Campus Crusades

<p>“I am counting on a God that will have mercy and deliver me from this death.”</p>

<p>Why would God choose to deliver you and not someone else, say, a Buddhist?</p>

<hr>

<p>Yes, thanks to you too! I always enjoy discussing different points of view (when done respectfully, as in this case.)</p>

<hr>

<p>“My daughter means more to me than she does to you. Lets face it. She means nothing to you at all.”</p>

<p>Actually, not true. It is true that she means more to you, much, MUCH more, than to Hanna (or whoever you were replying to) or me, who don’t know her. But now that I know she exists, she has value to me. And I mean that.</p>

<p>Drosselmeier, you know I respect you and you write incredibly well, much better than I do, but you are wrong on the Gay issue.</p>

<p>God doesn’t discriminate against gays. People discriminate against gays. People use God to discriminate against gays.</p>

<p>If I said my father said it was ok to discriminate against African Americans and I did, you wouldn’t be ok with that.</p>

<p>If my employer said it was ok to discriminate… you wouldn’t be ok with that. </p>

<p>If my friends said it was ok to discriminate…you wouldn’t be ok with that.</p>

<p>But if my religion, in the name of God said it was ok to discriminate against African Americans, you would be ok with that?</p>

<p>As far as you valuing your daughter more than I would, that doesn’t matter. She has value to you. She is valuable. People can have different values to each other and values don’t have to last forever. </p>

<p>"Quote:
The value of human beings to other human beings. There is a large spectrum of value here. Well, some relationships, like parent/child, the value is too large to be measured. To me, relationships like the parent/child give us value. </p>

<p>“Since this value is contingent upon humanity, which we already agree does not matter in the largest scheme, it is ultimately without value”</p>

<p>I disagree. Value can take place in the smallest scheme.</p>

<p>Right. We are the microcosm of the macrocosm (God). We live in a holographic universe.</p>

<p>Lealdragon:</p>

<p>

That truly does not concern me. I personally cannot see how by Buddhism I might escape the coming death that seems pretty clear to me (especially since we are all for some “unknown” reason cursed with death). So, I personally cannot in good conscience be a Buddhist. But if someone thinks Buddhism works for them, they should be Buddhist. Will God save someone who is not in Christ? Such a thing seems as impossible to me as His saving someone who in the days of Noah chose to avoid the Ark and brave the deluge by some other means. But that is how I see things. I fully admit that God is mysterious, and that I hardly have the biggest picture in view here. </p>

<p>

Do you see how value here is dependent on merely your faculties, something that could be eradicated by a drug? And should something like that happen to you, then where is the value of my daughter? If it should happen to my whole family, where is her value then? It really does not exist as an entity. It is an arbitrary convention we have created in response to fear.</p>

<p>Dstark:</p>

<p>

Well, I am trying to see my way clear through this. I don’t see it yet. I can’t simply ignore the Church on this issue, especially since it refers to the model in nature that is in us all. Intuitively, I detect symmetry here that has import to some larger meaning, and I just can’t discard it on emotion. </p>

<p>

As I said, there is a structure, a model in nature that has relevance to this issue, and that model is in each of us. I cannot ignore it. I also understand the desires of gays, and cannot ignore that either. When it comes to condemning anyone, either gays or the Church, it is beyond my level of responsibility. I suppose I will eventually be forced to take a view one way or the other, but I won’t condemn anyone.</p>

<p>

Yes, because there literally is no such thing as any “African American” who is partitioned from your father in nature. Your father is biologically the same as the African, and any significance assigned to the superficial differences that obviously fail to separate them, must also be assigned to the superficial differences that fail to separate you from your father. We all differ from one another, your father and mother most of all where your family is concerned. And so if there is such a thing as “race”, each of us is a race unto ourselves. This leaves no logical room at all for racism.</p>

<p>

That is because discrimination in this instance is completely against nature. Nature would not forbid biological intimacy on the basis of race. So how does it forbid social intimacy? There is not a single shred of logic that prohibits it without also prohibiting intimacy between husbands and wives, sons and daughters. And that is just no basis for any human thing.</p>

<p>

See above.</p>

<p>

Your religion would be wrong because it is ascribing to human features a significance that does not exist in nature. In other words, your behavior is unnatural. Discrimination claims there is some reason why the races must remain separate. Such a thing cannot possibly be supported.</p>

<p>

Of course the arbitrariness of value here makes my point. What you call “value” here is just the creature needs of organisms that ultimately are completely worthless in this universe.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>Right. Wiping all humans out in an instantaneous nuclear holocaust wouldn’t be a big deal to me, because it wouldn’t cause suffering. But the solitary death of Drosselmeier’s daughter, while her family is still alive to mourn her, would cause immense suffering, and I really do care about that.</p>

<p>"Yes, because there literally is no such thing as any “African American” who is partitioned from your father in nature. Your father is biologically the same as the African, and any significance assigned to the superficial differences that obviously fail to separate them, must also be assigned to the superficial differences that fail to separate you from your father. </p>

<p>So are you saying that homosexuals are not biologically the same as heterosexuals? And therefore, it is ok to discriminate against homosexuals?</p>

<p>“Well, I am trying to see my way clear through this. I don’t see it yet. I can’t simply ignore the Church on this issue, especially since it refers to the model in nature that is in us all. Intuitively, I detect symmetry here that has import to some larger meaning, and I just can’t discard it on emotion.”</p>

<p>Why can’t you ignore the church on this issue? Many people can and do. You choose not to ignore the church on this issue.</p>

<p>

Well, I am not prepared to defend myself on this issue. I am still trying to sort it out. I think I am saying that homosexuality is not biologically the same as heterosexuality, and that therefore there may be a reason to treat the two differently, especially since we are all biological heterosexuals and not homosexuals. There seems to be a model of human identity in nature defining us all, and homosexuality, as a principle, lies outside of it. I need more time to deal with this.</p>

<p>

I think the Church’s view quite possibly has merit here. When I look in the mirror, I do not see an entity. I see a creature who ultimately consists of information. That information is veritably DEFINED by heterosexuality, with one half of it being marked by exactly one male, my father, and another half of it being marked by exactly one female, my mother. It is that fact, I think, that makes me and every other human on this planet, a heterosexual. When I look at human behaviors, I see only one sexually defining behavior that reflects this biological identity, and homosexuality ain’t it. I am looking for a way around this. I cannot just ignore it.</p>

<p>

Okay. Well, I disagree. For some of us, these are very tough issues, and we need time to sort them out.</p>

<p>“When I look at human behaviors, I see only one sexually defining behavior that reflects this biological identity, and homosexuality ain’t it.”</p>

<p>Chastity ain’t it either. Do you view it as you do homosexuality? Lifelong abstention from sex, it seems to me, lies just as much in opposition to this “biological identity” as homosexuality.</p>

<p>“There seems to be a model of human identity in nature defining us all, and homosexuality, as a principle, lies outside of it.”</p>

<p>No, homosexuality doesn’t.</p>

<p>“You choose not to ignore the church on this issue.” </p>

<p>“Okay. Well, I disagree. For some of us, these are very tough issues, and we need time to sort them out.”</p>

<p>You are choosing not to ignore the church on this issue. You can come up with any cover and reason why, but that is what you are doing. </p>

<p>Others have chosen differently, so it is not in us all.</p>

<p>I’m going to leave you alone now.</p>

<p>

Two things:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Chastity is not a sexual behavior, but only a lack of sexual behavior.</p></li>
<li><p>No one proposes we treat chastity, by law, in the same way as we treat marriage. We certainly do treat them differently.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>

Well, we all have to do what seems right to us. I choose not to ignore the Church because I think it is worthy of being heard. Now, having heard it, I need to sort out the position it defends. It would make no sense to advance a cause that I have not yet reconciled with my own mind.</p>

<p>Eh, good point about the chastity, Hanna.</p>

<hr>

<p>“…That information is veritably DEFINED by heterosexuality, with one half of it being marked by exactly one male, my father, and another half of it being marked by exactly one female, my mother. It is that fact, I think, that makes me and every other human on this planet, a heterosexual. When I look at human behaviors, I see only one sexually defining behavior that reflects this biological identity, and homosexuality ain’t it. I am looking for a way around this. I cannot just ignore it.”</p>

<p>This is a case of incomplete information, Drossel. May I respectfully suggest that you obtain some further education on the subject.</p>

<p>What you deem simple biology is not so simple. You are looking at the physical body and assuming that it is an indication of gender. It’s an easy mistake to make, but there is no doubt about it, it IS a mistake.</p>

<p>Recently there was a documentary on tv about transgenders/transsexuals. I watched it in fascination, because I was curious and wanted to understand these ‘aberrations’ of humanity better. (Here I mean aberration not as derogatory but simply to acknowledge that they are not very common; although, they seem to be more common than people realize.)</p>

<p>Their stories were heartwrenching! There was this beautiful woman, entirely feminine. Then ‘she’ told her story about being born in a male body. All of her life s/he felt at odds with her body. As a child, she was teased for being wimpy and preferring to play with dolls. S/he tried to deny her feelings and actually got married. But, a few years later, she recognized that s/he was simply a female SOUL trapped inside a male body. Fortunately, her/his wife was entirely supportive, although it was hard for her. But she realized that true love meant being supportive of her mate’s happiness. By then the marriage had ended for various reasons, but the wife chose to remain her husband’s side, not as a wife, but as a best friend. And the husband went thru a sex change operation, and at last felt fulfilled and happy. At last she felt like a normal human being.</p>

<p>This was a heartwrenching story but was but one of many. I had never realized just what these people went thru, and it was quite an eye opener.</p>

<p>One of my son’s best friends is a lesbian. She told us that she is considering a sex change operation. We’ve known this girl since she was a child and had long suspected she was gay. (I honestly have no idea how they go from female to male, but that is something I don’t really want or need to know.)</p>

<p>Drossel, it might help in your search for truth if you take a look at individual people in this situation. See them as REAL people and see if you can find some understanding and compassion for what they are going thru. Just as you told me I can never fully understand what it’s like to be Black, so too can you never fully understand what it’s like to be BORN gay. Because, although some of them might be gay due to environmental factors, it is a FACT that many ARE born gay, and that is completely overlooked by the ‘Christians’ who say they are abominations/sinners. </p>

<p>Your philosophy, from what you’ve said, would seem to indicate that they are somehow ‘mistakes’ in God’s creation and therefore disposable. By that logic, then anyone with any defect - people with cancer, children born with handicaps, etc. - would be defective to God and therefore disposable.</p>

<p>Do you really think God is like that?</p>

<p>If you believe in Jesus, then why are you ignoring his example? He associated with the social outcasts of his day, much to the dismay of the self-righteous religious leaders of the time. He even chastised them for judging the sinners. He said ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’ in defense of the prostitute. </p>

<p>Christians would agree that prostitution is ‘sinning’ so why is homosexuality any different? (assuming it were even a ‘sin’ to begin with) I don’t see Christians making a big deal about denying prostitutes the right to marry. </p>

<p>Bottom line is, it’s not as simple as you make it out to be, Drossel. You are looking at the physical but completely ignoring the mental, emotional, and spiritual aspects. We are more than just physical beings. We have hearts and minds and souls. Gays do too, and sometimes their hearts and minds and souls, and even their hormones, are at odds with their plumbing.</p>

<p>By this definition, they are no more ‘evil’ than someone whose body is crippled but their minds still active. Both are situations in which the mind/spirit is not in sync with the body.</p>

<p>Gays live their lives in constant turmoil and conflict, trying to fit in with society and make peace with their sexuality. Many try to deny their homosexuality by getting married. But, often, they do not find happiness until they acknowledge who they really are. There are many cases of older people who finally came out of the closet, and some even got sex change operations, when they were in their 40s or 50s or even older. That show had some cases where the person had grown kids. They interviewed the kids and they were supportive and said their dad/mom was still the same person and they still loved them.</p>

<p>I invite you to look at the human side of this. Research this issue, and not just from the ‘gays are sinners’ viewpoint. That would be like trying to find out what it’s like to be Black by asking whites! Research it from the viewpoint of the actual people who know something about it because they’ve lived it.</p>

<p>“I choose not to ignore the Church because I think it is worthy of being heard. Now, having heard it, I need to sort out the position it defends. It would make no sense to advance a cause that I have not yet reconciled with my own mind.”</p>

<p>I appreciate your willingness to admit that you aren’t yet clear on this and are willing to research it further. </p>

<p>In that case, it is especially important that you consider the point of view of the actual people that the church is condemning. Say, for an analogy, this was 1940 and your political leaders told you that Blacks had no rights because they are ‘mistakes’ by God and not normal humans. Before you believe any ‘authority’ that Blacks are subhuman, get to know some Blacks.</p>

<p>It is the same. Get to know some gays. Get educated.</p>

<p>“Research this issue, and not just from the Christian viewpoint. That would be like trying to find out what it’s like to be Black by asking whites!”</p>

<p>Leal, you’ve made several snarky comments about Christians in this thread and I’d like to point out several things to you: First of all, there are many Christians who are neither Catholic nor Evangelical; second of all, there are Protestant denominations who embrace gays as pastors and in every other way, including commitment ceremonies (absent legal recognition of marriage); and third, that the mainstream (i.e., non-evangelical) denominations, particularly in the Northeast, are among the most liberal people in the country. Check out the NCC and all of its writings, John Kerry would find nothing with which to disagree. Finally, there are many Christians (like me) who support equal rights for gays and actively work to support the cause of gay marriage. We see that as a traditional family value that would benefit all of society.</p>

<p>You are right, zoosermom. I apologize! I have used the term ‘Christian’ to mean the Christians who make a big deal about opposing Gay rights, and of course not all Christians are like that. Most of the people who discriminate against gays are doing so because of their ‘Christian’ biblical beliefs, but not all Christians believe that way.I will have to come up with a more accurate term. I will correct it.</p>

<p>Leal, Andrew Sullivan uses the term “Christianist.” I don’t always agree with his specific use, but I do see his point.</p>

<p>“There seems to be a model of human identity in nature defining us all, and homosexuality, as a principle, lies outside of it.”</p>

<p>The same kind of reasoning was applied by white supremists. They said that Blacks were outside the ‘model of human identity’ because the color of their skin was darker than ‘most normal’ humans. Some even claimed that Blacks’ skull size and shape was slightly different, further strengthening their belief. </p>

<p>Now, why did they decide to focus on skin color and not some other attribute? They could have discriminated against Asians because of their eyelids! </p>

<p>To pick out a single attribute and make a case that that person is ‘outside of human identity’ is blanket prejudice. You are singling out sexuality and ignoring all the other qualities that gays have has part of their identities.</p>

<p>Anyway, as I explained in my above post, an identity of gender is something that is a given for most of us - most of us don’t question whether we’re male or female - but for gays it is a huge issue that we cannot even begin to understand. </p>

<p>For someone who fought so vehemently to convey that whites will never understand what it’s like to grow up Black, I am astounded that you don’t see that discriminating against gays because of a single attribute is the same as discriminating against Blacks because of a single attribute.</p>

<p>I’ve never heard the term “Christianist” but I’ll look into it. I used to use the term ‘fundamentalist’ to distinguish, but someone on this forum jumped all over me for it. Maybe I will use the cumbersome ‘people who condemn other people on the basis of religion or sexuality.’</p>

<p>Thanks for pointing this out to me.</p>

<p>Thanks, LD, for understanding ZM’s point about Christians. I am rather tired of my religion being co-opted by bigots and loons as if they had a monopoly on it. ZM and I don’t agree on all that much but in this I think we’re in substantial agreement.</p>