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!

SEARCH
the Forums & Piano World

This custom search works much better than the built in one and allows searching older posts.
(ad 125) Sweetwater - Digital Keyboards & Other Gear
Digital Pianos at Sweetwater
(ad) Pearl River
Pearl River Pianos
(ad) Pianoteq
Latest Pianoteq add-on instrument: U4 upright piano
(ad) P B Guide
Acoustic & Digital Piano Guide
PianoSupplies.com (150)
Piano Accessories Music Related Gifts Piano Tuning Equipment Piano Moving Equipment
We now offer Gift Certificates in our online store!
(ad) Estonia Piano
Estonia Piano
Quick Links to Useful Stuff
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 Accessories
* 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
Page 6 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Topic Options
#770176 - 02/25/05 07:00 PM Re: To Christians
Dwain Lee Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 2419
Loc: Columbus, Ohio
I am being very careful, RZ. I never said that God only revealed himself to some, or that he only loved some. I only said that in order for any human to come to know God, that God must act first by reaching out to the person. That statement is what I was asked about, and that is a position of most of the Christian church, Catholic included.

Only after that, when asked about my own opinions, do I reference the concept of "selective election," and if you read all of my post, you'll even see that, while a Calvinist Protestant myself, I personally hold a modifed view of the concept of election, to one of time and place, but not of total exclusion to anyone.

Top
Piano & Music Accessories
#770177 - 02/25/05 09:37 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:
I am being very careful, RZ. I never said that God only revealed himself to some, or that he only loved some. I only said that in order for any human to come to know God, that God must act first by reaching out to the person. That statement is what I was asked about, and that is a position of most of the Christian church, Catholic included.
[/b]
I appreciate that, Dwain, and I recognize we come from different Christian traditions and likely do not understand each other's completely.

While clearly God must reveal Himself, the Catholic Church would argue God reveals Himself to all people at all times. I understood you to say that God chose who to reveal Himself to and that it was a mystery as to why He chose one and did not choose another.

I am sorry if I misunderstood you.

Top
#770178 - 02/26/05 04:11 AM Re: To Christians
Dwain Lee Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 2419
Loc: Columbus, Ohio
 Quote:
Originally posted by RZ:
While clearly God must reveal Himself, the Catholic Church would argue God reveals Himself to all people at all times. I understood you to say that God chose who to reveal Himself to and that it was a mystery as to why He chose one and did not choose another. I am sorry if I misunderstood you. [/b]
Personally, I make a distinction between a more general revelation of the existence of God (i.e., through nature, the existence of love, a rudimentary "conscience" or moral understanding of right & wrong, etc.) - which I believe is offered by God to all people at all times, and offers people a general understanding of the existence and rudimentary nature of a god - and a deeper, specific, more personal act of revelation - only after which can a person truly understand in heart, spirit, and intellect, the manner and implications of God's redemptive action and will for humanity and the individual.

It is this second type of revelation - or in the Reformed tradition, "election" - that I believe is not given to all people at all times. Some people belive there is a master list of humans, some being eternally selected to be on the "mailing list" for invitations to heaven, and others not making the cut to ever even get an invitation. I don't believe that. Carrying the silly analogy further, I believe that everyone gets at least one invitation, but God decides when to send it, and just how many times he's ultimately going to invite you to the party.

I don't believe that God makes the deeper revelation to everyone at all times. But my view of God's selectivity only relates to the specific time and place for the individual: God may choose to prepare a person's heart to receive the full truth about God once while the person is able to make an informed, conscious decision to accept or reject, or He may extend it multiple times during the person's life. The "when, where, and how many" are up to God, and do remain an eternal mystery. I believe that that is a logical corollary to the Creator's endowment of free will. If we are granted free will, to have been created more in God's image, we certainly receive it as a mixed blessing: it can, and has, done us harm. It is only logical then, that God's endowment of free will to every person come with a corresponding offering, to every person, of the ability to use that free will to achieve one's atonement for the harm that the free will itself has gotten for us. This means that God's deeper revelatory act must be offered to everyone, at least once, but not necessarily constantly, in their lifetime.

Top
#770179 - 02/26/05 08:11 AM Re: To Christians
Jeffrey Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/18/04
Posts: 2948
Loc: New York
Dwain - Please look at page 10 of the "Oh Jesus, why didn't you make me straight" thread. The contributions by Kenny and Matt G are far superior to what I can write on the topic. You said that in 15 years I would look back and defend religion. I can only hope that far before then you look back in disgust and shame at what you write and preach regarding gay sexuality.

Top
#770180 - 02/26/05 08:24 AM Re: To Christians
apple* Offline


Registered: 01/01/03
Posts: 19862
Loc: Kansas
 Quote:
Originally posted by Dwain Lee:
I believe that that is a logical corollary to the Creator's endowment of free will. If we are granted free will, to have been created more in God's image, we certainly receive it as a mixed blessing: it can, and has, done us harm. It is only logical then, that God's endowment of free will to every person come with a corresponding offering, to every person, of the ability to use that free will to achieve one's atonement for the harm that the free will itself has gotten for us. This means that God's deeper revelatory act must be offered to everyone, at least once, but not necessarily constantly, in their lifetime. [/b]
I believe the choice is before us always, in plain sight, pure simple, do what is right or do what is wrong.. the simple parameter defined by the 'love' delineates good from evil.

It is absurd to think that sexual orientation is evil or good... it is as normal as freckles or leadership qualities.
_________________________
accompanist/organist.. a non-MTNA teacher to a few

love and peace, Õun (apple in Estonian)

Top
#770181 - 02/26/05 08:47 AM Re: To Christians
Jeffrey Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/18/04
Posts: 2948
Loc: New York
apple: "It is absurd to think that sexual orientation is evil or good... it is as normal as freckles or leadership qualities."

Apple, serious question. How do you reconcile this viewpoint with your being Catholic? Given what the Pope says and the Church says on homosexuality and related topics?

P.S. Or do you distinguish "sexual orientation" from "sexual behavior" (same as Dwain tries to do)??

Top
#770182 - 02/26/05 08:53 AM Re: To Christians
apple* Offline


Registered: 01/01/03
Posts: 19862
Loc: Kansas
I am a "Take the good aspects of my religion" Catholic. I practice, I belong, tho I freely discuss what I disagree with, which is much of the dogma particularly and about some of Catholicism's interpretation of Christian teaching..

If I was presented with the choice of being good or being Catholic I would chose good in a heartbeat...

or in other words.. I am not a good Catholic
_________________________
accompanist/organist.. a non-MTNA teacher to a few

love and peace, Õun (apple in Estonian)

Top
#770183 - 02/26/05 09:35 AM 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 - Please look at page 10 of the "Oh Jesus, why didn't you make me straight" thread. The contributions by Kenny and Matt G are far superior to what I can write on the topic. You said that in 15 years I would look back and defend religion. I can only hope that far before then you look back in disgust and shame at what you write and preach regarding gay sexuality. [/b]
While I learn new things about my faith and its implications every day, I'm comfortable with the potential risk that 15 years from now, my current thoughts will seem foolish. I hope you're equally open to that risk yourself.

You said something interesting in an earlier post, that I am asking that a gay person deny their sexual personality - in other words, that they deny their true self, or true being.

Your implication is that this would be a bad thing - perhaps even the worst of all possible things. I sense - and correct me if I'm mistaken - that you believe that the highest and truest obligation that a person has, is to not deny one's self. Granted, pursuing the ultimate satisfaction of self may also result in some altruistic acts, but only in a secondary role to the primary goal of not denying the self.

Before I go any further, I want to discuss the definition of the word "deny." It can have two meanings that, while related, can seem almost contradictory when used in terms of Christian belief. The first definition would be to "fail to acknowledge the true nature of a particular thing or state of being." The second definition would be "to refuse to give in to, or to refuse to be overcome by" some thing.

In Christian belief, we are taught to not "deny" (definition 1) our true character or nature. It is a key element of Christian faith to completely, truly acknowledge our true nature - and as part of that self realization and acknowledgement, acknowledge the flawed nature of our character, asking for forgiveness and strength in correcting it. Under the first definition, denial equals spiritual death.

Everything that I've said in this thread is consistent with this first concept. If a person is gay, that is an inherent part of his self, and it is ridiculous - and in a spritual sense, dangerous - to deny this aspect of one's personality or self.

Now let's look at the second definition - refusing to give in to, or refusing to be overcome by, something. This idea also goes to the heart of Christian teaching. Christians are commanded to turn the focus of their lives away from self - towards others, and most importantly, toward God. This shift of focus will require that a person "deny" (definition 2)his self repeatedly, in many aspects of his life. Sexual behavior, gay or straight, is only one of many facets of life - of self - that can potentially come into conflict with this Christian requirement.

Jesus was quoted as saying, "If anyone would follow me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

Many people have followed this command over two millenia. And they have done so in aspects far beyond the admittedly stong pull of sexual desire, to the far greater extent of denial and loss of their very life, in pusuing a life in accord with Christian teachings.

So here's the conflict: Your point seems to be that self-denial (in the second definition) is, at least in most instances, evil or at least very wrong. The Christian concept is that, in most instances, it is a requirement. It may not be concurrent with current philosophy or psychology. It may even be anti-American. But it is decidely the Christian command.

I've said this before, in this thread, and in greater detail in previous threads. My personal theology as regards homosexuality pertain only to people who have made a similar commitment to following Christ as I have. I do not say that any of my religious beliefs automaticaly tanslate directly to how to order a pluralistic civil society. That is a political/legislative issue that a person's religious beliefs will help to shape (religious people being part of the body politic), but not directly dictate. If a majority of people, religious or otherwise, feel that, for example, gay marriage is not conducive to the betterment and maintenance of society, and if the courts uphold the constitutionality of that decision, that that is what civil position should be established. If, on the other hand, a majority of the populace feels that prohibiting gay marriage, or an equal or lesser civil union, is an unfair infringement on civil rights, or if the courts decide that such a ban is unconstituional, then that should be public policy. It's a civil matter, and is only a religious issue in a secondary sense.

Note that that's the first time I've addressed gay marriage in my posts here. Till now, I've discussed homosexuality in general, or in terms of ordination of practicing homosexuals as clergy, but in both instances, as from within, and to, the Christian community. If a person is a professing Christian and disagrees with my personal take on the matter, it becomes a conversation, internal to the faith, among two believers. If a person is a non-Christian, then my take on homosexuality in a religious context is irrelevant to them. Kenny, as an example, is as unaffected (in both his eyes and mine) by my personal theology about homosexuality as would possibly be conceivable. I'm not trying to convince anyone, Christian or not, to believe as I do. In fact, earlier in this thread another Christian (was it RZ?) disagreed with my thoughts, and said that he strongly defended the concept of gay marriage. Rather than dispute the correctness of his(?) beliefs, I encouraged him to find a proper avenue withing the church to advance his beliefs, even though different from mine. I said this because this issue is not a core concept of Christianity, and sincere people will take wildly different viewpoints. Ultimately, neither side will get it entierely right, but the core issue to a Christian is following Christ, in whatever manner one's own heart has discerned his lead., So, as I've never tried to coerce anyone to agree with my belief system, it does seem odd when a non-believer would try to dictate what should, or shouldn't, be part of my belief system.

Top
#770184 - 02/26/05 10:23 AM Re: To Christians
Jeffrey Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/18/04
Posts: 2948
Loc: New York
Dwain: "I sense - and correct me if I'm mistaken - that you believe that the highest and truest obligation that a person has, is to not deny one's self."

I do not recognize this as an accurate description of my belief system. Perhaps my view is closest to an Aristotelian self-development or "eudaimonia" ideal.

"If a majority of people, religious or otherwise, feel that, for example, gay marriage is not conducive to the betterment and maintenance of society, and if the courts uphold the constitutionality of that decision, that that is what civil position should be established."

"it does seem odd when a non-believer would try to dictate what should, or shouldn't, be part of my belief system."


Yes, however, your holding the religious views you do causes you to vote against equal rights for your fellow citizens, and to preach words of bigotry that cause unnecessary pain to them. Substitute "black" for "gay" in all your statements, and I think you will see my point. If your religion taught that blacks were properly slaves, or shouldn't vote, and you both preached this and voted against black enfranchisement, it wouldn't do any good for you to hide behind your religion and say "What business is it of yours to criticise my religion for claiming blackness is a sin (in fact, I am so openminded that blacks who hate themselves and try to bleach their skins can still be part of my religion).

For these reasons, your religious views are properly subject to external criticism. Again, Kenny and Matt G express these ideas better than I can, since I am not gay. All the round-and-round circles you go in about faith and love of God and how they apply only to fellow Christians do not change these facts. They are flimsy rationalizations for prejudice, nothing more.

"Kenny, as an example, is as unaffected (in both his eyes and mine) by my personal theology about homosexuality as would possibly be conceivable."

Not true. Read what he said. Here is a repost of his comment in the other thread: "Oh Gry, wake up and smell the roses.
Lots of "straight" men have sex with men.

Sadly they are the ones frequenting notorious parks, parking lots and bathrooms.
They see little alternative but to go for the anonymous quickie to satisfy their natural urges that won't go away.

They are not happy and adjusted men living proud dignified living lives as gay couples like I am.
They don't know that is possible.
All they see is hatred and shame imposed by people who found a way to feel better than the next group.
Perhaps you, Jolly and Ivory could accept us and welcome us as fellow human beings.
You know, karma just might make you kids come out to you as gay some day.
Then you won't be able to just log off to ignore reality.

A few months ago there was a article in the LA Times about the county regulating "gay" bath houses.
The owner of several of these establishments in LA county said one of his largest group of customers is straight married men.
I was shocked.
Very sad.
Isn't it?

I blame the bigotry and hatred evidenced in these threads, though of course it is disguised as religious doctrine and fancy words that can't be reasoned with.
If it was okay to be gay these guys would never had felt the need to appear "normal" and marry a woman.

The pope's panicked rhetoric only reveals he is clinging to ugly attitudes of the past.
His words hurt us more than the fists of gay bashers.
But, the pope is unwittingly breathing life into what he opposes.
He is actually motivating the good people of today who believe in equality for all.

This boils down to one group of people trying to feel better than another group of people.
Nothing more.

All people are equal.
No group is better."

Dwain - its really a shame that a smart and charismatic guy like you puts all this effort into rationalizing bigotry and prejudice.

Top
#770185 - 02/26/05 10:33 AM Re: To Christians
KlavierBauer Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/06/02
Posts: 3773
Loc: Boulder, Colorado
Wonderful post Dwain.
You have stated very clearly and understandably (at least to me) where you stand.
_________________________
Outlive Yourself - Become an Organ Donor

Top
#770186 - 02/26/05 10:48 AM Re: To Christians
KlavierBauer Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/06/02
Posts: 3773
Loc: Boulder, Colorado
Jeffrey:
I understand your points about racism and how it equates to homosexuality. But I don't agree with them.
I am not making any statement or judgment other than that it is unfair to equate being black with being gay. Again, no emotion in that statement, just the observation that they are not to most people analogous.

Dwain has made his case quite clearly that he does not view homosexuality in the way that you would have us believe he does.
He has been more than clear about his beliefs on an "ideal", and that all groups of Man fall short of it. He has done his best to not single out one group as being above another. I understand that you do not, and most likely will not agree with his conclusions, but at least read what he is saying and understand that he had made it clear that there is no group better than another. All ARE created equal.
His last post really rated this issue, and should dispel any thoughts you have on Dwain's ideas as being bigoted or prejudicial.
He has said his views on this topic as they pertain to religious are relative only to other people looking at it from a religious perspective.
He has made it clear that this plays no part, and should not, in political process. Please don't make it appear as though Dwain would vote that Gay men should be held as slaves, or that they shouldn't have the right to vote.

You are both simply in different worlds when it comes to the fundamentals that govern your moral process.
Dwain believes that there lies the possibility in this Universe that not all that a person desires is healthy for them. That there may be an absolute ideal that applies to ALL of creation, and that we are ALL in conflict with it in different areas.
You believe that this is not the case, and that basically as long as nobody hurts anybody else, not only is anything OK, but it is healthy, and ideal. Expression of self is ideal. Self...

Fundamentally two ideas are at work here, and I understand why you see Dwain's view as bigoted, I really do. But I don't agree. I don't think you understand the fundamental issues at work here. Not in the sense that you can't grasp the idea, but in the sense that your world is built up on your logic, not Dwain's.

I'm sure that sitting around a table, able to discuss things in real time, we would better understand each other. ALL of us.
This medium however lends itself to thrust and parry as we are always responding to the last post, rather than ever helping the other to understand the foundation of our own understanding.

I pray (hope) that all of us may have tolerance for one another, and more importantly, Love.

I don't want to put words in Dwain's mouth, but I know that I for one don't want to dissolve any healthy expression of Love between two people. I do though, have a different set of ideals than you. I can respect your position, but you are saying that logically I am a bigot, and there's no way around it.
I suppose that's where it will have to lie for now. But I wish you could see my heart, and understand my feelings regarding this.
_________________________
Outlive Yourself - Become an Organ Donor

Top
#770187 - 02/26/05 11:52 AM Re: To Christians
RZ Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/05/04
Posts: 515
Loc: Anaheim, CA
 Quote:
Originally posted by KlavierBauer:
Jeffrey:
I understand your points about racism and how it equates to homosexuality. But I don't agree with them.
I am not making any statement or judgment other than that it is unfair to equate being black with being gay. Again, no emotion in that statement, just the observation that they are not to most people analogous.[/b]
Even if most people do not find being black and being gay analogous, why do you think it is unfair to equate being racism against blacks with discrimination against homosexuals? Is it simply because you are not convinced that being gay is the natural state for the homosexual and therefore opt that it is not?

Top
#770188 - 02/26/05 12:00 PM Re: To Christians
Jeffrey Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/18/04
Posts: 2948
Loc: New York
KB: "is unfair to equate being black with being gay."

To Dwain, KB, ivory, Jolly, etc.: Why not??

Top
#770189 - 02/26/05 12:03 PM Re: To Christians
ivorythumper Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/04/04
Posts: 1730
Loc: The Great American Southwest
 Quote:
Originally posted by RZ:
 Quote:
Originally posted by KlavierBauer:
Jeffrey:
I understand your points about racism and how it equates to homosexuality. But I don't agree with them.
I am not making any statement or judgment other than that it is unfair to equate being black with being gay. Again, no emotion in that statement, just the observation that they are not to most people analogous.[/b]
Even if most people do not find being black and being gay analogous, why do you think it is unfair to equate being racism against blacks with discrimination against homosexuals? Is it simply because you are not convinced that being gay is the natural state for the homosexual and therefore opt that it is not? [/b]
 Quote:
Originally posted by Jeffrey:
KB: "is unfair to equate being black with being gay."

To Dwain, KB, ivory, Jolly, etc.: Why not?? [/b]
Some analogies just don't work in the public forum -- for instance drawing analogies between the Holocaust and abortion in America, or between the crimes vs. raised consciousness about sexuality with Kinsey and the crimes vs. raised consciousness about racism and genocide with the Nazis.

There is no doubt that race is genetically determined, there is no proof the sexual orientation is. A significant difference coupled with an explosive and emotional issue make the analogy dismissible by some.

yours,

Steve
_________________________
Estonically yours,

Ivorythumper

"Man without mysticism is a monster"

Top
#770190 - 02/26/05 12:06 PM Re: To Christians
KlavierBauer Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/06/02
Posts: 3773
Loc: Boulder, Colorado
Well as I said I was speaking stricltly on observation.
Homosexuality as has been discussed in this thread is as an act, not a state.
While there have been logical arguments that one can be born predisposed to a certain sexual identity, there is no gay gene. There is however a black one.
A homosexual man can wake up one morning and however unjust and damaging it is to his personal identity can choose to not appear or act gay. A Black man or woman can not do this.
Please don't take what I'm saying out of context. RZ, I am not making a judgement on homosexuality, or making a statement about discrimination.
Simply put if I am a homosexual male (which you have no evidence to the contrary now that we know most gay men aren't gay, but are married heterosexual men), I can appear to not be if I'm in a "dangerous" area that isn't sympathetic to my plight.
However, if I am a Black man in an unsafe, racist neighborhood, there is little I can do for myself. Simply obervationally (if that's even a word) these two are not fair comparisons... that's all I'm saying.

Now please don't everyone read something into my statement that was neither said, nor implied.
With all the scientists in this thread it should be easy enough to see what I'm saying in an objective fashion.
_________________________
Outlive Yourself - Become an Organ Donor

Top
#770191 - 02/26/05 12:08 PM Re: To Christians
KlavierBauer Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/06/02
Posts: 3773
Loc: Boulder, Colorado
To make it more obvious what I'm saying from a scientific point of view based on observation:
Everyone post a picture of themselves... with no names attached.

We will then make guesses as to who is Black, and who is Gay.

We can then scientifically look at the numbers, and see which is easier to tell by appearance alone.
This one difference is enough to say that at least on some level these two things are not analogous is it not?
_________________________
Outlive Yourself - Become an Organ Donor

Top
#770192 - 02/26/05 12:11 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:
KB: "is unfair to equate being black with being gay."

To Dwain, KB, ivory, Jolly, etc.: Why not?? [/b]
Because there is not one single scriptural verse that says that being black is contrary to God's ideal.

Top
#770193 - 02/26/05 12:12 PM Re: To Christians
RZ Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/05/04
Posts: 515
Loc: Anaheim, CA
 Quote:
Originally posted by ivorythumper:
There is no doubt that race is genetically determined, there is no proof the sexual orientation is. A significant difference coupled with an explosive and emotional issue make the analogy dismissible by some.
[/b]
While it may be dismissable by some as not scientifially proven, is there not enough anecdotal evidence from homosoexuals themselves that they simply are who they are that your Christian belief in the dignity of all human beings demand you opt in favor of providing them equal treatment rather than opt against it?

Do you think that Jesus would argue that He did not have certain scientific evidence as to the genetic cause of homosexuality and others might reject his reasoning without it, therefore He would deny homosexuals the same rights He would afford heterosexuals?

Top
#770194 - 02/26/05 12:14 PM Re: To Christians
RZ Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/05/04
Posts: 515
Loc: Anaheim, CA
 Quote:
Originally posted by KlavierBauer:
To make it more obvious what I'm saying from a scientific point of view based on observation:
Everyone post a picture of themselves... with no names attached.

We will then make guesses as to who is Black, and who is Gay.

We can then scientifically look at the numbers, and see which is easier to tell by appearance alone.
This one difference is enough to say that at least on some level these two things are not analogous is it not? [/b]
So are you arguing that the validity of discrimination is based on whether or not the group being discriminated against is visible to the eyes?

Top
#770195 - 02/26/05 12:17 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 Jeffrey:
KB: "is unfair to equate being black with being gay."

To Dwain, KB, ivory, Jolly, etc.: Why not?? [/b]
Because there is not one single scriptural verse that says that being black is contrary to God's ideal. [/b]
I can accept (though not agree with) your reasoning within a religious community, but what about civil law, Dwain?

Top
#770196 - 02/26/05 12:20 PM Re: To Christians
ivorythumper Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/04/04
Posts: 1730
Loc: The Great American Southwest
 Quote:
Originally posted by RZ:
 Quote:
Originally posted by ivorythumper:
There is no doubt that race is genetically determined, there is no proof the sexual orientation is. A significant difference coupled with an explosive and emotional issue make the analogy dismissible by some.
[/b]
While it may be dismissable by some as not scientifially proven, is there not enough anecdotal evidence from homosoexuals themselves that they simply are who they are that your Christian belief in the dignity of all human beings demand you opt in favor of providing them equal treatment rather than opt against it?

Do you think that Jesus would argue that He did not have certain scientific evidence as to the genetic cause of homosexuality and others might reject his reasoning without it, therefore He would deny homosexuals the same rights He would afford heterosexuals? [/b]
RZ: You simply asked why some might think the analogy unfair, and I answered it. If the analogy works for some based on anecdotal evidence but not others, then it is not helpful in the public forum. What ever Jesus might have known about "scientific evidence" seems completely not germane to the question (and I can not even make heads or tails of what your Jesus supposition is really trying to indicate). The teachings of Jesus are not about "rights" but about obligations and methods to love God and your neighbor.

Yours,

Steve
_________________________
Estonically yours,

Ivorythumper

"Man without mysticism is a monster"

Top
#770197 - 02/26/05 12:22 PM Re: To Christians
ivorythumper Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/04/04
Posts: 1730
Loc: The Great American Southwest
deleted
_________________________
Estonically yours,

Ivorythumper

"Man without mysticism is a monster"

Top
#770198 - 02/26/05 12:25 PM Re: To Christians
KlavierBauer Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/06/02
Posts: 3773
Loc: Boulder, Colorado
 Quote:
So are you arguing that the validity of discrimination is based on whether or not the group being discriminated against is visible to the eyes?
what? No....

I'm sorry, but I asked very clearly that you not put meaning into my words that was not there. I said multiple[/b] times that I was making an observation, with no value attached.

I was asked to explain a difference between being Black, and being Gay ... from an observational point of view I did. You can either find it valuable, or not. But I did not suppose anything about Jesus' teachings, or make arguments as to the validity of discrimination or anything of the sort.
_________________________
Outlive Yourself - Become an Organ Donor

Top
#770199 - 02/26/05 12:48 PM Re: To Christians
Dwain Lee Offline
2000 Post Club Member

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

Top
#770200 - 02/26/05 01:00 PM Re: To Christians
Jeffrey Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/18/04
Posts: 2948
Loc: New York
Dwain: "Because there is not one single scriptural verse that says that being black is contrary to God's ideal."

Does this mean that if there were scriptures supporting discrimination against blacks you would be a racist? The problem with a Divine Command Morality is that it makes moral rules arbitrary. Cruelty would be good, if only God commanded it.

KB: "A homosexual man can wake up one morning and however unjust and damaging it is to his personal identity can choose to not appear or act gay."

Translation: Gays can hate themselves and pass, so discrimination and prejudice against them is ok. By the way, many Jews and some very light-skinned blacks can "pass" as well. So by your logic, preaching hatred against them is ok as well. I don't think being gay is totally genetic, because I don't think any human behavior is totally genetic. Being Jewish is also not genetic. But being gay is not a passing preference like eating ice cream. It is a sexuality central to the human personality - whatever its ultimate cause - of those who are gay (and that requires only voluntary consensual actions to consummate). (I add this last comment only to stop Ivory from making his usual idiotic Straw Man objections and analogies.)


KB - I really wish you'd stop saying those who criticize you "don't understand". Believe me, I and others do fully understand your position and all its subtlies and ramifications in every tiny detail. It is because of this full understanding that you are being criticized. You can't use the words "faith" and "God says so" to wiggle out of a clear-cut case of sadistic discrimination.

Again, I will withdraw my accusation of sadistic discrimination only if you also agree to castrate yourself, for your love of your god. That is morally equivalent to what you urge on others who are gay: the permanent and complete rejection of your own sexuality and the possibility of its expression.

(Yes, I read Dwain's comment above about how there are other ways to control one's sexual desires. But for himself only (and not for gays) Dwain allows himself some sort of regular sexual connection to another person within his lifetime, however many other desires of his he restrains. For gays, however, his moral code forbids them ever to reach sexual connection to another person. Therefore, castration is the fully accurate and fair analogy.)

Top
#770201 - 02/26/05 01:09 PM Re: To Christians
KlavierBauer Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/06/02
Posts: 3773
Loc: Boulder, Colorado
 Quote:
Translation: Gays can hate themselves and pass, so discrimination and prejudice against them is ok. By the way, many Jews and some very light-skinned blacks can "pass" as well. So by your logic, preaching hatred against them is ok as well. I don't think being gay is totally genetic, because I don't think any human behavior is totally genetic. Being Jewish is also not genetic. But being gay is not a passing preference like eating ice cream. It is a sexuality central to the human personality - whatever its ultimate cause - of those who are gay (and that requires only voluntary consensual actions to consummate). (I add this last comment only to stop Ivory from making his usual idiotic Straw Man objections and analogies.)
Then this is your translation... and be clear about it. Because it is not my translation, nor the intended translation.

Also....
 Quote:
I don't think being gay is totally genetic, because I don't think any human behavior is totally genetic.
So homosexuality is a human behavior? Being Black isn't a human behavior. Isn't this enough of a difference to validate my original observation without all of the values you have since attached to it?


 Quote:
KB - I really wish you'd stop saying those who criticize you "don't understand". Believe me, I and others do fully understand your position and all its subtlies and ramifications in every tiny detail. It is because of this full understanding that you are being criticized. You can't use the words "faith" and "God says so" to wiggle out of a clear-cut case of sadistic discrimination.

Again, I will withdraw my accusation of sadistic discrimination only if you also agree to castrate yourself, for your love of your god. That is morally equivalent to what you urge on others who are gay: the permanent and complete rejection of your own sexuality and the possibility of its expression.
Those two paragraphs have really solidified for me that you do not understand.
You consistently make your own rules for what something means... you make logical rules that "if A, then B." And there is no other way around it... only the set of rules you provide.

Well I am now going to do the same. Based on my rules, your speech indicates to me that you don't have the same understanding of what I'm saying that I do.

Enough said about it really....

You're wrong in your assumptions, and you honestly don't understand where I'm coming from, or you wouldn't make the logical absolutes that you are regarding what you understand my belief to be, and what it means in the real world.
_________________________
Outlive Yourself - Become an Organ Donor

Top
#770202 - 02/26/05 01:17 PM Re: To Christians
Jeffrey Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/18/04
Posts: 2948
Loc: New York
KB: "So homosexuality is a human behavior?"

Yes, a behavior based on biology in some complex way we don't fully understand but that probably can't be reduced to a "gay gene". In fact, there is probably some continuum of sexual desire, as Sid said above (in one of the recent threads).

If your religion does not allow gays ever to reach sexual expression with another human being, then it is bigoted against gays. There doesn't need to be a lot of subtle theological gobbledegook about "faith" on this topic. It is very clear and black and white. You choose to participate in a religion that preaches discrimination against gays. If it works for you, nothing more I can do. I will try to follow Matt G's recommendation to hate the idea, love the PW member.

You may have the last word. I have Pete Johnson cds to listen to.

Top
#770203 - 02/26/05 01:29 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: "Because there is not one single scriptural verse that says that being black is contrary to God's ideal."

Does this mean that if there were scriptures supporting discrimination against blacks you would be a racist? The problem with a Divine Command Morality is that it makes moral rules arbitrary. Cruelty would be good, if only God commanded it. [/b]
This question indicates why I once told you that long before anyone should try to prove the existence of God, they must first define God.

Part of my definition of God is that God is the ultimate in perfection: perfectly good, perfectly merciful, perfectly just, perfectly true. Conversely, God cannot be in the slightest non-good, unmerciful, unjust, or false. Any being that could have those attributes would be less than perfect, and therefore, not God. Therefore, God could not make a statement such as you suggest. Your hypothetical is the same as saying, "suppose God could be 'Not God.' " The only thing that God cannot do is to be "not God," to be something other than God's actual essence. "A" cannot be "not-A." As such, the impossible hypothetical is also impossible to debate. What might be more interesting to consider is why God says nothing about the sinfulness of the color of a person's skin, or of a person's actual sexual identity (even as Paul points out that there were homosexual believers within the congregations of the early church), but does comment on the sinfulness of various heterosexual and homosexual sex acts.

The problem, as you term it, with "Divine Command Morality" is not that it makes all morals arbitrary, but rather that it eliminates arbitrariness.

Top
#770204 - 02/26/05 01:44 PM Re: To Christians
KlavierBauer Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/06/02
Posts: 3773
Loc: Boulder, Colorado
Jeffrey said:
 Quote:
If your religion does not allow gays ever to reach sexual expression with another human being, then it is bigoted against gays. There doesn't need to be a lot of subtle theological gobbledegook about "faith" on this topic. It is very clear and black and white. You choose to participate in a religion that preaches discrimination against gays. If it works for you, nothing more I can do. I will try to follow Matt G's recommendation to hate the idea, love the PW member.
But this is at the core of what you do not understand. You're making an illogical jump between what is considered ideal, and what is allowed.
My Church (can't speak for every other) makes no case that homosexuals can not be homosexuals, or that discrimination is OK, or accepted, or condoned.
I do appreciate that you will at least attempt to still accept me, as I am still accepting of you and your ideas. But please make no mistake, I do not practice discrimination, condone discrimination, or consider homosexuals in anyway beneath myself. If you continue to logically arrive at the conclusion that I am a bigot, want to disallow some behavior, or in some other way practice discrimination, it is not supported by my ideas, or the facts.
Nowhere has the corrolation been made between my considering most sexual behavior (straight or otherwise) in some way selfish, and me thinking that it should be disallowed. This jump is not only huge, but illogical. Again, I think it only works logically with your own set of rules... one I am not privy to.

For now, I'm off to Dialysis to get a couple 14 gauge needles in my arm. I'll try to post more when I get there, though I hope you all understand if I don't. \:\)

Jeffrey, I do enjoy discourse with you, and I think we have a civil understanding at least, in which we are not developing hatred for each other personally.
That would in my opinion be most unfortunate.
I simply feel a bit hurt that regardless of what I tell you I feel, you will still call me a bigot to my face, eventhough I have made it clear that there must be some sort of misunderstanding. Your response is essentially: "No, I understand everything completely, and you're a discriminating bigot".

Essentially you are either calling me an idiot (I don't understand what I think), or a liar (I understand it, but continue insisting that I love all equally).
_________________________
Outlive Yourself - Become an Organ Donor

Top
#770205 - 02/26/05 01:50 PM Re: To Christians
Dwain Lee Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 2419
Loc: Columbus, Ohio
Jonathan, I don't mean to speak for Jeffrey, but no matter what you two discuss, and no matter how civilly, in Jeffrey's eyes you (and I) will always be considered bigots - sometimes even sadistic bigots, no less. As I know that I'm not, it doesn't bother me when Jeffrey calls me such. You're a tough guy, you've been through a lot in your life. But in this regard, since you know the claim to be untrue in your own life, you just need to toughen up a bit and let the epithet roll off your back - and then continue to have insightful, civil conversations. Sticks and stones, you know?

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

What's Hot!!
HOW TO POST PICTURES on the Piano Forums
-------------------
Sharing is Caring!
About the Buttons
-------------------
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) HAILUN Pianos
Hailun Pianos - Click for More
ad (Casio)
Celviano by Casio Rebate
Ad (Seiler/Knabe)
Seiler Pianos
Sheet Music
(PW is an affiliate)
Sheet Music Plus Featured Sale
(125ad) Dampp Chaser
Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver
(ad) Lindeblad Piano
Lindeblad Piano Restoration
New Topics - Multiple Forums
DVD recording
by jtattoo
09/20/14 12:45 PM
upgrade from Kawai CN34 to CA65 - how much to pay
by khopin
09/20/14 12:39 PM
Seiler 186 Maestro Grand
by Sam4
09/20/14 12:13 PM
Pain in hands while playing piano - looking for advice!
by Justin_B
09/20/14 10:15 AM
Buying a piano
by tim1889
09/20/14 09:45 AM
Who's Online
119 registered (accordeur, alfredo capurso, allakart, Abby Pianoman, Alex75001, 40 invisible), 1362 Guests and 19 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
76260 Members
42 Forums
157643 Topics
2315538 Posts

Max Online: 15252 @ 03/21/10 11:39 PM
(ads by Google)

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