quote:

---

Originally posted by tm11

First , stating that I understand you're only jesting and that no offense has been taken, I don't understand why you feel the need to make jokes at the expense other people's beliefs when your beliefs were never questioned in the first place (No harm has been done, I doubt, to anyone, but I still don't see how it's justified in making such a statement). In the debate occuring in this thread, there was a theological question that arose, and some people expressed their views, and I tried to (badly though heh) clarify. I feel somewhat at a loss, and this feeling is somewhat subjective, but in any case where someone's beliefs would be mocked, I do not think it is fair or right. Ultimately though, it's not that important and I really don't care. It's all good in the end.

---

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Last edited by PsychoSnowman on 01-08-2003 at 02:06 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alchemist
Do the words "...nine posts, nine words..." mean anything to you?
.

---

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by tm11
Alex you're silly, anyways, masturbation is viewed as a sin(at least by the catholic church, I don't think it'd be stretch to extend that to other Christians as well, someone correct me if I'm incorrect), I'll find the specific quote in the bible if anyone wants it, My dad has a copy of the catechism of the catholic church in his room and I could find the quotes in the bible there, but he's sleeping and I don't want to disturb him.
As alex said, masturbation isn't a form of sodomy, as seemingly logical as the argument that since it's not for the direct purposes of reproduction it's akin to queerness, under the teachings of the church, that does not hold. I think the definition of sodomy that everyone is using here is skewed from the first place. Moreover, I tend to think there are degrees to sins (that's another theological question right there), and I would argue that masturbation, while a sin, isn't as severe as queerness.

Anyways, like any sin, you can always repent and ask for forgiveness. I suppose that would entail that you stop sinning, (On a sidenote, I wonder if just being queer is viewed as a sin, I'm sure it is, but I wonder whether issues of gender are incorporated into deeming what is and isn't a sin, and whether or not one would have to commit non-heterosexual acts to actually have sinned for that sin, eh, that didn't come out exactly as I wanted to and it's not really a deep thought or anything, but whatever).
In these discussions people tend to get wrapped up in the notion that once you've committed a sin you're condemned, and that isn't true at all, not saying that it's occuring here.

---

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Last edited by PsychoSnowman on 01-08-2003 at 03:10 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

ok I mean to address this post, but didn't want to take all the space up by quoting all of it haha.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsychoSnowman
yeah, you are correct. But, i didn't feel any "need" to jest or anything,

....

but i really do think that what i was talking about was ignorant and bigotting because i have such strong feelings about outcasting homosexuals.

---

You make a lot of excellent points. When I was posting my original statement, I did realize how my statement doesn't totally jive with my actions as we're known to be fairly caustic on the forums, moreover my statement wasn't meant to silence your claims or opinions, I think they're totally valid too, even though we may not see eye to eye on all issues.
The only reason I had posted in reply to your jest was because it seemed to me to be unfounded. Yes, I can now see how you intended it to be thought-provoking to one who may not know much about either side of the issue, but at the time of posting it, no one was defending religion, just stating opinions, and your comment seemed to come out of nowhere (not to the extent that I would be surprised that you said it, but that you said it in this thread specifically) I understand now that you intended to provoke thoughts, but I just didn't see that at the time.
As much as we are sarcastic to prove a point, in this instance I thought your explanations had already been well-articulated. Also, since the jest was isolated and wasn't all that different from your earlier statements, it came off differently, more negatively I would say.
By saying "need" I do realize there's no necessity for you to say this, nor would there ever be, it was just semantics, and I didn't feel like using a synonym for it at the time. As I have stated, your post appeared to me to just be sort of bashing. If it had extra explanation or raised a direct question, I don't think it really would have (not saying that isolating is bad, it definitely came across stronger and would probably "provoke thought" more, yet with other words, aside from this is a joke, the blow would be cushioned. I don't mean this as a cop-out or anything, your statement's most effective the way it is, and me saying this doesn't really prove anything, ahhhh) The things you view as fallacies noted in your earlier posts could easily have been extended to issues of sinning and repentance, and like I said, this post came off differently.
Additionally, by me posting in response to your jest, It was not my intent to put religion itself on a high horse. I think issues of spirituality/beliefs/non-beliefs are pressing issues, and something people hold dearly to themselves ( a generalization, could be false), and I think since you had already posted, this just seemed to "add insult to injury" (for lack of a better phrase, not to connotate that your posts were insulting or negative.) I think if someone had attacked athiesm then I think you would have been more justified in your jest (not justifying it anyways, but it would have been easier for me to rationalize). I am truly sorry that ignorant people jest like that to you for no reason, they are fuckers. I don't think you have to tolerate that at all. Although this issue didn't matter to me, I still felt compelled to post to defend my beliefs (yeah, subjectivity again), but I would expect the same from you if someone had jested about athiesm. You could counter with another jest I suppse, but I didn't consider that when I read and contemplated your response, because this is a different type of issue than most.
Your capitalism example, while making sense, i think differs from the scenario in this thread. Sure, it's a belief, but I think it's a different type of belief, and being subjective, there are no devout capitalists on this forum, yes they may get offended but that's not the case here. I agree jesting can be an excellent way to prove a point, but when it's isolated it just comes off as bitter (I don't think you were, but I could understand why you may feel that way if you do).
I understand your statement now more, since you explained what people have said to you about sinning and repentance. I think you're right in your view about that. Repentance does have to be pure, and "asking for forgiveness" shouldn't be false apologetics. I sincerely hope I haven't come off that way, in the past or even in my posts, because that's not how I want to practice my faith. I'll admit that I do "sin", but I think "sinning" to some extent is inescapable for someone who is religious, and that's why I try to live my left to the best I can, although it can be improved in many aspects. I am by far not the best person, and I don't try hard enough to be better. But I like to think I am not really that bad, whether I am or not. I have been tempted by some bad things before, and I think I have been able to avoid most of them, I've become a better person though that, I think... (sorry for the tangent)
I never had really realized that some people actually viewed repentance in that light, and I thank you for that statement, your disgust over that is not unfounded.
In your intent to challenge beliefs, and spark debate, I think you've done a good job so far, although it may not have been what you intended. Yeah you don't have to wait for someone to make a claim that you can respond to, but in this instance you seemed rather ill-mannered, despite your jocose nature. The disclaimer didn't really change that, I'm glad you realized at least to put it in. Sure, this is the debate forum, but that doesn't mean we have to be borderline offensive. What you said could be considered offensive (just as what others have said could be offensive too, I know, this isn't a good argument). It just seems to me that since we're discussing an issue like this we could be a bit more delicate at first, and then if things "get more intense" then mock away (This is lame too, sorry). I guess your statement wouldn't be as efficacious.
I think the jesting nature connotates a lot more, than asking a direct question, even if you had put both in, I think that would have been better. Some of the discrepenceis you have with my statement are semantical issues, and this not all that far-removed from that type of issue. The way you came off wasn't very appealing or that enlightening to me, and I felt necessary to respond.
About things being "right." This is a semantical issue. I don't entail to create a distinction between what's right and wrong and what you should and shouldn't do. I just wanted that statement to be more considerate to others, just due to this specific situation. By saying that I didn't think it was right, I don't think you were wrong in doing it, I'm saying I didn't agree with it. I don't hold that much importance to just the word "right" but I can understand why you would have qualms over it. I'm not trying to tack on any moral weight to my claim, just using a synonym, you can just ignore it but I will still try to defend it since I said it.
You acknowledge the subjectivity of "being right and being wrong" yet i don't grasp why you hold so much importance to it, that's just me talking though. When it's so subjective I don't care about using such language. To me, it's not that strong of a word ( I really don't care about most of this type of language), niether is "good" or "bad," I'm a bit careless so I use them as synonyms. I agree you should be able to say what you want to, and so should anyone else. By saying it wasn't right, I don't entail most of the things that you percieved. I should have said not optimal or something, haha, but no matter what we're still going to clash on the issue. No abuse is intended. Anyways, punish the word not me, haha .
Yeah yeah, I agree with you on the purpose of debate, but in debate we at least try to be respectful to a point, and we still try to prove our points. You don't have to be respectful to anyone, I would just expect you to respect others as much as they do and your beliefs, and when you had already proved your point, this argument was unnecessary.

As far as you and I attacking others' character, that wasn't fair of us either to be ill-mannered towards others, sure, but pretty much every time we've at least justified our rhetoric, whether it was earlier, and I do think we've only stated things to prove a point, not to reiterate that point to a different degree, without being "provoked". Again, about being right and wrong I don't percieve that to be the same thing that you do. You're not advocating this stuff,and neither am I, so yeah, it's not that important anyways. My recollection isn't great about this, it really has become all a wash haha, has there been that much, I'm sure you can find a counter-example to what I'm saying, but...

... CONTINUED in next post

__________________
word is bond

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

FROM PREVIOUS post....


I think we can hold beliefs and character to different standards. There are lines I won't cross when mocking someone. If it seems i'm trying to put religion on a high horse I'm not, any such beliefs or non-beliefs I think are important, but not all-encompassing or anything (important enough that we should be considerate of them). In a debate i think it's acceptable to attack some things and not attack others (seemingly enough, you can't attack liberal views or people get offended, although I'm really liberal when it comes to debate, I find it sort of curious that conservatives are treated not that well in debate, I get offended when people say something ignorant then, but it's a different forum I would think. I will admit though, It's hard to defend conservative viewpoints, I find myself at odds sometimes. I can rationalize your actions, but with my view, I can't justify them, and I don't agree with them. But it's all gravy.). I think a line should be drawn, because in a discussion in real life, people would get offended, some may be inspired, but there would be consequences of some sort, good or bad. Here there aren't really any negative consequences, and I guess you don't have to delinate between types of mocking.

I didn't think you had to apologize for it, it's still all good heh. I can understand why you have stated such things, and I don't really care haha, but I'm glad we're talking about thist stuff anyways. I agree with you on the plight of queer people, yet I thought this was an issue that had to be hashed out.

__________________
word is bond

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsychoSnowman
hmmm i don't htink that being homosexual is sinful in its essence. From quotes i've seen, the bible preaches of men not sleeping with men, and no bestiality and the like. But, it's not as if a homosexual person can change the way they think.

Furthermore, something has to be sodomy in order for it to be considered in the genre of homosexuality or masturbation as a sin. In that Mathew quote i posted, lust is a sin as well. Therefore, masturbation would be rendered sinful due to lust i think most probably. I agree with the degrees of sin talk, i'd probably guess masturbation would be worse than homosexual actions. But, i don't think just being homosexual would be bad, because a lot of people have told me that homosexual people can go to heaven if they are sorry for what they
are...hmm but then that would mean that the essence of being homosexual does make them sinful according to them...i'm thinking they extrapolated badly, and it's not true. From the quotes and stories it seems to me to just say that someone shouldn't commit heinous acts like these.

---

I looked up more about it, and yes, homosexual actions would be considered sinful, the lust quote would apply here just as well, not making it unique to any type of people though, or anything.

There are degrees of sins, mortal sins and venial sins. You CAN repent for either, but it really has to be repentance, and that planning bullshit is pathetic, repentance in that respect is chuecopping out, just clarifying. I don't mean to just throw around the term but it's always a possibility that should be kept in sight. Being sorry for what you are sounds sad to me, I don't know how valid that statement is, but I suppose it is in accord with the teachings of Christianity, at least. Repentance is a lot more than just being sorry. (although, i'm sure you know all of that)
Anyways, a mortal sin is one that has mal-intent and is in direct violation of the commandments, and a venial sin is one that violates the commandments, but to a much lesser degree, mortal sins are obviously more severe. Masturbation and Homosexuality are both mortal sins. The teaching of the church is that homosexuality is a sin, I don't think there has been any misreading in that regards,
Masturbation is a sin in the regards that it can involve lust, which pertains to the Matthew quote (TM quote? haha ), but also it's a violation of chastity as well.
As for homosexuality, this is what it says in the book my dad has that contains all the teachings of the Catholic Church, the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

quote:

---

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (Cf. Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; Cor 6:10; Tim 1:10) , tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." The are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complmentarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

---

yeah the rhetoric they use isn't the most choice, but I think this shows that the Church doesn't harp oppressive viewpoints, it's people that are blinded and do this by themselves.


I still would like to think that if a person tries their best to lead an decent life, they will get into heaven, regardless of details concerning them, that isn't totally true, but it's wishful thinking.


a note, most of my perceptions about "the Church" are rooted in catholic dogma (not necessarily roman catholic, either), just so you know, I really don't know that much about other sects of Christianty.

damn homework, I haven't done any of it haha, I've been responding, I probably wouldn't have responded otherwise, oh well haha.

__________________
word is bond

Last edited by tm11 on 01-09-2003 at 07:42 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alchemist
Do the words "...nine posts, nine words..." mean anything to you?

Edit: All I can say is that it helps your statement, I can't say anything else because it might jeopardize a rapport.

---

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Last edited by PsychoSnowman on 01-09-2003 at 07:49 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

yes, and which rapport would it jeopardize? one involving you?

__________________
word is bond

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I would just like to point out that I was not "Jesus", I did not create that username, and I never once posted using that username.

People just assume that.

Last edited by Alchemist on 01-09-2003 at 08:55 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

sure

__________________
word is bond

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Edit - I had explained the Jesus thingy but the auto log out prevented me from posting it, here's a simplified version of what I wrote

During study hall Ryan created the username "Jesus" and told me it was "hey-sus" he continued to post during several study halls.

When I made a reference to "nine posts, nine words" I meant to direct your attention to Jesus, not schisim

All he did was compliment people, make an occasional sarcastic post, mispell a word by accident, and post random words. (I'm sure that some of you have done at least one of these things.)

The random words could be considered spam and deleted but the rest weren't that offensive. (There are other users that spam too.)

Schism just happened to be able to be connected to religion, it means division of a group into opposing factions. It's not always used to describe the Church.

So basically he's an all around good guy but made the mistake of letting himself be misunderstood as offensive. This might happen to you.


Later on he created a new username and made a thread in which he posted an apology and an explanation. The explanation included information on how he was making references to Metal Gear Solid 2 (It's an inside joke, but then several usernames/posts are references to inside jokes). Unfortunately he was unable to post the explanation (probably because of that auto-logout thingy, just like what happened to me) he made several attempts but the period ended and he had to leave. The explanation was very lengthy and he did not want to type it all up again. (Just like how he didn't want to spend a great deal of time finding out how to type an 'e' with an accent on it.)

Last edited by Alchemist on 01-09-2003 at 10:26 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

ok, well we don't just "assume" that you were jesus...you pretty much advocated it as if it was you. I remember in one thread you posted somethign to the effect of "or they might ban you for having a spanish username"...now my question is how exactly does that not point to you? We had reasons to implicate and "assume" it was you.

If it really wasn't you then i'll believe you, and though i have my suspicions, you ultimately are the only one who really knows and i'll trust you (since it's hard to tell anything online)

Furthermore, laziness had nothing to do with it. Too lazy to find the accented e? Fine, it'd still be the same jesus, even with the accent. Spanish people may pronounce it differently but it's the same person. It seems as though you think this is some kind of alibi when it's nothing of the sort. Just one that could possibly be a cop out, but it doesn't work even still.

And, why did you bring attention to the "jesus" username again? i still don't get why you did it. What does it do to help this thread?

Finally, whatever his intent, it was stupid to persist in something that seemed controversial for the sake of inside jokes,...that's just my opinion.

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsychoSnowman
And, why did you bring attention to the "jesus" username again? i still don't get why you did it. What does it do to help this thread?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alchemist
You don't mean to offend anyone do you? And you don't seem to be offended by what you say.

---

__________________
word is bond

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Then again, I never said I was proving anything.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alchemist
Then again, I never said I was proving anything.

---

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alchemist
You don't mean to offend anyone do you? And you don't seem to be offended by what you say.

---

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I was making a comment.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alchemist
I was making a comment.

---

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsychoSnowman
pertaining to...?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged