Or just someone who recognizes that morality is not an objective fixed concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenLight
If you read what I have said I have in no way sought violence which you now aggressively and falsely imply. Sodomy is clearly immoral as it violates the natural function and role of our organs and their function, thats true naturalistically and Spiritually/religiously
There was nothing aggressive in my tone. Perhaps a hint of derision, but that's understandable, given the objectionable tone you used in your opening post. Referring to a person's psychologocal state or sexuality as a 'virus', certainly illustrates quite clearly that you see homosexuality as something to be eradicated, which is more than implicitly violent.
I am very new to this forum, but the pattern is the same as so many others. A strong, intolerant opening rant is quickly followed by attacks on the WAY in which people respond, rather than the points they are making.
Incidentally, all parts of the body are more than capable of being explored pleasurably... and by your definition of 'natural function', perhaps hand holding, or neck kissing or a simple embrace could be 'unnatural'. It's a ridiculous argument, barely deserving of the tolerant and thoughtful replies you have had so far.
You actually don't know anything about me or my experience of the world.
Yet another example of you making assumptions about people and their lives when you have no information to base it on.
I know that you're a wet behind the ears 23 year old, so just how much experience do you think that gives you? I don't have to assume, it's in your public profile, genius!
Or just someone who recognizes that morality is not an objective fixed concept.
Referring to a person's psychologocal state or sexuality as a 'virus', certainly illustrates quite clearly that you see homosexuality as something to be eradicated, which is more than implicitly violent.
Incidentally, all parts of the body are more than capable of being explored pleasurably... and by your definition of 'natural function', perhaps hand holding, or neck kissing or a simple embrace could be 'unnatural'. It's a ridiculous argument, barely deserving of the tolerant and thoughtful replies you have had so far.
1) I would compare homosexuality to a disfunction, virus and disease, in the same way I would pedophilia and bestiality. You are confusing the person with the action, which is why you are so offended as most get on this issue. These lusts and perversions are not part of the person, they are choices and associations the person has chosen to make, pursue and act upon. They are tastes and inclinations which are molded by the type of character we construct and choose.
When I talk about healing the virus I mean removing the disease and imbalance, and not removing the sufferer as you falsely imply.
2) There is only one part of the body design by nature and God (oh thats right God is out of the picture for most on here) and that is our sexual organs. Yes, sex is for our sexual organs. I know this will not be comprehended or accepted because so many in our society have been totally degenerate and warped in their mind as to the proper and right role of things.
Your response and others who are opposed to my view have not been in the least bit tolerant and thoughtful, they have been reactionary and abusive, if you were honest.
1) I would compare homosexuality to a disfunction, virus and disease, in the same way I would pedophilia and bestiality. You are confusing the person with the action, which is why you are so offended as most get on this issue. These lusts and perversions are not part of the person, they are choices and associations the person has chosen to make, pursue and act upon. They are tastes and inclinations which are molded by the type of character we construct and choose.
When I talk about healing the virus I mean removing the disease and imbalance, and not removing the sufferer as you falsely imply.
It is common for people to consider homosexuality as dysfunctional (note the spelling here), because in some ways it does not follow the 'norm' of sexual activity. But then, what is the norm exactly? Missionary position, with no need for sexual pleasure from the woman? Indeed, this may be 'normal', or it may not. But to compare what two consenting adults may wish to do, in the privacy of their own bedroom, to pedophilia or bestiality, shows gross ignorance of even your own argument. You could compare homosexuality with a heterosexual act where a condom is used, or oral sex is performed for example. Either would be a perfect analogy for your dysfunctional view of sex. But you won't make that comparison, because either would bring attention to how weak your argument actually is, even from a so called moral stand point.
Incidentally, if you remove a defining trait of a person, you are destroying that person, so your last sentence doesn't change the nature of this discussion.
Quote:
2) There is only one part of the body design by nature and God (oh thats right God is out of the picture for most on here) and that is our sexual organs. Yes, sex is for our sexual organs. I know this will not be comprehended or accepted because so many in our society have been totally degenerate and warped in their mind as to the proper and right role of things.
Your response and others who are opposed to my view have not been in the least bit tolerant and thoughtful, they have been reactionary and abusive, if you were honest.
This doesn't make much sense, looks like you intended to say one thing and then thought of something else. BTW, the word 'reactionary' is used specifically to describe intolerance to radical changes in society, usually progressive. It is your view that is reactionary, not mine.
I know that you're a wet behind the ears 23 year old, so just how much experience do you think that gives you? I don't have to assume, it's in your public profile, genius!
My age is irrelevant to my experience and the places in the world I've been, so in actuality you were assuming. You seem so prone to assuming things that could almost make a career out of it, if you weren't so crap at it.
My age is irrelevant to my experience and the places in the world I've been, so in actuality you were assuming. You seem so prone to assuming things that could almost make a career out of it, if you weren't so crap at it.
Really, sonny? I'm three times your age, don't tell me about experience, you're just embarrassing yourself, punk.
And Gold> you might want to try paragraphs if you want anyone to read anything. I don't know about you homeschooled types, or the 70-year old products of the great depression, but where I'm from we were taught about those and able to use them by second grade.
It speaks volumes the angry liberals can't even read a reasoned argument against their misinformed politically correct blind opinion. Thats true prejudice =pre-judgment and ignorance, the irony. I suppose you feel threatened by any opposing view though and can only ignore and attack.
Apple is a company that is allowed to spend its money how it sees fit. We don't live in a socialist country (yet), so you do have plenty of choice. However, I will warn you that I'm certain that many of the products you own are produced by companies that are completely god-less: you may want to do an audit.
Moreover, supporting "NO on 8" isn't necessarily an endorsement to the homosexual way of life. You have to think about that, too. I voted "NO" on prop 8 because I don't believe that government has any right to qualify what is or isn't marriage in a religious sense. Secularly, marriage is just a tick in a box that provides the married with better insurance coverage, and until the insurance companies change -- which is like asking the mafia to change -- I believe NO on 8, is necessary to limit them. You have to consider that Apple isn't necessarily endorsing a way of life by supporting "NO on 8."
It speaks volumes the angry liberals can't even read a reasoned argument against their misinformed politically correct blind opinion. Thats true prejudice =pre-judgment and ignorance, the irony. I suppose you feel threatened by any opposing view though and can only ignore and attack.
I don't fit your description of the angry liberal (...angry conservative libertarian... yes), but I do subscribe to the notion that intolerance and willful ignorance needs to be fought, including so-called "reasoned arguments" if those arguments lead to the diminution of our Constitution.
"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
I am glad you brought this passage up. I believe though it has been misunderstood by many, especially in the liberal new age movement to mean, "so long as you keep shtoom, anything goes and God will be OK with that". Jesus is clearly talking here about not being excessively judgmental and condemning people without considering your own flaws, indeed. It is true that we have all made mistakes and sinned, but this doesn't mean we should stay silent when there is injustice taking place, abuse of innocent's or the wholesale unrepentant perversion of society.
The important thing is we recognize our sin and make a sincere attempt to stop doing it again. Christ also stepped into save a prostitute from being stoned, often this passage is quoted by liberals, but the "Go and sin no more" is left out. Christ did say, I do not condemn you either, but that forgiveness and mercy was dependent upon the prostitute's sincere repentance and willingness to change from those sinful ways.
On the whole, the gay community is utterly unrepentant of their sodomy and abuse of sex, they do not recognize it as wrong or a misuse of our organs and natural design. They even march in pride about it. Christ also says in John 5:14 Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, "See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you."
Jesus also says in John 7:24 Don't judge by appearances. Judge by what is right.
and in Matthew 10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Clearly Jesus expects us to make a stand for righteousness, holiness, and loving relationships. Anyone who makes a stand for holiness and purity in this society in general now a days is ridiculed and mocked, attacked and insulted. This is a result of hedonism and perversion taking over the culture and lowering the threshold of morality. The Holy Standards Jesus embodied are being shunned by society and at the forefront of this are unrepentant sinners who have no intention of changing their ways and actually want to promote them.
What did Jesus say to towns who rejected his message of repentance?
Luke 10:13You people of Chorazin are in for trouble! You people of Bethsaida are also in for trouble! If the miracles that took place in your towns had happened in Tyre and Sidon, the people there would have turned to God long ago. They would have dressed in sackcloth and put ashes on their heads. [f] 14On the day of judgment the people of Tyre and Sidon will get off easier than you will. 15People of Capernaum, do you think you will be honored in heaven? Well, you will go down to hell!
Christ brought a message of mercy and patience, yet coupled with one of severe warning of the consequences of continued willful unrepentant sin and a turning away from God.
It's easy to cherry pick the passages to comfort you and excuse your selfish ways, but Christ brought a stern message that judgment is coming to all people and we need to recognize our error, humble ourselves and change from those debauched ways.
God loves each of his children, but for those who choose to turn away from Him and His nature and standards of holiness, righteousness, love, respect and purity, then they "make their own bed" so to speak, and the result is an eternity without the source of all light and love God.
To be clearer about this, a murderer or child abuser could misuse this passage of scripture to justify their crime and abuse saying " who are you to judge?". Jesus said to "Judge righteously" as well as "judge not lest ye be judged", a contradiction? no, not if understood.
We are to make a stand for what is right, Gods holy ways, but also recognize our own error and not be excessively critical constantly in pride. God is the ultimate judge of all hearts and souls, but God also expects those who believe in His ways to represent them and uphold them.
John 17: 9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.
This comes after Christ has revealed the true nature of Gods Spirit and ways upon the earth, so there can be no more excuses as to Gods standards and nature. There comes a point where God and Christ will bring judgment and reject those who have rejected them.
Matthew 7:21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
Matthew 12: 36But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. 37For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."
I am glad you brought this passage up. I believe though it has been misunderstood by many, especially in the liberal new age movement to mean, "so long as you keep shtoom, anything goes and God will be OK with that". Jesus is clearly talking here about not being excessively judgmental and condemning people without considering your own flaws,
Actually, no, Jesus was saying do not judge another for what you may be judged for yourself. i.e. don't be a hypocrite. It's far simpler than your post would suggest.
So, using this as the one and only truth in the universe (just to make the conversation a little more interesting), you would have the right to judge homosexuality in the way you did, if you've never acted, or thought, about anything sexual that did not involve your wife/husband, strictly for the purpose of procreation.
Incidentally, quotes from the Bible never, ever, settle arguments, because they can be used to demonstrate different points of view almost indefinitely.
Actually, no, Jesus was saying do not judge another for what you may be judged for yourself. i.e. don't be a hypocrite. It's far simpler than your post would suggest.
So, using this as the one and only truth in the universe (just to make the conversation a little more interesting), you would have the right to judge homosexuality in the way you did, if you've never acted, or thought, about anything sexual that did not involve your wife/husband, strictly for the purpose of procreation.
Incidentally, quotes from the Bible never, ever, settle arguments, because they can be used to demonstrate different points of view almost indefinitely.
The quotes from the Bible speak sound sense and if given the time they deserve would open your mind to higher wisdom and understanding.
Christ was warning of hypocrisy in this instance but your lack of study of his recorded ministry has led you to false conclusion based on your own bias and desire.
Your conclusion from this is that he did not intend any of his followers to correct, warn or judge another person because they too have sinned, this is wrong.
In fact it is the responsibility of those who are connected with God and believe in him to warn those who will listen, to repent and turn back to God, this is the whole point of the ministry he founded, so your argument here is false.
I can understand how it might seem contradictory if you haven't given the Bible any sincere study, but it isn't. Christ was the only being incarnate who has lived without error or sin, but his message of correction and a call to repentance was to be carried on by those who had recognized their error and repented and now walk in his Spirit.
Like Christ we should be patient and merciful as God has been with us, but also stern and clear about the consequences of unrepentant.
If your consciousness and soul is going to be separated from the source of all light, peace and goodness in the spiritual timeless dimension, the it is Love that motivates the warning and call to repentance and also the unwillingness to conform to the ways of the world when they are wrong and anti-christ's way of holiness.
Lustful thoughts, temptations do arise, as do violent thoughts within to test us, but there is a huge difference between recognizing these thoughts lead to harm, a loss of peace and connection with the innocence of Godliness, and pursuing them with verve, calculation and unrepentnance in an attempt not only to satiate them but to promote them as right and good in society. The fruit of one path is peace and freedom, the fruit of the other is destruction and degeneration
The quotes from the Bible speak sound sense and if given the time they deserve would open your mind to higher wisdom and understanding.
Christ was warning of hypocrisy in this instance but your lack of study of his recorded ministry has led you to false conclusion based on your own bias and desire.
Your conclusion from this is that he did not intend any of his followers to correct, warn or judge another person because they too have sinned, this is wrong.
In fact it is the responsibility of those who are connected with God and believe in him to warn those who will listen, to repent and turn back to God, this is the whole point of the ministry he founded, so your argument here is false.
What I said is 'wrong', in your opinion. I think you need to understand the difference between an opinion, and a statement of truth. I probably should have done the same to be clear, although I do think that in this case, what is being said is very simple and obvious.
And really you have no idea how intimately I know or understand the bible, and shouldn't assume anything on this matter. I would not do the same to you.
As for biases... were you being deliberately ironic?
Like Christ we should be patient and merciful as God has been with us, but also stern and clear about the consequences of unrepentant.
I
Wow. So you get to decide how Christ will judge these people on their death? If we have you to be our steadfast moral compass and passer of judgment then why do we need Jesus or god at all? You seem to have it all figured out and heck, you're (presumably) a real person that I can actually see and hear, unlike that shadowy god fellow who seems awful good at hiding.
Where your moral argument fundamentally breaks down is that if you practice what you preach then it is god who passes judgment, not YOU. YOU are inisgnificant compared to the wisdom of the lord. So treat your neighbor with kindness despite his sins, and DO UNTO OTHERS THAT WHICH WOULD DO DONE UNTO YOU. The golden rule my friend. How would you like someone saying you couldn't marry because of your height, or your accent, or the color of your hair, or your skin? Are these things a sin? Being homosexual is no different - if you can't understand that then you have a lot to learn about morality and especially equality. What of those born with genetic defects that render them sterile. They are therefore unable to reproduce and useless under your definition of what a human is on earth for - why would god allow these sterile beings to be born?
In fact, any homosexual is doing far for for the other people on this planet by not having children than you are by pumping out the babies. The world is already overcrowded and it can't support an endlessly increasing population of good Christian tykes, no matter how well they are raised. In god's eyes, a homosexual may even be looked upon favorable, as he has sacrificed his divine right to reproduce so that other children may lead a life of greater plenty as there is more to go around fewer people.
Lastly, it is narrow minded of you to assume that morality can only come from religion or a belief in god. Morality comes from deep thought and our own natural sense of justice - we are born with the concept of fairness hard wired into our brains. Morality at its very simplest is the golden rule - do unto others. And yet religions frequently ignore this golden rule and cause much bloodshed, pain, and suffering in the name of lesser holy rules. If everyone treated others how they themselves wished to be treated, we'd have no need for any further morality - as all moral questions can be divined back to the essential golden rule.
Now I am an atheist. I don't find comfort in the idea of a god nor am I fearful of death or of the unknown. But I consider myself a highly moral person. I refine my morals through taking in new knowledge, new experiences, and weighing them against basic logic of fairness and right and wrong. And would you closely watch me while I knew no one was watching, you'd find me to be a quite moral person indeed.
Until you free your own mind and realize that all humans on this earth are brothers regardless of the frivolous traits that seem to divide us, please keep your hate out of this forum and save it for those that have a stomach for such morally reprehensible bile.
I've read the original post and a broad smattering (but not all) of the subsequent banter.
The issue is an interesting one - so much so that it invariably gets snared in the complexity of language when woven against the background of alternative perspectives.
There is a view founded upon Biblical teachings that would tend to condemn the act of homosexuality - in the sense that the act is morally condemned by God. When brought forth by those who wish to share this knowledge, they become quickly wrapped up in specious arguments and invariably display a trait of seeming superiority or some other equally morally reprehensible trait. It is beyond question that many of the gays I know are upright, honest and sensitive individuals who, in many ways that I can make my puny efforts of judgment, are ethically equal or better than their heterosexual counterparts.
There are others that view homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle - and nothing more.
It's a difficult fact of life that when someone like the original poster wanted to take what for them might be a difficult stand (after all - to give up Apple for Steve Balmer & Microsoft) and create an open letter to Mr. Jobs expressing their dissatisfaction by making such a pledge - they must be prepared to run the belt gauntlet of those who would choose to negate their effect. As I'm sure Old Testament prophets found, it is even more difficult to use an open letter as a springboard to advance the notion that those who hold alternative views must be repentant and/or redeemed.
What is usually at the core of each such demonstration is a distressing lack of compassion and philos on both ends. I know that I have been guilty of such a lack in my own life too many times.
Thankfully, AppleInsider is predominately a bastion of enthusiasts who feel blessed to know the difference between what Apple truly has to offer versus what the rest of the industry (and yes - predominately Windows & Microsoft) has to offer. I myself am grateful for the forum and the usually high enthusiasm directed at understanding the Apple imperative. When this happens, even though discussion can be spirited, it is a beautiful thing.
Where your moral argument fundamentally breaks down is that if you practice what you preach then it is god who passes judgment, not YOU. YOU are inisgnificant compared to the wisdom of the lord. So treat your neighbor with kindness despite his sins, and DO UNTO OTHERS THAT WHICH WOULD DO DONE UNTO YOU. The golden rule my friend. How would you like someone saying you couldn't marry because of your height, or your accent, or the color of your hair, or your skin? Are these things a sin? Being homosexual is no different - if you can't understand that then you have a lot to learn about morality and especially equality. What of those born with genetic defects that render them sterile. They are therefore unable to reproduce and useless under your definition of what a human is on earth for - why would god allow these sterile beings to be born?
Re-read what I said carefully before jumping to conclusions about judging people rather than their conduct.
Homosexuality is no more genetic than the lust for children or animals, it is a perverted desire born from the degradation of the persons character and choices. The bile comes in these perverted acts and the defense of them.
Every word and deed is a choice we make, which thoughts to act upon and which not to is the measure of our freewill and moral compass. The apparent ignorance regarding this distinction is a good indication why people are lawless now and blaming their abuse on their genes.
Would you pardon a murderer because of the "genetic inclination to murder" - the argument is ridiculous and sad.
The problem here is, due to moral degradation, a slump into Godlessness, people cannot understand that these practices are wrong anymore. The threshold of decency which maintains social order and balance through marriage and procreation has been eroded.
We now have a large potion of western society who are reckless, lawless and abusive in deed and word. There is no point arguing about it, because I really believe many people have lost all perspective on what is right, natural, decent and good.
This is a clear backing from apple of the gay agenda in society, and they are using you money to try and promote what is really a subversion of what holds it together in misguided political correctness.
I would only speak to those who have some degree of sense left and a sense of what is right, holy, decent and respectable in the sight of their conscience and God, and no longer buy products from Apple.
We have a moral responsibility for every word and act we commit.
We have a moral responsibility for every word and act we commit.
We do have moral responsibility. But I don't think anyone ever taught you what morality is.
Morality is not a code, written in a book filled with contradictory and outdated myths.
A moral action is one where the actor has considered the benefits and dis-benefits of his actions. He has carefully weighed-up the harm versus the good. Not just to himself but to the wider community.
To do so is not easy. It requires knowledge, compassion, imagination and an open mind. At the heart of a moral man is doubt. Doubt is good because it limits the harm he can do.
Your style of "morality" is not about thinking or compassion but relies on dogma. The upside for you is that the doubt is gone and you get "certainty" in its stead. And it is certainty that is the problem here. People who are certain are always dangerous. They can act without hesitation, they act before evaluating the harm.
In the past we have seen the Certain slaughter women, wipe out infidels. Steal continents from un-believers. They have taken slaves. They have denied rights to people based on gender or skin-color. Genocide is not committed by the doubtful.
So please go away. I am sure you would feel at home amongst the Taliban, but here, the world is getting better as we grow-up as a species. Nowadays, we don't take slaves. We don't burn witches. We don't send black people to the back of the bus. We have stopped gassing Jews. One day we might even stop waging wars based on who has the better prophets.
Comments
Spoken like a true hedonist!
Or just someone who recognizes that morality is not an objective fixed concept.
If you read what I have said I have in no way sought violence which you now aggressively and falsely imply. Sodomy is clearly immoral as it violates the natural function and role of our organs and their function, thats true naturalistically and Spiritually/religiously
There was nothing aggressive in my tone. Perhaps a hint of derision, but that's understandable, given the objectionable tone you used in your opening post. Referring to a person's psychologocal state or sexuality as a 'virus', certainly illustrates quite clearly that you see homosexuality as something to be eradicated, which is more than implicitly violent.
I am very new to this forum, but the pattern is the same as so many others. A strong, intolerant opening rant is quickly followed by attacks on the WAY in which people respond, rather than the points they are making.
Incidentally, all parts of the body are more than capable of being explored pleasurably... and by your definition of 'natural function', perhaps hand holding, or neck kissing or a simple embrace could be 'unnatural'. It's a ridiculous argument, barely deserving of the tolerant and thoughtful replies you have had so far.
You actually don't know anything about me or my experience of the world.
Yet another example of you making assumptions about people and their lives when you have no information to base it on.
I know that you're a wet behind the ears 23 year old, so just how much experience do you think that gives you? I don't have to assume, it's in your public profile, genius!
Or just someone who recognizes that morality is not an objective fixed concept.
Referring to a person's psychologocal state or sexuality as a 'virus', certainly illustrates quite clearly that you see homosexuality as something to be eradicated, which is more than implicitly violent.
Incidentally, all parts of the body are more than capable of being explored pleasurably... and by your definition of 'natural function', perhaps hand holding, or neck kissing or a simple embrace could be 'unnatural'. It's a ridiculous argument, barely deserving of the tolerant and thoughtful replies you have had so far.
1) I would compare homosexuality to a disfunction, virus and disease, in the same way I would pedophilia and bestiality. You are confusing the person with the action, which is why you are so offended as most get on this issue. These lusts and perversions are not part of the person, they are choices and associations the person has chosen to make, pursue and act upon. They are tastes and inclinations which are molded by the type of character we construct and choose.
When I talk about healing the virus I mean removing the disease and imbalance, and not removing the sufferer as you falsely imply.
2) There is only one part of the body design by nature and God (oh thats right God is out of the picture for most on here) and that is our sexual organs. Yes, sex is for our sexual organs. I know this will not be comprehended or accepted because so many in our society have been totally degenerate and warped in their mind as to the proper and right role of things.
Your response and others who are opposed to my view have not been in the least bit tolerant and thoughtful, they have been reactionary and abusive, if you were honest.
1) I would compare homosexuality to a disfunction, virus and disease, in the same way I would pedophilia and bestiality. You are confusing the person with the action, which is why you are so offended as most get on this issue. These lusts and perversions are not part of the person, they are choices and associations the person has chosen to make, pursue and act upon. They are tastes and inclinations which are molded by the type of character we construct and choose.
When I talk about healing the virus I mean removing the disease and imbalance, and not removing the sufferer as you falsely imply.
It is common for people to consider homosexuality as dysfunctional (note the spelling here), because in some ways it does not follow the 'norm' of sexual activity. But then, what is the norm exactly? Missionary position, with no need for sexual pleasure from the woman? Indeed, this may be 'normal', or it may not. But to compare what two consenting adults may wish to do, in the privacy of their own bedroom, to pedophilia or bestiality, shows gross ignorance of even your own argument. You could compare homosexuality with a heterosexual act where a condom is used, or oral sex is performed for example. Either would be a perfect analogy for your dysfunctional view of sex. But you won't make that comparison, because either would bring attention to how weak your argument actually is, even from a so called moral stand point.
Incidentally, if you remove a defining trait of a person, you are destroying that person, so your last sentence doesn't change the nature of this discussion.
2) There is only one part of the body design by nature and God (oh thats right God is out of the picture for most on here) and that is our sexual organs. Yes, sex is for our sexual organs. I know this will not be comprehended or accepted because so many in our society have been totally degenerate and warped in their mind as to the proper and right role of things.
Your response and others who are opposed to my view have not been in the least bit tolerant and thoughtful, they have been reactionary and abusive, if you were honest.
This doesn't make much sense, looks like you intended to say one thing and then thought of something else. BTW, the word 'reactionary' is used specifically to describe intolerance to radical changes in society, usually progressive. It is your view that is reactionary, not mine.
I know that you're a wet behind the ears 23 year old, so just how much experience do you think that gives you? I don't have to assume, it's in your public profile, genius!
My age is irrelevant to my experience and the places in the world I've been, so in actuality you were assuming. You seem so prone to assuming things that could almost make a career out of it, if you weren't so crap at it.
My age is irrelevant to my experience and the places in the world I've been, so in actuality you were assuming. You seem so prone to assuming things that could almost make a career out of it, if you weren't so crap at it.
Really, sonny? I'm three times your age, don't tell me about experience, you're just embarrassing yourself, punk.
*snigger*
And Gold> you might want to try paragraphs if you want anyone to read anything. I don't know about you homeschooled types, or the 70-year old products of the great depression, but where I'm from we were taught about those and able to use them by second grade.
It speaks volumes the angry liberals can't even read a reasoned argument against their misinformed politically correct blind opinion. Thats true prejudice =pre-judgment and ignorance, the irony. I suppose you feel threatened by any opposing view though and can only ignore and attack.
Apple is a company that is allowed to spend its money how it sees fit. We don't live in a socialist country (yet), so you do have plenty of choice. However, I will warn you that I'm certain that many of the products you own are produced by companies that are completely god-less: you may want to do an audit.
Moreover, supporting "NO on 8" isn't necessarily an endorsement to the homosexual way of life. You have to think about that, too. I voted "NO" on prop 8 because I don't believe that government has any right to qualify what is or isn't marriage in a religious sense. Secularly, marriage is just a tick in a box that provides the married with better insurance coverage, and until the insurance companies change -- which is like asking the mafia to change -- I believe NO on 8, is necessary to limit them. You have to consider that Apple isn't necessarily endorsing a way of life by supporting "NO on 8."
It speaks volumes the angry liberals can't even read a reasoned argument against their misinformed politically correct blind opinion. Thats true prejudice =pre-judgment and ignorance, the irony. I suppose you feel threatened by any opposing view though and can only ignore and attack.
I don't fit your description of the angry liberal (...angry conservative libertarian... yes), but I do subscribe to the notion that intolerance and willful ignorance needs to be fought, including so-called "reasoned arguments" if those arguments lead to the diminution of our Constitution.
And maybe "A world without morals" would suit you
Whatever happened to:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged."
"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
Whatever happened to:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged."
"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
I am glad you brought this passage up. I believe though it has been misunderstood by many, especially in the liberal new age movement to mean, "so long as you keep shtoom, anything goes and God will be OK with that". Jesus is clearly talking here about not being excessively judgmental and condemning people without considering your own flaws, indeed. It is true that we have all made mistakes and sinned, but this doesn't mean we should stay silent when there is injustice taking place, abuse of innocent's or the wholesale unrepentant perversion of society.
The important thing is we recognize our sin and make a sincere attempt to stop doing it again. Christ also stepped into save a prostitute from being stoned, often this passage is quoted by liberals, but the "Go and sin no more" is left out. Christ did say, I do not condemn you either, but that forgiveness and mercy was dependent upon the prostitute's sincere repentance and willingness to change from those sinful ways.
On the whole, the gay community is utterly unrepentant of their sodomy and abuse of sex, they do not recognize it as wrong or a misuse of our organs and natural design. They even march in pride about it. Christ also says in John 5:14 Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, "See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you."
Jesus also says in John 7:24 Don't judge by appearances. Judge by what is right.
and in Matthew 10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Clearly Jesus expects us to make a stand for righteousness, holiness, and loving relationships. Anyone who makes a stand for holiness and purity in this society in general now a days is ridiculed and mocked, attacked and insulted. This is a result of hedonism and perversion taking over the culture and lowering the threshold of morality. The Holy Standards Jesus embodied are being shunned by society and at the forefront of this are unrepentant sinners who have no intention of changing their ways and actually want to promote them.
What did Jesus say to towns who rejected his message of repentance?
Luke 10:13You people of Chorazin are in for trouble! You people of Bethsaida are also in for trouble! If the miracles that took place in your towns had happened in Tyre and Sidon, the people there would have turned to God long ago. They would have dressed in sackcloth and put ashes on their heads. [f] 14On the day of judgment the people of Tyre and Sidon will get off easier than you will. 15People of Capernaum, do you think you will be honored in heaven? Well, you will go down to hell!
Christ brought a message of mercy and patience, yet coupled with one of severe warning of the consequences of continued willful unrepentant sin and a turning away from God.
It's easy to cherry pick the passages to comfort you and excuse your selfish ways, but Christ brought a stern message that judgment is coming to all people and we need to recognize our error, humble ourselves and change from those debauched ways.
God loves each of his children, but for those who choose to turn away from Him and His nature and standards of holiness, righteousness, love, respect and purity, then they "make their own bed" so to speak, and the result is an eternity without the source of all light and love God.
To be clearer about this, a murderer or child abuser could misuse this passage of scripture to justify their crime and abuse saying " who are you to judge?". Jesus said to "Judge righteously" as well as "judge not lest ye be judged", a contradiction? no, not if understood.
We are to make a stand for what is right, Gods holy ways, but also recognize our own error and not be excessively critical constantly in pride. God is the ultimate judge of all hearts and souls, but God also expects those who believe in His ways to represent them and uphold them.
John 17: 9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.
This comes after Christ has revealed the true nature of Gods Spirit and ways upon the earth, so there can be no more excuses as to Gods standards and nature. There comes a point where God and Christ will bring judgment and reject those who have rejected them.
Matthew 7:21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
Matthew 12: 36But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. 37For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."
I am glad you brought this passage up. I believe though it has been misunderstood by many, especially in the liberal new age movement to mean, "so long as you keep shtoom, anything goes and God will be OK with that". Jesus is clearly talking here about not being excessively judgmental and condemning people without considering your own flaws,
Actually, no, Jesus was saying do not judge another for what you may be judged for yourself. i.e. don't be a hypocrite. It's far simpler than your post would suggest.
So, using this as the one and only truth in the universe (just to make the conversation a little more interesting), you would have the right to judge homosexuality in the way you did, if you've never acted, or thought, about anything sexual that did not involve your wife/husband, strictly for the purpose of procreation.
Incidentally, quotes from the Bible never, ever, settle arguments, because they can be used to demonstrate different points of view almost indefinitely.
Actually, no, Jesus was saying do not judge another for what you may be judged for yourself. i.e. don't be a hypocrite. It's far simpler than your post would suggest.
So, using this as the one and only truth in the universe (just to make the conversation a little more interesting), you would have the right to judge homosexuality in the way you did, if you've never acted, or thought, about anything sexual that did not involve your wife/husband, strictly for the purpose of procreation.
Incidentally, quotes from the Bible never, ever, settle arguments, because they can be used to demonstrate different points of view almost indefinitely.
The quotes from the Bible speak sound sense and if given the time they deserve would open your mind to higher wisdom and understanding.
Christ was warning of hypocrisy in this instance but your lack of study of his recorded ministry has led you to false conclusion based on your own bias and desire.
Your conclusion from this is that he did not intend any of his followers to correct, warn or judge another person because they too have sinned, this is wrong.
In fact it is the responsibility of those who are connected with God and believe in him to warn those who will listen, to repent and turn back to God, this is the whole point of the ministry he founded, so your argument here is false.
I can understand how it might seem contradictory if you haven't given the Bible any sincere study, but it isn't. Christ was the only being incarnate who has lived without error or sin, but his message of correction and a call to repentance was to be carried on by those who had recognized their error and repented and now walk in his Spirit.
Like Christ we should be patient and merciful as God has been with us, but also stern and clear about the consequences of unrepentant.
If your consciousness and soul is going to be separated from the source of all light, peace and goodness in the spiritual timeless dimension, the it is Love that motivates the warning and call to repentance and also the unwillingness to conform to the ways of the world when they are wrong and anti-christ's way of holiness.
Lustful thoughts, temptations do arise, as do violent thoughts within to test us, but there is a huge difference between recognizing these thoughts lead to harm, a loss of peace and connection with the innocence of Godliness, and pursuing them with verve, calculation and unrepentnance in an attempt not only to satiate them but to promote them as right and good in society. The fruit of one path is peace and freedom, the fruit of the other is destruction and degeneration
Very important distinction.
The quotes from the Bible speak sound sense and if given the time they deserve would open your mind to higher wisdom and understanding.
Christ was warning of hypocrisy in this instance but your lack of study of his recorded ministry has led you to false conclusion based on your own bias and desire.
Your conclusion from this is that he did not intend any of his followers to correct, warn or judge another person because they too have sinned, this is wrong.
In fact it is the responsibility of those who are connected with God and believe in him to warn those who will listen, to repent and turn back to God, this is the whole point of the ministry he founded, so your argument here is false.
What I said is 'wrong', in your opinion. I think you need to understand the difference between an opinion, and a statement of truth. I probably should have done the same to be clear, although I do think that in this case, what is being said is very simple and obvious.
And really you have no idea how intimately I know or understand the bible, and shouldn't assume anything on this matter. I would not do the same to you.
As for biases... were you being deliberately ironic?
Like Christ we should be patient and merciful as God has been with us, but also stern and clear about the consequences of unrepentant.
I
Wow. So you get to decide how Christ will judge these people on their death? If we have you to be our steadfast moral compass and passer of judgment then why do we need Jesus or god at all? You seem to have it all figured out and heck, you're (presumably) a real person that I can actually see and hear, unlike that shadowy god fellow who seems awful good at hiding.
Where your moral argument fundamentally breaks down is that if you practice what you preach then it is god who passes judgment, not YOU. YOU are inisgnificant compared to the wisdom of the lord. So treat your neighbor with kindness despite his sins, and DO UNTO OTHERS THAT WHICH WOULD DO DONE UNTO YOU. The golden rule my friend. How would you like someone saying you couldn't marry because of your height, or your accent, or the color of your hair, or your skin? Are these things a sin? Being homosexual is no different - if you can't understand that then you have a lot to learn about morality and especially equality. What of those born with genetic defects that render them sterile. They are therefore unable to reproduce and useless under your definition of what a human is on earth for - why would god allow these sterile beings to be born?
In fact, any homosexual is doing far for for the other people on this planet by not having children than you are by pumping out the babies. The world is already overcrowded and it can't support an endlessly increasing population of good Christian tykes, no matter how well they are raised. In god's eyes, a homosexual may even be looked upon favorable, as he has sacrificed his divine right to reproduce so that other children may lead a life of greater plenty as there is more to go around fewer people.
Lastly, it is narrow minded of you to assume that morality can only come from religion or a belief in god. Morality comes from deep thought and our own natural sense of justice - we are born with the concept of fairness hard wired into our brains. Morality at its very simplest is the golden rule - do unto others. And yet religions frequently ignore this golden rule and cause much bloodshed, pain, and suffering in the name of lesser holy rules. If everyone treated others how they themselves wished to be treated, we'd have no need for any further morality - as all moral questions can be divined back to the essential golden rule.
Now I am an atheist. I don't find comfort in the idea of a god nor am I fearful of death or of the unknown. But I consider myself a highly moral person. I refine my morals through taking in new knowledge, new experiences, and weighing them against basic logic of fairness and right and wrong. And would you closely watch me while I knew no one was watching, you'd find me to be a quite moral person indeed.
Until you free your own mind and realize that all humans on this earth are brothers regardless of the frivolous traits that seem to divide us, please keep your hate out of this forum and save it for those that have a stomach for such morally reprehensible bile.
The issue is an interesting one - so much so that it invariably gets snared in the complexity of language when woven against the background of alternative perspectives.
There is a view founded upon Biblical teachings that would tend to condemn the act of homosexuality - in the sense that the act is morally condemned by God. When brought forth by those who wish to share this knowledge, they become quickly wrapped up in specious arguments and invariably display a trait of seeming superiority or some other equally morally reprehensible trait. It is beyond question that many of the gays I know are upright, honest and sensitive individuals who, in many ways that I can make my puny efforts of judgment, are ethically equal or better than their heterosexual counterparts.
There are others that view homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle - and nothing more.
It's a difficult fact of life that when someone like the original poster wanted to take what for them might be a difficult stand (after all - to give up Apple for Steve Balmer & Microsoft) and create an open letter to Mr. Jobs expressing their dissatisfaction by making such a pledge - they must be prepared to run the belt gauntlet of those who would choose to negate their effect. As I'm sure Old Testament prophets found, it is even more difficult to use an open letter as a springboard to advance the notion that those who hold alternative views must be repentant and/or redeemed.
What is usually at the core of each such demonstration is a distressing lack of compassion and philos on both ends. I know that I have been guilty of such a lack in my own life too many times.
Thankfully, AppleInsider is predominately a bastion of enthusiasts who feel blessed to know the difference between what Apple truly has to offer versus what the rest of the industry (and yes - predominately Windows & Microsoft) has to offer. I myself am grateful for the forum and the usually high enthusiasm directed at understanding the Apple imperative. When this happens, even though discussion can be spirited, it is a beautiful thing.
Where your moral argument fundamentally breaks down is that if you practice what you preach then it is god who passes judgment, not YOU. YOU are inisgnificant compared to the wisdom of the lord. So treat your neighbor with kindness despite his sins, and DO UNTO OTHERS THAT WHICH WOULD DO DONE UNTO YOU. The golden rule my friend. How would you like someone saying you couldn't marry because of your height, or your accent, or the color of your hair, or your skin? Are these things a sin? Being homosexual is no different - if you can't understand that then you have a lot to learn about morality and especially equality. What of those born with genetic defects that render them sterile. They are therefore unable to reproduce and useless under your definition of what a human is on earth for - why would god allow these sterile beings to be born?
Re-read what I said carefully before jumping to conclusions about judging people rather than their conduct.
Homosexuality is no more genetic than the lust for children or animals, it is a perverted desire born from the degradation of the persons character and choices. The bile comes in these perverted acts and the defense of them.
Every word and deed is a choice we make, which thoughts to act upon and which not to is the measure of our freewill and moral compass. The apparent ignorance regarding this distinction is a good indication why people are lawless now and blaming their abuse on their genes.
Would you pardon a murderer because of the "genetic inclination to murder" - the argument is ridiculous and sad.
The problem here is, due to moral degradation, a slump into Godlessness, people cannot understand that these practices are wrong anymore. The threshold of decency which maintains social order and balance through marriage and procreation has been eroded.
We now have a large potion of western society who are reckless, lawless and abusive in deed and word. There is no point arguing about it, because I really believe many people have lost all perspective on what is right, natural, decent and good.
This is a clear backing from apple of the gay agenda in society, and they are using you money to try and promote what is really a subversion of what holds it together in misguided political correctness.
I would only speak to those who have some degree of sense left and a sense of what is right, holy, decent and respectable in the sight of their conscience and God, and no longer buy products from Apple.
We have a moral responsibility for every word and act we commit.
We have a moral responsibility for every word and act we commit.
We do have moral responsibility. But I don't think anyone ever taught you what morality is.
Morality is not a code, written in a book filled with contradictory and outdated myths.
A moral action is one where the actor has considered the benefits and dis-benefits of his actions. He has carefully weighed-up the harm versus the good. Not just to himself but to the wider community.
To do so is not easy. It requires knowledge, compassion, imagination and an open mind. At the heart of a moral man is doubt. Doubt is good because it limits the harm he can do.
Your style of "morality" is not about thinking or compassion but relies on dogma. The upside for you is that the doubt is gone and you get "certainty" in its stead. And it is certainty that is the problem here. People who are certain are always dangerous. They can act without hesitation, they act before evaluating the harm.
In the past we have seen the Certain slaughter women, wipe out infidels. Steal continents from un-believers. They have taken slaves. They have denied rights to people based on gender or skin-color. Genocide is not committed by the doubtful.
So please go away. I am sure you would feel at home amongst the Taliban, but here, the world is getting better as we grow-up as a species. Nowadays, we don't take slaves. We don't burn witches. We don't send black people to the back of the bus. We have stopped gassing Jews. One day we might even stop waging wars based on who has the better prophets.
Let's carry on in the right direction eh?
C.