QFEBertster7 wrote:
I have no problem with openly gay priests, that's fine by me. But to condemn homosexuality whilst paying for butt sex is just wrong. Would you want a lying, whoring, meth smoking priest around your kids? I certainly wouldn't. That's totally aside from the gayness, the only part of which bothers me is his hypocrisy.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Megachurch Pastor Caught In Gay Sex Scandal
Even it's not possible, how can you use that sig? Lol.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
QFEBertster7 wrote:
I have no problem with openly gay priests, that's fine by me. But to condemn homosexuality whilst paying for butt sex is just wrong. Would you want a lying, whoring, meth smoking priest around your kids? I certainly wouldn't. That's totally aside from the gayness, the only part of which bothers me is his hypocrisy.
Ok, so it's hypocrisy and lying. Who says those things are wrong? Don't we have the freedom to do what we want in our enlightened modern society? Whose to tell us what we can and can't do? "Well, we have to have some standards", you say. Why? "For the good of society", you say. What if he doesn't care about the good of society? There's no objective standard, his truth is as good as ours. How do we determine he's wrong?
Anyone that posted more than twice in this thread is probably gay.
But thats great news about the evangelical guy looking like a fool. Thanks for posting.
But thats great news about the evangelical guy looking like a fool. Thanks for posting.
and? what's the point?
ecdit: (to the op, not the above)
ecdit: (to the op, not the above)
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-11-03 18:18:31)
Because as a pastor he has a double moral obligation with his followers. He preaches against gays, and he is one of them. If he wanna be a gay, fine, but don't tell other people that if they are gay the Lord will punish them with an eternity in hell.Stingray24 wrote:
Ok, so it's hypocrisy and lying. Who says those things are wrong? Don't we have the freedom to do what we want in our enlightened modern society? Whose to tell us what we can and can't do? "Well, we have to have some standards", you say. Why? "For the good of society", you say. What if he doesn't care about the good of society? There's no objective standard, his truth is as good as ours. How do we determine he's wrong?
Perhaps I should further clarify what I'm asking of non-religious people. You do not believe the Bible is the source of morality and truth, so from what source did you determine this man's actions were wrong?
From mine.Stingray24 wrote:
Perhaps I should further clarify what I'm asking of non-religious people. You do not believe the Bible is the source of morality and truth, so from what source did you determine this man's actions were wrong?
I know... You don't like moral relativism. I don't either. I realize that each of us has our own basis for ethics, and that society has to come up with some collective range of ethics.Stingray24 wrote:
Ok, so it's hypocrisy and lying. Who says those things are wrong? Don't we have the freedom to do what we want in our enlightened modern society? Whose to tell us what we can and can't do? "Well, we have to have some standards", you say. Why? "For the good of society", you say. What if he doesn't care about the good of society? There's no objective standard, his truth is as good as ours. How do we determine he's wrong?
However, when approaching this from a practical angle, can't we agree that most of us are against hypocrisy and lying?
Last edited by Turquoise (2006-11-03 18:14:41)
Well... I believe it came from society itself. The ethics you are raised with determine what you feel is wrong and right. Granted, many people modify these ethics later in life.Stingray24 wrote:
Perhaps I should further clarify what I'm asking of non-religious people. You do not believe the Bible is the source of morality and truth, so from what source did you determine this man's actions were wrong?
For example, I was raised Methodist, but I converted to atheism as a teenager. I kept the Christian morals that made sense to me, but I dropped the ones that didn't. I don't have to believe in the Bible to support the notion that lying is wrong.
about the same number as atheist leaders down undermaffiaw wrote:
just wondering, do evangelicals have a large following in the US?
And suddenly a Christian Pastor who probably campaigned against gay rights, and certainly was part of an organisation that excludes gays, comes out as gay. What's not to laugh about?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Kinda hypocritical, given how much time they spend pushing for gay rights and respect.
There's no such thing as an atheist leader genius.Riddick51PB wrote:
about the same number as atheist leaders down under
Start with Prisoner's Dilemma, and work forward.Stingray24 wrote:
from what source did you determine this man's actions were wrong?
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-11-03 18:32:19)
Really? Man, I should move to Australia....Riddick51PB wrote:
about the same number as atheist leaders down undermaffiaw wrote:
just wondering, do evangelicals have a large following in the US?
I think he meant a leader without a religion, not a leader of a nonexistent atheist congregation.Bubbalo wrote:
There's no such thing as an atheist leader genius.Riddick51PB wrote:
about the same number as atheist leaders down under
Someone wake up with an acid humor. Lol.Bubbalo wrote:
And suddenly a Christian Pastor who probably campaigned against gay rights, and certainly was part of an organisation that excludes gays, comes out as gay. What's not to laugh about?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Kinda hypocritical, given how much time they spend pushing for gay rights and respect.There's no such thing as an atheist leader genius.Riddick51PB wrote:
about the same number as atheist leaders down underStart with Prisoner's Dilemma, and work forward.Stingray24 wrote:
from what source did you determine this man's actions were wrong?
Which is a stupid thing to say since that includes everyone.Turquoise wrote:
I think he meant a leader without a religion, not a leader of a nonexistent atheist congregation.Bubbalo wrote:
There's no such thing as an atheist leader genius.Riddick51PB wrote:
about the same number as atheist leaders down under
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-11-03 18:49:32)
It happens yet again - preach hate towards "teh Gays" and behind it all their out paying to be fabulous
Religious hypocisy!!!? You can't be serious!
So reminiscent of Paul Berry here from the DUP and his sports massage -
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-11-04 06:25:16)
You hit the nail on the head, moral relativism is a cancer in our nation. Our society seems to find such enjoyment in believing nothing. Everyone has their own version of truth and if I dare express my values as an objective standard, I am intolerant. So, our society is tolerant of any view as long as it doesn't position itself as a standard, weird.Turquoise wrote:
I know... You don't like moral relativism. I don't either. I realize that each of us has our own basis for ethics, and that society has to come up with some collective range of ethics.Stingray24 wrote:
Ok, so it's hypocrisy and lying. Who says those things are wrong? Don't we have the freedom to do what we want in our enlightened modern society? Whose to tell us what we can and can't do? "Well, we have to have some standards", you say. Why? "For the good of society", you say. What if he doesn't care about the good of society? There's no objective standard, his truth is as good as ours. How do we determine he's wrong?
However, when approaching this from a practical angle, can't we agree that most of us are against hypocrisy and lying?
Yes, we can agree we’re against hypocrisy and lying. Both are a natural part of human nature when we throw our values to the side in favor of selfishness.
True, you don't have to believe in the Bible to support that lying is wrong. But without at least subconsciously agreeing with the biblical teaching that lying is wrong, we would think nothing of lying. We could’ve dropped that one, too, if we felt it didn’t make sense. Sorry if I’m getting too philosophical. This could go much deeper, but I don’t know if everyone wants to think that hard. Thanks for your thoughtful responses.Turquoise wrote:
Well... I believe it came from society itself. The ethics you are raised with determine what you feel is wrong and right. Granted, many people modify these ethics later in life.Stingray24 wrote:
Perhaps I should further clarify what I'm asking of non-religious people. You do not believe the Bible is the source of morality and truth, so from what source did you determine this man's actions were wrong?
For example, I was raised Methodist, but I converted to atheism as a teenager. I kept the Christian morals that made sense to me, but I dropped the ones that didn't. I don't have to believe in the Bible to support the notion that lying is wrong.
Last edited by Stingray24 (2006-11-04 07:07:01)
really? how do you spell Delusional? I leanrt that telling lies was wrong through the story about the boy who cried wolf, what part of the bible was that taken from?But without at least subconsciously agreeing with the biblical teaching that lying is wrong, you would think nothing of lying.
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-11-04 07:14:39)
This is a philosophical discussion here, you can leave the word delusional out. We're discussing truth and where it comes from, which I feel is rather important. Turquoise and I have been exchanging thoughtful posts, I'd appreciate the same from you.IG-Calibre wrote:
really? how do you spell Delusional? I leanrt that telling lies was wrong through the story about the boy who cried wolf, what part of the bible was that taken from?But without at least subconsciously agreeing with the biblical teaching that lying is wrong, you would think nothing of lying.
Even if you learned your values from that childhood story, the author didn't make those up on his own, the values communicated in that book came from biblical principles.
Hence why I believe you're delusional - while there is merit on the discussion that "truth" may be derived from the"bible", truth is not an exclusively biblical principle, nor, does one subconsciously agree with biblical teachings, more so perhaps share a universal understanding of "truth" with those who derive it's meaning from a biblical source, but it is not a prerequisite to accept the biblical interpretation of it thus. k? OK.. and if you want to conduct a private discussion us PM'sStingray24 wrote:
This is a philosophical discussion here, you can leave the word delusional out. We're discussing truth and where it comes from, which I feel is rather important. Turquoise and I have been exchanging thoughtful posts, I'd appreciate the same from you.IG-Calibre wrote:
really? how do you spell Delusional? I leanrt that telling lies was wrong through the story about the boy who cried wolf, what part of the bible was that taken from?But without at least subconsciously agreeing with the biblical teaching that lying is wrong, you would think nothing of lying.
Even if you learned your values from that childhood story, the author didn't make those up on his own, the values communicated in that book came from biblical principles.
I agree with your sentiment, but it is the law that is essentially a "moral standard" for society. Lying is definitely illegal in many cases: perjury, libel, slander. Hypocrisy isn't specifically illegal, but I think you can safely assume it's looked down upon in most cultures.Stingray24 wrote:
You hit the nail on the head, moral relativism is a cancer in our nation. Our society seems to find such enjoyment in believing nothing. Everyone has their own version of truth and if I dare express my values as an objective standard, I am intolerant. So, our society is tolerant of any view as long as it doesn't position itself as a standard, weird.
Yes, we can agree we’re against hypocrisy and lying. Both are a natural part of human nature when we throw our values to the side in favor of selfishness.
Thanks for yours as well. I'll just respond by saying that things like lying and hypocrisy are regarded negatively by almost every culture -- many of which have no connection to the Bible. Aborigines in Australia even looked down upon these things before Europeans contacted them (and killed most of them).Stingray24 wrote:
True, you don't have to believe in the Bible to support that lying is wrong. But without at least subconsciously agreeing with the biblical teaching that lying is wrong, we would think nothing of lying. We could’ve dropped that one, too, if we felt it didn’t make sense. Sorry if I’m getting too philosophical. This could go much deeper, but I don’t know if everyone wants to think that hard. Thanks for your thoughtful responses.
A lot of the Ten Commandments are universal. The ones that don't specifically mention God are still supported by cultures that developed entirely independently of Judaism and Christianity. Where we get this universal morality from is anyone's guess, but I would assume that the logistics of society dictate them. For example, a society that thinks casual murder is ok is not going to last very long.
Morality does not come from the Bible. That is just nonsense. The Bible was a useful tool for promoting morality in the past, but it is certainly not where morals come from. Anyone who thinks Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, came up with morals then they need their head examined. Another, older, book about morality is Ethics by Plato - a much better book than the Bible, because it is based on logic and reason not blind faith.IG-Calibre wrote:
Hence why I believe you're delusional - while there is merit on the discussion that "truth" may be derived from the"bible", truth is not an exclusively biblical principle, nor, does one subconsciously agree with biblical teachings, more so perhaps share a universal understanding of "truth" with those who derive it's meaning from a biblical source, but it is not a prerequisite to accept the biblical interpretation of it thus. k?Stingray24 wrote:
This is a philosophical discussion here, you can leave the word delusional out. We're discussing truth and where it comes from, which I feel is rather important. Turquoise and I have been exchanging thoughtful posts, I'd appreciate the same from you.IG-Calibre wrote:
really? how do you spell Delusional? I leanrt that telling lies was wrong through the story about the boy who cried wolf, what part of the bible was that taken from?
Even if you learned your values from that childhood story, the author didn't make those up on his own, the values communicated in that book came from biblical principles.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Megachurch Pastor Caught In Gay Sex Scandal