Home arrow static arrow Java Programming [Archive] - Kurt Goedel
Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /www/htdocs/w008deb8/wiki/components/com_staticxt/staticxt.php on line 51
Java Programming [Archive] - Kurt Goedel
This topic has 635 replies on 43 pages.    « Previous | 1 | ... 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | Next »

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 11:41 AM (reply 420 of 635)



 

I expect that most people that support the above view
do so "self-righteously". I suspect that those
feelings are almost exactly the same as those who
supported bans against interracial marriage and the
justification of slavery. (I suspect idiotic views
are easier to hold for a religious person when their
clergy is telling them that god approves of such
views.)

I can't claim to be 'most people', but I can say that
I am not self-righteous in my condemnation of
homosexualtiy. I believe the Bible clearly teaches it
is wrong, but it also clearly teaches that a host of
other actions are wrong (anger, murder, lying, lust,
theft, adultery, gluttony), and the sins I will commit
in my lifetime are not more or less grievous before
God than the sins of another. I agree that much of
the Christian church has been way off base on this.
Not for denouncing the act itself, but for singling
it out for special treatment, when the Bible does no
such thing.

So you are outright condemning anyone that calls for a law in any way shape or form causes or allows negative treatment of homosexuality correct?'

If not then please explain the following....

The bible is pretty adament about worshiping false gods correct?

Wiccans would fall into that category right?

Thus should not a law be passed that prohibits anyone from praticing wiccan?

This is where people are ignoring the other teachings
of the Bible, such as love your
neighbor/enemy/everyone else. If the teachings are
properly viewed in harmony with one another, the
reaction is quite different. In the times when I have
met a self-professed homosexual, I have gone out of my
way to be non-condeming, caring and sincere with them.
If I don't go up to a fat person, and say "you are
re fat and guilty of gluttony, repent and lose
weight", why would I feel I should do this to a
homosexual? I should treat them no different than I
would a person who I know has commited some other sin.

Replace "homosexual" in the above with any term for a person of a race different than your own.

And then go back about 50 years (or perhaps even less) in the US and count how many people would have said the exact same thing using almost the same wording.
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 11:43 AM (reply 421 of 635)



 
I agree that much of
the Christian church has been way off base on this.
Not for denouncing the act itself, but for singling
it out for special treatment, when the Bible does no
such thing.

I'm guessing the reason it gets singled out is because
it's getting increasing public acceptance. Many other
"sins" are still not accepted, or acceptance has been
growing more slowly. Some churches also go out of
their way to condemn pornography, because it has
become more or less accepted in the mainstream, not
because it's more wrong than something else. Churches
don't feel the need to come out against murder because
very few people are accepting of it as a practice.

Yes such a shame that multi-racial marriages are now accepted and slavery isn't.

Of course because popular opinion at one time was wholly for those, that must have made it right then.
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 11:46 AM (reply 422 of 635)



 

Probably true, but when it moves from public discourse
over whether it is sinful, to mistreatment of the
sinner, there is no justification. You see footage of
protests, with the 'Christians' calling the
homosexuals derogitory names, and yelling in extreme
anger. There is no basis for this in the Bible. This
is a person who has a problem, and is giving the rest
of us a bad name.

There were many up-standing and peaceful citizens a 100 years ago that felt that multi-racial marriages were wrong but still were no cause for violence.

They did of course vote laws that prevented such "sinful" behavior but that is how "civilized" people do it.
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 11:48 AM (reply 423 of 635)



 

And of course, underwear has mixed effects on sex.
Boxers don't seem to do much. Victoria's Secret has a
positive effect when worn by my wife (unlike
jschell's, she doesn't weigh 400 lbs.), but a negative
effect when worn by me.

Is the negative effect on you, your wife or both?
 

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 11:48 AM (reply 424 of 635)



 
Yes such a shame that multi-racial marriages are now
accepted and slavery isn't.

Of course because popular opinion at one time was
wholly for those, that must have made it right then.

What point are you trying to make here?
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 11:50 AM (reply 425 of 635)



 
Which of those categories do you think
anti-homosexuality fits in?

Huh?

I can only guess that you are challenging my
statement
that it is doctrine.

No, I'm wondering whether you think opposition to
homosexuality is bigotry, self-deception,
self-righteousness, or other evils.

Yes.

Do you feel that disallowing multi-racial marriages is bigotry, self-deception, self-righteousness, or other evils?

Do you feel that slavery is bigotry, self-deception, self-righteousness, or other evils?
 

Posts:37,103
Registered: 3/30/99
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 11:51 AM (reply 426 of 635)



 

And of course, underwear has mixed effects on sex.
Boxers don't seem to do much. Victoria's Secret has
a
positive effect when worn by my wife (unlike
jschell's, she doesn't weigh 400 lbs.), but a
negative
effect when worn by me.

Is the negative effect on you, your wife or both?

On her. This of course correlates strongly with negative effects on me--shoes upside the head, sleeping on the balcony, being served potting soil for supper, banning from ever speaking to any of our common acquaintances again--you know, the usual.
 

Posts:4,680
Registered: 6/14/99
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 11:52 AM (reply 427 of 635)



 
4. I'm really not even sure what your main point is anyway, other than that there has been bigotry,
self-deception, self-righteousness, and other evils in O-R for a long long time.

... and whatever makes you think that I think there isn't anymore anyway?

Actually I know it still exists. And in most western religions it is part of the accepted doctorine.
Probably in some ways in the eastern ones as well.

Fair enough ... I suspected you did. However, my question was not: "and whatever makes you there
isn't anymore anyway?
" ... but rather: "and whatever makes you think that I think there isn't
anymore anyway?
".

I thought this thread was about religion in general and not your specific take on it.

The thread appears to be about a number of closely - or at times loosely (naked politics for example ... is that where the phrase 'dirty laundry' comes from, I wonder ;o) - related streams of thought/'feeling'? However, you seemed to be - as appears evident from the above embedded trail - replying to me at the time, I believe, and to a very specific quote from one of my previous posts at that. Therefore I'm certainly within my rights to make an attempt to assure you read me correctly, understood me, and were in fact replying to me. That is what I did attempt to do, and from your answer it appears you were not replying to me at all then ... certainly not if you feel you are at liberty to mis-quote me, eh? ;o]

And presumably when you referred to "O-R" you were referring to many organizations and not your
personal organization correct?

O-R, for better or for worse, has been used for some time now within this thread to assume the meaning of the more tedious to constantly re-type Organised Religion. I'm surprised you missed that; you didn't really did you ... confess ;oP
 

Posts:36
Registered: 9/21/99
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 11:56 AM (reply 428 of 635)



 
So you are outright condemning anyone that calls for a
law in any way shape or form causes or allows negative
treatment of homosexuality correct?'

Yes, absolutely. I believe it is totally unproductive to attempt to legislate morality. It doesn't change people's minds or hearts, and is a waste of everyone's time.

Thus should not a law be passed that prohibits anyone
from praticing wiccan?

No, as above.

Replace "homosexual" in the above with any term for a
person of a race different than your own.

And then go back about 50 years (or perhaps even less)
in the US and count how many people would have said
the exact same thing using almost the same wording.

Not sure which wording your're talking about, but I assume you're talking about oppresion of blacks. I doubt racists at the time would have said that being black is sinful, but no more sinful than being white, so we're all in the same boat, which is analagous to what I said.
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 11:57 AM (reply 429 of 635)



 

I think that even if people knew why they believed
something at one time, they most likely accepted it as
truth and promptly forgot why they started believing
in it. If they are then asked to explain the basis
for belief, they don't notice all the holes between
the parts they remember.

I suspect that originally most people accepted a belief as nothing more than an act of faith.

I certainly took it as an act of faith that the world was indeed a sphere floating in space. It was a long time before anyone ever offered any evidence that that was 'provable'. Much less explained how to prove it, the limitations of proofs and moreover what a proof was in the first place.

And at least in my experience many people do not need to be asked to explain the basis for their belief. It can sometimes be hard to get them to NOT tell me.
 

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 11:59 AM (reply 430 of 635)



 
No, I'm wondering whether you think opposition to
homosexuality is bigotry, self-deception,
self-righteousness, or other evils.

Yes.

Do you feel that disallowing multi-racial marriages is
bigotry, self-deception, self-righteousness, or other
evils?

Do you feel that slavery is bigotry, self-deception,
self-righteousness, or other evils?

I wasn't talking about either of those things.

bigotry: "The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance."
bigot 1: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."
2: "A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion."

I'll assume for now that we have the same definitions of self-deception.

self-righteous: 1: "Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic.
2: "Exhibiting pious self-assurance"
3: " excessively or hypocritically pious"

So, in what way is a doctrinal opposition to the practice of homosexuality necessarily any of these things? If in any way, then are all doctrines bigoted, self-deceptive and self-righteous, or just this one? If the latter, what makes this one so special?
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 11:59 AM (reply 431 of 635)



 
Hey, here's a question maybe someone can answer. We
know it's wrong to end a sentence with a preposition
(DON'T QUESTION IT, IT'S THE RULE!!!), but is it OK to
end a clause with a preposition?

Don't ask me why I was reminded of that, I have no
idea.

Errr...according to what I have read, although 30 years ago the first part was a 'rule' it no longer is.
 

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 12:03 PM (reply 432 of 635)



 
Ack! And I've been careful all this time. Did you find this anywhere online? I couldn't find a good free stylebook online and didn't know what else to search for.
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 12:03 PM (reply 433 of 635)



 
4. I'm really not even sure what your main point is anyway, other than that there has been bigotry,
self-deception, self-righteousness, and other evils in O-R for a long long time.
...
The thread appears to be about a number of closely -
or at times loosely (naked politics for example ... is
that where the phrase 'dirty laundry' comes
from, I wonder ;o) - related streams of
thought/'feeling'? However, you seemed to be - as
appears evident from the above embedded trail -
replying to me at the time, I believe, and to a very
specific quote from one of my previous posts at that.
Therefore I'm certainly within my rights to make an
attempt to assure you read me correctly, understood
me, and were in fact replying to me. That is what I
did attempt to do, and from your answer it appears you
were not replying to me at all then ... certainly not
if you feel you are at liberty to mis-quote me, eh?
;o]

Notice the underlined part in the above?

And presumably when you referred to "O-R" you were
referring to many organizations and not your
personal organization correct?

O-R, for better or for worse, has been used for some
time now within this thread to assume the meaning of
the more tedious to constantly re-type Organised
Religion
. I'm surprised you missed that; you
didn't really did you ... confess ;oP

I know what it means.

I was pointing out that I was responding to something about "O-R" specifically as I quoted it. And thus it it applied to "O-R" and not to your specific religious take.
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 9, 2004 12:11 PM (reply 434 of 635)



 
Yes such a shame that multi-racial marriages are now
accepted and slavery isn't.

Of course because popular opinion at one time was
wholly for those, that must have made it right then.

What point are you trying to make here?

Back to one of my previous threads.....

A 100 years ago everyone was sure that multi-racial marriages were against the word of god.
A 200 years ago everyone was sure that god allowed for slavery.

And now everyone is sure that homosexuality is not allowed.

And I can assure you that 100/200 years ago everyone was sure that their take on the bible was the correct one.

Myself I figure it is a good bet that someone either now or then or both is wrong.

To me the above suggests several possibilities for the bible....
1. God wanted to condemn everyone for the last 2000 years, since obviously he made it so hard until now to get it right.
2. God wants to condemn everyone for 3000 years because we still don't have it right.
3. God made it a mucked up mess in the first place just to make us squirm, and either everyone is condemned or eveyone has a free pass regardless of what they do.
4. The bible has nothing to do with God.
 
This topic has 635 replies on 43 pages.    « Previous | 1 | ... 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | Next »