpose was for man and woman to be joined, then I can understand why he wouldn't be pleased with people going against his intended purpose.

Maybe it doesn't "hurt anybody" in and conventional sense, but does that in itself make anything in particular right? And, as Christians, are we not to take such things as a matter of faith, that is, to trust God in this matter, even if it doesn't compute on a worldly level? After all, did God not also say, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways your ways. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9) and, "Do not be conformed to the pattern of this world" (Romans 12:2)?

_________________

I guess that makes some sense.

However, I also do not believe homosexuality can be "cured". Pretty much all the evidence out there suggests that they're born that way. I guess I could compare it to, say, being attracted only to blonde girls or something. Okay, bad example, but I think you get the gist of it.

In short, it's pretty much something you're born with. And in the end, does that not mean that God meant for you to be that way? After all, I don't think He just delights in sending people to Hell...

(I'd also like to add that I'm EXTREMELY glad we have a subforum for religious and/or political topics...makes life on the forum a lot nicer and less flamey. Like, even though I disagree with the views of many of you guys, I'm still able to talk to you normally without incident. This makes me happy! ^^)

_________________

God didn't intend for Adam and Eve to eat that forbidden fruit, or for the rest of us to be born in sin. So, no, I don't think that it means God intended for them to be born that way.

Also, while I certainly wouldn't discount any biological causes, there is still conjecture as to whether that is the only influence. To use the example you gave earlier, it would be like being biologically predisposed to be attracted to blonds. I'm not of the opinion that homosexual attraction is voluntary, but in all honesty, we're really not certain what makes one person attracted to someone of the same sex.

Ah, but here's something to think about: most gay people experience rejection, alienation, even hatred, all on account of something over which they have no control over. But here's the question: did Jesus ever experience rejection? Alienation? Loneliness? Hatred? That being the case, do you think he might be able to understand what they go through, and maybe have some compassion, just as he does for all of us who experience such things?

_________________

Ahh, now here's the thing. While we don't know exactly what causes it, we DO pretty much know that it's not a voluntary thing. Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit, however, WAS voluntary. Different situation entirely, in my opinion.



Exactly.

But seeing as how many straight people are rejected, alienated, and hated for things THEY have no control over as well, I really don't see the difference.

_________________

But doesn't God see the past, present and future in one light? Wouldn't he have known that, when he put the tree there, that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit?



Chemicals, as far as I know. My chemistry teacher told us about a chemical sometime used in the army to destroy someone's sexual attraction for a period of time, depending in the dosage. He gave some to one of his roommates once, who was acting as if women were objects, and it supposedly wiped out all attraction he had towards females for a while. I assume homosexuality is simply a chemical imbalance or switch, since it's something people seem to be born with (I'm heterosexual, but through my own experiences, I'm fairly positive in that). It's just a hypothesis, but it's what I believe.

Yes, God knew what would happen, but that still doesn't make him responsible for the problems that took place as a result.

Let me put it to you like this: people who make engines for sports cars, like Corvettes and Porsches, know that people are going to use these engines to speed. And yet, their duty is still to make those engines, even knowing that people are going to abuse the privileges that come with owning them.

In the same way, God's gracious nature is that, when he deems to present mankind with a gift, he does not refrain from doing so just because he knows that people are going to abuse that gift. It would be like your father refusing to buy you a car because he just knows you're going to run a stop sign with it someday (my dad didn't buy me one, but mostly because we were broke). Still, it doesn't make him responsible for the ways in which human beings have abused his gifts to them, and that even includes the Tree.

Now why did he put that Tree there, and why did he leave it where mankind would eat of it? I don't know. My thoughts are this: that Tree was something sacred, something that belonged to him alone. It was there to be a trial of faith for the man and woman. God warned them to leave it alone; they should have trusted him. Blame is theirs, not Gods, for their failure to do so.


But then that leads us back to Wes' argument, that we might be able to treat homosexuality with hormones or something to that effect. Heck, we could market the stuff and sell it to wives to keep their husbands honest on business trips and such. XD

Seriously, though, that might be what accounts for the sex drive itself, but I'm not sure it would account for the object of that sexual desire. If we could narrow the chemicals down, I'm pretty sure we'd find that what makes me attracted to, say, StrongCanada, is very nearly the same chemical combination that makes another guy attracted to BTG.

_________________

I do believe we could, but that doesn't mean we should.

Besides, we don't know what the results of such treatments would be. Case in point: Michael Jackson.

_________________

To be honest, I disagree with that. I believe that my beliefs are the truth, so anything that conflicts with them would naturally not be true.

_________________

I think it has been stated many times on this forum (by Jones, if I remember right) that homosexuality is not, and was never, a choice. I don't think it's controlled by a chemical imbalance, I think it just "is", for lack of a better term.

That being said, I do not believe homosexuals are sinners nor do I believe that they are going to hell. To commit a sin, I believe it is a chosen rejection of the teachings of God and his ways. People are aware of God's "rules" so to speak, but break them anyway, voluntarily, and of their own volition. Homosexuals have no choice in the matter over their sexuality. They could want to be heterosexual all they want, and could never be able to change the fact that they are homosexual. Do I believe God will condemn all homosexuals, despite any good they may do, over something they cannot change? No.

Let me use a comparison here. Say the Bible, instead of condemning homosexuals, said white people are sinners. Now, I know it doesn't say that, but let's look at this hypothetically. And lets also say you have a standard, white American person (of either sex, for clarification), who firmly believes in God and what the Bible says. This person could live his or her life in accordance with God's will, being a totally acceptable person and a great contributor to the community, caretaker for the poor, an all around great person. Would you, despite all this, conclude that the person is a sinner just because he/she is white? Would you truly believe God will ignore everything positive the person has ever done because of one thing, something that the person in question is not even in control of? I truly do not believe this is the case.

Also, I believe Jesus was the universal savior, as all Christians do. I cannot believe that just because of someone's sexuality (which I must reiterate is incontrollable) every single person who is a homosexual is excluded from saving. I firmly believe when Jesus came to be the savior to all, it truly meant all, with no exceptions.


I disagree with you. I do not believe it is anyone's right to feel they are superior to another human being, regardless of what the feeling of superiority stems from. Do you believe Muslims are stupid and an inferior religion because they believe Mohamed was the main messenger of God? To me, that's bigotry.

_________________

Funny, I didn't see anywhere in that post where I said anything about me being superior to anyone. No, I don't believe Muslims are stupid because the believe Mohamed was a messenger of God. I do believe they are wrong about it.

Honestly, what am I supposed to say? Am I supposed to say I believe that all religions are equally valid, even if they directly contradict with my beliefs?

_________________

Did I accuse you of feeling superior to others? I use "you" a lot to refer to a general person, not to you in particular.. But it did seem to be that you did not see anything wrong with feeling superior by your response.


Seemed to me that you were coming off like that it's not bigoted to feel superior, but I can understand if you weren't.


No, but you're not supposed to say (and I know you in particular didn't so don't jump all over me) "CHRISTIANITY EEZ BETTR THAN UR RELIGION CUZ IT GOT JESUS LOL". To me, that would be bigotry. I'm just stating my opinion about bigotry here, it doesn't relate to you in particular at all.

_________________

If you read BTG's post, he was talking about thinking your beliefs are superior to someone else's, not that you are superior yourself.

Say what you want, but I believe my beliefs to be superior to, for example, Jewish beliefs. I believe that Jesus was God and that he is my savior. Jewish people don't. So naturally, I believe that Jewish beliefs are wrong. That's not bigotry, just simple logic stemming from what I believe. I don't believe that it means I am superior to Jewish people.

_________________

That brings me to a good point. Would Jesus discriminate against and dislike homosexuals? From what I've learned, Jesus was accepting of all people - prostitutes, lepers and Samaritans, all of whom were considered to be scum, were just normal people to Jesus. Would it be any different for homosexuals?

Of course it wouldn't. Jesus taught a message of love. Whether you believe homosexuality is a sin or not, there's no excuse for treating homosexuals badly.

_________________

Exactly - love the sinner, hate the sin.

Isn't all this attempt at rationalizing God's intent going against the scripture you posted earlier?:



If God's logic, motives, etc., are completely beyond and outside our own, what good is it to even question them at all, or to try to reason and make sense of them? If you say that there's still, for some reason, a right to rationalize and put to reason God's intentions of creating the Tree of Knowledge when God itself is supposed to be omniscient, viewing our linear perception of time all at once, then I'd say that 1) God created the rules of morality and whatnot, did it not, being the omnipotent creator of all of existence? God is responsible for its own rules of morality. And 2) the comparison to people who make car engines, saying that they have to because it's their job--well, God creating humans isn't a job forced onto it by anything or anyone else, as far as we can tell, since God is supposed to be the end-all, be-all of everything, the end of all processes, to where all paths lead back. It wasn't God's "job" to create humans and the Tree and everything--that was merely God's whim, was it not?

Either way, I'm having problems with your reasoning of God's motives and accountability here.



Precisely. Anyone recall "Gattaca"? Genetic engineering comes with a lot of inherent ethical problems, as we've discussed elsewhere. And even if it's not solely genetic--even if there IS a responsible element of socialization involved (which honestly, I believe there very much could be)--then it still doesn't mean that gays should be subject to "therapy" to "fix" them. Do parents send their kids to therapy because the kid wants to be a plumber instead of a lawyer?

And to Acekirby: I think the Bible more condemns the ACT of homosexual sex, not the state of BEING homosexual...although, some people interpret the Bible to mean that even THINKING about anything considered a sin is also a sin, so therefore, homosexuals, by our very inescapable nature, would be condemned regardless.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Not condemned, not permanently at least. No sin is so great that you are condemned forever, and homosexuals are no different from any other person, because everyone has sinned. If you accept Jesus as your savior, then you are redeemed and spared from the condemnation of all your sins; past, present, and future.

_________________

Unless I misunderstood, that is completely crazy. You're saying that, as long as I know Jesus is the son of God and he died for our sins, I can do whatever the heck I want? How does that make any sense?

When you get right down to it, God doesn't have a "job" since he's pretty much the Boss anyway. But my whole point is that, while we don't fully understand why God placed the tree there, we can't blame him for the way human being abused the Tree, and ate when they were told not to eat. The responsibility for the fall is mankind's disobedience.


You're right there, PMG. The thrust of the Bible's condemnation is toward specific acts, not at being gay.


Ah, the foolishness of God.

In other words, yes, it is crazy. It goes against everything we humans think. That somehow, the greatest gift in the entire cosmos is, in fact, a gift, and not something that can be earned. It is the summa, the crux theologia, of the entire Christian faith.

But it is also quite necessary. And I will demonstrate why:

1. Human beings are finite. We have only a very limited time to live on this earth.

2. Eternal life is infinite.

3. How much good do you think a human being would have to do in order to earn eternal life? Wouldn't the very fact that it is eternal make this impossible? At best, a VERY good person (like Mother Theresa) might earn about 70 or 80 years of such perfect bliss, but an eternity?

4. Therefore, eternal life cannot be earned.

5. Therefore, in order for eternal life to happen, it would have to be given entirely as a gift.

Ephesians 2:8-10
John 3:14-17
Romans 5:6-11

So, in a nutshell, God has to do for us what we are completely unable to do for ourselves.

_________________