Gays serving openly in the military

[Beable]

There's a whole lot of dudes killing other dudes in the Bible. It's at odds with itself there.

[Frank Delicious]

Slippery slope is a fallacy, there is always a middle ground.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

That's true in some cases, but sometimes one doesn't have to go through the consequence of an action in order to see the result. In other words, we can sometimes see a result without going through the motions.

Really you can't see the result without going through the motions. That is why science is based off experiments and tests and not just hunches. The slippery slope argument really is a logical fallacy. You can't ever assume that one thing will lead to another.

-Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid. The slippery slope argument remains a fallacy if such a chain is not established.

plus your whole sentence "not having standards leads to a slippery slope" really doesn't say anything any way. Whose standards are we talking? Who gets to decide with is a "standard"?

[discspeed]

There's a whole lot of dudes killing other dudes in the Bible. It's at odds with itself there.

The Bible is like a painting...or more accurately a painting of a painting of a painting. It has been translated and transcribed so many times, each time with the bias of a person or a language. I'm sure it says very different things than it originally did. Even at that, almost all of it is vague and up to a person's interpretation. Like a painting, it can inspire something in one person, and something totally different

[Leopard]

um hello it's the word of god

[riverboy]

In my view I do not need to justify it biblically. The bible is not necessarily absolute.

I compare this to a surgeon who doesn't use surgical tools to operate on his patient. If a person claims to be a surgeon then they will use the required methods and tools to display their knowledge. If a person is a Christian, they will use the "tool" that God has given them (the Bible) to "dissect" what life and society throws at them.

I don't think of the bible so much as a tool as I do a guide. I believe some answers we need to find ourselves outside of the bible. This is what I meant by the bible not being absolute.

Today most Christians have accepted evolution as part of God's design. Who is to say homosexuality is not something that will be accepted into religion?

Micro-evolution, yes.

I do not understand this. Would you be willing to further elaborate?

[sunspot]

Really you can't see the result without going through the motions. That is why science is based off experiments and tests and not just hunches. The slippery slope argument really is a logical fallacy. You can't ever assume that one thing will lead to another.

Science has made conjunctures in the past only to have them proven or disproven. Science is great but it is inconclusive in the sense that it's always changing itself based on new discoveries, hence the past tests may prove to be wrong ( or right) due to an unseen variable.

-Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid. The slippery slope argument remains a fallacy if such a chain is not established.

This isn't entirely true in all situations. We can deduce situations and draw logical conclusions without having a median link to get us from point A to point Z. People live it everyday by doing small things. We eliminate certain circumstances so we don't have to face a fore-gone conclusion.

I'm not going to go buy a brand new car because I know I can't afford it. I don't have to go through that experience (chain of logical implication) to reach my conclusion. Why? Because I have a standard of living that I must meet in order to maintain for my life and family. The slippery slope for me starts when I decide that I want a new car. From there, I decide to round up the family and go to the dealership expecting to get a new car. I haggle the car salesman down to a reasonable deal and make the purchase. Within the following months, I can't pay my bills. Since I can't pay my bills my credit goes bad, my family ends up getting mad at me, added stress, I'm unhappy, and I eventually lose just about everything. Why? I decided to go outside my means to pay for something I don't need.

I don't have to establish a "chain of logical implication" to know that I'm going down a slippery slope. I realize it from the get-go, when I'm still at point A.

plus your whole sentence "not having standards leads to a slippery slope" really doesn't say anything any way. Whose standards are we talking? Who gets to decide with is a "standard"?

The original idea was about traditional marriage. That's the standard.

If anyone wants to use the Bible to say that gays shouldn't be in the military, let's get technical...the bible contains no commandments that say "thou shalt not boink a dude if thou are a dude"...

It does say "Thou shalt not kill."

So anyone arguing for the existence of a military at all is at odds with the bible.

I never did say that gays shouldn't be able to serve in the military. That's not even what I've been talking about.

The implication of kill in the original Hebrew means murder, not blasé way that killing is usually referred to.

The Bible is like a painting...or more accurately a painting of a painting of a painting. It has been translated and transcribed so many times, each time with the bias of a person or a language. I'm sure it says very different things than it originally did. Even at that, almost all of it is vague and up to a person's interpretation. Like a painting, it can inspire something in one person, and something totally different

Manuscripts evidence for the accuracy of the bible from century to century is unparalleled. The Dead Sea Scrolls helped pushed the date back for manuscripts a 1000 years. Scholars made a comparison to Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Isaiah that we have in our modern translations and found them to be completely accurate with each other.

This is directed to anybody who is interested: if you would like to make another thread concerning a question about the Bible or comment about it feel free to do so. I'll try to answer the best to my ability.

[sunspot]

I don't think of the bible so much as a tool as I do a guide. I believe some answers we need to find ourselves outside of the bible. This is what I meant by the bible not being absolute.

In Matthew 4:4, Jesus states, "It is written, ' Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'"

We are reminded by Paul's words to Timothy that he as well as us should,"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth."

Hebrews 4:12 says, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword , and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart."

The list could go on. Christians are admonished to live on God's word, handle it accurately, and we see that it judges the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

The Bible is not meant for Christians to find other answers (spiritually) outside of God's word.

I do not understand this. Would you be willing to further elaborate?

Most would agree that within certain species there is flexibility to span across the genetic spectrum. Think of it in terms of adaptions; one's environment for example, adapting to the heat or cold by developing a certain characteristic to combat these harsh environments. The difference is that creationists would disagree that these adaptions would lead to macroevolution-- from one species to another species. Microevolution, in their view, stays in the realm of a specific species never going beyond the limitations.

[discspeed]

Free will is a fallacy as well, used for ages as a justification to the haves that they deserve their elevated status over the have-nots.

[Beable]

The original idea was about traditional marriage. That's the standard.

What's traditional marriage? Was that when having mixed race marriages was illegal? Or when women had no rights separate from their husbands? Marriage has gone through many, many iterations. It is not the same now, in 2010, as it was even a hundred years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... ted_States

[sunspot]

"Traditional" being between a man and a woman.

[Beable]

"Traditional" being between a man and a woman.

But not traditional in all those other ways. My point is that marriage has changed a lot. And for the better. It's not like the institution has withstood the test of time completely unchanged for two thousand or more years.

[Parks]

In "traditional" marriage, the two were supposed to stay together and not get divorced.

Gay marriages have been doing much better at that than straight marriages, oddly enough.

[discspeed]

Marriage exists on many levels. The marriage I'm speaking of is the legal status. These state sponsored unions should not have anything to do with religion. If certain churches/ministers do not want to participate in gay marriage, they don't have to. It shouldn't influence what is legal of not. Once again, I think it is bigoted to deny people rights, especially when those wishing to deny these rights have no personal stake in it other than trying to push their standard on those with different beliefs.

BTW, this thread is very much reminding me of many of the reasons I turned away from my parent's religion as soon as I was taught to think critically. Anyway, its obvious we're all blowing wind because the two competing schemas here are fundamentally opposed. Its cool we can all play disc golf and be friends though.

[sunspot]

But not traditional in all those other ways. My point is that marriage has changed a lot. And for the better. It's not like the institution has withstood the test of time completely unchanged for two thousand or more years.

There has been internal changes that has made marriage better, but these changes are between men and women i.e., interracial marriage. The key ingredient is still between a man and woman. At this point in time, there are attempts to change marriage externally. Essentially redefine it.

In "traditional" marriage, the two were supposed to stay together and not get divorced.

Ideally, yes. Divorce is bad. I understand that there are times when people cheat on their spouse and opt for a divorce, but in most circumstances a lot of marriages can be worked out through communication.

Gay marriages have been doing much better at that than straight marriages, oddly enough.

I'm sure this could be debated. However, I think this the exception and not the rule. Someone may be good at one thing in their craft and be horrible at the entirety of the their craft. A chef may make good dessert, but may be a horrible chef.

If certain churches/ministers do not want to participate in gay marriage, they don't have to. It shouldn't influence what is legal of not.

In countries where gay marriage is legalize (Canada), it is wrong to have a dissenting opinion because it's considered discriminatory. For a church to say that gay marriage is not the way God created us would be considered "hate"speech. I think this is a legitimate concern. Will people be fined or arrested for going against homosexuality if we where to head in such a direction?

Here's the problems that are argued against homosexuality:

1. There are no conclusive studies that point towards the "genetic" factor for homosexuality. Maybe certain dispositions, not necessary determinants like eye color, hair, etc.

2. The effect of the environment (culturally, socially, morally, etc) in the development of homosexuality in people. Especially in childhood and adolescence.

3. Homosexuals have become heterosexuals through therapy or changed desires. This shows a determined change.

4. What happens during a woman's pregnancy i.e, hormones, drink, smoke, defects, etc.

Another good link: http://www.narth.com/docs/080307Abbott_ ... rticle.pdf

Once again, I think it is bigoted to deny people rights...

Here's the thing, are we going to legalize something that is based on something other than the claim of genetics? If so, then were does it stop? How far are we willing to go in order that we don't deny peoples rights? Where do we say "No"? Do we base our decisions on certain behaviors or standards?

especially when those wishing to deny these rights have no personal stake in it other than trying to push their standard on those with different beliefs.

The same could be said about homosexuality- homosexuals are pushing their beliefs on other people. The only difference is that there is evidence that can be argue against their standard.

BTW, this thread is very much reminding me of many of the reasons I turned away from my parent's religion as soon as I was taught to think critically. Anyway, its obvious we're all blowing wind because the two competing schemas here are fundamentally opposed.

If you don't mind me asking, what areas lead you away from what your parents believed?

[sunspot]

But not traditional in all those other ways. My point is that marriage has changed a lot. And for the better. It's not like the institution has withstood the test of time completely unchanged for two thousand or more years.

There has been internal changes that has made marriage better, but these changes are between men and women i.e., interracial marriage. The key ingredient is still between a man and woman. At this point in time, there are attempts to change marriage externally. Essentially redefine it.

In "traditional" marriage, the two were supposed to stay together and not get divorced.

Ideally, yes. Divorce is bad. I understand that there are times when people cheat on their spouse and opt for a divorce, but in most circumstances a lot of marriages can be worked out through communication.

Gay marriages have been doing much better at that than straight marriages, oddly enough.

I'm sure this could be debated. However, I think this the exception and not the rule. Someone may be good at one thing in their craft and be horrible at the entirety of the their craft. A chef may make good dessert, but may be a horrible chef.

If certain churches/ministers do not want to participate in gay marriage, they don't have to. It shouldn't influence what is legal of not.

In countries where gay marriage is legalize (Canada), it is wrong to have a dissenting opinion because it's considered discriminatory. For a church to say that gay marriage is not the way God created us would be considered "hate"speech. I think this is a legitimate concern. Will people be fined or arrested for going against homosexuality if we where to head in such a direction?

Here's the problems that are argued against homosexuality:

1. There are no conclusive studies that point towards the "genetic" factor for homosexuality. Maybe certain dispositions, not necessary determinants like eye color, hair, etc.

2. The effect of the environment (culturally, socially, morally, etc) in the development of homosexuality in people. Especially in childhood and adolescence.

3. Homosexuals have become heterosexuals through therapy or changed desires. This shows a determined change.

4. What happens during a woman's pregnancy i.e, hormones, drink, smoke, defects, etc.

Another good link: http://www.narth.com/docs/080307Abbott_ ... rticle.pdf

Once again, I think it is bigoted to deny people rights...

Here's the thing, are we going to legalize something that is based on something other than the claim of genetics? If so, then were does it stop? How far are we willing to go in order that we don't deny peoples rights? Where do we say "No"? Do we base our decisions on certain behaviors or standards?

especially when those wishing to deny these rights have no personal stake in it other than trying to push their standard on those with different beliefs.

The same could be said about homosexuality- homosexuals are pushing their beliefs on other people. The only difference is that there is evidence that can be argue against their standard.

BTW, this thread is very much reminding me of many of the reasons I turned away from my parent's religion as soon as I was taught to think critically. Anyway, its obvious we're all blowing wind because the two competing schemas here are fundamentally opposed.

If you don't mind me asking, what areas lead you away from what your parents believed?

Its cool we can all play disc golf and be friends though.

This is how I approach it. I know people disagree with me. I know I have a strong-will on certain issues. I try to make sure I present good points and evidence. When I talk about things that in center around God, namely sin, I'll be the first one to point out the problems I have. I'm not all high and mighty looking down on people. I can disagree and be cordial, realizing my own problems and sin.

I'm cool with everybody except Frank. I can't stand short people.