Choices

Remove all ads!

I obviously have no idea what your home life was like when you were growing up or what expectations they or society placed upon you. So if any of my assumptions are in gross error, I apologize in advance. What I'm saying is that if you are like 99% of people the world over, the first experience you have regarding religion is not some type of divine experience or communication with God. Most people's first experience of religion is the first time your parents take you to the church/temple/synogogue/mosque/whatever.

Despite you being Baptist and me being Catholic, we both had a similar starting point in that we were raised following a Christian faith. And we started learning about the Christian faith as soon as we started attending church, which I assume you started at a relatively young age. Until you were old enough to drive yourself somewhere else, it is more than likely that the only opportunity you had to practice any religion was by going to your Baptist Church.

Since that time you've obviously become an adult and can now decide for yourself what religion you wish to practice and how exactly you wish to practice it (I'll explain that in more detail below). However, by this point, the Baptist faith has been so imprinted upon you that there is no possible way you would be willing to turn away from it now.

My point is the main reason that both you and I are Christian is that we were exposed to a Christian faith very early on. Do you still think you'd be a Christian if neither of your parents were Christian? I believe I wouldn't be. Likewise, I'm not sure what religion I'd be if my parents had been of two different faiths, one Christian, and the other not.

Now, a brief return to what I said before. When I said, "[you] can now decide for yourself what religion you wish to practice and how exactly you wish to practice it," what I mean was what subgroup you belong to. For example, both you and I practice the same religion (Christianity) but the way we practice it is differnet (Baptist verus Catholic).

 

To keep food and other things from entering the lungs. The ability to produce sounds with them is a side effect. Also note the use of the teeth, tongue, lips and nasal passages. Speech is parasitic on these organs. This info is from a book called Language: Its Structure and Use by Edward Finegan.

 

@Fel, Drew, @ Gnarff:
Ok, Drew put that much better. If that's what you meant, Fel, you did a rather poor job of explaining it.

So basically, we were talking about two totally different things.
Just to clear things up, I'll set the record straight. I was saved when I was three years old, my choice, not anyone else's, but that's not my main concern for now. From a secular perspective, I was christian for about 3 years after that, then I became pretty agnostic, weak agnostic, as in 'I don't really care' agnostic. I still went to church, but I didn't pay attention. I didn't get in trouble, but that's because I'm more patient than many people, I could wait out an hour and a half sermon. I stayed that way until I was 17 years old. At that point, I could drive. I could go somewhere else and my parents would have been a little disapointed, but they wouldn't have kicked me out of the house or anything. That's when I re-discovered God. That's when I was reminded He was real. My life SUCKED at this point. Sorry for the profanity, but it did. I had every reason to hate God, and for a bit, I did. But then I decided to take Him at His word, to trust Him. So no, I couldn't have believed in the Hindu pantheon, but I could have seen God as a mean, vindictive deity.

As for virginity, Fel, congrats. I don't know where you live, but in the US, at my age group, that would put you in less than 1% of the population. And again, my life SUCKED for a long time. Drugs were a VERY real temptation, and so was suicide. So don't throw off such temptations so lightly.

@Susipaisti:
Define parasitic. Do you mean that speech actually damages them?

 

Wrong, Susipaisti, that's the function of the epiglottis.

 

NOG:
No, it doesn't harm them. But that's the word the book uses. Meaning, those organs are there for something else, and there are no organs only for speech.

Rallymama: As I understand it that is only a part of the picture.
How come I can't find any information on the vocal cords from innerbody.com?

Edit: In any case, speech being parasitic (figuratively speaking) is what linguists say.

Edit 2: And now that I started looking in to it, Uttam K. Sinha, M.D., has this to say (the subject at hand being vocal cord paralyzation):

Link here http://www.usc.edu/hsc/info/pr/hmm/01spring/whisper.html

To avoid the "off topic" slap, I'll re-mention the point, which was that some say it is a sin to use parts of the body for things they're not intended for (such as homosexual intercourse), and that I don't think that logic holds water, because speech organs for one are primarily intended for other things than speech.

[ April 28, 2006, 18:31: Message edited by: Susipaisti ]

 

You are aware that three year olds are considered incapable of rational thought, right? Wouldn't being young enough to believe in Santa Claus preclude you from understanding the concept of accepting the spirit of the Lord into your heart? Wouldn't you be incapable of understanding the meaning of the choice you are making at three years of age? For those who don't understand my skepticism.....you will when you have kids.

 

Yes, I explained it so poorly that everyone except you understood it. So I'm sure the problem has to be on my side. No, the real problem is that you were not willing to listen, and read what you expected to read. But don't bother getting defensive; it's just a symptom of a much larger problem that infects both sides of the debate.

Sad but true. I'd lament about it some, but that's for another thread.

My life continues to SUCK, so again you'll get no compassion (or less) from me. And drugs are still a temptation only for the people who should ride the short bus. Suicide, OTOH, I will definitely concede (wish you'd have mentioned that before, but hindsight is 20/20). I thought about it myself more than a few times, and mostly only didn't do it because the possible methods of death weren't sure enough or required far too much work.

But as a Christian, I daresay it wasn't quite as much of a temptation for you as it would be for others. Going to Hell because of dying by your own hand can be something of a deterrent, and not everyone believes that. It does seem a very small deterrent when you're seriously considering it, though.

 

The Spirit showed us the path, but we still had to CHOOSE to follow it.

But People HAVE defied this and in history (and more recently the one guy in Afghanistan) faced abuse and even death for their decision.

That depends on the country. Common Law relations have some recognition under Canadian Law. Perhaps that is where the solution ought to be...

Exactly the point I tried to make with Fel (granted he hasn't had a chance to reply). You still believe in God, but you decided the faith you had been taught did not satisfy your needs. If there was no choice, you would still be in the Order.

Drew: But you CHOSE to abide these beliefs rather than selling them out for the sake of your family.

But we all are tempted to one sin or another. Why should I be asked to refrain from Drug use (I have used in the past, clean for 4 years this July), when another group is asking that we tell them that their sins are okay. If you tell Homosexuals that they are doing nothing wrong because they have no choice, then you must, by the same logic, allow drug addiction and Kleptomania to be excused by the same grounds.

 

Exactly the point. I believe that in this analogy a Christian being forced to practice Islam was parallel to a homosexual being forced to act heterosexual.

 

I really think this should stop. No matter what is said it is going to be twisted. At this point the best thing to do is agree to disagree.

I know it is hard to drop when you see yourself misquoted but I really think that is the best thing to do. Drop it.

 

Sorry Nakia, but I have a low tolerance for...(Hmm, can't think of a word without negative connotation. )

As Susi pointed out, you've got it backwards. The guy in Afghanistan did not actually believe in Islam, he believed in Christianity and was forced to practice Islam by the society's expectations. He is, effectively, the man coming out of the closet.

Yet again you've got it backwards, if Nakia's post about misquoting is any indication. She left when she could no longer stand her own beliefs not matching those of the Order. Another one out of the closet.

Warning! Warning! Does not compute! The difference is that homosexuals actually feel attracted to others of their own sex and see nothing inherently wrong with it, while most Kleptos do not even want to steal, and addicts are being harmed (some even see it). Though I'm sure you'll argue 'damage to the soul' or consequences of going to Hell, the harm to addicts is physical and measurable, and not everyone thinks that homosexuality is a sin. This is probably one place where we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Fel, I forgive you because you made me laugh.

Yes, I had a choice when I entered the order and a choice when I left the order but entering the order was an emotional choice which seemed no choice to me. It was something I had to do even if it meant a split with my family. Leaving the order was an intellectual choice and believe me it wasn't easy to make but again it finally was something I had to do.

We toss the word 'choice' around as if it was something simple. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.

As far as sexuality is concerned I think the 'choice' is fairly simple; we choose the partner to whom we are attracted. If our religion forbids this relationship then we have to choose which it will be and this can be a difficult choice.

edit: Just realized how the above could be misunderstood. I should have said:
We are attracted to someone therefore we choose them as our partner...

/Throws up hands in frustration,

[ April 30, 2006, 03:08: Message edited by: Nakia ]

 

But I took the point to mean Biological determinism to be forcing them to be Islam. They can resist their Biology, and choose what is right.

But what if a Homosexual is taught that it is wrong, but by the "no choice" arguements is forced to Homosexuality. The Biological influences CAN be defied. I never claimed it was easy, but it IS possible.

But if Homosexuals have no choice in the matter, meaning that they are compelled to be that way, and contemporary views of morality accomodate them, then there is precedent to accomodate those compelled to do things otherwise held as wrong (by illness or addiction).

So It was a choice but it didn't seem like a choice at the time. Could it be that homosexuals feel like it isn't a choice when it really is a choice?

I only said that identifying yourself by your temptation and giving in to it was a choice. I never said that resisting that choice was easy. By your earlier point, it may seem like there is no choice, but there ALWAYS is a choice.

But it is not automatic that they become our partner. If the attraction is one-sided, then even though I am attracted to a woman, she doesn't become my partner. Likewise, if I become attracted to a Married woman, She will not likely become my partner either. If I can suck it up and wait for a mutual relationship, then there must be a choice on some level.

 

Not quite. While the belief may be inherent to the person, it is not inherent to the people; it's not inherited. The analogy goes to homosexuals being born to heterosexual parents: the genes (or brain chemistry or whatever) are in the child but not the parents.

On this we agree. I never claimed it wasn't possible, just that it was damn hard. Where we differ is on whether or not they should walk that path. I see no reason to make them miserable for the rest of their lives by living a lie when there's nothing wrong with what they feel (IMO), and you believe they should resist the temptation of falling into sin (IYO).

Yes. And I agree. Addicts should have every right to utterly ruin their lives if they want to. And Kleptos know the risks of violating someone else's rights by taking something that doesn't belong to them; they also have the option to seek help. If there was a homosexual who really didn't want to be a homosexual, I'd be supportive of them seeking help for it too. The only thing is, that won't happen; at least, not without meddling from religious groups. Without outsiders telling them that it's wrong, I sincerely doubt that even one homosexual will come to that conclusion on their own.

Actually, I'm with Nakia in the chatroom right now, and that's not what she meant to say. But when she tried to edit she got "gobbledy-gook" and it didn't work. What she told me she was trying to edit in the chat:

 

I have had a chance to rest up and go back and read Gnarfflinger's post again.

Now it may come as a surprise but I agree with a lot of what he said.

Life is made up of choices. Some come easily and some are hard.

To return to his previous post:

and mine that generated the above response:

(Emphasis added)

Technically joining the Order was a choice but emotionally there was no choice. I think Gnarfflinger will understand that feeling. I did feel misquoted or perhaps I should have said quoted out of context. Thereby changing the point I was trying to make. Others may say that something is a choice but to the individual there is no choice. It is simply something they have to do.

I can't add much to Felinoid's post. I did try to change my edit but for some reason my post came up 'gobbledy-gook'.

As for sexual choice, I do not think it is as simple and straight forward as we are making it sound. I am convinced that there are those who are homosexual, that is: only attracted to people of the same gender. I believe that this attraction is innate, a characteristic that is part of one's inner essential nature. The same holds for being heterosexual. Between the two is bisexuality.

I am going to be repetitious here but there seems to be a misunderstanding of what I am trying to say.

Imo, a person attracted to only others of the same sex has no choice in the attraction. They do have a choice in whether or not they act on that attraction. So do heterosexuals and bisexuals. We all have that choice.

Were I disagree is that a Church can legislate morals for a society where there is separation of Church and State. I have stated several times in various ways that the Church has the right to set its own rules and regulations and the members of that Church should adhere to those rules and regulation. But those rules hold true only for members or potential members of that Church.

We have the right to choose our mate based on our beliefs not someone else's beliefs. Or for that matter to choose not to have a mate. As long as our choices do no harm to others we have a right to make our own choices.

Note: We have discussed marriage and I do not consider it relevant to the current topic. Besides SP members seem to have some agreement there. Call it something else. Write your political representative.

[ April 30, 2006, 14:41: Message edited by: Nakia ]

 

A church can advocate that members support politicians that will uphold moral standards compatable with their beliefs. Members choose their government. Where members listen to their church, they get governments that take certain moral stances. It is called Democracy. I hear people that don't Support George W complaining about him all the time. By that right, I can complain when the Government doesn't do things the way I would prefer. As long as churches have influence with the people, church and state will never be completely seperated.

Yes. Some decisions seem so obvious...

 

Gnarff: The fundamental principle behind American democracy is the paramount importance of personal freedom. Supporting politicians who limit personal freedom goes against the very principle upon which our nation was founded. Unless you can prove that two homosexuals having sex somehow violates your rights, you have no right whatsoever to legislate against it.

[ May 01, 2006, 10:11: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Just for everyone's information, civil unions has been legal in New Zealand for a year now. Civil unions don't affect anyone apart from the parties involved. They leave everyone alone, everyone leaves them alone, just like a normal marriage.

New Zealand doesn't even have a constitution protecting anything. They didn't allow civil unions because to not would voilate anyone's rights. They did it because there is simply no reason to NOT have civil unions.

 

@Drew:

If you ask ANY psychologist, they will tell you this is a GENERALIZATION. Meaning that, on average, a three year old will not think rationally MOST of the time. They aren't incapable of it, its just that emotinal processing tends to override it. I'm unusual. I didn't believe in santa when I was 3 and I had already scientifically disproven the tooth fairy because it seemed so bogus to me. That's right, I tested it! So don't tell me I didn't know what I was doing. Also, rational thought is not the only kind of reasonable thought. You really ought to do a little more research before you say something like that.
Sorry, but I just had to point that out.

@Fel:
As far as I know, Catholics and I think Anglicans are the only ones that believe suicide will damn you to hell or anything. Baptists don't.
Also, on the addicts and such issue, maybe ADD is a better comparison. My dad's ADD. He says himself that he never notices when he suffers from it. It is his family that tells him something's wrong.

@Drew:
And here you're wrong again. We tried personal freedom. It didn't work. It was called the Federated States of America. As for passing laws, the government has the legal right to pass laws on anything not protected by the constitution, and Congress can even change that if they want. We shouldn't be talking about people's personal rights, but about what is morally and logically right, and I never think we'll agree on that.

 

This is a case of over-zealous diagnosis. He does not have ADD. ADD is something you notice. It is something I notice. Your father is one of the reasons why ADD is so ridiculed as an ailment; because people who are just mildly distracted fit into the wide definition.

When you can't sit still for a moment because you simply cannot bear it, even if it would mean your life. When you would punch yourself in the skull repeatedly just to relieve boredom. That is ADD, and every time I forget to take my pill, believe me that I notice. ADD is not some guy who can't finish a project because he can't keep his mind on the work. It is an actual serious psychological ailment, and I'm sick of everyone and their dog being diagnosed with ADD because they forgot to take the trash out one day.
[/rant]