This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
A rant about my Birther, YEC, Zionist parents.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Except, as I had pointed out, you did not 'follow its implications logically'. You resorted to a pseudo conclusion that amused you.
Which makes it a perfect reply to:
It's all about influence. No matter how subtle.
Just like concluding from this discussion that rapists are comparable to gays is just "pesudo conclusion."
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Back again to where we were before.
Yes, that's what happens when I have to lay out the steps of a
reductio
. Normally, the
reductio
itself would lead you there.
And you're the one using the term "pseudo conclusion" not me. I'm just demonstrating that if you apply it to what you did, you have to apply it to your earlier conclusion.
Post by
Squishalot
Apologies Squish. My intent was not to lump your and Hypers arguments together. My intent was to treat them separately.
My argument was less with what was actually being said, rather, the way in which it was being said.
My point is though, we've kept coming back to the core point, all throughout the last 6 pages, that parents are free to teach their kids what they want. Even Skree has acknowledged that.
It takes two (or more!) to argue. You can't pin any blame on one party and say that they should have stated their views and moved on, without laying equal blame to the other for not doing the same.
Post by
Skreeran
As I said before, you seem perfectly willing to affirm the freedom to believe your own beliefs, but fail to recognize that others have that same freedom, despite your own beliefs on the matter.I could say the same thing about Fundies, to be honest. I do recognize that they're allowed to believe what they want. I don't hate them because they believe something different than me. It's them that preach hate against gays because they're different. They don't grant homosexuals the freedom you're accusing me of not giving them.
And I do recognize that others are free to believe their own beliefs. Are you daft or have you just paid no attention to anything I've posted.
My issue is not that
they
believe that homosexuality is an abomination. It's them using their words recklessly in a way that could breed hatred or violence toward self or others that bothers me.
And, because I know I'm going to have to say this again,
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT TAKING AWAY PARENTS RIGHTS TO TEACH THEIR CHILDREN WHAT THEY WANT. I'M NOT EVEN CRITICIZING THE BELIEF THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG. I'M SAYING THAT
I'M
BOTHERED BY THE WAY MY PARENTS ARE NOT CONSIDERING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR WORDS WHEN THEY DENOUNCE HOMOSEXUALITY.
Are you saying I'm not allowed to be bothered by it?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And, because I know I'm going to have to say this again, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT TAKING AWAY PARENTS RIGHTS TO TEACH THEIR CHILDREN WHAT THEY WANT. I'M NOT EVEN CRITICIZING THE BELIEF THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG. I'M SAYING THAT
I'M
BOTHERED BY THE WAY
MY PARENTS ARE NOT CONSIDERING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR WORDS WHEN THEY DENOUNCE HOMOSEXUALITY.
Are you saying I'm not allowed to be bothered by it?
They are considering them.
Hell vs. whatever
Hell is bad.
Therefore we much teach our kids that homosexuality is bad.
All I'm doing is saying that you're not viewing the belief from their side.
Post by
Skreeran
You can teach children that homosexuality is wrong without inadvertently teaching them to hate gay people or themselves (should they have the misfortune to be born gay
and
into my family).
And I am viewing the belief from their side, in a way that you can't possibly because they're
my
parents and I have to listen to them drone on about it every day of the goddamn week.
Post by
Squishalot
Hey Skree, how would *you* teach someone that homosexuality is wrong without teaching them to hate gay people?
Just curious - if you're objectionable to their method, suggest an alternative?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And I am viewing the belief from their side, in a way that you can't possibly because they're
my
parents and I have to listen to them drone on about it every day of the goddamn week.
You realize I was born Catholic, and grew up surrounded by nothing but Catholic families, right?
My grandma believes all Muslims are going to hell, and the more we bomb the better. She thinks homosexuals who won't renounce their wicked ways should be put down. She thinks that any form of video game or trading card game is of the devil.
And that's just my grandma. There are so many others.
So yes, I can possibly view the belief in that way.
You can teach children that homosexuality is wrong without inadvertently teaching them to hate gay people or themselves (should they have the misfortune to be born gay and into my family).
You can't guarantee that something inadvertent won't happen, because by definition it's unintentional.
Post by
Skreeran
Hey Skree, how would *you* teach someone that homosexuality is wrong without teaching them to hate gay people?
Just curious - if you're objectionable to their method, suggest an alternative?I would:
Teach them that while the Bible says it's a sin to be homosexual, God has given them the gift of free will so they can be free to make their own decisions. And if they have accepted Jesus as their savior, then he has forgiven all their sins, including homosexual acts.
Explain to them that while homosexuality in practice is a sin, the sinners themselves should be treated with kindness. Jesus kept company with prostitutes and even a Roman soldiers. When he was crucified, he asked God to forgive his killers because they couldn't comprehend what they were doing. Likewise, God is willing to forgive homosexuals so long as they believe in Christ. I would teach my children to show Christ's all-encompassing love to homosexuals, and through their actions lead them to Jesus, because that's infinitely more important than the sin. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Let he who has sinned cast the first stone and all that.
And so on. Of course, my view is tainted by the particular brand of Christianity I was taught. Obviously, WBC doesn't believe any of that.
So yet, I can possibly view the belief in that way.By I'm talking primarily about
my
parents. They don't believe in Hell, as far as I know, and they don't think anyone shoulder be hated (except maybe Liberals... >_>). My mother really was just being reckless with her words when she said that, and might have inadvertently led my brothers and sisters to foster a disdain for homosexuals.
My overall point is and always has been that I think parents should be considerate of their words, and take the future consequences into account when they say them. Endangering someone because you were careless in forgetting to teach your children to "hate the sin, not the sinner" is what I find bothersome. If you are intentionally teaching your children to hate people, I can disapprove until I'm blue in the face, but I can't take away their right to do that.
Post by
Squishalot
And if they have accepted Jesus as their savior, then he has forgiven all their sins, including homosexual acts.
Likewise, God is willing to forgive homosexuals so long as they believe in Christ. I would teach my children to show Christ's all-encompassing love to homosexuals, and through their actions lead them to Jesus, because that's infinitely more important than the sin.
Uhh, no, most doctrines generally state that you actually need to want to 'not sin' and to improve yourself. You can't just 'accept Christ' and go off and sin and think of him as a 'get out of jail free' card.
My overall point is and always has been that I think parents should be considerate of their words, and take the future consequences into account when they say them. Endangering someone because you were careless in forgetting to teach your children to "hate the sin, not the sinner" is what I find bothersome.
And again, if it's just about language (the use of 'abomination'), then the issue shouldn't be that it's in relation to homosexuality, the issue should be that it's used at all.
Post by
Skreeran
Uhh, no, most doctrines generally state that you actually need to want to 'not sin' and to improve yourself. You can't just 'accept Christ' and go off and sin and think of him as a 'get out of jail free' card.That's not what I was taught.
Besides, eating pig is listed as a sin in the same book as homosexuality. The explanation I was always given when I asked about that was that Jesus had eliminated all sin when he died on the cross, and all you had to do to have your sins taken away forever was believe that he was the son of god who came to die for your sins. I can't exactly imagine a "God Hates Pigs" rally, though.
Post by
Squishalot
The explanation I was always given when I asked about that was that Jesus had eliminated all sin when he died on the cross, and all you had to do to have your sins taken away forever was believe that he was the son of god who came to die for your sins.
Part of believing that he's the saviour and accepting him into your life is following his rules (or at least, trying to). Otherwise, you're not really accepting him, are you?
Note - I used to have the same view as you. I asked the question - what would stop someone from stealing and murdering but going to heaven, if he believes that Jesus has taken away his sins. That was the answer that I got - believing isn't enough if you're not going to act on it. If you really believed, you'd make an effort not to sin.
I can't exactly imagine a "God Hates Pigs" rally, though.
Yet we do see the occasional "God hates animal killers, go vegetarian/vegan!" rally. God doesn't hate the guy that you're raping, he hates the rapist. Why would he hate the pig?
Post by
Skreeran
Well, forgive me for sounding snide, but there are literally hundreds of permutations of Christian theology. What I was taught and came to believe through my own theological ponderings is most probably different from what you were taught. Were I a Christian, I would teach them what I came to believe (preferably through using my mind and not just repeating dogma) and let me stop you there and say that, yes, I realize this is exactly what you guys are arguing in favor of. I don't like that people teach their children hate, but I don't think there should be any law to prevent them from it either, I think it's their responsibility to teach children the Golden Rule (you know, if they actually listen to and believe what Jesus actually said) and all that, and if they don't, then /sigh, I hope no one gets hurt because of it.
I'm arguing about carelessness in teaching belief. My parents don't believe in Hell, and as far as I know, they don't hate homosexuals. What I'm condemning is my mother's carelessness in addressing the issue to her kids. She may be teaching them to hate homosexuals without even realizing she is.
Yet we do see the occasional "God hates animal killers, go vegetarian/vegan!" rally. God doesn't hate the guy that you're raping, he hates the rapist. Why would he hate the pig?I was making a pun on the "God Hates F*gs" rally, because "Pigs" sounds more like "F*gs" than "Pork eaters."
And the vegetarian protests are not made because people take the book of Leviticus too seriously, as far as I know, so it's kinda not the same thing.
Post by
Squishalot
My parents don't believe in Hell, and as far as I know, they don't hate homosexuals.
Yet they refer to homosexuality as an abomination, and you note that 'abomination' has a very serious connotation in your household.
What does 'abomination' mean in your household, as opposed to simply 'bad'?
Post by
Skreeran
My parents don't believe in Hell, and as far as I know, they don't hate homosexuals.
Yet they refer to homosexuality as an abomination, and you note that 'abomination' has a very serious connotation in your household.
What does 'abomination' mean in your household, as opposed to simply 'bad'?It means that its one of the horrible things conceivable. My parents may have once believed in Hell, but I'm pretty sure they stopped after I deconverted. I think my mother is a universalist. Of course, now that I think about it, V for Vendetta came out before I deconverted, so I can't be certain of where she was theological at that point.
But for as long as I can remember, she always believed that any sins you committed after you confessed were forgiven, and that it was only an additional show of love to keep following God's laws.
Post by
Squishalot
It means that its one of the horrible things conceivable.
...
But for as long as I can remember, she always believed that any sins you committed after you confessed were forgiven, and that it was only an additional show of love to keep following God's laws.
So at what point would your family (parents and siblings) associate 'abomination' with 'hate'? After all, if she reinforced the idea that it's a horrible sin, but you can still be forgiven, I fail to see how labelling something as an 'abomination' is synonymous with 'your parents won't love you and you need to repress sinful tendencies forever', the way that you were suggesting initially, nor is it synonymous with something to hate, since God still forgives such sins.
Post by
Skreeran
It means that its one of the horrible things conceivable.
...
But for as long as I can remember, she always believed that any sins you committed after you confessed were forgiven, and that it was only an additional show of love to keep following God's laws.
So at what point would your family (parents and siblings) associate 'abomination' with 'hate'? After all, if she reinforced the idea that it's a horrible sin, but you can still be forgiven, I fail to see how labelling something as an 'abomination' is synonymous with 'your parents won't love you and you need to repress sinful tendencies forever', the way that you were suggesting initially, nor is it synonymous with something to hate, since God still forgives such sins.The point is that she didn't teach her universalist theology or "Hate the sinner not the sin" or "He who is without sin cast the first stone" or anything. She simply called homosexuality as one of the most awful crimes conceivable and didn't take any measures to explain why they shouldn't hate that.
Post by
Squishalot
The point is that she didn't teach her universalist theology or "Hate the sinner not the sin" or "He who is without sin cast the first stone" or anything. She simply called homosexuality as one of the most awful crimes conceivable and didn't take any measures to explain why they shouldn't hate that.
In the context of all the other awful crimes that are forgivable, that seems perfectly fine to me. She's already taught that you shouldn't hate, that God forgives all, etc. So there's nothing to hate - with said sinners, you should pity them and know that if they repent and confess, that God will forgive them. That's the line that you said she's been teaching to you.
Unless she has been saying that God wants sinners to burn in hell for their moral crimes (which seems out of step with what you're saying her beliefs are), then it appears that you're misreading the context of the 'abomination' that she's talking about.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.