by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .2,0742,0752,0762,0772,0782,0792,080. . .2,5072,508»

Slavic lechia wrote:At least it's creative...

People can have different qualities in them, even if they should not be creative, you know. It doesn't mean they have not other qualities in them, that are of a great value. We all have different abilities. Strengths and weaknesses.

That's the same reason people are suited for different jobs :-)

United massachusetts

Some secret smoke and mirrors stuff going on in backdoors. Big reveal soon

Horatius Cocles and Slavic lechia

I don't know if you have been playing chess on https://lichess.org/, but it's a great free service, where even playing against the computer on level 1 is doable, if you should prefer that over playing against a human.

Also you have Mahjong Solitaire; https://www.masswerk.at/mahjong/, which is nice to play sometimes, when you are alone.

Horatius Cocles and Slavic lechia

Spain election: Socialists win amid far-right breakthrough

Spain's ruling Socialists are on course to be the biggest party in the third election in four years, but have fallen short of a majority.

PM Pedro Sánchez's party is set to win just under 30% and would need the support of left-wing Podemos and nationalists to form a government.

For the first time since military rule ended in the 1970s, a far-right party is set to enter parliament.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48081540

Anette Trettebergstuen (Labour Party) calls for a clear condemnation from newly elected Christian Democratic Party leader Kjell Ingolf Ropstad "for preaching that homosexuality is a sin to young people".

https://translate.google.no/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dagbladet.no%2Fnyheter%2Fforbanna-pa-ropstads-homo-uttalelse--sier-at-paforing-av-skam-er-greit%2F71020847

The Catholic State of Eire and Slavic lechia

Lutheran Commonwealth wrote:Anette Trettebergstuen (Labour Party) calls for a clear condemnation from newly elected Christian Democratic Party leader Kjell Ingolf Ropstad "for preaching that homosexuality is a sin to young people".

https://translate.google.no/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dagbladet.no%2Fnyheter%2Fforbanna-pa-ropstads-homo-uttalelse--sier-at-paforing-av-skam-er-greit%2F71020847

Christians preach that sexuality is a gift that is to be used with responsibility and not abused, which I am sure is hard for people to understand who believe in so called "sexual liberation"!

I'm am however impressed that Christian Democratic parties in the Nordic countries still exist and have some representation in the national assemblies. I would have thought that political Christianity would waver in the secularisation of the northern countries.

Slavic lechia and Lutheran Commonwealth

The Catholic State of Eire wrote:I'm am however impressed that Christian Democratic parties in the Nordic countries still exist and have some representation in the national assemblies. I would have thought that political Christianity would waver in the secularisation of the northern countries.

And it kind of has, but they are continuing to keep the status quo, although being a very small party, but still with influence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solberg%27s_Cabinet#Members

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Party_(Norway)

Secular people hate that party, of course, and it's constantly being ridiculed and mocked by comedians on TV.

Edit: Although Kjell Magne Bondevik, leader of the Christian Democratic Party at the time, was Prime Minister from 1997 to 2000 and from 2001 to 2005:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kjell_Magne_Bondevik

United massachusetts

Lutheran Commonwealth wrote:Anette Trettebergstuen (Labour Party) calls for a clear condemnation from newly elected Christian Democratic Party leader Kjell Ingolf Ropstad "for preaching that homosexuality is a sin to young people".

https://translate.google.no/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dagbladet.no%2Fnyheter%2Fforbanna-pa-ropstads-homo-uttalelse--sier-at-paforing-av-skam-er-greit%2F71020847

Being gay/lesbian is not a sin.

United massachusetts wrote:Being gay/lesbian is not a sin.

That's what a lot of non-Christians and secular people seem to always confuse. The Christian faith does not see people who are gay as being inherently sinful, only when do people act on their impulses and commit physical acts is it then a sin. It should always be pointed out as well that Christians do not want to discriminate against people who are gay!

United massachusetts wrote:Being gay/lesbian is not a sin.

I can partially agree with it, when it comes to the sexual orientation in itself, which you, unfortunately, from a Christian standpoint of view, have been born with. However, living it out, having sexual intercourse with the same sex is, and is clearly condemned in the Bible, both in the OT and the NT:

https://www.livingout.org/the-bible-and-ssa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality#Jesus's_discussion_of_marriage

Aawia wrote:well after 3 brutal hours the surgery was 85-90% succesful :)

Wild we're only a couple of weeks off from my half-decade anniversary. Not proud to admit I posted this from the recovery when my parents were still wondering if something horrible had happened. I was later told by my parents it was closer to 4 hours, and because the surgery was normally around an hour and at most 3 hours they were worried there had been a serious complication.

Reading my old posts is a walk down memory lane.

United massachusetts wrote:Some secret smoke and mirrors stuff going on in backdoors. Big reveal soon

I wonder what's going on.

United massachusetts

United massachusetts

The RCS wrote:I wonder what's going on.

There's a reason it's taking a few days....

No short term patch will do for this great region.

The Catholic State of Eire wrote:That's what a lot of non-Christians and secular people seem to always confuse. The Christian faith does not see people who are gay as being inherently sinful, only when do people act on their impulses and commit physical acts is it then a sin. It should always be pointed out as well that Christians do not want to discriminate against people who are gay!

I reckon that if Christianity forbids homosexual acts for people with homosexual urges, then Christianity is probably wrong. Seems illogical to me to condemn people for acting on the nature within themselves when they are not doing any harm to anybody else, and when they are acting out of love.

Just an opinion, of course, but then Christianity itself is also just a set of opinions.

What's the moral reason for condemning homosexual actions, beyond the circular argument of "it's wrong because it is wrong". Where is the harm?

The Catholic State of Eire wrote:That's what a lot of non-Christians and secular people seem to always confuse. The Christian faith does not see people who are gay as being inherently sinful, only when do people act on their impulses and commit physical acts is it then a sin. It should always be pointed out as well that Christians do not want to discriminate against people who are gay!

Though its also fair to say that any homosexual tendency is the result of the fall. Just an important caveat.

First And Only Archive wrote:I reckon that if Christianity forbids homosexual acts for people with homosexual urges, then Christianity is probably wrong. Seems illogical to me to condemn people for acting on the nature within themselves when they are not doing any harm to anybody else, and when they are acting out of love.

Just an opinion, of course, but then Christianity itself is also just a set of opinions.

What's the moral reason for condemning homosexual actions, beyond the circular argument of "it's wrong because it is wrong". Where is the harm?

That is rather silly logic as human nature has all manner of natural inclinations that are perverted (again, by the fall). Observation of numerous animals shows that any attempt to create a liberal/neutral sphere of action based on biology is ridiculous. Human nature, even if it is seeks some manner of "good", constantly skews that good into a selfish, corrupted end. You argue that love=good (agreed), but then you argue that goods/love can be pursued as long as it doesn't harm anyone, but pursuing love in every instance (thanks to corrupt human nature) lead to harming someone, sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally, sometimes indirectly. Any married couple says sorry a lot for a reason: because they "harm" each other while they are loving each other (feelings, emotions, indifference, etc). By the same token we would be cut off from any attempt to love God, because inevitably we actually end of "crucifying" him in our failures and shortcomings! But, on a far deeper level, your stance completely ignores the fact that many (perhaps most) people do pursue such relationships for purely selfish/harmful reasons (i.e. using someone for sexual pleasure, without actually loving them) and yet from your attempted neutrality this cannot be condemned. Actually, I think you do think they can be condemned but that means you are just arbitrarily (according to your own definition) shifting the Christian condemnation of all homosexual acts to a liberal condemnation of all homosexual acts that do fit your criteria of a loving/natural relationship. Christianity would only have to contend with you by saying a homosexual relationship cannot be a loving/natural relationship.

The Christian faith is not a set of opinions, it is a worldview/set of teachings that authentically corresponds to reality thanks to the fact that it was taught by the logos , the creator and re-creator of the world and all of reality, Himself.

The argument beyond "it's wrong because it's wrong": natural law quite clearly sees such acts/inclinations as "bent."

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:Though its also fair to say that any homosexual tendency is the result of the fall. Just an important caveat.
That is rather silly logic as human nature has all manner of natural inclinations that are perverted (again, by the fall). Observation of numerous animals shows that any attempt to create a liberal/neutral sphere of action based on biology is ridiculous. Human nature, even if it is seeks some manner of "good", constantly skews that good into a selfish, corrupted end. You argue that love=good (agreed), but then you argue that goods/love can be pursued as long as it doesn't harm anyone, but pursuing love in every instance (thanks to corrupt human nature) lead to harming someone, sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally, sometimes indirectly. Any married couple says sorry a lot for a reason: because they "harm" each other while they are loving each other (feelings, emotions, indifference, etc). By the same token we would be cut off from any attempt to love God, because inevitably we actually end of "crucifying" him in our failures and shortcomings! But, on a far deeper level, your stance completely ignores the fact that many (perhaps most) people do pursue such relationships for purely selfish/harmful reasons (i.e. using someone for sexual pleasure, without actually loving them) and yet from your attempted neutrality this cannot be condemned. Actually, I think you do think they can be condemned but that means you are just arbitrarily (according to your own definition) shifting the Christian condemnation of all homosexual acts to a liberal condemnation of all homosexual acts that do fit your criteria of a loving/natural relationship. Christianity would only have to contend with you by saying a homosexual relationship cannot be a loving/natural relationship.

The Christian faith is not a set of opinions, it is a worldview/set of teachings that authentically corresponds to reality thanks to the fact that it was taught by the logos , the creator and re-creator of the world and all of reality, Himself.

The argument beyond "it's wrong because it's wrong": natural law quite clearly sees such acts/inclinations as "bent."

I would also add that, metaphysically, we cannot see harm to the soul. Who would then be the primary source of what does and does not harm the soul? God, and he has forbade it I assume in part, because it harms the soul. Though I'll grant this is beyond a naturalist discussion and an argument solely based on authority.

Interesting budget tool compiled very precisely based on the Congressional Budget Office's models: https://calculator.americaoffbalance.org

My budget:
https://calculator.americaoffbalance.org/-LdfkhBf_VY4DyONHfBc/view
(It was actually pretty easy: just created deflation of 1% per year, cut most mandatory spending by 0.5%, and cut the military by 1.5%, with a variety of random programs cut throughout, tax cut of 2%, and elimination of state tax deduction).
Now if only there was a way to make the social security tax optional...
I call it the "step on everyone's toes" budget, since it cuts something anyone with mainstream political views holds dear (somewhat) and assumes you can reverse the entire Keynesian economic model which insists on inflation for economic growth.

United massachusetts

UM's budget: https://calculator.americaoffbalance.org/-Ldg0kkGAxkh4DT1Kdwg/view

Very different from GOR's, in short. I'm not trying to create deflation or cut discretionary programmes apart from defense. In fact, we gave a 5% increase to mandatory health programmes and a 3% increase to mandatory social security programmes. In short, mine is the socialist budget. :P

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:Interesting budget tool compiled very precisely based on the Congressional Budget Office's models: https://calculator.americaoffbalance.org

My budget:
https://calculator.americaoffbalance.org/-LdfkhBf_VY4DyONHfBc/view
(It was actually pretty easy: just created deflation of 1% per year, cut most mandatory spending by 0.5%, and cut the military by 1.5%, with a variety of random programs cut throughout)
I call it the "step on everyone's toes" budget, since it cuts something anyone with mainstream political views holds dear (somewhat) and assumes you can reverse the entire Keynesian economic model which insists on inflation for economic growth.

Even if you increased health/social security programs by 5% you also raised the age limits for retirement which I left intact. I also question your random increases in discretionary spending since I found every department had areas worthy of cuts (except VA, Agriculture, and Energy), such as the absurd idea that we should be spending several hundred million to give rich people free lunch at school.

Of course most of my "cuts" are actually indirect via deflation quenching all nominal GDP growth outside of actual growth in the economy.

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:Christianity would only have to contend with you by saying a homosexual relationship cannot be a loving/natural relationship.

Just to home in on that point, this doesn't gel with my interactions with homosexual people I know. There are some unhealthy homosexual relationships, though probably no more than there are unhealthy heterosexual relationships.

However, the assertion that a homosexual relationship cannot be a loving relationship can be demonstrated to be false to a very good standard of evidence - i.e. a large number of decent, moral and trustworthy people report loving homosexual relationships.

My own brother is gay, and he has a devoted and loving relationship with his partner, the features of which I can see closely resemble the loving heterosexual relationship I have with my wife. I believe him to be a moral person, and a loving person, and I have no reason to doubt his love for his partner.

Admittedly, that is not absolute proof, but it's the only same standard of proof that I can apply to the existence of heterosexual love. The only difference in evidence is that I can personally report having experienced heterosexual love -- it takes minimal imagination however to understand that this experience I have can exist in other contexts.

Alterrum, Horatius Cocles, United massachusetts, and Slavic lechia

Ahoy there. Back from nonexistence.

Horatius Cocles, Phydios, and United massachusetts

Aawia wrote:I would also add that, metaphysically, we cannot see harm to the soul. Who would then be the primary source of what does and does not harm the soul? God, and he has forbade it I assume in part, because it harms the soul. Though I'll grant this is beyond a naturalist discussion and an argument solely based on authority.

The problem here is, how do you contend with conflicting metaphysical claims from other religions? Since there is, by definition, no natural way of determining which claim is right and as such they are held on faith alone, anyone should more or less be able to believe anything so long as those beliefs don't have too destructive naturalistic results, e.g. if some god demanded daily human sacrifice to save the soul.

I'd also like to point out that the Church has changed its positions on matters of doctrine several times throughout history when they are in too blatant disagreement with natural reality; Galileo springs to mind immediately.

Finally, I'd like to share a poem by one of the most known Islamic mystics (granted, it's not Christianity, but Islamic doctrinal opposition to homosexuality in most strains is the same as the Christian one, based as they are on the same story):

It happens all the time in heaven,

And some day

It will begin to happen

Again on earth —

That men and women who are married,

And men and men who are

Lovers,

And women and women

Who give each other

Light,

Often will get down on their knees

And while so tenderly

Holding their lover's hand,

With tears in their eyes,

Will sincerely speak, saying,

My dear,

How can I be more loving to you;

How can I be more kind?

--- Rumi

If Galileo could change the perception of celestial mechanics, perhaps Rumi can change the perception people have of homosexual love?

First And Only Archive wrote:Just to home in on that point, this doesn't gel with my interactions with homosexual people I know. There are some unhealthy homosexual relationships, though probably no more than there are unhealthy heterosexual relationships.

However, the assertion that a homosexual relationship cannot be a loving relationship can be demonstrated to be false to a very good standard of evidence - i.e. a large number of decent, moral and trustworthy people report loving homosexual relationships.

My own brother is gay, and he has a devoted and loving relationship with his partner, the features of which I can see closely resemble the loving heterosexual relationship I have with my wife. I believe him to be a moral person, and a loving person, and I have no reason to doubt his love for his partner.

Admittedly, that is not absolute proof, but it's the only same standard of proof that I can apply to the existence of heterosexual love. The only difference in evidence is that I can personally report having experienced heterosexual love -- it takes minimal imagination however to understand that this experience I have can exist in other contexts.

Jehovah's Wittnesses are better! We don't give marriages to anyone! Go get a secular marriage instead! God counts all marriages that count for you. A marriage of two people stranded on an island with no priest with them is as worthy as two people that got married by Jesus. As long as you commit to it and vow to God it counts. God just himself intended them to be male and female for reproduction purposes but we are not to prevent you from doing that. God will judge you if He wants. We can't

Alterrum wrote:The problem here is, how do you contend with conflicting metaphysical claims from other religions? Since there is, by definition, no natural way of determining which claim is right and as such they are held on faith alone, anyone should more or less be able to believe anything so long as those beliefs don't have too destructive naturalistic results, e.g. if some god demanded daily human sacrifice to save the soul.

I'd also like to point out that the Church has changed its positions on matters of doctrine several times throughout history when they are in too blatant disagreement with natural reality; Galileo springs to mind immediately.

Finally, I'd like to share a poem by one of the most known Islamic mystics (granted, it's not Christianity, but Islamic doctrinal opposition to homosexuality in most strains is the same as the Christian one, based as they are on the same story):

It happens all the time in heaven,

And some day

It will begin to happen

Again on earth —

That men and women who are married,

And men and men who are

Lovers,

And women and women

Who give each other

Light,

Often will get down on their knees

And while so tenderly

Holding their lover's hand,

With tears in their eyes,

Will sincerely speak, saying,

My dear,

How can I be more loving to you;

How can I be more kind?

--- Rumi

If Galileo could change the perception of celestial mechanics, perhaps Rumi can change the perception people have of homosexual love?

I'll take Scripture over poetry, to be a bit frank.

Celestial mechanics were as much a matter of scientific disagreement as religious at the time, the lack of observed stellar parallax marking the case against Galileo, not an unreasonable one with the evidence of the time. The papacy elected to back the scientific consensus of the time, and tapped a few pieces of figurative language as backing. It was certainly never a primarily moral issue.

The matter of same-sex intercourse is quite a bit different. It is condemned in no uncertain terms, and is very much a moral question, not one of simply describing the layout of various chunks of rock and gas. The papacy turning away from a geocentric model required no rewriting of Scripture. Endorsing sexual same-sex relationship would.

Alterrum wrote:
The problem here is, how do you contend with conflicting metaphysical claims from other religions? Since there is, by definition, no natural way of determining which claim is right and as such they are held on faith alone, anyone should more or less be able to believe anything so long as those beliefs don't have too destructive naturalistic results, e.g. if some god demanded daily human sacrifice to save the soul.

I'd also like to point out that the Church has changed its positions on matters of doctrine several times throughout history when they are in too blatant disagreement with natural reality; Galileo springs to mind immediately.

Finally, I'd like to share a poem by one of the most known Islamic mystics (granted, it's not Christianity, but Islamic doctrinal opposition to homosexuality in most strains is the same as the Christian one, based as they are on the same story):

It happens all the time in heaven,

And some day

It will begin to happen

Again on earth —

That men and women who are married,

And men and men who are

Lovers,

And women and women

Who give each other

Light,

Often will get down on their knees

And while so tenderly

Holding their lover's hand,

With tears in their eyes,

Will sincerely speak, saying,

My dear,

How can I be more loving to you;

How can I be more kind?

--- Rumi

If Galileo could change the perception of celestial mechanics, perhaps Rumi can change the perception people have of homosexual love?

There are two objections I see here, one partially answered above which I'll expand on, and one I'll address fully.

Your first issue seems to be that because all religious claims are faith claims they, therefore, lack evidence and are all equal. I don't know anyone of any faith that believes without any evidence whatsoever, I think to state that we cannot examine religious evidences because it is all faith claims is misguided at best. "Jesus among other Gods" by Ravi Zacharias may help your core concern. However, I think the main question you should be asking is, "does Christianity have any evidence?" From there maybe find some apologetic books and see why Christians believe what they believe. Then concern yourself more with the question, "is Christianity right?" If it is than all others are wrong, if it isn't then, hey don't let me stop your search for the true faith. Now, studying other faiths isn't wrong, by the nature of my truth claim there if another religion is right Christianity is wrong, but that's the nature of the claim of Christianity. However, I can for this reason understand why "Jesus among other Gods" can be an important book to show why Christianity can rise above. Though, full disclosure, I have never read the book, merely heard some of his talks that address the periphery issues.

TL;DR above: I don't think any faith is evidenceless and concerning ourselves with what evidence different faiths provide is a better litmus test for truth.

As for your second point about Galileo, Roborian addressed it well. This link may help: https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-galileo-controversy
Galileo didn't threaten establish infallible Church teaching or any strict doctrine, hence why homosexual issues are on a different plane.

PS: I don't think believing something is right either should then cause us to dump other faiths as useless, which I know would be a concern. Having a faith and believing it to be uniquely true I don't think must render one callous to learning about other faiths, and seeing what they offer, even if it ends up that they get the main thing wrong.

«12. . .2,0742,0752,0762,0772,0782,0792,080. . .2,5072,508»

Advertisement