Should one hate one's enemies?

Quote: Evenbob

This is a sore point for my wife.

This is a sore spot for every protestant I can imagine. However, I do agree there were and still are today many heretics.

Quote: FrGamble

This is a sore spot for every protestant I can imagine. However, I do agree there were and still are today many heretics.

Wow, your Catholic arrogance is showing. As far
as the heretics, my wife's church argues that
they were the true believers and were persecuted
for it. To me, they were all a bunch of superstitious
kooks, I don't see a whits difference between any
of them. Nor do I today. A Christian is a Christian,
who cares what flavor they are. That only matters
to them, it's meaningless to us on the outside, where
the air is clean and fresh.

I wish more Christians had some of the same thoughts you have about the differences. What separates us is fairly small compared to all we agree upon.

Quote: FrGamble

I wish more Christians had some of the same thoughts you have about the differences. What separates us is fairly small compared to all we agree upon.

There are no differences between any of the
god worshiping religions. You all worship
a figment of your imagination. They just
look different because the figments don't
agree.

In an attempt to rescue this thread I'm going to turn the other cheek and attempt to love you.

Quote: FrGamble

In an attempt to rescue this thread I'm going to turn the other cheek and attempt to love you.

That's just creepy, dude. You don't realize it,
but you just mocked your own religion. Do
you even see that? Probably the most real
thing you've expressed so far. There is hope
for you after all.

Quote: FrGamble

I'm sorry I am in the midst of moving and haven't been able to follow threads too closely or respond timely.

Nothing to worry about, though you give me a chance to refine previous posts (and who knows how far I can go with that).

Quote:

The basic and fundamental moral law for all Christians is the inestimable dignity of every human person. Every human person regardless of their race, sex, color, creed, sexual orientation, crime, health, etc. is a child of God infinitely loved by our Heavenly Father.

I regret to open this way. What you've said is completely meaningless in this context. Not literally meaningless, but rather not relevant. What it means is no one is, can be or should be left out of the church. This sounds good, until you consider the implications. You'd expect a criminal to regret their crime and repent. Why not demand or expect the same from others you "accept"? And that's where things become meaningless.

Years ago in a different message board, one of your people, or at least he claimed to be Catholic, took it upon himself to post incessantly about how much he loved me. He never addressed a single such post to me, but rather referred to me in the third person. Of course he used the pronoun "he" when he did so, and posted long lectures on how "he needs to accept his body that God gave him," and other such vitriol.

I loved that board, but this guy made it completely unpleasant and intolerable. if only there had been a block function then.

You may call that love. I call it naked aggression.

Quote:

However, I am not sure how the transgendered(*) community thinks of gender neutral bathrooms.

How would you feel about being given separate but equal facilities?

Quote:

In regards to those who love each other who are of the same-sex I see no reason why a government following Christian morality would not grant those couples the legal status and rights they would want.

I believe you.

I also note you do not say you are for marriage equality.

I have heard some Christians say they would favor giving same sex couples the same rights as married straight couples, so long as they don't call it marriage. but when you dig deeper you find why "separate but equal" means "second class citizenship."

Quote:

When it comes to children I think it makes sense to try first and foremost to allow every child to have a mom and a dad. I have seen and continue to see in my own parish amazing same-sex couples and single parents raise wonderful children and I have seen married couples do an awful job. However, I think the default that nature and nature's God has clearly set up is that it is best for a child to be raised by their biological mother and father who are in an unbreakable covenant of love called marriage.

There's a bank here that has a line for "premium" customers. The way they worked it for a time was the people in that line were served first, regardless of how many people were in the regular line. This meant that as few as four "premium" clients could hold up a line of as many as 25 regular customers for as long as half an hour. Of course later they changed this.

The point of this story is to illustrate how same sex couples could be deprived of the ability to adopt, despite being fit parents, if God's most favored couples are given preference. Even if only fit parents are chosen from either set. And while I regard the slippery slope argument as mostly fallacious, this also points to how same sex couples could be deprived of their natural born children as well (it doesn't take a large mental leap, try it).

I'm sure that's not what you're advocating, but it's a flaw in your presentation.

Quote:

Finally, I am not sure where you get the idea that Christian morality would call the GBLT community "mentally ill".

Recently a poll showed up in which a majority of respondents deemed transgender issues to be either morally acceptable or not a moral issue. The Christian journalist editorializing on this, made a point to say the poll did not ask whether transgender people are mentally ill. Pointing out that mental illness is not a moral issue.

This is a modern variant of "love." You label someone as "ill" and naturally you're a saint if you provide them with a "cure."

It's not as good, though. that's why when a few years back, only hardcore fanatics praised a study that found "conservatives" to be mentally ill (their ideology being the symptom, of course). And I don't have to resort to George Orwell here. Communist nations in the XX Century misused psychiatry to "treat" dissidents. It's no better when used in western countries due to religious prejudices, and misguidedly defended on First amendment grounds.

Quote:

The ones who claim to believe in no God are far more worse than any claiming to act in God's name.

There is no difference in principle. If you're burned at the stake for refusing to convert to a religion, you're just as dead as if you were guillotined for counterrevolutionary activities. The difference is the latter won't tell you they're killing you out of love.

Quote:

I find it really amazing that you and others keep dragging up the distant past as if the Catholic Church or Christians in general were chomping at the bit to force people to believe and conform to their way of thinking. Take a look around in the real world and ask yourself who is really desiring to force their beliefs and ideas on others right here and now?

When you pass a law recognizing marital rights for same sex couples, you're not forcing anyone to do anything. When you pass one to forbid such recognition, you're forcing a lot of people, besides same sex couples, into a great deal of trouble.


(*) Minor point. the correct term is transgender, NOT transgendered.

Quote: FrGamble

I find it really amazing that you and others keep dragging up the distant past as if the Catholic Church or Christians in general were chomping at the bit to force people to believe and conform to their way of thinking. Take a look around in the real world and ask yourself who is really desiring to force their beliefs and ideas on others right here and now?

This deserves a detailed answer.

I really don't have to go to the distant past, or to the past at all. The vast majority of the arguments against marriage equality, in the US and elsewhere, are based on Christianity. You know, that Christianity defines marriage as "between one man and one woman." Going into the very recent past, say the late 90s, the majority of opposition to the GLBTI community was reduced to the idiot meme that "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

I'm not familiar with the arguments for segregation, but there is a Christian argument for it. How prevalent it was, i don't know. It completely ignores evolution, too, which is not surprising. The gist is that God created the races in different places and he therefore meant to keep them separate. One wonders at a deity who then provides no mean to stop travel between places, or which placed these separate "races" within walking distance of each other.

In the not-too-recent past, but within close historical distance, slavery was opposed by Christians through religious arguments. But it was also supported by Christians through religious arguments. A religion which brags about being the only source of morality, should do better than to equivocate with such fundamental questions.

In the main I oppose anti-discrimination laws, because all law is force, therefore we should have as little as is consistent with the morally appropriate use of force. Yet when a minority faces such prejudice that discrimination becomes life-threatening, would seem to be a place and time for such kinds of laws. This is a complicated topic. I also very strongly oppose discrimination, because it tends to go hand-in-hand with oppression.

Imagine the following: because of what you are, not something you've done or do, very few people are willing to: hire you, provide medical care, sell you goods or services, allow you into their establishments, let you rent housing, etc. How would you feel? would you seek some kind of legal redress?

All that being said, I'm opposed to same sex couples taking bakeries, florists, photographers, etc. to court over a refusal to provide their services for a same sex wedding. It does seem like imposing one's views on them. And yet, it strikes me as infantile to refuse such services in the first place.

I assume this last comes from a sense, explicit or implicit, not to grant a moral sanction to something they're opposed to.

Believe it or not, I can sympathize with that. I also think it's being taken to a ridiculous extent. A bakery refusing a service will do absolutely nothing to stop a single same sex marriage. And I will not point out many inconsistencies (such as providing a wedding cake to people you don't know, and probably cannot know, you disapprove of).

Still, what would society at large, on both sides of the party divide, think of a contractor who refused to provide a service for an Asian couple, or for an interracial couple, or for a couple involving a handicapped person, or a Jew, or a Gypsy, or a Mexican?

Now think what the reaction would have been ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, etc years ago.

I've been cheated and stolen from many times. The philosophy I go by to let go of the anger is "It is better to be cheated than to cheat another." Do I forgive those who have done me wrong? Hell no! However, I don't go off seeking revenge or stewing in anger either. I do my best to let it go.

Quote: Wizard

However, I don't go off seeking revenge or stewing in anger either. I do my best to let it go.

At the risk of being banned for life, I know different about a part of it.

But I'm not talking about revenge or anger. I'm talking about survival, freedom and the ability to live more or less in reasonable security.

Look, suppose a few years ago, when you were making your living by analyzing games, a vocal minority were advocating for outlawing all gambling. Would you love or hate such enemies? Would you fight them?