Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Cognitive dissonance


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#16    ChloeB

ChloeB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,161 posts
  • Joined:26 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Female

  • “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” — Leonardo da Vinci

Posted 05 April 2013 - 03:18 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 05 April 2013 - 02:52 PM, said:

I think it's possible to read her rant as being restricted only to the specific Christians who exhibit the behaviors she is criticizing and not all Christians, especially given the leeway that comes with she herself terming her post a 'rant'.  You are correct concerning cognitive dissonance though; 'cognitive dissonance' I believe is actually a psychological disorder to some extent but it requires that the people who possess this dissonance actually experience some type of discomfort from the dissonance.  Using this meaning of the term, it's usually not correct to say someone else has cognitive dissonance, they themselves need to.  I think the more appropriate terms for what Chloe is discussing above is something more along the lines of 'contradictory' or 'hypocritical'.

To me this boils down to something that comes up a lot but I don't think has a simplistic answer:  how much blame does a specific belief system deserve when it is questionable whether the corresponding believers are actually correctly adhering to that belief.  Let me use gay marriage as an example, and the opposition by Christians to it.  I am of the opinion that there simply is no call or command by Jesus anywhere in the Bible to make sin illegal or to use the mechanisms of the state to prevent people from sinning.  If anything, I thought Jesus provided the opposite message (render unto Caesar...).  So to me it is incorrect for Christians to say they object to the legality of gay marriage or fornication or whatever on Christian grounds.  But unfortunately contrary to that I also believe that at some point 'Christianity' is what Christians believe it is regardless of what it says in the Bible so it's difficult to untangle the two.

First off, thank you.  It was ranty and I was ticked off big time.  And hypocritical yes, that's probably just it, but that's what so many don't see, the rules don't have to be fair, they are tilted to suit God's side, because of, well nothing more or anymore justification required than it's God's law and many think God's law supercedes man's law.  And while PA says I'm stereotyping, I believe he himself says that as well.  So there you have a conundrum when you say your religion has no place in government or law to people who believe that God's law supercedes man's law, while I say and so does my country that they are supposed to be separate, church and state.  So many of them don't want that separation, they believe they follow the one and only true religion, the one and only true God and it's over EVERYTHING, except for some reason their tax-free status, so yes, hypocritcal yes, totally.  Thing is they can't be reasoned with when they think like that and why I got so mad and said I think it's toxic poison and would go away, yes, extreme but I was very annoyed.  I liked how you said that though, the legality of gay marriage, that kind of emphasizes the separation, they don't have to support it, they don't have to be gay, gay and married, but the legality of something and what the bible says are things that should be on 2 totally different playing fields.

I just read your signature:  "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"  
How absolutely perfect to what I'm talking about.

Edited by ChloeB, 05 April 2013 - 03:24 PM.

“You've gotta dance like there's nobody watching,
Love like you'll never be hurt,
Sing like there's nobody listening,
And live like it's heaven on earth.”
― William W. Purkey

#17    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,734 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 05 April 2013 - 04:34 PM

View PostChloeB, on 05 April 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

First off, thank you.  It was ranty and I was ticked off big time.  And hypocritical yes, that's probably just it, but that's what so many don't see, the rules don't have to be fair, they are tilted to suit God's side, because of, well nothing more or anymore justification required than it's God's law and many think God's law supercedes man's law.

No problem Chloe.  I do understand what you are saying I think, how hypocritical for those conservative Christians who are all for small government as far as rights they want, such as unfettered gun ownership, to simultaneously agitate for restricted freedoms and larger government as far as gay marriage for instance.  However, I think to be as fair as possible, we have to look at it from the possible perspective of these Christians.  For these Christians, god's word trumps all, and despite my objection to it, they apparently do think that God or Jesus does want them to try to legislate against sin.  The issue that causes for your argument is that I believe that the Bible is absolutely silent on things like gun rights, but supposedly is not on gay marriage.  Thus the conservative Christian's logic could be, 1) if (they believe) the bible says something is wrong then it is proper to try to get the prohibition of that sin written into law, but 2) when addressing issues on which the bible is silent, they follow their politically conservative beliefs.  That logic does lead to inconsistent outcomes as you've noted, but it might not be hypocritical or contradictory.  

Now I think there's all kinds of further criticisms that can be made outside of this particular hypocrisy charge, as I said why are they pushing to have anything they object to religiously written into law.  And more hypocritical in my eyes, why select something like opposition to homosexuality which has very few actual biblical references and not also agitate to have believing in other gods/not believing at all/self-enrichment ('rich' as in money-rich) made illegal, as these sins are mentioned much more frequently and not believing in God is the gravest sin of all.  That doesn't seem very consistent.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#18    ChloeB

ChloeB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,161 posts
  • Joined:26 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Female

  • “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” — Leonardo da Vinci

Posted 05 April 2013 - 05:01 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 05 April 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

No problem Chloe.  I do understand what you are saying I think, how hypocritical for those conservative Christians who are all for small government as far as rights they want, such as unfettered gun ownership, to simultaneously agitate for restricted freedoms and larger government as far as gay marriage for instance.  However, I think to be as fair as possible, we have to look at it from the possible perspective of these Christians.  For these Christians, god's word trumps all, and despite my objection to it, they apparently do think that God or Jesus does want them to try to legislate against sin.  The issue that causes for your argument is that I believe that the Bible is absolutely silent on things like gun rights, but supposedly is not on gay marriage.  Thus the conservative Christian's logic could be, 1) if (they believe) the bible says something is wrong then it is proper to try to get the prohibition of that sin written into law, but 2) when addressing issues on which the bible is silent, they follow their politically conservative beliefs.  That logic does lead to inconsistent outcomes as you've noted, but it might not be hypocritical or contradictory.  

Then don't you wonder why we don't see efforts comparable to their massive anti-gay marriage efforts to make getting remarried after a divorce illegal as well if it's proper for them to legislate against sins clarified in the bible?  I don't see any of them caring about that at all.  Isn't that a threat to the biblical definition of marriage as well and 2nd marriages after divorce deemed sinful and even adulterous (and adultery is on the BIG 10, a boast gay marriage and homosexuality can't even claim)?  Where is their outrage and efforts for that?

Quote

Now I think there's all kinds of further criticisms that can be made outside of this particular hypocrisy charge, as I said why are they pushing to have anything they object to religiously written into law.  And more hypocritical in my eyes, why select something like opposition to homosexuality which has very few actual biblical references and not also agitate to have believing in other gods/not believing at all/self-enrichment ('rich' as in money-rich) made illegal, as these sins are mentioned much more frequently and not believing in God is the gravest sin of all.  That doesn't seem very consistent.

They'll use any excuse to get their religion written into law.  I can't even tell you how many people here were saying that keeping prayer and God out of the classroom is responsible for Sandy Hook.  That is how crazy they are!  They could have God and prayer in that school all day, that kid didn't even go to that school.  What is it like some prayer protective force field they think will happen?  I am just dumbfounded by them.  Religion and God doesn't make mentally ill people not mentally ill, but they try to say if he'd had God, he would have never done that, but truth is, sometimes mentally ill people are made worse by religious preoccupation.

“You've gotta dance like there's nobody watching,
Love like you'll never be hurt,
Sing like there's nobody listening,
And live like it's heaven on earth.”
― William W. Purkey

#19    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 05 April 2013 - 05:50 PM

View PostSeeker79, on 05 April 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

You know it's funny. I teach martial arts. There is a very long history of governments takeing away weapons from its people, and not once has it ever worked out.

Could you list some of these? All I see in history is governments arming their people so they could attack other countries.


#20    GreenmansGod

GreenmansGod

    Bio-Electric sentient being.

  • Member
  • 9,898 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Hurricane State

  • May the laughter ye give today return to thee 3 fold.

Posted 05 April 2013 - 09:43 PM

They want to be ready for when Jesus comes back and they have to shoot the unbelievers. That is what I been told.  Red Neck land can be a scary place.

I don't mind people having guns, but those guns with mega rounds should be outlawed. I mean honestly how much fire power do you need to shoot a deer or an intruder.

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." Salman Rushdie

#21    libstaK

libstaK

    Nosce Te Ipsum

  • 7,028 posts
  • Joined:06 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

  • Hello Reality and all that is True
    When Oxymoron was defined it was just for you

Posted 05 April 2013 - 11:36 PM

I can't speak to the conservative right in Texas but as a christian as far as gay marriage goes here is what I do see.

- The government of a country is required to be secular to represent the rights of ALL it's people, regardless of religious belief, creed, colour or origin.

- A secular government should apply the legal definition of marriage to all who wish to participate in a legal life partnership with a single other person, allowing for the legal rights applied within the marriage of inheritance, taxability, health care provision for partners etc to be applied in exactly the same way to a couple be they gay or straight. In the matter of secular governance, regardless of the personal beliefs of the polititians they should have their eye to encompassing all their citizenry equally under the law and just get on with it.  There is no legitimate reason for a gay couple not to be considered legally married before the secular law.

- A secular government cannot however have a say in whether there is discrimination within a religious belief if said religious belief does not allow gay marriage to be enacted as a sacred ceremony within it's chosen "house of God".

I think that is where the line belongs, matters such as gay priests having rights to preach the christian gospel or gay couples having the right to be married within a church or by the Pastor/Priest of a particular religion need to be distinctly dis-entangled from the secular rights of citizens within the law of a country.

There is some muck in all that, no question.  How can you not "discriminate" by the legal definition of the term and  also practice freedom of religion if you deny one citizen access to a ceremony but allow another the same access if both have been baptized into a faith and are thereby legitimate members of said faith who are simply enacting a different sin than their equally but differently sinful brethren? AKA: A "liar" or "covetous" or "prideful" person would not by all accounts be denied a church wedding if he/she is of a faith and his/her partner is of the opposite sex for instance.

Simply put, you can't enact "sin" before the altar or within church walls and certainly not within the ceremonies of the faith, it would be a blatant "blasthemy" of the purpose of the altar and church walls - again the place where the line belongs as far as the chosen doctrine's definition of sin is concerned.  So while many have sinned as far as their chosen faith's definition of sin is concerned - they have not asked their particular sin to be sanctioned before the altar of the church they participate in and would not, even though they may regularly attend and wish to express faith and repentance as much as they are able just the same.

It seems to me that the matter of doctrinal ceremony within church walls needs to be legally exempted from particular secular laws in specific instances before the tensions surrounding gay marriage laws can be eased.

It also seems to me that there are those who are questioning the level of exemptions that christians and other faiths are entitled to within their walls and when does secular law supercede doctrinal law in the matter of human rights - specifically the right to be treated equally in all matters and this is right at the heart of the stumbling block that conservative politics are struggling with.

"I warn you, whoever you are, oh you who wish to probe the arcanes of nature, if you do not find within yourself that which you seek, neither shall you find it outside.
If you ignore the excellencies of your own house, how do you intend to find other excellencies?
In you is hidden the treasure of treasures, Oh man, know thyself and you shall know the Universe and the Gods."

Inscription - Temple of Delphi

#22    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,734 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 05 April 2013 - 11:55 PM

View PostlibstaK, on 05 April 2013 - 11:36 PM, said:

- A secular government cannot however have a say in whether there is discrimination within a religious belief if said religious belief does not allow gay marriage to be enacted as a sacred ceremony within it's chosen "house of God".

It seems to me that the matter of doctrinal ceremony within church walls needs to be legally exempted from particular secular laws in specific instances before the tensions surrounding gay marriage laws can be eased.

I can't speak for Australia, but I'm pretty sure in the US this is not an issue.  Although some religious people here do make the argument that legalizing gay marriage here will infringe on someone's religious freedom because churches will have to marry gay couples, that would not be the case.  Churches here don't have to marry anyone as it is strictly a ceremony and carries no weight legally, they can discriminate to their heart's content and not marry interracial couples or people of different denominations or people whose first name starts with a 'B'.  (I'm not positive, but I think churches are also given exemptions to some extent from employment discrimination laws, I don't think Christian churches have to hire an atheist or Hindu as their treasurer or janitor for example.  Again not positive, and maybe they are only allowed an exemption to allow them to legally disciminate based on religion.)

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#23    libstaK

libstaK

    Nosce Te Ipsum

  • 7,028 posts
  • Joined:06 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

  • Hello Reality and all that is True
    When Oxymoron was defined it was just for you

Posted 06 April 2013 - 12:26 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 05 April 2013 - 11:55 PM, said:

I can't speak for Australia, but I'm pretty sure in the US this is not an issue.  Although some religious people here do make the argument that legalizing gay marriage here will infringe on someone's religious freedom because churches will have to marry gay couples, that would not be the case.  Churches here don't have to marry anyone as it is strictly a ceremony and carries no weight legally, they can discriminate to their heart's content and not marry interracial couples or people of different denominations or people whose first name starts with a 'B'.  (I'm not positive, but I think churches are also given exemptions to some extent from employment discrimination laws, I don't think Christian churches have to hire an atheist or Hindu as their treasurer or janitor for example.  Again not positive, and maybe they are only allowed an exemption to allow them to legally disciminate based on religion.)
It boils down to that, what "some religious people" fear will come to pass, based on ignorance as you have pointed out.  There is no secular aka: legal argument to support those fears, yet they stand.  It has to be said though that there is a push within faiths for gays to have more rights within their particular doctrines and the fear of a legal endorsement encouraging this further is probably causing alot of the grief, right or wrong.

You said it well when you said "Render unto Caesar ....".  Separating secular law from own personal faiths is paramount to a peaceful and egalitarian society.

Edited by libstaK, 06 April 2013 - 12:26 AM.

"I warn you, whoever you are, oh you who wish to probe the arcanes of nature, if you do not find within yourself that which you seek, neither shall you find it outside.
If you ignore the excellencies of your own house, how do you intend to find other excellencies?
In you is hidden the treasure of treasures, Oh man, know thyself and you shall know the Universe and the Gods."

Inscription - Temple of Delphi

#24    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,784 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 06 April 2013 - 03:50 AM

View Postscowl, on 05 April 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:



Could you list some of these? All I see in history is governments arming their people so they could attack other countries.
China ;)


"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#25    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 26,160 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • Paranoid Android... One Mippippi, two Mippippi, three Mippipi....

Posted 06 April 2013 - 07:01 AM

View PostChloeB, on 05 April 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

Well I was very mad, PA, this is just all people are on about lately here, guns and gay marriage.  And you are the only Christian I have EVER heard say they don't believe in it, but they don't think it should be illegal, that you get the separation of church and state.  They don't freakin' care, it's God's law and screw what our country was founded on.  My assessment is pretty spot on for my area though, sorry I can't speak for the world, but even the really laid back, don't believe hell is an actual place, wear shorts to church preachers are running their mouths about how they wished Obama had spoken to them before he endorsed it because the Bible clearly says it's wrong, marriage is between a man and a woman.  And I'm like SO WHAT!?  Your bible is NOT the governing document for our country, it's separate and yes, enjoy your tax-free status while you want to be an advisor to Obama.  I don't know if they'd call you godless for not owning a gun, they don't hide behind their bible for that one.  So yes, you're better, but you and I've argued this all day back and forth, but I'm all for you believing what you want and your right to it, BUT, BUT, and this is what they don't get, it is a 2-way street, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, other people should get their rights and freedoms as well, EVEN if they don't agree with youir religious beliefs.  You are free to practice those beliefs because we have a country that allows for that, a great thing, so share it and compromise or it doesn't work.  Not one side can always have their way, EVEN if they've convinced themselves they have God on their side and makes them somehow more important and superior, that's their FAITH, which is absolutely ridiculous to use to justify any kind of enforcement of law on people who don't share it.
For what it's worth, I think gay marriage should be allowed in our world.  Our society (my Australian, your American) is not a Christian society, it is a secular one.  And even the Bible tells us that we are strangers in a strange land, aliens without a true home of our own (until we reach heaven).  So why oh why should we force a secular world to bow to Christian morality?  If the Australian government were to hold a Referendum tomorrow to vote on the issue of gay marriage, I would vote "Yes", provided that a church who disagrees with homosexual relationships has the Right to not officiate such a ceremony if it goes against their beliefs.  Though to be fair, I don't know if many of my fellow Christians at church would take that same action.  But considering only 2% of Australians attend church regularly, I doubt church attendance would have a large bearing on the outcome of any vote on the matter.


View PostChloeB, on 05 April 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

Yep, absolutely.  I could care less about owning a gun, but I am very, VERY uncomfortable with a government taking them away and what could follow, just as you said.
I've never lived in a society where gun ownership was acceptable.  In Australia, it's been illegal for as long as I've been alive.  I don't believe a population deserves the Right to gun ownership.  If the Australian government were to hold a Referendum on gun ownership, in contrast to my stance on gay marriage, I would vote "No", we should not have gun ownership.  Interesting contrast here, a Christian against gun ownership and for gay marriage.  This has nothing to do with my morality.  My morality governs my own actions, and no further than that.  My reasoning is based entirely on secular ideals.  People who don't adhere to my Christian morality shouldn't be forced to adhere to it.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#26    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,784 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 06 April 2013 - 02:36 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 06 April 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

For what it's worth, I think gay marriage should be allowed in our world.  Our society (my Australian, your American) is not a Christian society, it is a secular one.  And even the Bible tells us that we are strangers in a strange land, aliens without a true home of our own (until we reach heaven).  So why oh why should we force a secular world to bow to Christian morality?  If the Australian government were to hold a Referendum tomorrow to vote on the issue of gay marriage, I would vote "Yes", provided that a church who disagrees with homosexual relationships has the Right to not officiate such a ceremony if it goes against their beliefs.  Though to be fair, I don't know if many of my fellow Christians at church would take that same action.  But considering only 2% of Australians attend church regularly, I doubt church attendance would have a large bearing on the outcome of any vote on the matter.


I've never lived in a society where gun ownership was acceptable.  In Australia, it's been illegal for as long as I've been alive.  I don't believe a population deserves the Right to gun ownership.  If the Australian government were to hold a Referendum on gun ownership, in contrast to my stance on gay marriage, I would vote "No", we should not have gun ownership.  Interesting contrast here, a Christian against gun ownership and for gay marriage.  This has nothing to do with my morality.  My morality governs my own actions, and no further than that.  My reasoning is based entirely on secular ideals.  People who don't adhere to my Christian morality shouldn't be forced to adhere to it.
A libral Christian... What do you know? Never met one before. Refreshing actually, I have always thought the aggressiveness of some Christians was a glaring contradiction to what Jesus taught.

Australia has a pop around 22 mil. Just California is 38 mil. Australia does not have the same urban socio economics and gang problems not to mention a neighbor home to cartels and other types of chaos. Our population is huge and diverse.

Unfortunately most of us ( though a dwindling number) are not willing to be pacifist in a Mexican stand off.

We also want our country to be a free country where government does not tell us what to do ( within reason) but we tell it what to do. It was founded on that idea. Does it come with consequences... Absolutely everything does. But as I have mentioned, in America, you are more likely yo die from driving to work than a gun shot wound. Would you vote 'yes' to ban automobiles? What about cheeseburgers or jackdanials.

The issue is less about guns themselves, but more about erroding of freedoms.

We protect our presidents with.... guns.
We protect our congressmen with .... guns.
We protect our money with..... Guns.
We protect priceless art, artifacts, actors, actresses, singers, sporting events, important buildings, gold, silver, platinum, our police station, entrences to national parks, borders, etc etc....

With ...... Guns. Then we protect our children with a sign that  says " this is a gun free zone", and legislators who have ARMED guards for themselves and their families want to take guns out of my home. sometimes I can barely believe that such  hypocracy exists.

After running a few numbers I have found that any civilian owned gun in the united states is five times more likely to be used for violence than in Australia. http://www.gunpolicy.org/

This says nothing about guns, austrailians own them to. To me it highlights the fact it's simply more violent in America we have got sprawling inner cities and socioeconomic problems that involve more people that even live in Australia. To Deni the law abiding citizens access to guns is send them out as sheep amoungst the wolves. I will give up mine, when the gang members 3 exits down the hwy give up theirs. ;)




"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#27    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,870 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 08 April 2013 - 06:59 PM

View PostChloeB, on 05 April 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

Then don't you wonder why we don't see efforts comparable to their massive anti-gay marriage efforts to make getting remarried after a divorce illegal as well if it's proper for them to legislate against sins clarified in the bible?  I don't see any of them caring about that at all.  Isn't that a threat to the biblical definition of marriage as well and 2nd marriages after divorce deemed sinful and even adulterous (and adultery is on the BIG 10, a boast gay marriage and homosexuality can't even claim)?  Where is their outrage and efforts for that?
A couple of things here.

Although you don't see Christians on TV or even on college campi or in front of divorce lawyers offices protesting divorce, there was Christian opposition to the lossening of the divorce laws and the cultural shift that occurred, what was it 20? 30? years ago, but conservative Christians back then did not really go in for demonstrations too much, they wrote letters to their congressmen and they preached against it from the pulpit.  We still do!  There are still churches which will not allow divorcees to serve in any ministry position, much less have a pastor who is divorced.  Just because you don't hear about it, doesn't mean the opposition doesn't exist.

Also, most Christians I know are not rabid homosexual haters.  I really can't recall the last time I had a conversation about homosexuality with my Christian friends.  It's not really a big issue, and I live in a VERY conservative part of Texas.  The only time I have extended discussions on homosexuality is when I post responses on UM.

Christians were not the ones who made "same-sex marriage" a major media topic, homosexuals did.  So, for proponents of same-sex marriage to then turn around and act indignant about the reaction of Christians is more than a little disingenuous.

Personally, I agree with PA.  The US is NOT a Christian nation, it is a secular nation and it's Constitutional protection should apply equally to all citizens.  It is my opinion that the government should never have gotten involved in defining marriage or providing particular benefits or protections for married people.  As far as gun ownership is concerned I could not disagree more with PA.  I agree with Seeker.

Quote

They'll use any excuse to get their religion written into law.  I can't even tell you how many people here were saying that keeping prayer and God out of the classroom is responsible for Sandy Hook.  That is how crazy they are!  They could have God and prayer in that school all day, that kid didn't even go to that school.  What is it like some prayer protective force field they think will happen?  I am just dumbfounded by them.  Religion and God doesn't make mentally ill people not mentally ill, but they try to say if he'd had God, he would have never done that, but truth is, sometimes mentally ill people are made worse by religious preoccupation.
The thing is Chloe, "They' are just like you or anyone else, "They" are humans, "They" fear and distrust what is different, "They" try to keep what they fear at bay.  So, please don't make it seem like "They" are so amazingly different and horrible.  If Buddhists were the majority in the US, then they would be trying to sway legisltation to favor their views, if Muslims, were, they also would be doing the same thing, ditto for Druids, Wiccans, animists, and even atheists.

Edited by IamsSon, 08 April 2013 - 07:11 PM.

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#28    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,917 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 08 April 2013 - 07:29 PM

View PostChloeB, on 05 April 2013 - 12:16 AM, said:

Can someone explain to me why or what the connection is with people who are most passionate about their freedoms, their right to bear arms, on and on and on about not getting their guns taken away, are the first ones to be more than happy to demand freedoms  be taken away from others because they object to it based on their "belief in the bible"?  How hypocritical is it to demand and claim you are entitled to the freedoms that you want for yourself and you seem to understand that, but for someone else, their rights are not near as important?  And I'm surrounded by these people and more than fed up with them and to try to reason with them and they've got their bible, nothing else matters that you say, no amount of reasoning and I read something today and I think this is the core root of it:  "If you can reconcile all the direct kill orders God gives in the bible with 'Thou shalt not kill', you can rationalize anything."  And it's true, to be on board with that belief, you absolutely have this sort of cognitive dissonance ingrained within you or it would crumble and there's just no hope in trying to reason with a person who holds on to that so dearly.  I used to defend people who believe in it, live and let live, everyone has their right to their religious beliefs, but these people I'm taking up for are the same people who are so quick to rip away rights from other's that I care about, and it's not the other way around, but they play victim and say don't stereotype me for my beliefs, but what you can't get through their thick heads are their beliefs are fine for THEM, they have no business saying their beliefs in a very questionable book has any bearing on anyone else, but THEM, the person who freely chooses to follow and gamble on that book being truly of God.  I'm done with it though, I'm convinced the book and the belief is toxic and the cognitive dissonance required to follow along with it warps people minds and maybe some good has been a result, but I think people are capable of that regardless and when it comes down to it, I think the world would be better off without it, period.  I'm convinced of it now.  I think trying to reconcile things like God saying kill, kill, kill and then thou shalt not kill has poisoned people's mind at a very fundamental level until they can justify anything when they have convinced themselves God is behind them.  I'm done, when you start using your freedoms to rob other's of their's, I hope your's is the one that goes away and yes, I'm mad, forgive me for the rant.

Taking your rant, and going one step further, I find christian culture in the United States to be extremely wierd. It is the christians who want to bear arms! It is the christians, who want a conservative government, but according what the word actually means, they are not being conservative at all.

I can understand their stance on gay marriage, but what they don't seem to understand is that, that is something that should have no influence on a secular government, which in itself goes a long way to protect them as christians. As a christian myself, I am very wary of religion dominating in government, it can easily be led into areas religion has no place being a part of. That is what effectively destroyed the early church, it became a government instead of a faith.

Most christians here in Portugal and I am talking of fundamentalist, Protestant christianity, are SOCIALISTS... Guns are for the police and criminals, honest citizens have no need of them, that is why a police force exists.. to protect and serve its citizens.

Christians in the United States seem to have forgotten their foundations in this respect of politics, they are there to aid and help others, they are there to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth, how is it that they can have political affiliations with principles that effectively close the door on these things. They are against helping the poor, they are against the government relieving suffering among the afflicted, they are against people having better and more quality health care under government....

In terms of ideaologies they have their heads screwed on the wrong way...christians should be natural socialists, yet here they are defending the opposite of what they believe in and preach-.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#29    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,870 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 08 April 2013 - 08:10 PM

View PostJor-el, on 08 April 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:

Taking your rant, and going one step further, I find christian culture in the United States to be extremely wierd. It is the christians who want to bear arms! It is the christians, who want a conservative government, but according what the word actually means, they are not being conservative at all.

I can understand their stance on gay marriage, but what they don't seem to understand is that, that is something that should have no influence on a secular government, which in itself goes a long way to protect them as christians. As a christian myself, I am very wary of religion dominating in government, it can easily be led into areas religion has no place being a part of. That is what effectively destroyed the early church, it became a government instead of a faith.

Most christians here in Portugal and I am talking of fundamentalist, Protestant christianity, are SOCIALISTS... Guns are for the police and criminals, honest citizens have no need of them, that is why a police force exists.. to protect and serve its citizens.

Christians in the United States seem to have forgotten their foundations in this respect of politics, they are there to aid and help others, they are there to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth, how is it that they can have political affiliations with principles that effectively close the door on these things. They are against helping the poor, they are against the government relieving suffering among the afflicted, they are against people having better and more quality health care under government....

In terms of ideaologies they have their heads screwed on the wrong way...christians should be natural socialists, yet here they are defending the opposite of what they believe in and preach-.
I am constantly surprised to find Christians who adopt liberal/leftist values since they are unbiblical.

Liberalism at it's core has the belief that man is inherently altruistic, that if given the opportunity man will do the right thing; that the only reason people don't do the right thing is because external pressures prevent them from doing so (they are simply poor victims that need to be protected) and that those who are able to overcome these pressures should be given the authority necessary to provide the protection for the victims (those in government are all altruistically simply seeking to help those not as smart, not as strong, not as capable as themselves).  This is the antithesis of what the Bible teaches.  Man is inherently self-interested and if given the opportunity will do what's best for him or what he perceives to be best for him.

What do we see in the Bible regarding government?  God chose Israel to be His people, He was to be their direct and only ruler, but no they wanted a king and a government like the other countries around.  So what happened?  Read Kings I&II and Chronicles I&II, they got exactly what they wanted, a government like the one the other countries had: the kings and their administrators took advantage of the people, dispensed justice unfairly, helping their friends and disregarding the widows and orphans.

Furthermore, given that Christians in the US not only feed the poor and help the unemployed in the US, but also donate MILLIONS of dollars to help worldwide, it is incredibly innacurate to say we are against helping the poor.  What we oppose is government's attempt to make people dependent on it.

Christians should be naturally conservative, questioning the motives of those seeking more and more power and authority for themselves.  Government is not an entity, it is not a being, it is a group of inherently self-interested people seeking power and wealth for themselves using the excuse that they want to help others as a means to achieve their goal.

As to the guns issue.  The United States is based on the ideal that GOD gives man rights, and that those rights need to be protected from government's attempt to limit those rights.  American Christians believe God gives man the right to defend himself, his family, his neighbors and his property, and that he has the right to access the tools that make this possible.  Since guns are available, man has the right to own guns.  I fervently pray I will never have to use my guns to injure or kill someone in order to protect someone else, but I believe that just like The Lord has given us the ability to develop life-saving medicines, and equipment so that we would use them to preserve health and life when possible (all of the while acknowledging He is the Creator and the Healer and the one whose will be done) He has also provided us with the way to develop the means to defend ourselves against those who seek to cause us harm (all the while acknowledging He is the Creator, and the Life-giver, and the one whose will be done).

I don't know about Portugal, but in the US, there is case law proving that the role of the police is NOT to protect individual citizens, but to protect "society" whatever that may mean.  Additionally, police usually don't show up in time to prevent a crime, they show up after a crime is either in progress or has been committed.

Edited by IamsSon, 08 April 2013 - 08:22 PM.

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#30    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,917 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 08 April 2013 - 08:27 PM

View PostIamsSon, on 08 April 2013 - 08:10 PM, said:

I am constantly surprised to find Christians who adopt liberal/leftist values since they are unbiblical.

Liberalism at it's core has the belief that man is inherently altruistic, that if given the opportunity man will do the right thing.  This is the antithesis of what the Bible teaches.  Man is inherently self-interested and if given the opportunity will do what's best for him or what he perceives to be best for him.

What do we see in the Bible regarding government?  God chose Israel to be His people, He was to be their direct and only ruler, but no they wanted a king and a government like the other countries around.  So what happened?  Read Kings I&II and Chronicles I&II, the kings and their administrators took advantage of the people, dispensed justice unfairly, helping their friends and disregarding the widows and orphans.

Furthermore, given that Christians in the US not only feed the poor and help the unemployed in the US, but also donate MILLIONS of dollars to help worldwide, it is incredibly innacurate to say we are against helping the poor.  What we oppose is government's attempt to make people dependent on it.

Christians should be naturally conservative, questioning the motives of those seeking more and more power and authority for themselves.  Government is not an entity, it is not a being, it is a group of inherently self-interested people seeking power and wealth for themselves using the excuse that they want to help others as a means to achieve their goal.

As to the guns issue.  The United States is based on the ideal that GOD gives man rights, and that those rights need to be protected from government's attempt to limit those rights.  American Christians believe God gives man the right to defend himself, his family, his neighbors and his property, and that he has the right to access the tools that make this possible.  Since guns are available, man has the right to own guns.

I don't know about Portugal, but in the US, there is case law proving that the role of the police is NOT to protect individual citizens, but to protect "society" whatever that may mean.  Additionally, police usually don't show up in time to prevent a crime, they show up after a crime is either in progress or has been committed.

Hi Iams,

Personally I don't see it that way, yes man is inherently self seeking that is absolutely true, but it is also a matter of ideaology more than biblical belief that the government doesn't protect us. I personally believe in a strong government, but also a government that can be brought down if it misbehaves, that can only happen in democracy. I know for a fact that most Americans don't like the word socialism, for them it invokes some strange imagery, but it is that ideology that most closely resembles christian attitudes and thinking, this is the very opposite of what the traditional christian politcal movement in the US believes.

I don't know about the details in the US, but very few people enjoy "needing" government assistance, they would rather have a job. There are always a few leeches in every society, but the minority do not and should not reflect the majority.

I don't see the biblical christians carrying guns around, or their equivalent for that time. I don't accept christianity as an excuse to carry guns which are just as likely to be used against the owner or others as in self defense. It is not that owning a gun is wrong, but there are guns, and then there are guns.... what private citizen needs a military automatic or semi-automatic weapon?

It truthfully can only really be used to kill people.

PS -  Here is an article that actually shares the views that I'm trying to transmit in my statements, it makes for some deep reflection.

http://www.washingto...iaQBJ_blog.html

Edited by Jor-el, 08 April 2013 - 08:41 PM.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users