hey Todd, i was wondering a couple of things. First, when you mentioned that Rick Warren equates homosexuality with beastiality and something else i have forgotten it made me wonder, "How do you feel about beastiality and why if you don't mind?" Second if you have time sometime check out my video called "do you believe or know for Atheist and Christians?"
This is very interesting to me. And no I am not asking why it should be illegal. Your statement in your video and your reply here using the word "nauseating" is of great interest to me. I am assuming per your video that you think homosexuality is ok and that you are not nauseated to think about any adult sexual union of members of any sex or possibly even number of participants. So you have made a moral judgement based on what you think is right. Well that opens up a big ole can of worms.
Possibly you are saying that two men or two women or three or more in any combination deserve certain rights that could be afforded by our society. But possibly on the other hand you are saying that a guy with a "pet" monkey who wants these sqame rights does not deserve them. And before you start down the road of saying that animals do not willingly have sex with humans think again there are some that will. The most common example that comes to me is that just about any male animal that is
> But possibly on the other hand you are saying that a guy with a "pet" monkey who wants these same rights does not deserve them. And before you start down the road of saying that animals do not willingly have sex with humans think again there are some that will.
When the harmful effects of a certain behavior are clear and uncontroversial—murder, theft, rape—it's no surprise that different societies all over the world unite in making them crimes.
When the harmful effects of a certain behavior are debatable—such as prostitution, smoking marijuana, and I suppose we could put the distasteful "has sex with willing animals" in this category—then it's no surprise that different societies all over the world will differ in making them crimes or not.
Prostitution and pot-smoking are legal in some areas. I suppose "sex with willing animals" might be legal in some parts of the world ... but it's not a subject I care to investigate!
Okay, gay MALE sex seems to be more likely to spread disease—but gay FEMALE sex spreads not only less disease than gay male sex, but even less disease than heterosexual sex!
So I don't know where those statistics would take you if you wanted to use them as a legal basis: restrict male gay sex, but encourage female gay sex?
But I also admit to not investigating the subject in any depth. So if I came across evidence that homosexuality IS destructive, then yes, I would agree that legal restrictions should be applied.
As for evidence that bestiality is destructive to society, I'll leave that distasteful subject for others to investigate: life's too short! (So I hope you won't be insulted if I take a break from this subject: family duties are calling.)
> I am assuming per your video that you think homosexuality is ok and that you are not nauseated to think about any adult sexual union of members of any sex or possibly even number of participants.
I just don't see any reason that homosexual unions should get less legal protection than heterosexual.
And true, I don't see any reason why consulting—and well-protected—adults shouldn't be allowed to have group sex. (But I'm not sure how this topic is even relevant.)
> So you have made a moral judgement based on what you think is right. Well that opens up a big ole can of worms.
I don't think calling something nauseating is necessarily a "moral judgment."
I find scooping extra sugar on Cap'n Crunch nauseating too, but I don't think it's immoral.
The video I made on the "pre-human, and pre-religion, roots of morality" only have to do with traits such as caring, compassion, and reciprocal altruism.
well i sure read your comment the wrong way then and now i wonder why you chose the word "nauseating" in the first place. So now you are saying beastiality is not immoral?
well i sure read your comment the wrong way then and now i wonder why you chose the word "nauseating" in the first place. So now you are saying beastiality is not immoral?
"Nauseating" doesn't *necessary* = immoral. Again, adding a half cup of sugar to Cap'N Crunch is nauseating to me, but not immoral.
I would say raping a child is immoral because of the great harm inflicted. For a man to have intercourse with a chicken probably destroys the bird's insides, so I feel that shows something of a violent indifference to creature suffering. So if we're counting "violent indifference to creature suffering" as immoral, so would this form of bestiality.
If someone wants to masturbate a monkey and the monkey likes it, well, I'm no psychiatrist, but I think the human probably has some weird mental health issues . . . and maybe I'd call it "sick" in an informal sense of the word but I don't know that I'd call it immoral. Anyway, I fail to see the relevancy of all this.
Lets's go back to the original question here because i feel like you are squirming around on the point a little. Now the reason i asked you how you felt about beasiality was not because i wanted to know if you were interested or if you thought it was legal. The reason was because in your video when you mentioned Rick Warren equating homosexuality with beastiality and incest you did so in a tone that implied (in a way i think you would be hard pressed to deny) that you thought that
comparison was ridiculous. Therby indicating that you have made a moral judgement on people involved in all three deviances and somehow decided that one (homosexuality) was okay but that the other two were not. I think it is because you know that i was trying to get you to tell me on what grounds you made that judgement that you started squirming. You know this as well as i; if there is no absolute right and wrong then everything is either right or wrong. But of course you cannot admit this
to your self much less anyone else (especially not a Christian) because it would undermine your whole belief system (religion). In the future you should try to control your language in your videos and use more of a poker face if you do not want people to realize that you to judge and have distinct ideas of right and wrong. Because once they know that they will undoubtedly want to know what is your moral standard. If it is anything less than the absolute you are on shaky ground.That'sThePoint.
> when you mentioned Rick Warren equating homosexuality with beastiality and incest you did so in a tone that implied that you thought that comparison was ridiculous.
From my secular perspective, yes, I do think the comparison is ridiculous.
> Therby indicating that you have made a moral judgement on people involved in all three deviances and somehow decided that one (homosexuality) was okay but that the other two were not.
I no longer agree, because we're not using the word "immoral" in the same way. I use the word—for better or worse—in a way that means "destructive to society."
Deviance #2: Giving a hand job to a willing monkey: someone who may need psychiatric help, but we'd need a broader definition of "immoral" than simply "destructive to society" before we can properly call it immoral.
Deviance #3: Rick Warren equating homosexuality with bestiality: from a secular perspective, I think it's ridiculous—but I know Warren is speaking from his religious belief that "God forbids homosexuality just like He forbids bestiality." So Warren is only echoing what he thinks the Big Boss is saying.
So Warren's statement is complex: it may be invoking hatred toward gay people and is thus destructive in that way, but if I look at it from his perspective, I would agree that Warren is doing the right thing: he's reminding us of the directions from God. (That is, what Warren perceives to be God. The bible is what I perceive to be the writings of ancient people: a 100% human effort on a level comparable to Hinduism's Rig Veda.)
> if there is no absolute right and wrong then everything is either right or wrong.
The general principle of right and wrong is guided by those things that are destructive or helpful to the well-being of a community.
Thus it's no surprise that societies everywhere forbid destructive acts like murder, rape, and theft (at least within their own community)—regardless of which religion they do or don't follow.
And as circumstances vary, so do the particular rules. This is not "squirming," but real life.
Even the character in the Bible called Jehovah adapts to circumstances: he rewards the Egyptian midwives for lying (when they tell lies about why they can't kill all the Hebrew babies as directed), and Jehovah even directs the murders of hundreds of thousands of women and children of the Promised Land's previous occupants and the theft of all their property (for God's Greater Good).
> it [morality is] anything less than absolute you are on shaky ground. That'sThePoint.
I believe I've explained how morals can have a foundation, but allow for variations due to circumstances.
But what are your "absolute" standards? Honesty regardless of circumstances? Compassion for fellow humans regardless of circumstances? Honoring parents regardless of circumstances? Be careful to pick ones that the Bible *never* contradicts.
I don't want to distract you from the current topic, but there is a difference in ,do not bear false wittness and do not lie. And even if there were not the Top two commandments trump any other interpretation of a rule; love the Lord with all you got and your neigbor as yourself.
As for why God has done anything He has done i think it better that you should find out from Him yourself and that day is coming.
> there is a difference in do not bear false wittness and do not lie
Agreed. So I take it that you also agree that the God you think exists DOES approve of lying if to serve a greater good.
> i think it better that you should find out from Him yourself and that day is coming
If a god (be it Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, etc.) made "Himself" known to me than I certainly would! I would certainly not want to fall out of favor with the Creator of the Universe.
>Agreed. So I take it that you also agree that the God you think exists DOES approve of lying if to serve a greater good.
What you fail to realize is that we like God sometimes have to choose the least of two evils. To me that does not automatically make the least evil righteous.
>If a god (be it Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, etc.) made "Himself" known to me than I certainly would! I would certainly not want to fall out of favor with the Creator of the Universe. He has and will again.
>The general principle of right and wrong is guided by those things that are destructive or helpful to the well-being of a community.
This cannot be right because if it were then what we did to the peoople who lived here before us would be ok. The same way what hitler did would have been ok and i think we can agree that was definitely wrong. By an absolute standard non the less.
> This cannot be right because if it were then what we did to the peoople who lived here before us would be ok. The same way what hitler did would have been ok and i think we can agree that was definitely wrong. By an absolute standard non the less.
Genocide is definitely destructive to society as a whole - so yes - definitely wrong.
You misunderstand Warren and Christianity. He does not hate homosexuals and would tell anyone he could that they should not hate homosexuals. We are the ones who say love your neighbor as yourself; the homosexual is our neighbor. What Rick and the rest of us, who love Jesus, hate is sin. Homosexuality is a sin, the penalty for sin is death, God hates death and has provided an escape for the homosexual from the penalty because He loves them and wants them to be saved.
> He does not hate homosexuals and would tell anyone he could that they should not hate homosexuals.
I agree that I probably should not have used the phrase "invoking hatred toward homosexuals." Yes, he's just pointing out that the ancient text he believes was inspired by a Creator calls homosexuality a sin.
Exactly, Warren is dealing with absolute morals handed down from his Creator. You are dealing with your morals, which will vary day to day depending on what you happen to be thinking at the time, and possibly on how your digestion is going. As i said you are on shaky or non existent ground. That is the point.
>I no longer agree, because we're not using the word "immoral" in the same way. I use the word—for better or worse—in a way that means "destructive to society."
That sounds kind of communist. Is it all about the collective with you like it has been with so many Atheist before you? What about individual morality? Or does the individual matter at all?
The reason it is relevant is because if they legalize homosexual marriage then the next thing that will happen is some group of people will want to get married and don't tell me they won't.
> The reason it is relevant is because if they legalize homosexual marriage then the next thing that will happen is some group of people will want to get married and don't tell me they won't.
I know of a guy who—in protest to gay marriage—went to apply for a marriage license to wed his horse!
He was turned down not because of bestiality, but because the horse was underage!!
In response to your comment about not responding to me further that is ok and i did not really expect you to do what you said and watch or comment on this video either. Rest assured we will meet again only there will be no need for debate at that time.
Indeed the attempt to reduce AIDS transmission is a noble goal but the idea of compromising on the war on drugs is ridiculous.
The war on drugs results in hundreds of thousands of non-violent offenders being shoehorned into overcrowded prisons, increases in drug abuse and small scale civil geurilla wars between gangs.
But you already know that...
How can society ever improve if it's perpetuated on a web of ackward lies?
> Very astute ...i respect and admire your articulation and dedication to research.
Thanks! And the research for this video---and just settling on a focus---took much longer than I thought it would. I guessed that it would take 2 weeks, but it ended up taking 2 months.
Through these videos i've actualy learned quite a bit about where pres. Obamanation really stands as a Christian. Makes me wonder if he's that much of a fake and a lier concerning his faith, how deceptive will he be on the world stage? The pure blasphemy of appointing a gay bishop to swear him in on the holy bible had been, I thought, all I needed to see! But now seeing & understanding his mockery of the Bible & the extent he goes to to blaspheme Gods words & principles!
> Makes me wonder if he's that much of a fake and a lier concerning his faith, how deceptive will he be on the world stage?
First, I only *suspect* that he's faking it. But there are also millions of "moderate Christians" out there---who pick & choose which passages of the Bible to follow---and for all I know, Obama could well be one of them. So I don't "know" that he's lying (but yes, I suspect it!).
Second, defending lies & fakery is tricky business ... but at the same time, I think there *are* situations in which telling a lie is the lesser evil. Take, for example, the Germans who were hiding Anne Frank & family. Should they have "just been honest" with Nazi stormtroopers who were hunting down Jews?
This may seem like an extreme example, but I think it's comparable.
The ugly real-life result of presidential candidates being honest about their religious beliefs is that nontheists don't get into office, and true-believing (with all their accompanying irrationality---okay, I'm operating via my non-theist bias!) Christians are the only ones elected.
But even as a Christian (which I assume that you are), do you really want leaders who think that God has spoke to them? And that God has told them to invade other countries? Sarah Palin & George W. Bush, after all, have both said that the invasion of Iraq was part of "God's war." Wouldn't you worry about a leader who might say "Now God is telling me we need to invade North Korea!"? Isn't it better to have a leader who relies on evidence and logic?
Plus, Obama is certainly not hostile to religion and seeks to include the devout whenever possible, even when it annoys "anti-theist" activists---such as the way Obama gave such a prominent position to Rick Warren during the inauguration.
i'm not necessarily looking for an atheistic president. i'm looking for a REAL president. i don't want him to behave like most americans who fawn over televangelists who own big-box churches,mistaking IMPRESSIVE for important.just like he seems to be fawning over a television doctor.i think that his choice of warren is just such FAWNING!
> i think that his choice of warren is just such FAWNING!
I actually thought it was excessive pandering too until I researched the issue a bit more, and saw how the invitation of Warren was a strategic strike against the truly hysterical homophobes like James Dobson. Jonathan Rauch (author of "Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America") has two excellent blog posts on this: "James Dobson He Ain't" and "Dobson v. Warren (2)."
So, you don't think that there is any real deception? Are you saying that Obama's pandering to the religious is acceptable because it is the only way he can realistically expect to be elected?
It seems to me that Obama has sacrificed some integrity by attempting to appease his christian voters. I, like you, doubt his christian faith.
He has tried very hard to appeal to the widest voter base. I guess an openly atheistic politician would not be electable in America.
> So, you don't think that there is any real deception?
I *suspect* there's deception. But there are also millions of "moderate Christians" out there, and for all I know, Obama could well be one of them. I don't "know" that he's lying (but yes, I suspect it!).
> Are you saying that Obama's pandering to the religious is acceptable because it is the only way he can realistically expect to be elected?
Let's say, for argument's sake, that he really is a closet atheist (or possibly a closet deist). And let's say he was honest about it. The result? We'd have not only McCain in office, but the lurking threat of "President Palin"---the one who believes we were following God's directions to invade Iraq (and if in office, God may have told her we need to invade Iran too).
Given the choice between (a) someone who *pretends* to be irrational in that he calls himself Christian (all the while rationally explaining why Scripture cannot guide policy) and (b) those who really are fully irrational and have no shame in loudly proclaiming it --- I'll take Option "A" every time!!
> It seems to me that Obama has sacrificed some integrity by attempting to appease his christian voters.
I think it's impossible to retain 100% integrity and be an effective politician ... and a completely honest politician may inadvertently bring upon more misery than one skilled in the art of double-talk. The 2001 US/China conflict is a good example of how double-talk and verbal ambiguity can smooth relations and save lives.
> I guess an openly atheistic politician would not be electable in America.
Here are the names of some of the articles / poll results that back this conclusion up:
Austin Cline's "Gallup Polls & Other Surveys on American Attitudes Towards Atheists: Over 40 Years of Research Show Atheists Are Despised, Distrusted."
Pulsar Research & Consulting's "TIME Poll: Survey on Faith and the Presidential Election."
James Joyner's "Black President More Likely than Mormon or Atheist"
It always amazes me that such a consumer-based culture can be so religious, that is until I turn on the TV and see the likes of Kenneth Copeland and Don Stewart selling their various snake oils.
> It always amazes me that such a consumer-based culture can be so religious
It amazes me too! But most of the Christians I know (at least here in New York City) are very good at compartmentalizing their beliefs. You'd never know they were Christians 95% of the time.
hey Todd, i was wondering a couple of things. First, when you mentioned that Rick Warren equates homosexuality with beastiality and something else i have forgotten it made me wonder, "How do you feel about beastiality and why if you don't mind?" Second if you have time sometime check out my video called "do you believe or know for Atheist and Christians?"
billredeemed 2 years ago
> How do you feel about beastiality
The thought is nauseating!
> why
Do you need to ask "why" it's nauseating to think of having sex with a chicken, or to French kiss a slug?
If you mean "why should it be illegal?", I suppose it would fall under the "cruelty to animals" law.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
This is very interesting to me. And no I am not asking why it should be illegal. Your statement in your video and your reply here using the word "nauseating" is of great interest to me. I am assuming per your video that you think homosexuality is ok and that you are not nauseated to think about any adult sexual union of members of any sex or possibly even number of participants. So you have made a moral judgement based on what you think is right. Well that opens up a big ole can of worms.
billredeemed 2 years ago
Possibly you are saying that two men or two women or three or more in any combination deserve certain rights that could be afforded by our society. But possibly on the other hand you are saying that a guy with a "pet" monkey who wants these sqame rights does not deserve them. And before you start down the road of saying that animals do not willingly have sex with humans think again there are some that will. The most common example that comes to me is that just about any male animal that is
billredeemed 2 years ago
1 of 2:
> But possibly on the other hand you are saying that a guy with a "pet" monkey who wants these same rights does not deserve them. And before you start down the road of saying that animals do not willingly have sex with humans think again there are some that will.
When the harmful effects of a certain behavior are clear and uncontroversial—murder, theft, rape—it's no surprise that different societies all over the world unite in making them crimes.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 2:
When the harmful effects of a certain behavior are debatable—such as prostitution, smoking marijuana, and I suppose we could put the distasteful "has sex with willing animals" in this category—then it's no surprise that different societies all over the world will differ in making them crimes or not.
Prostitution and pot-smoking are legal in some areas. I suppose "sex with willing animals" might be legal in some parts of the world ... but it's not a subject I care to investigate!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
me either, and i think the point got lost along the way.
billredeemed 2 years ago
Are you saying here that homosexuality has no harmful effects and that beastiality does?
billredeemed 2 years ago
1 of 3:
> Are you saying here that homosexuality has no harmful effects and that beastiality does?
I don't know of any evidence that homosexuality is necessarily any more harmful to society than heterosexuality.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 3:
Okay, gay MALE sex seems to be more likely to spread disease—but gay FEMALE sex spreads not only less disease than gay male sex, but even less disease than heterosexual sex!
So I don't know where those statistics would take you if you wanted to use them as a legal basis: restrict male gay sex, but encourage female gay sex?
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
3 of 3:
But I also admit to not investigating the subject in any depth. So if I came across evidence that homosexuality IS destructive, then yes, I would agree that legal restrictions should be applied.
As for evidence that bestiality is destructive to society, I'll leave that distasteful subject for others to investigate: life's too short! (So I hope you won't be insulted if I take a break from this subject: family duties are calling.)
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
nice non-answer
billredeemed 2 years ago
1 of 2:
> I am assuming per your video that you think homosexuality is ok and that you are not nauseated to think about any adult sexual union of members of any sex or possibly even number of participants.
I just don't see any reason that homosexual unions should get less legal protection than heterosexual.
And true, I don't see any reason why consulting—and well-protected—adults shouldn't be allowed to have group sex. (But I'm not sure how this topic is even relevant.)
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 2:
> So you have made a moral judgement based on what you think is right. Well that opens up a big ole can of worms.
I don't think calling something nauseating is necessarily a "moral judgment."
I find scooping extra sugar on Cap'n Crunch nauseating too, but I don't think it's immoral.
The video I made on the "pre-human, and pre-religion, roots of morality" only have to do with traits such as caring, compassion, and reciprocal altruism.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
well i sure read your comment the wrong way then and now i wonder why you chose the word "nauseating" in the first place. So now you are saying beastiality is not immoral?
billredeemed 2 years ago
1 of 3:
well i sure read your comment the wrong way then and now i wonder why you chose the word "nauseating" in the first place. So now you are saying beastiality is not immoral?
"Nauseating" doesn't *necessary* = immoral. Again, adding a half cup of sugar to Cap'N Crunch is nauseating to me, but not immoral.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 3:
I would say raping a child is immoral because of the great harm inflicted. For a man to have intercourse with a chicken probably destroys the bird's insides, so I feel that shows something of a violent indifference to creature suffering. So if we're counting "violent indifference to creature suffering" as immoral, so would this form of bestiality.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
3 of 3:
If someone wants to masturbate a monkey and the monkey likes it, well, I'm no psychiatrist, but I think the human probably has some weird mental health issues . . . and maybe I'd call it "sick" in an informal sense of the word but I don't know that I'd call it immoral. Anyway, I fail to see the relevancy of all this.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Lets's go back to the original question here because i feel like you are squirming around on the point a little. Now the reason i asked you how you felt about beasiality was not because i wanted to know if you were interested or if you thought it was legal. The reason was because in your video when you mentioned Rick Warren equating homosexuality with beastiality and incest you did so in a tone that implied (in a way i think you would be hard pressed to deny) that you thought that
billredeemed 2 years ago
comparison was ridiculous. Therby indicating that you have made a moral judgement on people involved in all three deviances and somehow decided that one (homosexuality) was okay but that the other two were not. I think it is because you know that i was trying to get you to tell me on what grounds you made that judgement that you started squirming. You know this as well as i; if there is no absolute right and wrong then everything is either right or wrong. But of course you cannot admit this
billredeemed 2 years ago
to your self much less anyone else (especially not a Christian) because it would undermine your whole belief system (religion). In the future you should try to control your language in your videos and use more of a poker face if you do not want people to realize that you to judge and have distinct ideas of right and wrong. Because once they know that they will undoubtedly want to know what is your moral standard. If it is anything less than the absolute you are on shaky ground.That'sThePoint.
billredeemed 2 years ago
1 of 8:
> when you mentioned Rick Warren equating homosexuality with beastiality and incest you did so in a tone that implied that you thought that comparison was ridiculous.
From my secular perspective, yes, I do think the comparison is ridiculous.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 8:
> Therby indicating that you have made a moral judgement on people involved in all three deviances and somehow decided that one (homosexuality) was okay but that the other two were not.
I no longer agree, because we're not using the word "immoral" in the same way. I use the word—for better or worse—in a way that means "destructive to society."
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
3 of 8:
Deviance #1: raping children: yes, immoral / destructive
Deviance #2: Giving a hand job to a willing monkey: someone who may need psychiatric help, but we'd need a broader definition of "immoral" than simply "destructive to society" before we can properly call it immoral.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
4 of 8:
Deviance #3: Rick Warren equating homosexuality with bestiality: from a secular perspective, I think it's ridiculous—but I know Warren is speaking from his religious belief that "God forbids homosexuality just like He forbids bestiality." So Warren is only echoing what he thinks the Big Boss is saying.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
5 of 8:
So Warren's statement is complex: it may be invoking hatred toward gay people and is thus destructive in that way, but if I look at it from his perspective, I would agree that Warren is doing the right thing: he's reminding us of the directions from God. (That is, what Warren perceives to be God. The bible is what I perceive to be the writings of ancient people: a 100% human effort on a level comparable to Hinduism's Rig Veda.)
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
6 of 8:
> if there is no absolute right and wrong then everything is either right or wrong.
The general principle of right and wrong is guided by those things that are destructive or helpful to the well-being of a community.
Thus it's no surprise that societies everywhere forbid destructive acts like murder, rape, and theft (at least within their own community)—regardless of which religion they do or don't follow.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
7 of 8:
And as circumstances vary, so do the particular rules. This is not "squirming," but real life.
Even the character in the Bible called Jehovah adapts to circumstances: he rewards the Egyptian midwives for lying (when they tell lies about why they can't kill all the Hebrew babies as directed), and Jehovah even directs the murders of hundreds of thousands of women and children of the Promised Land's previous occupants and the theft of all their property (for God's Greater Good).
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
8 of 8:
> it [morality is] anything less than absolute you are on shaky ground. That'sThePoint.
I believe I've explained how morals can have a foundation, but allow for variations due to circumstances.
But what are your "absolute" standards? Honesty regardless of circumstances? Compassion for fellow humans regardless of circumstances? Honoring parents regardless of circumstances? Be careful to pick ones that the Bible *never* contradicts.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
> Honesty regardless of circumstances?
Yes, honest to Jesus and His Spirit you forget that His sheep have.
>Compassion for fellow humans regardless of circumstances?
Exactly, just look at how Jesus lived and died. He is our role model.
>Honoring parents regardless of circumstances?
Yes as long as it does not make you break on of the two primary commands mentioned earlier.
>Be careful to pick ones that the Bible *never* contradicts.
Ok, easy done because it never does.
billredeemed 2 years ago
> Yes, honest to Jesus and His Spirit you forget that His sheep have.
Honesty is an absolute only when it comes to your relationship with an invisible presence?
> as long as it does not make you break the two primary commands
So it DOES depend on circumstances.
> easy done because it never does
"Don't murder" and "Do murder" is the most striking biblical example that comes to mind.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
I don't want to distract you from the current topic, but there is a difference in ,do not bear false wittness and do not lie. And even if there were not the Top two commandments trump any other interpretation of a rule; love the Lord with all you got and your neigbor as yourself.
As for why God has done anything He has done i think it better that you should find out from Him yourself and that day is coming.
billredeemed 2 years ago
> there is a difference in do not bear false wittness and do not lie
Agreed. So I take it that you also agree that the God you think exists DOES approve of lying if to serve a greater good.
> i think it better that you should find out from Him yourself and that day is coming
If a god (be it Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, etc.) made "Himself" known to me than I certainly would! I would certainly not want to fall out of favor with the Creator of the Universe.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
>Agreed. So I take it that you also agree that the God you think exists DOES approve of lying if to serve a greater good.
What you fail to realize is that we like God sometimes have to choose the least of two evils. To me that does not automatically make the least evil righteous.
>If a god (be it Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, etc.) made "Himself" known to me than I certainly would! I would certainly not want to fall out of favor with the Creator of the Universe. He has and will again.
billredeemed 2 years ago
>The general principle of right and wrong is guided by those things that are destructive or helpful to the well-being of a community.
This cannot be right because if it were then what we did to the peoople who lived here before us would be ok. The same way what hitler did would have been ok and i think we can agree that was definitely wrong. By an absolute standard non the less.
billredeemed 2 years ago
> This cannot be right because if it were then what we did to the peoople who lived here before us would be ok. The same way what hitler did would have been ok and i think we can agree that was definitely wrong. By an absolute standard non the less.
Genocide is definitely destructive to society as a whole - so yes - definitely wrong.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
non answer
billredeemed 2 years ago
You misunderstand Warren and Christianity. He does not hate homosexuals and would tell anyone he could that they should not hate homosexuals. We are the ones who say love your neighbor as yourself; the homosexual is our neighbor. What Rick and the rest of us, who love Jesus, hate is sin. Homosexuality is a sin, the penalty for sin is death, God hates death and has provided an escape for the homosexual from the penalty because He loves them and wants them to be saved.
billredeemed 2 years ago
> He does not hate homosexuals and would tell anyone he could that they should not hate homosexuals.
I agree that I probably should not have used the phrase "invoking hatred toward homosexuals." Yes, he's just pointing out that the ancient text he believes was inspired by a Creator calls homosexuality a sin.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Exactly, Warren is dealing with absolute morals handed down from his Creator. You are dealing with your morals, which will vary day to day depending on what you happen to be thinking at the time, and possibly on how your digestion is going. As i said you are on shaky or non existent ground. That is the point.
billredeemed 2 years ago
>I no longer agree, because we're not using the word "immoral" in the same way. I use the word—for better or worse—in a way that means "destructive to society."
That sounds kind of communist. Is it all about the collective with you like it has been with so many Atheist before you? What about individual morality? Or does the individual matter at all?
billredeemed 2 years ago
> That sounds kind of communist.
No, I am quite in favor of capitalism. There is nothing "communist" about a community banning destructive behavior like theft, rape, and murder.
> Or does the individual matter at all?
I don't know WHERE you got the idea that I'm against "the individual." These tangent accusations are time-consuming and pointless.
My advance apologies should I cease to respond to you.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
The reason it is relevant is because if they legalize homosexual marriage then the next thing that will happen is some group of people will want to get married and don't tell me they won't.
billredeemed 2 years ago
> The reason it is relevant is because if they legalize homosexual marriage then the next thing that will happen is some group of people will want to get married and don't tell me they won't.
I know of a guy who—in protest to gay marriage—went to apply for a marriage license to wed his horse!
He was turned down not because of bestiality, but because the horse was underage!!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
> if you have time sometime check out my video called "do you believe or know for Atheist and Christians?"
Will do!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
In response to your comment about not responding to me further that is ok and i did not really expect you to do what you said and watch or comment on this video either. Rest assured we will meet again only there will be no need for debate at that time.
billredeemed 2 years ago
Obama is a Christian- JK, horses rock!
Horsepocalypse 2 years ago
Indeed the attempt to reduce AIDS transmission is a noble goal but the idea of compromising on the war on drugs is ridiculous.
The war on drugs results in hundreds of thousands of non-violent offenders being shoehorned into overcrowded prisons, increases in drug abuse and small scale civil geurilla wars between gangs.
But you already know that...
How can society ever improve if it's perpetuated on a web of ackward lies?
someweirdgayguy 2 years ago
Very astute, i think you say what alot of people intuitively know, but i respect and admire your articulation and dedication to research.
slightlyparadoxical 2 years ago
> Very astute ...i respect and admire your articulation and dedication to research.
Thanks! And the research for this video---and just settling on a focus---took much longer than I thought it would. I guessed that it would take 2 weeks, but it ended up taking 2 months.
ToddGates 2 years ago
Bloooooop!
natewheatshelf 2 years ago
comment
RabidAp3 2 years ago
comment
RabidAp3 2 years ago
I think you hit the nail on the head.
iviewthetube 3 years ago
> I think you hit the nail on the head.
Thank you!
ToddAllenGates 3 years ago
Through these videos i've actualy learned quite a bit about where pres. Obamanation really stands as a Christian. Makes me wonder if he's that much of a fake and a lier concerning his faith, how deceptive will he be on the world stage? The pure blasphemy of appointing a gay bishop to swear him in on the holy bible had been, I thought, all I needed to see! But now seeing & understanding his mockery of the Bible & the extent he goes to to blaspheme Gods words & principles!
peasantrock 3 years ago
1 of 5:
Hi peasantrock,
Sorry to take so long to get back to you.
> Makes me wonder if he's that much of a fake and a lier concerning his faith, how deceptive will he be on the world stage?
First, I only *suspect* that he's faking it. But there are also millions of "moderate Christians" out there---who pick & choose which passages of the Bible to follow---and for all I know, Obama could well be one of them. So I don't "know" that he's lying (but yes, I suspect it!).
ToddGates 3 years ago
2 of 5:
Second, defending lies & fakery is tricky business ... but at the same time, I think there *are* situations in which telling a lie is the lesser evil. Take, for example, the Germans who were hiding Anne Frank & family. Should they have "just been honest" with Nazi stormtroopers who were hunting down Jews?
This may seem like an extreme example, but I think it's comparable.
ToddGates 3 years ago
3 of 5:
The ugly real-life result of presidential candidates being honest about their religious beliefs is that nontheists don't get into office, and true-believing (with all their accompanying irrationality---okay, I'm operating via my non-theist bias!) Christians are the only ones elected.
ToddGates 3 years ago
4 of 5:
But even as a Christian (which I assume that you are), do you really want leaders who think that God has spoke to them? And that God has told them to invade other countries? Sarah Palin & George W. Bush, after all, have both said that the invasion of Iraq was part of "God's war." Wouldn't you worry about a leader who might say "Now God is telling me we need to invade North Korea!"? Isn't it better to have a leader who relies on evidence and logic?
ToddGates 3 years ago
5 of 5:
Plus, Obama is certainly not hostile to religion and seeks to include the devout whenever possible, even when it annoys "anti-theist" activists---such as the way Obama gave such a prominent position to Rick Warren during the inauguration.
ToddGates 3 years ago
i'm not necessarily looking for an atheistic president. i'm looking for a REAL president. i don't want him to behave like most americans who fawn over televangelists who own big-box churches,mistaking IMPRESSIVE for important.just like he seems to be fawning over a television doctor.i think that his choice of warren is just such FAWNING!
obamadidit2008 3 years ago
> i think that his choice of warren is just such FAWNING!
I actually thought it was excessive pandering too until I researched the issue a bit more, and saw how the invitation of Warren was a strategic strike against the truly hysterical homophobes like James Dobson. Jonathan Rauch (author of "Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America") has two excellent blog posts on this: "James Dobson He Ain't" and "Dobson v. Warren (2)."
ToddGates 3 years ago
So, you don't think that there is any real deception? Are you saying that Obama's pandering to the religious is acceptable because it is the only way he can realistically expect to be elected?
It seems to me that Obama has sacrificed some integrity by attempting to appease his christian voters. I, like you, doubt his christian faith.
He has tried very hard to appeal to the widest voter base. I guess an openly atheistic politician would not be electable in America.
imaginenoreligion 3 years ago
1 of 5:
> So, you don't think that there is any real deception?
I *suspect* there's deception. But there are also millions of "moderate Christians" out there, and for all I know, Obama could well be one of them. I don't "know" that he's lying (but yes, I suspect it!).
> Are you saying that Obama's pandering to the religious is acceptable because it is the only way he can realistically expect to be elected?
Well, we're forced to choose between two evils!
ToddGates 3 years ago
2 of 5:
Let's say, for argument's sake, that he really is a closet atheist (or possibly a closet deist). And let's say he was honest about it. The result? We'd have not only McCain in office, but the lurking threat of "President Palin"---the one who believes we were following God's directions to invade Iraq (and if in office, God may have told her we need to invade Iran too).
ToddGates 3 years ago
3 of 5:
Given the choice between (a) someone who *pretends* to be irrational in that he calls himself Christian (all the while rationally explaining why Scripture cannot guide policy) and (b) those who really are fully irrational and have no shame in loudly proclaiming it --- I'll take Option "A" every time!!
ToddGates 3 years ago
4 of 5:
> It seems to me that Obama has sacrificed some integrity by attempting to appease his christian voters.
I think it's impossible to retain 100% integrity and be an effective politician ... and a completely honest politician may inadvertently bring upon more misery than one skilled in the art of double-talk. The 2001 US/China conflict is a good example of how double-talk and verbal ambiguity can smooth relations and save lives.
ToddGates 3 years ago
5 of 5:
> I guess an openly atheistic politician would not be electable in America.
Here are the names of some of the articles / poll results that back this conclusion up:
Austin Cline's "Gallup Polls & Other Surveys on American Attitudes Towards Atheists: Over 40 Years of Research Show Atheists Are Despised, Distrusted."
Pulsar Research & Consulting's "TIME Poll: Survey on Faith and the Presidential Election."
James Joyner's "Black President More Likely than Mormon or Atheist"
ToddGates 3 years ago
It always amazes me that such a consumer-based culture can be so religious, that is until I turn on the TV and see the likes of Kenneth Copeland and Don Stewart selling their various snake oils.
imaginenoreligion 3 years ago
> It always amazes me that such a consumer-based culture can be so religious
It amazes me too! But most of the Christians I know (at least here in New York City) are very good at compartmentalizing their beliefs. You'd never know they were Christians 95% of the time.
ToddAllenGates 3 years ago