So, it turns out that the Florida Shooter was Gay

Originally posted by FMF
"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 ...[text shortened]... despite your religious beliefs, if you realize that not everybody conflates "sin" and "morality"

" Seeing as not everybody believes in your God figure - me included - you cannot treat the words as synonymous."

It's when you make statements like that that I begin to wonder whether you can understand yourself or not.

Just because you and "not everybody" doesn't believe God doesn't mean that sin and morality aren't inextricably linked. It's only wishful thinking on your part. Superstitious really.

Originally posted by josephw
Just because you and "not everybody" doesn't believe God doesn't mean that sin and morality aren't inextricably linked. It's only wishful thinking on your part. Superstitious really.

We can talk about "morality" because we are both moral agents. But "sin" and the obligations you feel to obey a supernatural being that you happen to believe exists, is a matter for you and members of your religion. If you insist on conflating "morality" with "sin", it's tantamount to copping out of a discussion about morality (i.e. the arrangements and standards that govern human interactions, regardless of their faith or lack of faith) with anyone other than your fellow religionists.

Originally posted by HandyAndy
Come on, Joe. It's a simple question.

And stop calling me "old man."

I don't mean it that way for heaven's sake. After all you're only a few years older than me.

Ok. I see the question as misleading. Like when someone asks you "when did you stop beating your wife".

There was never a "when" that I chose not to be a homosexual.

Are you going to say that those who are homosexuals never made a choice?

Originally posted by josephw
There was never a "when" that I chose not to be a homosexual.

Are you going to say that those who are homosexuals never made a choice?

Have you ever had any homosexual friends? Have you ever spoken frankly to any of them about their sexual orientation? It sounds decidedly as if you have not.

Originally posted by josephw
Are you going to say that those who are homosexuals never made a choice?

Pretty much. Their only choice is to show it or hide it.

Originally posted by FMF
We can talk about "morality" because we are both moral agents. But "sin" and the obligations you feel to obey a supernatural being that you happen to believe exists, is a matter for you and members of your religion. If you insist on conflating "morality" with "sin", it's tantamount to copping out of a discussion about morality (i.e. the arrangements and standard ...[text shortened]... ns, regardless of their faith or lack of faith) with anyone other than your fellow religionists.

"The arrangement and standards that govern human interactions" are God given.

That you refuse to believe that adds no weight to your argument.

You see, this is the crucible of the "parting of the ways", so to speak, that's at the heart of this debate. You have only your own words with which to reference as authoritative, but I on the other hand reference the authority of the Word of God, which you have made abundantly clear you don't believe.

Very superstitious of you. It must be very painful indeed for you to carry such a burden. Reveal Hidden Content

Originally posted by josephw
Very superstitious of you. It must be very painful indeed for you to carry such a burden.

My lack of belief in supernatural causality cannot be described as a belief in supernatural causality, so your use of the word "superstitious" doesn't work. Would you somehow not be a moral person if you didn't have your God figure?

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

You have been condemning homosexuals on this thread the "lack of moral convictions" and for being "bereft of moral restraints". This is about as personal a condemnation of a person as I can think of.

Originally posted by HandyAndy
Pretty much. Their only choice is to show it or hide it.

Life can throw some very wicked hard balls at some. Granted. For those of us who have managed to duck in time before being struck down it is difficult to imagine the pain others who were not so fortunate must feel.

I used the term "disturbed" to describe homosexuality. I don't get a charge out of that. But there are many forms of disturbances that effect many. Some become pedaphiles, others murderers, thieves, liars, and on and on it goes.

If we remove accountability we diminish our humanity. Perhaps you follow my point.

Originally posted by FMF
You have been condemning homosexuals on this thread the "lack of moral convictions" and for being "bereft of moral restraints". This is about as personal a condemnation of a person as I can think of.

What's the matter FMF? Do you have a guilty conscience?

With all your blathering you still haven't shown where I have condemned a single soul. And you won't because I haven't.

It just pisses you off that I have the balls to call the kettle black. You won't be happy until you've condemned me. Good luck with that.

Originally posted by josephw
I used the term "disturbed" to describe homosexuality. I don't get a charge out of that. But there are many forms of disturbances that effect many. Some become pedaphiles, others murderers, thieves, liars, and on and on it goes.

While you have your own private moral and psychological perspective on the sexual orientation of homosexuals, do you believe that such people should be equal before the law and should not have to face any kind of systematic discrimination at the hands of government and public institutions?

Originally posted by josephw
It just pisses you off that I have the balls to call the kettle black.

In fact, I think that you did call the kettle black on this thread but that you have since then back peddled in a certain amount of disarray - and you don't "have the balls" to acknowledge that that is what you have done. You condemned homosexuals several times on page 7 of this thread. By page 11 you were already denying it.

Originally posted by josephw
What's the matter FMF? Do you have a guilty conscience?

A guilty conscience about what?

Originally posted by FMF
While you have your own private moral and psychological perspective on the sexual orientation of homosexuals, do you believe that such people should be equal before the law and should not have to face any kind of systematic discrimination at the hands of government and public institutions?

I guess you just can't help yourself since the musings of man are the only source of authority you have. Can't you see what a media/pop culture lackey you are?

You're standing on shifting sand. When the wind of reality blows, and it will, everything you think is right and true, that which you have made abundantly clear, will become as nothing.

Ominous isn't it? Well, it was for most of those that came before us. Nothing is new. It's the same old story from long ago. Why can't you see that?

Originally posted by FMF
A guilty conscience about what?

About being wrong. 😉