Profile for Drew
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Displayed name | Drew |
| Member number | 4233 |
| Title | By Committee |
| Postcount | 2242 |
| Homepage | |
| Registered | Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
Recent posts
Pages
| Author | Recent posts |
|---|---|
| Religion, Homosexuality, the Usual in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Tuesday, July 13 2004 11:32
Profile
quote:If you define "pro-homo" as homosexual relationships being as societally acceptable as heterosexual relationships, then yes, I think that language otherwise is, in my mind's eye, bashing, because you are in your mind condemning their rights to be happy in an intimate way, a right they likely don't begrudge you and your hetero partner. quote:Where does Jesus say this is sin? quote:You insist on this, but did Jesus? quote:But would you have a constitutional amendment prevent their marriage, or have it be illegal in a state? What harm do they do you? What do you fear? I guess a lot of people see homosexuals as people who "need to be helped," and so try to prevent them from pursuing their lifestyles "for their own good." I'm not really certain how to take this on, except to refer to the old "speck in the eye - log in the eye" parable, and assert that we all have enough going on in our own lives without being concerned with others. EDIT: I would also add that sodomy and rape have historically been tactics of war used to disgrace the conquered, and it didn't matter whether the victims were male or female. This even occurs today - in the first Iraq War, Kuwaitis who were with U.S. forces that captured Iraqi units and probably had wives wanted to rape the Iraqis in order to humiliate them (though we prevented them from doing so). Non sequitor that depraved soldiers/Sodomites are therefore homosexual. Note also that this behavior is not the equivalent of a loving, consentual relationship. Homosexual acts do not equal rape any more than heterosexual acts do, necessarily. It's about the intent. Biblically speaking, I'm sure the Sodomites wouldn't have left the angels alone if they were female, either. [ Tuesday, July 13, 2004 12:25: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| Religion, Homosexuality, the Usual in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Tuesday, July 13 2004 10:41
Profile
Fair enough, Kel - I know I've been a bit harsh. I'm just tired of seeing people continue to be hurt because of the bigotry, whether misinformed or conscious, of others. The consequences of these beliefs are real, unfortunately, and affect the lives of their victims much more than their victims' supposed sin affects them. While I don't accuse anyone here of openly gay-bashing, I find some of the discourse disheartening, especially when it uses what I figure to be a very loving God as justification. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| Good books? in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, July 12 2004 13:41
Profile
"The Long Dark Tea Time of the Soul" is probably one of my favorite books ever, almost entirely for Chapter 3, when Dirk makes his entrance, kind of. :) Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| What if Batman and Captain America Fought? in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, July 12 2004 13:31
Profile
Batman all the way. Two words: Utility Belt. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| Religion, Homosexuality, the Usual in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, July 12 2004 13:11
Profile
I defer to Cav, who has taken the time to generate a comprehensive answer. Kel, I will opt for the Jesus "love" argument. I think that the correct interpretation of the Gospels is the "love" argument, esp. with regard to all the stuff such as (paraphrased badly) "when you aided the [sinner], you helped me." Recoursing to Paul is poor form: not only is a fair amount of Paul not necessarily attributable to Paul (on solid stylistic grounds), but Paul was even of questionable relevance to many members of the church, and his writings weren't in many renditions of the Bible prior to the creation of the King James version - he made it in on a wing and a prayer, so to speak. Paul also frequently refers to the fact that while what he says doesn't come from the Lord, it does come from him, who is pretty close with old JC (again, poorly paraphrased). AKA not the authoritative word of God. WWJD should hold more water than it does. Let's not forget that the righteous man didn't throw a stone either. Sorry for becoming inflamed. I just hate intolerance. While I cannot speak with authority on anyone's Christian journey, based on what I know from my own, it seems a lot of people turn off their brains and buy what they're given because they're too afraid to contemplate complex alternatives. It's also unfortunately the sort of thinking that has mired the US in Iraq, inspired individuals to murder doctors outside of abortion clinics, and when the flames are fanned enough, inspires young men to strap bombs to themselves, board buses, issue their last words - "God is great" - and push a button. [ Monday, July 12, 2004 13:13: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| Slight Problem in Palace of Khoth (Za-Khazi) in Blades of Avernum | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, July 12 2004 08:12
Profile
Um, any strategies for beating the efreets? Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| Religion, Homosexuality, the Usual in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, July 12 2004 05:18
Profile
I think everyone who holds up the Law in condemning homosexuality should also stop eating pork, immediately, and never engage in premarital or recreational sex, lest ye condemn thyself to the abyss! I say this half-jokingly, but my point is that you can't pick and choose from the Law if you're going to cite it as truth. How can one bit of it be more valid than another? No one here who has demonstrated a Biblically-based anti-homosexuality stance has addressed this issue. I believe I read somewhere in the Bible that all sins are equal. Is that not the case? Homosexuality was accepted in ancient Greece - most certainly in Sparta, and for the most part in Athens - and was not openly condemned in Rome, both of which were major cultures in the region at the time of the birth of Christianity. Oh, and what makes anyone more correct in their interpretation today than in the Dark Ages, Middle Ages, or any other Age? Is it because everyone has a chance to see the Bible? Looks like it's done nothing more than vastly increase the number of sects of Christianity, all claiming to be authoritative. Hmmm... And some say that homosexuality is okay, and others don't. Interestingly enough, you can look at it from an almost entirely geographical perspective - Heavy anti-gayness in the Southeastern and Midwestern U.S., a more liberal perspective in the Northeast and West. Could religion be malleable, subject to other cultural factors like finances, education, occupation, racial diversity? Hmm. The whole thing, boys and girls, smacks to me of bigotry. During the fight for civil rights in the U.S., the Bible was repeatedly cited for reasons why it was against God for the races to mix. The Bible even refers to relations between slaves and their masters - the Bible sanctions slavery! But these are things our culture (for the most part) has acknowledged as wrong, and I believe with good reason. I do not believe, likewise, that a person's sexual orientation is anyone else's business. If God's going to have an issue with it, then by golly, let the homosexuals deal with God when the time comes. But don't make their lives any harder or less fair than yours just because you hate them for no reason - they've done NOTHING to you. [ Monday, July 12, 2004 06:50: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| Religion, Homosexuality, the Usual in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, July 8 2004 08:57
Profile
Getting back to the original post in this thread, I would point out that all Christianity is Bible-based. That being said, Christianity has evolved over time, as man's understanding of the world has improved. Sure, the author of whatever book in the OT thought that God smote Sodom. The author also thought that the world was flat, and that the sun revolved around it. Times and perceptions change. I think it's been relatively well-established that the Bible itself, in Acts and Leviticus, does equate homosexual acts (as well as recreational sex) with badness. Whether Christians' modern perceptions dictate that they veer from the literal word of the Bible depends on the particular sect. It's obvious that almost all Christians ignore the dietary restrictions, and certainly many good Christians are willing to work on the sabbath. I personally feel that those who still discriminate against homosexuals have not evolved their spiritual thinking. As I mentioned before, it's an easy prohibition to hold onto because it's different and doesn't impact most of them directly. [ Thursday, July 08, 2004 08:59: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| Good books? in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, July 8 2004 07:27
Profile
Hey man - FYI: it's generally considered impolite to double-post on this forum. If you have more to add, just edit it in! :) Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| Religion, Homosexuality, the Usual in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, July 8 2004 07:22
Profile
How is the dietary argument faulty? It's in the Bible - it's even been referenced before in this topic. Yet you ignore it. Why is it any different to ignore the dietary requirements than to ignore the no lying with another man requirement? God does have meaning to me - I'm grateful for the chance to live, it's been a pretty swell experience so far - but I don't claim to know what God thinks about this or that, diets or sexual preference, etc. That's the height of hubris. Maybe we'll be judged, but if we are, I reckon it'll be on the basis of no standard any of us on Earth can comprehend. [ Thursday, July 08, 2004 07:24: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| Religion, Homosexuality, the Usual in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, July 8 2004 07:10
Profile
Oh sure, that account must be as true as both the creation stories in Genesis. Wait a minute! But those stories are just allegory! ...but that might mean... other stories, too? No way! The OT was written thousands of years ago, put down on paper by men who had an agenda at the time, then retranscribed, lost, rediscovered, translated, et cetera to evolve into what you pick and choose from for your faith today. What is accomplished by discriminating against homosexuals? You probably eat pork, but that's not okay in Leviticus. Easily ignorable though, because that doesn't make sense, right? Why is homosexuality different than dietary instructions, which take up way more scriptural real estate? But discriminating in your diet affects you personally, and is way harder to cope with, so that conveniently falls by the wayside. People who are different, on the other hand, are easy targets - they don't affect your life directly, and you never have to worry about having their problem, so you go ahead and point your finger, and have the comfort of the writings of the Bible to back you up. Way to go. I'll admit that I tend to be a little prejudiced in my dealings with people who are different - I'm a bit fearful about all the short people speaking Spanish around me that seem to be multiplying everyday. Xenophobia is natural fact of life. But claiming God is on one side and not another is arrogant - if you are flawed just like the rest of us, then you have no authority to make such statements. [ Thursday, July 08, 2004 07:17: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| Religion, Homosexuality, the Usual in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, July 8 2004 06:57
Profile
Well, until I see God come down and smite a homosexual, I'll continue to believe there's nothing wrong with that lifestyle, and continue to scorn people such as yourself who think there is and therefore are the reason homosexuals' lives can be hell on earth. EDIT: I apologize again to the regulars (except maybe FBM  , who's somehow steered clear of this topic - is something wrong, FBM?) - I try not to use invective language, but occasionally I falter.[ Thursday, July 08, 2004 07:11: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| Good books? in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, July 8 2004 06:44
Profile
Not a fan of Ayn Rand myself - read "The Fountainhead" back in high school and thought it was pretty cool, but now it just seems like a bit backward. Still, it does touch a bit on Realism, which for the moment I'm buying. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| Religion, Homosexuality, the Usual in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, July 8 2004 06:38
Profile
Dude, if we were meant to be flawed, then your God is a sick joker. Why do you believe this? If God is God and we can't understand God, then who says you who are flawed can understand what is right from what is wrong or have the monopoly on divine authority? Humanity is far too stupid and self-absorbed to approach this matter with anything close to authority. Wait, wait! I'm just getting a message from my God, and she says that you are completely wrong and going to burn in Hell, because of your bigotry. And I know I'm right because my God told me so, and it's that way, and I'm just right.  QUESTION YOUR FAITH. Religion is the creation of man, who is, by many folks' admissions here, a flawed beast. A flawed beast with flawed personal/group agendas. If you don't think these agendas get mixed in, then you are fools. Boy - so much acid from me! I apologize, but I get very angry with wrong-headed unquestioning willful ignorance. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| Religion, Homosexuality, the Usual in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, July 8 2004 05:24
Profile
The lower levels of well-being are almost certainly associated with social pressures. I refer you to the famous experiment conducted in 1968 by Jane Elliot in which she separated her class of 8 year olds by eye color, told the brown-eyed children that they were superior, and extended extra priveledges to them. The brown-eyed children quickly assumed a sense of superiority and disdained the blue-eyed children. Check it out at this link: http://www.horizonmag.com/4/jane-elliott.asp Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| Religion, Homosexuality, the Usual in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, July 7 2004 10:59
Profile
Overwhelming - your words: "Let's clarify this again: I'm not judging anyone. I'm just saying what I think is right. Not because I want to criticize gay people, but because I want to let everyone know what I think is right, so that they can walk the right path and be saved. ... Believe me, I wish homosexuals could be saved (I mean, the ones that are truly and inate homosexuals). Just as many other sinners." You want people to know what you think is "right," so that they can walk the "right path." It sounds to me as though you believe they're on the wrong path, ergo you've JUDGED them - especially when you equate them with "other sinners." And of course I judge you. People judge one another all the time. Any time you classify anyone or anything, you are judging them. What I reckon Jesus was getting at, however, is that people should keep to themselves and not be self-righteous, because NO ONE except for God rightly knows EXACTLY what is right or wrong, so NO ONE has authority over another. Absent God's active hand in the world - and given current world circumstances (Sudan, Iraq, Northern Korea, etc.), I think it's fair to say God's hand is absent - we are left to fend for ourselves and figure it out on our own, and in such a circumstance I can't agree more with a policy of keeping our respective noses in our own business and out of others'. I have a difficult time buying any interpretation born-again folk spin from the Bible, because the document is too old and has been reinterpreted too many times to fit so perfectly and conveniently into the context currently used. The Bible, for example, has been used to justify the slaughter of Jews, both during the Inquisition and WWII. Christianity also sanctioned the Crusades. All of these events have been widely condemned by Christian religious authorities. Has the Bible changed since then? Not really. So why should fundamentalists' interpretations be correct now? Not to mention the fact that I just don't subscribe to the "Law" or Jesus as the Son of God anymore, so your particular conviction has no impact on me, except where enough of you have managed to force it into civil law, which is unfortunate. I find that most of you have no knowledge of the historical events surrounding the birth of Christianity in the Mediterranean world. I hate waving my degree around, but I didn't learn Ancient Greek and Latin, translate 3/4 of the Gospels, and spend 3/4 of my college credits pursuing a degree in Classical history and language to be refuted by a born-again fellow who's been spoon-fed a bigotted interpretation. Homosexual relationships existed and were accepted in ancient culture. There's a wide swath of literature on this topic. The centurion-shield bearer example is standard fare. [ Wednesday, July 07, 2004 11:19: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| Another wierd email in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, July 7 2004 10:13
Profile
Hey man - just trying to be helpful and informative! Little research involved - my job just keeps me aware of the goings on at regulatory agencies. :D :D :D [ Wednesday, July 07, 2004 10:14: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| Another wierd email in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Tuesday, July 6 2004 11:50
Profile
An old scam. You can find out info about it at any number of U.S. government agencies. Here's a link to the DoJ's info on these scams: http://www.justiceonline.org/consum/nigerian.html Enjoy! Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| Dr. Seuss Is Better Than Shakespeare in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Tuesday, July 6 2004 06:41
Profile
I agree - Shakespeare is best seen on stage. And if Shakespeare's appeal is limited to purile adults only, then I proudly stand among their ranks, and feel sorry for BtI that he does not. Life taken too seriously leads to woe and a limited outlook. Comedy, however bawdy, is a great source of perspective and humility, two virtues sadly lacking in American society for certain, and probably everywhere else as well. [ Tuesday, July 06, 2004 06:43: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| Religion, Homosexuality, the Usual in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Tuesday, July 6 2004 04:44
Profile
Overwhelming, I encourage you to learn classical history. Sherlock's points are largely on target. And yes, you are judging him. Be a friend and open your mind to possibilities that may make you uncomfortable. It's how we grow. And, just to spur on further conversation, is it not the case that Jesus in the Gospels never said a word one way or the other about homosexuality? Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| Name my web page! in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Saturday, July 3 2004 22:35
Profile
You could also go something like: Kelandon's Kakos Kai Agathos (if my Greek is still right - it's been almost 5 years...). Backwards from how you'd say it in English, but if you elide the kai and the agathos, you get the alliteration. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| Good books? in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Friday, July 2 2004 19:04
Profile
Lolita in one day was a trip - of course a paper was due that day as well. :) Whenever I read books that quickly, though, it's like their ideas get imbedded in my psyche for the day, which can be pretty uncomfortable - I felt dirty having gotten into the mind of Humbert Humbert, and as for when I read 1984... :) Robert Jordan was okay for a while, and then around book five his story started going nowhere, and once I caught up with the most current one and had to wait months and months for the next, I found that I could barely keep track of the characters, and nothing serious was being resolved. The story probably should have wound up around book seven, I reckon. He's probably milking it. I read "The Satanic Verses" after I read "The Ground Beneath Her Feet" and found that I didn't like it nearly as much. It was very entertaining, to be certain, and you totally get why Islam would have a problem with it, but it was much more abstract, and not quite as polished - I think Rushdie has definitely come a ways in his abilities as a writer since then. :) Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| Good books? in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Friday, July 2 2004 08:11
Profile
I've read most of Salvatore at some point or another, but have found that I've been drifting away from fantasy and Dungeons & Dragons-y books. I do love LotR though. Terry Goodkind scares me - I read the first four books or so, and found his writing to be a little too misogynistic for my tastes, and his anti-socialism kick was a little too obvious. College Lit was pretty fun, back in the day. Reading Nabokov's "Lolita" in one day was a trip - a great book, but I felt so dirty after reading it. :) I'm also sad to report that my last reading of "Dune" left me feeling disappointed. [ Friday, July 02, 2004 08:12: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| Good books? in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Friday, July 2 2004 05:19
Profile
I'm always in the market for good book suggestions, though admittedly I recently started on the Patrick O'Brian Aubrey-Maturin series (twenty novels!) that the movie "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" was based on, and can't seem to put them down, so I probably won't start on anything else soon. I also have recently read and enjoyed "The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Klay" by Michael Chabon (who has writing credits on Spider-man 2) and "The Ground Beneath Her Feet" by Salman Rushdie. What are some of y'all's favorite books and suggestions? [ Friday, July 02, 2004 05:20: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
| Your daily routine in General | |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Friday, July 2 2004 05:02
Profile
Typical week day: 7:30 alarm 7:50 get out of bed, drive home from my gf's apartment 8:00 The three S's, iron clothes, maybe eat breakfast 8:35 commute to work via Metro 9:00 work 12:00 eat, usually at Potbelly's, which has incredible milkshakes 1:00 more work 5:30 commute home 6:00 change into running clothes, meet up with my gf and go for a run 7:00 figure something out for dinner and do it 9:00 read, maybe watch some TV 10:30 (ideally) bedtime We don't run everyday, but frequently. Mondays and Thursdays I hash (a drinking club with a running problem) in the evening. Weekends are characterized by a juxtaposition of laziness and industriousness, as my gf and I prefer to sleep forever if possible, but also like to get cleaning and laundry done, maybe cook a huge meal, and do something fun like go hiking, go for a long run, do something in town (DC is pretty hoppin'), etc. When she is out of town, I get to play videogames - it's amazing how video game time dwindles when you have a gf! :) Edit: and for the record, Detta, I do have a regular job (legal assistant) and am 26. Alorael (who hasn't to my knowledge posted on this topic yet, Saltweed) is in his stately 50s, I believe, though I can't speak to his state of employ. [ Friday, July 02, 2004 05:10: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |