Homosexuality is not a sin!

[thormas]

I think that's it for tonight Rom.

Have a warm milk and mellow - it will help.

[PaulS]

On 12/30/2019 at 5:26 AM, thormas said:

Let me try this again in hopes of not erasing it again.

I disagree that opposition to cannot be the same as opposite of. Whether Hitler killed 6+ million, 3 million or 1 - the very act is opposite of what Jesus said and did. The former is unadulterated self-centeredness, the latter is pure love. Would any of us rather that 1 die rather than 6 million? Of course. However, any example of killing (i.e. murder not self-defense or defense of another, etc.) be it Hitler, Manson, the killing of 1 Jew in NYC or a Mormon in Mexico or a rape and murder in Iowa - any such act is the opposite of what Jesus was and how he acted and we should be in opposition to it. 

Jesus interceded, before and to the crowd, on behalf of 1 lone woman in the story of the adulteress and it has resonated down through the ages, even to today. To murder one is, in that act, in that moment, to be the opposite of what Jesus did. If one repents and changes, then that moment is over (obviously not for those who loved the murdered person) and one can then live in 'agreement' with Jesus, live as Jesus did, in some real way. 

I am speaking specifically of Hitler and murder. Not all 'opposition to' means that the other is 'opposite of' another. For example, one can be in opposition to a politician over her policies but not believe and not treat her as the opposite of all that is good. 

I don'y see any line to be drawn or point to consider that reduces the evil (although it could reduce the numbers) that Hitler wrought (again talking specifically about murder). If we want to eliminate all murder and just consider the wrongs committed by a typical tinpot thug it depends on what we're talking about. It is not a point in terms of numbers, it is the act (of murder) in and of itself, an act devoid of all compassion, love, goodness that is the opposite of the act that was Jesus. 

That is my answer. I did speak a good about Hitler in my discussion with Joseph but saw that you asked for a more considered, specific response. I was also, concentrating on the fuller discussion as that was my primary interest. In any case, here it is.

That you might disagree is fine.  

I'll take your permission to disagree as fine.  To me you seem to have rendered the word 'opposite' meaningless in common discourse where you consider Hitler exterminating millions and millions and another person killing a single person, as both directly opposite to what you say Jesus was.  It seems to me that everything then could be grouped into this so called 'opposite' of Jesus if you were also to consider adultery, lustful thoughts, anger, hypocrisy etc.  It seems that any consideration for a continuum has gone out the window with there only being two ends and nothing in between (not sure what that would like as far as continuums go).

So for me, you've made no meaningful distinction concerning 'opposite', but that is fine.  It works for you.

[thormas]

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

I'll take your permission to disagree as fine.  To me you seem to have rendered the word 'opposite' meaningless in common discourse where you consider Hitler exterminating millions and millions and another person killing a single person, as both directly opposite to what you say Jesus was.  It seems to me that everything then could be grouped into this so called 'opposite' of Jesus if you were also to consider adultery, lustful thoughts, anger, hypocrisy etc.  It seems that any consideration for a continuum has gone out the window with there only being two ends and nothing in between (not sure what that would like as far as continuums go).

So for me, you've made no meaningful distinction concerning 'opposite', but that is fine.  It works for you.

Of course, as I said, the acts of Hitler are more horrible (sheer numbers) than a Manson but even the murder of one innocent is 'opposite God' and the opposite of love. How is murder, any murder not the opposite of love, not the opposite of compassion care for another? One can be in opposition to any act of murder and one can also say that any act of murder is not love, is the opposite of Love (God). 

So too adultery, is not adultery the opposite of Love? If one makes a commitment to be there, to love the other and does not, where is love, where is the compassion caring for the other, in that moment? So too anger, hypocrisy and even lustful thoughts. Take the last one, this is not some puritanical perfection that is demanded but simply a recognition that one, let's say a guy, can look at a woman and see nothing of the woman, certainly care nothing for the woman as a person - all he see is a body to be f_ _ _ed. It is all for him, it is all about him - it is not for her and it has nothing to do with her as a person. Actually, the 'person' is probably the furthest thing from his mind. In that moment there is no love, no compassion care of another human being - there is the very opposite.

 Anger, lying, lust, etc., all not as horrible as murder but still, each, in the moment, is the opposite of Love.  In the Catholic tradition there is a distinction between venial and mortal sins and of course, a kid who lies about cheating on a test is not the same as Hitler. I hesitate to use such a kid an an example because they are still learning, growing and striving to have the courage to be. So take an adult in a loving relationship who lies to his wife. If it is a once and done, and he actually does love this person and their overall relationship is one of love. However, in that moment of lying and I suspect he knows it (thus the hiding and the guilt) even though he 'justified' it, he does not show or live compassionate care or love for his wife. In that moment, his action is the opposite of what it should have been, what he committed to: he did not love. And in the instant he acknowledges that, in the moment he knows he 'blew it', there is what Christianity calls metanoia, a new man has replaced the old man or the old act is over and a new act, a new attitude is (re)born. 

So we have a lesser 'wrong action' within a larger loving relationship but that 'wrong action' is not what should have been, it was not loving, it was not compassionate care, it was the very opposite of such compassion.

 

So, it works for me.

 

 

Edited January 3, 2020 by thormas

[romansh]

17 hours ago, thormas said:

Also, merely because you don't accept something such as IS - does not mean it's nonsense. It is part of the biblical insight (I AM) and also found in philosophy, specifically metaphysics and even more specifically, ontology (Being). 

This does not mean that biblical insight is not nonsense. But of course that is your belief. Thomas Hobbes nailed it (back in 1651 I think) when he said:

Quote

"Is, or Bee, or Are, and the like" add no meaning to an argument nor do derived words such as "Entity, Essence, Essentially, Essentiality", which "are the names of nothing"

Funnily enough I came to this conclusion without being aware that Hobbes was of this mind. Just reading posts like yours.

17 hours ago, thormas said:

However, all this stuff aside and more importantly, how long have you had an issue with a smiley face? Come on Rom...........it's just a little smiley face. 

My issue is not with smiley face.

17 hours ago, thormas said:

Rom, you are extremely intolerance of another's position or belief ('nonsense, you don't understand, nonsensical made-up beliefs, you've got nothing' - and that's just from one post.

Well if you were comfortable in your faith (belief without evidence) it would not bother you. You would be able to counter logically

18 hours ago, thormas said:

Is that why got you banned from another section?

Have not been banned here. Plainly you did not understand what was said to you or you have forgotten.

I am being 'nice'. 

18 hours ago, thormas said:

Rom: both positions are belief statements

This I agree with you.

18 hours ago, thormas said:

with religious belief, there is no evidence:

It would seem so, based on your posts.

18 hours ago, thormas said:

yet a reasonable belief. 

This is your opinion.

I am waiting for you to demonstrate this.

[thormas]

 

1 hour ago, romansh said:

This does not mean that biblical insight is not nonsense. But of course that is your belief. Thomas Hobbes nailed it (back in 1651 I think) when he said:

Funnily enough I came to this conclusion without being aware that Hobbes was of this mind. Just reading posts like yours.

My issue is not with smiley face.

Well if you were comfortable in your faith (belief without evidence) it would not bother you. You would be able to counter logically

Have not been banned here. Plainly you did not understand what was said to you or you have forgotten.

I am being 'nice'. 

This I agree with you.

It would seem so, based on your posts.

This is your opinion.

I am waiting for you to demonstrate this.

There you go with nonsense again so perhaps it is fair to say you simply don't get the biblical insight.

As for Hobbes, other philosophers and theologians have said that God is 'nothing' - which is quite profound because  it means he is no thing: God does not have existence like all other things, rather God is the possibility of all that is. But I already said that :+}

I think you definitely have an issue with smiley faces, have you seen someone about it? And it was you who asked me to switch threads because you were not allow to comment on the one I was on - so one can only surmise, given you present attitude and uncompassionate remarks about another's beliefs, that, logically, it had to do with similar behavior and rants. And, I'm sure it is your belief that you are being nice :+}  :+}  ;+{  So that must means you don't get nice or biblical insights???

I am quite comfortable, though still working on and refining my belief. I learned of 'being' decades ago - and it was in a philosophy metaphysics class and I studied it thereafter in theology and continue to this day.

So, in conclusion you agree that both of our positions are beliefs and you further acknowledge that I have said religious belief has no evidence and I have given you one eminently reasonable, logical philosopher, David Bentley Hart, and you couldn't be bothered with him - so, I simply can't be bothered with 'demonstrations' - especially since I know if would be fruitless and, given your underlying assumptions, it would be illogical :+}

 

[PaulS]

13 hours ago, thormas said:

Of course, as I said, the acts of Hitler are more horrible (sheer numbers) than a Manson but even the murder of one innocent is 'opposite God' and the opposite of love. How is murder, any murder not the opposite of love, not the opposite of compassion care for another? One can be in opposition to any act of murder and one can also say that any act of murder is not love, is the opposite of Love (God). 

Like I said, if two significantly different things can still be considered identical opposites to another thing, then I think you have created a new understanding of the word 'opposite', but if that's what works for you.

Personally, I don't think there are opposites, in that it's much like as Joseph pointed out - those actions are just points on a continuum based on one's perception (or in your case, perspective).  So for me, other than broadly speaking, there is no 'opposite' to 'love' and I doubt anybody can empirically define 'love' in all of it's various guises.  One can be in opposition to something but I see that as different as defining an action as an 'opposite' to another action.

More specifically, I think the word 'opposite' simply tries to help us relate an understanding but when one digs deeper into the word it really does come up short as to me, there actually are no true opposites.  It's all perception/perspective.

Quote

So too adultery, is not adultery the opposite of Love? If one makes a commitment to be there, to love the other and does not, where is love, where is the compassion caring for the other, in that moment? So too anger, hypocrisy and even lustful thoughts. Take the last one, this is not some puritanical perfection that is demanded but simply a recognition that one, let's say a guy, can look at a woman and see nothing of the woman, certainly care nothing for the woman as a person - all he see is a body to be f_ _ _ed. It is all for him, it is all about him - it is not for her and it has nothing to do with her as a person. Actually, the 'person' is probably the furthest thing from his mind. In that moment there is no love, no compassion care of another human being - there is the very opposite.

No, I see you as generalizing rather than being able to specifically capture an empirical 'opposite'.  I don't see these as opposites but rather opinions based on perspective/perception.  

Quote

So, it works for me.

Indeed.

[JosephM]

4 hours ago, thormas said:

 

(snip)

I think you definitely have an issue with smiley faces, have you seen someone about it? And it was you who asked me to switch threads because you were not allow to comment on the one I was on - so one can only surmise, given you present attitude and uncompassionate remarks about another's beliefs, that, logically, it had to do with similar behavior and rants. And, I'm sure it is your belief that you are being nice :+}  :+}  ;+{  So that must means you don't get nice or biblical insights???

(snip)

 

Thomas,

This is a new year and it seems to me this kind of banter has no place here nor adds to the discussion. Please try to refrain from such and i will do my best to see others do the same this year.

Also Rom was never banned . His non-agreement with our 8 points simply makes it an area (progressive Christianity forum section) where he and others who are like-minded cannot post in accordance with the rules set forth in the guidelines specified at the top of that particular forum.

Thanks for your understanding and i will try to keep discussions more civil so we can increase participation to those who want a more peaceful discussion this year.

JosephM as moderator

[PaulS]

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

This is a new year and it seems to me this kind of banter has no place here nor adds to the discussion. Please try to refrain from such and i will do my best to see others do the same this year.

The fresh start of 2020, both as a new year and a new decade is an excellent opportunity for everybody to reconsider how they approach their posts and consider whether they could drop sarcasm or jibes or other words that simply don't contribute to the general spirit of community and respect, here on the TCPC Forum.

I'm not without a plank in my own eye sometimes, but I also will try to moderate better to help myself and others ensure this is a respectful and even inviting, community.

[thormas]

 

4 hours ago, JosephM said:

Thomas,

This is a new year and it seems to me this kind of banter has no place here nor adds to the discussion. Please try to refrain from such and i will do my best to see others do the same this year.

Also Rom was never banned . His non-agreement with our 8 points simply makes it an area (progressive Christianity forum section) where he and others who are like-minded cannot post in accordance with the rules set forth in the guidelines specified at the top of that particular forum.

Thanks for your understanding and i will try to keep discussions more civil so we can increase participation to those who want a more peaceful discussion this year.

 

Joseph, given all the comments that have been made that my beliefs are nonsense (does that add to the discussion?) and violate your warning about being uncompassionate on the site, have you actually made such a public comment to anyone else? I checked and it seems not, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I said "you (Rom) were not allow to comment on the one I was on" and that was an accurate statement. I was asked to switch threads by Rom to accommodate him and I did. That he was not banned I now know (and the reason) and he said this and suggested that I forgot what I was told about the incident. I thought he was banned from that particular thread - that's what it was, he couldn't participate. But if the reason was because he didn't agree with the 8 points, isn't he still bound by not making uncompassioante posts that provoke, demean, and separate us and make it 'personal' on all other threads on the site?

 

So how does having my beliefs called nonsense by Rom line up with:

you don't know what you are talking about.

you are just plain wrong.

your statement has no validity in it.

you don't know what you are talking about.

They all sound like someone saying your beliefs or statements are nonsense. Is this civil discourse? 

 

When I used humor to try to get him to lighten up and move off his attacks by talking about smiley faces (smiley faces, who is serious when they talk about smiley faces?) and kid that he must be seeing someone about this most ridiculous image, you scold me and never comment on his actual  words? But, really, who would someone go see about smiley faces, the smiley police to forcefully take down the smiley faces or arrest smiley face posters? A smiley priest, rabbi or sensory psychologist? What did you think was going on here? Rom was kidding about smiley faces also and he said previously that smiley faces was not an issue for him (which I took as dry humor - who has an actual issue with smiley faces?). Rom is not shy;  so if he was offended I would think he would say as much. He didn't. 

 

When I said that Rom was extremely intolerance of another's position or belief, I actually repeated his words:  'nonsense, you don't understand, nonsensical made-up beliefs, you've got nothing' from just one post. Are you saying, by the fact that you have not corrected this language publicly, that it was not uncompassionate by definition (your definition listed above)? But how did Rom respond: "if you were comfortable in your faith... it would not bother you." He attacked me, my belief and my faith, again .......and you still do nothing, you still say nothing!

 

If none of us are free to say of another or his/her beliefs or statements: "nonsense, you don't understand, nonsensical made-up beliefs, you've got nothing" in the new year - say publicly that this was not and is not acceptable. If we are free to make such comments as Rom does, please be clear and fair, so that all can participate and not feel badly. 

 

These discussions are dialogues and it takes two more to tango, so also look to others publicly if you want peaceful discussions. I'm all in and have no problem presenting my view, engaging in some questions and answers and moving on (as I'm doing with Ranger and have done in the past with others) but when I'm accused of obfuscation, avoidance, ducking and other nonsense, that too lacks compassion, doesn't add to the discussion. It should either be banned publicly by you or, again, if it remains acceptable (since it goes on even in this thread without correction), please be clear so we can all partake of this ridiculousness and defend ourselves against such comments in a like manner. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2020 by thormas

[thormas]

5 hours ago, PaulS said:

Like I said, if two significantly different things can still be considered identical opposites to another thing, then I think you have created a new understanding of the word 'opposite', but if that's what works for you.

Personally, I don't think there are opposites, in that it's much like as Joseph pointed out - those actions are just points on a continuum based on one's perception (or in your case, perspective).  So for me, other than broadly speaking, there is no 'opposite' to 'love' and I doubt anybody can empirically define 'love' in all of it's various guises.  One can be in opposition to something but I see that as different as defining an action as an 'opposite' to another action.

More specifically, I think the word 'opposite' simply tries to help us relate an understanding but when one digs deeper into the word it really does come up short as to me, there actually are no true opposites.  It's all perception/perspective.

No, I see you as generalizing rather than being able to specifically capture an empirical 'opposite'.  I don't see these as opposites but rather opinions based on perspective/perception.  

Indeed.

You may think that but I don't as explained, However you didn't address the specific examples. 

It is your opinion that there is no opposite to love but not all agree with you and it is what it is.

I think we have empirically defined love, at least the love of this topic, Christian love or agape: compassionate concern for the other.

I don't see it coming up short at all but I see that it is your opinion that there are no opposites.

I see myself being very specific.

Indeed it does work for me............

 

[PaulS]

2 hours ago, thormas said:

You may think that but I don't as explained, However you didn't address the specific examples. 

It is your opinion that there is no opposite to love but not all agree with you and it is what it is.

Which is why I haven't bothered with addressing each of your specific examples -  I don't intend on dragging this out trying to convince you of otherwise, other than what I said - they are not 'opposites' but rather personal perceptions on the continuum of perspectives.  You have stated your view, I have stated mine, life goes on.

Quote

I think we have empirically defined love, at least the love of this topic, Christian love or agape: compassionate concern for the other.

I don't see it coming up short at all but I see that it is your opinion that there are no opposites.

I see myself being very specific.

Indeed it does work for me............

Indeed.

 

[thormas]

7 hours ago, PaulS said:

Which is why I haven't bothered with addressing each of your specific examples - 

Indeed.

 

Got it so you have no answers to the specifics and repeat your belief so as has been said "that is fine. It works for you."

 

So your "indeed" refers to the confirmation that love has been empirically defined?

.

 

[JosephM]

To All,

Please no more discussion on this. We are all adults. The past is the past, lets not argue about it (what he said, she said). This is the New Year. Perhaps we are all guilty. You all know the rules . No more insults or put-downs . The moderators will have final say so on what is inappropriate . Lets not argue about it. And yes calling others posts nonsense is not acceptable. I should never have let it get this far. I apologize to everyone for waiting so long to start to enforce the rules. One warning without a public apology and then a repeat brings a 1 week suspension. Enough said.

JosephM(as Moderator)

[thormas]

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

To All,

Please no more discussion on this. We are all adults. The past is the past, lets not argue about it (what he said, she said). This is the New Year. Perhaps we are all guilty. You all know the rules . No more insults or put-downs . The moderators will have final say so on what is inappropriate . Lets not argue about it. And yes calling others posts nonsense is not acceptable. I should never have let it get this far. I apologize to everyone for waiting so long to start to enforce the rules. One warning without a public apology and then a repeat brings a 1 week suspension. Enough said.

JosephM(as Moderator)

So let's repeat that "calling others posts nonsense is not acceptable" and so too are insults and put-downs.

That is all fine (and appreciated) Joseph, but if the nonsense rant is unacceptable as are the insults and put-downs, why was I the only one publicly singled out? Even now others are not. Fair is fair.

 

I accept your apology and thank you for it and I too apologize, not for humor which should always be okay (but humor too if it caused hurt), but for assuming and saying that Rom was banned. I also apologize to you and others for the 'heat' which these discussions sometimes, too many times, produced unnecessarily.

Now, Rom has been warned (above), so I await his apology (for 'nonsense' and put-downs).

I also await Paul's apology for insults and put-downs especially since he is an administrator and a moderator (since you used the plural) of behavior in the new year.

Such public apologies from all (and any others where it is necessary for the future health of the site) will testify to everybody's recognition that we need a re-start and an acknowledgement of past slights.

Thank You.

Edited January 4, 2020 by thormas

[JosephM]

Thomas ,

No more discussion on this. No demanded apologies. We are starting new,

Thank You for understanding;

JosephM (as Moderator)

[thormas]

Joseph,

I don't understand.

Specifically I don't understand the targeting of me or your reluctance to confront others directly (as you have done to me) about their words which you have explicitly said were unacceptable.

I am not interested in discussion only answers.

You zeroed in on me - why? Simple question. 

If we were all in the wrong, why name me, why come after me by name but not them? 

You apologized as did I, why not the other two (or more)? 

 

 

However, let's not demand apologies, let's simply see if they own what they said, recognize that they violated the ethic of the forum and are sorry. Either way we know their character.

 

 

 

[JosephM]

Thomas,

There's nothing to understand. Your question is similar to many that are caught speeding. "Why didn't you catch the other guy that passed me?" We just happened to start at that time that you were in the speed zone. Let's leave the past and go from here please. 

Edited January 4, 2020 by JosephM

[thormas]

16 minutes ago, JosephM said:

Thomas,

There's nothing to understand. Your question is similar to many that are caught speeding. "Why didn't you catch the other guy that passed me?" We just happened to start at that time that you were in the speed zone. Let's leave the past and go from here please. 

Joseph, I actually did not ask that question the one time I was going a bit faster than instructed: I was in the wrong. And in that situation, the other speeder is long gone and the cop is limited by what she can actually see. But thank god for technology: we have had cameras at traffic lights that record all the cars running the light and weeks later a little ticket is delivered in the mail: 'surprise we know what you did, here's what you owe!'

You have the advantage of technology and seeing who was uncompassionate and did what you have said is unacceptable - but no other 'tickets' for the same offense.

 

However - let's live it to the other 'speeders' and let character reveal itself.

I wait with bated breath.

[JosephM]

Thomas,

What part of my post do you not understand? (rhetorical)   I started when i started and asked you to let the past go and stop discussing this. I will not go back to before i started, technology or not,  you were the first i caught so get over it now or you will be the first to be suspended for ignoring moderator instructions.

JosephM (as Admin)

[thormas]

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

What part of my post do you not understand? (rhetorical)   I started when i started and asked you to let the past go and stop discussing this. I will not go back to before i started, technology or not,  you were the first i caught so get over it now or you will be the first to be suspended for ignoring moderator instructions.

JosephM (as Admin)

I will let character be revealed (rhetorical).

Edited January 4, 2020 by thormas

[PaulS]

11 hours ago, thormas said:

So your "indeed" refers to the confirmation that love has been empirically defined?

My 'indeed' refers to that whole paragraph of yours that I quoted, which you concluded with "Indeed it does work for me............".  So 'indeed' it works for you that you think you have empirically defined love, as it does that you don't see the word 'opposite' coming up short, as also you see yourself being very specific.  'Indeed' that perception works for you.

Indeed, my view works for me too, and I think we have done this discussion to death.  You have your view on  opposites, I have mine.  As I mentioned in my 2020 - New Year's Resolutions post, I plan to argue/discuss a point no more than one or two posts and let the rest just 'be'.  So this is me, letting this discussion 'be'.  Peace & goodwill.

[thormas]

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

Peace & goodwill.

Without action and ownership, it is just words (rhetorical).

Edited January 5, 2020 by thormas

[PaulS]

5 hours ago, thormas said:

Without action and ownership, it is just words (rhetorical).

It is well-intentioned, and I believe actioned and owned in my posts as well, both here:

and here:

I am aligned with Joseph on this issue of a fresh start for all in 2020.  Anybody's comments that are deemed demeaning, character-questioning, insulting and the like, will result in suspension.  I had given my own personal commitment in the above posts prior to Joseph's recent warning to all.

[PaulS]

In what I consider to be in the best interests of this TCPC Forum, as an Administrator I have locked this thread for the time being to allow everyone to cool off, consider their parts in this forum, and hopefully continue in other threads without the distraction of historical posts.  If you feel there is something you require to post in this thread, please PM Admin who can post your comments for you, following review.

Let's all try and give this Forum a great start in 2020!