Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers (it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Gifts and supplies for the musician
SEARCH
the Forums & Piano World

This custom search works much better than the built in one and allows searching older posts.
Ad (Piano Sing)
How to Make Your Piano Sing
(ad) Pearl River
Pearl River Pianos
(ad 125) Sweetwater - Digital Keyboards & Other Gear
Digital Pianos at Sweetwater
(ad) Pianoteq
(ad) P B Guide
Acoustic & Digital Piano Guide
Who's Online
122 registered (Anita Potter, accordeur, AZNpiano, Auver, ando, 34 invisible), 1400 Guests and 15 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Quick Links to Useful Piano & Music Resources
Our Classified Ads
Find Piano Professionals-

*Piano Dealers - Piano Stores
*Piano Tuners
*Piano Teachers
*Piano Movers
*Piano Restorations
*Piano Manufacturers
*Organs

Quick Links:
*Advertise On Piano World
*Free Piano Newsletter
*Online Piano Recitals
*Piano Recitals Index
*Piano & Music Accessories
*Music School Listings
* Buying a Piano
*Buying A Acoustic Piano
*Buying a Digital Piano
*Pianos for Sale
*Sell Your Piano
*How Old is My Piano?
*Piano Books
*Piano Art, Pictures, & Posters
*Directory/Site Map
*Contest
*Links
*Virtual Piano
*Music Word Search
*Piano Screen Saver
*Piano Videos
*Virtual Piano Chords
(ad) Estonia Piano
Estonia Pianos
Page 5 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Topic Options
#770146 - 02/25/05 09:53 AM Re: To Christians
RZ Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/05/04
Posts: 515
Loc: Anaheim, CA
 Quote:
Originally posted by Kincaid:
I think the anus was "designed" (or evolved, if one prefers) to assist in ridding the body of waste products. I don't think it was meant to be used in any other fashion. If 40% of gays and 20% of straights use the anus to pleasure their partners, it can cause unfortunate consequences. I think these health problems are decidedly unhealthy. [/b]
Oh my goodness. It has been a long time since I have seen any argument such as this seriously stated.

Do you reject oral sex because the mouth was made for eating and talking? Do you reject manual manipulation because the bad was meant to hold things and the scratch itches? Do you reject sexual attention being paid to women's breasts becauyse they were design to feed infants? Do you reject those who may incorporate legs and feet into their sexual activity because they were meant for walking?

Is there any other part of the human body that you think needs to be rejected for use for sexual purposes because it's primary design was for non-sexual use? Or is it just the anus that you think is set aside for only one purpose and thus cannot have a dual function?

Top
Piano & Music Accessories
#770147 - 02/25/05 09:58 AM Re: To Christians
RZ Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/05/04
Posts: 515
Loc: Anaheim, CA
 Quote:
Originally posted by Horace:
It is massively correlated with homosexuality in this country. In Africa, the vectors of the virus are different. [/b]
But this country is not the universe. If AIDS is correlated with homosexuality, then this correlation would follow in all places we find AIDS. It obviously does not.

Hence, there can be no valid correlation made nor argument for such a correlation.

AIDS is a pandemic that afflicts the human race. It is a threat to all of mankind. To the extent we put our head in the sand and pretend that it primarily afflicts homoisexuals because those are the statistics in this country, we put ourselves and all of mankind at grave risk.

Top
#770148 - 02/25/05 10:00 AM Re: To Christians
Kincaid Offline
Full Member

Registered: 09/24/04
Posts: 476
Loc: Portland, Oregon
 Quote:
Originally posted by RZ:
 Quote:
Originally posted by Kincaid:
 Quote:
Originally posted by Matt G.:
quote:
Originally posted by Kincaid:
Not to mention HIV and AIDS. [/b]
Are you of the opinion that these are a consequence of homosexual activity? Someone needs a biology lesson.... [/b]
I am of the opinion that HIV and AIDS have affected the gay community much more so than the straight community. This is, I imagine, due to the issue of promiscuity. At this point, I would also add that I think Kathyk has a lot of common sense on the issue of male v. female promiscuity. [/b]
You may wish to study the horrendous statsistics coming out of Africa. AIDS has nothing to do with homosexuality.
I understand that AIDS is not a "gay disease" but to say it has "nothing to do with homosexuality" seems disingenuous.
_________________________
Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. (1 Pet 4:7-8 NIV)

Top
#770149 - 02/25/05 10:03 AM Re: To Christians
Kincaid Offline
Full Member

Registered: 09/24/04
Posts: 476
Loc: Portland, Oregon
 Quote:
Originally posted by RZ:
 Quote:
Originally posted by Kincaid:
I think the anus was "designed" (or evolved, if one prefers) to assist in ridding the body of waste products. I don't think it was meant to be used in any other fashion. If 40% of gays and 20% of straights use the anus to pleasure their partners, it can cause unfortunate consequences. I think these health problems are decidedly unhealthy. [/b]
Oh my goodness. It has been a long time since I have seen any argument such as this seriously stated.

Do you reject oral sex because the mouth was made for eating and talking? Do you reject manual manipulation because the bad was meant to hold things and the scratch itches? Do you reject sexual attention being paid to women's breasts becauyse they were design to feed infants? Do you reject those who may incorporate legs and feet into their sexual activity because they were meant for walking?

Is there any other part of the human body that you think needs to be rejected for use for sexual purposes because it's primary design was for non-sexual use? Or is it just the anus that you think is set aside for only one purpose and thus cannot have a dual function? [/b]
Did I say that the anus shouldn't be used for sex? I just said it exposed practitioners to health risks.
_________________________
Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. (1 Pet 4:7-8 NIV)

Top
#770150 - 02/25/05 10:03 AM Re: To Christians
Dwain Lee Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 2419
Loc: Columbus, Ohio
 Quote:
Originally posted by TimR:
But Dwain, I AM a Christian.

And yet I am unable to see any difference at all in the expression of love within marriage. This is based on my sincere attempt to understand the intent of scripture. (I am not a literalist nor a fundamentalist, admittedly. Proudly admittedly ) [/b]
OK. Then we are both Christians, neither of us is a literalist or a fundamentalist, and we both sincerley search the scriptures for meaning and God's will. And we've come up with different interpretations. So, we offer and discuss our differing opinions in a thread that asks for Christians to discuss the issues of fornication and gay sex. I don't argue with your sincerity or your ultimate interpretation, and I certainly never claimed to speak for all Christians. In previous threads about this issue, I've pointed to particular Christian denominations that hold views opposite mine, and closer to yours. I've tried pretty distinctly to identify my interpretations as mine, and as being consistent with "traditional Christian theology." That doesn't mean that there aren't differing viewpoints within the faith. You and I will never get into a fistfight just because we disagree on the issue; my only point at all was only to express my own beliefs.

 Quote:
I have yet to see a counterargument that is not based on either some active homosexual hatred, or some personal "gross-out" factor, and then is supported ex post facto by twisting some scripture. [/b]
My position is not based on either homosexual hatred or personal "gross out" factor - although some in the forum would, and have, accused me of this. My posititions are based on scriptural references, which I don't believe have to be twisted to understand. My personal opinion is that they have to be twisted to be disregarded or ignored. And that doesn't come at any joy to me, personally. I actually wish that the scriptures did say that homosexual sex was in accordance with God's ideal; over the years it would have eliminated a lot of prejudice and harm against gays, and a lot of resentment from gays directed at God. But the scriptures are what they are, and so far, I have found no way consistent with sound practice, to simply say, "well, these are just mistakes, or they don't apply to today."

 Quote:
However, my conscience connvinces me it is the right thing to do. WJWD. [/b]
God alone is lord of the conscience, and whether we're talking about you, or me, it's to God we're both accountable. If you believe as you do, then in good conscience, you should find a denomination that supports your interpretation, or work within your existing denomination to change its stance to reflect your deeply held beliefs. You and I will never really know who's right or wrong until such time as it's a moot point anyway; and besides, my criteria for determining who is, or is not, a Christian is fully expressed in the Apostle's Creed:

"I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived of the Holy Spirit; born of the virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into Hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascendeth into Heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit; the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting."

Anyone who can honestly profess those things is a Christian. And I don't see anything in there about gays one way or the other.

WWJD? Jesus would love. But love is often not easy, or warm and fuzzy, or even appreciated.

Top
#770151 - 02/25/05 10:06 AM Re: To Christians
MusicMagellan Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/21/04
Posts: 1157
Loc: NY
Kincaid,

As per your request, the references I cited apparently were returned to an in-law (a psychiatrist) who loaned them to me.

However, you can find many decent, if slightly dated, citations in the following:

Steven Pinker "the blank slate"
Matt Ridley "Nature via Nurture"

In particular, Ridley addresses the brother birth sequence effect on pp 159-163. He also touches briefly on the well-trodden secular morality issue of the male sex drive bouncing off another male’s sex drive.

P.S. This was originally a meatier post, but my computer crashed and so this is a sufficient chunk of the original.
_________________________
(watch this space)

Top
#770152 - 02/25/05 10:07 AM Re: To Christians
Kincaid Offline
Full Member

Registered: 09/24/04
Posts: 476
Loc: Portland, Oregon
 Quote:
Originally posted by RZ:
 Quote:
Originally posted by Horace:
It is massively correlated with homosexuality in this country. In Africa, the vectors of the virus are different. [/b]
But this country is not the universe. If AIDS is correlated with homosexuality, then this correlation would follow in all places we find AIDS. It obviously does not.

Hence, there can be no valid correlation made nor argument for such a correlation.

AIDS is a pandemic that afflicts the human race. It is a threat to all of mankind. To the extent we put our head in the sand and pretend that it primarily afflicts homoisexuals because those are the statistics in this country, we put ourselves and all of mankind at grave risk. [/b]
I think you're making some erroneous value judgements here, that is, if you think Horace and I are somehow oblivious to the threat of AIDS or are letting our beliefs get in the way of affectively dealing with it. I denounce promiscuity and support research to find a cure for AIDS and HIV.
_________________________
Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. (1 Pet 4:7-8 NIV)

Top
#770153 - 02/25/05 10:16 AM Re: To Christians
KlavierBauer Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/06/02
Posts: 3773
Loc: Boulder, Colorado
Oh my... what a turn it's taken while I was sleeping!

First, I think we should leave the Church out of it. The Early Church Fathers were VERY clear on this issue, and while logical arguments may abound elsewhere, saying that Christ or the Church condoned homosexual marriage is a mighty stretch.
As an anglican I would think you to be very familiar with the Church Father's writings in general on such subjects.


Secondly... and again with all other logical arguments aside...
Is anyone really arguing that promiscuity has no relation to homosexuality? This relationship may not be causal, but certainly the two know each other. I am not supposing that all homosexual men are promiscuous (of the gay men I know, none are promiscuous), but certainly in general[/b] as KathyK said, this demographic has been more promiscuous than others has it not?
_________________________
Outlive Yourself - Become an Organ Donor

Top
#770154 - 02/25/05 11:16 AM Re: To Christians
Siddhartha Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/08/04
Posts: 1244
Loc: Cleveland, Ohio
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dwain Lee:
If, indeed, religious faith truly were so obviously of earthly origins, and a solely human construct, it would seem ridiculous - I'd even say impossible - for any thinking person to adhere to religious faith. The fact that so many, self included, actually do, and that we are equally convinced of its non-human origin, by definition negates the supposition that its falsehood is as obvious as you think.[/b][QUOTE]

Fair enough, I'll concede that it is obvious to me, and to many many people I've talked to on the subject.

[QUOTE]Actually, the reverse is true. One of the truly remarkable aspects of human existence is that regardless of time, place, or circumstance, the vast majority of humans have shown a belief in a deity or deities. The varieties of this expression have been many, but it is unquestionable that the norm of human existence is to have an innate understanding, and belief, that there is a supreme entity or entities of some description to which they are, in varying degrees, accountable to or originating from. Even more confounding than the fact that such beliefs are so universal, is the fact that they also exist - thrive, even - at times and places when such belief is uncomfortable, or trying to be quashed, even to the point of physical harm or death. The fact that so many have been willing to die for their religion indicates how deeply the beliefs are held, and how convinced the particular person is that their belief is significantly more than myth. Given those facts, the concept of atheism, or nontheism, is actually the human anomaly, not the other way around. And it is therefore up to them to offer concrete proof of their belief that, contrary to the overwhelming understanding of human experience throughout time and place, God does not exist.
[/b][quote]

No, the reverse is NOT true. Nontheism may be the anomaly, but that does shift the burden of proof. I dont argue that there is no god, i argue that you cant prove or know that there is and that the religious constructs as we see them are of earthly origin (which is very different from claiming no god) and that generally is the intellectual argument.

But since the lot on your side of the fence are the ones claiming it as fact, yes the burden of proof falls on you. I dont have to prove there is no god, because I'm not claiming such. You ARE claiming there is. The amount of people in agreement is utterly irrelevant to that. As I've said before, at one time everyone on the planet beleived in witches, that means nothing whatsoever, and has no place in a rational discussion.

I'm sure your quite familiar with the notions of how the human mind, in its subjectivity, may be prone to needing to invent the existence of god. What we know of psychology today can plot a fairly straightforward path from the human condition to the need for belief in god. I'm sure thats not new to you. So I guess I'm just not seeing anything that calls me to discount the dynamics of mythology and psychology (and a few other ologies) to explain the existence of these religious constructs. And that perspective is consistent with the ever evolving definitions of religions and cultural ties that are so evident.

You're the one saying theres somethign to it more than that. so I dont see how you feel I need to prove anything here. You're the one making the claims.
_________________________
I was born the year Glenn Gould stop playing concerts. Coincidence?

Top
#770155 - 02/25/05 01:04 PM Re: To Christians
Jeffrey Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/18/04
Posts: 2948
Loc: New York
Dwain: "To be honest, I've never seen you offer a single "proof" of your beliefs, either - especially here and now. You only offer categorical statements, with even far less explanation and reason than I've offered."

This was said w/r/t the idea that homosexual relations were a good and desirable thing. I will summarize: (1) Pleasure is in itself a good thing (2) Emotional bonding between humans is a good thing (3) Sexuality plays the same special and valuble emotional an psychic role in a homosexual's life as it does in yours and my life.

Any of these premises supports the idea that homosexual sex acts are a prima facie good thing, unless someone provides a reason (such as harm to a third person) otherwise. The default assumption is in favor of (voluntary) homosexual sex acts, unless there are countervailing reasons. Again, no argument against these good things has ever been provided in this thread or others, except "God says so."

" In fact, I get the impression that your search/research is far more than just an intellectual pursuit; it's far more driven than would be explained by a simple academic interest."

This comes from not knowing each other. I am similarly interested in other pursuits as well.

Somewhere above you said that the fact that most human societies have had some religion speaks to the truth of religion. Rather, since they can't all be correct, it speaks to their all being false.

Top
#770156 - 02/25/05 01:42 PM Re: To Christians
Kincaid Offline
Full Member

Registered: 09/24/04
Posts: 476
Loc: Portland, Oregon
 Quote:
Originally posted by Jeffrey:
The default assumption is in favor of (voluntary) homosexual sex acts, unless there are countervailing reasons. Again, no argument against these good things has ever been provided in this thread or others, except "God says so."
[/b]
Is anal cancer a "countervailing reason"? According to J. R. Daling et.al, "Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer," Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no.14, 9 April 1982, pp. 1988-90, the risk of anal cancer soars by 4,000 percent among those who engage in such intercourse.
_________________________
Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. (1 Pet 4:7-8 NIV)

Top
#770157 - 02/25/05 01:54 PM Re: To Christians
Jeffrey Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/18/04
Posts: 2948
Loc: New York
Kincaid - May I assume then that you find homosexual oral and manual sex ok? Lesbianism too?? And that your problem with anal sex applies to both the homo and heterosexual versions?

Top
#770158 - 02/25/05 02:14 PM Re: To Christians
Kincaid Offline
Full Member

Registered: 09/24/04
Posts: 476
Loc: Portland, Oregon
I feel anal sex is always a poor substitute, in any kind of relationship, as the health aspects are undeniable. Regarding homosexual sex other than that, I do not have a firm position on it. I probably am more aligned with Dwain Lee but I have not made up my mind.

Regarding being gay, I do not feel that it is any more sinful then being straight. We all sin and fall short of the Glory of God. As I think I said before, I do not see homosexuality as a choice. Acting on homosexual desires is another matter, and I think (but am not ready to come fully to this conclusion) it is against God.
_________________________
Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. (1 Pet 4:7-8 NIV)

Top
#770159 - 02/25/05 02:17 PM Re: To Christians
Kincaid Offline
Full Member

Registered: 09/24/04
Posts: 476
Loc: Portland, Oregon
 Quote:
Originally posted by Kincaid:
Regarding homosexual sex...I do not have a firm position on it. [/b]
Okay, waiting for the jokes! JBryan?

BTW, nothing more titillating to me than a couple of women going at it! :p
_________________________
Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. (1 Pet 4:7-8 NIV)

Top
#770160 - 02/25/05 02:25 PM Re: To Christians
Dwain Lee Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 2419
Loc: Columbus, Ohio
 Quote:
Originally posted by Siddhartha:
No, the reverse is NOT true. Nontheism may be the anomaly, but that does shift the burden of proof. [/b]
Sure it does.

I am a believer. I will tell you what I believe, and why. In all of the many words that I've typed on PW, I don't think I've ever tried to post the various evidences that have led me to what and why I believe (the "why" I discuss here is a "why" of secondary nature: why, as a believer, I believe X in light of my faith, but not why I am a Christian believer to begin with). I don't come to the CR to try to convince anyone to believe the way I do. I do so because a.)this would be a pretty stupid and awkward way to do that, and b.)I believe that even if I had concrete evidence - say, God's dental records or his graduation picture - a person can still only know of God's existence by means of God first reaching to the person, to allow their heart and intellect understand and know. I can't control that, so you will never see me, frothing at the mouth, Bible in hand, trying to beat someone into Christian belief. It's simply not my, or any other Christian's, job to "prove" God to any other person. Even if I knew you personally, and we ended up in the larger discussion of why I believe, I would still not be trying to "prove" it to you, I would only be explaining to you why I, personally, believe.

OTOH, if you're going to cross the fence, and try to tell me why I (or the majority of humans) should NOT believe what we do (and in that regard, I'm speaking strictly about a theistic outlook, nothing near the specifics of Christian belief), then you're going to need some awfully strong "proof" to contradict what we "know."

 Quote:

I dont argue that there is no god, i argue that you cant [/b]
a.)

 Quote:
prove [/b]
That's one thing.

b.)

 Quote:
or know [/b]
That's something totally different. See above.

 Quote:
I'm sure your quite familiar with the notions of how the human mind, in its subjectivity, may be prone to needing to invent the existence of god. What we know of psychology today can plot a fairly straightforward path from the human condition to the need for belief in god. I'm sure thats not new to you. [/b]
Yes, I'm familiar with these notions. I'm also familiar with the concept of interpreting the exact same phenomena as being an evidence for the actual existence of God. In other words, the internal need for a God in one's life is not merely a chemical/mental process, but one that is actually implanted in the human being by a Creator God as a means of pointing the human toward Himself. That we can "plot a fairly straightforward path from the human condition to the need for belief in god" is hardly evidence of no God; it can quite easily be seen as one manner in which the Creator reaches to the creature and points the creature in a certain intended direction.

Top
#770161 - 02/25/05 03:06 PM Re: To Christians
Horace Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/28/04
Posts: 505
 Quote:
Originally posted by Dwain Lee:
a person can still only know of God's existence by means of God first reaching to the person[/b]
Is this an official position of the church? If so, does the church have an official position on how God chooses people to reach out to? Do you have your own ideas on that subject? Or is it inscrutible to humans, by definition, and therefore effectively (from our perspective) completely random, who God chooses? I'd also be curious to know your guess about how many self-proclaimed Christians actually have been chosen by God to believe, and how many don't really believe even though they think they do (since unless you've been chosen you can't really believe in the same way that the chosen do). Is there any way God can choose someone from a culture that isn't exposed to His teachings?

Top
#770162 - 02/25/05 03:16 PM Re: To Christians
Dwain Lee Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 2419
Loc: Columbus, Ohio
 Quote:
Originally posted by Jeffrey:
This was said w/r/t the idea that homosexual relations were a good and desirable thing. I will summarize: (1) Pleasure is in itself a good thing (2) Emotional bonding between humans is a good thing (3) Sexuality plays the same special and valuble emotional an psychic role in a homosexual's life as it does in yours and my life. Any of these premises supports the idea that homosexual sex acts are a prima facie good thing, unless someone provides a reason (such as harm to a third person) otherwise. [/b]
This is a pretty important qualification. But let me take your three points in order:

"(1) Pleasure is in itself a good thing."

Pleasure is a good thing. In my view, it's not merely a good thing, but is a gift from God. But it is certainly possible to seek pleasure to excess, to the detriment of other important things, to the point that pleasure can be not only not a good thing, but actually be a very bad thing. And this holds true even if we're discussing an individual with no family, no ties to others, no commitments to anyone other than himself. I can, but won't, list all sorts of activities, whether egaged in excess or even sporadically, that can give pleasure but which are harmful to the self, and therefore, not good.

"(2) Emotional bonding between humans is a good thing."

True in general, but again, not a universal constant - and the case you're trying to build depends heavily on these three things to be unversally constant. It is not a good thing for a married person to bond emotionally with a person not their spouse. It is not good for a person to emotionally bond with another person whose destructive nature will cause harm to the other.

"(3) Sexuality plays the same special and valuble emotional and psychic role in a homosexual's life as it does in yours and my life."

It can, but this ties very closely with your first two points. As I said regarding them, there are instances where an excess of, or misapplication of something good, makes the thing itself not good. This is not to deny or negate the real emotional and psychic connection enjoyed by a homosexual in a loving relationship at all. It does question the appropriateness, in the eyes of God, of the relationship. I can have a loving, emotionally/psychically connected relationship with a woman other than my wife, but all of the very real emotions and feelings that the relationship might cause does not make the relationship good or proper.

This is where I'll be accused of being unfair to gay couples - that I would deny them the same sexual connection and enjoyment that I, a stright man, am able to enjoy. It's so unfair, and is a double standard. But it isn't a double standard. I am under the same burden to deny myself of many pleasures that I would love to do - have loved doing - but I am told, as a Christian, is not in accordance with God's ideal, and I must turn away from. Sexual desire is one of the strongest urges in human existence, but it is not the only seemingly irresistible urge that dives us in diretions other than God's ideal. I've often thought "It's not fair" that I can't engage in things that I see other non-Christians doing, and even physically, financially, or in other ways benefittting from. "Why do I have to suffer with this higher standard? If I'm supposed to behave this way, why didn't you make me so it would be easy?"

I don't claim to understand the "why" of every bit of my faith - but I do know the "what," that despite those real, sometimes painful pleas and arguments, Jesus says that if I would follow him, I must deny my self and follow in his path, following his Word.

Yes, this is from a Christian perspective. No, I don't expect a non-Christian to have to adhere to these requirements, or even for every Christian to believe exactly the same as me. I've said that many, many times. I'm only explaining my beliefs regarding the issue, and how they relate to my faith.

 Quote:
" In fact, I get the impression that your search/research is far more than just an intellectual pursuit; it's far more driven than would be explained by a simple academic interest."

This comes from not knowing each other. I am similarly interested in other pursuits as well. [/b]
You're right, we don't know each other well. But from what I do know of you, I have a tremendous respect for you as a person. The fact that you have other driving pursuits doesn't negate my sense that in this topic you are at your most intense and passionate, and where your passion is, your heart is. Like I said, despite your position counter to mine, I honor your pursuit. And I was serious - and if it sounded patronizing, know that that wasn't the intention - that I wouldn't be surprised if your ongoing search ultimately took you in places that will surprise you.

 Quote:
Somewhere above you said that the fact that most human societies have had some religion speaks to the truth of religion. Rather, since they can't all be correct, it speaks to their all being false. [/b]
Or all partially right - and all being more essentially right than the non-theistic view.

My comment about the majority of humans, past or present, having a theistic belief was just that - a baseline commentary on theism. As I said to Siddartha, that's a far cry from the Christian belief that I hold. But since I was told earlier that it was my burden "prove" God - and not the more specific Christian God - reference to all theists is justifiable. But as I said to Sid, I'm not trying to "prove" my particular faith to anyone. As such, I'm only pointing out under what circumstances, and to whom, a burden of proof of one's argument would lie.

Top
#770163 - 02/25/05 03:23 PM Re: To Christians
Dwain Lee Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 2419
Loc: Columbus, Ohio
Gee Horace, you got an awful lot of questions in there, and all of them good. I've got to go to dinner right now, but I promise I'll either anser your questions, or give you my take on them, or both, as appropriate to each of your questions, before the end of the night.

Top
#770164 - 02/25/05 03:35 PM Re: To Christians
Jeffrey Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/18/04
Posts: 2948
Loc: New York
Dwain: "This is where I'll be accused of being unfair to gay couples - that I would deny them the same sexual connection and enjoyment that I, a stright man, am able to enjoy. It's so unfair, and is a double standard. But it isn't a double standard. I am under the same burden to deny myself of many pleasures that I would love to do - have loved doing - but I am told, as a Christian, is not in accordance with God's ideal, and I must turn away from. Sexual desire is one of the strongest urges in human existence, but it is not the only seemingly irresistible urge that dives us in diretions other than God's ideal. I've often thought "It's not fair" that I can't engage in things that I see other non-Christians doing, and even physically, financially, or in other ways benefittting from. "Why do I have to suffer with this higher standard? If I'm supposed to behave this way, why didn't you make me so it would be easy?"

Dwain, would you castrate yourself based on the arguments you've given? This is essentially what you ask of (male) homosexuals. Even if you say yes, I very much doubt that this will be the general answer.

I'll say I've proven this much: any heterosexual Christian male against homosexual sex acts outside marriage (and not willing to let gays marry) and not willing to castrate themselves, is guilty of discrimination and bias against homosexuals.

Top
#770165 - 02/25/05 03:40 PM Re: To Christians
Kincaid Offline
Full Member

Registered: 09/24/04
Posts: 476
Loc: Portland, Oregon
 Quote:
Originally posted by MusicMagellan:
However, you can find many decent, if slightly dated, citations in the following:

Steven Pinker "the blank slate"
Matt Ridley "Nature via Nurture" [/b]
Sorry to be so delinquent, but thank you very much, MM!
_________________________
Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. (1 Pet 4:7-8 NIV)

Top
#770166 - 02/25/05 03:42 PM Re: To Christians
Jeffrey Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/18/04
Posts: 2948
Loc: New York
Dwain: "I can have a loving, emotionally/psychically connected relationship with a woman other than my wife, but all of the very real emotions and feelings that the relationship might cause does not make the relationship good or proper."

This example and most of the other "counter-examples" you give involve a violation of the informed voluntary consent doctrine I said supported my view of sexual ethics. Such a relationship as you describe violates this because it involves lying or deception towards the wife. It is therefore coercive towards her. If she agrees and you have an open marriage, then there is no problem in my view.

Again, all three things above (in the context of informed voluntary consent for all relevant parties - I didn't repeat this criterion above, since I had said it about 50 times in the recent threads), are positive goods, and support the view that homosexual relations are valuble things that should not be suppressed. Your view has the burden of proof that something apparently good, is not really so.

Top
#770167 - 02/25/05 04:03 PM Re: To Christians
Siddhartha Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/08/04
Posts: 1244
Loc: Cleveland, Ohio
 Quote:
Originally posted by Dwain Lee:
 Quote:
Originally posted by Siddhartha:
No, the reverse is NOT true. Nontheism may be the anomaly, but that does shift the burden of proof. [/b]
Sure it does.

[/b]
I'm assuming you understood that was a typo, and I meant DOESNT shift the burden.


But regardless. We're not connecting. none of your treatise sheds any light on why the burden of proof is on me. In fact it seems you drifted and forgot that question (unless I misunderstood).

And aside from the burden issue itself, you keep putting on me that I'm claiming there is no god. I have stated many many times that is not and has never been my claim. So I dont know what else to say, but I'm tired and this is futile.

And we have different perception of very fundamental tenats like what it means to "know" something (in this case, to know there is god). If we cant agree on a simple definition of a word, we cant have the subsequent discussion about it. And I find that endless circular rhetorical quibbling over such things is not envigorating but rather the opposite.

I find you actually to be a very refreshing voice on this forum in that you maintain unyielding composure and never resort to hate speech and personal attacks like many others here. And I thank you for that. And I would be very interested in having an exchange of ideas on this subject with you, but again, we just cant seem to get past rhetoric. That is partly the nature of the beast of online forums.

So I respectfully step off this discussion with you. I'm sure we'll exchange again in the not too distant future, but since we've hit the point of diminishing returns here, I'd rather we part smiling for now.

Cheers.
_________________________
I was born the year Glenn Gould stop playing concerts. Coincidence?

Top
#770168 - 02/25/05 04:11 PM Re: To Christians
KlavierBauer Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/06/02
Posts: 3773
Loc: Boulder, Colorado
Sid said:
 Quote:
And we have different perception of very fundamental tenats like what it means to "know" something (in this case, to know there is god). If we cant agree on a simple definition of a word, we cant have the subsequent discussion about it. And I find that endless circular rhetorical quibbling over such things is not envigorating but rather the opposite.
Sid, this is what I was really trying to get you to understand earlier either in this thread or the other (they're beginning to blur).
Remember our whole misunderstanding about understanding? \:\)
I was simply alluding to what you've written above; that we simply have some different definitions, or assumptions, that affect the rest of reasoning down the line. We have some fundamentally different understandings, and it makes discussion hard, especially when we're not doing so in person.

So.. to clarify, I'm writing right now to agree with you, not argue a point \:\)
_________________________
Outlive Yourself - Become an Organ Donor

Top
#770169 - 02/25/05 05:12 PM Re: To Christians
Dwain Lee Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 2419
Loc: Columbus, Ohio
 Quote:
Originally posted by Jeffrey:
Dwain, would you castrate yourself based on the arguments you've given? [/b]
Your question implies that you believe that the only way to not act on one's sexual desires is to remove one's sex organs. Since this is not true, whether discussing homosexuals or heterosexuals, the point you're trying to make is not valid.

Top
#770170 - 02/25/05 05:26 PM Re: To Christians
Dwain Lee Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 2419
Loc: Columbus, Ohio
 Quote:
Originally posted by Jeffrey:
This example and most of the other "counter-examples" you give involve a violation of the informed voluntary consent doctrine...If she agrees and you have an open marriage, then there is no problem in my view....Again, all three things above (in the context of informed voluntary consent for all relevant parties - I didn't repeat this criterion above, since I had said it about 50 times in the recent threads)....[/b]
Repeating that criterion was unnecessary; I understood it. I was pointing out that to me, damage is not limited to solely "third parties," but to the individual: in many cases, excessive seeking of pleasure, in whatever form, harms third parties, but it harms the individual himself, in every case. That's the harm that I was referring to. In this case specifically, I mean that any person, doing anything that is contrary to God's ideal for humanity, is driving himself further from God, and is therefore harming himself.

 Quote:
Your view has the burden of proof that something apparently good, is not really so. [/b]
That's not much of a burden, if all that I have to do is prove that your three criteria aren't universals. Surely, you don't believe in the universality of the three concepts you've identified. And once there's one exception to them - and there are exceptions to all three - their use to support your position continually diminishes with every exception.

Top
#770171 - 02/25/05 05:42 PM Re: To Christians
Dwain Lee Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 2419
Loc: Columbus, Ohio
Sid, I know you want to "disengage," but I'm going to reply - briefly - to your post. Don't worry, I don't think any of it will be controversial or give you any burning desire to reply/rebut.

 Quote:
Originally posted by Siddhartha:
I'm assuming you understood that was a typo, and I meant DOESNT shift the burden. [/b]
Understood.

 Quote:
We're not connecting. none of your treatise sheds any light on why the burden of proof is on me. In fact it seems you drifted and forgot that question (unless I misunderstood). [/b]
You did. The purpose of my "drift" was only to explain that I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone about how they should believe; so if there is a burden of proof on anyone, it would only be on someone trying to prove something to me. That may or may not be you, but it surely isn't me.

 Quote:
...that I'm claiming there is no god. I have stated many many times that is not and has never been my claim. [/b]
I got that point; it came through loud and clear.

 Quote:
And I find that endless circular rhetorical quibbling over such things is not envigorating but rather the opposite. [/b]
Same here, believe it or not. I don't know if you noticed, but I had "disengaged" from this thread earlier myself. The only reason I jumped back in, in fact, was that Jeffrey replied directly to me, and as I said before, despite our obvious differences, I enjoy chatting with him when I have the time to do so. So relax, this reply is definitely not an attempt to continue the merry go round. ;\)

 Quote:
I find you actually to be a very refreshing voice on this forum in that you maintain unyielding composure and never resort to hate speech and personal attacks like many others here. And I thank you for that.[/b]
You're welcome, and thank you for the compliment - although I have had some of my viewpoints characterized as hate speech in the past, and I suppose, will again in the future.

 Quote:
I'm sure we'll exchange again in the not too distant future, but since we've hit the point of diminishing returns here, I'd rather we part smiling for now. Cheers. [/b]
Peace.

Top
#770172 - 02/25/05 05:44 PM Re: To Christians
Jeffrey Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/18/04
Posts: 2948
Loc: New York
Dwain: "Your question implies that you believe that the only way to not act on one's sexual desires is to remove one's sex organs."

No, it implies that it is a similar loss of one's sexual personality. The operation is painless, and hormone replacement therapy makes it safe long term. This is similar to what you propose to gays. Again, are you willing to give up your sexual personality in this way in total and irrevocably? This is what you recommend to gays, so it is not an unfair question. (Perhaps you would allow them masturbation, just not with another person of the same sex present?)

Top
#770173 - 02/25/05 06:36 PM Re: To Christians
Dwain Lee Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 2419
Loc: Columbus, Ohio

Top
#770174 - 02/25/05 06:44 PM Re: To Christians
Dwain Lee Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 2419
Loc: Columbus, Ohio
 Quote:
Originally posted by Jeffrey:
Dwain: "Your question implies that you believe that the only way to not act on one's sexual desires is to remove one's sex organs."

No, it implies that it is a similar loss of one's sexual personality. The operation is painless, and hormone replacement therapy makes it safe long term. This is similar to what you propose to gays. Again, are you willing to give up your sexual personality in this way in total and irrevocably? This is what you recommend to gays, so it is not an unfair question. (Perhaps you would allow them masturbation, just not with another person of the same sex present?) [/b]
My reply has nothing to do with whether castration is painful or unsafe. It has everything to do with your apparent position that castration is the only way to not act on one's sexual urges.

Top
#770175 - 02/25/05 06:51 PM Re: To Christians
RZ Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/05/04
Posts: 515
Loc: Anaheim, CA
 Quote:
Originally posted by Dwain Lee:
 Quote:
Originally posted by Horace:
 Quote:
Originally posted by Dwain Lee:
a person can still only know of God's existence by means of God first reaching to the person[/b]
Is this an official position of the church? [/b]
It is the official position of much, if not most, of the Christian church. [/b]
Be careful how you characterize this, Dwain. This is not the position of the Catholic Church, which represents close to 2/3's of the Christian Church. Nor is it the position of the Orthodox Churches, if I recall correctly.

The emphasis on a selective God, the idea that God has not called all men or does not reveal Himself to all men is almost uniquely Calvinistic Protestantism.

Top
Page 5 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

What's Hot!!
Christmas Header
- > Gift Ideas for Music Lovers < -
From PianoSupplies.com a division of Piano World.
-------------------
The December Free Piano Newsletter
-------------------
Forums Rules & Help
-------------------
ADVERTISE
on Piano World

The world's most popular piano web site.
-------------------
PIANO BOOKS
Interesting books about the piano, pianists, piano history, biographies, memoirs and more!
(ad) Yamaha CP Music Rest Promo
Yamaha CP Music Rest Promo
(ad) HAILUN Pianos
Hailun Pianos - Click for More
Ad (Seiler/Knabe)
Seiler Pianos
(125ad) Dampp Chaser
Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver
(ad) Lindeblad Piano
Lindeblad Piano Restoration
(ad) Piano Music Sale - Dover Publications
Piano Music Sale
Sheet Music Plus (125)
Sheet Music Plus Featured Sale
New Topics - Multiple Forums
Anyone use a seat cushion?
by DeadPoets
12/19/14 08:48 PM
Lester Betsy Ross Spinet- worth?
by cobalt60
12/19/14 08:22 PM
How deep into the tuning hammer should pin go?
by JoeThePro
12/19/14 07:37 PM
The friction, blubbering, and lost motion are eradicated!
by music32
12/19/14 07:15 PM
Merry Christmas
by MusicaMusique
12/19/14 06:45 PM
Forum Stats
77362 Members
42 Forums
160002 Topics
2349628 Posts

Max Online: 15252 @ 03/21/10 11:39 PM
Gift Ideas for Music Lovers!
Find the Perfect Gift for the Music Lovers on your List!
Visit our online store today.

Visit our online store for gifts for music lovers

 
Help keep the forums up and running with a donation, any amount is appreciated!
Or by becoming a Subscribing member! Thank-you.
Donate   Subscribe
 
Our Piano Related Classified Ads
|
Dealers | Tuners | Lessons | Movers | Restorations | Pianos For Sale | Sell Your Piano |

Advertise on Piano World
| Subscribe | Piano World | PianoSupplies.com | Advertise on Piano World | Donate | Link to Us | Classifieds |
| |Contact | Privacy | Legal | About Us | Site Map | Free Newsletter | Press Room |


copyright 1997 - 2014 Piano World ® all rights reserved
No part of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission