Answered Questions Re: Miss California

[BroomJockey]

I'm not advocating for some horrible, evil, cruel thing.

I'll take this as a "Yes, I would own another human if given the chance."

[Nyoibo]

That really is being silly.

That's what everyone thought in Germany once upon a time with a certain political partys agenda, they believed that not all poeple were equal due to religeous belief, sexual preference, mental of physical disability.

[Nyoibo]

Hmm, seems the board thought I'd already read a page when I hadn't, missed these.

What does this have to do with someone's sex being an important part of who they are?

I may have misunderstood, did you mean gender?

You're learning the sarcasm from Ped

Nah, I've been doing this for years on my own.

I do consider human beings to be on a different spiritual level than other animals.

So do I, I consider them lower and less worthy than any other living thing on the planet.

[Rapscallion]

I already answered this question earlier in this thread. I already explained the New Testament teaching that those laws about pork, etc. do not apply to Gentile Christians.

What I draw from this is that Jesus was the ultimate pick'n'mixer. See, he had a perfectly good set of religious biases presented to him on a plate, yet he became a charismatic leader of a splinter sect, along with the rules he found acceptable from judaism, added in some bits of his own devising, and people spent the next two thousand years arguing about it.

He was jewish, he didn't eat pork because of this, and if people want to follow his example then they shouldn't do they either. There was a quote some time back that he said he didn't come to break the law, but to fulfil it. Nothing in there about changing it.

I get Essenics phoning up at work from time to time - I work in wholefoods, and they want the exact grains Jesus would have eaten and so forth. I think it's a lunatic thing to do, but quite frankly I have to admire their commitment.

I think I'm falling into a trap here. As an atheist, I don't give any sort of credence to the views held in the bible on religious grounds. I fully accept that religious texts were written by humans and based on their personal prejudices.

Rapscallion

[Rubystars]

At this point I think we need to nail down our definitions of 'normal'.

Ruby seems to think that normal means that which is most prevalent. So if something occurs 75% of the time that's normal and the rest of it is abnormal and bad because it's not the same as the normal stuff.

I myself as an evidence and therefore evolution kind of guy (because evolutions got craptonnes more proof than creation ever had) see that as a species we are wired to want those things that have made us successful. We eat at every opportunity, we screw at every opportunity, we want the things we don't have and want to keep the things we do have because these desires drive us to succeed.

In that line of thought I don't see it as anomalous at all that homosexuals want to have sex with people. If what they want just so happens to be someone who is the same gender as them, so what? Everyone likes different things so it's not surprising that this also applies to gender.

I have absolutely no problem with evolution. I agree that homosexuality is likely an inherited instinct from earlier ancestors that engaged in it. I still consider it to be disordered though in humans.

To me and many other people normal is any thing which occurs naturally. In the animal kingdom and throughout history we can see homosexual tendencies as naturally occurring, albeit in lesser quantities than heterosexual tendencies.

Furthermore Ruby, I haven't heard anything from you that doesn't fall in line with a person who is using the Bible in all of it's apparent 'glory' as backing to campaign against something you don't like. If the Bible's so great then thou shalt be stoning many a person to death each day for a great many things, if it's not, if it changes with the times than maybe it's time for you to accept that this is just the next out of date rule that needs to go.

Even if I wasn't religious I wouldn't approve of homosexuality. I also think your premise that I should be stoning people to death every day to be consistent is absurd.

Funnily enough, one of the "base animal instincts" is to either kill or runaway from something you don't know - sound familiar??

Elaborate then - which animal instincts are "good" or "bad"?

If you get angry at someone because they have something you don't have that you want, then it's not a good idea to hurt them to get it and/or steal it. Instead you should work to earn that thing for yourself. An example of a good instinct would be the drive for a mother to care for her children.

I'll take this as a "Yes, I would own another human if given the chance."

I don't understand why you think that but you can think that if you want to.

That's what everyone thought in Germany once upon a time with a certain political partys agenda, they believed that not all poeple were equal due to religeous belief, sexual preference, mental of physical disability.

I don't agree with doing harm to anybody because of sexual preference or those other things. I think you're extremely out of line for trying to compare me to Nazi monsters when I haven't even said I want to ban homosexuality itself, and I've stated over and over again that I don't agree with hate crimes.

I may have misunderstood, did you mean gender?

When I was in left wing college classes, they told me sex is your physical sex and gender is your sexual self-identity. I always thought they had those terms backwards, but I've tried to stick to using them in that way.

So do I, I consider them lower and less worthy than any other living thing on the planet.

Typical left wing thought.

[Rubystars]

What I draw from this is that Jesus was the ultimate pick'n'mixer. See, he had a perfectly good set of religious biases presented to him on a plate, yet he became a charismatic leader of a splinter sect, along with the rules he found acceptable from judaism, added in some bits of his own devising, and people spent the next two thousand years arguing about it.

He was jewish, he didn't eat pork because of this, and if people want to follow his example then they shouldn't do they either. There was a quote some time back that he said he didn't come to break the law, but to fulfil it. Nothing in there about changing it.

I get Essenics phoning up at work from time to time - I work in wholefoods, and they want the exact grains Jesus would have eaten and so forth. I think it's a lunatic thing to do, but quite frankly I have to admire their commitment.

I think I'm falling into a trap here. As an atheist, I don't give any sort of credence to the views held in the bible on religious grounds. I fully accept that religious texts were written by humans and based on their personal prejudices.

Rapscallion

I've never heard of anyone needing to eat certain grains before. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me because I thought all plants were pretty much kosher anyway (except on Passover).

[Rapscallion]

I've never heard of anyone needing to eat certain grains before. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me because I thought all plants were pretty much kosher anyway (except on Passover).

The Essenics I've spoken to want to eat the same grains that were around back then, and they want raw food (not heated over a certain temperature) so as not to kill the enzymes (they refer to a passage about living food). Usual stuff - trying to make science match with their holy text.

Very much a minority.

Rapscallion

[BroomJockey]

I don't understand why you think that but you can think that if you want to.

Because you absolutely refused to give a yes or a no, thus, with the things that you did say available, "I'm not advocating for some horrible, evil, cruel thing" and "I never said it was moral then but not moral now. I just don't seek to reinstate it." If you "just don't seek to reinstate it," that reads like if it was around, you wouldn't mind. It's something you're leaving where it is, but if it was still wide-spread, you'd see it as something acceptable, and moral even.

[Rubystars]

Because you absolutely refused to give a yes or a no, thus, with the things that you did say available, "I'm not advocating for some horrible, evil, cruel thing" and "I never said it was moral then but not moral now. I just don't seek to reinstate it." If you "just don't seek to reinstate it," that reads like if it was around, you wouldn't mind. It's something you're leaving where it is, but if it was still wide-spread, you'd see it as something acceptable, and moral even.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of someone owning someone else. A lot of this has to do with learning about slavery of the 19th century which truly was brutal, and to me the word slavery always conjurs up the excesses of that time.

I know I wouldn't want own anyone else. I have enough on my plate taking care of my own business.

I am trying to look at it from a historical perspective however. Through most of human history and even today this is a reality of the world. I think the person's quality of life is more important than their social status. Before God all people are equal, but I think we have to be honest here and say that there will always be social stratification as long as there are people on earth. With that in mind, it makes sense to focus more on how people in lower social strata are treated with dignity and with respect to their lives.

[Rubystars]

The Essenics I've spoken to want to eat the same grains that were around back then, and they want raw food (not heated over a certain temperature) so as not to kill the enzymes (they refer to a passage about living food). Usual stuff - trying to make science match with their holy text.

Very much a minority.

Rapscallion

That reminds me of the "raw vegans", who are overwhelmingly left wing (at least here in the United States). They don't want any of their food cooked and it all has to come from non-animal sources.

I think it's ok for adults to make dietary adjustments to suit their personal beliefs, even if it's unhealthy for them. However I do have a big problem with it when they try to drag children along with it to the point where it's harmful or deadly:

This topic always makes me think of poor Ice Swinton:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/24/ctv.swinton/

"Instead of breast milk or baby formula, Ice Swinton got herbal tea, flax seed oil, fruit juices and a homemade soy drink."

"Doctors diagnosed her with severe malnutrition and rickets, and the Queens district attorney said it was one of the worst cases of neglect he'd seen."

[BroomJockey]

I am trying to look at it from a historical perspective however. Through most of human history and even today this is a reality of the world. I think the person's quality of life is more important than their social status.

The problem I have is your argument seems to be thus, currently:

The Bible is not wrong, or changeable. What it says is what it says, and that's what you accept.

The Old Testament condemns homosexuality, and Jesus never spoke against it specifically, so that rule is still in effect. "Gay = wrong."

Slavery is specifically acceptable in the Old Testament, and Jesus specifically was seen to have no problem with it. "Slavery = okay."

But we have to look at slavery from a historical perspective. So it was okay then, but not as okay now, because things have changed. That's saying the Bible's morality has changed! Furthermore, you are admittedly uncomfortable with a practice condoned in the Bible, because it goes against something in more recent history. If one aspect has changed, why not the others? If you're uncomfortable with one practice the Bible condoned, and you're already admitted to picking and choosing practices as they appeal to you (most of Leviticus, after all, you've said Jesus supported anything he didn't condemn, you can't just weasel out of it by saying "that's for the OTHER group of people reading the Old Testament"), why are you so comfortable with something else that's never specifically addressed by Jesus?

So why not look at homosexuality from a historical perspective? It used to be that in order for a community to simply survive, every couple had to have as many children as possible, due to high infant mortality rates, short life expectancies, and the other realities of the day. None of those apply any more, so from a historical perspective, homosexuality had a reason to be condemned, but not any longer.

Continuing along that path, if quality of life is more important than social status, you're holding your social status to be more important than a gay person's quality of life. They believe they're being materially harmed by not being allowed to be married and have a firm, lasting ability to commit to each other in a publicly recognized fashion, and they're right. They don't have the same rights as a married couple (medical proxy, inheritance, and other things which you need to be married in order for them to automatically transfer to the partner). You think your social status would be harmed, because it degrades your religion and marriage as a concept. But you just said social status is less important than quality of life. Your quality of life is in no way affected by the actions of a couple in a committed relationship.

[Rubystars]

The problem I have is your argument seems to be thus, currently:

The Bible is not wrong, or changeable. What it says is what it says, and that's what you accept.

The Old Testament condemns homosexuality, and Jesus never spoke against it specifically, so that rule is still in effect. "Gay = wrong."

Slavery is specifically acceptable in the Old Testament, and Jesus specifically was seen to have no problem with it. "Slavery = okay."

It's not just the OT, it's the NT too.

But we have to look at slavery from a historical perspective. So it was okay then, but not as okay now, because things have changed.

No, things haven't changed. There were social stratifications including slavery then and there is now. When I said historical perspective I meant you have to look at human history. There have always been and will always be people who are on lower levels of the social ladder or who are subject to other human beings to various degrees. I think we should focus on humanitarian aspects and not on trying to do away with social stratification.

Furthermore, you are admittedly uncomfortable with a practice condoned in the Bible, because it goes against something in more recent history. If one aspect has changed, why not the others?

If you're uncomfortable with one practice the Bible condoned, and you're already admitted to picking and choosing practices as they appeal to you (most of Leviticus, after all, you've said Jesus supported anything he didn't condemn, you can't just weasel out of it by saying "that's for the OTHER group of people reading the Old Testament"), why are you so comfortable with something else that's never specifically addressed by Jesus?

I haven't admitted to anything like that. How many times do I have to post the same thing over and over again? Go and read the answer I gave to Rapscallion about Gentile Christians not having the law that was meant for Jews apply to them.

So why not look at homosexuality from a historical perspective? It used to be that in order for a community to simply survive, every couple had to have as many children as possible, due to high infant mortality rates, short life expectancies, and the other realities of the day. None of those apply any more, so from a historical perspective, homosexuality had a reason to be condemned, but not any longer.

It has always been wrong and it will always be wrong.

Continuing along that path, if quality of life is more important than social status, you're holding your social status to be more important than a gay person's quality of life. They believe they're being materially harmed by not being allowed to be married and have a firm, lasting ability to commit to each other in a publicly recognized fashion, and they're right. They don't have the same rights as a married couple (medical proxy, inheritance, and other things which you need to be married in order for them to automatically transfer to the partner). You think your social status would be harmed, because it degrades your religion and marriage as a concept. But you just said social status is less important than quality of life. Your quality of life is in no way affected by the actions of a couple in a committed relationship.

I don't want the government to condone something that's completely immoral. Homosexual couples aren't eligible for marriage anyway because they're not a man and a woman.

[Flyndaran]

...
Even if I wasn't religious I wouldn't approve of homosexuality....
....

I seriously doubt that. I've never heard of an atheist hombophobe.

[Nyoibo]

I don't agree with doing harm to anybody because of sexual preference or those other things. I think you're extremely out of line for trying to compare me to Nazi monsters when I haven't even said I want to ban homosexuality itself, and I've stated over and over again that I don't agree with hate crimes.

What I was trying to illustrate is that once you make one law that targets a specific group it becomes a slippery slope and becomes easier and easier to discriminate against others.

Typical left wing thought.

Typical right wing response.

[Flyndaran]

...
Typical right wing response.

Come on, you're better than that. Don't sink to her level no matter how tempting it is.