Gay got saved at Kilgore protest

[tracysaboe]

Ever heard the lyrics? "What will people do when they find out you're a Jesus Freak?" .... I just found out .... a kick in the jimmy.

DC Talk rocks. I liked the Gotee Bros. CD too, but it was a little.... "experimental" for some tastes.

What was the spoken lead-in on one of those tracks? "What if I stumble", maybe? "The greatest threat to Christianity in the world today are those who claim Jesus with their lips, then deny him with their lives. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." Or something like that.

Edit: Found it! "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."

Kevin

"What will people do if they find out it's true.

I don't really care if they lable me a Jesus freak.

They're only describing the truth."

I think I'll go put it on

Tracy

[tracysaboe]

Amen is Hebrew.  It is the equivalent of 'Ditto' at the end of their prayers.

Technically "So Be It"

TRacy

[tracysaboe]

The greatest cause of Atheism is Rationality.

Lloyd, I'm not trying to pick on you ...

but isn't this just a tad incendiary?  It smacks of the sort of arbitrary closemindedness and hypocrisy that lovers of liberty all despise. 

A person can only be rational if he denies the existence of anything greater than himself?  To believe in something beyond makes a person irrational?  Why do you get to determine the benchmark for what is or is not rational?


Caleb

I didn't think you were picking on me.  Wouldn't care if you were.
I wasn't taking any of this seriously.
A rational person is one who believes what can be proved.
No one has ever proved there is a god.

It can't be proved definitively that their is NO god either. So if you're rational according to your definition, you're agnostic not aithiest.

If you're aithiest, as in affirming the absolute non-existence of god, then you're irrational according to your own definnition.

Tracy

[FTL_Ian]

I didn't think you were picking on me.  Wouldn't care if you were.
I wasn't taking any of this seriously.
A rational person is one who believes what can be proved.
No one has ever proved there is a god.

I'm with you, Lloyd.  I never take forums very seriously.  Since we're on the topic though, let's have a go!

To me, belief in god is strikingly similar to the belief that government can be good.

The reason people believe in government is because they were indoctrinated to do so.

The only reason people believe in god, is because someone told them they should.

A person can only be rational if he denies the existence of anything greater than himself?

That's not what Lloyd suggested.  I believe there could be higher lifeforms, but there's 0 evidence of it.  Plus, even if evidence were shown, I don't think I would worship it.   

[FTL_Ian]

It can't be proved definitively that their is NO god either. So if you're rational according to your definition, you're agnostic not aithiest.

If you're aithiest, as in affirming the absolute non-existence of god, then you're irrational according to your own definnition.

Tracy

Seriously?  How can you "people of faith" totally misunderstand this issue?  Only positive claims need be proven.  I like the example someone else recently used on the FTL BBS:

If I say "Tracy, there's a snark behind you!", and you look and there is no snark, and you've never heard of a snark, how can you prove it doesn't exist?  It just doesn't.  Or, there's no evidence that there is a snark, much less that it is behind you!  The onus of criteria is on my claim.  I must prove that there is indeed a snark behind you!

Interested in your thoughts, not that I really expect any of this to have an effect on a true believer, I'm just going through the motions.

[Michael Fisher]

Especially if those people want help -- which in my personal experience many people will live a homosexual lifestyle DO want out of it.

You must not get out much. ?I've known many sexual deviants, including my high school girlfriend, and not one of them has ever said they regret it. ?You're living in a dream world or something.

In fact, there are even more extreme nonforcefull tools in the libertarian arsenal consistent with NAP. Simply non-association, astricism, or even banishment.

Intolerance and banishment are FAR MORE DISGUSTING than gay sex. ?You might as well just throw rocks at them - it hurts less. ?You treat someone like subhuman garbage because they love others in ways you can't understand. ?Give me a break.

No wonder you talk down to my wife and I about our celibacy even though Jesus was celibate. ?Even if Jesus were gay, I believe you would still treat gays like they're subhuman.

You're completely isolating yourself in my eyes. ?Keep digging that hole, Tracy. ?At least you're honest about it.

[tracysaboe]

I never talked down to your wife.

I respect your lifestyle. I never said that I would ostracise a gay person. I simply said that ostracism isn't force. I just don't understand how a fellow libertarian could mistake a simple position statement and persuation for "force." Throwing rocks and physically hurting somebody is. I would follow the example of Jesus and befriend the gay person. Being libertarian isn't about being "tolorant" of lifestyles you don't aprove of. It's about not initiating force against individuals who lead lifestyles you don't aprove of. there's a vast difference.  You yourself talked about using social presure against somebody that tortured their puppies, even though a puppy is that person's property and the state shouldn't have a say in the matter. There's nothing wrong with trying to convince people of things peacefully.

The fact I have many friends that are gay. They know that I disaprove of their life-style. But we're friends anyway.

That's what Jesus was all about. Love the Sinner but hate the sin. I don't think homosexuality is any more discusting then lieing, or premarital hetero-sex or pornography, or gambling addictions, or anything else.  I would never treat a gay as if he were sub human. God made people who choose to partake in that lifestyle and He loves them too.  Heck, I wouldn't even treat a mass murderer as a sub human. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and that includes myself. Where do you get the idea that I would treat a Gay as sub-human or that Christianity or Jesus (or Paul for that matter) would advocate it. Because those Political "conservatives" do? Seriously, I've never advocated that. I think you've got your own lens that you're looking at this topic with. you can be friends with a person but still disaprove of the lifestyle they're living.

And I never said that you and your wife were sinning. I never talked down to your wife. I was simply concerned.

I really don't understand why you're so mad at me Mike. It's not like you to hold a grudge.

Tracy

[Michael Fisher]

Being libertarian isn't about being "tolorant" of lifestyles you don't aprove of.

That's true.  There are a lot of libertarians that somehow manage to be complete assholes without violating ZAP.

I really don't understand why you're so mad at me Mike. It's not like you to hold a grudge.

What can I say?  I am intolerant of immoral intolerance.

You say homosexuals are immoral.  I say you are immoral for saying they are.

[tracysaboe]

It can't be proved definitively that their is NO god either. So if you're rational according to your definition, you're agnostic not aithiest.

If you're aithiest, as in affirming the absolute non-existence of god, then you're irrational according to your own definnition.

Tracy

Seriously?  How can you "people of faith" totally misunderstand this issue?  Only positive claims need be proven.  I like the example someone else recently used on the FTL BBS:

If I say "Tracy, there's a snark behind you!", and you look and there is no snark, and you've never heard of a snark, how can you prove it doesn't exist?  It just doesn't.  Or, there's no evidence that there is a snark, much less that it is behind you!  The onus of criteria is on my claim.  I must prove that there is indeed a snark behind you!

Interested in your thoughts, not that I really expect any of this to have an effect on a true believer, I'm just going through the motions.

The fact is I could just as easily say. "There's no such thing as No God"  Then, by phrasing it in the negative, that means according to you that "Negatives don't need to be proven."

An affirmative believe that their's no such thing as god takes just as much faith (more in my opinion) then an affirmative believe that their IS such a thing.

The only person who's completely faithless is the agnostic.

Tracy

[tracysaboe]

What can I say?  I am intolerant of immoral intolerance.

You don't find that a bit hypocritical?

You say homosexuals are immoral.  I say you are immoral for saying they are.

Well, I guess that's your choice then. I would hope we can still be friend and fight the government together.

Tracy

[Pat McCotter]

[It can't be proved definitively that their is NO god either. So if you're rational according to your definition, you're agnostic not aithiest.

If you're aithiest, as in affirming the absolute non-existence of god, then you're irrational according to your own definnition.

Tracy

Tracy,
You are the logician here. You know you cannot prove a negative, right?

[polyanarch]

Being libertarian isn't about being "tolorant" of lifestyles you don't aprove of.

That's true.  There are a lot of libertarians that somehow manage to be complete assholes without violating ZAP.

I really don't understand why you're so mad at me Mike. It's not like you to hold a grudge.

What can I say?  I am intolerant of immoral intolerance.

You say homosexuals are immoral.  I say you are immoral for saying they are.

This is a lot nicer than what I was going to say and didn't.

One could substitute the word christian for homosexual in Tracy's diatribe above and get a very alternative viewpoint.

Do I think being a christian is immoral?  Some people, some days, make me want to go there. 

I do know that if I had kids I think I'd rather they be born with a birth defect than be afflicted with religion.

[Lloyd Danforth]

? Only positive claims need be proven.?

Amen

[tracysaboe]

[It can't be proved definitively that their is NO god either. So if you're rational according to your definition, you're agnostic not aithiest.

If you're aithiest, as in affirming the absolute non-existence of god, then you're irrational according to your own definnition.

Tracy

Tracy,
You are the logician here. You know you cannot prove a negative, right?

Yes. You can't prove a universal negative. But Ian and Lloyd are saying they "don't need to be proven."  And using that as "proof" if you will that there is no God.

TRacy

[tracysaboe]

You know, how come when Mike comes on here and talks about the "virtues" of celibacy and what-not everybody's OK with that, even though it's quite out of the ordinary in a marriage relationship, but as soon as I start talking about the virtues of not-being gay everybody jumps down my throat.

Seriously, there seems to be a lot of double standards around here.

I have  different view of morality then some of the people here, and because it's a little more traditional I'm suddently piryah.

Sorry but I don't buy the left-libertarian ideal that all lifestyles are equal in morality, and that social presures are just as much force as government.

You haven't lived the life I have. You haven't seen the pain and problems that people who live immoral lifestyles get themselves into. It's one reason I oppose the welfare state so much, is because it subsidizes decadent behavior. My wife grew up in a broken home, and it's caused a lot of pain for all involved. I'm sorry I'm not just going to "tolorate" life-style choices that I believe are self destructive. I'm going to do my best to love and educate these people before they cause themselves even more grief.

And Mike, I DO know a few homosexuals who got caught up in a sort of addiction to frequenting bath-houses and things, who wanted out but simply had trouble controling their impulses. Frequenting bath-houses is a self destructive behavior. I DO know a few people who were depressed and homosexual, and their doctor treated them for depression and their homosexual feelings went away. I DO know people who have homosexual type feelings who don't want to be that way and don't want those types of feelings.

I'm NOT living in a fantasy world. It's probably just that, in the types of people I associate with I'm more likely then you are to meet these kinds of people who are addicted to their own physical lusts, realize they're self destructive and want out of their enslavement to those lusts.

This isn't about "religion." It's about empowering people to learn how to excersize self control so they behave more responcibly so they don't end-up bankrupt and/or diseased on the street. That's not just some homophobic slam. It's a fact that most people with STD's are people who only had sex with two people.  It's also true that less then 2% of people who engage in homosexual activity have monogamous or even serial monogamous relationships. You don't need to be religious to think that maybe homosexuality isn't a wise course of action. I would rather try to help them see the error of their ways BEFORE they realize the negative consequences of their actions. I happen to believe teaching self control and abstenence is a better way to help these people then being "tolorant" and saying "DO what you want, I don't care if you screw your life over." If you knew somebody with a gambling addiction, you'd help them see the error of their ways and try to help them out of it wouldn't you before you see them bankrupt themselves? OR if you knew somebody with a drug addiction? This is really no difference.

If you think loving somebody and honestly trying to help convince somebody to not pursue a self destructive lifestyle is "Intolorant" or "immoral," then so be it.

Tracy