Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Why is it that when Christians express their opinions on moral issues, it's "forcing their beliefs on others"? YOu're saying that since you don't agree with us, you shouldn't have to live by our guidelines, right?

Why is it that when liberals express their desire allow abortion and gay marriage to continue not forcing their beliefs? Why isn't that considered forcing secularism? What's the difference? I really want to know!

_________________
I am the Chupacabra. I like to suck on goats.




... their blood.

Ok, this isn't "expressing" Christian beliefs (talking about abortion and gay marriage), it's making a LAW that everyone HAS to abide by. Christian values are the things fueling the law to cut freedoms to different people. It's actually clear to me now that you are basing your opinions solely on the Bible, and there is really no way for me to lead you away from that, but I can show you what you're looking at. Since you're advocating that the lessons in the Bible must be lived by, such as the opinion against homosexuality, I'll give you another thing that the bible says:

Now, obviously, this won't happen nowadays since it's against the law to kill people, but it's also against the law to single out a certain type of person and limit their freedoms (read further for citing). Now, since you obviously WON'T advocate killing children, how could you say that the Bible must be completely heard by? Obviously, now your opinion is really only based on your bigotry towards homosexual people. Also, remember in Leviticus (11:9-13)? The whole part about shellfish being an abomination? Tell me, have you ever eaten lobster? If so, how can you tell me that you haven't committed a worse abomination than sleeping with another man? Of course, none of this will change your opinion on homosexual marriage, so I'll stop trying, but I will cite another Bible verse on the subject that should change your idea on how your opinion on homosexual marriage needs to be given:



Ok, so you know, when ANYONE (don't judge people, since you made a soapbox speech on just that) and not just liberals express their beliefs, it's just being expressed. The point behind the anti-marriage-banning statement is that it is unconstitutional, as the Constitutions says that separation of church and state must be abided by, and that the Fourteenth Amendment states:

Basically, that means that anyone born in the U.S. cannot be derived from their privileges or liberties otherwise given in the U.S.

As you can see from this, the side against the "Protection of Marriage Act" are obviously not giving their opinions, they're stating what's in the law and Constitution.

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!

Yeah, who ever said that if a Christian is expressing their beliefs is "forcing it on anyone"? I know I haven't. I have, however, cited examples where people are no longer just expressing their opinion, and trying to make something law...

Society SHOULD be secularist though. Society SHOULD be impartial. Leave things up to the individual. Don't think that just because Christianity is the majority you have the right to make laws based on your beliefs. Live however the heck you want, just don't expect us to...

_________________

(Note the subtle but important difference between the two meanings of "secularist".)

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

"don't judge people, since you made a soapbox speech on just that"

Wrong. YOu're putting words in my mouth.

And "society should be secular" is only an opinion. I believe that society should be moral. Why is your opinion better than mine? THat's my question. Why can you make secular laws, but I can't make moral laws? It's just intolerance of a difference of opinion.

What I"m saying is that Christians have the right to have any opinion they want, and you can't stop us. YOu should be ashamed that you're trying to make us feel guilty and make us look harsh and judgemental just because we disagree with you.

As for the first Amendment, fine. My rfaith is no longer a "religion", persay. It's a "belief system". There, now the First Amendment doesn't apply on ANYONE's definiton, no matter how stupid.

_________________
I am the Chupacabra. I like to suck on goats.




... their blood.

Try listening to yourself.


Holy crap. Okay, "society should be secular" is NOT an opinion--must I refer back to my original source? Maybe, "Separation of Church and State"? Christians have never been deprived of their opinions, so you should really stop talking about that--no one has ever said that Christians can't have opinions, but there has been laws against religious (not only Christians) people making laws for the sole reason of their religion.


.... you do know that this makes absolutely no sense, right? Just changing the words of something in your mind doesn't change the fact that a religion is a religion. El_Chubacabra, I REALLY suggest that you read my original post, since I already said this.

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!

If you ever study . . . sociology, maybe, you'll find out more about what I'm going to say . . next . . here we go ---> The difference between expressing religios beliefs (beliefs supposedly true on the basis that their origns come from an unproveable source, for instance a "God") and political beliefs (beliefs based on common law and fact, and, redundantly, common laws are based on the premise of religios beliefs) is the fact that the source of religious beliefs come from opinion stemming from unexisting sources, and the source of political beliefs have laws and fact behind them. However, like I said, this entire operation is redundant because nearly every country's laws are based on the beliefs of some religion.

The origins of religion were created by man, supposedly from some guy in the sky. The origins of politics were created as a result of the aforementioned religioos beliefs, politics keeps religion in check and religion keeps politics in check . . . checks and balances, it's what makes the US Government so . . . efficient. Can't believe I said efficient.

Just because Christianity is the majority doesn't mean we all have to conform to it? Okay, I'll buy that. We're not expected to conform to laws based on the majority's beliefs? I'm sorry, but since we live under a "majority rules" governmental system, Christians are going to make laws based on their beliefs, and we're all going to follow them. Why? Because Christianity is the majority, and under US gov't terms the majority rules. Let's get some more Islamic and Muslim folks into Congress and see what happens - oh, that's right, they're educated here and then return to their home countries. There's nothing wrong with that, really. But as long as most folks are Christain, and as long as most folks in the US gov't are Christian, we're going to be living under Christain terms.

Religion is the only thing that seperates "us" from "the animals".

You sir, disgust me...

My head would explode replying to your whole post, so I'll just stick with this.



So, opposable thumbs, speech, clothing, smelting, firearms and a whole mess of other things don't? Gee, those termite colonies must be REALLY advanced...

_________________

I'm going to have to go with Dr Zaius on this one - that's a highly bigoted view. What if the majority of people believed in no god? I'm sure that you wouldn't mind going against your religion every morning as you spoke the Pledge of Allegiance. The US is (or is supposed to be) a country of equality; that means that religious people and secularists should have the same quality of life.

Oh, and I thought I knew what ridculous was until your last statement.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

Isn't dialogue a wonderful thing?

Go ask an immigrant who has earned citizenship in the US about their "admissions process" into the US. Part of what they must agree to, under oath . . .

"that [they] take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature."

Well, I guess all is well and good for those who choose not to believe in a God but want to be US citizens, eh? The majority rules here, so, yes, they'll force their beliefs on others. "Majority rules" is the exact reason the majority believes in God; word of mouth spreads quickly among the minority.

Yes, we do have opposable thumbs and larger brain mass to body mass ratios than any other creature, but does any other creature live by a set of rules created out of love for something they're not sure even exists?

As humans, we live by "morals" that we hold true based on our religious beliefs - no stealing, no killing, and we have an organized method of going about reproduction. Animals, however, live by their natural "instincts" passed down their genetic line from experience. Animals live by instinct, humans live by morals. Sure humans have instinct. Ever have that feeling, right when you're about to drift off to sleep, that you're suddenly falling - and you twitch and sort of wake up? That's, according to logic, an instinct passed down from our ancestors who used to live high up in trees.

It's the people who don't explore the possibilities that are left out, such as why we're as advanced as we are, from experience and knowledge. That same reason is why animals aren't as advanced as we are - -yet.
Expand your horizons, explore the possibilities, and then draw your conclusions. Don't go around blindly assuming everything, because assumption is the mother of all screwups.

So, if the majority suddenly thought slavery should be reinstated, you'd be ok with it? Show me proof that that's what immigrants really have to sign, that sounds more like an admission form to the Masons than America...

And your right, "majority rules" is the exact reason why so many people belive in god. The more people belive, the more they teach their children to belive. Except that majority is dwindling. Many people who were brought up Christian are now becoming Atheist, or at least Agnostic. Within the next two generations, Christianity may not be the majority... or at least won't be enough that "majority rules" would make any difference...



So if groundhogs started believing in god, and punished other groundhogs for mating without getting married, they'll create an advanced civilization?

"Morals" are relative. We have laws of the land to prevent chaos, but what one finds "moral" is only due to their upbringing. Don't kill and don't steal are all well and good, but "morals" regarding sex and things like that aren't important.

Fact is, humans ARE animals! We just learned to use tools and destroy our planet...

_________________

That quote is indeed part of the Oath of Citizenship, I can assure you of that; however, I don't know how I can prove it, although I'm sure you could look it up somewhere on the internet.

"That same reason is why animals aren't as advanced as we are - -yet." - - I'm referring to exploration and discovery of science, knowledge, facts, etc. I'm not referring to believing in a God. A reason we have advanced as humans is our constant reinforcement and continuing exploration for newer and better things, something other animals don't do as well as we do.

Ignorance is bliss, I'm sure you've heard that, and it's true. If we sat here and never questioned our faith, or never dug deeper into science to expose different and definite possibilities of our lowly origin, we'd all be assured of a good "afterlife" if we're good here. However, we question pretty much everything, which leads to new discoverys and inventions, and thus new ways of life. For the most part, animals don't do this. So you have to ask yourself - Is it better to stagnate and believe in one thing, to not ask too many questions because you already supposedly know your fate, and not advancing by not questioning things; or, is it better to pursue the unknown and advance in life, even though it may provide scary results and disprove your original beliefs? The latter part is what humans do, the former what most animals do.

You also say "morals" are relative, and what one finds moral is only due to their upbringing. Don't original laws stem from our original moral beliefs, or better yet from our founding fathers/citizens/countrymen's moral beliefs? Believing in or disbelieving in slavery is a moral, and what does the 13th Amendment pertain to?

I'm not saying I'd be okay with certain . . . extreme . . . beleifs of the majority, such as you mention, rather I'm saying this is the way it is, for now at least.

Do you think that's right? I suppose if the majority of people in the US were atheists, you'd be proud to live under laws that marginalised all religious people? Would you like to pledge allegiance to "one nation, with no god"? Of course not. Your "majority rules" government is fascism. Tell me, have you ever read Nineteen Eighty-Four?



I'm glad that you took back your earlier statement that religion is all that separates us from the animals.



That's an absurd generalisation of humanity. I don't think you quite realise the truth here: not all humans are religious. Secularists are not sub-human creatures who don't deserve the same rights as you. And not everyone's morals are based on religious belief.



Sorry if this seems snide, but I don't expect to hear "expand your horizons" from someone who believes that non-religious people are equivalent to animals.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

Hmm.

This seems more like an argument than a debate...please try to keep it civil, or this topic is gettin' LOCK'D!

I should probably lock it now, seeing as the initial post was a generalization to begin with...

But a debate is an argument . . . .

Yes, Upsilon. I have read 1984, have you?

There is a major difference between a "majority-rules" government and a "unanimity-rules" government.

Gov'ts using a majority-rules system adopt a solution when more than fifty percent of the group expresses their approval of that solution.

Under a unanimity-rules gov't, every single person must agree to the solution before the group will accept it.

Which sounds more like 1984? I don't think that an atheist nation that marginalises the religious would even give them the credit of actively denying a God's presence in the pledge of allegiance - that would be a redundant waste of their time.

I never made a correlation between advancement and religion. If we simply believed everything our religion told us, and believed that being basically good would allow us a ticket into heaven, we would'nt investigate beyond those beliefs. However, we've always tryed to live longer and gain more knowledge about the . . . universe . . . around us. It's the questionable validity of our religious beliefs that drives us to know more. I don't believe non-religious people are equivalent to animals; rather, I think someone living a dogmatic life and concerned only with the here and now will stagnate their mind.

Look, I personally am not here to debate religion or debate whether or not a religion is good for humanity. All I'm saying is that my political stem from Political beliefs DO stem from religious beliefs, in some subjects, and there's really nothing wrong with that. The only reason anyone says otherwise is because they don't agree with my opinions, which is fine, until you realize that "there was an election, and values won" and start telling people they shouldn't (not CAN'T, but SHOULDN'T) use their religious beliefs to make decisions regarding how their government should be run.

If we want to elect people to ban abortion, I don't see what's wrong with that. A better example is the gay marriage thing, I guess, since no one's life is at stake from that by anyone's definition, but the same applies. I"m not here to debate either of those, either, only that we're justified in choosing to run the government as we see fit. If you don't like it, you ought to vote (which you probably do, if old enough) or disprove religious thought. I welcome religious debate. But I think it's innappropriate and even cowardly to say that we should put our belefs on ANYTHING, regarding religion or not, aside when forming political opinion, whether we're voters or politicians.

Look, I think we should have a country that is at least somewhat pleasing to God. (I don't think we should, as a country, make that our goal, because that is crossing the line and forcing CHristianity on the people only creates resentment. I just think it would be nice to have a Good country). You don't care about pleasing "God", I assume because you don't believe in God. ALL of this is fine with me. I welcome a difference of opinion. But stick to debating the opinions, both of God and politics, rather than trying to scare us into submission.

_________________
I am the Chupacabra. I like to suck on goats.




... their blood.

The point I was making about 1984 was that the people of Oceania live under a dictatorship. No free speech. No difference of opinion. Just a love for Oceania and Big Brother. I'll admit it's not exactly the same as your idea of majority-rules, but it's equally tyrannical.



Whether or not it would happen isn't relevant. The point is, if it did happen, it would be just the same as confirming God's existence in the Pledge of Allegiance.



What you said is:



Making a correlation between religion and advancement is exactly what you did.



This has no relation whatsoever to your original animal statement. Finding out new information is not the same as religion by any means.



Well, that's what you said.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

---- "Religion is the only thing that seperates "us" from "the animals". ----

mmmmm . . . . Nope, that's not about advancment in any way. It's about lifestyle. Arguments can be made about that every species has different chromosomes, dna, four legs or two legs or thousands of legs, two eyes, eight eyes or eyes that don't work, and so on, and so forth. Some organisms are conscious, some aren't. The one colligating certainty shared by all living things is existence, or life. Everything shares life, which means every organism lives in about the same manner - take in energy and survive, reproduce, etc. That might sound a little simplistic, and indeed it is. It may also be the only operation of a virus or a bacteria, but they're living as well. So through this common similarity of life, what's the only species to abandon its instincts due to uncertain ideologies and assumptions? Humans. The life and operation of every species, besides humans, is dictated by the mannerisms or survival, not by the mannerisms of prolonged outlook, investigation and fulfillment.

I don't see why that is. What it is that separates us from less intelligent creatures is that they are less advanced than we are, in terms of intelligence, technology, philosophy and so on. Therefore, to say that religion is the only thing that separates us from the animals is not only completely flawed, but also makes a parallel between religion and advancement



You rephrase this every time you post, and it doesn't mean anything. Seriously, what relevance does any of that have to this discussion?

Incidentally, I like the way you ignore my entire post except for the one sentence about advancement and religion. Next time, address my issues instead of side-stepping them.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

Coincidentally, Upsilon, I also like the way I igonore your entire post except for for the one sentence pertaining to advancement/religion; my response to your post only misses reference to one of your quotes.

The five quotes you have in your post, the main ideas, actually, are as follows . . . . .

1. 1984 majority vs. unanimity rules government
2. Atheist nations denying God's existence
3. Advancement/religion
4. Religion seperating us from the animals
5. Exploration as a result of religion
6. Religious people aren't equivalent to animals

You clarified your postion on 1984, made good points, let's not beat a dead horse arguing about these two types of gov't.

I respnded with nothing in reference to Atheist nations. I thought it was a dead end argument when you said "The point is, if it did happen, it would be just the same as confirming God's existence in the Pledge of Allegiance." I saw your point and didn't think I could expand on it, at all, and I don't think I can now.

My post in response to yours encompssed the four latter quotes you made; your last four quotes were repetitious, saying one thing obviated all the others.

"Therefore, to say that religion is the only thing that separates us from the animals is not only completely flawed, but also makes a parallel between religion and advancement."

Depending on one's point of view, some could draw that conclusion. However, these same people are also likely to make a parallel between Islam and terrorism.

Your last quote also has a [. . .] in it, which pretty well besets my entire post. I went in depth about the idea in my last post.

If it's like you to throw around personal attacks at someone for "side-stepping" your issues that four of which fed the same idea to begin with, that's fine, but not entirely right. I'm a little provocative, but not as much as to use terms like "Next time,". Let's focus on the discussion, not each other.

Bear in mind that if you're agreeing or conceding a point, the sporting thing to do is to actually say that you are. Leaving a point unreplied to might mean that you're simply ducking it.



You never responded to this: "This has no relation whatsoever to your original animal statement. Finding out new information is not the same as religion by any means." Nothing repetitious about that one.



Explain, please.



The point of the ellipsis is to shorten the quote. I was responding to the whole thing, not just the bits on either end.



If you want to focus on the discussion, it's wise to respond to all of it, not just the parts you feel like.

Finally, I find it pleasantly ironic that, after devoting almost all your post to the issue of ignoring parts of a post, you ignore this part of my post:



That being the second time you have overlooked this quote. Really, I'm as much in favour of focusing on the discussion as you, but if we want that, we're going to have to do it properly.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

I'm sorry if you come to the impression that I've intentionally neglected to respond/comment on certain points you've brought up. I should have, as I am now.


Yes, agreeable.


Look at the last line of, that one post, of mine . . . . "The life and operation of every species, besides humans, is dictated by the mannerisms or survival, not by the mannerisms of prolonged outlook, investigation and fulfillment." It repeats the same idea about advancement/religion/animals/humans.

Indeed, exploration is not equivalent to religion. However, doesn't religion stem from exploration ("who are we; where did we come from; where are we going?") and exploration stem from religion ("were we really created by God, or was the Big Bang the ultimate oddsbreaker of eternity?") It's the chicken and the egg scenario. Religion is not equivalent to advancement, but both do feed off of each other.


People . . . extremists, mainly . . . like to jump to conclusions because something sounds right or good. The common person probably thinks Islam is a religion of "in the name of God" extremism and belligerence for anyone thinking otherwise (to Islam extremists, though, America is considered the belly of the infidel). Many people I encounter everyday would make the statement that the only thing seperating Americans from groups of terrorists is their religion - i.e. Islam for the terrorists and Christianity for them. This is far from true. It's the interpretation of religion that seperates them, among many other variables such as propoganda, lifestyle, etc. Some believe Islam is bad, Christianity is good, and people over the fence think vice versa. So, that's how the parallel between Islam and terrorism could arise - not thinking things through and basing your opinion on assumption and media reports. Although, if, in your (not you, Upsilon, some Mid -East places) world getting high is a bad thing and your TGIF is beheadings . . . you are bringing up the rear of society.

Here comes a rant . . . .
So, besides lifestyle factors and government systems, interpretaion of religion does have a major effect on who one considers an "extremist", or who is morel likely to become a "terrorist". Extremists allow their minds to be controlled by religious thoughts and beliefs, at a point to which anything that doesn't conform to their religion is wrong and needs correcting. So . . . . they sometimes "correct" people by killing, terrorizing, or otherwise using force to "teach" people what they beleive is right. Therefore, religion, as the general population uses it, is best believed with skepticism; again, most of us do this. Why? So that we don't allow ourselves to stagnate into a species bent on believing something we're not even sure is true. If we beleived what our religion told us, then we might all be dead right now because we'd have done the minimum to survive in order to speed up the process of reaching paradise. We wouldn't try to extend our lives with modern medicine. But we do. Like I said, skepticism of religion advances us. Knowledge and religion feed off each other, they aren't the same, but they do happen to rely on each other.


I realize this. I didn't think you were responding to the outer edges, but if by some odd chance you were, I wanted you to know what the whole post meant . . . . as a whole.


Yes, it is. But it depends what discussion you want to focus on . . . .


That is ironic . . . 'pleasantly' ironic if you take pride in someone else's errors and misjudgements perhaps. However, I had earlier - around, well, one of the times you brought it up, I said . . . "The life and operation of every species, besides humans, is dictated by the mannerisms or survival, not by the mannerisms of prolonged outlook, investigation and fulfillment."

I have the feeling this discussion is dying. Your last post consisted of correcting me, and this post consists of me reiterating myself . . . . you can have the last word, but unless something new come up, I'm about done. I think we've given El_Chupacabra more than enough to think about.

I was having a really hard time finding anything worth replying to in this thread. Thanks for making my reading worthwhile Upsilon! You get a cool point.


How is it that Christians want to live? I would suggest it's in freedom and peaceful community with people of all different kinds. That's why when Christians found a government* they do so with tolerance and the same quality of life for all. The same can not be said of Islam, Judaism, Communism, Monarchy, or any dictatorship past present or future. This country was made by a bunch of people aligned with Christianity: the separation of church and state discussion among founding-father types was in response to religious persecution under the monarchy they had just escaped! So I'd observe the intolerance is not a characteristic of Christianity per se.


It's a human trait: Mathematicians, RPGers, Video gamers, Evolutionists, Historians, Physicists, Politicians, and Children all have fundamental beliefs that they take on authority of written and spoken words about the way things are. They work under the premeses that are given to them, although you can't see elementary particles (it's all equations), mathematicians are pretty sure numbers don't "exist" in the standard ontological sense (Bedeutung, to use Fregean buzzwording), there's no sensory proof that Washington ever existed, no one has seen evolution, Elves aren't there, and so on. But people love these things and make rules about them that they expect people to live by... want proof? Give the wrong change to someone at the fast food restaurant you work at and see how they act in respect to their beliefs about numbers!


Which is why we call amoral people "animals."


Elegantly placed and worded.


Your one-liners are unforgettable

Don't worry, nothing man has ever done or could do with all the nuclear bombs ever made could destroy the planet. We could destroy all the people, but the planet will keep spinning and be more or less just fine. It's those who are willing to kill people I worry about.


I think you misunderstood him. Religion, if defined expansively enough to include the vague eastern ones and ones that involve lots of drug use, basically means "a philosophy (however incomplete) of the meaning of life and its implications for life and behavior." All morals come from such a philosophy (again, however incomplete), and belief that "there is no gods nor any transcendant reality" is still a philosophy on the meaning of life and the behavioral implications thereof. Animals presumably don't have the psychological capacity to even ask, and humans who don't/won't ask are what are compared to animals.

I am concerned that sometimes thegsman doesn't express himself very well in print, and maybe if you had a 2-way with him in person he'd be a lot more clear-minded than he seems here. I'm more like Paul, who writes big but is rather unimpressive in person.


What if God is pleased not by countries, but by individuals? What if a Christian could be a good Christian even under communist dictatorships that kill Christians? We should have a good country. But not at the sacrifice of good people.


I'm not so sure. In fact, this month's Discovery magazine all but said "a requirement for calling something life is that it must evolve." Since we've never directly observed evolution actually happening in humans, it appears that the scientists aren't sure that humans are a life form. That mag is so messed up this month


Actually, it's my understanding that at the last big survey, monotheists lived longer, happier lives, and reproduced more than atheists. Therefore, monotheism has an allele survival advantage... and in terms of evolution this is 100% equal to advancement. So, it's actually modern evolutionary theory that draws the statistical correlation between advancement and Christianity.

This thread waxed and waned eloquent, sorry to beat a dead horse... but it seemed like both parties were having trouble hearing the other and I thought clarification and a little commentary would be a good exercize for me. But now I'm all tired from the workout.

*Fine print: Please note I said "when Christians found a government," not just "when people who claim to be Christians have political power." The church of England did not Found the English monarchy, neither did the Papacy found Rome. So I have an escape clause for anyone who'd point out all the atrocities committed for political means falsely saying it was for Christianity.

_________________

I didn't know where to put this idea, but this tread seems like the best place ATM....

Most people think all liberals are Pro-choice, and all Pro-lifers are Right-wing chirstians... I feal I must be the lony liberal who is Pro-life, and then it is not for the "christian" way. I am all for wormen's rights, but I feal life is sacred, and abortion is a form of killing. However, for the same belives I have, I am anti-death sentence.


Is this wroung of me?

_________________

It means that you are an INDIVIDUAL with THOUGHTS and FEELINGS of your own.

_________________

No, it's not wrong. It's a perfect example of why we need more politcal parties in this country - actually, more active political parties. Most people who can't make up their mind about "which side they're on" (in reference to Democrats vs. Republicans) are the type of people politicians love - people who are too selfish to break the bonds of a two party system.

It's a good thing you have beliefs of your own. Too few people do anymore . . .

Do you truly believe that secularism is the same thing as immoralism?!

I admit that I care very little about what the bible says, but I still act morally. I never physically fight, I'm nice to people, I respect my elders and my peers. If you talk to anyone I know, they'd probably tell you that I'm the most moral person they know. (I'm not trying to toot my own horn here, I'm just trying to make a points.)

What if there's someone who's gay and stays entirely faithful to his partner, never fights, is always polite, reads a verse from the bible every day, and attends Church atleast once every Sunday.

Is that person immoral just because he is gay?

_________________

I will not debate homosexuality here (there is a thread for that, and I have not contributed to it, go there if you want to talk about homosexuality), but I want you to realize the kind of thing you just said. Substitute homosexual with "child molester." What if there was a man who went to church all the time, read the Bible, was kind, a leader in the community, was always polite and never fought, but was a child molester? Is that person (e.g. a priest) immoral just because he's a child molester? Or, alternatively, substitute "wife beater," thief, corporate imbezzler, or any other one sin.

You're making something out to be a balance: "mostly good with one noteworthy vice." There is no bonus points for that. You would not want there to be one in any of my examples. You still want the priests who molested children arrested and jailed. You still want the corporate imbezzlers destroying America's economy (the real reason for the recession) punished, even though those people isolate their sins to one realm. A person who sins is a sinner, even if they have some areas in their life that are isolated from their sin. So the balance you try to reach doesn't exist in Christian theology. Now this thread isn't about Christianity, and I'm not trying to make it about Christianity. But I did want to answer your question honestly, candidly, and with respect. I hope I have done that for you, mr. evin!

_________________

But what about those who don't view homosexuality as a sin Buz? What about those who don't belive in sins period? All those examples you listed are indeed crimes against humanity, but they can't be lumped together with homosexuality. Homosexuals aren't stealing, they are consensual adults who have sex. That's it. Yes, a homosexual can be a child molester, a corporate imbezziler, and a spouse beater, but being just a homosexual isn't bad. If you're going to take the Christian viewpoint on what's a sin, I can assure you that you yourself are going to hell. After all, being human is a sin by their standards. To be "pure" you have to live a life free of what makes life worth living.

_________________