WEEEEEOOOOOOEEEEOOOE In reply to DarkVikingMistress [2020-05-24 17:22:11 +0000 UTC]

You said it best, man.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MamaLucia In reply to Aristodes [2011-05-14 02:24:32 +0000 UTC]

Why shouldn't gay people marry each other?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aristodes In reply to MamaLucia [2011-05-14 03:04:59 +0000 UTC]

It not only violates God's law, but it is against natural selection as well. Darwin would not approve any more than Christ.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MamaLucia In reply to Aristodes [2011-05-14 17:25:35 +0000 UTC]

Which just goes to show that you do not understand natural selection. Homosexual couples have been found in all species of vertebrates that have been studied for the trait. [link] [link] [link]

But of course since you only get your information from sources like this [link] you will ignore anything I have to say here.

And for hatred of homosexuals to be "God's Law," it would have to hold true across all religions. It doesn't. So what excuse do you have for your hatred?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aristodes In reply to MamaLucia [2011-05-14 19:10:16 +0000 UTC]

First, we don't know what is going on in the minds of animals, so to call them "homosexual" is to commit a logical fallacy by ascribing human attributes to non-human things.

Second, I don't have any hatred. Attempting to pin the "hater" card on me will not work by simply calling me that. I simply oppose something on principled grounds.

Third, unless all religions are equally valid (they are not), it does not have to hold true across all religions.

Fourth, I get my sources from places other than the internet, so attempting to "beat me with links" will not work.

Might I ask why you have such hatred for religion?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MamaLucia In reply to Aristodes [2011-05-15 20:04:07 +0000 UTC]

You really DO like winning arguments at any cost rather than learning anything about reality, don't you?

Well, lets see if I can answer your "questions" so you can ignore them. "First, we don't know what is going on in the minds of animals, so to call them "homosexual" is to commit a logical fallacy by ascribing human attributes to non-human things." Human beings are animals -- including you. And you don't believe that you have human attributes, just godly ones. So how do I know what is going on in YOUR mind?

"Second, I don't have any hatred. Attempting to pin the "hater" card on me will not work by simply calling me that. I simply oppose something on principled grounds." Oh, yeah, I forgot -- it's your GOD that does the hating, not you -- you don't have to take responsibility for ANY of it. How convenient!

"Third, unless all religions are equally valid (they are not), it does not have to hold true across all religions." If they are not all equally valid, how do you know your Christianity is valid? And how do you really know that homosexuality is against "God's Law?" How do you know that the only valid religion isn't Buddhism?

"Might I ask why you have such hatred for religion?" Because it hurts people, lies to people, keeps women, minorities and homosexuals either in subjugation or in fear for their lives, wastes enormous amounts of time and resources, pits human beings again one another, lets people do the most horrendous cruelties against other human beings while absolving them of any responsibility for their actions ... need I go on?

So -- do you have any other non-questions you would like to ask me?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aristodes In reply to MamaLucia [2011-05-16 04:19:12 +0000 UTC]

Oh boy. Another rant by someone who has no substance, but plenty of insults and links to sites. Here we go...

Although it is true that humans are animals, we do not know what is in the minds of OTHER animals. At best, we can only estimate, and even then, we are likely to be very far off. For one thing, very few animals are believed to have a sense of self, which is something that humans have. This alone would change the mindset of an animal to a point that a human being could not reasonably relate or compare.

Second, it isn't "my" God, and God doesn't hate. He simply has a list of rules, and he expects them not to be broken. Human beings hate, God does not.

Third, in the Bible (both new and old testaments) and in most other religions (Judaism and Islam come to mind immediately), we find very strong prohibitions against homosexual behavior. Even non-Abrahamic religions prohibit it.

Fourth, religion doesn't hurt people, only other people do that. Women and minorities have more to fear from militarists, social Darwinism, and secular communists than religion. By your warped logic, there could be no abusive atheists or agnostics. More horrible cruelties have been committed in the name of imperialism, greed, and "progress" than religion could ever hope to claim.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MamaLucia In reply to Aristodes [2011-05-16 04:39:19 +0000 UTC]

So -- isn't the point to be decent to one another? And perhaps NOT use religion as an excuse to be nasty to people because they love the "wrong" person?

(Never mind the question of why god bothered to create so many homosexuals if he didn't want them in the first place ... )

I'm sorry, but following "God's rules" only makes you responsible TO your moral code, not FOR it. Again, you have ducked any responsibility for your actions -- or your prejudices.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aristodes In reply to MamaLucia [2011-05-16 04:46:04 +0000 UTC]

God didn't create homosexuals any more than he created kleptomaniacs, but that's all beside the point.

Call it a "prejudice" if you want, but you cannot ask me to break with my religion just because you are personally offended by it. Who are you to ask that? I could just as easily say that you use secular philosophy to justify YOUR biases, be it Marxism, Darwinism, or any one of a million of "isms".

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MamaLucia In reply to Aristodes [2011-05-17 03:46:12 +0000 UTC]

Did god create heterosexuals?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aristodes In reply to MamaLucia [2011-05-17 05:53:35 +0000 UTC]

He created creatures who seek to multiply with a member of the opposite sex. The word "heterosexual" is unnecessary until there is something to distinguish it from. It used to be that people who committed acts of sodomy were only considered sodomites until they stopped doing that, like a person who is a thief was only a thief until they were reformed. The classification of a group of people who are "stuck that way" as homosexuals is actually a rather new grouping.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MamaLucia In reply to Aristodes [2011-05-19 19:18:38 +0000 UTC]

Ignoring all the little quibbles as to definitions ... ... god created what we would now call "heterosexuals," correct? In both the animal and plant kingdom?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aristodes In reply to MamaLucia [2011-05-19 21:12:40 +0000 UTC]

What I had posted last time was not a "little quibble", but in any event, God created creatures to have the desire to create more creatures of their same species. That a creature would direct its desire towards a creature that it inherently CANNOT multiply with would not be keeping in God's plan. Just read the book of Genesis to see what God wanted. A homosexual "marriage" is no more capable of producing offspring than a man with a horse or a woman with a dog.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MamaLucia In reply to Aristodes [2011-05-19 21:23:27 +0000 UTC]

"Be fruitful, and multiply," yes? Never mind that endless multiplication is the intent of cancer cells as well, and so sounds like a foolish plan to me.

But if that was gods plan for all living things, how did homosexuality come about?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aristodes In reply to MamaLucia [2011-05-19 21:56:43 +0000 UTC]

First, how DARE you compare natural reproduction to cancer? Cancer is the uncontrolled growth of something that goes against its natural "code." You might as well tell me that all life is cancer, or that some animals, like rabbits, are cancerous because they multiply quickly.

Second, homosexuality is the result of people's own decisions, which is in turn dependent on culture. This is why we see more homosexuals in certain Europeans countries and fewer in places like Africa. Biologically, it is not entirely dissimilar from disorders like ADD or Aspergers, and simply having those inclinations is not sinful in itself, but acting on them in such a way as to violate the natural order is bad. A good comparison would be kleptomania, in which a person had the urges to steal, but that doesn't make stealing right.

Also keep in mind that from a religious point of view, God isn't the only actor. Even without getting into a discussion about the devil, human beings have free will. This allows us to be praised for our virtues and blamed for our sins.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MamaLucia In reply to Aristodes [2011-05-19 23:28:58 +0000 UTC]

But what kind of free will is it that allows you only to either follow gods plan like a little robot, or not follow it and get punished with eternal damnation?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aristodes In reply to MamaLucia [2011-05-20 01:15:29 +0000 UTC]

Well, you don't follow the plan like a robot. You have to CHOOSE to do good or CHOOSE to do evil. That's the very point of free will. That is the very opposite of being a robot. A robot cannot (in theory) choose to act against its programming. A human can choose to act against God's plan, and that choice may be hard to make one way or the other, but ultimately, it is our ability to willingly do good or evil that sets us apart from robots and non-sentient animals.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MamaLucia In reply to Aristodes [2011-05-22 20:04:37 +0000 UTC]

But it isn't really a choice, not in any functional sense. Since gods plan is (I presume) 100% perfect, to deviate from it in the slightest is to do evil. The only choice you have to be a good person is to choose to give up your right to make a "choice" and follow the plan like a good little robot.

Except that, since human beings are demonstrably fallible, there is no way we can REALLY know gods plan 100% even if we really DO want to follow it -- and it is very, very easy for human beings to fool themselves. Take the recent Harold Camping "end of the world" debacle. I'm sure he genuinely believed that his calculations were correct, and genuinely believed he was doing humanity a service by warning us all. (And, if he had been right, he surely would have been!) But he was wrong, and therefore he has done evil, even if presumably without intending to. But he and we are in an even worse position than that. The most often quoted "reason" people say Camping should have known better is Matthew 24:36: "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." (English Standard Version). So here is a part of gods plan that we CANNOT know. So, if we can't know gods plan 100%, how do we know we are making the right choices?

Of course, with a "merciful" god, he would know whether or not you DELIBERATELY chose to do evil. But the problem with that is that very few people actually CHOOSE to do evil. As the science fiction writer David Brin once said, "Everyone is the hero of his or her own story." No one sets out to do "evil," even those who harm other people -- soldiers who murder "the enemy" genuinely believe that they are doing good or, even if they admit what they have done isn't pleasant, believe that it was necessary to do it, no how tragic the consequences. Are they deluded or not? Is killing someone evil or not? If no one can really know gods plan, how can any one of us know whether they did evil or good, right or wrong, chose to follow it or didn't choose to follow it?

In addition, if you are allowed to pray and ask for god to change things, or save this or that person's life, you are asking him to alter his plan. How can you choose to follow his plan if someone else's prayer can change it? If what you pray for is good, shouldn't god have already made it happen? If what you pray for is evil, then god presumably wouldn't make it happen -- but you have done evil in praying for it, whether you knew it or not. Best not to pray at all! Which means you can't even choose to pray for fear of being in error.

This would seem trivial, except for the claim that those who do evil will burn in eternal damnation. Does evil you didn't intend count? How do you KNOW?

I assume you believe that homosexuals "choose" to be attracted to individuals of their own sex. Never mind mounds of scientific evidence that shows otherwise -- even if they DID choose to become homosexuals, what right does that give you to judge them? To harm them? To condemn then "in the name of god" if you can't even be sure you KNOW what god wants? Or do you claim that you do, absolutely, know exactly what is good and what it evil?

Seems to me you could do with a good dose of humility, along with some restraint, a bit of temperance, and a lot more charity.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

DinobotLoki In reply to MamaLucia [2011-05-27 04:53:16 +0000 UTC]

Your arguments were beautiful, against a bigoted narcissistic ass. I love you. Marry me!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MamaLucia In reply to DinobotLoki [2011-06-02 16:40:26 +0000 UTC]

Sure!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DinobotLoki In reply to MamaLucia [2011-06-02 19:05:29 +0000 UTC]

! XD

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Aristodes In reply to MamaLucia [2011-05-22 20:40:35 +0000 UTC]

It is a choice. Let me put it to you this way; even with the Bible, what is the right thing to do is not always 100% clear. Even so, we still have our choices to make about what IS good and evil as much as we have to choose BETWEEN good and evil.

What you have said in your long-winded post only works against those who ascribe to a LITERAL interpretation of the Bible. I don't do that. Catholics, like myself, do not take every passage literally. Neither do many Protestants and neither do the Orthodox Christians.

Evil that is not intended is not gravely sinful, although it can put a person in purgatory. There are things which we do that are bad that we did not intend, HOWEVER, we can do bad out of recklessness or negligence as much as we can do it out of intent. You get punished for that, but you don't go to Hell.

Prayer does not alter God's plan; he will only grant a prayer if it does not conflict with his plans. Your long-winded post is hard to read because you clearly do not understand the first thing about religion. At all. Especially Christianity. It is not something you can figure out from what other people post on DA, let me assure you of that; even what I post here will not grant you a full understanding of it. You pretend to understand what other people have spent many years living, and it shows in your foolish attempts to "discredit" Christianity by bringing up ridiculous cases and trying to use them to disprove a religion that operates on faith and cannot be adequately encapsulated in any one or a hundred posts on this site.

Don't think to lecture me with your little "humility" speech. It makes you look like a puffed-up bag of crap. Don't talk down to people about humility when you yourself possess none. That is not only ironic, it is hypocritical.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

DinobotLoki In reply to Aristodes [2011-06-02 19:03:56 +0000 UTC]

May I point out that I myself am gay and... yeah, sure dude. I choose to have the risk of being beaten to a pulp or killed for simply existing, sure. I choose to 'not be natural'- just like the many animals who have homosexual practices, sure. And most certainly I choose to go against a magic sky fairy, from a book that is so ass backwards that it's scary, sure. Wait... Oh! I don't believe in him, so I don't have to worry about that last one.

But why does it matter if it's a choice or not? If your god has a issue with it, he or she can come tell me him or herself, and not through some old book, either. But seriously, why do you even care who I fuck or why I fuck them? It would be like me going up to you and saying 'you can't date this person! He/She is just too short!' Or 'Nonono. See, that person there has brown hair, and brown hair is of the devil!'

It is none of my business who you want to date or fuck, and in return it's none of yours. See how that works? Like magic! Wonderful, delicious, magic.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MamaLucia In reply to Aristodes [2011-06-02 18:26:37 +0000 UTC]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Forgive me for not responding sooner -- it has not been due to lack or interest, but lack of time!

And I am not claiming that I can understand Christianity completely -- I don't think anyone can. And no one can disprove Christianity either, precisely because it "operates on faith," not on evidence or reason (at least not ultimately -- religion will claim evidence and reason on its side as long as it possibly can, and then retreat to faith as a final redoubt). Christianity has been around for a long, long time, and it has had the very best minds in the world working for centuries to answer all the annoying questions that come from Doubting Thomas's like myself. Christianity has an answer for everything, for every question, for every doubt, even if it is, ultimately, that The Truth is all a matter of faith that people from the outside like myself can never understand.

What I am trying to point out to you in my clumsy, awkward, halting fashion, is that I have found out that having all the answers is not a strength, it is a weakness -- and a potentially fatal one at that. If you believe you have all the answers, you forget to ask QUESTIONS. This is what can turn you into an unthinking, unfeeling, heartless robot, IF you allow it to. (By which I mean to say that, while I do not think you have become a robot yet, you have the potential to do so.) It isn't WHAT you believe so much as HOW you believe it -- atheists with "all the answers" can be just as unthinking and heartless as religious believers with all the answers. (Take a look at Pol Pot and Stalin for a couple of examples.) Once you close off your ability to question, you become unable to learn anything new, to understand things in new ways when new information and experiences come along, to realize that you may in fact be in the wrong about something. Believing you have all the answers catches you up in the coils of a labyrinthine system that is DESIGNED to protect you from questions, from doubt, from worry, from uncertainty, from fear of making mistakes -- and which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to learn anything new and so understand the world around you.

And before you scoff at me and say that you are not like that, and how can I possibly accuse you of that, please understand that I am not saying this with an absolute "you are totally wrong for believing this way and I am totally right for not believing this way." OF COURSE I don't have all the answers, and neither do you. No one does. Which is why I learned the hard way to keep asking questions -- like "Why would someone choose to be a homosexual if they knew they were going against gods plan and knew that they could be shunned and hated by all the members of all the Abrahamic faiths?" And "Why would anyone become an atheist and risk their immortal soul and an eternity in hell rather than believe in god?" Sure, a few people might make such choices out of sheer cussedness -- but there are an awful lot of homosexuals and atheists in the world. Perhaps sheer ornery contrariness isn't the only reason why these people exist? Perhaps they have experienced some things differently than I have, perhaps they have asked different questions than I have, perhaps they know something I don't? Perhaps they haven't deliberately chosen to do evil? Perhaps they are not deluded after all? Perhaps there is no god, and homosexuality is an evolved trait? Perhaps they had no more choice about their homosexuality than I did about my heterosexuality?

Believing you have all the answers is great fun -- until you realize that a few, some, most or nearly all of the answers you have might be wrong. The one thing I have learned in life is that you can either have complete answers to everything -- in which case your answers will not be consistent with one another, and you will ultimately have to fall back on faith. Or you can have consistent answers to a few questions -- in which case there will always be more questions and you must constantly be aware of your own ignorance. The first option can trap you; the second is downright scary, because it is not just possible to make mistakes, it is INEVITABLE.

But at least, with the second option, you can LEARN from those inevitable mistakes. And THAT is what I mean by humility; that is what it IS to be human.

But no worries -- you are still a human being. Which is why I have sensed a kindred spirit in you, and why I have tried my best to treat you with kindness and respect. Just the fact that you can say that, even with god, "we still have our choices to make about what IS good and evil as much as we have to choose BETWEEN good and evil" lets me know that you realize you don't have all the answers either.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

rexen724 In reply to Aristodes [2011-05-11 15:10:29 +0000 UTC]

I think it is best mankind to lay to rest the idea of money. Once that happens.. Fireworks.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aristodes In reply to rexen724 [2011-05-11 17:04:28 +0000 UTC]

No money means we have to barter for goods. That is inefficient. People would have to agree on the exact value of exchange for everything. No, using money just works better.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

rexen724 In reply to Aristodes [2011-05-11 18:15:09 +0000 UTC]

We can do more than just barter... We have Technology and Science.

The Resource Based Economy is our future of Economics.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aristodes In reply to rexen724 [2011-05-11 19:00:20 +0000 UTC]

Even if we barter computers for televisions, it would still be bartering. A resource-based economy is a dead-end, given that resources are finite.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

rexen724 In reply to Aristodes [2011-05-11 19:13:31 +0000 UTC]

hahahaha Science and Technology can be used to manage resource.. to create a garden of eden.

You make the most common mistake.

Resources are finite.. A resource-based economy does what?? It see the resources as they are.. the processes of these resources. We see the sustainability and efficiciency. Then we look for environmental discrepancies. We are managing the resource through science and technology... not through politics.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aristodes In reply to rexen724 [2011-05-11 19:30:03 +0000 UTC]

A resource-based economy depends on sale of resources to generate income. Resources like gold, oil, iron, copper, etc, are finite in quantity. While some of them can be recycled, the fact remains that once they have been extracted, they are gone from that geographic point and the economy can no longer depend on the exploitation of those resources.

Even a very efficient use of resources will still see them exploited eventually, albeit at a much slower rate.

The only mistake I made was assuming you knew that once a non-renewable resource has been exploited, it is gone.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

rexen724 In reply to Aristodes [2011-05-11 19:38:58 +0000 UTC]

hahahaha.. Recycled and reuseable and alternatives.. Also, we can exploit processes if we have the dedication.

Have you read into the Venus Project and the Resourse-Based Economy? Because i believe you bring up things that are typical of people who haven't really got engaged.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aristodes In reply to rexen724 [2011-05-11 19:40:13 +0000 UTC]

Could you please explain what you are going on about? And could you explain in unambiguous terms?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

rexen724 In reply to Aristodes [2011-05-11 19:55:58 +0000 UTC]

In what in particular?

i am afraid what you call unambiguous terms are terms in which you are not comfortable with. So i'm sorry you have to ask questions chap if you would like me to clarify.. do be specific as well.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1