So, it turns out that the Florida Shooter was Gay

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
therein lies the problem when one ignores the physiology of the human body!

Humans weren't supposed to fly either.

Trying to pretend that you are taking a position based on other than religious beliefs isn't fooling anyone in this discussion.

Originally posted by FMF
No. I'm pointing out to you that, to my way of thinking - as a non-superstitious person - that it is a mistake to treat "immorality" and "sin" as synonymous. If you're talking to other Christians it's probably OK. But if you're trying to communicate ideas with non-believers, then I think treating the two words as synonymous is an error.

I'm not superstitious either. Why are you not superstitious? Is superstition and faith in a God that speaks synonomous?

"...I think treating the two words as synonymous is an error."

Why? Is it because your thinking is not affected by an omniscient moral law giver? Is that something you perceive as superstitious?

Originally posted by josephw
Correction, I do not condemn homosexuals. I condemn the act. Get that perfectly clear and don't accuse me of condemning people again.

You "do not condemn homosexuals"? Are you sure about that?

You said this: "...there has been a certain methodical dismantling of morality across virtually every front for the last fifty years."

And this: "Anyone that supports and promotes homosexuality is disturbed to one degree or another. It's in the mind. Minds are corrupted by the lack of moral convictions. Like the minds posting in these forums that claim there is no right or wrong, good or evil, but say it's just a matter of subjectivity and relativity.

And: "Any and all that lack moral convictions based on the absolute standard of righteousness, which is built into the conscience, is in conflict with their own mind and soul. Disturbed."

And this: "Homosexuals, and their supporters, are disturbed, just as any other human being that lives a life bereft of moral restraints."

It seems pretty clear that you are not only condemning homosexuals but you are also condemning people that support homosexuals' struggle to be free of discrimination.

And now you claim "I do not condemn homosexuals". This seems a bit odd when one bears in mind what you posted earlier on this thread.

Do you actually believe that you can condemn a person's morals ["...lack of moral convictions" ... "...bereft of moral restraints"] while somehow pretending not to be condemning them as a person as well?

Originally posted by josephw
I'm not superstitious either. Why are you not superstitious? Is superstition and faith in a God that speaks synonomous?

You are superstitious because you have a belief in supernatural causality.

Originally posted by FMF
You "do not condemn homosexuals"? Are you sure about that?

You said this: [b]"...there has been a certain methodical dismantling of morality across virtually every front for the last fifty years."

And this: "Anyone that supports and promotes homosexuality is disturbed to one degree or another. It's in the mind. Minds are corrupted by the lack of mo ...[text shortened]... ft of moral restraints"] while somehow pretending not to be condemning them as a person as well?

You have an odd way of perceiving things.

You need it to be as you say, otherwise your argument holds no water.

Name an individual that I have condemned.

FMF: "...I think treating the two words as synonymous is an error."

Originally posted by josephw
Why? Is it because your thinking is not affected by an omniscient moral law giver? Is that something you perceive as superstitious?

"Sin" is, in the minds of those that believe in a God figure, the transgression of that God figure's will. "Morality" is concerned with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct. Seeing as not everybody believes in your God figure - me included - you cannot treat the words as synonymous. Whether you see yourself - or me - as a "sinner" - is neither here nor there to a person who is not a member of your religion. But people like you and I can discuss morality, despite your religious beliefs, if you realize that not everybody conflates "sin" and "morality"

Originally posted by josephw
"With your trenchant condemnation of homosexuals,.."

Correction, I do not condemn homosexuals. I condemn the act. Get that perfectly clear and don't accuse me of condemning people again.

I'm not "reactionary" either. I see myself as proactive as it should be clear to see to you.

Your penchant for inserting inflammatory language into a discussion, and presuming that I and/or others fit your preconceived biases is well understood.

When did you choose not to be homosexual?

Originally posted by FMF
You are superstitious because you have a belief in supernatural causality.

That doesn't make me superstitious. Yes it's true I believe that God works within the affairs of men.

But you don't obviously. That's to your discredit. In a manner of speaking that makes you superstitious of God. To think that you think you are so all knowing that you can say God isn't involved in His creation makes you altogether superstitious.

Originally posted by josephw
You have an odd way of perceiving things.

You need it to be as you say, otherwise your argument holds no water.

Name an individual that I have condemned.

You have been condemning homosexuals (and people who "support" them) on this thread the "lack of moral convictions" and for being "bereft of moral restraints". You can't condemn something within a person that is as fundamental and as defining as their moral convictions without condemning the person at the same time.

You have to decide now whether you are going to defend such a nonsensical stance (that you can condemn a person's moral convictions while not condemning the person whose moral convictions they are) or concede that you got a bit carried away with your "I do not condemn homosexuals", have the courage of your convictions, and admit that you do condemn them.

Originally posted by josephw
That doesn't make me superstitious. Yes it's true I believe that God works within the affairs of men.

Superstition is belief in supernatural causality.

Originally posted by HandyAndy
When did you choose not to be homosexual?

When? What an odd fellow you are. Be real old man. Come up with something with some bite. Say something meaningful. I dare you.

Originally posted by josephw
But you don't [believe that God works within the affairs of men] obviously. That's to your discredit. In a manner of speaking that makes you superstitious of God. To think that you think you are so all knowing that you can say God isn't involved in His creation makes you altogether superstitious.

I think you've just blurted out something mistaken and untrue about what "superstitious" means.

Originally posted by josephw
When? What an odd fellow you are. Be real old man. Come up with something with some bite. Say something meaningful. I dare you.

No answer?

Originally posted by josephw
When? What an odd fellow you are. Be real old man. Come up with something with some bite. Say something meaningful. I dare you.

Come on, Joe. It's a simple question.

And stop calling me "old man."

HandyAndy: When did you choose not to be homosexual?

Originally posted by josephw
When? What an odd fellow you are. Be real old man. Come up with something with some bite. Say something meaningful. I dare you.

You have missed the import of HandyAndy's canny question. If it is, as you would have us believe, a "choice" to be a homosexual", then it must also be a "choice" to be heterosexual too. If you believe that homosexuals make "choices" about their sexuality based on a lack of morals, does that mean - if you had lacked the necessary morals - you could have "chosen" to marry a man and settle down with him and slept with him your whole life long? I would say that a heterosexual man would not be able to "choose" that whilst remaining happy or whilst living his life in accordance with his actual sexual orientation.