Here's another conversation that went with a different fellow from the same person's page. The original post got deleted and this was the follow-up explaining why it was deleted. WM is very reluctant to share his feelings and keeps convincing me of putting words in his mouth. I give him the opportunity to explain himself but he rarely does.
Original Post:
DZ:
Thursday at 2:54pm via mobile ·
Actions always speak louder than words. What I posted last night was construed as hateful and that was not my intention. I deleted it, not for self-preservation, but because I should've followed James 1:19 - "My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry."
Comments:
JR: U don't have a hateful bone in your body, dimples. Some things are just better left unsaid...
JR: Your verse is perfect and humanly...so difficult, but important that we all try and try again
CM: Don't apologize for what you believe.
TS: I'm pretty sure you don't really believe this. Maybe this the last verse you quoted (Romans 1:18-32) slipped by you: "Although [those who have exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones] know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
DZ: CM, I'm not ashamed of what I believe in and TS, you can quote scripture all you want to me, but I'm not wavering from my beliefs. Even Satan used to quote scripture for his purposes.
TS: Romans 1:32 was part of the passage you originally referenced in the deleted post to make your point.... I'm only repeating what you said. If you don't like what it says, maybe you should reconsider your original post. I know you're not a hateful person. The Bible has a lot of good passages, but sometimes the culture of the time it was written gets in the way.
WM: DZ, face it that we will be considered bigots even though we have always treated others with the utmost respect and never treated others based off our opinions, because we disagree with homosexual marriage, people will call us bigots. Ironically we will be treated like homosexuals have been treated for years bec ause of our views. I will continue to treat all people with respect dispite not having validation for my beliefs and I would bet that you will do the same. Someday we will be rewarded for our tolerance and the love we give without conditions.
TS: Homosexuals tend to treat others with respect if they themselves are treated with the same respect. Having an opinion on something that has no affect on you but somebody else is not respecting those people. Tolerance should include accepting gay marriage. It doesn't have to be a religious tradition, but a simple civil union recognized by the state.
WM: First of all TS you are obviously looking for a fight on here. Secondly without knowing my religous beliefs or my political thinking, who are you to tell me it has no effect on me. Third, I said we will continue to love people which I think is better than mere tolerance, even though we disagree with homosexual marriage. Just because I disagree with it does not mean I cannot treat people with tolerance, respect and love. Hell I disagee with many of the things I have done in my life. Does not mean that I hate myself. A sin is a sin no one worse than another and I have done my fair share and will likely have more in the future. Hence why even though I disagree with something I can still show love because I hope to recieve the same grace from others the next time I do something that is considered a sin.
TS: So what effect does it have on you?
WM: TS, I am not going to subject my beliefs on how it effects me or my family to your judgemental stances. I give you a sound, logical, explanation of a dialectical dilemma christians face and you just want to continue the debate. I posted my original post in support of my friend and fellow christian because I know he will continue to show the world his love. I have no desire to continue any such debate with you.
TS: That sounds more like hate and intolerance. And I thought it was a pretty simple question. One you probably could have answered using fewer words than used above. I'm not looking for a fight. I just wonder how a religion based on love and compassion is done only if you stack up to some kind of criteria. Where then do we draw this love-hate line? Why not just accept everyone for who they are?
WM: You essentially call me hateful and intolerant and claim you are not looking for a fight? I dont mind typing pal. Based off your posts, I am confident that you will judge my answer and I dont feel like being judged...you know kind of like homosexuals dont want to be judged. But since you persist I will answer your question and I guess we will see if you can act with the same level of tolerance that you are requesting of everyone else. As a christian my faith is in scripture. As with all sins I fear that such sins will keep me and or my family from eternal life. I obviously would like to have eternal life with my loved ones. If society continues as is with many different topics I fear that it may have an impact on my children and they may not achieve eternal life. So while many people think only about life and how it effects us now, I am thinking about eternity which ironically is what most christians believe the romans scripture is referencing. Eternal death is not death that we know in our life time as mortals.
TS: There's a big difference between intolerance and the intolerance of intolerance. I'm judging (more like questioning) your judgement of homosexuals based on your how you think other people should live. I'm not saying that people should live one way or another, just that people should be left to their own devices as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
The sins of others has no bearing on you or your family unless you are harmed by those sins. Gay marriages do not harm you in life or in an afterlife. We're talking about a lifestyle. There are plenty of people who get married in a variety of manners and under the auspices of various other religions. Are you going to also judge those marriages? As for your children or potential children, they're yours, you can raise them however you'd like. I may judge your choices, but almost everyone judges every other parents' choices. But really, it's your prerogative.
So if "death" was just seen as "eternal death", then how do you spin the fact that the Bible condones polygamy?
WM: Like I said, you are looking for fight. If I were to talk to you in the way you hav e already stereotyped me in your mind would you be gratified? I judge no man or woman for people and their behaviors are two seperate things. And lastly do not preach to me wether or not sins of others have an impact on my family. You have no clue.
TS: I don't? How about some Bible verses to guide me?
WM: As I was afraid of, you lack the tolerance that you wish others to have.
TS: I want people to live how they want to live. You don't. You believe there should be laws that dictate how other people should live. Where you have the full right to disagree with those ideas, you shouldn't be able to govern other people's lives. That, again, is called the intolerance of intolerance. So you are correct in that regard. If I was to start making laws about how you live, say, that you had to worship Allah, you might also believe me to be intolerant. Here I'm only stating that you shouldn't be able to dictate how others live. Worship God, worship Allah, worship Vishnu, I don't care. Just don't force your beliefs on other people.
WM: Hey TS...or should I just call you angry guy? Where in any of my previous posts did I say I dont want people to live how they want to live? And where did I mention anything about laws dictating what rights people should have. Just because I disagree with gay marriage and of course would love for society to follow my morals and values does not mean I am going to go out of my way or take any sort of action to keep gay and lesbians feom marrying. Once again your stereotype of me as a christian has you talking out your ass. I have not even stated in any of my posts here whether I am for or against legalizing gay marriage but because of my religion you have made assumptions. The world is not as black and white as you think. Much of the world exists in the grey.
TS: Angry? Who's angry? I'm just stating my opinion. You also keep saying that I'm here for a fight. That's not the case either. I'm just trying to figure out why other people think the way they do. And every time I ask for your opinion, you refuse or reluctantly give your opinion. Then when I try to extrapolate from something what you say, you give me the "you don't know me" and offer little in return. If anything it seems like you're trying to goad me into anger by calling me names. Unfortunately it's not working so well for you.
But as for your question and statement, "where did I mention anything about laws dictating what rights people should have", and " I have not even stated in any of my posts here whether I am for or against legalizing gay marriage."
I got this from your original comment in this thread: " because we disagree with homosexual marriage, people will call us bigots."
Now in the context of the Supreme Court finding it unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate against those who would like to marry someone of the same sex, and the fact that you said you disagree with the decision (or at least the marriage itself), I extrapolated that this meant that you were NOT ok with the decision and you would have instead appreciated that the vote would have been upheld. I suppose I took that final leap of faith to think that you were inferring that you would have appreciated the vote to stand as you're somewhat implying, it's starting to sounds like I may have erred.
Although perplexingly enough, if this is the case, then you should actually be in favor of the recent decision so that instead means we're just sitting here typing over semantics. And if that is the case, then I apologize for wasting your time, but I have a feeling that you're just trying to give me the run-around by being elusive with your words and that you actually would rather not allow gay marriage. If that's not the case then I apologize for assuming so. But the fact is that you haven't told me explicitly either way.
Also, I think you're making equal amounts of assumptions about me and what I think. I realize that not all Christians are homophobic and teach love and acceptance of all God's children. That, my friend, is gray area. This is because the Bible teaches in both the Old and New Testament that homosexuals are in the wrong in the eyes of God, but some people have come to understand the antiquity of the source and feel that it is time for a change in how society thinks about the variety among its individuals. You're also attempting to denigrate my intelligence, but I believe that I have offered quite a bit more to this conversation than you have. Or at least I'm much more open with sharing what I think and feel. Feel free to do the same.
Labels: acceptance, DOMA, gay marriage, intolerance, religion
LC: Sure - you know, except for all the human sacrifices and orgies paganism is where it's at.
TS: Christianity evolved from that stuff. Why do you think it wasn't weird for Abraham to attempt to kill Isaac in the name of his God?
LC: Tell me something I don't know.
TS: http://en.wikipedia.org/
Biblical texts - Moloch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LC: Ok TS, well played. But I should tell you that I almost got a minor in Theology at my Jesuit undergraduate University....so yeah, we talked about all the other gods and such in the Old Testament. There's actually a version where Abraham kills Isaac. The editors of the OT went back and changed it when human sacrifice went out of style.
TS: That, I didn't know. I also have a feeling that when Herod was killing all the babies around Jesus' time, it wasn't just because he was looking to kill Jesus but it was an annual/common tradition.
LC: Nah, that's all mythology. If you look at the Jesus birth story a lot of it mirrors the Moses story. The authors of the NT went back to ascribe significance to Jesus' life, and well, Moses was kind of a big deal to the Jews. A lot of the Jesus story is mythology. He was a real person, but you know, you've gotta jazz up the story a bit if you want to claim he's the messiah.
TS: Ah, there are Roman corollaries too: Adonis, Apollo. Greek: Attis. Babylonian: Tammuz. But I'd definitely buy that baby killing was common in Egypt -- first born. There's a name for a Jewish tradition, Bekhorot, where the first born is to be given to God. Instead of sacrifice, it was later acceptable that penance/payment was worthy, you know, unless you gave your child up to the clergy.
LC: Yuppah, or you know, first born goat works too
TS: Well, that was the whole point of the Abraham/Isaac story, I believe. Getting out of that baby-killing tradition. That's why Isaac was so old -- Abraham had put it off because Sarah was so damn old before he popped out, that he probably thought there wasn't going to be a chance for another.
TS: And then the Jesus story made goats obsolete. And well, it kind of went hand-in-hand with when the Jews stopped it because their temple was blockaded and they would have run out of food if they hadn't stopped sacrificing to their God (70AD).
LC: You got it =) Yeah, the whole point of the story was to show that human sacrifice wasn't cool anymore
LC: Jesus was the sin offering to end all sin offerings
TS: I went to Bible school from K-7 and then a year in college. I have more knowledge on that subject than I need/want. Yup. Exactly. Adonis was killed by a boar, so the "offering" went to a ham dinner instead of wasting food by simply burning it. Although I'm sure those offerings may have been eaten by the priests on the DL.
LC: But it's SO interesting!
TS: I know. It's fucking ridiculous. I delve into it because I'm putting off thesis work. I just like all the corollaries from different religions in the area. I think the ancient Egypt religion had a lot of impact on the Jews from Moses' time. The problem with Egypt's religion though is that it had several thousands of years to mature and several hundreds of conquests that promoted certain deities over others or had them meld, so it's hard to tease out the individual stories. Horus was the son of a trinity (Osiris and Isis), but Osiris was the father and the one who was raised from the dead. Ihy was allegedly the golden calf, which was also the son of Hathor, that cow goddess with the sun symbol between her horns. I also believe that the original trinity involved a female, but that the patriarchy kicked out the Mary-like goddess and inserted an androgynous character such as the Holy Spirit.
LC: Or that whole brouhaha when Akhenaten tried to disempower the sun-priests and commanded worship of only one god....totally! I think the Babylonian captivity had a big effect too - the Jews were like "Shit, we better write down all our mythology...but man, I sure do like this flood story."
TS: YES! And, you know. Amun is sometimes seen as Amen, since, the Egyptians didn't really do vowels....
LC: Precisely! That's exactly where it came from. That and the use of incense. The Egyptians were big into that, as well as choral chanting and stuff. Oh Egypt.
TS: Amun-Ra, the omniscient eye -- that iconic Egyptian eye. And they used palms as a symbolic measure because it had 12 fronds, but dammit, now I forget what they stood for. But I think they had a 12-part cycle like months. I think the disciples all represented that and have Roman/Greek corollaries. Sometimes I think I dip a little bit into "crazy" territory with this stuff.
TS: But at least other people do as well...? http://www.angelfire.com/
LC: I mean, all those religions in the near east are pretty related. It is definitely not beyond the scope of possibility. I was working at a Mimbres site in New Mexico and we found 7 snakes all sacrificed in a post hole....instantly I thought AZTEC! But again, that's getting into crazy territory.
TS: Oh, no, there was definite trade going on there, if not just indirectly from the main centers. And the Aztec mythology/belief system, I think, has them coming from that Uto-Aztecan area, which is kind of CA/AZ.
TS: What I think was awesome, at least about the Maya, was that when the Spaniards came and tried to convert them, they brought the story of Jesus on the cross, but the Maya already had the "Sacred Tree/Tree of Life". So originally the Catholic church just had the cross as their symbol, but the Maya were confusing that with their own religion, so the church put Jesus on the cross. http://www.flickr.com/
LC: That is too fricken' cool. And this gets into the whole universality of the "Tree of Life" symbolism, you know, Yggdrasil and everything else
TS: Yeah. Sometimes I worry that Joseph Smith may have had some truth to his stories. But on the other hand, there might just be some deep-ass religiosity that kept some of these basic tenants of faith.
TS: Or, you know, that whole independent-thought thing, but sometimes they're a bit too close.
LC: Ah, the psychic unity of mankind
TS: Yeah, the Maya have this 26,000 year cycle for their calendars where at the end of that point, there is some kind of planet/galactic alignment where Xibalba opens up and the connection between the heavens and earth are made through the Sacred Tree which allows for the rebirth of the twin heroes, who started it all for humanity. Sometimes I wish Christianity wasn't so lame. I mean, Christianity is based pretty in-sync with the calendar, but other than this ominous "He shall return", there's nothing keeping people on the edge of their seats. I suppose Y2K did it a bit, but this 2012 thing actually has some celestial significance. Christian slackers....
TS: However, some have tried to say that the ending of "Ages" have been symbolized in the Bible: Moses condemned that golden calf/bull (Age of Taurus), Abraham killing the first goat (Age of Aires), and then Jesus, the fisher of men, was crucified (Age of Pisces). So what shall be the dawning of the Age of Aquarius...?