S
SteveGC
Guest
Can you tell me what you think “hate” is…
…and what you think I mean by “hate” when I say I hate evil?
- Status
…and what you think I mean by “hate” when I say I hate evil?
L
Lokabrenna
Guest
In my humble opinion, it’s a bit of both. We humans have hormones, in fact, we couldn’t live without hormones! We are also, to some extent, “programmed” to follow basic drives. When we are hungry, we seek out food. When thirsty, we look for something to drink. However, we can also control our drives, we can choose whether or not to eat or drink at certain times, it’s difficult, but it can be done.
As for animals, we can only speculate as to why they do the things that they do. Some animals have developed complex systems of communication that makes them more efficient hunters, others don’t appear to need as much to survive, that said, the desire to mate is a powerful drive, and even cows need to do something to satisfy that urge. My dog still runs laps around our living room, when I asked a friend, she just said: “Oh, don’t worry, she’s just letting off energy.” It has to go somewhere!
Actually, it is a fallacy. It’s called the “appeal to nature” (A.K.A naturalistic fallacy, Argumentum ad Naturam) like so:
“X is natural.
Therefore, X is right and good.”
“Y is unnatural.
Therefore, Y is wrong and bad.”
Using this logic, I could say that any number of (naturally occurring) plants are “good” even though they contain chemicals that can do serious harm to people and animals. Last year, we had problems with giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum), which contains sap that can cause severe burns and blindness when it comes into contact with human skin/eyes. Perhaps we should have left the hogweed alone, then? After all, it is “natural” so it must be good, even if it is an invasive species. Conversely, steel isn’t found in nature, but I don’t think anyone would suggest that we stop using it.
This link explains it better, IMO: fallacyfiles.org/adnature.html
Also, I’m not Wiccan in any way, nor have I ever claimed to be. Wicca is a specific religion within the umbrella term of “Paganism”. All Wiccans are Pagan, but not all Pagans are Wiccan. My beliefs include a respect for nature, but that doesn’t mean that all nature is inherently beneficial.
I’m not an animal behaviourist so I can’t speak to that, but I will say I am somewhat baffled by the claim that nature is inherently ordered. I don’t see order in nature. Organized chaos? Yes. Complete uniformity? No.
I’ve already explained how arguing from nature is spurious, but I suppose if I agreed with everything you said I’d be a good Catholic by now.
S
soren1
Guest
The opinion that the argumentum ad naturam is a fallacy is not a philosophical given, even if modern philosophers treat it as such. A more serious, and obvious fallacy, which ought to have a formal name but does not, is what I would call the argumentum sine natura, the fallacy of claiming that something ought to be without reference to nature.
The most common cited philosopher who defines the naturalistic fallacy is David Hume, who argued that one cannot deduce and ought from an is. To this is might be responded: then what are we to deduce and *ought *from? From an isn’t? If we cannot deduce what ought to be from the nature, that is, from the way things really are, then we must throw up our hands, and conclude that we cannot deduce what ought to be at all. No value exists apart from our personal determinations, which are totally private in nature, and therefore cannot be debated. If one denies categorically that value can be known through nature, pure subjectivism or nihilism is the only alternative.
The illusion that there is a naturalistic fallacy is based on a weak understanding of of how nature leads us to make value judgments. For instance, if one things that things must be right simply because they happen in nature, that is an error, but that is not what natural law theory claims. Instead, natural law law reasons from the supposition that nature acts for an ends, and good things can be understood as good when they are seen to correspond to the ends that nature is directed to. Rational creatures like human beings have the same impulses as other creatures, but because we understand the ends that those impulses serve we are responsible for guiding them intelligently, as other animals are not.
What is remarkable is that the argumentum ad naturam, in the bad sense, the direct assertion that the way things happen, simply speaking, dictates what ought to be, is more entrenched in the arguments for sexual liberalism than in the natural law alternative. For instance, how often since the time of Kinsey has the frequency in the population of unusual sexual behavior been interpreted as evidence that there cannot be a norm? This too is an argumentum ad naturam, but of the crude and fallacious type. It simply supposes that statistical frequency (a material principle) defines normalcy, when in fact directedness to and (a formal principle) defines normalcy.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Sorry. My mistake. 
N
Nathan_Cheiman
Guest
I think that homosexual marriage is not a sin.
H
hosemonkey
Guest
Quite a few homosexuals don’t think that it is a sin either. That does not change the fact that what they fondly believe constitutes “marriage” in and of itself, is probably not “sinful.” It is what they DO in the course of acting out that “marriage” that constitutes a sin, ie: the unnatural genital activity that takes place, no reproductive result is possible ( and do not give me a song and dance about infertile couples, at least they have the proper equipment and God has allowed conception to take place in sometimes impossible situations.) Their genital union cannot result in the creation of life. The Church teaches us that sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful. The sacrament of matrimony requires above all, proper matter, proper matter consists of one man…one woman. Same sex couples do not constitute proper matter. “Marriage” has always assumed male/female, never same sex. Call it what you like, marriage it ain’t. Been a lot of back and forth, been a lot of pilpul(look it up) comes down to homosexuality is unnatural, it is disordered, it is disgusting and when acted upon…is a sin.
A
Acrusader
Guest
I believe the correct word should be “I think that homosexual marriage is WRONG”
It may not be seen as a sin or so
but I think it’s not natural. It’s not normal. Something isn’t working…
R
rinnie
Guest
Not when it comes to sin my friend. Jesus teaches us to hate sin. It is not the hate for sin that could ever hurt you spiritually he can help you.
When you HATE to see people treat others mean and you go out of your way to treat them good that is a good thing.
When you hate abuse and will not tolerate it that is a good thing for your spriit.
It is never wrong to HATE sin. Hate is not always a bad thing. God gave us the emotion and all emotion is for the good of man. Even a bad emotion sometimes.
There are things in this world we should hate and should not tolerate.
I HATE abortion, I HATE violence, I HATE to see people suffer.
What IS wrong is to tolerate sin, and welcome it, or ignore it, that is what will bring you the spiritual unbalance in your life.
Because when you ignore sin or let it go in your life it keep growing and growing until you life become out of control. Never feel it is wrong to HATE sin. It is good to hate sometimes.
R
rinnie
Guest
But what does the word of God say?
P
PbloPicasso
Guest
I see many “christians” mostly Methodist, set their children up knowing they’ll become sexually active. They too don’t think that its wrong. That doesn’t make it right. Some people would say that steeling or killing isn’t wrong. But those supporting homosexual “marriages” would say that their not hurting other people. That point is very debateable. In the eyes of God it’s wrong. The only way to claim its not wrong is to ignore the adverse effect its having on our country, which is what’s really happening. The selfishness is so ungodly that its a wonder we’ve reached this point in our community. I was already upset over the heterosexual, serial divorcers and marriers that are destroying the lives of children. I’ve never met someone that has been repeatedly married and divorced that was a well ballanced person. In fact, I would never trust my children with them. And they are the “straight” ones. Now would I trust my child with a “homosexual”, much worst a “couple”. Not just NO but … well I’ll end it there.
S
Sufjon
Guest
Hi Rinnie: Where in your scriptures do you see Jesus telling you to hate sin? I see Him telling you to avoid sin, but I don’t see Him saying to hate anything, but maybe you can point that out for me. Since I am here trying to learn and perhaps understand Christianity a little better, this issue might be of help to me.
Your friend,
Sufjon
E
exnihilo
Guest
It astounds me that people define morality as ‘not hurting someone else’. That is a most base morality. Even the pagan Romans had a higher understanding of morality that included duty and honor. This modern morality ignores a pretty good idea in morality which is doing that which is truly good for us. Under this modern system you dont need to do good things for yourself, let alone your fellow man. What we perceive as selfishness might be more accurately described as self loathing. It is a disregard for our own good that leads us into unhealthy lifestyles.
I’d also add that in this case the not hurting people argument does hold up well for homosexuality. HIV infections are largely the result of homosexual behavior. It is not good for the individual or society. When my grandfather was a child they quarantined homes when people had a disease they could spread to the community. I will not try here to argue for that but just point out that at one time folks thought it moral to protect people from disease by limiting the freedom of other people to engage in certain activities.
J
John21652
Guest
Indeed you have shown us in some small part that humans are rational creatures. We are not slaves to our hormones and much of human behaviour shows that to be true. The resort to trying to call hormonal behaviour in animals as a template for human behaviour is really drawing a long bow indeed. If the template held true, we’d be killing and eating our young! It doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and really only gains a listening ear amongst those who have had little experience working with animals.
No speculation is required at all. Hormonally driven homosexual behaviour as observed amongst some animals is vastly different from the homosexual orientation proponents of homosexuality in humans strive to argue for.
Soren1 has debinked this myth you are attempting to perpetuate. It stems from Hume’s naturalistic fallacy argument, in which he tried to deny that an ‘ought’ can be derived from an ‘is’. Hume’s argument has been debunked by many subseuent philosophers. The main point to remember from Hume’s argument is that his logic means the real world has no relevance! Hume makes a large error in referring to deductive logic, when in fact inductive logic solves his problem.
here you make the error of beginning an argument with reference to animal/human bevaiour, then, through propogating Hume’s false is/ought dichotomy, you swing into references about the nature’s of plants. How do plants vary in their behaviours? Or maybe they don’t. You are writing about the properties of certain plants and not their behaviours. If a plant contains a harmful sap which burns a human on contact, is the plant ‘behaving’ when a human contacts it? The “good” of a plant that contains harmful sap is to be found in its natural purpose of self preservation. Now, compare that to homosexuality!
You are right, I shouldn’t have called you a Wiccan. You adhere to a subbranch of a nature based ‘philosophical’ group. Still, nature is at the heart of your beleif system. If that is the case, then the order inherent in nature should be self evident.
Nature orders itself. That’s how biosystems and ecosystems function.
No, you’d be a good systems theorist!I’ve already explained how arguing from nature is spurious, but I suppose if I agreed with everything you said I’d be a good Catholic by now.
S
seeker57
Guest
Yes, I support same-sex marriage, as does the congregation to which I belong and the association to which our congregation belongs. As it happens, same-sex marriages are performed in our congregations.
No, I don’t consider it a sin, because I don’t believe in the concept of sin. I certainly don’t believe in a dogmatic delineation of something considered a sin even if I were not cognizant of it.
Therefore, I could not consider something sinful, whether or not I personally support it, because the concept is a foreign one and not part of my sprituality.
Peace,
Seeker
H
hosemonkey
Guest
C
CMatt25
Guest
M
mlz
Guest
Same for the NT…the prohibition in Romans had to do with temple prostitution/male sexual cults
What?! I’ve never seen any reference to this… the verses you refer to are very plain and simple. It never condems the homosexual person but the acts of homosexuality. I think you are reading into this what you want to believe.
mlz
What?! I’ve never seen any reference to this… the verses you refer to are very plain and simple. It never condems the homosexual person but the acts of homosexuality. I think you are reading into this what you want to believe.
mlz
I
Izdaari
Guest
I support people’s right to do a lot of things I think are sinful. Do I think they’re right to do them? Of course not! But since my political philosophy is libertarian, and utterly opposed to theocracy and theonomy, I oppose making illegal any personal behavior that doesn’t cause direct, demonstrable harm to others. Are they right to commit sins? No. But do they have the right to, in a political sense? Yep!
Probably not what you expect to hear from a member of a conservative, evangelical, Pentecostal church. But my party affiliation is Libertarian.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Not at all Rinnie if one’s faith does not consider it sin.
As Seeker explained to you the UU faith does not consider it sin. I know the United Church of Christ as official denominational policy is in support of same sex marriage. Though individual congregations may vary. And while not necessarily the same as supporting same sex marriage, faiths such as found in TEC and others do not necessarily look at gay clergy in the same light as your faith does. That’s why we call them faiths Rinnie. 
You can google and search if you would like to find their explanations. Peace.
H
hosemonkey
Guest
- Status