TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Would you have the same reaction if he were in a heterosexual relationship out of marriage?

---

TS - If not sure if this was directed at me; however, if it was, please let me know what "reaction" was mentioned in my post that would make me hypocritical.

---

The post was not directed at you per se. It's a question I posited to everyone on this thread.

---

The answer is that if an adult male or female who liked to sleep around or party and refuses to go to church with his/her parents as part of the "house rules" was "kicked out" for it, that wouldn't be a story picked up by the media. Also, if as an Atheist you refused to go to church with your parents and they said you can't stay with them unless you do, it also wouldn't be a news story. So one has to ask themselves, why is this worthy as a news story for major media outlets?

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Some people don't view same-sex attraction as a 'cross' but as a naturally occuring variation. As is their right in any nation that touts separation of church and state.

---

First, science has not established what causes Same-sex attraction. Blindness, deafness, malformations, etc., are naturally occurring. These are considered crosses to bear.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Same-sex attraction as 'sin" or a "cross to bear" is a religious belief--a very bigoted one, IMO, and not one all Christian churches share.

---

I never called it a sin to have Same-sex attraction. I will argue all day that it is a cross to bear. No one wakes up upon discovery and says, "YEAH, I'm Gay!" Most struggle for years, if not a lifetime.

Humans are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex. That is how all species grow, prosper, and evolve. Same-sex attraction is against the natural law.

As Christians, we are called to love ALL people. I do my best to do so. That doesn't mean that I have to love the behaviors of all people.

---

You think humans are 'designed.'

I think we evolved, and that being gay--which has been a constant since the dawn of time--must have some benefit, or it would have been selected out.

There are so many things that can and do go wrong with our 'design'--genes that cause cancer and alzhiemers, extra cromosomes causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities, chronic issues like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, a horrible death sentence like Huntington's disease. As the sister of a profoundly disabled brother who died at 32 with his multitude of issues never fully diagnosed or understood, I've seen the worst result of randomness and find that the miracle is that things go right so much of the time.

---

Your 2nd paragraph and 3rd paragraph are contradictory.

If homosexuality must have some "benefit" or else it would have been "selected" out . . . . then kindly tell me the benefit of cancer, alzhiemers, and chromosomal disorders "causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities." Since, you know, those things haven't been selected out either.

---

The point where we probably disagree is that there is a Plan or a Purpose. I don't believe there is, and I believe that imbues us with greater responsibility for our fates and the fate of all life on earth, not less. We are doing a very poor job of stewarding the environment that created us. The cost for that could be our own extinction.

---

Who cares? If there's no purpose, then so what? Species go extinct all the time.

Plus, I mean, wouldn't the planet be better off without us, in your opinion? I'd think earth-worshippers like you would almost be rooting for our extinction, not living in fear of it.

---

Do you think purpose in life must be based in religion?

I don't. I don't believe in a God that controls the universe right down to the minute details of everyday life. What I think instead is that makes us responsible for choosing how to give our lives meaning and purpose--a big responsibility. Religion is one option, but that means you must accept someone else's definition of what you must do and must not do. And, in the case of Christianity and other religions, it means you must believe in an afterlife in which you are rewarded or punished for the choices you make. I particularly dislike a purpose driven by fear of hell or eternal damnation or the promise of some sort of heavenly reward, like 72 virgins (and what about THEIR enjoyment of the afterlife? Having to be a sex slave for some jerk with a food catching beard for all eternity sounds like the virgins are being punished with eternal misery to reward one guy for pleasing God).

I belief this is the only life we have, and the reward and punishment we reap comes in real time. Or not. Some really bad people are rewarded with wealth and comfort, while some really good ones suffer random awfulness like an ALS diagnosis or the death of a spouse or child.

My purpose is to leave the campsite better than I found it, by raising good children and doing good work, and also to savor the days I have to learn and walk my dog and read and work. I feel lucky to have two grown daughters I love, a good life partner, a comfortable house, a good dog to take walks with and a good job.

---

Ahhhhhhh, ok. So purpose of our existence is entirely subjective. I suppose that means you're very understanding of someone seeing things differently than you do. Like, say, someone who doesn't think it's important to leave the campsite better than you found it? After all, they have a different purpose, Jinx. You don't care about their religion, and they don't care about your purpose. It's all up to the individual what life is really about. Since this is "the only life we have" and all. Eat, drink, and be merry. Why the responsibility to future generations of an insignificant species who is a scourge to poor Mother Earth, right? Your worldview tends to make your stated purpose meaningless.

---

I think it may reveal more about someone's character if they believe the only reason to respect others', and other species lives is out of fear of consequences in the hereafter. Why would anyone of good character want to leave things in a worse condition for those who are unlucky enough to follow. Do you believe the only reason to behave responsibly is because you believe Jupiter or Yahweh will punish you if you don't?

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I would definitely not kick my child out. However, I can understand the parents point of view about worshiping together. Although I currently attend a southern baptist church, I don't agree with every interpretation of the Bible that has been presented...but I won't at any church I attend. You have to learn to ignore what you don't agree with OR the family could worship together in their home.

I raised my kids in a southern baptist church. One fell in love with a girl of a different denomination and although that denomination believes/does things differently, I just told him that I am glad he's going to church.

Proverbs 22:6

---

No, I don't understand their attitude. Suicide can be a result. They look stupid too.

---

I'm sure you don't understand. Anything outside your pro-abortion, anti-Christan rhetoric is difficult for you.

---

Fadskier, if your child was an unrepentant gay, would he go to hell. ( I Corinthians 6:9)
If so, send him/her to me. I know a loving God loves them just like they are. My God is not bound by some ancient 2,000 text that is oblivious to the world homosexuality and written by culturally twisted writers. They are inspired but not everlasting in their understanding of homosexuality. They are to culturally bound.
God loves gays and calls them
To discipleship, ordination and marriage. There ain't nothing you can do about. God is sovereign and calls who God wants to call, ordain, and love another human being.
Send your children to me. I know this God personally.

---

This personal god you speak of has been a deciever since he decieved Adam and Eve.

---

I thought that Christians were supposed to do the loving and serving and God was supposed to do the judging.

---

Anybody that says a homosexual union is the equivalent of a biblical marriage between one man and one woman has been deceived. That is not coming in judgement, that is a simple fact. The deceiver has been at work from the beginning of mankind and he is still at it today.

The bible also tells us to guard our doctrine with diligence as the bereans. Pointing out blatant falsehood is not judgement. It is discernment.

47's has to reconcile his heart with God, not me.

---

No one is saying a hetero biblical marriage is the same as a homosexual marriage. In fact, I would think most homosexuals want nothing to do with your biblical marriage. However, that doesn't mean the principles of fidelity, one love forever and a commitment to each other through good times and bad shouldn't be permitted for homosexuals. If they want to call it a marriage, let them. I know plenty more heterosexual couples that have broken their biblical marriage vows than I know homosexual couples that have broken their "secular" marriage vows. So maybe the biblical marriage needs to be taken more serious by all of the Christian followers before they can cast stones, don't you think?

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I would definitely not kick my child out. However, I can understand the parents point of view about worshiping together. Although I currently attend a southern baptist church, I don't agree with every interpretation of the Bible that has been presented...but I won't at any church I attend. You have to learn to ignore what you don't agree with OR the family could worship together in their home.

I raised my kids in a southern baptist church. One fell in love with a girl of a different denomination and although that denomination believes/does things differently, I just told him that I am glad he's going to church.

Proverbs 22:6

---

No, I don't understand their attitude. Suicide can be a result. They look stupid too.

---

I'm sure you don't understand. Anything outside your pro-abortion, anti-Christan rhetoric is difficult for you.

---

Fadskier, if your child was an unrepentant gay, would he go to hell. ( I Corinthians 6:9)
If so, send him/her to me. I know a loving God loves them just like they are.

---

Please stop spreading this heretical lie. God does not love anyone "just like they are." It's the whole reason a plan of salvation was necessary. God is perfectly merciful but He is also perfectly Just. He does not turn a blind eye to sin. He graciously offers us Life through faith and belief in the atonement that He provided through His son. He doesn't just love us "like we are" in sin. Sin separates. Jesus reconciles.

Also, thank you for mentioning that you discard the authority of the Bible and that you aren't "bound" by it. I'll make sure to disregard any future mention or reference you make to it. You truly are the epitome of a "false teacher." Luckily, I don't believe at all that you have actually ever been a pastor of a church.

---

What do you mean by "just"?

ATL Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Would you have the same reaction if he were in a heterosexual relationship out of marriage?

---

TS - If not sure if this was directed at me; however, if it was, please let me know what "reaction" was mentioned in my post that would make me hypocritical.

---

The post was not directed at you per se. It's a question I posited to everyone on this thread.

---

The answer is that if an adult male or female who liked to sleep around or party and refuses to go to church with his/her parents as part of the "house rules" was "kicked out" for it, that wouldn't be a story picked up by the media. Also, if as an Atheist you refused to go to church with your parents and they said you can't stay with them unless you do, it also wouldn't be a news story. So one has to ask themselves, why is this worthy as a news story for major media outlets?

---

Except I wasn't asking about news media. I was asking what you (meaning those on this thread) would do if their child were in a heterosexual relationship outside of marriage.

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Some people don't view same-sex attraction as a 'cross' but as a naturally occuring variation. As is their right in any nation that touts separation of church and state.

---

First, science has not established what causes Same-sex attraction. Blindness, deafness, malformations, etc., are naturally occurring. These are considered crosses to bear.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Same-sex attraction as 'sin" or a "cross to bear" is a religious belief--a very bigoted one, IMO, and not one all Christian churches share.

---

I never called it a sin to have Same-sex attraction. I will argue all day that it is a cross to bear. No one wakes up upon discovery and says, "YEAH, I'm Gay!" Most struggle for years, if not a lifetime.

Humans are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex. That is how all species grow, prosper, and evolve. Same-sex attraction is against the natural law.

As Christians, we are called to love ALL people. I do my best to do so. That doesn't mean that I have to love the behaviors of all people.

---

You think humans are 'designed.'

I think we evolved, and that being gay--which has been a constant since the dawn of time--must have some benefit, or it would have been selected out.

There are so many things that can and do go wrong with our 'design'--genes that cause cancer and alzhiemers, extra cromosomes causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities, chronic issues like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, a horrible death sentence like Huntington's disease. As the sister of a profoundly disabled brother who died at 32 with his multitude of issues never fully diagnosed or understood, I've seen the worst result of randomness and find that the miracle is that things go right so much of the time.

---

Your 2nd paragraph and 3rd paragraph are contradictory.

If homosexuality must have some "benefit" or else it would have been "selected" out . . . . then kindly tell me the benefit of cancer, alzhiemers, and chromosomal disorders "causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities." Since, you know, those things haven't been selected out either.

---

The point where we probably disagree is that there is a Plan or a Purpose. I don't believe there is, and I believe that imbues us with greater responsibility for our fates and the fate of all life on earth, not less. We are doing a very poor job of stewarding the environment that created us. The cost for that could be our own extinction.

---

Who cares? If there's no purpose, then so what? Species go extinct all the time.

Plus, I mean, wouldn't the planet be better off without us, in your opinion? I'd think earth-worshippers like you would almost be rooting for our extinction, not living in fear of it.

---

Do you think purpose in life must be based in religion?

I don't. I don't believe in a God that controls the universe right down to the minute details of everyday life. What I think instead is that makes us responsible for choosing how to give our lives meaning and purpose--a big responsibility. Religion is one option, but that means you must accept someone else's definition of what you must do and must not do. And, in the case of Christianity and other religions, it means you must believe in an afterlife in which you are rewarded or punished for the choices you make. I particularly dislike a purpose driven by fear of hell or eternal damnation or the promise of some sort of heavenly reward, like 72 virgins (and what about THEIR enjoyment of the afterlife? Having to be a sex slave for some jerk with a food catching beard for all eternity sounds like the virgins are being punished with eternal misery to reward one guy for pleasing God).

I belief this is the only life we have, and the reward and punishment we reap comes in real time. Or not. Some really bad people are rewarded with wealth and comfort, while some really good ones suffer random awfulness like an ALS diagnosis or the death of a spouse or child.

My purpose is to leave the campsite better than I found it, by raising good children and doing good work, and also to savor the days I have to learn and walk my dog and read and work. I feel lucky to have two grown daughters I love, a good life partner, a comfortable house, a good dog to take walks with and a good job.

---

Ahhhhhhh, ok. So purpose of our existence is entirely subjective. I suppose that means you're very understanding of someone seeing things differently than you do. Like, say, someone who doesn't think it's important to leave the campsite better than you found it? After all, they have a different purpose, Jinx. You don't care about their religion, and they don't care about your purpose. It's all up to the individual what life is really about. Since this is "the only life we have" and all. Eat, drink, and be merry. Why the responsibility to future generations of an insignificant species who is a scourge to poor Mother Earth, right? Your worldview tends to make your stated purpose meaningless.

---

You are conflating agnosticism with individualism.

If anything, my concern for people and my conviction that we must work together to preserve the planet for everyone may be stronger than yours, because I don't exclude people of other faiths or no faith (especially, in the case of evangelical Christians, Muslims), nor do I believe we're going to be bailed out of drowning in our own waste by the Second Coming, which may seem to make issues like clean air, clean water, trash-free oceans and climate change seem less urgent. If you think God's in control and that you're his chosen people, you may think there's an exit strategy. If you don't, our incredible hubris in fouling our nest strikes you as incredibly stupid and short-sighted.

"Leave the campsite better than you found it" is a strong ethic for me.

I feel just as strongly about that as something everyone needs to do as some evangelical Christians feel about eliminating any form of abortion as a legal choice for all women or about eliminating civil rights for gay people because that's legitimizing sin.

The fact that my beliefs and convictions aren't religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong, and that I won't act to support them. Just as the fact that your beliefs and convictions ARE religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong or stop you from advocating for laws forcing everyone to adhere to them, regardless of whether they share your beliefs about reproductive rights or gay civil rights.

---

Thanks. I think your positions about human life being meaningless in a grander scheme (subjective purpose only) but also having a need to tend to mother earth for future generations are inconsistent.

Also, despite your barbs about religions, your beliefs seem pretty religious as well. Although in keeping with the aforementioned inconsistency they seem to be a mix of Nature Worship and Humanism. For what it's worth, you do seem more "holier than thou" and self-impressed than most mainstream religious folks I know.

Lastly, despite your veiled digs, I don't know a single Christian friend or acquaintance that is in favor of "eliminating civil rights for gay people." That's just an absurd accusation. You're right that many are, however, in favor of being on the right side of history on the issue of slaughtering millions of tiny defenseless humans. And they should be, because the practice is absolutely monstrous. But nobody is trying to eliminate civil rights. They might be opposed to people receiving special consideration based on the people they choose to share a bed with. And yes, they consider the practice of homosexuality to be a sin (among many other sins that everyone they know commits) but that doesn't make them anti civil rights. I suspect you know this.

---

Your snide critique of my views is wrong. I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option.

If you choose religion, you are choosing to agree with someone else's definition of what gives life meaning and how you should live, whether that's the Pope (who has just disavowed the death penalty); the Mormon Elders, who had a revelation in the 1970s that black men should be admitted to the priesthood--so those sets of beliefs CAN change and evolve while the foundation stays intact; the Jehovah's Witnesses, who think a small group of the elect--them--will be saved; the Christian Scientists, who have concocted an elaborate scheme to let rich people buy their way to meaning; ISIS, which used a 7th century text to justify sexual slavery, murder and the complete subjugation of women; various brands of protestantism, some of which believe everything is fore-ordained. Religions evolve and change over time.

Of course my beliefs are informed by religion; I was raised in Methodist and Episcopal churches, spent 3 years in the Nazarene church, which cured me for life of the weekly alter-call drama of evangelical Christianity, and I think the ethic of "Treat other people the way you would have them treat you" is one of the best approaches to life there is. I wish Christianity, in particular, hadn't failed so badly in promoting stewardship of the planet, and I'm at a loss to understand why people like you are so hostile to that view. We only have one planet. There's no escape for us and our children. Why are we so intent on fouling the nest? A desire for better stewardship of the cradle of humanity does not equate to nature worship.

Note above that I talked about MY beliefs, not yours, while your post focused entirely on critiquing my views until you got to the abortion issue. You are free to believe whatever you choose; I will oppose views I disagree with only when you attempt to impose them on me with the force of law. And I am very tired of the "but abortion" argument used to discredit anything else a person does, says or thinks. Especially from people who support the death penalty. Respect for life, to me, involves respecting the bodily integrity of women and their existence as individuals who retain the right to make reproductive decisions for themselves. IMO, the government should not have a role in making those decisions, any more than the government should be in the nasty business of killing its citizens, especially given our faulty, error-prone system of justice.

And at least some evangelical churches and some factions of the Catholic church have a clear agenda to deny people who are gay basic civil rights like marriage--both a civil and religious institution. Some hold the view that the only option open to people attracted to those of the same sex is a life of celibacy, or the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex and live as straight. Since that choice involves another person--typically a woman, whose needs for a partner who is actually attracted to her are utterly disregarded in this scenario--I think THAT's immoral. I'm not asking you to change your views or your church. I'm asking you to make room for people who don't share your views and stop trying to preclude their choices with the force of law to outwardly conform to your religious beliefs. And to support policies that involve better stewardship of the planet for future generations. I don't want my grandchildren to depend on egotistical guys like Elon Musk for an escape route. That's pragmatism, not nature worship.

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Some people don't view same-sex attraction as a 'cross' but as a naturally occuring variation. As is their right in any nation that touts separation of church and state.

---

First, science has not established what causes Same-sex attraction. Blindness, deafness, malformations, etc., are naturally occurring. These are considered crosses to bear.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Same-sex attraction as 'sin" or a "cross to bear" is a religious belief--a very bigoted one, IMO, and not one all Christian churches share.

---

I never called it a sin to have Same-sex attraction. I will argue all day that it is a cross to bear. No one wakes up upon discovery and says, "YEAH, I'm Gay!" Most struggle for years, if not a lifetime.

Humans are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex. That is how all species grow, prosper, and evolve. Same-sex attraction is against the natural law.

As Christians, we are called to love ALL people. I do my best to do so. That doesn't mean that I have to love the behaviors of all people.

---

You think humans are 'designed.'

I think we evolved, and that being gay--which has been a constant since the dawn of time--must have some benefit, or it would have been selected out.

There are so many things that can and do go wrong with our 'design'--genes that cause cancer and alzhiemers, extra cromosomes causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities, chronic issues like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, a horrible death sentence like Huntington's disease. As the sister of a profoundly disabled brother who died at 32 with his multitude of issues never fully diagnosed or understood, I've seen the worst result of randomness and find that the miracle is that things go right so much of the time.

---

Your 2nd paragraph and 3rd paragraph are contradictory.

If homosexuality must have some "benefit" or else it would have been "selected" out . . . . then kindly tell me the benefit of cancer, alzhiemers, and chromosomal disorders "causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities." Since, you know, those things haven't been selected out either.

---

The point where we probably disagree is that there is a Plan or a Purpose. I don't believe there is, and I believe that imbues us with greater responsibility for our fates and the fate of all life on earth, not less. We are doing a very poor job of stewarding the environment that created us. The cost for that could be our own extinction.

---

Who cares? If there's no purpose, then so what? Species go extinct all the time.

Plus, I mean, wouldn't the planet be better off without us, in your opinion? I'd think earth-worshippers like you would almost be rooting for our extinction, not living in fear of it.

---

Do you think purpose in life must be based in religion?

I don't. I don't believe in a God that controls the universe right down to the minute details of everyday life. What I think instead is that makes us responsible for choosing how to give our lives meaning and purpose--a big responsibility. Religion is one option, but that means you must accept someone else's definition of what you must do and must not do. And, in the case of Christianity and other religions, it means you must believe in an afterlife in which you are rewarded or punished for the choices you make. I particularly dislike a purpose driven by fear of hell or eternal damnation or the promise of some sort of heavenly reward, like 72 virgins (and what about THEIR enjoyment of the afterlife? Having to be a sex slave for some jerk with a food catching beard for all eternity sounds like the virgins are being punished with eternal misery to reward one guy for pleasing God).

I belief this is the only life we have, and the reward and punishment we reap comes in real time. Or not. Some really bad people are rewarded with wealth and comfort, while some really good ones suffer random awfulness like an ALS diagnosis or the death of a spouse or child.

My purpose is to leave the campsite better than I found it, by raising good children and doing good work, and also to savor the days I have to learn and walk my dog and read and work. I feel lucky to have two grown daughters I love, a good life partner, a comfortable house, a good dog to take walks with and a good job.

---

Ahhhhhhh, ok. So purpose of our existence is entirely subjective. I suppose that means you're very understanding of someone seeing things differently than you do. Like, say, someone who doesn't think it's important to leave the campsite better than you found it? After all, they have a different purpose, Jinx. You don't care about their religion, and they don't care about your purpose. It's all up to the individual what life is really about. Since this is "the only life we have" and all. Eat, drink, and be merry. Why the responsibility to future generations of an insignificant species who is a scourge to poor Mother Earth, right? Your worldview tends to make your stated purpose meaningless.

---

You are conflating agnosticism with individualism.

If anything, my concern for people and my conviction that we must work together to preserve the planet for everyone may be stronger than yours, because I don't exclude people of other faiths or no faith (especially, in the case of evangelical Christians, Muslims), nor do I believe we're going to be bailed out of drowning in our own waste by the Second Coming, which may seem to make issues like clean air, clean water, trash-free oceans and climate change seem less urgent. If you think God's in control and that you're his chosen people, you may think there's an exit strategy. If you don't, our incredible hubris in fouling our nest strikes you as incredibly stupid and short-sighted.

"Leave the campsite better than you found it" is a strong ethic for me.

I feel just as strongly about that as something everyone needs to do as some evangelical Christians feel about eliminating any form of abortion as a legal choice for all women or about eliminating civil rights for gay people because that's legitimizing sin.

The fact that my beliefs and convictions aren't religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong, and that I won't act to support them. Just as the fact that your beliefs and convictions ARE religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong or stop you from advocating for laws forcing everyone to adhere to them, regardless of whether they share your beliefs about reproductive rights or gay civil rights.

---

Thanks. I think your positions about human life being meaningless in a grander scheme (subjective purpose only) but also having a need to tend to mother earth for future generations are inconsistent.

Also, despite your barbs about religions, your beliefs seem pretty religious as well. Although in keeping with the aforementioned inconsistency they seem to be a mix of Nature Worship and Humanism. For what it's worth, you do seem more "holier than thou" and self-impressed than most mainstream religious folks I know.

Lastly, despite your veiled digs, I don't know a single Christian friend or acquaintance that is in favor of "eliminating civil rights for gay people." That's just an absurd accusation. You're right that many are, however, in favor of being on the right side of history on the issue of slaughtering millions of tiny defenseless humans. And they should be, because the practice is absolutely monstrous. But nobody is trying to eliminate civil rights. They might be opposed to people receiving special consideration based on the people they choose to share a bed with. And yes, they consider the practice of homosexuality to be a sin (among many other sins that everyone they know commits) but that doesn't make them anti civil rights. I suspect you know this.

---

Your snide critique of my views is wrong. I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option.

If you choose religion, you are choosing to agree with someone else's definition of what gives life meaning and how you should live, whether that's the Pope (who has just disavowed the death penalty); the Mormon Elders, who had a revelation in the 1970s that black men should be admitted to the priesthood--so those sets of beliefs CAN change and evolve while the foundation stays intact; the Jehovah's Witnesses, who think a small group of the elect--them--will be saved; the Christian Scientists, who have concocted an elaborate scheme to let rich people buy their way to meaning; ISIS, which used a 7th century text to justify sexual slavery, murder and the complete subjugation of woman; various brands of protestantism, some of which believe everything is fore-ordained. Religions evolve and change over time.

Of course my beliefs are informed by religion; I was raised in Methodist and Episcopal churches, spent 3 years in the Nazarene church, which cured me for life of the weekly alter-call drama of evangelical Christianity, and I think the ethic of "Treat other people the way you would have them treat you" is one of the best approaches to life there is. I wish Christianity, in particular, hadn't failed so badly in promoting stewardship of the planet, and I'm at a loss to understand why people like you are so hostile to that view. We only have one planet. There's no escape for us and our children. Why are we so intent on fouling the nest? A desire for better stewardship of the cradle of humanity does not equate to nature worship.

Note above that I talked about MY beliefs, not yours, while your post focused entirely on critiquing my views until you got to the abortion issue. You are free to believe whatever you choose; I will oppose views I disagree with only when you attempt to impose them on me with the force of law. And I am very tired of the "but abortion" argument used to discredit anything else a person does, says or thinks. Especially from people who support the death penalty. Respect for life, to me, involves respecting the bodily integrity of women and their existence as individuals who retain the right to make reproductive decisions for themselves. IMO, the government should not have a role in making those decisions, any more than the government should be in the nasty business of killing its citizens, especially given our faulty, error-prone system of justice.

And at least some evangelical churches and some factions of the Catholic church have a clear agenda to deny people who are gay basic civil rights like marriage--both a civil and religious institution. Some hold the view that the only option open to people attracted to those of the same sex is a life of celibacy, or the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex and live as straight. Since that choice involves another person--typically a woman, whose needs for a partner who is actually attracted to her are utterly disregarded in this scenario--I think THAT's immoral. I'm not asking you to change your views or your church. I'm asking you to make room for people who don't share your views and stop trying to preclude their choices with the force of law to outwardly conform to your religious beliefs. And to support policies that involve better stewardship of the planet for future generations. I don't want my grandchildren to depend on egotistical guys like Elon Musk for an escape route. That's pragmatism, not nature worship.

---

I wasn't asked, but I wanted to interject, except for a couple of points, I completely agree with your assessment. Very well stated.

Booray said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Couple of quick points ...

• Jinx 2 - Your Thread title/question is a misleading as the boy's misrepresentation/lie to NBC News. The boy told the news that he was kicked out. Sadly, the article does not correct this until the father's comment, which was buried at the end of the article.

• "I started to cry because I realized there was no way that I could go to college," - what a load of B.S! Get a student loan. Get a job. Dave Ramsey would have no mercy for him. You're a valedictorian. Figure it out, snowflake. Many, MANY more kids have gone to school with NO support and made it. I paid entirely for my college education.
• Georgetown is a private, Catholic college. Of course, now it is Catholic in namesake only. Heaven forbid that kid have to take a religion or Christian morality course. He won't enjoy being told that while having Same-Sex Attracting isn't a sin, acting on it is.
• I would not kick my kid out for having Same-Sex Attraction. I would make sure that they understand that they are called to live a chaste life, just like ALL of us are called to do.
• Finally, I have told my kids that while they live under my roof, they will attend mass. I will never force them to take Communion, but they are required to go to mass each week.

---

The dad's comment is confusing. Kid says he was kicked out becuase he would not attend the family church. Dad says thats wrong-he is welcome to live her as long as we worship together. Huh? "worship together" means going to the family church. He won't so he is no longer welcome at home. How is that different from kicking him out?

---

it was the kids choice to leave instead of follow the house rules... wasnt kicked out. I dont agree with his rules and consequences, should not have put his son in that position.

Would I have kicked Seth out?

Idk

Can't tell ya but there's nearly 2 decades of experience his parents have with him

So it wasn't just a one event occurrence that sent him packing. It was an accumulation of him being a major pain for a looooooonnnng time

But I'll defer to parents and not side with the child

Looks like a journalist sticking nose in a family matter, because it fits the journalists political agenda, and making family matters worse for years to come. Wish you could sue the journalist and newspaper and anything associated with them for slander/liable!

FWIW, kid doesn't say he was kicked out. That was the characterization of the reporter or the editor of the news story.

bubbadog said:

---

FWIW, kid doesn't say he was kicked out. That was the characterization of the reporter or the editor of the news story.

---

^^^ Interesting

All the more reason to make a newspaper and it's people pay for messing with a family

Sue em

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I would definitely not kick my child out. However, I can understand the parents point of view about worshiping together. Although I currently attend a southern baptist church, I don't agree with every interpretation of the Bible that has been presented...but I won't at any church I attend. You have to learn to ignore what you don't agree with OR the family could worship together in their home.

I raised my kids in a southern baptist church. One fell in love with a girl of a different denomination and although that denomination believes/does things differently, I just told him that I am glad he's going to church.

Proverbs 22:6

---

No, I don't understand their attitude. Suicide can be a result. They look stupid too.

---

I'm sure you don't understand. Anything outside your pro-abortion, anti-Christan rhetoric is difficult for you.

---

Fadskier, if your child was an unrepentant gay, would he go to hell. ( I Corinthians 6:9)
If so, send him/her to me. I know a loving God loves them just like they are. My God is not bound by some ancient 2,000 text that is oblivious to the world homosexuality and written by culturally twisted writers. They are inspired but not everlasting in their understanding of homosexuality. They are to culturally bound.
God loves gays and calls them
To discipleship, ordination and marriage. There ain't nothing you can do about. God is sovereign and calls who God wants to call, ordain, and love another human being.
Send your children to me. I know this God personally.

---

This personal god you speak of has been a deciever since he decieved Adam and Eve.

---

I thought that Christians were supposed to do the loving and serving and God was supposed to do the judging.

---

Anybody that says a homosexual union is the equivalent of a biblical marriage between one man and one woman has been deceived. That is not coming in judgement, that is a simple fact. The deceiver has been at work from the beginning of mankind and he is still at it today.

The bible also tells us to guard our doctrine with diligence as the bereans. Pointing out blatant falsehood is not judgement. It is discernment.

47's has to reconcile his heart with God, not me.

---

In your defense you site a 2,000 year old document that had no idea of what a homosexual was. Paul pointed to a perverse practice among Romans that any human being would abhor. BUT it does not follow that his comment should be interpreted for ALL time adcondrmnation of gays. I differ on my interpretation of the Bible not its authority. Forrest wishes to say hi Interpration is good for all time. It's not. It's one interpretation among many. That gay is sin is a 2,000 teaching only means that it took us that long to understand homosexuality.
Gay or gay behavior and the morals for sexual conduct are the same. Gays don't get a pass. Mark 10 is talking about divorce not one man one woman. Read it very carefully Forrest.

---

Where is your evidence for the first sentence?

I've noticed that in the past, when someone uses scripture in their argument, you always retort with, "that's not what they meant" or "that's not the correct interpretation."

Seems as if you always use the Bible when you need it, and ignore it when you don't.

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Some people don't view same-sex attraction as a 'cross' but as a naturally occuring variation. As is their right in any nation that touts separation of church and state.

---

First, science has not established what causes Same-sex attraction. Blindness, deafness, malformations, etc., are naturally occurring. These are considered crosses to bear.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Same-sex attraction as 'sin" or a "cross to bear" is a religious belief--a very bigoted one, IMO, and not one all Christian churches share.

---

I never called it a sin to have Same-sex attraction. I will argue all day that it is a cross to bear. No one wakes up upon discovery and says, "YEAH, I'm Gay!" Most struggle for years, if not a lifetime.

Humans are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex. That is how all species grow, prosper, and evolve. Same-sex attraction is against the natural law.

As Christians, we are called to love ALL people. I do my best to do so. That doesn't mean that I have to love the behaviors of all people.

---

You think humans are 'designed.'

I think we evolved, and that being gay--which has been a constant since the dawn of time--must have some benefit, or it would have been selected out.

There are so many things that can and do go wrong with our 'design'--genes that cause cancer and alzhiemers, extra cromosomes causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities, chronic issues like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, a horrible death sentence like Huntington's disease. As the sister of a profoundly disabled brother who died at 32 with his multitude of issues never fully diagnosed or understood, I've seen the worst result of randomness and find that the miracle is that things go right so much of the time.

---

Your 2nd paragraph and 3rd paragraph are contradictory.

If homosexuality must have some "benefit" or else it would have been "selected" out . . . . then kindly tell me the benefit of cancer, alzhiemers, and chromosomal disorders "causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities." Since, you know, those things haven't been selected out either.

---

The point where we probably disagree is that there is a Plan or a Purpose. I don't believe there is, and I believe that imbues us with greater responsibility for our fates and the fate of all life on earth, not less. We are doing a very poor job of stewarding the environment that created us. The cost for that could be our own extinction.

---

Who cares? If there's no purpose, then so what? Species go extinct all the time.

Plus, I mean, wouldn't the planet be better off without us, in your opinion? I'd think earth-worshippers like you would almost be rooting for our extinction, not living in fear of it.

---

Do you think purpose in life must be based in religion?

I don't. I don't believe in a God that controls the universe right down to the minute details of everyday life. What I think instead is that makes us responsible for choosing how to give our lives meaning and purpose--a big responsibility. Religion is one option, but that means you must accept someone else's definition of what you must do and must not do. And, in the case of Christianity and other religions, it means you must believe in an afterlife in which you are rewarded or punished for the choices you make. I particularly dislike a purpose driven by fear of hell or eternal damnation or the promise of some sort of heavenly reward, like 72 virgins (and what about THEIR enjoyment of the afterlife? Having to be a sex slave for some jerk with a food catching beard for all eternity sounds like the virgins are being punished with eternal misery to reward one guy for pleasing God).

I belief this is the only life we have, and the reward and punishment we reap comes in real time. Or not. Some really bad people are rewarded with wealth and comfort, while some really good ones suffer random awfulness like an ALS diagnosis or the death of a spouse or child.

My purpose is to leave the campsite better than I found it, by raising good children and doing good work, and also to savor the days I have to learn and walk my dog and read and work. I feel lucky to have two grown daughters I love, a good life partner, a comfortable house, a good dog to take walks with and a good job.

---

Ahhhhhhh, ok. So purpose of our existence is entirely subjective. I suppose that means you're very understanding of someone seeing things differently than you do. Like, say, someone who doesn't think it's important to leave the campsite better than you found it? After all, they have a different purpose, Jinx. You don't care about their religion, and they don't care about your purpose. It's all up to the individual what life is really about. Since this is "the only life we have" and all. Eat, drink, and be merry. Why the responsibility to future generations of an insignificant species who is a scourge to poor Mother Earth, right? Your worldview tends to make your stated purpose meaningless.

---

You are conflating agnosticism with individualism.

If anything, my concern for people and my conviction that we must work together to preserve the planet for everyone may be stronger than yours, because I don't exclude people of other faiths or no faith (especially, in the case of evangelical Christians, Muslims), nor do I believe we're going to be bailed out of drowning in our own waste by the Second Coming, which may seem to make issues like clean air, clean water, trash-free oceans and climate change seem less urgent. If you think God's in control and that you're his chosen people, you may think there's an exit strategy. If you don't, our incredible hubris in fouling our nest strikes you as incredibly stupid and short-sighted.

"Leave the campsite better than you found it" is a strong ethic for me.

I feel just as strongly about that as something everyone needs to do as some evangelical Christians feel about eliminating any form of abortion as a legal choice for all women or about eliminating civil rights for gay people because that's legitimizing sin.

The fact that my beliefs and convictions aren't religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong, and that I won't act to support them. Just as the fact that your beliefs and convictions ARE religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong or stop you from advocating for laws forcing everyone to adhere to them, regardless of whether they share your beliefs about reproductive rights or gay civil rights.

---

Thanks. I think your positions about human life being meaningless in a grander scheme (subjective purpose only) but also having a need to tend to mother earth for future generations are inconsistent.

Also, despite your barbs about religions, your beliefs seem pretty religious as well. Although in keeping with the aforementioned inconsistency they seem to be a mix of Nature Worship and Humanism. For what it's worth, you do seem more "holier than thou" and self-impressed than most mainstream religious folks I know.

Lastly, despite your veiled digs, I don't know a single Christian friend or acquaintance that is in favor of "eliminating civil rights for gay people." That's just an absurd accusation. You're right that many are, however, in favor of being on the right side of history on the issue of slaughtering millions of tiny defenseless humans. And they should be, because the practice is absolutely monstrous. But nobody is trying to eliminate civil rights. They might be opposed to people receiving special consideration based on the people they choose to share a bed with. And yes, they consider the practice of homosexuality to be a sin (among many other sins that everyone they know commits) but that doesn't make them anti civil rights. I suspect you know this.

---

Your snide critique of my views is wrong. I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option.

If you choose religion, you are choosing to agree with someone else's definition of what gives life meaning and how you should live, whether that's the Pope (who has just disavowed the death penalty); the Mormon Elders, who had a revelation in the 1970s that black men should be admitted to the priesthood--so those sets of beliefs CAN change and evolve while the foundation stays intact; the Jehovah's Witnesses, who think a small group of the elect--them--will be saved; the Christian Scientists, who have concocted an elaborate scheme to let rich people buy their way to meaning; ISIS, which used a 7th century text to justify sexual slavery, murder and the complete subjugation of women; various brands of protestantism, some of which believe everything is fore-ordained. Religions evolve and change over time.

Of course my beliefs are informed by religion; I was raised in Methodist and Episcopal churches, spent 3 years in the Nazarene church, which cured me for life of the weekly alter-call drama of evangelical Christianity, and I think the ethic of "Treat other people the way you would have them treat you" is one of the best approaches to life there is. I wish Christianity, in particular, hadn't failed so badly in promoting stewardship of the planet, and I'm at a loss to understand why people like you are so hostile to that view. We only have one planet. There's no escape for us and our children. Why are we so intent on fouling the nest? A desire for better stewardship of the cradle of humanity does not equate to nature worship.

Note above that I talked about MY beliefs, not yours, while your post focused entirely on critiquing my views until you got to the abortion issue. You are free to believe whatever you choose; I will oppose views I disagree with only when you attempt to impose them on me with the force of law. And I am very tired of the "but abortion" argument used to discredit anything else a person does, says or thinks. Especially from people who support the death penalty. Respect for life, to me, involves respecting the bodily integrity of women and their existence as individuals who retain the right to make reproductive decisions for themselves. IMO, the government should not have a role in making those decisions, any more than the government should be in the nasty business of killing its citizens, especially given our faulty, error-prone system of justice.

And at least some evangelical churches and some factions of the Catholic church have a clear agenda to deny people who are gay basic civil rights like marriage--both a civil and religious institution. Some hold the view that the only option open to people attracted to those of the same sex is a life of celibacy, or the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex and live as straight. Since that choice involves another person--typically a woman, whose needs for a partner who is actually attracted to her are utterly disregarded in this scenario--I think THAT's immoral. I'm not asking you to change your views or your church. I'm asking you to make room for people who don't share your views and stop trying to preclude their choices with the force of law to outwardly conform to your religious beliefs. And to support policies that involve better stewardship of the planet for future generations. I don't want my grandchildren to depend on egotistical guys like Elon Musk for an escape route. That's pragmatism, not nature worship.

---

I'll try to address a few of these points one at a time:

"I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option."

Forgive me, but I just think these two sentences are contradictory. If each individual concocts their own individual "meaning" or purpose, then there is no "grander scheme" purpose for the species. No universal truth means we're merely one of the currently known 8.7 million species on the planet. No more or less important than a praying mantis. Making meaning entirely subjective negates the value of the concept altogether.

.
"If you choose religion, you are choosing to agree with someone else's definition of what gives life meaning and how you should live."

I'm not following someone else's definition so much as I'm embracing what I believe to be the truth of the universe. Other people don't define or control my belief, but there are certain people who have tapped into the same truth from whom I can learn. You, on the other hand, are choosing Self. This, according to Christian faith, was the sin of Lucifer before the creation of Earth and the original human sin in the garden. This self-deification is also why I suggest you practice a form of Humanism.

.
"Christian Scientists, who have concocted an elaborate scheme to let rich people buy their way to meaning."

Not that it matters, but I think you might be confusing Christian Scientists with Scientologists. Two very different things. Christian Science is a metaphysical religion centered largely around the belief that sickness is an illusion, where as Scientology is a science-fiction cult where you buy your way to the top like Tom Cruise and John Travolta have done.

.
"I wish Christianity, in particular, hadn't failed so badly in promoting stewardship of the planet, and I'm at a loss to understand why people like you are so hostile to that view. We only have one planet. There's no escape for us and our children. Why are we so intent on fouling the nest? A desire for better stewardship of the cradle of humanity does not equate to nature worship."

How has Christianity supposedly failed in this area? By not making it a primary plank of its doctrine for some reason? What specifically are you referring to? Also, I'm not hostile to the idea of taking care of the planet. I'm an outdoorsman, hunter, fisherman and conservationist. I have taught my daughters to respect nature and to be good stewards of our planet. I do NOT, however, believe that human beings as a species are contributing in a way that is significantly and realistically alterable to the (insert ominous music here along with deep announcer voice with reverb) . . the DESTRUCTION OF THE PLANET. Spending my days lamenting how us awful humans are ruining the planet would be a waste of my life. If humans are hurting the planet, the only real way that will change in a signifiant way is if there are less human beings. I'm not saying I don't think people should be responsible, I'm just saying that lobbying for sweeping, expensive environmental regulation is likely to contribute more harm to humankind (by being injurious economically) than it is to contribute benefit. And the expense is unlikely to result in a meaningful difference. It's simply a cost-benefit analysis. But, bottom line, it just isn't as big a thing for me as it is for you. Again, I think you worship nature and self. Those aren't things I worship.

.
I will oppose views I disagree with only when you attempt to impose them on me with the force of law.

Me too. On abortion, I think a really bad interpretation of constitutional law was applied 45 years ago and as a result millions of human beings have been exterminated. That bad law should be changed, and this monstrous practice should be prohibited.


.
"And I am very tired of the "but abortion" argument used to discredit anything else a person does, says or thinks. IMO, the government should not have a role in making those decisions."

You have taken the disingenuous position of claiming that you are a champion of "choice" and "freedom" and therefore think government shouldn't intrude. But you don't feel this about other topics. For example, I assume you aren't pro-choice for rapists, right? They are choosing what to do with their bodies, and in so doing are violating the body of another person and visiting violence upon them. This same thing happens with abortion. You believe we should "impose with the force of law" a prohibition against rape. I believe we should do the same when it comes to killing the most defenseless human beings among us.

.
And at least some evangelical churches and some factions of the Catholic church have a clear agenda to deny people who are gay basic civil rights like marriage--both a civil and religious institution.

I don't know a single Christian person who opposed a gay person having equal "civil rights like marriage." Most of us think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage in any way. We view it as a sacred relationship, not a governmental one. As such, I don't oppose gay people entering into a lifelong committed relationship and having the exact same rights I would have for being in one that I call "marriage." I object to them calling it "marriage" for the same reason I object to calling a three-sided object a rectangle. It simply isn't what it is. But I don't think they should have less rights than those who do enter a marriage.

.
Some hold the view that the only option open to people attracted to those of the same sex is a life of celibacy, or the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex and live as straight.

Huh? Nobody (none that I know, anyway) believes this should be mandated somehow by government. That's crazy. Christians don't want a theocracy. They hold the views you described when it comes to their personal view on sin, but certainly not the law. I think it's a sin to tell a lie, to commit adultery, to covet your neighbors stuff, etc . . .but I don't think this has anything to do with law or government. I don't think there should be laws against those things and I don't think there should be against homosexuality. This isn't a civil rights issue. Not sure what you're talking about on this point with regard to "force of law."

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I would definitely not kick my child out. However, I can understand the parents point of view about worshiping together. Although I currently attend a southern baptist church, I don't agree with every interpretation of the Bible that has been presented...but I won't at any church I attend. You have to learn to ignore what you don't agree with OR the family could worship together in their home.

I raised my kids in a southern baptist church. One fell in love with a girl of a different denomination and although that denomination believes/does things differently, I just told him that I am glad he's going to church.

Proverbs 22:6

---

No, I don't understand their attitude. Suicide can be a result. They look stupid too.

---

I'm sure you don't understand. Anything outside your pro-abortion, anti-Christan rhetoric is difficult for you.

---

Fadskier, if your child was an unrepentant gay, would he go to hell. ( I Corinthians 6:9)
If so, send him/her to me. I know a loving God loves them just like they are. My God is not bound by some ancient 2,000 text that is oblivious to the world homosexuality and written by culturally twisted writers. They are inspired but not everlasting in their understanding of homosexuality. They are to culturally bound.
God loves gays and calls them
To discipleship, ordination and marriage. There ain't nothing you can do about. God is sovereign and calls who God wants to call, ordain, and love another human being.
Send your children to me. I know this God personally.

---

This personal god you speak of has been a deciever since he decieved Adam and Eve.

---

I thought that Christians were supposed to do the loving and serving and God was supposed to do the judging.

---

Anybody that says a homosexual union is the equivalent of a biblical marriage between one man and one woman has been deceived. That is not coming in judgement, that is a simple fact. The deceiver has been at work from the beginning of mankind and he is still at it today.

The bible also tells us to guard our doctrine with diligence as the bereans. Pointing out blatant falsehood is not judgement. It is discernment.

47's has to reconcile his heart with God, not me.

---

In your defense you site a 2,000 year old document that had no idea of what a homosexual was. Paul pointed to a perverse practice among Romans that any human being would abhor. BUT it does not follow that his comment should be interpreted for ALL time adcondrmnation of gays. I differ on my interpretation of the Bible not its authority. Forrest wishes to say hi Interpration is good for all time. It's not. It's one interpretation among many. That gay is sin is a 2,000 teaching only means that it took us that long to understand homosexuality.
Gay or gay behavior and the morals for sexual conduct are the same. Gays don't get a pass. Mark 10 is talking about divorce not one man one woman. Read it very carefully Forrest.

---

Thank you for your thoughtful response. The verse I was looking at are in Genesis.

Genesis 2:18-25 English Standard Version (ESV)
18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for[a] him." 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed[b] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam[c] there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made[d] into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,
"This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man."[e]
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.


God created a woman to be the wife of a man, not another man. Men with men are simply not a marriage.

A civil union, yes, but a believer, should believe Gods design for marriage, not new age cultures design.

We just are going to disagree here.

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sexual orientation- chosen or hereditary- is the responsibility and choice of the person. It is also beyond the scope of the law and should be a protected class. Why should anyone care with what sexi identity chooses to identify.

---

Why should someone's sexual proclivities give them special protection?

On that note, your first sentence negates your second sentence. Why don't you afford people the same freedom's you're affording people with certain sexual preferences? And, using your own language, why is it your business to tell someone how they should feel about another person's sexual activites?

Also, as is common with you, the third sentence is literally indecipherable in the English language.

---

"Sexual proclivities" is not what I said. That's a straw man. I said sexual orientation that different. You don't get to degrade it. Now try again without the straw man.

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sexual orientation- chosen or hereditary- is the responsibility and choice of the person. It is also beyond the scope of the law and should be a protected class. Why should anyone care with what sexi identity chooses to identify.

---

Why should someone's sexual proclivities give them special protection?

On that note, your first sentence negates your second sentence. Why don't you afford people the same freedom's you're affording people with certain sexual preferences? And, using your own language, why is it your business to tell someone how they should feel about another person's sexual activites?

Also, as is common with you, the third sentence is literally indecipherable in the English language.

---

"Sexual proclivities" is not what I said. That's a straw man. I said sexual orientation that different. You don't get to degrade it. Now try again without the straw man.

---

Again, what is your evidence that people didn't know about homosexuality 2000 years ago?

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I would definitely not kick my child out. However, I can understand the parents point of view about worshiping together. Although I currently attend a southern baptist church, I don't agree with every interpretation of the Bible that has been presented...but I won't at any church I attend. You have to learn to ignore what you don't agree with OR the family could worship together in their home.

I raised my kids in a southern baptist church. One fell in love with a girl of a different denomination and although that denomination believes/does things differently, I just told him that I am glad he's going to church.

Proverbs 22:6

---

No, I don't understand their attitude. Suicide can be a result. They look stupid too.

---

I'm sure you don't understand. Anything outside your pro-abortion, anti-Christan rhetoric is difficult for you.

---

Fadskier, if your child was an unrepentant gay, would he go to hell. ( I Corinthians 6:9)
If so, send him/her to me. I know a loving God loves them just like they are. My God is not bound by some ancient 2,000 text that is oblivious to the world homosexuality and written by culturally twisted writers. They are inspired but not everlasting in their understanding of homosexuality. They are to culturally bound.
God loves gays and calls them
To discipleship, ordination and marriage. There ain't nothing you can do about. God is sovereign and calls who God wants to call, ordain, and love another human being.
Send your children to me. I know this God personally.

---

This personal god you speak of has been a deciever since he decieved Adam and Eve.

---

I thought that Christians were supposed to do the loving and serving and God was supposed to do the judging.

---

Anybody that says a homosexual union is the equivalent of a biblical marriage between one man and one woman has been deceived. That is not coming in judgement, that is a simple fact. The deceiver has been at work from the beginning of mankind and he is still at it today.

The bible also tells us to guard our doctrine with diligence as the bereans. Pointing out blatant falsehood is not judgement. It is discernment.

47's has to reconcile his heart with God, not me.

---

In your defense you site a 2,000 year old document that had no idea of what a homosexual was. Paul pointed to a perverse practice among Romans that any human being would abhor. BUT it does not follow that his comment should be interpreted for ALL time adcondrmnation of gays. I differ on my interpretation of the Bible not its authority. Forrest wishes to say hi Interpration is good for all time. It's not. It's one interpretation among many. That gay is sin is a 2,000 teaching only means that it took us that long to understand homosexuality.
Gay or gay behavior and the morals for sexual conduct are the same. Gays don't get a pass. Mark 10 is talking about divorce not one man one woman. Read it very carefully Forrest.

---

Thank you for your thoughtful response. The verse I was looking at are in Genesis.

Genesis 2:18-25 English Standard Version (ESV)
18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for[a] him." 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed[b] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam[c] there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made[d] into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,
"This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man."[e]
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.


God created a woman to be the wife of a man, not another man. Men with men are simply not a marriage.

A civil union, yes, but a believer, should believe Gods design for marriage, not new age cultures design.

We just are going to disagree here.

---

. "A man shall leave his family and hold to his wife" is descriptive not proscriptive. If it were prescriptive then the Bible would be clear and speak on one voice consistly - over and over again - but it doesn't. Polygamy comes to mind. If polygamy is true then boom for years and years the people broke the law yet God never says No.
In the passage passage you quote is the basis for marriage "it is not good for the man to be alone." Marriage is about relationship not only sex. If it's sex for procreation then lots of in fertile couples and aged couples are breaking God's law.
Mark 10 is about divorce not marriage. Jesus is attempting to protect women from arbitrary divorce that leaves a woman destitute.

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sexual orientation- chosen or hereditary- is the responsibility and choice of the person. It is also beyond the scope of the law and should be a protected class. Why should anyone care with what sexi identity chooses to identify.

---

Why should someone's sexual proclivities give them special protection?

On that note, your first sentence negates your second sentence. Why don't you afford people the same freedom's you're affording people with certain sexual preferences? And, using your own language, why is it your business to tell someone how they should feel about another person's sexual activites?

Also, as is common with you, the third sentence is literally indecipherable in the English language.

---

"Sexual proclivities" is not what I said. That's a straw man. I said sexual orientation that different. You don't get to degrade it. Now try again without the straw man.

---

Holy crap. You did it again. Twice. Serious question: Have you ever participated in a thread without using the phrase "straw man?" It's creepy how in love you are with the term. It's like it's your default option when you have lost an argument or something. Did you hear the phrase somewhere and think it sounded smart, so you started using it all the time? You don't even use it correctly. Nothing about the post you just responded to involved a straw man. Apparently your objection was to me using the term "proclivity" to describe what you were talking about instead of the word "orientation." That is a mere semantics difference. And and a pretty meaningless one, since both terms mean a "predisposition" or "inclination."

So, again, why should someone's sexual proclivity/orientation/predisposition/inclination/whatever give them special protection? And respond to the other questions in my post. Stop diverting.

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sexual orientation- chosen or hereditary- is the responsibility and choice of the person. It is also beyond the scope of the law and should be a protected class. Why should anyone care with what sexi identity chooses to identify.

---

Why should someone's sexual proclivities give them special protection?

On that note, your first sentence negates your second sentence. Why don't you afford people the same freedom's you're affording people with certain sexual preferences? And, using your own language, why is it your business to tell someone how they should feel about another person's sexual activites?

Also, as is common with you, the third sentence is literally indecipherable in the English language.

---

"Sexual proclivities" is not what I said. That's a straw man. I said sexual orientation that different. You don't get to degrade it. Now try again without the straw man.

---

Again, what is your evidence that people didn't know about homosexuality 2000 years ago?

---

Biblical people knew of homosexual behavior but any understanding of it as a word or orientation was not until the late 19th century. Why beat up a people over a passage that is simply ignorance on Paul's part.

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sexual orientation- chosen or hereditary- is the responsibility and choice of the person. It is also beyond the scope of the law and should be a protected class. Why should anyone care with what sexi identity chooses to identify.

---

Why should someone's sexual proclivities give them special protection?

On that note, your first sentence negates your second sentence. Why don't you afford people the same freedom's you're affording people with certain sexual preferences? And, using your own language, why is it your business to tell someone how they should feel about another person's sexual activites?

Also, as is common with you, the third sentence is literally indecipherable in the English language.

---

"Sexual proclivities" is not what I said. That's a straw man. I said sexual orientation that different. You don't get to degrade it. Now try again without the straw man.

---

Again, what is your evidence that people didn't know about homosexuality 2000 years ago?

---

Biblical people knew of homosexual behavior but any understanding of it as a word or orientation was not until the late 19th century. Why beat up a people over a passage that is simply ignorance on Paul's part.

---

Your statement makes no sense. They knew of homosexual behavior, just not homosexuality? That makes no sense.

And, like usual, you present no evidence.

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I would definitely not kick my child out. However, I can understand the parents point of view about worshiping together. Although I currently attend a southern baptist church, I don't agree with every interpretation of the Bible that has been presented...but I won't at any church I attend. You have to learn to ignore what you don't agree with OR the family could worship together in their home.

I raised my kids in a southern baptist church. One fell in love with a girl of a different denomination and although that denomination believes/does things differently, I just told him that I am glad he's going to church.

Proverbs 22:6

---

No, I don't understand their attitude. Suicide can be a result. They look stupid too.

---

I'm sure you don't understand. Anything outside your pro-abortion, anti-Christan rhetoric is difficult for you.

---

Fadskier, if your child was an unrepentant gay, would he go to hell. ( I Corinthians 6:9)
If so, send him/her to me. I know a loving God loves them just like they are. My God is not bound by some ancient 2,000 text that is oblivious to the world homosexuality and written by culturally twisted writers. They are inspired but not everlasting in their understanding of homosexuality. They are to culturally bound.
God loves gays and calls them
To discipleship, ordination and marriage. There ain't nothing you can do about. God is sovereign and calls who God wants to call, ordain, and love another human being.
Send your children to me. I know this God personally.

---

This personal god you speak of has been a deciever since he decieved Adam and Eve.

---

I thought that Christians were supposed to do the loving and serving and God was supposed to do the judging.

---

Anybody that says a homosexual union is the equivalent of a biblical marriage between one man and one woman has been deceived. That is not coming in judgement, that is a simple fact. The deceiver has been at work from the beginning of mankind and he is still at it today.

The bible also tells us to guard our doctrine with diligence as the bereans. Pointing out blatant falsehood is not judgement. It is discernment.

47's has to reconcile his heart with God, not me.

---

In your defense you site a 2,000 year old document that had no idea of what a homosexual was. Paul pointed to a perverse practice among Romans that any human being would abhor. BUT it does not follow that his comment should be interpreted for ALL time adcondrmnation of gays. I differ on my interpretation of the Bible not its authority. Forrest wishes to say hi Interpration is good for all time. It's not. It's one interpretation among many. That gay is sin is a 2,000 teaching only means that it took us that long to understand homosexuality.
Gay or gay behavior and the morals for sexual conduct are the same. Gays don't get a pass. Mark 10 is talking about divorce not one man one woman. Read it very carefully Forrest.

---

Thank you for your thoughtful response. The verse I was looking at are in Genesis.

Genesis 2:18-25 English Standard Version (ESV)
18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for[a] him." 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed[b] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam[c] there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made[d] into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,
"This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man."[e]
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.


God created a woman to be the wife of a man, not another man. Men with men are simply not a marriage.

A civil union, yes, but a believer, should believe Gods design for marriage, not new age cultures design.

We just are going to disagree here.

---

. "A man shall leave his family and hold to his wife" is descriptive not proscriptive. If it were prescriptive then the Bible would be clear and speak on one voice consistly - over and over again - but it doesn't. Polygamy comes to mind. If polygamy is true then boom for years and years the people broke the law yet God never says No.
In the passage passage you quote is the basis for marriage "it is not good for the man to be alone." Marriage is about relationship not only sex. If it's sex for procreation then lots of in fertile couples and aged couples are breaking God's law.
Mark 10 is about divorce not marriage. Jesus is attempting to protect women from arbitrary divorce that leaves a woman destitute.

---

Do you apply your favorite terms to yourself as well as others? Like "sophistry?"

This post is so incredibly disingenuous. If the quoted passage is "descriptive, not proscriptive" can you please at least point to a similar passage that is descriptive about homosexual relationships? I mean, other than the ones that outright prohibit it!? And when God said "it is not good for the man to be alone" . . . HE IMMEDIATELY CREATED A WOMAN. Not another man. There is no way you're actually this dense. This is intentional. I'm almost convinced you're a sock puppet of another poster designed as a super troll who feigns this kind of stupidity to throw people off the scent.

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Some people don't view same-sex attraction as a 'cross' but as a naturally occuring variation. As is their right in any nation that touts separation of church and state.

---

First, science has not established what causes Same-sex attraction. Blindness, deafness, malformations, etc., are naturally occurring. These are considered crosses to bear.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Same-sex attraction as 'sin" or a "cross to bear" is a religious belief--a very bigoted one, IMO, and not one all Christian churches share.

---

I never called it a sin to have Same-sex attraction. I will argue all day that it is a cross to bear. No one wakes up upon discovery and says, "YEAH, I'm Gay!" Most struggle for years, if not a lifetime.

Humans are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex. That is how all species grow, prosper, and evolve. Same-sex attraction is against the natural law.

As Christians, we are called to love ALL people. I do my best to do so. That doesn't mean that I have to love the behaviors of all people.

---

You think humans are 'designed.'

I think we evolved, and that being gay--which has been a constant since the dawn of time--must have some benefit, or it would have been selected out.

There are so many things that can and do go wrong with our 'design'--genes that cause cancer and alzhiemers, extra cromosomes causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities, chronic issues like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, a horrible death sentence like Huntington's disease. As the sister of a profoundly disabled brother who died at 32 with his multitude of issues never fully diagnosed or understood, I've seen the worst result of randomness and find that the miracle is that things go right so much of the time.

---

Your 2nd paragraph and 3rd paragraph are contradictory.

If homosexuality must have some "benefit" or else it would have been "selected" out . . . . then kindly tell me the benefit of cancer, alzhiemers, and chromosomal disorders "causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities." Since, you know, those things haven't been selected out either.

---

The point where we probably disagree is that there is a Plan or a Purpose. I don't believe there is, and I believe that imbues us with greater responsibility for our fates and the fate of all life on earth, not less. We are doing a very poor job of stewarding the environment that created us. The cost for that could be our own extinction.

---

Who cares? If there's no purpose, then so what? Species go extinct all the time.

Plus, I mean, wouldn't the planet be better off without us, in your opinion? I'd think earth-worshippers like you would almost be rooting for our extinction, not living in fear of it.

---

Do you think purpose in life must be based in religion?

I don't. I don't believe in a God that controls the universe right down to the minute details of everyday life. What I think instead is that makes us responsible for choosing how to give our lives meaning and purpose--a big responsibility. Religion is one option, but that means you must accept someone else's definition of what you must do and must not do. And, in the case of Christianity and other religions, it means you must believe in an afterlife in which you are rewarded or punished for the choices you make. I particularly dislike a purpose driven by fear of hell or eternal damnation or the promise of some sort of heavenly reward, like 72 virgins (and what about THEIR enjoyment of the afterlife? Having to be a sex slave for some jerk with a food catching beard for all eternity sounds like the virgins are being punished with eternal misery to reward one guy for pleasing God).

I belief this is the only life we have, and the reward and punishment we reap comes in real time. Or not. Some really bad people are rewarded with wealth and comfort, while some really good ones suffer random awfulness like an ALS diagnosis or the death of a spouse or child.

My purpose is to leave the campsite better than I found it, by raising good children and doing good work, and also to savor the days I have to learn and walk my dog and read and work. I feel lucky to have two grown daughters I love, a good life partner, a comfortable house, a good dog to take walks with and a good job.

---

Ahhhhhhh, ok. So purpose of our existence is entirely subjective. I suppose that means you're very understanding of someone seeing things differently than you do. Like, say, someone who doesn't think it's important to leave the campsite better than you found it? After all, they have a different purpose, Jinx. You don't care about their religion, and they don't care about your purpose. It's all up to the individual what life is really about. Since this is "the only life we have" and all. Eat, drink, and be merry. Why the responsibility to future generations of an insignificant species who is a scourge to poor Mother Earth, right? Your worldview tends to make your stated purpose meaningless.

---

You are conflating agnosticism with individualism.

If anything, my concern for people and my conviction that we must work together to preserve the planet for everyone may be stronger than yours, because I don't exclude people of other faiths or no faith (especially, in the case of evangelical Christians, Muslims), nor do I believe we're going to be bailed out of drowning in our own waste by the Second Coming, which may seem to make issues like clean air, clean water, trash-free oceans and climate change seem less urgent. If you think God's in control and that you're his chosen people, you may think there's an exit strategy. If you don't, our incredible hubris in fouling our nest strikes you as incredibly stupid and short-sighted.

"Leave the campsite better than you found it" is a strong ethic for me.

I feel just as strongly about that as something everyone needs to do as some evangelical Christians feel about eliminating any form of abortion as a legal choice for all women or about eliminating civil rights for gay people because that's legitimizing sin.

The fact that my beliefs and convictions aren't religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong, and that I won't act to support them. Just as the fact that your beliefs and convictions ARE religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong or stop you from advocating for laws forcing everyone to adhere to them, regardless of whether they share your beliefs about reproductive rights or gay civil rights.

---

Thanks. I think your positions about human life being meaningless in a grander scheme (subjective purpose only) but also having a need to tend to mother earth for future generations are inconsistent.

Also, despite your barbs about religions, your beliefs seem pretty religious as well. Although in keeping with the aforementioned inconsistency they seem to be a mix of Nature Worship and Humanism. For what it's worth, you do seem more "holier than thou" and self-impressed than most mainstream religious folks I know.

Lastly, despite your veiled digs, I don't know a single Christian friend or acquaintance that is in favor of "eliminating civil rights for gay people." That's just an absurd accusation. You're right that many are, however, in favor of being on the right side of history on the issue of slaughtering millions of tiny defenseless humans. And they should be, because the practice is absolutely monstrous. But nobody is trying to eliminate civil rights. They might be opposed to people receiving special consideration based on the people they choose to share a bed with. And yes, they consider the practice of homosexuality to be a sin (among many other sins that everyone they know commits) but that doesn't make them anti civil rights. I suspect you know this.

---

Your snide critique of my views is wrong. I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option.

If you choose religion, you are choosing to agree with someone else's definition of what gives life meaning and how you should live, whether that's the Pope (who has just disavowed the death penalty); the Mormon Elders, who had a revelation in the 1970s that black men should be admitted to the priesthood--so those sets of beliefs CAN change and evolve while the foundation stays intact; the Jehovah's Witnesses, who think a small group of the elect--them--will be saved; the Christian Scientists, who have concocted an elaborate scheme to let rich people buy their way to meaning; ISIS, which used a 7th century text to justify sexual slavery, murder and the complete subjugation of women; various brands of protestantism, some of which believe everything is fore-ordained. Religions evolve and change over time.

Of course my beliefs are informed by religion; I was raised in Methodist and Episcopal churches, spent 3 years in the Nazarene church, which cured me for life of the weekly alter-call drama of evangelical Christianity, and I think the ethic of "Treat other people the way you would have them treat you" is one of the best approaches to life there is. I wish Christianity, in particular, hadn't failed so badly in promoting stewardship of the planet, and I'm at a loss to understand why people like you are so hostile to that view. We only have one planet. There's no escape for us and our children. Why are we so intent on fouling the nest? A desire for better stewardship of the cradle of humanity does not equate to nature worship.

Note above that I talked about MY beliefs, not yours, while your post focused entirely on critiquing my views until you got to the abortion issue. You are free to believe whatever you choose; I will oppose views I disagree with only when you attempt to impose them on me with the force of law. And I am very tired of the "but abortion" argument used to discredit anything else a person does, says or thinks. Especially from people who support the death penalty. Respect for life, to me, involves respecting the bodily integrity of women and their existence as individuals who retain the right to make reproductive decisions for themselves. IMO, the government should not have a role in making those decisions, any more than the government should be in the nasty business of killing its citizens, especially given our faulty, error-prone system of justice.

And at least some evangelical churches and some factions of the Catholic church have a clear agenda to deny people who are gay basic civil rights like marriage--both a civil and religious institution. Some hold the view that the only option open to people attracted to those of the same sex is a life of celibacy, or the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex and live as straight. Since that choice involves another person--typically a woman, whose needs for a partner who is actually attracted to her are utterly disregarded in this scenario--I think THAT's immoral. I'm not asking you to change your views or your church. I'm asking you to make room for people who don't share your views and stop trying to preclude their choices with the force of law to outwardly conform to your religious beliefs. And to support policies that involve better stewardship of the planet for future generations. I don't want my grandchildren to depend on egotistical guys like Elon Musk for an escape route. That's pragmatism, not nature worship.

---

I'll try to address a few of these points one at a time:

"I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option."

Forgive me, but I just think these two sentences are contradictory. If each individual concocts their own individual "meaning" or purpose, then there is no "grander scheme" purpose for the species. No universal truth means we're merely one of the currently known 8.7 million species on the planet. No more or less important than a praying mantis. Making meaning entirely subjective negates the value of the concept altogether.

---

I don't think these statements are contradictory, nor did I say that "each individual concocts their own inidividual 'meaning' or purpose." I said "you have to find your own meaning" and that religion--which, as you note, claims we are part of God's "grander scheme," is one option. Most people who are religious don't "concoct" anything--they're raised in a faith, as I was, or they choose one. Most have things in their faith they don't really believe (the virgin birth always bothered me), but they accept the entire package and just ignore or shut up about the areas they think are fuzzy or untrue.

"Universal truth" is another discussion--and the world's religions don't agree on what that truth is or what "universal" encompasses. Under ISIS's 7th century version of Islam, Muslims are the only people who matter and infidels can be enslaved and killed. Jews think they are the chosen people. So do Jehovah's Witnesses. In many religions-Mormons, Catholics, some evangelical churches, many Jewish sects, the CofC-the ultimate religious authorities are all male, and women are assigned a subservient rather than equal role.

I'm also baffled at why you think the absence of a "universal truth" makes people unimportant. We're the intelligent life on this planet, and we've transformed it completely, driving numerous other species, both plant and animal, to extinction in the process and fighting and killing each other to support the survival, prosperity and increase of our own ethnic or religious group by taking land and riches from groups we consider barbarians or foreigners or healthens--not us. One "grand purpose" appears to be to get ours even if we have to take it from someone else whose humanity we can find a way to disregard. Europeans--my ancesters--took over this continent, and we used our religion as an excuse to kill the native "heathens" and take their land.

Part of my problem with Christianity is that the doctrine of God giving man "dominion" over all of the earth, in our time, seems to be interpreted as the earth is ours to exploit in any way we choose, rather than conferring any responsibility for maintain a balance that may be crucial to our long-term survival. We don't really know how many systems, including climate, work. We're still finding new species we didn't know about. My point is that, if we truly value people for whatever reason--as God's holy creation or as a happy and extremely successful accident that now controls the fate of the planet by intelligence and numbers--why is the idea of working together to make sure we are good stewards of the planet so objectionable?

I'll address your other points at some other time.

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Some people don't view same-sex attraction as a 'cross' but as a naturally occuring variation. As is their right in any nation that touts separation of church and state.

---

First, science has not established what causes Same-sex attraction. Blindness, deafness, malformations, etc., are naturally occurring. These are considered crosses to bear.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Same-sex attraction as 'sin" or a "cross to bear" is a religious belief--a very bigoted one, IMO, and not one all Christian churches share.

---

I never called it a sin to have Same-sex attraction. I will argue all day that it is a cross to bear. No one wakes up upon discovery and says, "YEAH, I'm Gay!" Most struggle for years, if not a lifetime.

Humans are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex. That is how all species grow, prosper, and evolve. Same-sex attraction is against the natural law.

As Christians, we are called to love ALL people. I do my best to do so. That doesn't mean that I have to love the behaviors of all people.

---

You think humans are 'designed.'

I think we evolved, and that being gay--which has been a constant since the dawn of time--must have some benefit, or it would have been selected out.

There are so many things that can and do go wrong with our 'design'--genes that cause cancer and alzhiemers, extra cromosomes causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities, chronic issues like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, a horrible death sentence like Huntington's disease. As the sister of a profoundly disabled brother who died at 32 with his multitude of issues never fully diagnosed or understood, I've seen the worst result of randomness and find that the miracle is that things go right so much of the time.

---

Your 2nd paragraph and 3rd paragraph are contradictory.

If homosexuality must have some "benefit" or else it would have been "selected" out . . . . then kindly tell me the benefit of cancer, alzhiemers, and chromosomal disorders "causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities." Since, you know, those things haven't been selected out either.

---

The point where we probably disagree is that there is a Plan or a Purpose. I don't believe there is, and I believe that imbues us with greater responsibility for our fates and the fate of all life on earth, not less. We are doing a very poor job of stewarding the environment that created us. The cost for that could be our own extinction.

---

Who cares? If there's no purpose, then so what? Species go extinct all the time.

Plus, I mean, wouldn't the planet be better off without us, in your opinion? I'd think earth-worshippers like you would almost be rooting for our extinction, not living in fear of it.

---

Do you think purpose in life must be based in religion?

I don't. I don't believe in a God that controls the universe right down to the minute details of everyday life. What I think instead is that makes us responsible for choosing how to give our lives meaning and purpose--a big responsibility. Religion is one option, but that means you must accept someone else's definition of what you must do and must not do. And, in the case of Christianity and other religions, it means you must believe in an afterlife in which you are rewarded or punished for the choices you make. I particularly dislike a purpose driven by fear of hell or eternal damnation or the promise of some sort of heavenly reward, like 72 virgins (and what about THEIR enjoyment of the afterlife? Having to be a sex slave for some jerk with a food catching beard for all eternity sounds like the virgins are being punished with eternal misery to reward one guy for pleasing God).

I belief this is the only life we have, and the reward and punishment we reap comes in real time. Or not. Some really bad people are rewarded with wealth and comfort, while some really good ones suffer random awfulness like an ALS diagnosis or the death of a spouse or child.

My purpose is to leave the campsite better than I found it, by raising good children and doing good work, and also to savor the days I have to learn and walk my dog and read and work. I feel lucky to have two grown daughters I love, a good life partner, a comfortable house, a good dog to take walks with and a good job.

---

Ahhhhhhh, ok. So purpose of our existence is entirely subjective. I suppose that means you're very understanding of someone seeing things differently than you do. Like, say, someone who doesn't think it's important to leave the campsite better than you found it? After all, they have a different purpose, Jinx. You don't care about their religion, and they don't care about your purpose. It's all up to the individual what life is really about. Since this is "the only life we have" and all. Eat, drink, and be merry. Why the responsibility to future generations of an insignificant species who is a scourge to poor Mother Earth, right? Your worldview tends to make your stated purpose meaningless.

---

You are conflating agnosticism with individualism.

If anything, my concern for people and my conviction that we must work together to preserve the planet for everyone may be stronger than yours, because I don't exclude people of other faiths or no faith (especially, in the case of evangelical Christians, Muslims), nor do I believe we're going to be bailed out of drowning in our own waste by the Second Coming, which may seem to make issues like clean air, clean water, trash-free oceans and climate change seem less urgent. If you think God's in control and that you're his chosen people, you may think there's an exit strategy. If you don't, our incredible hubris in fouling our nest strikes you as incredibly stupid and short-sighted.

"Leave the campsite better than you found it" is a strong ethic for me.

I feel just as strongly about that as something everyone needs to do as some evangelical Christians feel about eliminating any form of abortion as a legal choice for all women or about eliminating civil rights for gay people because that's legitimizing sin.

The fact that my beliefs and convictions aren't religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong, and that I won't act to support them. Just as the fact that your beliefs and convictions ARE religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong or stop you from advocating for laws forcing everyone to adhere to them, regardless of whether they share your beliefs about reproductive rights or gay civil rights.

---

Thanks. I think your positions about human life being meaningless in a grander scheme (subjective purpose only) but also having a need to tend to mother earth for future generations are inconsistent.

Also, despite your barbs about religions, your beliefs seem pretty religious as well. Although in keeping with the aforementioned inconsistency they seem to be a mix of Nature Worship and Humanism. For what it's worth, you do seem more "holier than thou" and self-impressed than most mainstream religious folks I know.

Lastly, despite your veiled digs, I don't know a single Christian friend or acquaintance that is in favor of "eliminating civil rights for gay people." That's just an absurd accusation. You're right that many are, however, in favor of being on the right side of history on the issue of slaughtering millions of tiny defenseless humans. And they should be, because the practice is absolutely monstrous. But nobody is trying to eliminate civil rights. They might be opposed to people receiving special consideration based on the people they choose to share a bed with. And yes, they consider the practice of homosexuality to be a sin (among many other sins that everyone they know commits) but that doesn't make them anti civil rights. I suspect you know this.

---

Your snide critique of my views is wrong. I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option.

If you choose religion, you are choosing to agree with someone else's definition of what gives life meaning and how you should live, whether that's the Pope (who has just disavowed the death penalty); the Mormon Elders, who had a revelation in the 1970s that black men should be admitted to the priesthood--so those sets of beliefs CAN change and evolve while the foundation stays intact; the Jehovah's Witnesses, who think a small group of the elect--them--will be saved; the Christian Scientists, who have concocted an elaborate scheme to let rich people buy their way to meaning; ISIS, which used a 7th century text to justify sexual slavery, murder and the complete subjugation of women; various brands of protestantism, some of which believe everything is fore-ordained. Religions evolve and change over time.

Of course my beliefs are informed by religion; I was raised in Methodist and Episcopal churches, spent 3 years in the Nazarene church, which cured me for life of the weekly alter-call drama of evangelical Christianity, and I think the ethic of "Treat other people the way you would have them treat you" is one of the best approaches to life there is. I wish Christianity, in particular, hadn't failed so badly in promoting stewardship of the planet, and I'm at a loss to understand why people like you are so hostile to that view. We only have one planet. There's no escape for us and our children. Why are we so intent on fouling the nest? A desire for better stewardship of the cradle of humanity does not equate to nature worship.

Note above that I talked about MY beliefs, not yours, while your post focused entirely on critiquing my views until you got to the abortion issue. You are free to believe whatever you choose; I will oppose views I disagree with only when you attempt to impose them on me with the force of law. And I am very tired of the "but abortion" argument used to discredit anything else a person does, says or thinks. Especially from people who support the death penalty. Respect for life, to me, involves respecting the bodily integrity of women and their existence as individuals who retain the right to make reproductive decisions for themselves. IMO, the government should not have a role in making those decisions, any more than the government should be in the nasty business of killing its citizens, especially given our faulty, error-prone system of justice.

And at least some evangelical churches and some factions of the Catholic church have a clear agenda to deny people who are gay basic civil rights like marriage--both a civil and religious institution. Some hold the view that the only option open to people attracted to those of the same sex is a life of celibacy, or the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex and live as straight. Since that choice involves another person--typically a woman, whose needs for a partner who is actually attracted to her are utterly disregarded in this scenario--I think THAT's immoral. I'm not asking you to change your views or your church. I'm asking you to make room for people who don't share your views and stop trying to preclude their choices with the force of law to outwardly conform to your religious beliefs. And to support policies that involve better stewardship of the planet for future generations. I don't want my grandchildren to depend on egotistical guys like Elon Musk for an escape route. That's pragmatism, not nature worship.

---

I'll try to address a few of these points one at a time:

"I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option."

Forgive me, but I just think these two sentences are contradictory. If each individual concocts their own individual "meaning" or purpose, then there is no "grander scheme" purpose for the species. No universal truth means we're merely one of the currently known 8.7 million species on the planet. No more or less important than a praying mantis. Making meaning entirely subjective negates the value of the concept altogether.

---

I don't think these statements are contradictory, nor did I say that "each individual concocts their own inidividual 'meaning' or purpose." I said "you have to find your own meaning" and that religion--which, as you note, claims we are part of God's "grander scheme," is one option. Most people who are religious don't "concoct" anything--they're raised in a faith, as I was, or they choose one. Most have things in their faith they don't really believe (the virgin birth always bothered me), but they accept the entire package and just ignore or shut up about the areas they think are fuzzy or untrue.

"Universal truth" is another discussion--and the world's religions don't agree on what that truth is or what "universal" encompasses. Under ISIS's 7th century version of Islam, Muslims are the only people who matter and infidels can be enslaved and killed. Jews think they are the chosen people. So do Jehovah's Witnesses. In many religions-Mormons, Catholics, some evangelical churches, many Jewish sects, the CofC-the ultimate religious authorities are all male, and women are assigned a subservient rather than equal role.

I'm also baffled at why you think the absence of a "universal truth" makes people unimportant. We're the intelligent life on this planet, and we've transformed it completely, driving numerous other species, both plant and animal, to extinction in the process and fighting and killing each other to support the survival, prosperity and increase of our own ethnic or religious group by taking land and riches from groups we consider barbarians or foreigners or healthens--not us. One "grand purpose" appears to be to get ours even if we have to take it from someone else whose humanity we can find a way to disregard. Europeans--my ancesters--took over this continent, and we used our religion as an excuse to kill the native "heathens" and take their land.

Part of my problem with Christianity is that the doctrine of God giving man "dominion" over all of the earth, in our time, seems to be interpreted as the earth is ours to exploit in any way we choose, rather than conferring any responsibility for maintain a balance that may be crucial to our long-term survival. We don't really know how many systems, including climate, work. We're still finding new species we didn't know about. My point is that, if we truly value people for whatever reason--as God's holy creation or as a happy and extremely successful accident that now controls the fate of the planet by intelligence and numbers--why is the idea of working together to make sure we are good stewards of the planet so objectionable?

I'll address your other points at some other time.

---

Ok, I'll wait on your response to the other points.

In the meantime, I'll respond to this response:

"I'm also baffled at why you think the absence of a "universal truth" makes people unimportant. We're the intelligent life on this planet, and we've transformed it completely, driving numerous other species, both plant and animal, to extinction in the process and fighting and killing each other to support the survival, prosperity and increase of our own ethnic or religious group by taking land and riches from groups we consider barbarians or foreigners or healthens--not us. One "grand purpose" appears to be to get ours even if we have to take it from someone else whose humanity we can find a way to disregard. Europeans--my ancesters--took over this continent, and we used our religion as an excuse to kill the native "heathens" and take their land."

This paragraph does little to support a notion that people are important or valuable. Yes, you acknowledge that (for some reason?) we are the ONE species out of the millions in existence that magically advanced to be light years ahead of all others in intelligence. This includes self-awareness. Appreciation of art and music. Appreciation of nature (that one should really matter to you). Capable of love. Perceptive of the possibility of a spirit or soul. Capable of high level math, archeology, etc. All those things certainly make us important. But apparently that's just a weird accident of evolution, right? I mean, we were apes and now we're this! Nevermind that apes are still apes. We, this one single species, magically out-evolved every other species in a ridiculously exponential way, and none others even followed suit to the slightest degree. How lucky. But according to you we have no actual meaning other than the ones we create or find as individuals. We're just a selfish species consuming what we can, right? That makes us no different than other life forms really. Species have put other species into extinction lots of times over the course of earth's history. If you eat them all, they're gone. If you take over their habitat and consume all the resources they needed to survive, they die off. We're no different than the dinosaurs.

But your position seems to be that because we're intelligent, we should make sacrificial measures in the present to ostensibly preserve things for future generations of our species. This makes you feel noble and important, and feeds whatever holes you need to fill, much like you claim religion does for those who believe. It's why I say you're practicing a religion. Granted it's a hodge podge of nature worship and humanism, but it's still a religion for you. Your beliefs are driven by the same innate needs. I just happen to think you're sadly trying to fill that void with something other than God, I guess maybe because you don't like the idea of having to submit in some way to a Creator. You'd rather it be about you (or humans, or human discoveries in science, etc) which is the same thing that originally separated man from God back in the garden. Pride. But I get it. After all it's the great deception.


Part of my problem with Christianity is that the doctrine of God giving man "dominion" over all of the earth, in our time, seems to be interpreted as the earth is ours to exploit in any way we choose, rather than conferring any responsibility for maintain a balance that may be crucial to our long-term survival. We don't really know how many systems, including climate, work. We're still finding new species we didn't know about. My point is that, if we truly value people for whatever reason--as God's holy creation or as a happy and extremely successful accident that now controls the fate of the planet by intelligence and numbers--why is the idea of working together to make sure we are good stewards of the planet so objectionable?

I don't object to working together and taking good care of our planet, and I disagree with your premise in the first sentence. I think plenty of Christians place a high value on being responsible stewards of the Earth. I do object to over-the-top measures that harm economy and quality of life for human beings, especially in ways that have no define-able prospect of measurable success. I think we should have reasonable expectations of individuals and businesses not to pollute the earth unnecessarily, but I don't believe we should all be foaming at the mouth and taking drastic crippling measures. Some degree of governmental oversight may make sense, but honestly major regulation is not a constitutionally justifiable function of government IMO. For you, this is a much bigger deal and you want government to handle it for us. I understand. I just disagree.

Methinks Jinx2 book he wrote simply says .......

People are the problem here on earth

What the fool doesn't get is his only solution is the elimination of people

Not real sure that's God's solution though?

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Some people don't view same-sex attraction as a 'cross' but as a naturally occuring variation. As is their right in any nation that touts separation of church and state.

---

First, science has not established what causes Same-sex attraction. Blindness, deafness, malformations, etc., are naturally occurring. These are considered crosses to bear.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Same-sex attraction as 'sin" or a "cross to bear" is a religious belief--a very bigoted one, IMO, and not one all Christian churches share.

---

I never called it a sin to have Same-sex attraction. I will argue all day that it is a cross to bear. No one wakes up upon discovery and says, "YEAH, I'm Gay!" Most struggle for years, if not a lifetime.

Humans are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex. That is how all species grow, prosper, and evolve. Same-sex attraction is against the natural law.

As Christians, we are called to love ALL people. I do my best to do so. That doesn't mean that I have to love the behaviors of all people.

---

You think humans are 'designed.'

I think we evolved, and that being gay--which has been a constant since the dawn of time--must have some benefit, or it would have been selected out.

There are so many things that can and do go wrong with our 'design'--genes that cause cancer and alzhiemers, extra cromosomes causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities, chronic issues like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, a horrible death sentence like Huntington's disease. As the sister of a profoundly disabled brother who died at 32 with his multitude of issues never fully diagnosed or understood, I've seen the worst result of randomness and find that the miracle is that things go right so much of the time.

---

Your 2nd paragraph and 3rd paragraph are contradictory.

If homosexuality must have some "benefit" or else it would have been "selected" out . . . . then kindly tell me the benefit of cancer, alzhiemers, and chromosomal disorders "causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities." Since, you know, those things haven't been selected out either.

---

The point where we probably disagree is that there is a Plan or a Purpose. I don't believe there is, and I believe that imbues us with greater responsibility for our fates and the fate of all life on earth, not less. We are doing a very poor job of stewarding the environment that created us. The cost for that could be our own extinction.

---

Who cares? If there's no purpose, then so what? Species go extinct all the time.

Plus, I mean, wouldn't the planet be better off without us, in your opinion? I'd think earth-worshippers like you would almost be rooting for our extinction, not living in fear of it.

---

Do you think purpose in life must be based in religion?

I don't. I don't believe in a God that controls the universe right down to the minute details of everyday life. What I think instead is that makes us responsible for choosing how to give our lives meaning and purpose--a big responsibility. Religion is one option, but that means you must accept someone else's definition of what you must do and must not do. And, in the case of Christianity and other religions, it means you must believe in an afterlife in which you are rewarded or punished for the choices you make. I particularly dislike a purpose driven by fear of hell or eternal damnation or the promise of some sort of heavenly reward, like 72 virgins (and what about THEIR enjoyment of the afterlife? Having to be a sex slave for some jerk with a food catching beard for all eternity sounds like the virgins are being punished with eternal misery to reward one guy for pleasing God).

I belief this is the only life we have, and the reward and punishment we reap comes in real time. Or not. Some really bad people are rewarded with wealth and comfort, while some really good ones suffer random awfulness like an ALS diagnosis or the death of a spouse or child.

My purpose is to leave the campsite better than I found it, by raising good children and doing good work, and also to savor the days I have to learn and walk my dog and read and work. I feel lucky to have two grown daughters I love, a good life partner, a comfortable house, a good dog to take walks with and a good job.

---

Ahhhhhhh, ok. So purpose of our existence is entirely subjective. I suppose that means you're very understanding of someone seeing things differently than you do. Like, say, someone who doesn't think it's important to leave the campsite better than you found it? After all, they have a different purpose, Jinx. You don't care about their religion, and they don't care about your purpose. It's all up to the individual what life is really about. Since this is "the only life we have" and all. Eat, drink, and be merry. Why the responsibility to future generations of an insignificant species who is a scourge to poor Mother Earth, right? Your worldview tends to make your stated purpose meaningless.

---

You are conflating agnosticism with individualism.

If anything, my concern for people and my conviction that we must work together to preserve the planet for everyone may be stronger than yours, because I don't exclude people of other faiths or no faith (especially, in the case of evangelical Christians, Muslims), nor do I believe we're going to be bailed out of drowning in our own waste by the Second Coming, which may seem to make issues like clean air, clean water, trash-free oceans and climate change seem less urgent. If you think God's in control and that you're his chosen people, you may think there's an exit strategy. If you don't, our incredible hubris in fouling our nest strikes you as incredibly stupid and short-sighted.

"Leave the campsite better than you found it" is a strong ethic for me.

I feel just as strongly about that as something everyone needs to do as some evangelical Christians feel about eliminating any form of abortion as a legal choice for all women or about eliminating civil rights for gay people because that's legitimizing sin.

The fact that my beliefs and convictions aren't religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong, and that I won't act to support them. Just as the fact that your beliefs and convictions ARE religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong or stop you from advocating for laws forcing everyone to adhere to them, regardless of whether they share your beliefs about reproductive rights or gay civil rights.

---

Thanks. I think your positions about human life being meaningless in a grander scheme (subjective purpose only) but also having a need to tend to mother earth for future generations are inconsistent.

Also, despite your barbs about religions, your beliefs seem pretty religious as well. Although in keeping with the aforementioned inconsistency they seem to be a mix of Nature Worship and Humanism. For what it's worth, you do seem more "holier than thou" and self-impressed than most mainstream religious folks I know.

Lastly, despite your veiled digs, I don't know a single Christian friend or acquaintance that is in favor of "eliminating civil rights for gay people." That's just an absurd accusation. You're right that many are, however, in favor of being on the right side of history on the issue of slaughtering millions of tiny defenseless humans. And they should be, because the practice is absolutely monstrous. But nobody is trying to eliminate civil rights. They might be opposed to people receiving special consideration based on the people they choose to share a bed with. And yes, they consider the practice of homosexuality to be a sin (among many other sins that everyone they know commits) but that doesn't make them anti civil rights. I suspect you know this.

---

Your snide critique of my views is wrong. I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option.

If you choose religion, you are choosing to agree with someone else's definition of what gives life meaning and how you should live, whether that's the Pope (who has just disavowed the death penalty); the Mormon Elders, who had a revelation in the 1970s that black men should be admitted to the priesthood--so those sets of beliefs CAN change and evolve while the foundation stays intact; the Jehovah's Witnesses, who think a small group of the elect--them--will be saved; the Christian Scientists, who have concocted an elaborate scheme to let rich people buy their way to meaning; ISIS, which used a 7th century text to justify sexual slavery, murder and the complete subjugation of women; various brands of protestantism, some of which believe everything is fore-ordained. Religions evolve and change over time.

Of course my beliefs are informed by religion; I was raised in Methodist and Episcopal churches, spent 3 years in the Nazarene church, which cured me for life of the weekly alter-call drama of evangelical Christianity, and I think the ethic of "Treat other people the way you would have them treat you" is one of the best approaches to life there is. I wish Christianity, in particular, hadn't failed so badly in promoting stewardship of the planet, and I'm at a loss to understand why people like you are so hostile to that view. We only have one planet. There's no escape for us and our children. Why are we so intent on fouling the nest? A desire for better stewardship of the cradle of humanity does not equate to nature worship.

Note above that I talked about MY beliefs, not yours, while your post focused entirely on critiquing my views until you got to the abortion issue. You are free to believe whatever you choose; I will oppose views I disagree with only when you attempt to impose them on me with the force of law. And I am very tired of the "but abortion" argument used to discredit anything else a person does, says or thinks. Especially from people who support the death penalty. Respect for life, to me, involves respecting the bodily integrity of women and their existence as individuals who retain the right to make reproductive decisions for themselves. IMO, the government should not have a role in making those decisions, any more than the government should be in the nasty business of killing its citizens, especially given our faulty, error-prone system of justice.

And at least some evangelical churches and some factions of the Catholic church have a clear agenda to deny people who are gay basic civil rights like marriage--both a civil and religious institution. Some hold the view that the only option open to people attracted to those of the same sex is a life of celibacy, or the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex and live as straight. Since that choice involves another person--typically a woman, whose needs for a partner who is actually attracted to her are utterly disregarded in this scenario--I think THAT's immoral. I'm not asking you to change your views or your church. I'm asking you to make room for people who don't share your views and stop trying to preclude their choices with the force of law to outwardly conform to your religious beliefs. And to support policies that involve better stewardship of the planet for future generations. I don't want my grandchildren to depend on egotistical guys like Elon Musk for an escape route. That's pragmatism, not nature worship.

---

I'll try to address a few of these points one at a time:

"I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option."

Forgive me, but I just think these two sentences are contradictory. If each individual concocts their own individual "meaning" or purpose, then there is no "grander scheme" purpose for the species. No universal truth means we're merely one of the currently known 8.7 million species on the planet. No more or less important than a praying mantis. Making meaning entirely subjective negates the value of the concept altogether.

---

I don't think these statements are contradictory, nor did I say that "each individual concocts their own inidividual 'meaning' or purpose." I said "you have to find your own meaning" and that religion--which, as you note, claims we are part of God's "grander scheme," is one option. Most people who are religious don't "concoct" anything--they're raised in a faith, as I was, or they choose one. Most have things in their faith they don't really believe (the virgin birth always bothered me), but they accept the entire package and just ignore or shut up about the areas they think are fuzzy or untrue.

"Universal truth" is another discussion--and the world's religions don't agree on what that truth is or what "universal" encompasses. Under ISIS's 7th century version of Islam, Muslims are the only people who matter and infidels can be enslaved and killed. Jews think they are the chosen people. So do Jehovah's Witnesses. In many religions-Mormons, Catholics, some evangelical churches, many Jewish sects, the CofC-the ultimate religious authorities are all male, and women are assigned a subservient rather than equal role.

I'm also baffled at why you think the absence of a "universal truth" makes people unimportant. We're the intelligent life on this planet, and we've transformed it completely, driving numerous other species, both plant and animal, to extinction in the process and fighting and killing each other to support the survival, prosperity and increase of our own ethnic or religious group by taking land and riches from groups we consider barbarians or foreigners or healthens--not us. One "grand purpose" appears to be to get ours even if we have to take it from someone else whose humanity we can find a way to disregard. Europeans--my ancesters--took over this continent, and we used our religion as an excuse to kill the native "heathens" and take their land.

Part of my problem with Christianity is that the doctrine of God giving man "dominion" over all of the earth, in our time, seems to be interpreted as the earth is ours to exploit in any way we choose, rather than conferring any responsibility for maintain a balance that may be crucial to our long-term survival. We don't really know how many systems, including climate, work. We're still finding new species we didn't know about. My point is that, if we truly value people for whatever reason--as God's holy creation or as a happy and extremely successful accident that now controls the fate of the planet by intelligence and numbers--why is the idea of working together to make sure we are good stewards of the planet so objectionable?

I'll address your other points at some other time.

---

Ok, I'll wait on your response to the other points.

In the meantime, I'll respond to this response:

"I'm also baffled at why you think the absence of a "universal truth" makes people unimportant. We're the intelligent life on this planet, and we've transformed it completely, driving numerous other species, both plant and animal, to extinction in the process and fighting and killing each other to support the survival, prosperity and increase of our own ethnic or religious group by taking land and riches from groups we consider barbarians or foreigners or healthens--not us. One "grand purpose" appears to be to get ours even if we have to take it from someone else whose humanity we can find a way to disregard. Europeans--my ancesters--took over this continent, and we used our religion as an excuse to kill the native "heathens" and take their land."

This paragraph does little to support a notion that people are important or valuable. Yes, you acknowledge that (for some reason?) we are the ONE species out of the millions in existence that magically advanced to be light years ahead of all others in intelligence. This includes self-awareness. Appreciation of art and music. Appreciation of nature (that one should really matter to you). Capable of love. Perceptive of the possibility of a spirit or soul. Capable of high level math, archeology, etc. All those things certainly make us important. But apparently that's just a weird accident of evolution, right? I mean, we were apes and now we're this! Nevermind that apes are still apes. We, this one single species, magically out-evolved every other species in a ridiculously exponential way, and none others even followed suit to the slightest degree. How lucky. But according to you we have no actual meaning other than the ones we create or find as individuals. We're just a selfish species consuming what we can, right? That makes us no different than other life forms really. Species have put other species into extinction lots of times over the course of earth's history. If you eat them all, they're gone. If you take over their habitat and consume all the resources they needed to survive, they die off. We're no different than the dinosaurs.

But your position seems to be that because we're intelligent, we should make sacrificial measures in the present to ostensibly preserve things for future generations of our species. This makes you feel noble and important, and feeds whatever holes you need to fill, much like you claim religion does for those who believe. It's why I say you're practicing a religion. Granted it's a hodge podge of nature worship and humanism, but it's still a religion for you. Your beliefs are driven by the same innate needs. I just happen to think you're sadly trying to fill that void with something other than God, I guess maybe because you don't like the idea of having to submit in some way to a Creator. You'd rather it be about you (or humans, or human discoveries in science, etc) which is the same thing that originally separated man from God back in the garden. Pride. But I get it. After all it's the great deception.


Part of my problem with Christianity is that the doctrine of God giving man "dominion" over all of the earth, in our time, seems to be interpreted as the earth is ours to exploit in any way we choose, rather than conferring any responsibility for maintain a balance that may be crucial to our long-term survival. We don't really know how many systems, including climate, work. We're still finding new species we didn't know about. My point is that, if we truly value people for whatever reason--as God's holy creation or as a happy and extremely successful accident that now controls the fate of the planet by intelligence and numbers--why is the idea of working together to make sure we are good stewards of the planet so objectionable?

I don't object to working together and taking good care of our planet, and I disagree with your premise in the first sentence. I think plenty of Christians place a high value on being responsible stewards of the Earth. I do object to over-the-top measures that harm economy and quality of life for human beings, especially in ways that have no define-able prospect of measurable success. I think we should have reasonable expectations of individuals and businesses not to pollute the earth unnecessarily, but I don't believe we should all be foaming at the mouth and taking drastic crippling measures. Some degree of governmental oversight may make sense, but honestly major regulation is not a constitutionally justifiable function of government IMO. For you, this is a much bigger deal and you want government to handle it for us. I understand. I just disagree.

---

Nothing magic about evolution producing humans, nor is it weird that "apes are still apes" unless you don't understand evolution. As to all the nice things like appreciating art etc. that sounds like humanism.

Florda_mike said:

---

Methinks Jinx2 book he wrote simply says .......

People are the problem here on earth

What the fool doesn't get is his only solution is the elimination of people

Not real sure that's God's solution though?

---

Well he did try it once.

But you misread her if you think her only solution is the elimination of all people. We're a rational species, evolved to survive.

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Methinks Jinx2 book he wrote simply says .......

People are the problem here on earth

What the fool doesn't get is his only solution is the elimination of people

Not real sure that's God's solution though?

---

Well he did try it once.

But you misread her if you think her only solution is the elimination of all people. We're a rational species, evolved to survive.

---

Much of what you hear from environmentalists is that people are the problem

Isn't their obvious solution the elimination of the problem?

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Methinks Jinx2 book he wrote simply says .......

People are the problem here on earth

What the fool doesn't get is his only solution is the elimination of people

Not real sure that's God's solution though?

---

Well he did try it once.

But you misread her if you think her only solution is the elimination of all people. We're a rational species, evolved to survive.

---

Much of what you hear from environmentalists is that people are the problem

Isn't their obvious solution the elimination of the problem?

---

No.
There are thousands of solutions. That is not one.

Do you have a rational objection to improving our environment?

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I would definitely not kick my child out. However, I can understand the parents point of view about worshiping together. Although I currently attend a southern baptist church, I don't agree with every interpretation of the Bible that has been presented...but I won't at any church I attend. You have to learn to ignore what you don't agree with OR the family could worship together in their home.

I raised my kids in a southern baptist church. One fell in love with a girl of a different denomination and although that denomination believes/does things differently, I just told him that I am glad he's going to church.

Proverbs 22:6

---

No, I don't understand their attitude. Suicide can be a result. They look stupid too.

---

I'm sure you don't understand. Anything outside your pro-abortion, anti-Christan rhetoric is difficult for you.

---

Fadskier, if your child was an unrepentant gay, would he go to hell. ( I Corinthians 6:9)
If so, send him/her to me. I know a loving God loves them just like they are. My God is not bound by some ancient 2,000 text that is oblivious to the world homosexuality and written by culturally twisted writers. They are inspired but not everlasting in their understanding of homosexuality. They are to culturally bound.
God loves gays and calls them
To discipleship, ordination and marriage. There ain't nothing you can do about. God is sovereign and calls who God wants to call, ordain, and love another human being.
Send your children to me. I know this God personally.

---

This personal god you speak of has been a deciever since he decieved Adam and Eve.

---

I thought that Christians were supposed to do the loving and serving and God was supposed to do the judging.

---

Anybody that says a homosexual union is the equivalent of a biblical marriage between one man and one woman has been deceived. That is not coming in judgement, that is a simple fact. The deceiver has been at work from the beginning of mankind and he is still at it today.

The bible also tells us to guard our doctrine with diligence as the bereans. Pointing out blatant falsehood is not judgement. It is discernment.

47's has to reconcile his heart with God, not me.

---

In your defense you site a 2,000 year old document that had no idea of what a homosexual was. Paul pointed to a perverse practice among Romans that any human being would abhor. BUT it does not follow that his comment should be interpreted for ALL time adcondrmnation of gays. I differ on my interpretation of the Bible not its authority. Forrest wishes to say hi Interpration is good for all time. It's not. It's one interpretation among many. That gay is sin is a 2,000 teaching only means that it took us that long to understand homosexuality.
Gay or gay behavior and the morals for sexual conduct are the same. Gays don't get a pass. Mark 10 is talking about divorce not one man one woman. Read it very carefully Forrest.

---

Thank you for your thoughtful response. The verse I was looking at are in Genesis.

Genesis 2:18-25 English Standard Version (ESV)
18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for[a] him." 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed[b] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam[c] there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made[d] into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,
"This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man."[e]
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.


God created a woman to be the wife of a man, not another man. Men with men are simply not a marriage.

A civil union, yes, but a believer, should believe Gods design for marriage, not new age cultures design.

We just are going to disagree here.

---

There are actually 2 creation stories in Genesis. The first, in Genesis chapter 1, does not say God created woman FOR man. It says God created both: "Male and female created he them." And that's all that's said about it. That is the older story.

If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, you believe these two stories are complementary, and that one supplements the other. If you believe, as I do, that the canon of religious writings was selected and interpreted to support certain agendas--and that this collection of history, stories and proverbs is an incredible repository of religious and cultural history that contains a great deal of wisdom and also tells us a lot about how warlike and sinful and petty people can be, rather than an inerrant guide to life, then you might suspect the second story was added to support an agenda in which women are relegated to eternal submission and control of men rather than viewed as equal partners.

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Methinks Jinx2 book he wrote simply says .......

People are the problem here on earth

What the fool doesn't get is his only solution is the elimination of people

Not real sure that's God's solution though?

---

Well he did try it once.

But you misread her if you think her only solution is the elimination of all people. We're a rational species, evolved to survive.

---

Much of what you hear from environmentalists is that people are the problem

Isn't their obvious solution the elimination of the problem?

---

People ARE the problem, but only because, for whatever reason--religion, convenience, wealth, selfishness, short-sightedness--we don't accept stewardship of the planet as a serious responsibility. If you've ever read Jared Diamond's Collapse, that's a recurrent problem for major civilizations. They get too comfortable, exhaust too many resources and then decline precipitously. I don't want to see us do that on a planetary scale, and I'm concerned that's what we're doing.

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Some people don't view same-sex attraction as a 'cross' but as a naturally occuring variation. As is their right in any nation that touts separation of church and state.

---

First, science has not established what causes Same-sex attraction. Blindness, deafness, malformations, etc., are naturally occurring. These are considered crosses to bear.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Same-sex attraction as 'sin" or a "cross to bear" is a religious belief--a very bigoted one, IMO, and not one all Christian churches share.

---

I never called it a sin to have Same-sex attraction. I will argue all day that it is a cross to bear. No one wakes up upon discovery and says, "YEAH, I'm Gay!" Most struggle for years, if not a lifetime.

Humans are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex. That is how all species grow, prosper, and evolve. Same-sex attraction is against the natural law.

As Christians, we are called to love ALL people. I do my best to do so. That doesn't mean that I have to love the behaviors of all people.

---

You think humans are 'designed.'

I think we evolved, and that being gay--which has been a constant since the dawn of time--must have some benefit, or it would have been selected out.

There are so many things that can and do go wrong with our 'design'--genes that cause cancer and alzhiemers, extra cromosomes causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities, chronic issues like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, a horrible death sentence like Huntington's disease. As the sister of a profoundly disabled brother who died at 32 with his multitude of issues never fully diagnosed or understood, I've seen the worst result of randomness and find that the miracle is that things go right so much of the time.

---

Your 2nd paragraph and 3rd paragraph are contradictory.

If homosexuality must have some "benefit" or else it would have been "selected" out . . . . then kindly tell me the benefit of cancer, alzhiemers, and chromosomal disorders "causing various types of intellectual and physical disabilities." Since, you know, those things haven't been selected out either.

---

The point where we probably disagree is that there is a Plan or a Purpose. I don't believe there is, and I believe that imbues us with greater responsibility for our fates and the fate of all life on earth, not less. We are doing a very poor job of stewarding the environment that created us. The cost for that could be our own extinction.

---

Who cares? If there's no purpose, then so what? Species go extinct all the time.

Plus, I mean, wouldn't the planet be better off without us, in your opinion? I'd think earth-worshippers like you would almost be rooting for our extinction, not living in fear of it.

---

Do you think purpose in life must be based in religion?

I don't. I don't believe in a God that controls the universe right down to the minute details of everyday life. What I think instead is that makes us responsible for choosing how to give our lives meaning and purpose--a big responsibility. Religion is one option, but that means you must accept someone else's definition of what you must do and must not do. And, in the case of Christianity and other religions, it means you must believe in an afterlife in which you are rewarded or punished for the choices you make. I particularly dislike a purpose driven by fear of hell or eternal damnation or the promise of some sort of heavenly reward, like 72 virgins (and what about THEIR enjoyment of the afterlife? Having to be a sex slave for some jerk with a food catching beard for all eternity sounds like the virgins are being punished with eternal misery to reward one guy for pleasing God).

I belief this is the only life we have, and the reward and punishment we reap comes in real time. Or not. Some really bad people are rewarded with wealth and comfort, while some really good ones suffer random awfulness like an ALS diagnosis or the death of a spouse or child.

My purpose is to leave the campsite better than I found it, by raising good children and doing good work, and also to savor the days I have to learn and walk my dog and read and work. I feel lucky to have two grown daughters I love, a good life partner, a comfortable house, a good dog to take walks with and a good job.

---

Ahhhhhhh, ok. So purpose of our existence is entirely subjective. I suppose that means you're very understanding of someone seeing things differently than you do. Like, say, someone who doesn't think it's important to leave the campsite better than you found it? After all, they have a different purpose, Jinx. You don't care about their religion, and they don't care about your purpose. It's all up to the individual what life is really about. Since this is "the only life we have" and all. Eat, drink, and be merry. Why the responsibility to future generations of an insignificant species who is a scourge to poor Mother Earth, right? Your worldview tends to make your stated purpose meaningless.

---

You are conflating agnosticism with individualism.

If anything, my concern for people and my conviction that we must work together to preserve the planet for everyone may be stronger than yours, because I don't exclude people of other faiths or no faith (especially, in the case of evangelical Christians, Muslims), nor do I believe we're going to be bailed out of drowning in our own waste by the Second Coming, which may seem to make issues like clean air, clean water, trash-free oceans and climate change seem less urgent. If you think God's in control and that you're his chosen people, you may think there's an exit strategy. If you don't, our incredible hubris in fouling our nest strikes you as incredibly stupid and short-sighted.

"Leave the campsite better than you found it" is a strong ethic for me.

I feel just as strongly about that as something everyone needs to do as some evangelical Christians feel about eliminating any form of abortion as a legal choice for all women or about eliminating civil rights for gay people because that's legitimizing sin.

The fact that my beliefs and convictions aren't religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong, and that I won't act to support them. Just as the fact that your beliefs and convictions ARE religiously based doesn't mean they aren't strong or stop you from advocating for laws forcing everyone to adhere to them, regardless of whether they share your beliefs about reproductive rights or gay civil rights.

---

Thanks. I think your positions about human life being meaningless in a grander scheme (subjective purpose only) but also having a need to tend to mother earth for future generations are inconsistent.

Also, despite your barbs about religions, your beliefs seem pretty religious as well. Although in keeping with the aforementioned inconsistency they seem to be a mix of Nature Worship and Humanism. For what it's worth, you do seem more "holier than thou" and self-impressed than most mainstream religious folks I know.

Lastly, despite your veiled digs, I don't know a single Christian friend or acquaintance that is in favor of "eliminating civil rights for gay people." That's just an absurd accusation. You're right that many are, however, in favor of being on the right side of history on the issue of slaughtering millions of tiny defenseless humans. And they should be, because the practice is absolutely monstrous. But nobody is trying to eliminate civil rights. They might be opposed to people receiving special consideration based on the people they choose to share a bed with. And yes, they consider the practice of homosexuality to be a sin (among many other sins that everyone they know commits) but that doesn't make them anti civil rights. I suspect you know this.

---

Your snide critique of my views is wrong. I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option.

If you choose religion, you are choosing to agree with someone else's definition of what gives life meaning and how you should live, whether that's the Pope (who has just disavowed the death penalty); the Mormon Elders, who had a revelation in the 1970s that black men should be admitted to the priesthood--so those sets of beliefs CAN change and evolve while the foundation stays intact; the Jehovah's Witnesses, who think a small group of the elect--them--will be saved; the Christian Scientists, who have concocted an elaborate scheme to let rich people buy their way to meaning; ISIS, which used a 7th century text to justify sexual slavery, murder and the complete subjugation of women; various brands of protestantism, some of which believe everything is fore-ordained. Religions evolve and change over time.

Of course my beliefs are informed by religion; I was raised in Methodist and Episcopal churches, spent 3 years in the Nazarene church, which cured me for life of the weekly alter-call drama of evangelical Christianity, and I think the ethic of "Treat other people the way you would have them treat you" is one of the best approaches to life there is. I wish Christianity, in particular, hadn't failed so badly in promoting stewardship of the planet, and I'm at a loss to understand why people like you are so hostile to that view. We only have one planet. There's no escape for us and our children. Why are we so intent on fouling the nest? A desire for better stewardship of the cradle of humanity does not equate to nature worship.

Note above that I talked about MY beliefs, not yours, while your post focused entirely on critiquing my views until you got to the abortion issue. You are free to believe whatever you choose; I will oppose views I disagree with only when you attempt to impose them on me with the force of law. And I am very tired of the "but abortion" argument used to discredit anything else a person does, says or thinks. Especially from people who support the death penalty. Respect for life, to me, involves respecting the bodily integrity of women and their existence as individuals who retain the right to make reproductive decisions for themselves. IMO, the government should not have a role in making those decisions, any more than the government should be in the nasty business of killing its citizens, especially given our faulty, error-prone system of justice.

And at least some evangelical churches and some factions of the Catholic church have a clear agenda to deny people who are gay basic civil rights like marriage--both a civil and religious institution. Some hold the view that the only option open to people attracted to those of the same sex is a life of celibacy, or the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex and live as straight. Since that choice involves another person--typically a woman, whose needs for a partner who is actually attracted to her are utterly disregarded in this scenario--I think THAT's immoral. I'm not asking you to change your views or your church. I'm asking you to make room for people who don't share your views and stop trying to preclude their choices with the force of law to outwardly conform to your religious beliefs. And to support policies that involve better stewardship of the planet for future generations. I don't want my grandchildren to depend on egotistical guys like Elon Musk for an escape route. That's pragmatism, not nature worship.

---

I'll try to address a few of these points one at a time:

"I don't believe human life is "meaningless in the grander scheme." As I stated before, I believe you have to find your own meaning, and that religion is only one option."

Forgive me, but I just think these two sentences are contradictory. If each individual concocts their own individual "meaning" or purpose, then there is no "grander scheme" purpose for the species. No universal truth means we're merely one of the currently known 8.7 million species on the planet. No more or less important than a praying mantis. Making meaning entirely subjective negates the value of the concept altogether.

---

I don't think these statements are contradictory, nor did I say that "each individual concocts their own inidividual 'meaning' or purpose." I said "you have to find your own meaning" and that religion--which, as you note, claims we are part of God's "grander scheme," is one option. Most people who are religious don't "concoct" anything--they're raised in a faith, as I was, or they choose one. Most have things in their faith they don't really believe (the virgin birth always bothered me), but they accept the entire package and just ignore or shut up about the areas they think are fuzzy or untrue.

"Universal truth" is another discussion--and the world's religions don't agree on what that truth is or what "universal" encompasses. Under ISIS's 7th century version of Islam, Muslims are the only people who matter and infidels can be enslaved and killed. Jews think they are the chosen people. So do Jehovah's Witnesses. In many religions-Mormons, Catholics, some evangelical churches, many Jewish sects, the CofC-the ultimate religious authorities are all male, and women are assigned a subservient rather than equal role.

I'm also baffled at why you think the absence of a "universal truth" makes people unimportant. We're the intelligent life on this planet, and we've transformed it completely, driving numerous other species, both plant and animal, to extinction in the process and fighting and killing each other to support the survival, prosperity and increase of our own ethnic or religious group by taking land and riches from groups we consider barbarians or foreigners or healthens--not us. One "grand purpose" appears to be to get ours even if we have to take it from someone else whose humanity we can find a way to disregard. Europeans--my ancesters--took over this continent, and we used our religion as an excuse to kill the native "heathens" and take their land.

Part of my problem with Christianity is that the doctrine of God giving man "dominion" over all of the earth, in our time, seems to be interpreted as the earth is ours to exploit in any way we choose, rather than conferring any responsibility for maintain a balance that may be crucial to our long-term survival. We don't really know how many systems, including climate, work. We're still finding new species we didn't know about. My point is that, if we truly value people for whatever reason--as God's holy creation or as a happy and extremely successful accident that now controls the fate of the planet by intelligence and numbers--why is the idea of working together to make sure we are good stewards of the planet so objectionable?

I'll address your other points at some other time.

---

Ok, I'll wait on your response to the other points.

In the meantime, I'll respond to this response:

"I'm also baffled at why you think the absence of a "universal truth" makes people unimportant. We're the intelligent life on this planet, and we've transformed it completely, driving numerous other species, both plant and animal, to extinction in the process and fighting and killing each other to support the survival, prosperity and increase of our own ethnic or religious group by taking land and riches from groups we consider barbarians or foreigners or healthens--not us. One "grand purpose" appears to be to get ours even if we have to take it from someone else whose humanity we can find a way to disregard. Europeans--my ancesters--took over this continent, and we used our religion as an excuse to kill the native "heathens" and take their land."

This paragraph does little to support a notion that people are important or valuable. Yes, you acknowledge that (for some reason?) we are the ONE species out of the millions in existence that magically advanced to be light years ahead of all others in intelligence. This includes self-awareness. Appreciation of art and music. Appreciation of nature (that one should really matter to you). Capable of love. Perceptive of the possibility of a spirit or soul. Capable of high level math, archeology, etc. All those things certainly make us important. But apparently that's just a weird accident of evolution, right? I mean, we were apes and now we're this! Nevermind that apes are still apes. We, this one single species, magically out-evolved every other species in a ridiculously exponential way, and none others even followed suit to the slightest degree. How lucky. But according to you we have no actual meaning other than the ones we create or find as individuals. We're just a selfish species consuming what we can, right? That makes us no different than other life forms really. Species have put other species into extinction lots of times over the course of earth's history. If you eat them all, they're gone. If you take over their habitat and consume all the resources they needed to survive, they die off. We're no different than the dinosaurs.

But your position seems to be that because we're intelligent, we should make sacrificial measures in the present to ostensibly preserve things for future generations of our species. This makes you feel noble and important, and feeds whatever holes you need to fill, much like you claim religion does for those who believe. It's why I say you're practicing a religion. Granted it's a hodge podge of nature worship and humanism, but it's still a religion for you. Your beliefs are driven by the same innate needs. I just happen to think you're sadly trying to fill that void with something other than God, I guess maybe because you don't like the idea of having to submit in some way to a Creator. You'd rather it be about you (or humans, or human discoveries in science, etc) which is the same thing that originally separated man from God back in the garden. Pride. But I get it. After all it's the great deception.


Part of my problem with Christianity is that the doctrine of God giving man "dominion" over all of the earth, in our time, seems to be interpreted as the earth is ours to exploit in any way we choose, rather than conferring any responsibility for maintain a balance that may be crucial to our long-term survival. We don't really know how many systems, including climate, work. We're still finding new species we didn't know about. My point is that, if we truly value people for whatever reason--as God's holy creation or as a happy and extremely successful accident that now controls the fate of the planet by intelligence and numbers--why is the idea of working together to make sure we are good stewards of the planet so objectionable?

I don't object to working together and taking good care of our planet, and I disagree with your premise in the first sentence. I think plenty of Christians place a high value on being responsible stewards of the Earth. I do object to over-the-top measures that harm economy and quality of life for human beings, especially in ways that have no define-able prospect of measurable success. I think we should have reasonable expectations of individuals and businesses not to pollute the earth unnecessarily, but I don't believe we should all be foaming at the mouth and taking drastic crippling measures. Some degree of governmental oversight may make sense, but honestly major regulation is not a constitutionally justifiable function of government IMO. For you, this is a much bigger deal and you want government to handle it for us. I understand. I just disagree.

---

If I'm reading you right, you view the universe as created by God and under His control and us as His holy creation and favored servants--and you think that fact is what makes life purposeful.

I believe ours is one of millions of planets in millions of galaxies where sentient life has evolved. One test we must pass is the preservation and maintenance of our home, because--despite space operas where people hop from planet to planet with the ease of flying from Dallas to Houston--we're marooned here for the foreseeable future, and my guess is that we're uniquely evolved for this ecosystem. Which we are doing are damndest to spoil. And even if space travel ever becomes possible, it's unlikely we'll be able to beam down to a new planet every week and just start breathing the air with no problemo.

As I've slowly lost my faith over the years due to thought, observation and-yes-profound disappointment with the things some people (radical Muslims and their culture of rape, child marriage and abuse of women who have the temerity to seek an education; FLDS Mormons; some particularly nasty cults that beat kids or attend funerals of servicemen to shout about how their deaths are God's punishment to America) use religion to do to others while feeling fully justified in their abusive and abominable behavior. I've concluded that learning as much as I can and living as good a life as I can (a hard task, as Christianity acknowledges) are a good purpose--one that's sufficient for me. As, fortunately for me, is my right in a country that allows freedom of (and thus freedom from) religion.

Please be clear that I'm not trying to dictate your choices or anyone else's. That is, however, something all religious systems are designed to do, sometimes in a good way ("Treat others the way you want people to treat you.") and sometimes not (Yazidi infidels can be kidnapped and used as sex slaves because they are infidels. Or you as a parent are fully justified in kicking your son out of the house before he's finished high school because he's gay and unrepentant about that.)

But I am concerned that most religions are a lot more focused on people's souls, an afterlife and control of their behavior through rules religious leaders think everyone should follow regardless of their faith (that's the premise of Muslims who support Sharia governments) than they are about environmental stewardship, because I believe that threatens us all. What good is a belief system if your kids and mine won't have a habitable environment in which to practice it?

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Methinks Jinx2 book he wrote simply says .......

People are the problem here on earth

What the fool doesn't get is his only solution is the elimination of people

Not real sure that's God's solution though?

---

Well he did try it once.

But you misread her if you think her only solution is the elimination of all people. We're a rational species, evolved to survive.

---

God got disgusted more than once and allowed the desctruction of people: In addition to the flood, there was Sodom and Gamorrah (sp?). Sometimes Biblical accounts strike me as describing a frustrated father trying to discipline a 3-year-old. By that analysis, I'd say we've reached the worst, most rebellious part of adolescence. We're a crude, crass, angry 12-year-old boy hooked on violent video games and junk food. I'm hoping God doesn't decide to do what Seth's dad did and kick us out of the house. But we've going a pretty good job of that on our own, so He may not need to intervene.

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Methinks Jinx2 book he wrote simply says .......

People are the problem here on earth

What the fool doesn't get is his only solution is the elimination of people

Not real sure that's God's solution though?

---

We're a rational species, evolved to survive.

---

Are you sure about that? We seem hellbent on undermining our own survival, and I would hardly call all the Deep State and Q canard (not to mention stories about virgin births or golden tablets or special eyeglasses) rational.

We're certainly capable of rational thought, but we don't practice it nearly often enough.

Jinx 2 said:

---

And at least some evangelical churches and some factions of the Catholic church have a clear agenda to deny people who are gay basic civil rights like marriage--both a civil and religious institution. Some hold the view that the only option open to people attracted to those of the same sex is a life of celibacy, or the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex and live as straight. Since that choice involves another person--typically a woman, whose needs for a partner who is actually attracted to her are utterly disregarded in this scenario--I think THAT's immoral. I'm not asking you to change your views or your church. I'm asking you to make room for people who don't share your views and stop trying to preclude their choices with the force of law to outwardly conform to your religious beliefs. And to support policies that involve better stewardship of the planet for future generations. I don't want my grandchildren to depend on egotistical guys like Elon Musk for an escape route. That's pragmatism, not nature worship.

---

That is a mis-characterization of the Catholic church. She is not trying to deny anyone of the rights to marriage. She is trying to preserve what marriage has ALWAYS been: union between MAN and WOMAN. This has existed like this more more than 4000 years, and even outside of the bounds of Judaeo-Christian societies. Remote villages in Africa, India, and East Asia, that have never heard of God or Jesus, have all believed in a marriage between man and woman.

This is in accordance with the natural law.

I'll ask you simply, what is your definition of marriage?

Jinx 2 said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Methinks Jinx2 book he wrote simply says .......

People are the problem here on earth

What the fool doesn't get is his only solution is the elimination of people

Not real sure that's God's solution though?

---

We're a rational species, evolved to survive.

---

Are you sure about that? We seem hellbent on undermining our own survival, and I would hardly call all the Deep State and Q canard (not to mention stories about virgin births or golden tablets or special eyeglasses) rational.

We're certainly capable of rational thought, but we don't practice it nearly often enough.

---

I am certain of it. Since the Enlightenment the moral arc sweeps upward, poverty has been hammered and a working class stiff has better material goods than a 19th century king. We have an improved understanding, not just of our world, but of our universe. I am bullish on humanity.