Between the Boy and the Bridge

[stebo0728]

Don't spoil it for me now. Sounds good though I'm going to be watching it. Good change of pace from 176 episodes of Picard... Although, can one ever have too much Picard?

Nevar! I really wish Patrick Stewart would offer up his vocal talents for Star Trek Online.

GAWD I'm an avid MMO guy, and I tried that STO trial. It was aweful, at least for me. I'm a big WoW head, but have lately been leveling a cleric in Rift. But maybe we can find a common ground in Old Republic? We'll have to roll some siths together. LOL

[IBCoupe]

Haha, maybe. My gaming time rapidly disappears. I'm taking 12 credits next semester. Immigration Law, Freedom of Speech, Administrative Law, and Trademark Law.

[AZhitman]

You're damn right I'm intolerant of Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin! You're GOD DAMN RIGHT about that!

Why would you be intolerant of someone's beliefs?

I believe dogs > cats, but even if you're a cat person, it still doesn't affect you in any way, shape or form. As long as no one is infringing on their rights, persecuting them or otherwise treating them any differently than another brother or sister, what's the problem?

You can't control what people believe. That's their business. This kind of mentality is akin to race-baiting. There'll be no Thought Police, Matt.

[mattblancarte]

You failed to understand my point. What you are teaching is Antinomianism. Which has been refuted as a heresy, not only by the Scriptures, but by the Councils and Church Fathers. It would probably be best to have this discussion outside this forum as I think we have crossed over the line, into a full blown religious argument.

What is, and what is not antinomianism, is up for debate. I don't think I'm suggesting that. At most, I'm suggesting that a good portion of moral teachings are wrong in modern context. I have not written a blanket statement saying that the entire Bible is of no moral value, and Christians should just focus on believing in Jesus.

I'm sure you can imagine I really couldn't care less that some men got together and decided that antinomianism is bad for their religious organizations. It makes sense that they would consider it heresy, though. They would have less control over their flocks.

Jesus did not have a problem with gays.

Again, if you understood what I had said, you would understand that a ‘household divided against itself cannot stand.' I am purposely avoiding being direct as not to get banned from this forum.

The "strength of the church" is of no importance when arguing morality. I do understand what you're saying, good sir.

The truth is, Christians do not fall under one "household."

Do you want a cookie?

No. Who knows what kind of BS you've baked into your cookies.

While I understand the main emphasis of the article was NOT christiainity, but was about bullying. Need I point out that it was YOU who started the ‘bash fest’ on christiainity?

Okay, it was specifically about how Christians should respond to bullying and bad deeds.

This is not a bash fest! This is me, one man, saying things. Seriously man, don't be so quick to dig your trenches and go on the defense.

Furthermore, I was criticizing the author for failing to take that ever important step as a Christian leader. To accept all of God's children unconditionally, and make sure all of your flock does the same. He almost got there, but his message was conflated with unwelcome dogmas.

Wow you plucked out a ‘proof text’ and misapplied it to make your point. Typical. So somehow teaching means voting or holding office in a governmental sense. You get the ‘Mangle the Scriptures Award’ for the day.

Typical of what or who? Me?

How is that misapplied? Women do not have equal rights in the eyes of fundamentalist Christians, and the Bible gives them ammo to back it up.

You want evidence that the Bible bars women from voting. I explained that voting wasn't exactly the "fad" back when the Bible was penned. Make sense?

How is that mangled. How would you interpret and represent that verse?

[stebo0728]

We taking bets yet on how many posts this thread will get before lock?

[mattblancarte]

Why would you be intolerant of someone's beliefs?

That is very good question, and I appreciate you asking it. I was expecting some more knee-jerk reactions, but you guys are solid.

I draw the line at violence, social inequality, and imprisonment. Very simple. If your beliefs tell you that gays are not to have equal rights in society (gay marriage) and you vote that way, I am intolerant.

I am so intolerant, that I will take action against you. For example, I may even:

- Argue on the internet.
- Vote in a certain manner.
- Hold personal conversations in an attempt to sway people in my direction.

That's about it.

I believe dogs > cats, but even if you're a cat person, it still doesn't affect you in any way, shape or form. As long as no one is infringing on their rights, persecuting them or otherwise treating them any differently than another brother or sister, what's the problem?

Very reasonable, and right up my alley. No argument there.

This issue is specifically connected to gay rights, and how some folks in our society back up against their religion to justify opinions related to gays' lessened value in society.

You can't control what people believe. That's their business. This kind of mentality is akin to race-baiting. There'll be no Thought Police, Matt.

Totally agree. I have no intention of assuming any control.

If someone wants to believe that gays are bad and wants to vote in that direction, they can. I won't stop them by using any violence, imprisonment, nor will I attempt to block their rights to their vote.

I will however, snicker and argue.

[mattblancarte]

I think your problem is more with their outspokenness of their belief, or their desire to convert others to their belief, moreso than their holding the belief alone, AMIRITE?

Very much so. Well put. Also, their attempts to convert laws to suit their religious beliefs.

I mean seriously, its a game of social outrage. For years everyone got outraged about things like living together before marriage, or childbearing out of wedlock, (and here in Glory Land the outrage of interracial marriage) but finally society won those battles, and the outspoken quieted. Its not that those acts aren't still considered sins by whomever once believed it, they've just joined the ranks of other sins no one cares about. Homosexuality is the new fight, and I'd wager in the future, it too will join the "who cares" ranks, to be replaced by something else, perhaps polygamy, or maybe something else society generally considers shady currently. But beliefs are a freedom anyone enjoys. Its the assertion of those beliefs beyond their own person that starts to cause problems.

I would never challenge anyone's right to believe what they want to believe. I challenge the beliefs when they are out in the open, and are attempting to form/change/remove laws.

Well said.

[AppleBonker]

Why would you be intolerant of someone's beliefs?

Greg, you can't honestly think that, can you? The problem is compounded when large groups of these people get together and use their beliefs as justification for some sort of law/rule/whatever. People who are intolerant of anything (be it gays, interracial relationships or whatever) are almost certainly going to be vocal about it or try to get people to conform to their beliefs. Note: vocal can mean using their vote to help a political candidate who shares their opinion and will support whatever laws are on "their side".

If a thought is completely wrong, I am going to be intolerant of it. It doesn't matter if it has made it to the point of infringing on another's rights as it really doesn't take a whole lot to get to that point. In fact, I would argue that no matter what it will end up infringing on their rights. Do you honestly think that anyone who believes homosexuality is truly wrong will treat a gay individual the same as a straight individual? People are not that capable of separating their thoughts from their actions.

Now sure, you can argue that this is me trying to push my beliefs on others, and I can't really deny that. But one must look at the goal of said beliefs. In my case, I simply want all people to have a fair shake. Maybe I'm putting to much faith in humanity, but I would hope that the vast majority would want the same thing, no? I know I'm biased, but I think that attempting to treat everyone equally (regardless of sexual orientation or whatever label you can pin on them) is far more noble than trying to punish people for what you believe to be a sin. Again, this follows my desire to see everyone reach their maximum potential happiness.

[Cold_Zero]

Wow you plucked out a ‘proof text’ and misapplied it to make your point. Typical. So somehow teaching means voting or holding office in a governmental sense. You get the ‘Mangle the Scriptures Award’ for the day.

Typical of what or who? Me?

How is that misapplied? Women do not have equal rights in the eyes of fundamentalist Christians, and the Bible gives them ammo to back it up.

You want evidence that the Bible bars women from voting. I explained that voting wasn't exactly the "fad" back when the Bible was penned. Make sense?

How is that mangled. How would you interpret and represent that verse?

Typically… of people who hold this line of thinking. Not specifically you. The verse you used was misapplied because in this section of the epistle, Paul is instructing Timothy on church administration. It has/was never been classically understood nor applied to mean anything outside of women holding positions certain positions in the church.

Any Christian that has a problem with women voting should read Romans 13 and heed the words of Jesus when he says ‘Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.’

[AZhitman]

Matt: Gotcha.

I should know better than to call you on something - You're always spot-on solid with your follow-up.

What I THINK shouldn't matter to anyone but me - that's my private domain. How I ACT on those beliefs is cause for concern.

I've set aside my personal judgment of plenty of people and ministered to them through works, conversation, and example. That, to me, is how Jesus would do. If they came to me and said, "Hey, thanks for the help this weekend, you wanna go have a beer?" I can respond with, "Gee, Mike, I love hanging out with you, but I just helped you replace your water pump because you were out of money - I can't help but think that maybe the beer might be part of the problem."

I can care about the person while not condoning their behavior in the least.

[AZhitman]

Now sure, you can argue that this is me trying to push my beliefs on others, and I can't really deny that.

Go ahead and have faith in humanity. As a rule, Americans don't hate gays, or Muslims, or Blacks, or any other group that you've been led to believe are persecuted at every turn. We're a lot more tolerant than you think.

AND, even where you DO see intolerance, EVERYONE gets some - People with glasses. Bald people. Tattooed people. Fat people, skinny people, people with rosacea, people in wheelchairs, people with acne, people with bad hair, people with weird clothes, a weird voice, people with the wrong car, the wrong shoes, the wrong music... See? We all have our crosses to bear, and "FAIR" is something that comes to town every year with a ferris wheel. Chill, dawg.

You take care of your backyard and I'll take care of mine. And if I choose to believe that Asians can't drive, there's not a damn thing you can do about it, because I'm not infringing on their right to drive.

[IBCoupe]

We taking bets yet on how many posts this thread will get before lock?

Three.

Was I close?

[AZhitman]

Why would you be intolerant of someone's beliefs?

Greg, you can't honestly think that, can you?

You're damned right I can.

Are you gonna chain me up and interrogate me until you find out what I think of everything?

You've met me. You think I can't separate my internal beliefs from how I interact with society? And even if I can't, that's my right. As long as I'm not depriving anyone, my beliefs are my business.

The problem is compounded when large groups of these people get together and use their beliefs as justification for some sort of law/rule/whatever.

Hmmm.

Yeah. That's how we got the Declaration of Independence. The Emancipation Proclamation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Americans With Disabilities Act. Megan's Law. The Brady Bill. Shall I go on?

Quit seeing the negatives. You can't control thoughts and opinions. And who's to say you're right?

[mattblancarte]

Typically… of people who hold this line of thinking. Not specifically you. The verse you used was misapplied because in this section of the epistle, Paul is instructing Timothy on church administration. It has/was never been classically understood nor applied to mean anything outside of women holding positions certain positions in the church.

Okay this is true, but does not escape the moral shortcoming nor its extrapolation into other areas in which women have classically been seen to hold less authority and rights. I would argue that it has been interpreted by many to show how women hold less authority in all areas (not just the church).

Any Christian that has a problem with women voting should read Romans 13 and heed the words of Jesus when he says ‘Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.’

Ya, the problem with Romans 13 is that it is saying that God appoints all earthly leadership, therefore you must obey. I don't think we want to start saying that god put Hitler in place and that Germans did the right thing by following along.

I'm not sure how this verse relates to women's voting rights. Perhaps you could explain.

In fact, I could interpret this verse as justifications for societies in which women are not allowed to vote because the leadership says so...

[AZhitman]

Let's get back on-topic. This is about a boy. And a bridge.

Not 2 amateur interpretations of the Bible.

[AppleBonker]

Go ahead and have faith in humanity. As a rule, Americans don't hate gays, or Muslims, or Blacks, or any other group that you've been led to believe are persecuted at every turn.

I don't believe the opposite. But, you can't deny that there are groups that do believe those things.

AND, even where you DO see intolerance, EVERYONE gets some - People with glasses. Bald people. Tattooed people. Fat people, skinny people, people with rosacea, people in wheelchairs, people with acne, people with bad hair, people with weird clothes, a weird voice, people with the wrong car, the wrong shoes, the wrong music...

But, my main point is that I have a hard time believing the world would NOT be a better place if those instances of intolerance did NOT exist. If someone could make an argument that humanity would be less happy (as a whole) without any intolerance I'd love to hear it (and I will clarify that I know you weren't making said argument).

You take care of your backyard and I'll take care of mine. And if I choose to believe that Asians can't drive, there's not a damn thing you can do about it, because I'm not infringing on their right to drive.

And while I can't FORCE you to believe otherwise, I can still posit that you would likely treat Asians differently if you didn't have this belief (even if that difference in treatment is extremely minor). Furthermore, I could argue that this difference in treatment (again regardless of how slight) would be an improvement.

For the record, I will certainly admit that I hold plenty of beliefs that run counter to the argument I'm presenting here. I do try to keep that in mind at all times and treat people equally until they prove they are not worthy of it. But hey, I'm not perfect.

[Cold_Zero]

We are beyond three posts, IBCoupe. hehehehe

Let me make sure I state something very clear. In this country legally you are allowed to believe what you want to believe. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you are ‘right’ or it holds any amount of authority on the matter. I am not contradicting this tradition.
I just take issue with people misrepresenting Historical Orthodox Christianity or the Bible.

While I understand that there is a certain Egalitarianism that has invaded American Christianity, I do not subscribe to this line of thinking. So the application would be, that as a citizen of this great country I respect and protect Heliochrome’s right to freedom of Religion. As a friend I respect him and would not overtly attack his religion and as a person who likes to study other religions, I even respect his religion in an academic sense. I am glad that we can disagree in this fundamental issue, even kid each other about it and yet remain friends.

[mattblancarte]

Matt: Gotcha.

I should know better than to call you on something - You're always spot-on solid with your follow-up.

By all means, call me out any time you want. That's what this forum is all about.

What I THINK shouldn't matter to anyone but me - that's my private domain. How I ACT on those beliefs is cause for concern.

I've set aside my personal judgment of plenty of people and ministered to them through works, conversation, and example. That, to me, is how Jesus would do. If they came to me and said, "Hey, thanks for the help this weekend, you wanna go have a beer?" I can respond with, "Gee, Mike, I love hanging out with you, but I just helped you replace your water pump because you were out of money - I can't help but think that maybe the beer might be part of the problem."

I can care about the person while not condoning their behavior in the least.

Totally respectable position, and I can subscribe to that philosophy.

[mattblancarte]

Not 2 amateur interpretations of the Bible.

Armchair theologian reporting for duty, sir!

[AZhitman]

If someone could make an argument that humanity would be less happy (as a whole) without any intolerance I'd love to hear it.

You MUST be gay, then.

Ever spend any time with a woman? If she ain't got something to b**** about, she's miserable.

In all seriousness, though - YOU said YOU were "intolerant". Intolerant of peoples' beliefs.

I get what you meant, though. Here - if there was no more prejudicial thinking (which is what I think you were getting at), the world would be a better place. OK, sure... dandy. I'll agree.

Until we all got bored and found something smaller to subdivide ourselves, look down upon, shun, cast out... it's our fallen nature.

[AppleBonker]

Are you gonna chain me up and interrogate me until you find out what I think of everything?

Of course not. I'm a lover, not a fighter!

You've met me. You think I can't separate my internal beliefs from how I interact with society?

I'm sure you do a better job than most. Either way, this would be highly difficult to prove.

And even if I can't, that's my right. As long as I'm not depriving anyone, my beliefs are my business.

But what would you consider depriving? Where you might offer a warm greeting to one person and not another, could that be depriving them? Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of bigger fish to fry. And, having met you, I certainly wouldn't consider you one of the folks that society should be worried about.

The problem is compounded when large groups of these people get together and use their beliefs as justification for some sort of law/rule/whatever.

Hmmm.

Yeah. That's how we got the Declaration of Independence. The Emancipation Proclamation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Americans With Disabilities Act. Megan's Law. The Brady Bill. Shall I go on?

Quit seeing the negatives.

I can't help it. No doubt there are plenty of positives. In fact, they would certainly outweigh the negatives. However, that doesn't mean we should stop pursuing improvements!

You can't control thoughts and opinions. And who's to say you're right?

No one can say I'm right. Heck, I can't even claim to be right. I'd like to think I am, but who knows? Additionally, I don't think there is any one right answer to a lot of these questions. My point has been, and always will be, that we should try to help everyone achieve happiness, even if they don't fall under the same labels or into the same groups as ourselves.

[AZhitman]

Not 2 amateur interpretations of the Bible.

Armchair theologian reporting for duty, sir!

SA-LUTE!

Now, go have a chat with Bonk - He seems to think we crawled out of the ooze, all gay and s***.

[mattblancarte]

Let me make sure I state something very clear. In this country legally you are allowed to believe what you want to believe. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you are ‘right’ or it holds any amount of authority on the matter. I am not contradicting this tradition.
I just take issue with people misrepresenting Historical Orthodox Christianity or the Bible.

Much respect. Would it surprise you if I was taking issue with the exact same problem? That's the blessing/curse of the written word. Interpretations vary to wildly different ends.

While I understand that there is a certain Egalitarianism that has invaded American Christianity, I do not subscribe to this line of thinking. So the application would be, that as a citizen of this great country I respect and protect Heliochrome’s right to freedom of Religion. As a friend I respect him and would not overtly attack his religion and as a person who likes to study other religions, I even respect his religion in an academic sense. I am glad that we can disagree in this fundamental issue, even kid each other about it and yet remain friends.

It's hard not to take criticisms or differentiating opinions on your beliefs personally. I hope you don't take my comments and arguments as personal attacks against you, because they aren't. My apologies, if you felt that way.

I agree with your entire post.

[AppleBonker]

If someone could make an argument that humanity would be less happy (as a whole) without any intolerance I'd love to hear it.

You MUST be gay, then.

Ever spend any time with a woman? If she ain't got something to b**** about, she's miserable.

You just threw a kink in my entire argument!!! Edit: not the gay part

In all seriousness, though - YOU said YOU were "intolerant". Intolerant of peoples' beliefs.

I am. And I'll stand behind that. If someone is looking down on another person because of something they believe to be wrong with that person (when it is something that person cannot help/change), I will think the belief is flawed. And I will be intolerant of it.

it's our fallen nature.

Which, I would assume we can all agree, is a fatal flaw.

[AppleBonker]

Now, go have a chat with Bonk - He seems to think we crawled out of the ooze, all gay and s***.

Nope. I've learned my lesson. I'm trying to stay away from the theology debates.

[stebo0728]

Now, go have a chat with Bonk - He seems to think we crawled out of the ooze, all gay and s***.

Nope. I've learned my lesson. I'm trying to stay away from the theology debates.

But sometimes they are sooo tempting to enter.

I agree though, but its never that I dont want to be insulted. Its always because I really dont want to insult someone else by some sort of unintentional underhanded remark or something of that nature.

[mattblancarte]

Actually I don't have any good arguments for how gay animals (not just human animals) come to be gay. Probably both genetic and environmental factors at play.

[AppleBonker]

gay [...] human animals

Gays are not animals. This conversation is over, sir!

[stebo0728]

Ummm I dont think he meant that gays ALONE are animals. I think he was refering to the idea that all humans are considered a species of animal.

[Cold_Zero]

Much respect. Would it surprise you if I was taking issue with the exact same problem? That's the blessing/curse of the written word. Interpretations vary to wildly different ends.

I understood that you were arguing more from a postmodern standpoint, but the problem that I had with your assertion that you were drawing a line that really doesn’t appear in the text. Had you said something to the jist of, ‘Christianity is sexist because it calls women to be subservient to men (specifically wives submit to your husband)’, then you would have made loose connection that modern society would seem to understand to the passage in Ephesians. Women not voting just isn’t there in the text of Timothy. People have argued that the Bible calling wives to submit to their husbands is a connection that has already been made by modern societal thought. I think that was the point I was trying to get you to see.