Some thoughts on Pluralism

[romansh]

33 minutes ago, thormas said:

It was coherent, we simply disagree.

The LBGT issue is in line with the rights of others (minorities, women, the disabled, etc.) ........so, it takes some time (and some longer than others) but we eventually get it and it is obvious that it's right.

We disagree and it was not coherent.

The LBGT issue is not obvious.  Is the illegal immigrant issue also obvious?

[thormas]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

We disagree and it was not coherent.

The LBGT issue is not obvious.  Is the illegal immigrant issue also obvious?

We disagree (what else is new, BTW welcome back) and it was beautifully coherent :+}

In this day and age, the issue is obvious.

 

[romansh]

3 hours ago, thormas said:

We disagree (what else is new, BTW welcome back) and it was beautifully coherent :+}

In this day and age, the issue is obvious.

 

The fact that think there is an issue and that it is obvious, undermines your argument. 

Interestingly LBGT rights as a whole are less of an issue for those without religion than those with, at least in the Western world.

 

[PaulS]

12 hours ago, thormas said:

I'm confused over your confusion. I simply used the word person to accommodate you as I thought you were more comfortable with it; it is not a term I use in this context (preferring human).

I'm not confused over your use of the term human or person.  What I am asking is how do you measure when one is fully or truly human or  fully or truly a person if you don't consider them to be so already?  At first you seemed to propose that it is something to be achieved, something to be obtained.  If so, how do YOU quantify or qualify that something?  You seemed to reject my notion that we are already fully human because we have certain traits that can be less beneficial or even harmful to our community - so for me the obvious questions is when do we reach your mark of being fully or truly human?  What parameters to you say "this person is now fully and truly human or is now a full and true person"?

If your meaning of being fully or truly human is about a journey, and you relate that journey simply to making a 'better' version of ourselves, i can understand that but would still say, as Rom points out, that this measure is subjective and more aligned to our cultural and societal expectations.  Nonetheless, I can live with that subjectiveness if it makes my life feel okay because that is all that we have as humans/persons.

So my simple question remains - when do you consider one to be fully human?  At what point would you say "this person is now fully human" because it seems to me that you don't consider us to be fully human now (as I would say we actually are).

 

[thormas]

There are many issues in life, LGBTQ being one of them - obviously this fact and how one decides on the issue, undermines nothing. Are you saying LBGTQ individuals should not have rights like other human beings merely because some people don't (yet) see and agree with those rights? How about the young earthers who don't believe in evolution or the age of the universe? Individuals who have problems with either issue would probably point to their religious beliefs and Biblical interpretation. Does the fact that they have an 'issue' with evolution undermine the argument of others who accept evolution and the age of the universe and either disregard the Bible and religious belief or hold different religious beliefs and biblical interpretations - that are not a problem for them on this issue (or the LBGTQ issue).  

I agree the many religious folks (especially on the very conservative side) have problems with LBGTQ individuals. Although, some religious (and non-religious) people have no problem at all. Seemingly, you believe those religious folks who have a major issue are wrong. 

[PaulS]

1 hour ago, thormas said:

There are many issues in life, LGBTQ being one of them - obviously this fact and how one decides on the issue, undermines nothing. Are you saying LBGTQ individuals should not have rights like other human beings merely because some people don't (yet) see and agree with those rights? How about the young earthers who don't believe in evolution or the age of the universe? Individuals who have problems with either issue would probably point to their religious beliefs and Biblical interpretation. Does the fact that they have an 'issue' with evolution undermine the argument of others who accept evolution and the age of the universe and either disregard the Bible and religious belief or hold different religious beliefs and biblical interpretations - that are not a problem for them on this issue (or the LBGTQ issue).  

I agree the many religious folks (especially on the very conservative side) have problems with LBGTQ individuals. Although, some religious (and non-religious) people have no problem at all. Seemingly, you believe those religious folks who have a major issue are wrong. 

I will await for your response to my question above, but this comment too goes partly to that question - what constitutes fully human?  Are you fully human if you support LGBTQ rights or are you fully human if you don't?  Is it self-centredness to believe that gays should not have full and equal rights as non-gays, or is it the other way around (or something else in between)?  Like Rom asked, is it fully human to accept all immigrants with open arms or should borders be protected with force and hopeful immigrants denied access unless they follow the present laws concerning immigration?  Are all of the above situations that display full human-ness?

[thormas]

54 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I'm not confused

Well, that's a relief. 

Again, from a religious POV, one is born in the image of God and 'called' (or his/her destiny is) to take on the likeness of God. One does this by doing what God does (and is): Love. So, to the degree that one lives a life of compassionate concern, to that degree one is (becoming) more, truly human. In a panentheistic, progressive perspective, that is humanization (becoming more or Truly human); the ancient Eastern tradition calls this divinization. 

Thus, in this perspective, one self-actualizes (Maslow) by embodying Love.

As for measurement, we can probably say the same thing the Bible says of judgement: that is "God's" to do. However, it seems we can get some sense, especially in the extremes: say Hitler, a serial killer, etc vs. Mother Theresa, Jesus, Ghandi, Buddha and other lesser known people on the spectrum.

In this perspective, Human is something to do and in the doing, be.

I don't reject your notion (which would be a bit harsh) but I do disagree "that we are already fully human."

It is interesting that you use the word mark. Sin is considered to be "missing the mark" with the mark being Human. So, to the degree that one is self-centered, to that degree they miss the mark. As they 'overcome' self-centeredness,  they are (back) on the mark: being Human because they are love. 

As to when? Who knows. I suspect most of us don't become Fully Human (Love or Divinity residing in Humanity) in this lifetime. Theologians have different takes on how this is accomplished from, IMO, the ridiculous to the sublime. But that is a discussion for another time.

Is it a journey? Of a sort, sure. Is it becoming a 'better version?' Sure, we could possibly use that language. Where we differ, is it is not merely subjective. Furthermore, for me, that is not all we have.

[thormas]

1 minute ago, PaulS said:

I will await for your response to my question above, but this comment too goes partly to that question - what constitutes fully human?  Are you fully human if you support LGBTQ rights or are you fully human if you don't?  Is it self-centredness to believe that gays should not have full and equal rights as non-gays, or is it the other way around (or something else in between)?  Like Rom asked, is it fully human to accept all immigrants with open arms or should borders be protected with force and hopeful immigrants denied access unless they follow the present laws concerning immigration?  Are all of the above situations that display full human-ness?

I would think that, to be for the rights of LBGTQ persons, is indeed a necessary stance for one who accepts and lives the two great commandments. One was in relationship with God by keeping these commandments; one is (in those moments) the 'likeness of God.' This is the Truly Human (truly Divine) act and attitude: Love. It seems obvious that you and Rom would disagree with any conservative religious stance or biblical interpretation that is used to 'justify' not taking this stance for LBGTQ individuals.  Would your stance be merely your subjective take or is your taking that stance also a living statement that the other stance is wrong?

So, to not show and live compassionate concern (i.e. love) for these people seems to be 'missing the mark' and a (temporary?) failure to self actualize (be the likeness of God, be Human).

 

[Burl]

Everything that is alive grows, develops and changes.  A sapling is fully a tree yet it is not a tree.  

[PaulS]

4 hours ago, thormas said:

Well, that's a relief. 

Again, from a religious POV, one is born in the image of God and 'called' (or his/her destiny is) to take on the likeness of God. One does this by doing what God does (and is): Love. So, to the degree that one lives a life of compassionate concern, to that degree one is (becoming) more, truly human. In a panentheistic, progressive perspective, that is humanization (becoming more or Truly human); the ancient Eastern tradition calls this divinization. 

Thus, in this perspective, one self-actualizes (Maslow) by embodying Love.

As for measurement, we can probably say the same thing the Bible says of judgement: that is "God's" to do. However, it seems we can get some sense, especially in the extremes: say Hitler, a serial killer, etc vs. Mother Theresa, Jesus, Ghandi, Buddha and other lesser known people on the spectrum.

In this perspective, Human is something to do and in the doing, be.

I don't reject your notion (which would be a bit harsh) but I do disagree "that we are already fully human."

It is interesting that you use the word mark. Sin is considered to be "missing the mark" with the mark being Human. So, to the degree that one is self-centered, to that degree they miss the mark. As they 'overcome' self-centeredness,  they are (back) on the mark: being Human because they are love. 

As to when? Who knows. I suspect most of us don't become Fully Human (Love or Divinity residing in Humanity) in this lifetime. Theologians have different takes on how this is accomplished from, IMO, the ridiculous to the sublime. But that is a discussion for another time.

Is it a journey? Of a sort, sure. Is it becoming a 'better version?' Sure, we could possibly use that language. Where we differ, is it is not merely subjective. Furthermore, for me, that is not all we have.

I guess where we differ is that a religious person first needs to determine what God is in order to determine what a likeness of God and an image of God actually looks like.   To interpret God as love doesn't really mean much to me because the definition of love is still ambiguous - is love striking a child to correct 'wrong doing', is love using harsh words such as 'you fool' when trying to explain a point of view, is love having a tirade because of how you interpret some to be disrespecting your understanding of God, etc etc.  Is love executing somebody so as to give some peace to the victim or victim's family?  Is love stoning to death an adulterer?  What precisely do we determine as love and what does God look like to be called simply 'love'?  To me these terms of love and fully human seem to be rather loose and very much subject to interpretation (which perhaps explains why religion is so wide and varied).

Historically I get that many people have always looked toward something more to be as though what they are is not enough.  For me it doesn't make sense to look outside of our humanity but to simply understand that we are human and we have good eggs, bad eggs and many, many shades in between.  For me, all of us are fully human, including Hitler and others.  Some of these fully human qualities do not benefit the wider community but nonetheless, they are/we are fully human.  But it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

[PaulS]

2 hours ago, Burl said:

Everything that is alive grows, develops and changes.  A sapling is fully a tree yet it is not a tree.  

Agreed, and I think this may apply to terms such as fully human and love - these change throughout time depending on our very human cultural and societal developments.  What one considers today to be fully human, I expect may be very different to what one considered fully human back in Moses' day.

[PaulS]

4 hours ago, thormas said:

Would your stance be merely your subjective take or is your taking that stance also a living statement that the other stance is wrong?

It would be both - it would be subjective because it is my view based on my societal and cultural development.  Had I lived 2000 years ago I may have a very different stance.  It would also be a living statement that the other stance is wrong, because that's what I think.  But who am I to judge?

4 hours ago, thormas said:

So, to not show and live compassionate concern (i.e. love) for these people seems to be 'missing the mark' and a (temporary?) failure to self actualize (be the likeness of God, be Human).

To not show and live compassionate concern for me is only missing the mark in that it causes harm to the community I live in.  Once upon a time people didn't even consider this factor to be lacking compassion, so I doubt they would have considered it failure to self actualise in the likeness of God.  In fact, to the contrary, even today many people actually think they are self actualising in the likeness of God by hating gays.  It seems to me that their idea of fully human may differ from yours.  So who's right?

[thormas]

6 hours ago, PaulS said:

I guess where we differ

Really not that difficult for the major religions that cover millions the world over. For the Christian, it was presented in Jewish history, lived in Jesus and stated in John: God is Love. Rather self explanatory for most but also 'defined' as compassionate care as evidenced in the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son. Love, real love, is obvious and in spite of, for example, the husband who loves his wife by beating her, most know this is not love. 

So, for me, the terms are not loose at all and many of the answers to your questions are obvious.

Process philosophy speaks of an inner 'thrust' to be, to be better, to be best - not in competition with another or to have power over others, but to fully be (actualization). It is not 'looking toward something more to be' - rather it is the recognition that one must do to truly be. To play off your words: we don't look outside of our humanity, we realize the fullness of our possibility. 

Again, on one hand, we are all simply human (in that we are not, be it our good eggs,  our bad eggs or the in-between eggs, another species) but, on the other hand, (the fullness of) Human is realized and recognized by others as we move to self-less-ness. So, Hitler and the others are not seen as humans (in the latter sense) and this is acknowledged in our ordinary language: we call such people, Animals, Monsters, InHuman, etc.  - in our ordinary, everyday language, we strip them of the term Human because of the greatness of their self-centeredness. Human is something to do (Love) and if it is not done, in some real, recognizable way, one is not..........Human; one is not love. 

 

[thormas]

8 hours ago, PaulS said:

Agreed, and I think this may apply to terms such as fully human and love - these change throughout time depending on our very human cultural and societal developments.  What one considers today to be fully human, I expect may be very different to what one considered fully human back in Moses' day.

Actually there is an incredible consistency in love and as for fully human, although Moses didn't use such words, the reality is captured in the covenant: this particular people, evidenced by keeping the commandments (love), were the people of God. Therefore one is of the people of God and shares the life of God, one is truly Human (on the way, albeit inconsistent at times) and embodies God, when one lives by the great commandments, when one.........loves.

[thormas]

8 hours ago, PaulS said:

It would be both - it would be subjective because it is my view based on my societal and cultural development.  Had I lived 2000 years ago I may have a very different stance.  It would also be a living statement that the other stance is wrong, because that's what I think.  But who am I to judge?

To not show and live compassionate concern for me is only missing the mark in that it causes harm to the community I live in.  Once upon a time people didn't even consider this factor to be lacking compassion, so I doubt they would have considered it failure to self actualise in the likeness of God.  In fact, to the contrary, even today many people actually think they are self actualising in the likeness of God by hating gays.  It seems to me that their idea of fully human may differ from yours.  So who's right?

Agreed that 2k years ago, we might have thought differently but then again, as noted before, there was an evolution in religious understanding and in human consciousness/understanding. So it is merely subjective or a recognition of what is/should be in the treatment of others?

Certainly not 2k years ago but now, some indeed would consider such lack of compassion for others to be a failure to be (for others).

Finally, we both know that hating gays in no way is living the great commandments. They are simply wrong and have not yet seen it. If you thought they were right, you would be one of them.

[Iflybyyou]

whoa I'm gone for one week and the discussion has already developed so much further, I certainly have missed a lot.

[thormas]

6 hours ago, thormas said:

Agreed that 2k years ago, we might have thought differently but then again, as noted before, there was an evolution in religious understanding and in human consciousness/understanding. So it is merely subjective or a recognition of what is/should be in the treatment of others?

Certainly not 2k years ago but now, some indeed would consider such lack of compassion for others to be a failure to be (for others).

Finally, we both know that hating gays in no way is living the great commandments. They are simply wrong and have not yet seen it. If you thought they were right, you would be one of them.

To clarify, in the sentence, "They are simply wrong and have not yet seen it" the they are those who hate or discriminate against those who are LBGTQ.

[PaulS]

18 hours ago, thormas said:

Really not that difficult for the major religions that cover millions the world over. For the Christian, it was presented in Jewish history, lived in Jesus and stated in John: God is Love. Rather self explanatory for most but also 'defined' as compassionate care as evidenced in the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son. Love, real love, is obvious and in spite of, for example, the husband who loves his wife by beating her, most know this is not love. 

But for the Christian, just so we are clear, we are talking about the same God who wanted babies heads dashed against rocks, who wanted virgins from other tribes captured and kept as rape brides, who wanted adulterers stoned to death.  That God of Jewish history, which is love?  Or maybe people back then simply held a different ideal about God as to what you do in today's culture and society?

18 hours ago, thormas said:

So, for me, the terms are not loose at all and many of the answers to your questions are obvious.

I think if you have a particular view they are obvious. To me, they are not.

18 hours ago, thormas said:

Process philosophy speaks of an inner 'thrust' to be, to be better, to be best - not in competition with another or to have power over others, but to fully be (actualization). It is not 'looking toward something more to be' - rather it is the recognition that one must do to truly be. To play off your words: we don't look outside of our humanity, we realize the fullness of our possibility. 

Yet like you, process philosophy cannot point to what 'fully human' actually means to anybody in any real, practical sense.  It talks about being 'better', about not staying static, of which i agree with - all part of your fully human-ness as you are.  You seem to  use 'fully human' as a term for an ideal that you think we should be trying to meet, although you don't seem to be able to pin it down to any specification per se, more a general notion as I see it.  Commendable I'm sure, but accurate, I don't think so in my opinion.

18 hours ago, thormas said:

Again, on one hand, we are all simply human (in that we are not, be it our good eggs,  our bad eggs or the in-between eggs, another species) but, on the other hand, (the fullness of) Human is realized and recognized by others as we move to self-less-ness. So, Hitler and the others are not seen as humans (in the latter sense) and this is acknowledged in our ordinary language: we call such people, Animals, Monsters, InHuman, etc.  - in our ordinary, everyday language, we strip them of the term Human because of the greatness of their self-centeredness. Human is something to do (Love) and if it is not done, in some real, recognizable way, one is not..........Human; one is not love. 

 

The traits you like are just as much part of being fully human as the traits you don't like.  They are all part of being fully human - the good and the bad.  Hitler is and was very much seen as human (who doesn't see Hitler as human?) it's just that some of the traits he displayed were horrendous for community in this world.  To me one can be a better human who doesn't harm others, but that person is no more fully human than Hitler, in my book.  And we call people animals/monsters/inhuman  because we don't like the traits they are displaying - we don't want them to behave that way.  We, as a community, find it obnoxious and harmful.  But we still recognise they are human.

I don't disagree with you that we see better humans than others in this world, but this is based on our judgement of them and how we see them affecting our world.  As a species, our judgements and ways of reckoning these 'better' behaviours has changed throughout time, societies and cultures.

[PaulS]

18 hours ago, thormas said:

Actually there is an incredible consistency in love and as for fully human, although Moses didn't use such words, the reality is captured in the covenant: this particular people, evidenced by keeping the commandments (love), were the people of God. Therefore one is of the people of God and shares the life of God, one is truly Human (on the way, albeit inconsistent at times) and embodies God, when one lives by the great commandments, when one.........loves.

And when one doesn't 'love' God back as in the days of Moses, look out for the vengeful, jealous, wrathful God, that Moses and his mates saw as love?  The God who wanted babies killed, women raped, genocide committed and slavery institutionalised, all conducted in that God of love's name.  Yet, we don't think like that today, so I think the consistency is not there at all.

[PaulS]

18 hours ago, thormas said:

Agreed that 2k years ago, we might have thought differently but then again, as noted before, there was an evolution in religious understanding and in human consciousness/understanding. So it is merely subjective or a recognition of what is/should be in the treatment of others?

Evolution in religious understanding doesn't seem to reflect a consistency of understanding God as love.

18 hours ago, thormas said:

Finally, we both know that hating gays in no way is living the great commandments. They are simply wrong and have not yet seen it. If you thought they were right, you would be one of them.

Of course I would be one of them if I thought they were right - that is precisely my point.  One's view is based on one's own perception and the influences upon them.

I doubt it has taken 2000 years for us to wake up to the fact that hating gays is in no way living the great commandments.  Rather, it is a reflection of our culture outside of religious influence that has broken down the barriers finally to a point that religion has had to change its tune concerning the 'abomination' that is homosexuality.  You have grown up in this culture and society and so have been influenced by it - a good thing in my opinion.  But it just goes to show that these are not universal concepts understood for all time but rather they are cultural and societal attitudes that have changed over time.  So what I am pointing out is your view of what makes one 'fully human' differs from what others regard as fully human because of societal and culture influences.  It's not a case of they are wrong because they are missing the mark on love, but rather they are wrong because the rest of us have started to develop our cultures to a point where we say we don't want gay people treated as less than heteros (well, most of us do, a lot still don't).

[thormas]

4 hours ago, PaulS said:

But for the Christian, just so we are clear, we are talking about the same God who wanted babies heads dashed against rocks, who wanted virgins from other tribes captured and kept as rape brides, who wanted adulterers stoned to death.  That God of Jewish history, which is love?  Or maybe people back then simply held a different ideal about God as to what you do in today's culture and society?

Actually, no: first,, your statement ignores the evolution of religious thinking; second, your statement ignores that the Bible is human insight, not divine revelation; and, third, your statement (once again) ignores the 'new covenant' that is presented in the NT (the fullness of the God who is Love 'revealed' in Jesus). As I said, the God 'presented in Jewish history and lived (fully) in Jesus. I recognize that your statement supports your present (not former) belief, however it ignores the historical record. 

4 hours ago, PaulS said:

Yet like you, process philosophy cannot point to what 'fully human' actually means to anybody in any real, practical sense.  It talks about being 'better', about not staying static, of which i agree with - all part of your fully human-ness as you are.  You seem to  use 'fully human' as a term for an ideal that you think we should be trying to meet, although you don't seem to be able to pin it down to any specification per se, more a general notion as I see it.  Commendable I'm sure, but accurate, I don't think so in my opinion.

Quote

Just out of curiosity, which process philosopher or philosophers are you referring to?  Regardless, for the Christian, 'fully human' is easily defined: it is seen in the Christ. Here is man who embodies Love (i.e. God, divinity) in his actions, in his life, in his flesh. As we are called to do and be the same. Fully humans is an 'ideal' to be realized and it has been realized in Jesus (and others in history). I'm fine with the use of the word ideal, if it please you, but I prefer a 'reality' (even a possibility) to be actualized. Many times, such humans are obvious and known by their love. While some, probably like many of our Mothers, simply lived and were the embodiment of love that empowered us and our world to be. As mentioned, it seems obvious, that all of us don't become 'fully human' and that is where I mentioned different takes on when/how this occurs if it is not accomplished in this (one) lifetime. Love is not some general notion, actually it is specific and known when it is given (and sadly when it is not). 

5 hours ago, PaulS said:

 The traits you like are just as much part of being fully human as the traits you don't like.  They are all part of being fully human - the good and the bad.  Hitler is and was very much seen as human (who doesn't see Hitler as human?) it's just that some of the traits he displayed were horrendous for community in this world.  To me one can be a better human who doesn't harm others, but that person is no more fully human than Hitler, in my book.  And we call people animals/monsters/inhuman  because we don't like the traits they are displaying - we don't want them to behave that way.  We, as a community, find it obnoxious and harmful.  But we still recognise they are human.

I don't disagree with you that we see better humans than others in this world, but this is based on our judgement of them and how we see them affecting our world.  As a species, our judgements and ways of reckoning

I am simply saying that one, like a Hitler, has failed as a truly human being and this is recognized in our description of him. If by traits you mean behavior some of which is self-centered -  of course that is part of us. What I'm saying it is not the best part or if that part dominates both we and the world are less. It is love that needs to be the distinguishing quality (i.e. trait) that  belongs to the person and thus the world.

Nobody said Hitler was not a human (i.e. species); it was simply said he lacked what makes us Truly Human or if you  prefer Humane (having compassion or what I have called compassionate concern or love). And, in real ways, Hitler and others are recognized as being 'less' and the names (Monster, inhuman, animal, savage, etc.) given to them are 'evidence' of this recognition and their reality. A trait is a distinguishing quality or characteristic; such traits define the person. People don't use these names because merely because they don't like something that is merely displayed or a particular behavior; they use them because they best describe and name -  what the person is. A person who is rude might be obnoxious, a teenager who mocks and bullies others is harmful  - are you seriously saying Hitler was just an obnoxious guy who caused harm? He destroyed the world for untold millions! 

In any world, in any time Hitler would be a Monster and recognized as such, especially if you were one of the ones whose family, friends, world and self were being ravaged by such a human (species). All is not relative.

 

[thormas]

5 hours ago, PaulS said:

And when one doesn't 'love' God back as in the days of Moses, look out for the vengeful, jealous, wrathful God, that Moses and his mates saw as love?  The God who wanted babies killed, women raped, genocide committed and slavery institutionalised, all conducted in that God of love's name.  Yet, we don't think like that today, so I think the consistency is not there at all.

see above

[thormas]

5 hours ago, PaulS said:

Evolution in religious understanding doesn't seem to reflect a consistency of understanding God as love.

Quote

Well two things: if we are talking about an evolution in understanding, then it follows this would entail changes in understanding (so we would expect some inconsistency). Second, the very idea of the constancy of God's love is part and parcel of Abraham and his decedents being 'chosen' by God, as are the many 'acts' of God throughout what is called salvation history until the fulfillment of that covenant in Jesus as Messiah, at least in the Jewish followers of Jesus who were also the 'first' generation of Christians (so we also have consistency). 

5 hours ago, PaulS said:

I doubt it has taken 2000 years for us to wake up to the fact that hating gays is in no way living the great commandments.  Rather, it is a reflection of our culture outside of religious influence that has broken down the barriers finally to a point that religion has had to change its tune concerning the 'abomination' that is homosexuality.  You have grown up in this culture and society and so have been influenced by it - a good thing in my opinion.  But it just goes to show that these are not universal concepts understood for all time but rather they are cultural and societal attitudes that have changed over time.  So what I am pointing out is your view of what makes one 'fully human' differs from what others regard as fully human because of societal and culture influences.  It's not a case of they are wrong because they are missing the mark on love, but rather they are wrong because the rest of us have started to develop our cultures to a point where we say we don't want gay people treated as less than heteros (well, most of us do, a lot still don't).

Actually it probably has. Many point to the OT and Paul (thus the NT) for 'evidence' that God is against LBGTQ people. 

And we could of course also go back and see that the 'culture outside of our religion' was also (first?) influenced and determined by religious belief.

Evolution in religious understanding and evolution in human consciousness - not merely relative, but it does take time to get to the (absolute) truth.

[romansh]

On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 5:29 PM, thormas said:

Would your stance be merely your subjective take or is your taking that stance also a living statement that the other stance is wrong?

So, to not show and live compassionate concern (i.e. love) for these people seems to be 'missing the mark' and a (temporary?) failure to self actualize (be the likeness of God, be Human).

Speaking personally … my stance, whether objective or subjective, is a confabulation as a result of my genetics and my societal influences. Both, genetics and societal influences, effectively are my environment. Both temporally displaced in time, societal influences over generations, genetics over billions of years.

Interestingly, if mankind is made in God's image, then God should wear some responsibility, warts n' all. 

You continually ascribe to God, as what you see subjectively, as positives in humans. Then you say we should be more like your ascribed God to be Truly Human^©. Not a coherent argument.

[romansh]

On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 7:47 PM, Burl said:

Everything that is alive grows, develops and changes.  A sapling is fully a tree yet it is not a tree.  

Again ... a tree is more like a verb than a noun.   

Just because we treat it as noun does not negate that the tree is the universe in action. And for the benefit of thormas … The universe in Action.