Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights

[chappy]

The problem with Pascal's wager is that any deity who values belief without proof so highly is not a deity worth believing in.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

This makes absolutely zero sense. That's like saying because you saw a person being murdered you're a murderer if you didn't stop it by default. That's illogical.

If you don't approve of the murder, you're not a murderer. Though not saying anything in order to cover one's own ass is pretty bad, it isn't quite murder.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by chappy

The problem with Pascal's wager is that any deity who values belief without proof so highly is not a deity worth believing in.

This is like saying straight up that you don't believe in Jesus.

It's totally up to you and everyone else to decide what they believe, but some things have to be believed in order to be a Christian. There are obviously disagreements, even in the Christian community about where the limits are, but there have to be limits for Christianity to have any legitimacy.

In terms of your precise statement, God wants us to come to Him because we realize we need Him, but not because it's 100% logical. This is where my Hail Mary football reference comes in. No one can be 100% God exists, and God did that intentionally, if the decision is 100% logical, it's not faith.

Edit: I've never read Pascal's wager, gonna go read it now to see what it says. (lol, and here I am feeling so smart for coming up with this on my own)

What if you fell madly in love with someone and they said they'd marry you, but only because they were 100% certain marrying you would take care of the important things in life? That wouldn't be love or faith, that'd simply be self preservation. Does that sound like a good marriage to you?

And based on the paragraph before this one, I have a better understanding of why the church of believers is referred to as the bride of Christ. Thanks for that. :)

[chappy]

Originally Posted by jasong

This is like saying straight up that you don't believe in Jesus.

No it isn't. How does that follow as a logical consequent? It may mean I don't believe in YOUR version of Jesus. That should have been a given based upon every single thing we've ever posted on this forum.

However, if it will make you feel better I don't believe in Jesus. Not in any way that you could possibly mean that phrase. Further, as an adherent to the Christ Myth Theory, ala, GA Wells, I don't believe that any knowledge about a man who may have lived 2000 years ago can be separated from the myths that surround that man. In other words there is no evidence that such a man even existed, merely speculation based upon a number of disagreeing sources.

Originally Posted by jasong

It's totally up to you and everyone else to decide what they believe, but some things have to be believed in order to be a Christian. There are obviously disagreements, even in the Christian community about where the limits are, but there have to be limits for Christianity to have any legitimacy.

Granted. And maybe. and obviously. and why? just because you say so?
Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves Christians, but they don't believe that Jesus was the actual incarnation of God. (and they've got the better scriptural claim on that subject.) Marcionite Christians believed that Jesus was an unrelated new god, and rejected the particular Jewish form of Monolatry--and they also had a better scriptural claim given the character of the OT god is hard to square with the NT god. (see also Henoism)

Originally Posted by jasong

In terms of your precise statement, God wants us to come to Him because we realize we need Him, but not because it's 100% logical. This is where my Hail Mary football reference comes in. No one can be 100% God exists, and God did that intentionally, if the decision is 100% logical, it's not faith.

Why would god value something so stupid that I spend my whole life trying to teach children not to do? Why would god give us brains and make a universe that screams logic and laws if he or she didn't think that was the most important value--not some crazy notion that begs for internal inconsistency? That god makes no sense to me. And further, since I think that parents who act in the smallest possible way like the god you describe are horrible parents why would I worship such a being even if I believed in it? Fear of punishment is not morality.

Originally Posted by jasong

What if you fell madly in love with someone and they said they'd marry you, but only because they were 100% certain marrying you would take care of the important things in life? That wouldn't be love or faith, that'd simply be self preservation. Does that sound like a good marriage to you?

Depends on how hot she is. (sorry to be so flippant but even after reading this a couple times I'm not sure what you mean. Is storybook/disney love the only kind of love that creates lasting and successful marriages?)

Originally Posted by jasong

And based on the paragraph before this one, I have a better understanding of why the church of believers is referred to as the bride of Christ. Thanks for that. :)

Yeah, you've lost me completely.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by jasong

What if you fell madly in love with someone and they said they'd marry you, but only because they were 100% certain marrying you would take care of the important things in life? That wouldn't be love or faith, that'd simply be self preservation. Does that sound like a good marriage to you?

I'd love to take this particular paragraph up with you (Chappy has done a good job with the rest).

No, this does not sound like a good marriage to me. It does sound typical of some marriages in practice, though, including the situation where the opposite sex person with whom you have fallen in love is in fact lesbian or gay but their same sex attraction is repressed because their environment does not allow them to accept their true feelings. Marrying you will then seem like a good way of trying to pretend that they are heterosexual and can live a life which their relatives, friends, neighbours, and everyone will approve of. Some such marriages can even be quite happy for both parties ... for a few years. Long enough for the couple to have young children together, perhaps. But not for any longer than that.

Couldn't this person better be married to someone with whom they are genuinely in love if that other person is also in love with them? Someone of their own gender? Someone for whom the love will be genuine and lasting?

[jasong]

Chappy, you simply believe the way the devil wants you to believe, that's why it doesn't make sense to you. The things of God don't make sense to those who are not of God. All those things you rejected in your post make perfect sense to me.

As the Bible says to Christians,"Do not throw your pearls before swine, or they may trample them underfoot and then turn and rend(attack) you."

[chappy]

Originally Posted by jasong

Chappy, you simply believe the way the devil wants you to believe, that's why it doesn't make sense to you. The things of God don't make sense to those who are not of God. All those things you rejected in your post make perfect sense to me.

As the Bible says to Christians,"Do not throw your pearls before swine, or they may trample them underfoot and then turn and rend(attack) you."

Weakest apologetic response ever.

Here's what I propose given this level of discourse: I'll say to you, "Nuh uh!"

Then you'll reply, "Your Mom!"

And then tomorrow we can go back to being friends on the playground of math (Xyzzy is funny looking and their mom dresses them funny!)

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

I'd love to take this particular paragraph up with you (Chappy has done a good job with the rest).

No, this does not sound like a good marriage to me. It does sound typical of some marriages in practice, though, including the situation where the opposite sex person with whom you have fallen in love is in fact lesbian or gay but their same sex attraction is repressed because their environment does not allow them to accept their true feelings. Marrying you will then seem like a good way of trying to pretend that they are heterosexual and can live a life which their relatives, friends, neighbours, and everyone will approve of. Some such marriages can even be quite happy for both parties ... for a few years. Long enough for the couple to have young children together, perhaps. But not for any longer than that.

I must interject here that the above describes my parents and an aunt/uncle pair. My dad was most definitely homosexual, and I'm pretty sure my mom knew this before they married. My dad was a close friend of the gay uncle: my mom's next older brother. My uncle told me that my aunt was fully aware of his orientation before they married. My parents had five offspring who lived to adulthood. My aunt and uncle had two. Both of these couples remained together in marriage for more than 50 years, till death did them part. My father's explanation to me was that in the late 1940's there was no perceptible way to lead a fulfilling life in the deep underground of gay culture of the time.

Though there were obvious conflicts and stresses involved as there are in all long-term relationships, these were both loving and devoted couples till the end. In today's world the social setting has evolved so much that such relationships seem less viable or desirable, but in their times it seemed the way to go.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by kladner

I must interject here that the above describes my parents and an aunt/uncle pair. My dad was most definitely homosexual, and I'm pretty sure my mom knew this before they married. My dad was a close friend of the gay uncle: my mom's next older brother. My uncle told me that my aunt was fully aware of his orientation before they married. My parents had five offspring who lived to adulthood. My aunt and uncle had two. Both of these couples remained together in marriage for more than 50 years, till death did them part. My father's explanation to me was that in the late 1940's there was no perceptible way to lead a fulfilling life in the deep underground of gay culture of the time.

Though there were obvious conflicts and stresses involved as there are in all long-term relationships, these were both loving and devoted couples till the end. In today's world the social setting has evolved so much that such relationships seem less viable or desirable, but in their times it seemed the way to go.

Yes, clearly in the late 1940s family structures were so rigidly in place that anything other than the norm was simply unthinkable. And the loving stability of your parents' and aunt's and uncle's relationships shows that my dogmatic reference to "a few years" maximum for happiness in such a set-up is not a universal phenomenon. But even so, as you say, times have changed since then and the compulsory nature of traditional family structures is beginning to crumble, in some places faster than in others.

My own rather drastic solution to the problem of not being accepted for my own homosexuality was to move with my partner permanently to another country which, at the time (1993), was much further advanced in social acceptance of same sex relationships than the country in which we were both born. But it has to be said that we were extremely lucky to have that option available to us. And again, times had changed and unlike our ancestors we no longer felt forced to accept oppressive social norms which went against our true nature.

[kladner]

@ Brian-E- I am glad, and a bit envious that you were able to make that move. The Netherlands seems to be one of the few most enlightened countries anywhere. It has always seemed rather paradoxical that the Dutch often are described as generally socially conservative, and yet they have followed trend-setting, highly practical choices in many areas. Perhaps the characterization as a conservative people is just plain dated.

[kladner]

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/09/165276...-gay-christian

The entire interview will become available as audio at approximately 7 PM ET.

Excerpt:

"Justin Lee was raised in a conservative Southern Baptist home. He had two loving parents, and was deeply committed to his faith. In school, classmates even referred to him as "God Boy" because of his devotion. But, as he was entering high school, Lee's whole world began to change, as he came face-to-face with feelings that he'd tried for many years to suppress.
"I didn't know I was gay at first, because I was the kid who was preaching against folks accepting themselves as gay," he tells Guy Raz, host of weekends on All Things Considered.
Lee formed the Gay Christian Network in 2001 to try and help other gay Christian kids and their families talk to one another, as well as with their respective churches. His new book is called Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays Vs. Christians Debate."