«12. . .235236237238239240241. . .596597»
Well, I certainly didn't mean to trigger the debate by embassy posting like this. Oh well. Personally I disagree with lefties, but I respect their need to use tools and things designed for left-handed people. And don't even get me started on those disgusting ambidextrous! ;)
RLAA (Right-Left-Ambi-Artificial) Liberation! :D
I wish those ambidextrous people would make up their minds and just choose one hand, even if it is their left.
I wish the people who are ambidextrous and polyamorous would... um... have large beds. :)
I'm ambidextrous... When did we start talking about being ambidextrous, I just got here. You guys are just jealous we can use both hands. Lol.
Legal Competence was passed 7,135 votes to 2,282. I have voted for both WA resolutions. I agree with the intent of the GA resolution to protect children, and it appears that the region's WA voters agree as well. As for the SC resolution, the nation seems fairly deserving (though personally I find the whole commendations and condemnations thing fairly pointless for the most part).
That was my fault. Instead of writing a long, thoughtful and BRILLIANT response, I RMB-jacked with a satirical post based off Dr George's comment. :P
i didn't see that message probably looked past it. thank you for clearing that up.
What happened to the art of long, thoughtful, brilliant AND satirical responses?
It got killed by Twitter and txt spk...... lol
would you like me to give a long, thought out response? it also seems the debate has died down and gone astray into a more pointless area of discussion, people have lost interest.
Yea, the argument was a bit one sided as the person who "believed" in the Bible did not really defend his/her position.
Best Weather
top 1000: NW Hell, Wesland, NONNY
bottom 1000: PA Terror, Anarch, Hoosier Daddies, Unfocused Extremism
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIP, Saimonia.
Post self-deleted by Dr george.
The first year in seminary is supposed to be the time you tear down all of your false beliefs about religion. The middler year, you wander in the wilderness, searching for beliefs and systematic theologies you can affirm and that are helpful to you. Ideally the last year, you start putting together your positions in a comprehensive fashion. Ideally, if you earn a PhD in Religious Studies or a DMin, you explore deeper and wider, perhaps finding more tolerance for other POVs even as your own belief system gains more cohesion. In my years at Yale, stereotypically the TAs (who were mostly PhD students) would write on my papers NOT "This is mistaken/wrong," but "You realize what you're saying is this...."
Thus, the deeper one goes into religious studies, the more challenging it is to relate to most of the people in the pews without being perceived as dismissive (philosophy PhDs have a similar problem grading freshman PHL 101 term papers). I actually find it easier to relate to agnostics and atheists, who have been through the tearing down process of ridding themselves of superstitions and other unfounded beliefs, even if they haven't wandered in the wilderness or built their own religious metaphysics (many have, although they're the exceptions). My partner Mark is one such, who claims "I'm happy for those people for whom religion works, I'm just not one of them." Besides some current and former pastors I've encountered in NS, only one layperson of my acquaintance has the depth of knowledge and praxis to which I can relate, a longtime member of Gay, Closeted Cases, who is, as they say, straight but not narrow. Thus, I tread lightly into extended theological conversations outside of the classroom, as many of those with the deepest religious beliefs have a hard time hearing the depths of what I'm saying. One philosophy student of mine wrote on her final evaluation, "I don't see how Dr. George can be a Christian minister and say such evil things about God." Like David Hume, I simply challenge the unjustified arguments for religion, which are many and common, as opposed to religion itself. A LOT of true believers have no theological knowledge of their own, except what they've heard in Sunday School and in sermons and are thus unprepared to enagage me, when I have a much deeper knowledge of scripture and theology than they do. I have no desire to be the bull in a china shop, stomping on cherished beliefs and shattering the whole works without being there to help pick up the pieces. Thus I have a hard time relating to people on hot-button social and religious issues, when I'm quite clear on what I myself now believe, but remembering how painful it was to get here from where I was.
Does this make sense to most of you? The immediate context is our recent conversation of gay rights vis-a-vis religion, but the topic could be any number of things. I don't want to present myself as the ultimate authority on religion (that's a philosophical fallacy), but I don't want to leave people in blissful ignorance, either. IMHO, religion should be less about finding comfort than the somewhat terrifying encounter with a living God (which is why some people call practicing religious people "God-fearing"). Assuming such a thing exists and inspired scriptures, 99% of what most laity believe is superstition, cultural belief, or over-generalization. Many less-educated pastors are that way, too, but in theory they've been exposed to the same books and resources as I have, thus I'm less hesitant to challenge their beliefs. For me, experience and especially reason are more important than scripture and tradition (most Christians believe vice versa). I don't want to end the conversation prematurely or leave anyone feeling they've been bullied into silence--there are perfectly valid reasons one could disagree with me and I usually try to make that point, too. An example is J.C.'s reference to "the sin of Soddom." A LOT of people assume there he meant what we now call homosexuality, but that's a less cogent answer. I think if you read the story of Soddom and Gommorah carefully, one will ultimately find their sin was inhospitality, not gay sex.
RIP, Kalasa.
I don't need to defend my faith or belief in the Bible.....I felt attacked so I stepped Ba k. I'm not good at writing out what is in my heart. Maybe that's my trouble I write from the heart. Most people have complicated religion so much. I believe in the ten commandments ... the golden rule....to love others as I love Christ. I may not agree with certain things or life styles and that's my right......what I don't condone is the bigotry the intolerance and violence towards those who don't believe as they do. I cant prove God exists anymore than someone can prove he don't. What the world needs to do is just accept everyone for who or what they are........it seems that a lot of people are quick to blame the Christian for all the trouble and yes there are Christians that do spread hate. I don't consider them Christians. Its the extreamist groups on all sides that spread the hate and intolerance. I'm not God so ive no right to say who or who's not going to heaven. My ex-husband better be darn happy I'm not God. Anyway that's the opionon of a simple country girl with no education except life.
Please don't perceive this as an attack, Pirate Kitty, as it's addressed generally to everyone interested. Also, within NationStates you're in the region where your views will be taken as seriously as possible, with the possible exception of some religious-themed regions like Catholic that do a lot of debating.
So... I usually argue that everyone needs to defend their beliefs and views. The reason for this is that your views affect your behaviour and your behaviour affects other people, so you need to be prepared to justify that impact you're having. Yes everyone is entitled to believe what they want, so to speak. But you would not take up a new job, start a family, or do some other act with consequences for other people without being prepared to explain why, and I think the same should apply to changes in the content of your beliefs. This is particularly important when it comes to the political process, and (for me) the extent to which homosexuality is or should be accepted within society.
You have a right to disagree with certain things or lifestyles. I suppose everyone does that. However, when challenged, I think you need to defend your beliefs and views, which is what motivated me to write this, because your post seems to suggest that we should take your faith at face value. I could not disagree more with that position.
So if you do believe that homosexuality is immoral, I would much appreciate it if you could explain why, so we can (1) understand your reasons and (2) point out any points at which we disagree, which ought to be helpful to everyone involved.
I should clarify that people are free to decide whether they want to take part in a particular argument at a given time, but regardless of that legitimate choice, everyone is still responsible for justifying their beliefs.
Kitty, you initiated the discussion.
When you say 'life styles', do you mean 'homosexuality'? Please don't be coy. I tried to explain that being gay is in itself not a lifestyle. I may not have succeeded to your satisfaction, but we might get somewhere if you would engage with the conversation.
Christians are not victims. Not in the western world they aren't. It's a tactic to pretend they are - underhand in my opinion. Christian teenagers in South Carolina or Somerset are not driven to contemplate suicide because they are bullied and despised. Sorry to play the gay victim card. It's a shame I can still get away with it.
There are Christians who see things differently. Two good friends in NationStates are gay, yet perfectly sincere in their belief. Others in that Catholic region explain why they approve or disapprove, but in truth the subject hasn't come up for... weeks.
Anyway, Kitty, peace and love. If you don't want to discuss, fine, but if you do, please say what you mean so we can talk properly.
Believe it or not I am trying to. In my mind I have stated what I mean. And it is a shame that gays of any age are bullied. God calls us to love one another not hate. But I meant to convey something different than what people took it. I have been made fun of for the way I believe in fact been told I'm going to hell for not believing in the trinity. So bear with me as I stumble thru this.
I'm sorry if you think you're being made fun of. Stumble away. It's what we all do.
No you misunderstood I didn't mean you. I'm talking about in my own personal life. And stumble thru meant to try and formulate responses that more adequatly explains what I mean.
I can certainly affirm that in some church contexts, Pirate Kitty's beliefs and even person might be attacked as forwarding "the gay agenda." She's progressive for her own setting of conservative Christianity, so I applaud her for engaging us honestly and having a heart full of love. That she's not so progressive as those of us nurtured in very liberal university contexts is not a fault, simply her state of being.
I would agree with SftS (amazing how that looks like 5'5"!) that conservative evangelicals in the USA are quick to play the victim card. That the majority of Americans no longer support conservative evangelical positions is NOT discimination, it's a leveling of the playing field. I feel for the children of conservative evangelicals who pray and otherwise practice their faith in public and are mocked for their expressions of their faith, even as I feel for out teenagers (or even closeted teens who are perceived to be gay) being bullied for something beyond their control; but the two are not the same. When have you read of a Christian youth being driven to suicide from being bullied by his peers? It just doesn't happen. Out teens take their own lives every day out of a despair bred by bullies and bigots. I have read of certain cities wherein some Christian-owned businesses decline to service gay people and in reaction, other businesses fly rainbow flags and actively advertize that they embrace gay customers. That is not discrimination, that is the intersection of our inner and outer lives being played out in the business world. Maurice Bessinger, owner of the Piggie Park barbecue restaurants in SC, did everything he legally could to make black customers turn away or at least feel uncomfortable. Thankfully, since he's died, his heirs have not wanted to continue the segregationalist views of their father, they just want to "focus on making the best barbecue." They have been wise enough not confuse personal feelings and corporate practices; nearly 1/3 of South Carolinians are black and any business that is perceived to shut out black patrons overnight loses 1/3 of their potential customer base. Black (and gay) money spends just as well as white establishment money.
PK, I would encourage you to take or at least audit some philosophy, religion, and English courses at your local community college so you can learn better to express yourself. You've got a great story to tell and it's a shame when sometimes words get in your way. Unfortunately for you, philosophy is primarily a written discipline, so being inarticulate or at least inartful in your use of the English language will get you mocked and not taken seriously by people who would otherwise be your friends.
I really wish this were a section of PHL 101 or PHL 115 so that we could interact regularly and personally on these hot-button topics. As many of you know, P115 was formed with the intention of being a sounding board for my philosophy and religion students. We would have a blast together IRL, I think! As it is, I think we've got a pretty terrific region here (not that I'm prejudiced or anything. ;)
«12. . .235236237238239240241. . .596597»
Advertisement
