Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

The bible does not teach morality, it teaches and embraces the worst immorality. It's no moral compass for anything.

Good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things but if you want good people to do bad things you need religion.

---

Really?

What Bible have you been reading?

The Old Testament Bible gives a clear set of rules to live by. It also teaches morality lessons by telling stories of those who lived by those rules and prospered, and those who BROKE those rules and suffered harsh consequences.

The Israelites who had sexual relations with the Moabite women acted immorally. The consequence was a PLAGUE.

Elijah the prophet lived by the Law, and as a consequence, G-d protected him from attack by evil soldiers.

When David took Bethsheba by causing Uria to be killed in battle, the consequence was the death of his first child from Bethsheba.

Moses hit the rock instead of speaking to the rock to bring water. He disobeyed G-d in doing so. His punishment was to never enter the Land of Israel, to die in the desert.

All of these are morality lessons... those who do good prosper, those who do evil suffer the consequences of their actions. All of them teach the lesson that actions have consequences, both for good and for bad. The pattern of these lessons is clear throughout the entire Bible (at least in the Old Testament... being Jewish, I cannot comment on the New Testament).

Which part of the OT Bible do you believe DOESN'T follow that pattern?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Really?

What Bible have you been reading?

The Old Testament Bible gives a clear set of rules to live by. It also teaches morality lessons by telling stories of those who lived by those rules and prospered, and those who BROKE those rules and suffered harsh consequences.

The Israelites who had sexual relations with the Moabite women acted immorally. The consequence was a PLAGUE.

Elijah the prophet lived by the Law, and as a consequence, G-d protected him from attack by evil soldiers.

When David took Bethsheba by causing Uria to be killed in battle, the consequence was the death of his first child from Bethsheba.

Moses hit the rock instead of speaking to the rock to bring water. He disobeyed G-d in doing so. His punishment was to never enter the Land of Israel, to die in the desert.

All of these are morality lessons... those who do good prosper, those who do evil suffer the consequences of their actions. All of them teach the lesson that actions have consequences, both for good and for bad. The pattern of these lessons is clear throughout the entire Bible (at least in the Old Testament... being Jewish, I cannot comment on the New Testament).

Which part of the OT Bible do you believe DOESN'T follow that pattern?

Elliot

---

Elliot - I totally agree with you. Judging by cadillac's quote (by Bertrand Russell, no less), the bible is morally repugnant because of its language regarding punishment and sin... probably the Law of Moses, where stoning was required for certain sins. These are the kinds of things people like Bertrand Russell point to when they charge the bible as being the worst societal evil facing mankind.

But I suspect that sentiment runs deep like that because Bertrand Russell liked his moral depravity and hated to hear anything that would call his life into shame... at our worst, people are very petty and hate when people tell them they are wrong.

You may or may not agree with me on that but I think it is why people can find it plausible to believe that the "...bible does not teach morality, it teaches and embraces the worst immorality."

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and an author of the landmark "Federalist Papers": "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers - and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation - to select and prefer Christians for their rulers".

The Supreme Court in 1892: "Our lives and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."

American jurisprudence in 1947, for the first time used a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson about a "wall of separation between church and state" and was used to deny some specific religious expression - contrary to Jefferson' s intent with that statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion." - Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics

If you're going to quote someone, please reference properly, thanks. I think I agree with the point he tried to make when saying that, though.

However it's important to note that religion can also make bad people do good things, if only through the fear of god.

(Not that I really subscribe to the view of identifying 'good' or 'bad' people)

---

Thanks for the reference. I heard Christopher Hitchens say this while he was quoting Weinberg, but he left out the reference himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakester

Elliot - I totally agree with you. Judging by cadillac's quote (by Bertrand Russell, no less), the bible is morally repugnant because of its language regarding punishment and sin...probably the Law of Moses, where stoning was required for certain sins. These are the kinds of things people like Bertrand Russell point to when they charge the bible as being the worst societal evil facing mankind.

But I suspect that sentiment runs deep like that because Bertrand Russell liked his moral depravity and hated to hear anything that would call his life into shame...at our worst, people are very petty and hate when people tell them they are wrong.

You may or may not agree with me on that but I think it is why people can find it plausible to believe that the "...bible does not teach morality, it teaches and embraces the worst immorality."

---

I could spend many hours I suppose digging out examples of immorality in the bible (it's acceptance of slavery and genocide come to mind) but I think you know where I am going with this. It all seems to come down to the supposed moral lesson of "do as god tells you or else", which isn't a moral lesson at all. It's a lesson of totalitarianism. It's a confusion over the distinction between morality and power.

You mentioned stoning people for supposed "sins"-- offenses toward the totalitarian god in the sky. That's immorality. There's no moral lesson there.

Other moral confusion (no surprise since it is coming out of bronze age Palestine): the 10 Commandments. Sure, only a fool needs to be told it's wrong to steal and lie. But where's the moral offense to covetousness? There's nothing wrong with wanting something someone else has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

Gosh, I couldn't disagree more. I think our morality evolved in spite of Christianity and Judaism, not because of it.

---

Please cite proof that morality evolved? I linked to an article showing what parts of the brain are involved in "morality," but tell me what specific genes are involved in morality and how over 10s and 100s of thousands they developed and what were the selective factors for them? Just a theory right?

Now if morality truly "evolved," how can we judge as bad, the actions of a sociopath, that does not have a developed part of the brain?





G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

I could spend many hours I suppose digging out examples of immorality in the bible (it's acceptance of slavery and genocide come to mind) but I think you know where I am going with this. It all seems to come down to the supposed moral lesson of "do as god tells you or else", which isn't a moral lesson at all. It's a lesson of totalitarianism. It's a confusion over the distinction between morality and power.

You mentioned stoning people for supposed "sins"-- offenses toward the totalitarian god in the sky. That's immorality. There's no moral lesson there.

Other moral confusion (no surprise since it is coming out of bronze age Palestine): the 10 Commandments. Sure, only a fool needs to be told it's wrong to steal and lie. But where's the moral offense to covetousness? There's nothing wrong with wanting something someone else has.

---

Yes there is immorality in the bible, but bad behavior is possible by ALL people are at times good and at times bad, regardless of belief. David in the OT is an example, Romans 7 speaks of this also.

It is truly tyrannical to think that a "good" person will always do good, and a "bad" people will always do bad.

A truly tyrant of a God, would either not care enough of us to make his presence known, or just damn us all from the start. But the God of the OT and NT loves his people, to teach, to discipline and to use his power to save.






G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Yes there is immorality in the bible, but bad behavior is possible by ALL people are at times good and at times bad, regardless of belief. David in the OT is an example, Romans 7 speaks of this also.

It is truly tyrannical to think that a "good" person will always do good, and a "bad" people will always do bad.

A truly tyrant of a God, would either not care enough of us to make his presence known, or just damn us all from the start. But the God of the OT and NT loves his people, to teach, to discipline and to use his power to save.






G&P

---

No. A tyrant of a god would expect and demand obedience, convict you for your mere thoughts, conduct a 24 hour invigilation of everything you do and say, never leave you alone, never allow you to be free of him and condemn you to everlasting torment for not believing in him. This is the god of the bible.

On top of that the entire salvation myth is childish rubbish: god the father sacrifices god the son (never mind the convoluted nonsense of the trinity) so he can feel himself able to forgive mankind. Does that make any sense? Ah. No.

Without the contrast of good and bad, neither would exist. Morality wouldn't matter. If good and bad did not exist we would be unable to experience them.

If the ego were not so terrified of death, would we even care about morality? I believe that death is a reward, not a final punishment. If this is true then killing one another is the giving of a gift. This discussion is intellectual. Thinking is only one of our capabilities.

Morality does not spring from the mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simoneaugie

Without the contrast of good and bad, neither would exist. Morality wouldn't matter. If good and bad did not exist we would be unable to experience them.

If the ego were not so terrified of death, would we even care about morality? I believe that death is a reward, not a final punishment. If this is true then killing one another is the giving of a gift. This discussion is intellectual. Thinking is only one of our capabilities.

Morality does not spring from the mind.

---

Morality serves a purpose and furthers the peaceful coexistence of persons. You can analyze it as a conflict of desires, as Bertrand Russell does, or see it as evolving to further the collective good. One thing is certain is that it comes from the mind, it doesn't come from some external god in the sky. We don't need god to be moral or to know right from wrong. In fact, quite to the contrary, we are far more likely to be moral and act morally when we leave religion out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

I could spend many hours I suppose digging out examples of immorality in the bible (it's acceptance of slavery and genocide come to mind) but I think you know where I am going with this. It all seems to come down to the supposed moral lesson of "do as god tells you or else", which isn't a moral lesson at all. It's a lesson of totalitarianism. It's a confusion over the distinction between morality and power.

---

First of all, slavery as described in the bible is not the same a slavery during the civil war era. A "slave" in the bible was a man-servant and emplyess, not a whipping boy. The Bible actually talks about the protections of "slaves", and the responsibility of the "master" toward his slave... including punishments for the master is the slave was hurt in any way. The morality lesson there, which you miss, is about the responsibility of an employer toward his employee, regardless of their relative status within the community.

As for "genocide", please keep in mind that the only group that was to be fully destroyed was the Amalekites... and that was their punishment for attempting genocide against the Israelites as they were leaving Egypt. Again, this is a morality lesson completely lost on you... the lesson that you reap what you sow.

Quote:

---

You mentioned stoning people for supposed "sins"-- offenses toward the totalitarian god in the sky. That's immorality. There's no moral lesson there.

---

Actually, I didn't mention stoning. You did. However since you brought it up...

If you take a look at the offenses for which stoning was required as punishment, every single one of them was something that threatened the continuation of the Israelite people, either physically or spiritually. For instance, adultery, gay relationships, and other sexual sins were actually offenses against the Israelites' existence because they threatened the safety of women, threatened the ability of men and women to create future generations of Israelites, or broke apart marriages which are the basic foundation of Jewish life. To threaten any of these is to threaten the future of the nation. These were offenses against the NATION, not against G-d. And they were punishable by death for that reason.

Similarly, idol-worship was a direct threat to the CULTURAL FUTURE of Israel. To worship false gods is to attack the Jewish Identity at its core. Again, this was an existential threat to the Israelite people, and was treated as such. Those who worshiped idols were stoned, not because they offended G-d, but because they were a threat to the Israelite PEOPLE. And they were punishable by death for that reason.

Again, these are moral lessons that have been lost on you... the fact that certain actions ARE threats to our way of life, and that such actions have consequences.

Quote:

---

Other moral confusion (no surprise since it is coming out of bronze age Palestine): the 10 Commandments. Sure, only a fool needs to be told it's wrong to steal and lie. But where's the moral offense to covetousness? There's nothing wrong with wanting something someone else has.

---

There is if it causes you to take ACTION to take it from him.

Oh... did you think that they were just talking about wanting the same car as your next door neighbor? There's no sin in that.

No... the problem is with wanting your next door neighbors car... not one like it, that specific one, and planning to manipulate the situation so that it falls into your hands. THAT is where the sin lies.

Wanting the same things that someone else has is actually a good thing... it motivates you to try harder, to accomplish more. The problem is when you want that specific thing (not just one like it) and are willing to do whatever it takes to make sure it comes into your possession, no matter how unethical.

A good example is a con man. Con men, the real pros, the "grifters", take pride in never "stealing" anything. Their victims GIVE them whatever they want. They manipulate the victims into doing their bidding and making the victim think that it is in their own best interest to do so, oftentimes without telling a single lie in the process. They manipulate situations. Con men are covetous people. They haven't "stolen" anything... everything they get has been given to them. But they are manipulators, and they are thieves nonetheless.

When a man becomes so desirous that he is willing to do ANYTHING to get what he wants... that is a sin.

But you missed that moral lesson as well. All because you are convinced that it was never there in the first place.

The Bible is full of moral lessons. The very things you point out as being immoral are the very moral lessons you are missing.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

Morality serves a purpose and furthers the peaceful coexistence of persons. You can analyze it as a conflict of desires, as Bertrand Russell does, or see it as evolving to further the collective good. One thing is certain is that it comes from the mind, it doesn't come from some external god in the sky. We don't need god to be moral or to know right from wrong. In fact, quite to the contrary, we are far more likely to be moral and act morally when we leave religion out of it.

---

Then perhaps you would be so kind as to explain the Bolshivek revolution and the nation that sprang from it?

God, Bible, and all religion was abolished there, and the results are there in history for all to see. Human life had no value unless it was to the advantage of the state. Freedom did not exist. You charge that the Bible endorsed slavery, yet all citizens of the USSR, an Atheistic country, were slaves.

Is that moral?

Would you rather live in a Communist country, where no God is acknoledged, or in this one where 70% of the people say they are Christians?

Give us your HONEST answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

Morality serves a purpose and furthers the peaceful coexistence of persons. You can analyze it as a conflict of desires, as Bertrand Russell does, or see it as evolving to further the collective good.

---

Really?

After all I have mentioned about the moral system of the Asatru, the Huns, the Mongols, etc. you are going to tell us that the purpose of morality is for us to live in peace?

Pure BS. And demonstrably so, based on history. Morality and peace have RARELY co-existed. The only points in history in which they did are part of the judeo-christian moral system and history.

Quote:

---

One thing is certain is that it comes from the mind, it doesn't come from some external god in the sky. We don't need god to be moral or to know right from wrong. In fact, quite to the contrary, we are far more likely to be moral and act morally when we leave religion out of it.

---

Actually, you are the first person in this thread to mention G-d. Everyone else here has mentioned RELIGION and CULTURE as the source of morality. But you are the first one to mention G-d as the source of morality.

Note the OP: "Morality and RELIGION", not "Morality and G-d".

There's a HUGE difference between "religion" and "God". One is an entity. The other is a set of tools to try to connect with that entity.

What we are talking about is using those tools to develop a system of morality. YOU are talking about the ENTITY creating that moral system.

Seems to me that you are trying to prove we are wrong about something we didn't even say. None of us have said that morality came from G-d any more than any of us said that morality came from Odin or Budha or Ra. That's YOUR interpretation, and it is an incorrect one.

My argument, going back to the OP, is that without RELIGION, morality as we know it would not exist. My proof is that under other religions, different moral systems developed that were very dissimilar from our own system. Others have argued that in places and times where there was no religion, morality was either very different or non-existent.

Can you refute any of these points? Do you have anything to add to that discussion? Or are you still so angry at G-d that you need to harp on his supposed lack of morality (despite having had the morality of the Bible shoved in your face) to prove we are wrong about something we never even said?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

First of all, slavery as described in the bible is not the same a slavery during the civil war era. A "slave" in the bible was a man-servant and emplyess, not a whipping boy. The Bible actually talks about the protections of "slaves", and the responsibility of the "master" toward his slave... including punishments for the master is the slave was hurt in any way. The morality lesson there, which you miss, is about the responsibility of an employer toward his employee, regardless of their relative status within the community.

As for "genocide", please keep in mind that the only group that was to be fully destroyed was the Amalekites... and that was their punishment for attempting genocide against the Israelites as they were leaving Egypt. Again, this is a morality lesson completely lost on you... the lesson that you reap what you sow.



Actually, I didn't mention stoning. You did. However since you brought it up...

If you take a look at the offenses for which stoning was required as punishment, every single one of them was something that threatened the continuation of the Israelite people, either physically or spiritually. For instance, adultery, gay relationships, and other sexual sins were actually offenses against the Israelites' existence because they threatened the safety of women, threatened the ability of men and women to create future generations of Israelites, or broke apart marriages which are the basic foundation of Jewish life. To threaten any of these is to threaten the future of the nation. These were offenses against the NATION, not against G-d. And they were punishable by death for that reason.

Similarly, idol-worship was a direct threat to the CULTURAL FUTURE of Israel. To worship false gods is to attack the Jewish Identity at its core. Again, this was an existential threat to the Israelite people, and was treated as such. Those who worshiped idols were stoned, not because they offended G-d, but because they were a threat to the Israelite PEOPLE. And they were punishable by death for that reason.

Again, these are moral lessons that have been lost on you... the fact that certain actions ARE threats to our way of life, and that such actions have consequences.



There is if it causes you to take ACTION to take it from him.

Oh... did you think that they were just talking about wanting the same car as your next door neighbor? There's no sin in that.

No... the problem is with wanting your next door neighbors car... not one like it, that specific one, and planning to manipulate the situation so that it falls into your hands. THAT is where the sin lies.

Wanting the same things that someone else has is actually a good thing... it motivates you to try harder, to accomplish more. The problem is when you want that specific thing (not just one like it) and are willing to do whatever it takes to make sure it comes into your posession, no matter how unethical.

A good example is a con man. Con men, the real pros, the "grifters", take pride in never "stealing" anything. Their victims GIVE them whatever they want. They manipulate the victims into doing their bidding and making the victim think that it is in their own best interest to do so, oftentimes without telling a single lie in the process. They manipulate situations. Con men are covetous people. They haven't "stolen" anything... everything they get has been given to them. But they are manipulators, and they are theives nonetheless.

When a man becomes so desirous that he is willing to do ANYTHING to get what he wants... that is a sin.

But you missed that moral lesson as well. All because you are convinced that it was never there in the first place.

The Bible is full of moral lessons. The very things you point out as being immoral are the very moral lessons you are missing.

Elliot

---

I've not missed any moral lesson in the bible because the bible has no moral lessons. It's not a source of moral teachings at all.

You say it doesn't condone slavery, like that of the antebellum South. It's still slavery and it's still immoral, even if it is some kinder gentler form that you claim the bible supports. I don't care what sort of constraints on it there were. Are you seriously arguing that the slaves of the bible were not real slaves, were not subjected to involuntary servitude? Come on.

You mention that only a little genocide was perpetrated and then on the Amalekites, who supposedly deserved it because they had done it themselves. Again, are you serious? You reap what you sow, is THAT the justification for murder (surely every Amalekite hadn't committed genocide-- the little babies too?) Please.

Of course, I could spend a lot of time addressing the absurd justification you came up with for stoning- (any offense that threatens the continuation of the Israelite people), but should I really have to? Take the case of gay relationships (I'm gay incidentally). It was okay to stone gays because they didn't reproduce and threatened the continuation of the Israelite people? First of all, who said they didn't reproduce? Second, and most importantly, how do gay relationships threaten anyone? Are you saying heteros will be converted into gays by simply leaving gay people alone? That's insane. You say the human race will die out because of gay relationships? NONSENSE and you know it! I could go on about adulterers but I'm sure you see the point.

The reason for the bizarre moral code of the bible is the pathetic and irrational fear men of that time and place obviously had that, were a rigid moral code oppressive to women not in place (banning pre-martial and extra-marital sex), god forbid some guy might not know who is true biological daddy was! Oh horrors!

The bible is full of moral lessons? No it isn't. The bible is childish rubbish. It stinks. It belongs in the dark ages of a thankfully bygone era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Then perhaps you would be so kind as to explain the Bolshivek revolution and the nation that sprang from it?

God, Bible, and all religion was abolished there, and the results are there in history for all to see. Human life had no value unless it was to the advantage of the state. Freedom did not exist. You charge that the Bible endorsed slavery, yet all citizens of the USSR, an Atheistic country, were slaves.

Is that moral?

Would you rather live in a Communist country, where no God is acknoledged, or in this one where 70% of the people say they are Christians?

Give us your HONEST answer.

---

I'm not interested in debating living in the former USSR versus the US. That's not the point of anything I said.

How about living in a really non-religious society, like Denmark? Or The Netherlands? I could go for living in either of them.

Religion, religious beliefs harm people and harm society. They ought to have to post a warning sign in front of churches, "warning: entry into this facility and participation in the activities that take place herein may be hazardous to your physical and mental well-being." Too bad we can't have a federal law in the US mandating that sort of warning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Really?

After all I have mentioned about the moral system of the Asatru, the Huns, the Mongols, etc., you are going to tell us that the purpose of morality is for us to live in peace?

Pure BS. And demonstrably so, based on history. Morality and peace have RARELY co-existed. The only points in history in which they did are part of the judeo-christian moral system and history.



Actually, you are the first person in this thread to mention G-d. Everyone else here has mentioned RELIGION and CULTURE as the source of morality. But you are the first one to mention G-d as the source of morality.

Note the OP: "Morality and RELIGION", not "Morality and G-d".

There's a HUGE difference between "religion" and "God". One is an entity. The other is a set of tools to try to connect with that entity.

What we are talking about is using those tools to develop a system of morality. YOU are talking about the ENTITY creating that moral system.

Seems to me that you are trying to prove we are wrong about something we didn't even say. None of us have said that morality came from G-d any more than any of us said that morality came from Odin or Budha or Ra. That's YOUR interpretation, and it is an incorrect one.

My argument, going back to the OP, is that without RELIGION, morality as we know it would not exist. My proof is that under other religions, different moral systems developed that were very dissimilar from our own system. Others have argued that in places and times where there was no religion, morality was either very different or non-existent.

Can you refute any of these points? Do you have anything to add to that discussion? Or are you still so angry at G-d that you need to harp on his supposed lack of morality (despite having had the morality of the Bible shoved in your face) to prove we are wrong about something we never even said?

Elliot

---

Okay, fair enough. You don't derive your morality from what you think god says, but from doing things you think pleases god (through religious practice). Is that what you are saying? That's what it sounds like. Because if you believe that it only serves to prove my point: that man creates his own morality. And what you seem to believe is consistent with what Bertrand Russell said about morality: a man may do good things to please god but he may do good things to please himself, or other people or for some other reason.

By the way, what's this "G-d" thing you do? Are you so afraid of your big bad immoral god in the sky that you are afraid to say his name ( I heard that somewhere)? Great religion. Great moral code. Believe that junk if you like, but keep it to yourself. Keep me out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

I've not missed any moral lesson in the bible because the bible has no moral lessons. It's not a source of moral teachings at all.

---

You've made up your mind, facts only serve to confuse you.

Quote:

---

You say it doesn't condone slavery, like that of the antebellum South. It's still slavery and it's still immoral, even if it is some kinder gentler form that you claim the bible supports.

---

A "slave" that is paid for his services and who has to be taken care of by his "master" isn't a slave. He's a "man-servant". A butler, if you will. You can call it slavery if you want, but it ain't what we refer to as slavery today.

Quote:

---

I don't care what sort of constraints on it there were. Are you seriously arguing that the slaves of the bible were not real slaves, were not subjected to involuntary servitude? Come on.

---

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. "Slaves" were people who took jobs as man-servants or maids in order to pay debts. They were employees. The exception to the rule was those captured in war, which were the minority of slaves... and THEY were under the same protections. But the majority of slaves were fellow Israelites who took jobs as servants to pay off debts. They were paid regular salaries, were protected, and where "freed" after a period of 7 years. If they chose to stay with their "masters" after the 7 year period, they were limited to only another 7 years of service (total of 14 years). They were actually forced OUT of slavery, not into it.

You really should read the Bible before you condemn it. You are stuck on your pre-conceived notions of slavery based on American history, not the facts of what actually happened in 1800 BC in Israel.

Quote:

---

You mention that only a little genocide was perpetrated and then on the Amalekites, who supposedly deserved it because they had done it themselves. Again, are you serious? You reap what you sow, is THAT the justification for murder (surely every Amalekite hadn't committed genocide-- the little babies too?) Please.

---

Actually, every Amalekite HAD committed genocide, or attempted it. Did you think that it was only a few Amalekites who did this? It was every member of the Amalekite nation involved in the war. The men fought. The women were camp followers who supported their husbands and sons and fathers in their war effort. Their children were students of the fathers, learning how to commit acts of genocide as well. The entire nation was corrupt. And if Israel had actually followed through with the commandment to destroy Amalek, we probably would not be facing the problems we see today. It is the fact that Amalek survived the experience that led to the future of Israel's existence... it's destruction as a nation, its exile, the progroms, the Holocaust... all of it was caused by the survival of Amalek. If Amalek had been destroyed completely, as the Israelites were commanded, there would have been no nation that would have been brave enough to fight Israel for CENTURIES after that. The course of history would have changed completely. There never would have been a Persian/Babylonian exile or a Roman exile. Christianity would likely never have been born, because without the Roman exile, there would have been no need for that religion to pop up. Israel would have remained a strong nation with a strong land. The Holocaust would never have occurred. HISTORY CHANGED because Amalek survived.

Quote:

---

Of course, I could spend a lot of time addressing the absurd justification you came up with for stoning- (any offense that threatens the continuation of the Israelite people), but should I really have to? Take the case of gay relationships (I'm gay incidentally).

---

Don't get all insulted with me. So's my brother. Your point?

Quote:

---

It was okay to stone gays because they didn't reproduce and threatened the continuation of the Israelite people? First of all, who said they didn't reproduce?

---

Please tell me that you're not that ignorant of human biology.

Quote:

---

Second, and most importantly, how do gay relationships threaten anyone? Are you saying heteros will be converted into gays by simply leaving gay people alone? That's insane.

---

No... what is insane is your inability (along with just about every other gay person I have ever met, including my brother) to understand that being gay threatens the CONCEPT of traditional marriage on which the entire Jewish cuture is based. If being gay were allowed, it would be a direct threat to the continued existence of the Jewish family, which in turn is a direct threat to the existence of Judaism as a religion and a culture. You may not like that fact, but it is still a fact.

Quote:

---

You say the human race will die out because of gay relationships? NONSENSE and you know it! I could go on about adulterers but I'm sure you see the point.

---

Actually, I don't think that the human race will die out. From a purely sociological perspective, though, it will cause GAYS to die out. If being gay is a genetic thing (as so many gays would like us to believe)... something you are born with, then being in a gay monogamous relationship is DETRIMENTAL TO THE CONTINUATION OF THAT GENETIC FACTOR. Because being gay, you cannot have a child in a monogamous gay relationship. The only way to reproduce is through outside factors. Which means that that genetic factor that makes you gay, whatever it is, ends with YOU.

That's not an argument against you being gay. You want to be gay, be gay. It's an argument that your being gay doesn't matter... because the next generation, if you produce one, won't have that same genetic factor, whatever it is.

That is, of course, assuming that being gay is something you were born rather than a life choice.

But getting back to the Bible, the Bible clearly understood what youy miss... that being gay IS disruptive to a culture at its most basic levels.

Quote:

---

The reason for the bizarre moral code of the bible is the pathetic and irrational fear men of that time and place obviously had that, were a rigid moral code oppressive to women not in place (banning pre-martial and extra-marital sex), god forbid some guy might not know who is true biological daddy was! Oh horrors!

The bible is full of moral lessons? No it isn't. The bible is childish rubbish. It stinks. It belongs in the dark ages of a thankfully bygone era.

---

Like I said, you've made up your mind... we don't want to confuse you with the facts.

The lessons are there if you are willing to see them. I've already proven that they are there. If you choose not to learn those lessons, that's your choice. But don't try to argue that they aren't there.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

Okay, fair enough. You don't derive your morality from what you think god says, but from doing things you think pleases god (through religious practice). Is that what you are saying? That's what it sounds like. Because if you believe that it only serves to prove my point: that man creates his own morality.

---

Not in a vacuum, he doesn't. It has to come about in a religious/cultural context.

Quote:

---

And what you seem to believe is consistent with what Bertrand Russell said about morality: a man may do good things to please god but he may do good things to please himself, or other people or for some other reason.

---

What Russel continues to be unable to explain is why different forms of morality have come into exitence in different places and in different points of history. If man comes to morality in order to live in peace with his fellow man, as Russel claims, why have we had so little peace in history, despite the number of different forms of morality that have been in existence? And why have those cultures that have been the most non-religious also been the most ammoral (Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China)? Russel seems unable to explain these things.

Quote:

---

By the way, what's this "G-d" thing you do? Are you so afraid of your big bad immoral god in the sky that you are afraid to say his name ( I heard that somewhere)? Great religion. Great moral code. Believe that junk if you like, but keep it to yourself. Keep me out of it.

---

It's a religious thing... you wouldn't understand. It's not about fear. It's about RESPECT.

And I don't have to keep you out of it. You're doing that fine all by yourself.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

Morality serves a purpose and furthers the peaceful coexistence of persons. You can analyze it as a conflict of desires, as Bertrand Russell does, or see it as evolving to further the collective good. One thing is certain is that it comes from the mind, it doesn't come from some external god in the sky. We don't need god to be moral or to know right from wrong. In fact, quite to the contrary, we are far more likely to be moral and act morally when we leave religion out of it.

---

If there is no religious, at least Judeo-Christian, influence on "morality," how do you explain the "peaceful co-existence," of warrior cultures, like ET mentioned?
Did the vikings, or barbarians, or Khan's mongols, or Alexander's Greeks "peacefully co-exist?" Their morality is based on victory, not defeat: on conquest, not submission.
Is it moral for one race to consider itself superior? Certainly they think they are "moral." Does that lead to "peaceful coexistence?" or such things as genocide? Let the history of humans speak for itself - Hitler, Rwanda, Darfur, all speak to "peaceful co-existence?"

How can an atheist like Bertrand Russel speak of morality? If we are chemical accidents, the results of millions of years of genetic mutations and selection, show me the link, the proof of a genetic basis for morality? ET is correct in stating it is a function of the prevailing society and culture, which in the USA, has a Judeo-Christian background.

If there is no god, then why bother with morality? Why bother with right and wrong, good and evil? One culture may determine that stealing is bad and should be punished, one society may encourage rape and pillaging, because to the victor belongs the spoils.

It just so happens that in the USA, we believe that stealing is morally wrong and are laws reflect that, and it just so happens that the first settlers and founding fathers were of Judeo-Christian background, and it just so happens that stealing is a violation of the 8th Commandment.






G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

You've made up your mind, facts only serve to confuse you.



A "slave" that is paid for his services and who has to be taken care of by his "master" isn't a slave. He's a "man-servant". A butler, if you will. You can call it slavery if you want, but it ain't what we refer to as slavery today.



That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. "Slaves" were people who took jobs as man-servants or maids in order to pay debts. They were employees. The exception to the rule was those captured in war, which were the minority of slaves... and THEY were under the same protections. But the majority of slaves were fellow Israelites who took jobs as servants to pay off debts. They were paid regular salaries, were protected, and where "freed" after a period of 7 years. If they chose to stay with their "masters" after the 7 year period, they were limited to only another 7 years of service (total of 14 years). They were actually forced OUT of slavery, not into it.

You really should read the Bible before you condemn it. You are stuck on your pre-conceived notions of slavery based on American history, not the facts of what actually happened in 1800 BC in Israel.



Actually, every Amalekite HAD committed genocide, or attempted it. Did you think that it was only a few Amalekites who did this? It was every member of the Amalekite nation involved in the war. The men fought. The women were camp followers who supported their husbands and sons and fathers in their war effort. Their children were students of the fathers, learning how to commit acts of genocide as well. The entire nation was corrupt. And if Israel had actually followed through with the commandment to destroy Amalek, we probably would not be facing the problems we see today. It is the fact that Amalek survived the experience that led to the future of Israel's existence... it's destruction as a nation, its exile, the progroms, the Holocaust... all of it was caused by the survival of Amalek. If Amalek had been destroyed completely, as the Israelites were commanded, there would have been no nation that would have been brave enough to fight Israel for CENTURIES after that. The course of history would have changed completely. There never would have been a Persian/Babylonian exile or a Roman exile. Christianity would likely never have been born, because without the Roman exile, there would have been no need for that religion to pop up. Israel would have remained a strong nation with a strong land. The Holocaust would never have occured. HISTORY CHANGED because Amalek survived.



Don't get all insulted with me. So's my brother. Your point?



Please tell me that you're not that ignorant of human biology.



No... what is insane is your inability (along with just about every other gay person I have ever met, including my brother) to understand that being gay threatens the CONCEPT of traditional marriage on which the entire Jewish cuture is based. If being gay were allowed, it would be a direct threat to the continued existence of the Jewish family, which in turn is a direct threat to the existence of Judaism as a religion and a culture. You may not like that fact, but it is still a fact.



Actually, I don't think that the human race will die out. From a purely sociological perspective, though, it will cause GAYS to die out. If being gay is a genetic thing (as so many gays would like us to believe)... something you are born with, then being in a gay monogamous relationship is DETRIMENTAL TO THE CONTINUATION OF THAT GENETIC FACTOR. Because being gay, you cannot have a child in a monogamous gay relationship. The only way to reproduce is through outside factors. Which means that that genetic factor that makes you gay, whatever it is, ends with YOU.

That's not an argument against you being gay. You want to be gay, be gay. It's an argument that your being gay doesn't matter... because the next generation, if you produce one, won't have that same genetic factor, whatever it is.

That is, of course, assuming that being gay is something you were born rather than a life choice.

But getting back to the Bible, the Bible clearly understood what youy miss... that being gay IS disruptive to a culture at its most basic levels.




Like I said, you've made up your mind... we don't want to confuse you with the facts.

The lessons are there if you are willing to see them. I've already proven that they are there. If you choose not to learn those lessons, that's your choice. But don't try to argue that they aren't there.

Elliot

---

It's amazing how homophobia, like other forms of biogry and prejudice. Compels people to believe the most ridiculous things. The first is that gay people don't have offspring. Accoding to some fairly good statistics, something like 24% of gay men were formally married (to women) and amongst them, a good percentage had children. Why? Partly because societal pressures in many places force men into unnatural opposite sex relationships (religion has done a pretty good job of coercing gays and lesbians into trying to be someone or something they are not). Lesbians probably have an even higher rate of childbearing, whether it's through artificial insemination or natural means. So the idea that gay people don't have kids? Untrue. Second, even if gay people didn't have kids, how are they any different in that respect than heteros who, for whatever reason, remain childless?

How do gay relationships (or gay marriage) threaten anybody or anything? You actually never explained this, but merely made the assertion. What, you think it's unseemly for a same sex couple to show affection in public? Is that it? I've already mentioned baby-making, so that can't be the problem. Not seriously. What else is there? You cannot convert a straight person into being gay any more than you can convert a gay person into being straight. So there's no threat that being gay will "catch on" and gain converts, like some religion. So again, what threat are you talking about?

Then of course there's your great bible. It mentions murdering gay people (among others of course). And you wonder why so many gay people want nothing to do with it? If it taught white supremacy would it be a surprise if people of African descent wanted nothing to do with it?

The problem with the bible is that it views the world as being something it simply is not. It presents a distorted and incorrest view of reality. In essence, it teaches that gay people do not exist, instead equating us with adulterers, prostitutes, thieves-- people who have picked up bad habits and only need to change. Wrong. Being gay is a part of our being. It's what makes us who were are. It's normal for us. It's healthy for us to accept being gay, to celebrate it and when we do we thrive. When religious homophobic bigots reading their bibles tell us we are sinners, or doing wrong, it attacks the very essence of who we are. Nothing could be more of an assault, nothing could be more personal.

That the bible is childish rubbish, not a source of morality but an expression of barbarism and immorality, that it's a fairytale invented by ignorant sheepherders in the Middle East who thought the earth was flat should be obvious.

There was one other thing I wanted to leave you with. You said,

"If being gay is a genetic thing (as so many gays would like us to believe)... something you are born with, then being in a gay monogamous relationship is DETRIMENTAL TO THE CONTINUATION OF THAT GENETIC FACTOR. Because being gay, you cannot have a child in a monogamous gay relationship. The only way to reproduce is through outside factors. Which means that that genetic factor that makes you gay, whatever it is, ends with YOU."

That's an odd comment. It reminds of a T-shirt I saw recently in a store in the Castro (the well-known gay neighborhood in San Francisco): "Homosexuals don't create homosexuals, heterosexuals do." Very true. My mom and dad were straight.

But let me elaborate a little. First your argument makes a false assumption. Gay people--maybe most-- do not say that homosexuality is solely the result of genetics. No one knows what causes homosexuality and no one knows what causes heterosexuality. That's the problem. That there is a genetic component is fairly well extablished from identical twin studies (where one identical twin is gay the other has a 50% chance of also being gay), but there are apparently co-factors as well. Those studies of idential twins show that genetics is a strong determining factor, but not the exclusive cause.What this means is that heterosexual people are very likely to and in fact probably in the vast majority of cases produce homosexual children. It doesn't take a gay person to produce another gay person. The genetic factor ( as you call it) that you say makes me gay (or you hypothetically say makes me gay) does not end with me. No. Heteros make gay people and always have. That's why there have always been and always will be gay men and women from every culture and place in the world.

You said, "But getting back to the Bible, the Bible clearly understood what youy miss... that being gay IS disruptive to a culture at its most basic levels."

No. I'd say that the bible is disruptive to being gay in any culture at the most basic levels, and the bible is false on top of that, which gives reason for its repudiation.

First of all, homosexuals BIOLOGICALLY cannot conceive children through an act of HOMOSEXUALITY.

A gay man can gay man can have children by having HETEROSEXUAL intercourse with a woman. A lesbian may conceive by in-vitro fertilization or having heterosexual intercourse, but 2 women cannot conceive biologically. Homosexuals can have children by adoption, where that is legal.

The bible does say say homosexuality is a sin, but so are a number of other things. The NT states Jesus came for sinners. So if gays are sinners, according to the standards of the 10 commandments, they have plenty of company. :) In the OT, the chosen people are often sinning, then punished, then forgiven, always chosen, always loved by God. King David is a prime example.

It is wrong for bible believers to single out one sin, a sin they may not have trouble with, an ignore their own sins. What do you think of such things as, turn the other cheek, or love your enemies: these things are in the bible.




G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

First of all, homosexuals BIOLOGICALLY cannot conceive children through an act of HOMOSEXUALITY.

A gay man can gay man can have children by having HETEROSEXUAL intercourse with a woman. A lesbian may conceive by in-vitro fertilization or having heterosexual intercourse, but 2 women cannot conceive biologically. Homosexuals can have children by adoption, where that is legal.

The bible does say say homosexuality is a sin, but so are a number of other things. The NT states Jesus came for sinners. So if gays are sinners, according to the standards of the 10 commandments, they have plenty of company. :) In the OT, the chosen people are often sinning, then punished, then forgiven, always chosen, always loved by God. King David is a prime example.

It is wrong for bible believers to single out one sin, a sin they may not have trouble with, an ignore their own sins. What do you think of such things as, turn the other cheek, or love your enemies: these things are in the bible.




G&P

---

You said: First of all, homosexuals BIOLOGICALLY cannot conceive children through an act of HOMOSEXUALITY.

Okay. So what? Is that all sex is for, baby-making? That's not the way any heteros I ever ran into approached it. In fact, most heteros I know go to great extremes to be able to have sex without the baby-making part or risk thereof. So, what is all of that suppose to mean? Are they sinners because of that, are they committing an abomination as a result? (I think the Catholic Church use to say that--maybe still does). Dumb argument, hypocritical point of view. A banal comment.


Homosexuality is not a sin, it's a state of being. Calling it a sin is like saying it's a sin to have dark skin, or be of African ancestry. It's about as stupid as that.

Homosexual sex is a choice, being black is not.
Adultery or fornication is a choice, also sins.
Get it?


G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I find one major flaw to your argument.

The people who are becoming more accepting of China, despite its oppression of its people, are those on the left... the very people who claim to be most against "wealth accumulation" and most in favor of "economic equality". The people most interested in seeing us in open negotiation with China are those on the Left of the political spectrum... the same people who are in favor of redistribution of wealth and who most decry "corporatism" and "capitalism" and "economic power". I certainly don't know any Conservative Right-Wingers who are accepting of China, and it is the Conservative Right-Wingers (like myself) who are the biggest proponents of capitalism, corporate freedom, and wealth accumulation.

If the same people who are "anti-capitalist" are the ones most accepting of China and its oppressive regime, wouldn't that argue AGAINST your point that reason we are more accepting of China is because of its wealth and economic power?

Elliot

---

You will not change attitudes in China by aggressively opposing them, it is only when you have dialogue that you can negotiate change. I have been to China, it is like any other place, keep on the right side of the law and no one will bother you. You and your right wingers would foster a picture of people being beaten up in the streets and coerced by the police. I saw no indications of that despite extensive travel, nor are they anti-capitalist, but just as eager as you to make money through commerce. What I did see is a number of people who might live at a lower standard, but then who is to say we must all live in tidy suburbs with two cars in the garage. It may take them another century for all citizens to enjoy a high standard but it is on their agenda and they don't have the need for political posturing to slow them down so prevalent in the west.

It is hard lesson to learn that not all people have the same aspirations as you do to wealth and that wealth alone cannot see your point of view prevail, so do more to deal with poverty and disadvantage in your own land and then you might have the right to speak to the Chinese but by then they may be giving you lessons in human rights..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Homosexual sex is a choice, being black is not.
Adultery or fornication is a choice, also sins.
Get it?


G&P

---

Heterosexual sex is a choice too. So what's the point? Being gay is a sexual orientation, like being straight. It's a state of being. The point is you have no point. You're expressing bigotry and prejudice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Homosexual sex is a choice, being black is not.
Adultery or fornication is a choice, also sins.
Get it?


G&P

---

Homosexuals rarely feel that their sexual orientation is a choice. If it is not a choice for them and a sin to you, then it is exactly the same as being born black. Homosexual sex is a choice. Bigotry is a choice. Being judgemental is a choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simoneaugie

Homosexuals rarely feel that their sexual orientation is a choice. If it is not a choice for them and a sin to you, then it is exactly the same as being born black. Homosexual sex is a choice. Bigotry is a choice. Being judgemental is a choice.

---

I think that was well-said. My sexual orientation (homosexual) was no choice for me. Not only that, it is probably the most defining character feature I possess as it is for every gay person, just the same way as being heterosexual is a defining feature of those who are straight. In other words, if I were not gay I'd be a completely different individual (and I don't wish to be different by the way). To call that nature "sin" is to make a direct and very personal attack on me and what makes me me. So in that sense it very much is like an attack on a person because of their color.

Quote:

---

Homosexuality is not a sin, it's a state of being. Calling it a sin is like saying it's a sin to have dark skin, or be of African ancestry. It's about as stupid as that."...


Heterosexual sex is a choice too. So what's the point? Being gay is a sexual orientation, like being straight. It's a state of being. The point is you have no point. You're expressing bigotry and prejudice....


I think that was well-said. My sexual orientation (homosexual) was no choice for me. Not only that, it is probably the most defining character feature I possess as it is for every gay person, just the same way as being heterosexual is a defining feature of those who are straight. In other words, if I were not gay I'd be a completely different individual (and I don't wish to be different by the way). To call that nature "sin" is to make a direct and very personal attack on me and what makes me me. So in that sense it very much is like an attack on a person because of their color

---

Cadillac,

So is sex, heterosexual or homosexual, an orientation? A choice?
a "state of being?" Is someone's skin color, race really, an orientation, a choice, or a "state of being?" BTW, I never equated skin color to sin or not, you made that analogy. I never stated being a particular skin color was a sin or not. Am I being bigoted or prejudiced? I did state that some heterosexual "choices" like fornication and adultery are sins also. I bet you would call me a sinner if I were to have a sexual orientation, or choose to have sex with someone other than my significant other.

So you speak for all people in stating that their sexual orientation is their "most defining character feature." Hmmm, when I pass someone on the street, I don't even know their sexual orientation 99% of the time. I do notice characteristics such as height, weight, gender, race, hair color, what they are wearing, facial expression, but... sexual orientation? I don't care.




G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

You're expressing bigotry and prejudice.

---

Ahh... yes, the great argument of anybody who has no other argument. If we disagree with you, we must be bigots. And it's all G-d's fault.

Either homosexuality is a "life choice" or it is "genetic".

If it's genetic, then the idea of homosexual manogamous marriage will breed that genetic factor out of the family... because the monogamous homosexual couple will either adopt (wherein there will be no genetic connection between parents and child) or they will produce a child OUTSIDE the marriage, which means that the marriage isn't monogamous. So either the monogamy of heterosexual marriage dies or the genetic factor that produces homosexuality dies within that family.

If monogamy dies, THAT is a threat to traditional family values, whether you choose to accept that fact or not. Monogamy is the basis of the traditional family. Without monogamy, the family breaks down. Just take a look at the incidence of divorce among cheating spouses... and even the divorce rates among "open marriages". Which comes back to my original argument to you... the threat of the end of monogamy was a direct threat to Israelite culture and Israelite family life. You ask how homosexuality could possibly be a threat to the Israelites. THAT is how... through the end of monogamy and tranditional family life, which was the basis of the entire tribal culture of Israel of that time. EVERYTHING was family based... a tribe is just a large family, after all... and homosexuality was a threat to the family system on which the entire culture was based.

If a different choice is made, and monogamy is maintained, there can be no next generation from a gay couple, genetically speaking. The genes die with that generation. If the genetic factor dies... well, that doesn't bode well for the continuance of that genetic factor for future generations, does it?

If instead homosexuality is a life choice, if there is no genetic component, then it isn't a "state of being", it's a choice like any other. A decision. And you can decide differently if you so desire. That's up to you. But if you are making a choice, then there are going to be people who disagree with that choice. They are not going to change their opinions for you. They are not going to be willing to change laws for you. It isn't bigotry, it's human nature. Just deal with it like an adult. And stop blaming G-d for YOUR decisions.

From a purely sociological perspective, there are only two purposes for sex... to produce children and to create a bond between parents so that they can raise and nurture the children together. The entire purpose of ANY sexual relationship, from the point of view of any sociologist, is the production and raising of children to perpetuate the speceis. There is no other purpose. If a homosexual relationship cannot produce a child, then from a sociological perspective, it serves no purpose. You can have all sorts of reasons to want to have homosexual sex... everything from "love" to "sport" to "entertainment"... but it serves no purpose to the perpetuation of the human race. That is a fact that cannot be argued. It is scientific fact.

Now... if you want to argue that there are other reasons for homosexual relationships... fine. Go ahead. Knock yourself out. I'll even agree with some of them. My brother is very in love with his partner, and they have a great relationship. His partner is a great guy too and I like him a lot. But if the goal of a sexual relationship is perpetuation of the species, they aren't contributing toward that goal.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

You will not change attitudes in China by aggressively opposing them, it is only when you have dialogue that you can negotiate change.

---

Clete, I'm not going to argue that point right now. How to handle China is a discussion for another thread, and one that I think is worthy of great debate. But not in this thread.

The point I was making was simply that in a place where the judeo-christian RELIGIOUS systems do not exist, neither does the judeo-christian MORAL system. China was one modern example. The Soviet Union was another.

Do you disagree with that point?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

Not only that, it is probably the most defining character feature I possess as it is for every gay person, just the same way as being heterosexual is a defining feature of those who are straight.

---

I have never met a heterosexual person for whom sexual orientation was "the most defining character feature" that he or she possessed. For that matter, I don't even think it is the most defining character feature of every gay person I have met. It certainly is NOT my brother's most defining charater trait... and he happens to be rather active in gay issues, having started an organization dealing with gay issues. But he doesn't wear it on his sleeve.

If being gay is your most defining character trait, that is probably because YOU have made it so.

I am a banker, a father, a husband, a martial arts student, a cantor/singer, a heterosexual, an Orthodox Jew, the son/grandson of Holocaust survivors, short, fat, a political Conservative, a New Yorker, a student of history, a comic book and science fiction fan, with really small feet.

Which of those is my "most defining" character trait?

All of them? None of them? Something else entirely?

Answer: Whichever one I stress at the moment is the "most defining trait" at that moment. And a whole bunch of stuff I didn't list. I define myself. And I constantly change that definition to fit my needs of the moment. ALL of those traits are me.

My brother is a doctor, smart as a whip, athletic, angry, sad, caring, a dog-lover, a good friend, charitable, a gay man, a singer, well-liked and well-loved, respected, respectful, funny, witty, bald as a cue-ball, a great student and an even better teacher, loves to shop, a great cook, and he sometimes drives me crazy.

Which of those is his most defining character trait?

Answer: Whichever one he chooses to stress at the moment is the most defining trait.

You define yourself PRIMARILY as gay, or so you have said. That's your choice. Nobody defined you that way. I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the people you speak to in your life won't even KNOW you are gay unless you go out of your way to tell them. They didn't DEFINE YOU. You defined yourself that way. If that's what's most important to you, fine. If that's how you see yourself, fine.

But it seems kind of boring to only have one "defining" character trait. I think you need to diversify how you define yourself and what you think your "most defining character traits" are. If only to get some variety in your life.

Complex people don't have one "most defining trait". That's what makes them complex, wonderful, and interesting.

You said that if you weren't gay, you'd be a completely different person than you are. And that is likely true.

But that is true of ANY character trait. If I weren't a singer and a cantor, I would be a completely different person, because music and prayer are where I find my spiritual connection. If I weren't a martial arts student or a student of military history, I would be a completely different person, because my perspectives would be different.

And yet, although these character traits are important to me and help shape me, they are NOT how I define myself, except in certain circumstances. I define myself... and that definition changes with circumstance. I choose who I am.

You can too. As often as you want.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I have never met a heterosexual person for whom sexual orientation was "the most defining character feature" that he or she possessed. For that matter, I don't even think it is the most defining character feature of every gay person I have met. It certainly is NOT my brother's most defining charater trait... and he happens to be rather active in gay issues, having started an organization dealing with gay issues. But he doesn't wear it on his sleeve.

If being gay is your most defining character trait, that is probably because YOU have made it so.

I am a banker, a father, a husband, a martial arts student, a cantor/singer, a heterosexual, an Orthodox Jew, the son/grandson of Holocaust survivors, short, fat, a political Conservative, a New Yorker, a student of history, a comic book and science fiction fan, with really small feet.

Which of those is my "most defining" character trait?

All of them? None of them? Something else entirely?

Answer: Whichever one I stress at the moment is the "most defining trait" at that moment. And a whole bunch of stuff I didn't list. I define myself. And I constantly change that definition to fit my needs of the moment. ALL of those traits are me.

My brother is a doctor, smart as a whip, athletic, angry, sad, caring, a dog-lover, a good friend, charitable, a gay man, a singer, well-liked and well-loved, respected, respectful, funny, witty, bald as a cue-ball, a great student and an even better teacher, loves to shop, a great cook, and he sometimes drives me crazy.

Which of those is his most defining character trait?

Answer: Whichever one he chooses to stress at the moment is the most defining trait.

You define yourself PRIMARILY as gay, or so you have said. That's your choice. Nobody defined you that way. I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the people you speak to in your life won't even KNOW you are gay unless you go out of your way to tell them. They didn't DEFINE YOU. You defined yourself that way. If that's what's most important to you, fine. If that's how you see yourself, fine.

But it seems kinda boring to only have one "defining" character trait. I think you need to diversify how you define yourself and what you think your "most defining character traits" are. If only to get some variety in your life.

Complex people don't have one "most defining trait". That's what makes them complex, wonderful, and interesting.

You said that if you weren't gay, you'd be a completely different person than you are. And that is likely true.

But that is true of ANY character trait. If I weren't a singer and a cantor, I would be a completely different person, because music and prayer are where I find my spiritual connection. If I weren't a martial arts student or a student of military history, I would be a completely different person, because my perspectives would be different.

And yet, although these character traits are important to me and help shape me, they are NOT how I define myself, except in certain circumstances. I define myself... and that definition changes with circumstance. I choose who I am.

You can too. As often as you want.

Elliot

---

First, I'd like to thank you for that interesting and fairly detailed description of who you are and for the description of your brother. You both sound like talented and interesting people. Second, and something I am also grateful for, is the tenor of your post: you don't impress me as a rabidly homophobic individual--you're what I might (and respectfully) describe as heterosexist. By that I mean you seem to be one who sees heterosexuals as holding and entitled to hold a dominant role and place in society, one who thinks that society should center on heterosexual relationships, and one who sees heterosexuality as being an intregal part of this culture. You appear willing to tolerate gay people, as long as they stay out of the limelight, and are discreet about their lifestyles. Perhaps the fact that your brother is gay has helped shape your views. The problem with this way of thinking is it places gay people in a 2nd class status, and that is what I am fighting.

When I said that I thought being gay was my most defining character trait, what I meant was it is very foundational in making me who I am. Everything else flows from it in a sense. Everything else is built on it such that, were I straight instead, I would be a completely different person. This is not how most heteros view gay people. The bigoted ones look at homosexuality as a kind of bad habit--something like being an adulterer, cheating on a spouse. A person can change a habit of infidelity, can reform that aspect of his character, but being gay is very different. You don't change that. That part of you is too wrapped up in and integrated in your entire being.

Of course I can describe myself in other terms: lawyer, athletic, gym-rat and fitness buff (as shallow as it may sound that's beause I am a bit overly wrapped up in how I look), Lutheran (formally I suppose since I stopped going to church and have given up on any god-concept), not bald (thank god!). But these are all things that are changeable. Maybe that's the distinction: things that are changeable vs. those that are not that make up you you are. Gay= not changeable. Lutheran=changeable (can become an atheist; I left the church because I got mad at them for not taking a formal stand in favor of same-sex marriage in California at the end of last year even though they recently voted to allow gay and lesbian pastors to serve who are in committed same sex relationships, which is certainly a step in the right direction). If I went down your list most of the things you listed about yourself or your brother were in the changeble category.

You mentioned that you are Jewish (orthodox I think you said). But that's changeable too, more in one sense than in the ethnic, cultural sense. Fortunately I've noticed far less homophobia amongst Jewish people, which I applaud and I think that says a lot about the cultural and ethnic heritage with which you identify (at least I know this is true of the reform branch, you'll have to help inform me if this is correct amongst those on the more conservative side of your faith). Israel, as an example, itself is a very gay-friendly country as reflected in its laws and social policies.

Anyway, I hope I've explained the point I was making. By the way you were right in saying probably 90+% of people think I'm straight when they meet me. But again, that was not exactly what I was thinking of.

Thanks again, Elliot, for your comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

not bald (thank god!).

---

Thank who? Hmmmmmm.

Quote:

---

Thanks again, Elliot, for your comments.

---

My pleasure. And a pleasure to open a CIVIL dialogue rather than one based in anger.

Hope we can do it again some time.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Thank who? Hmmmmmm.



My pleasure. And a pleasure to open a CIVIL dialogue rather than one based in anger.

Hope we can do it again some time.

Elliot

---

I think I'm more disposed to respectful civil dialogue than angry exchanges. Perhaps I've got some issues with religion I need to work through.

When I first left the church I told myself I wasn't ready to throw god out the window completely; however, then I began listening to Christopher Hitchens, whom I adore as well as reading Bertrand Russell once again, another favorite of mine, and then I became more inclined to leave god behind. I'll have to see how things progress. If I return to having religious feelings I'm sure they will again find expression in a church like my former Lutheran church (the most liberal of the liberal I suppose). We had gays and lesbians attending and taking communion, and the pastor, although straight and married, seemed okay with people of all sexual orientations. So maybe there's a place for me somewhere. I'll have to give it some thought.

All the best.

Here are some quotations pertinet to the OP as applied specifically to the national morality of the US, in supposition that the US must have morality in order to survive.

Abraham Lincoln said, "I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."

Founding Father Dr. Jedidiah Morse wrote:

"Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."

Engraved on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. are these words of Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and our third president:
" God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."

George Washington wrote: "We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself have ordained."

George mason, The father of the Bill of Rights, speaking at the Constitutional Convention declared: "As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Here are some quotations pertinet to the OP as applied specifically to the national morality of the US, in supposition that the US must have morality in order to survive.

Abraham Lincoln said, "I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."

Founding Father Dr. Jedidiah Morse wrote:

"Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."

Engraved on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. are these words of Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and our third president:
" God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."

George Washington wrote: "We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself have ordained."

George mason, The father of the Bill of Rights, speaking at the Constitutional Convention declared: "As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities."

---

None of those quotes has any mention whatsoever of Christianity. None.

Take what Jefferson said. Completely consistent with a deist point of view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

Take what Jefferson said. Completely consistant with a deist point of view.

---

I disagree with this statement.

If Jefferson believes that G-d is "just" and maintains that justice, then he believes in an entity that MUST be involved on a daily basis within this universe. Such an entity cannot be "removed" as Deists believe, but must be constantly hands-on, balancing the scales of justice.

Thus the statement of Jefferson, that G-d is a "just" entity that maintains justice in the world is in direct opposition to Deist belief.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

I think I'm more disposed to respectful civil dialogue than angry exchanges. Perhaps I've got some issues with religion I need to work through.

When I first left the church I told myself I wasn't ready to throw god out the window completely; however, then I began listening to Christopher Hitchens, whom I adore as well as reading Bertrand Russell once again, another favorite of mine, and then I became more inclined to leave god behind. I'll have to see how things progress. If I return to having religious feelings I'm sure they will again find expression in a church like my former Lutheran church (the most liberal of the liberal I suppose). We had gays and lesbians attending and taking communion, and the pastor, although straight and married, seemed okay with people of all sexual orientations. So maybe there's a place for me somewhere. I'll have to give it some thought.

All the best.

---

Cadillac - I hope you don't mind me eavesdropping on the civil discourse between you and Elliott. I think what he was getting at was the reference you made to God in your previous post, when you said "thank god I'm not bald." You may leave your religious traditions behind because you feel they no longer suit you but you still have some thought of God left in your mind, why else would you think to thank him? I suppose one could argue that it's when we are caught off guard that we have many things to say about God. What is all the more interesting is how we think to thank him for things as simple as hair.

Just my two cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakester

cadillac - I hope you don't mind me eavesdropping on the civil discourse between you and Elliott. I think what he was getting at was the reference you made to God in your previous post, when you said "thank god I'm not bald." You may leave your religious traditions behind because you feel they no longer suit you but you still have some thought of God left in your mind, why else would you think to thank him? I suppose one could argue that it's when we are caught off guard that we have many things to say about God. What is all the more interesting is how we think to thank him for things as simple as hair.

Just my two cents.

---

To say "thank god" for something is not to make a religious statement or make a freudian slip about some possible subliminal belief in god. It's only an use of language, an expression that has found use in communicating an idea. It's a form of emphasis in speech.

Don't read more into it than is there.

Quote:

---

Where does this morality come from? How does each of us have it? Or lack it, for lack of or dysfunction in part of the brain. Is a personal morality , this relativity or subjectivity really just a nice term for selfishness or narcissisism? If so, then Nietzsche's nihilism is justified.

---

Where does emotion come from? How do we have it? Or lack it? What is WILL? It seems to me obvious that rational thought is secondary to emotion. I witness an act, I am emotionally moved, I rationilize, and then digest. What is GOOD!? Where does emotion move you! At what point does an act become wrong?!

The point at which an act becomes "wrong", is the point at which it distresses me. It is wrong for no other reason. This is narcissism? That I should decide what is "GOOD"? Has anyone ever done any different? Perhaps acted AGAINST their own will? If anyone has ever done anything, it is because THEY WILLED IT DONE! Where then is "Morality"?

Religion has served man well. However, THIS God is dead. I would not be so disposed as to leave this world to "humanist" understanding, which is of course nothing. They claim nothing, aim at nothing, yet expect us to consider them as something. I have a soft spot for Russell, he was a genius, let us not be ungrateful to him. Wittgenstein utterly destroyed Russell's metaphysical arguments, and if anyone would like to invoke "Russell's Teapot", I would be quite happy to destroy that argument. PLEASE INVOKE IT! It would make for more discourse.

Schopenhauer looked at life in the Christian sense, even though he was an atheist. He reminds me of Russell in some ways, brilliant, yet lacking in HUMAN sense, that is to say, ANIMAL sense. He turns his back on life, all life ends in sacrifice, as on the cross. One is reminded of the book of Eccelisiaties, perhaps the greatest book of all time, as it deals with TRUE humanity, what it is to be HUMAN!

Those that decry the Judaic religions, those "humanists", that decry the notion of sancity, of holding something dear, forget what it is to LIVE! YES! WE HAVE EVOLVED! Of this there can be no dispute! What meaning do you humanists give? NONE!! You are nothing, you aim at nothing, you will become nothing.