It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I Am a Straight, Married Christian Male in Support of Gay Marriage

page: 24
60
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by DRAZIW
 


Through all this I couldn't help but think this is pretty much universally applicable across all parts of life. It is not so much lust you are talking about but desire. Desire for anything. Unless I am mistaken, you have not stated there is anything intrinsically wrong about lust itself but rather what lust creates in people.

I can't tell now if these contradictions are on purpose or not. Intelligence and learning is a valiant endeavor, yet the path to those things is through lust and then sex, which are not to be respected or seen as 'good'. I don't mean to be rude, but this sounds a little like making it up as you/ they go along- or in any case making a plausible case to go along with the text and beliefs together.

In your opinion, would unprotected intercourse (whatever spectrum you consider that to cover) which doesn't result in a child be equally 'bad' to that of contraceptive use?

It seems you would actively reject, and discourage, advances in humanity and society which alleviate any form of suffering due to the potential for negating introspection from the individual. This makes me think two things: firstly, what is your take on denial? It is a response to suffering which results in no introspection and seeks to retain the status quo. Secondly, some people could quite possibly not learn anything about themselves despite terrible suffering- they could be simply not be mentally capable of such a task such as children and the mentally ill. Though I certainly wouldn't outrightly reject this view (Nietzche made a very simliar point and seemingly integrated into his lifestyle/ approach) but the way you state it leaves me with many questions.

You seem to subscribe to the 'metaphorical' bible approach, rather than literal. If this is the case how can you be sure, truly sure, of what the writer meant?




posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
who taught you guys how to argue? Everything has to be the same.
same job, same home, same income, same love for the child.
Who's better now?



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by yes4141
reply to post by DRAZIW
 


Through all this I couldn't help but think this is pretty much universally applicable across all parts of life. It is not so much lust you are talking about but desire. Desire for anything.



That desire is just misdirected lust.

Have you ever seen an automobile ad in print or on TV. A gorgeous sexy woman stands next to a fancy sports car like a porche.

What's happening there?

The young males see the picture and subliminally connect the sexy female to the idea of owning a porche.

"Hey, if I buy that porche, a girl like that will be attracted to me, because of my car !"

The advertiser cleverly misdirect the lust thoughts, linking it to car ownership. So, the guys all run out and buy the car.

The desire for the car, comes from the original lust. But, because of "delusion" people start to desire this or that, women desire jewelry, thinking it makes them prettier, men desire cars that they think will impress the girls, etc..at the bottom of all desire, is still lust. But, the connection is often hidden from the conscious mind.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by DRAZIW
 


You seem to just reject most of the things I've said/ questions I've asked so this is barely even a conversation.

Though I again agree with what you say in part, I cannot accept all of it or how/ why you think it. The desire for somebody to have their child be successful is based in lust? A desire for a war to end is lust? Fundamental self interest I would agree with but you seem to simply mould everything to fit your point/ beliefs. Everything is declared as true despite it being merely your interpretation of things- why is your opinion more valuable/ true than anyone else's? Please just answer this: do you think you know these things or believe these things?



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
i believe in gay rights.. "ENOLA GAY" rights...ted nugent



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by yes4141
Please just answer this: do you think you know these things or believe these things?



I know these things.

You can know them too. If you take the time to examine yourself. Know thyself. It can be done.

It just takes too long to try to explain to someone who is far back on the path, exactly why things are so.

Nevertheless, let me give you a starting point. If you follow this line of thinking you will be on your way to finding out the truth for yourself.

Remember, I said "lust" is the original sin, and also that this gets "misdirected" to other things so that men have "desires" for things, because of their "deslusion". Well some buddhists like to think of that lust as just "greed". In fact, the ancient sage bodhidharma referred to this as one of the three poisons that afflict man. Everything in the world is built up on these three things.

The three poisons are "GREED, ANGER, and DELUSION"

Those poisons are a result of man seeking after the three things "BEAUTY, STRENGTH, WISDOM"

Men seek after "Beauty", and "Beauty" enables us to receive without effort. Men seek after "Strength", and "Strength" enables us to control our environment so we can get and protect what we want. Men seek after "Wisdom", and "Wisdom" enables us to know when to act and what to do so that we may get and keep what we want.

Seeking after "Beauty", stimulates "Greed" within the soul. Seeking after "Strength", stimulates "Anger". Seeking after "Wisdom", stimulates "Delusion".

The Christian Bible gives us the anti-dote for the three poisons:



"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. "
-- 1 Corinthians 13:13 KJV Holy Bible


The three antidotes are "CHARITY, HOPE, and FAITH."

Charity is the anti-dote to Greed.
Hope is the anti-dote to Anger.
Faith is the anti-dote to Delusion.

These are the three things a man can cultivate within himself, to battle against the three poisons.

If he does not apply these antidotes to help cure his own condition, the LORD eventually brings forth three situations that do it for him:



A third part of thee shall die with the pestilence, and with famine shall they be consumed in the midst of thee: and a third part shall fall by the sword round about thee; and I will scatter a third part into all the winds, and I will draw out a sword after them.
-- Ezekiel 5:12 KJV Holy Bible


The LORD brings "FAMINE, WAR, and PERSECUTION".

For the poison of "Greed" the lord brings "Famine" to the men of the land.
For the poison of "Anger" the lord brings "War" to the men of o the land.
For the poison of "Delusion" the lord brings "Persecution" to the men of the land.

You notice, that it's 1/3 Famine, 1/3 War, 1/3 Persecution. To "scatter...and draw out a sword after" is to threaten without actually killing, i.e. to "Persecute". To actually "fall by the sword" is the "war". And "pestilence" destroys the crops leading to "famine."

Even if you didn't believe in God, you could still understand the logic here. If men are too greedy, they will consume the resources of the land wastefully, and eventually after a period of "abundance" they will suffer "lack". So, they cycle from "abundance" to "lack", or from "feast" to "famine", from "rise" to "fall", or from "bull markets" to "bear markets". From times of "plenty" to times when things are "scarce". This is a universal law. The bible likes to say the LORD did it. But, with or without the LORD, the pendulum would swing between these too extremes. Again, when men try to control others excessively, it eventually leads to Anger, which results in revolutions and wars. You see this in the middle east today. Finally, people who have very strong beliefs on this or that, which are just delusions, then suffer persecution because of those delusions.

The design of man is built on these three principles, he has "BODY, SPEECH, and MIND"

The "Body" is used to satisfy his "Greed". He uses his physical body to move about, to grab the things he wants, to feed himself.
The "Speech" is used to express his "Anger", to control his environment. He speaks to command others to do this and do that, to order his food, to get what he wants.
The "Mind" is used to hold his "Delusions", to associate ideas and concepts with external things he may want to get and protect, to grab and to hold.

The Government of the United States is divided into three parts: "LEGISLATURE, EXECUTIVE, and "JUDICIARY".

The "Legislature" deals with "Greed".
The "Executive" deals with "Anger".
The "Judiciary" deals with "Delusion".

There is a natual law, the strong take what they want. But, that is the law of the jungle. The "Legislature" steps in and creates new "Laws" that redistribute the rights of the individuals in the society.
[continued in the next post]



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
By redistributing the rights, the weak get stronger, and some strength is removed from the naturally strong.

The "Executive" uses "Anger" to protect the weak, once those laws are in place. And the "Judiciary" decides who is delusional, and who's interpretation of the law is correct.

Again, the society we live in is divided into three main activities: "COMMERCE, SPORTS, and EDUCATION".

Commerce deals with Greed.
Sports deals with Anger.
Education deals with Delusion.

Since the individual himself may not apply the three anti-dotes "Charity, Hope, Faith" to cure himself, the whole of society is organized "to transmute" these three poisons into good. Just as the alchemist transmutes Lead into Gold, these three parts of society transmute the poisons.

Commerce transmutes individual greed into collective charity. In order for a man to express his greed, to get stuff, he has to buy that stuff from someone else. But, before he can buy the stuff, he needs to provide something of value to get that cash. He has to work, or sell assets. He has to do something for others first. So, he has to first be "charitable" before he can get cash to satisfy his "greed". By putting "greed" under the umbrella of "commerce" , a magical thing happens: the more greedy someone is, the more charitable they have to be to satisfy that hunger. And greed becomes charity. Poison is transmuted into good.

Sports transmutes individual anger into collective hope. Think of the underprivileged individual sitting at his TV set and seeing his favorite basketball player win the game, and earn the big bucks. He runs out to the basketball court to practice himself, for now he has hope, that he too can make it, and get out of the state of poverty that seems to control his life. Keep hope alive. Those whose life are controlled the most, tend to feel alot of anger because of the unfair situation they are born into, and sports provides hope that there is a way out. Hope is the expectation of a better tomorrow. Sports provide that function.

Education transmutes individual delusion into collective faith. Much of a persons early life is spent within the institution of education, from pre-school to post-doctorate , as much as 30 years of a persons life can be spent here. As they gain knowledge in the educational institutions they build faith that they can achieve this or that with the new knowledge they have learned or are going to learn.

Sports is part of the Entertainment industry, so we could just as well have said "ENTERTAINMENT" providing hope for the many. The stars on the hollywood walk of fame have provided many an inspiration for a waiter or waitress, who never make it, but keep hoping.

By reflecting on the three poisons, and the various ways they are related to the phenomena of the world, one begins on the path of understanding..

Gurdieff liked to refer to the three "centers" in man
the "MOVING CENTER"
the "EMOTIONAL CENTER"
the "INTELLECTUAL CENTER"

Well, you can figure out, the "mind" is the vehicle for the "intellectual center", the "speech" is the vehicle for the "emotional center", and the "body" is the vehicle for the "moving center".

The buddhists themselves, like to refer to the "three jewels": the "buddha", the "dhrama", and the "shanga". Which deal with the three poisons again, and the famous "three monkeys": see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil, once again represent these same three things:

see no evil -- the eyes are used to see beauty etc..
speak no evil -- the speech is used to express anger etc..
hear no evil -- the mind gets its input from the ear then interprets what it thinks it hears by delusions etc..

That's a start on the path to "open your eyes" and look for yourself, look around your environment, and see how things are organized.. The whole world around you is ordered and fixed according to the three principles.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
This should have been called the religious looney thread. I am astounded at how many condemn gay marriage just because their 'imaginary friend' says so..

Don't get me wrong, I used to have an imaginary friend too. I just grew out of mine..



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by DRAZIW
 





I know these things. You can know them too. If you take the time to examine yourself. Know thyself. It can be done.


Sorry, it is hard to get past the putrid arrogance of this statement. You have no self doubt whatsoever? You know more about me than I do? I tolerated your selective answers and ridiculously self - indulgent replies but now this is just obnoxious. Even if you claim to have seen the angel Gabriel you would still have some level of doubt- are you mad, was it a hallucination etc.? I know you like to think of yourself as the essence of soulfulness but I don't believe it and hold you to the same standards as all the other 'flesh'. You have two options: you are either a liar or in denial.

This is no form of conversation. You simply use a tiny selective part of my replies as leverage for your self- indulgent, grandiose self- assurances. Because let's be honest- that is all these (many, many) words are. Your own attempt at rationalizing and finding corroborative evidence for what you consider yourself to believe. I'm sure everything I say will be ignored by your selective mind anyway.




Charity is the anti-dote to Greed. Hope is the anti-dote to Anger. Faith is the anti-dote to Delusion.


Bloody hell. Just....wow. "I can beat my wife and family because I give to UNICEF!". "I believe I talk to Hitler and Mao every night before bedtime, but that doesn't matter as long as I BELIEVE in them even more!". "The holocaust wasn't very nice was it? Let's just hope everything is fine from now on...."

Faith as the antidote to delusion? I just won't comment any more on that.




Commerce deals with Greed. Sports deals with Anger. Education deals with Delusion.


mmmm. Education. What would that be exactly? Would that involve many sources to find as close to the truth as possible? More sources than one such as the bible.

Again, what gives your chosen text worth? (Except for worth by proxy- people ascribe it with worth therefore it has influence.)




Education transmutes individual delusion into collective faith.


So because the majority believes, it is valuable? It is more important?

Most of what you have said could be translated into simple psychology. Without the use of dubious sources.

Again, it truly seems like self- assurances to persuade yourself that you are not wasting your life.




That's a start on the path to "open your eyes" and look for yourself, look around your environment, and see how things are organized


Again, if someone else was to adopt your practices/ beliefs it would almost invest them with credence. At least it may to you.

All humans possess some level of self-doubt. Please do not be disingenuous (or simply lie) to seem more oracle- like or other worldly.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


As far as gays go, I am semi-openly bisexual ... though my family doesn't know. And I am half ashamed because of my upbringing being Catholic/Christian and what the bible says about it all ...

That being said I do not take the Bible word for word (especially the Genesis book and the Revelation book... off topic, I know)...

And I dislike the whole legal notions of marriage contracts verses religious notions of marriage sacraments ... etc ... Separation of Church and State really has never existed so long as this goes on and has been going on. I would like to see it happen completely, but it never will. I highly doubt it, anyway.

I am not in my right mind and the air force is on my back burner if my life falls to pieces again... I wouldn't complain if I were to fly into combat and blow things up... If I die in combat at least I got to demo first.


This is coming from a pyromaniac



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


I can agree with that.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by yes4141

All humans possess some level of self-doubt. Please do not be disingenuous (or simply lie) to seem more oracle- like or other worldly.


Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.

There are things that I do not know. There are things that I know. There's no doubt about the things I do not know. Neither is there any doubt about the things I do know. I know that you can understand these words. I also know that you're in a pissy mood today. Cheer up.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by kallisti36
 

We should not ask any church to violate its doctrine of faith, as that is not correct nor can it be enforced. To ask a priest or minister of any type to perform a ceremony that would violate such would be a far worse thing than allowing 2 people of the same sex to wed. However, as not all marriages are performed under a religious banner, some are civil weddings, those should be open to all who would desire such, without fan fare or the people getting involved in such.


I agree with this, as well. However, even a church wedding is only a formality. For a "marriage" to be legal in the U.S., it must be certified by the state. But gays don't even have the option of going directly to the state to be joined in a union. It is a contract of liberty, and it is denied because of religion.

How is that legal? The First Amendment alone should support civil unions:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Yet Congress has made a law respecting the will of religious intolerance. Hypocrisy at its finest.

/TOA



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DRAZIW
 


Again, you don't actually genuinely answer what I've said.

I can only conclude that you do not think then. Cause and effect doesn't happen in your mind: "if that's not correct then that may not be right" etc. You must not think about things to not consider "that may be right..."- even if you are in denial. You seem entirely oblivious to thousands of years of philosophy and void of what motivates it. There is doubt because you CANNOT ever be 100% sure of almost anything! Especially a subject like this! You are claiming to know things which as I said, even if you had genuine personal experiences which seem to confirm them you would still consider several things such as your sanity, hallucinations, hoax or trick etc.

I haven't been in that bad a mood, I simply replied to your post with my reaction to what you have said, which I believe has overstepped the mark from earnest and zealous to either malevolent and manipulative or truly mentally unhealthy.

P.S. If we are souls which simply inhabit the flesh, then why does it matter which gender an individual has sex with? Surely it is only the flesh which has a gender, not the souls.
edit on 11-9-2011 by yes4141 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 

If Civil unions held the same weight as a marriage, then the controversy would have very little weight. However, this is not the case. The one major difference between the 2 exists in the legal realm. In a marriage one spouse can not be compelled to testify against the other in a court of law, but in a civil union, this protection does not exist, so there fore they are not equal, and one is inferior to the other.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by yes4141

Again, you don't actually genuinely answer what I've said.



To assume that nothing can be known is an extreme position to take. It is to deny 1+1=2, to deny the sky is blue. To say we must doubt all these things is a bit ridiculous. There are known knowns, even if there aren't any unknown unknowns.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by The Old American
 

In a marriage one spouse can not be compelled to testify against the other in a court of law, but in a civil union, this protection does not exist, so there fore they are not equal, and one is inferior to the other.


But, which is inferior and which is superior?

That's the 64 million dollar question.

The thing is, we cannot make that which is inherently unequal to be equal. Two men bonded together can never be made the same as one man and one woman bonded to each other. There are differences that the law cannot fix by legislation.

Let us say that two gay men get married, then should they also be entitled to "maternity leave" ?



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by DRAZIW
 

Well in answer to your question it is called FMLA, which guarantees that a person can take leave from a job when it comes to dealing the family and medical leave.

Do you not understand the law as it is on the books? A wife can not be compelled to testify against her husband in a court of law. The civil union does not offer that protection what so ever. That means 2 men who are in a civil union, one can be compelled to testify against the other or face penalty under the law.

How is a couple that is male/male any different than a couple that is male/female? Is the love different that the 2 would feel for the other? Is there some different way that a woman would feel love for a man, that a man can not feel for her? Just exactly would 2 men getting married affect their neighbor? Will it cause the economy to fall? For society to collapse?

There is only 2 ways to end this debate, one is to allow 2 people of the same sex to wed and have the same rights and protections under the law as their counter parts do. Or to remove all benefits to marriage. That means no more tax incentives, no more protections under the law, nothing, just having to pay to change the name and that is it.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DRAZIW
 


That is not what I have said. I said that no matter how much you believe you know something there are always inevitable thoughts of doubt, this is especially true when it is something which is not physical/ theoretical/
without proof that you claim to know.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 

I tried to quote the reply but for some reason it wouldn't let me,so instead I copied the part from the OP that pertained to the question I want to ask regarding it..Quote below from OP.

"If one believes what the bible says, as I do (mostly, but that's another story
), then homosexuality is against God. However, context is king here. Those two scriptures are describing the very infancy of humans on Earth. It's difficult at best to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth" if humans aren't procreating. Fundamentalists often point to Paul the Apostle as speaking against homosexuality. However, the word didnt even enter the Christian bible until the early 1970's. In the original text he talked about "sexual immorality", which could be any of a number of things"...End quote.

The question I am curious about is the part in the above quote which is in the last two sentences.You said that in the original text,"he",referring to Paul,only used the words,"sexual immorality",which in turn could mean just about anything,to this I agree.And also you stated he never spoke against homosexuality which is false.

Here is a scripture from the bible that doesn't even use the words homosexuality or sexual immorality but will convey the same message which you stated earlier from the old testament.Mind you,this verse is written by Paul and clearly takes a stance in oppositon of what you said in regards to him having never spoke against homosexuality.Anyways here is the verse from Romans,chapter 1,verse 26-27.
Source
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Now Paul may have only used the term "sexually immoral",but clearly Paul did state what the churches stance was on homosexuality at the time and defined to the church what that terminology meant.So clearly Paul did speak of homosexuality but just didn't use direct words to imply it.







edit on 11-9-2011 by Daedal because: added text.

edit on 11-9-2011 by Daedal because: spelling

edit on 11-9-2011 by Daedal because: added source

edit on 11-9-2011 by Daedal because: punctuation




top topics



 
60
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join