Why are so many evangelicals conservative politically?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

My religion and my politics

I'm an evangelical protestant and conservative politically
3
15%
I'm a Christian, but not a fundamentalist or evangelical and I'm conservative politically
2
10%
I'm an evangelical protestant but hate the Tea Party
0
No votes
I'm an evangelical but liberal politically
1
5%
I'm a Christian, but liberal politically
2
10%
I'm not a Christian and I hate the Tea Party
12
60%
 
Total votes: 20

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #131

Post by East of Eden »

10CC wrote:
East of Eden wrote: It is wrong to equate race which is immutable, with same-sex attraction which is not.
Are you claiming that same sex attraction is natural but that you can suppress that attraction? Or are you claiming that sane sex attraction needs to be instigated by the participant? Or are you claiming that you have same sex attractions that you have managed to suppress?
What is it that you are claiming is immutable and non-immutable? You don't even believe that genes control who and what we are.
[center]What is immutable?[/center]
I have been challenged by a mod in regard to these questions so I would appreciate as much honesty as a theist can muster.
Your bigotry is noted.
Thanks.
BTW your stance makes heterosexuality immutable, now that is a huge fail.
Immutable means unchangeable, such as race. Same sex attraction can change. Here are some people who will attest to that. The actual proves the possible.









"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Post #132

Post by Danmark »

East of Eden wrote:
10CC wrote:
East of Eden wrote: It is wrong to equate race which is immutable, with same-sex attraction which is not.
Are you claiming that same sex attraction is natural but that you can suppress that attraction? Or are you claiming that sane sex attraction needs to be instigated by the participant? Or are you claiming that you have same sex attractions that you have managed to suppress?
What is it that you are claiming is immutable and non-immutable? You don't even believe that genes control who and what we are.
[center]What is immutable?[/center]
I have been challenged by a mod in regard to these questions so I would appreciate as much honesty as a theist can muster.
Your bigotry is noted.
Thanks.
BTW your stance makes heterosexuality immutable, now that is a huge fail.
Immutable means unchangeable, such as race. Same sex attraction can change. Here are some people who will attest to that. The actual proves the possible.









Right, sappy testimonials versus actual science:

Actually, empirical and scientific evidence strongly suggests that sexual orientation is not a choice but is inborn.

The official battle over this issue began around 1970 when the American Psychiatric Association first began to consider whether homosexuality should be listed as a mental disorder. After reviewing the data the APA found that there was no evidence to support labeling being gay a sickness. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association officially removed homosexuality from list of mental disorders (DSM). The following year, the American Psychological Association declassified being gay as an illness; since then, every major medical and mental health organization has come to embrace this view.

Angered by the new evidence-based scientific view, a handful of disgruntled therapists created a new organization to argue that homosexuality was a choice and create the false impression that the issue remained up for debate. The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) was co-founded by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi and Dr. Charles Socarides, who held the pseudoscientific view that “Homosexuality is… a purple menace that is threatening the proper design of gender distinctions in society.

Three years after the American Psychiatric Association made its historic decision, the fundamentalist Christian “ex-gay� organization Exodus International was founded. Shortly thereafter, Seventh Day Adventist minister Colin Cook founded another “ex-gay� organization, Homosexuals Anonymous, which is a twelve-step program for overcoming homosexuality (there are actually fourteen steps in the HA program)

Unfortunately, these groups seemed to prove the opposite of what they set out to show. Two of Exodus’ founders, Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, left their wives and married each other. After appearing on the Phil Donahue show as a “cured� ex-gay, Colin Cook had to leave his ministry after having sex with his male counseling clients.

BTW, you never answered the question, 'When did you DECIDE to be heterosexual?'

Most of us, I'll speak for myself, never decided our sexual orientation. We simply knew without thinking about it we were only attracted to women. There was no choice involved. Ask yourself, if you were attracted to women, why would you choose to try to be attracted to men? Why go thru the pain and discrimination and humiliation of being called a 'queer' or a 'sissy' or a 'fag' by going against your own desires for women instead of men? This absurd theory of people 'choosing' to be gay makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And all you have to do to confirm this is to do your own personal thought experiment.

OTOH you can just adopt the prejudices of your own version of your religion and skip the analytical part.[/i]

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #133

Post by East of Eden »

Danmark wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
10CC wrote:
East of Eden wrote: It is wrong to equate race which is immutable, with same-sex attraction which is not.
Are you claiming that same sex attraction is natural but that you can suppress that attraction? Or are you claiming that sane sex attraction needs to be instigated by the participant? Or are you claiming that you have same sex attractions that you have managed to suppress?
What is it that you are claiming is immutable and non-immutable? You don't even believe that genes control who and what we are.
[center]What is immutable?[/center]
I have been challenged by a mod in regard to these questions so I would appreciate as much honesty as a theist can muster.
Your bigotry is noted.
Thanks.
BTW your stance makes heterosexuality immutable, now that is a huge fail.
Immutable means unchangeable, such as race. Same sex attraction can change. Here are some people who will attest to that. The actual proves the possible.









Right, sappy testimonials versus actual science:
Did you even watch any of them? Some are as short as 5 minutes, suitable for any attention span. These people don't call themselves gay anymore, which kind of blows your whole argument.
Actually, empirical and scientific evidence strongly suggests that sexual orientation is not a choice but is inborn.

The official battle over this issue began around 1970 when the American Psychiatric Association first began to consider whether homosexuality should be listed as a mental disorder. After reviewing the data the APA found that there was no evidence to support labeling being gay a sickness. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association officially removed homosexuality from list of mental disorders (DSM). The following year, the American Psychological Association declassified being gay as an illness; since then, every major medical and mental health organization has come to embrace this view.


LOL, that decision wasn't from any science but by pressure from the gay lobby. Here is a former president of the APA describing this pressure:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former ... -movement/

Note: "In a second, briefer interview with NARTH on the same day, Cummings recalls his own work with homosexuals who wanted to leave the gay lifestyle during his tenure at Kaiser Permanente.

“It’s a difficult therapy, and it’s not huge in terms of numbers, but yes we have seen success, and this is why the stance that ‘you can never change’—Ronald Reagan said ‘never say never’—it’s absurd. All you have to do is find one exception and it knocks down the ‘never.’ But yes, I’ve experienced more than one exception,� said Cummings.

“Admittedly we had failures. The recidivism along the way with some would be intense, but we experience the same thing with treating substance abuse and alcoholism. Falling off the wagon is part of the treatment.�


So here we have a former president of the APA saying you are wrong that gays can never change, and he didn't even use the Bible.

And http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1172711/posts

If someone with same-sex attraction wants to have counseling to change it, what business is it of yours?

Three years after the American Psychiatric Association made its historic decision, the fundamentalist Christian “ex-gay� organization Exodus International was founded.


"Ex-gays" actually go back as far as the New Testament, where some were described as former homosexuals who had been changed by the power of Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately, these groups seemed to prove the opposite of what they set out to show. Two of Exodus’ founders, Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, left their wives and married each other. After appearing on the Phil Donahue show as a “cured� ex-gay, Colin Cook had to leave his ministry after having sex with his male counseling clients.
And some alcoholics and pedophiles fall off the wagon, what does that prove?
BTW, you never answered the question, 'When did you DECIDE to be heterosexual?
Orientation may be something we are born with, just as lots of other disorders happen in the fallen world (IMHO much same-sex attraction is the result of childhood trauma, as some in the videos I posted attest to), but ACTING on those feelings are something else. There is also evidence alcoholism and pedophila are born conditions, but it doesn't excuse the behaviors.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
10CC
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1595
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 9:51 am
Location: Godzone

Post #134

Post by 10CC »

East of Eden wrote:
10CC wrote:
East of Eden wrote: It is wrong to equate race which is immutable, with same-sex attraction which is not.
Are you claiming that same sex attraction is natural but that you can suppress that attraction? Or are you claiming that sane sex attraction needs to be instigated by the participant? Or are you claiming that you have same sex attractions that you have managed to suppress?
What is it that you are claiming is immutable and non-immutable? You don't even believe that genes control who and what we are.
[center]What is immutable?[/center]
I have been challenged by a mod in regard to these questions so I would appreciate as much honesty as a theist can muster.
Your bigotry is noted.
Thanks.
BTW your stance makes heterosexuality immutable, now that is a huge fail.
Immutable means unchangeable, such as race. Same sex attraction can change. Here are some people who will attest to that. The actual proves the possible.









Well I guess I win since there are billions of people whose sexuality is immutable. See how many examples of your argument you can find. Because 99% of the human race have immutable sexual attractions.

User avatar
10CC
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1595
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 9:51 am
Location: Godzone

Post #135

Post by 10CC »

Around about 7billion people blow your argument clean out of the water. 5 doesn't even count as a percentage of 7billion. You lose.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Post #136

Post by Danmark »

East of Eden wrote: Orientation may be something we are born with, just as lots of other disorders happen in the fallen world (IMHO much same-sex attraction is the result of childhood trauma, as some in the videos I posted attest to), but ACTING on those feelings are something else. There is also evidence alcoholism and pedophila [sic] are born conditions, but it doesn't excuse the behaviors.
What is your evidence for these statements? I'm aware that one may inherit a predisposition for more or less susceptibility to alcohol abuse, but not alcoholism itself. At any rate, alcohol dependence and pedophilia are recognized by the DSM as disorders; homosexuality is not.

There simply is nothing dysfunctional about homosexuality, except in the context of a rigid, antiquated, science denying religious fundamentalism that finds moral evil in what nature produces.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 16718
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here

Post #137

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From Post 132:
...The recidivism along the way with some would be intense...
I loled.

I find it odd that those who advocate less government intrusion are happy to increase government intrusion when the word homosexuality is mentioned.
Some say it came from Memphis down in Tennessee
Or it drifted in from Georgia about 1953
Just as long as it's greasy, as long as it's fast
As long as it's pumpin' honey, it's gonna last

It's the hillbilly rock, beat it with a drum
Playin' them guitars like shootin' from a gun
Keepin' up the rhythm, steady as a clock
Doin' a little thing called the hillbilly rock
- Marty Stuart

Darias
Guru
Posts: 2017
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:14 pm

Post #138

Post by Darias »

nursebenjamin wrote:
I don’t disagree with anything that you’ve said here. People do have the right to own/operate a business,

I try to avoid the word "right," because it suggests you're adding or taking away from your own personal list of cans and cannots. It alludes to positive rights, as if the state hands them to you not unlike Yahweh granting divine favor to his chosen people.

People should have the freedom to do what they want, provided it does no unwanted harm to other persons or their property. Assault, theft, etc. cannot be said to be thought of as a right or a freedom in the same way that rape and taxation cannot logically be made consensual. The moment rape is consensual is the moment it is no longer rape but a game of bdsm. The moment taxation becomes consensual is the moment it is no longer obligatory; in the historical sense of the word, taxation has never been the likes of a donation or suggestion, but has instead always been imposed -- for that reason, I argue that the moment taxation becomes voluntary is the moment it ceases to be taxation.
nursebenjamin wrote:...provided they follow the laws and statues of the state/local government.
Because your freedom to operate a business should hinge on your compliance to Jim Crow laws and the Controlled Substances Act?


nursebenjamin wrote:You do not have a right to own and operate a factory if it releases to much airborne contaminants and violates the Clean Air Act.
Property damage is a form of unwelcome aggression. Polluting someone else's rivers and someone else's air cannot be thought of as a right, anymore than being a victim of violence can be thought of as a right.

One does not need the EPA, a coercive monopoly on the regulation industry, which wastes taxpayer dollars and who's policies kill Americans. I always hear progressives complain about monopolies and corporations, but then turn around and praise the institutions that rob them, waste their money, and do a poor job at what they claim to do. Would it not make more sense to elect to contribute to one of many regulatory organizations that would be forced to spend their money wisely to stay in business, and that would be forced to avoid doing anything that would result in the deaths of others (lest their business never recover from such a reputation)?

All you need is a bunch of unhappy people threatening to withhold their dollar from your business if it turns their neighborhood's water supply into radioactive sludge. People will not tolerate unwanted behavior that they voluntarily contribute to.

Unfortunately, when the state doesn't care about pollutants in the water, citizens have no recourse but to be threatened with the silencing label of "terrorist."


nursebenjamin wrote:What I meant to say was that a person’s sense of entitlement should not result in the abandonment of laws that are working well for society.
And what you mean by your vague, non-specific wording is that businesses should be forced to to do business with groups of people that you like. You would never expect a Jewish restaurant owner to serve an individual with a swastika tattoo on his forehead. You would never argue that I am entitled to your hospitality in your own home, even if I was a black Jewish lesbian. How on earth you are able to infer that shop owners must be compelled by law to serve anyone who hasn't already rendered payment is beyond me. You have no natural right to my services, I don't care who you are. Identity politics is an anathema to reason; it has no consistency at all, and for that reason it's utterly mad.





Darias wrote:
nursebenjamin wrote:However, people are entitled to basic human rights and freedoms and to dignity and worth as a human person.[/b]
People should possess an innumerable number of liberties (negative rights), provided they do not cause harm to person or property. Unfortunately the state restricts liberties, most often in cases where the activity does not cause harm, ….
And what to do if the rights of one group of people harms the rights of another group of people? What if the harmful group has more power and money than the other group?

<<<“Unfortunately the state restricts liberties, most often in cases where the activity does not cause harm…�>>>
Then work to elect better politicians.

Darias wrote:
nursebenjamin wrote:This means that people have the right to participate in their culture and participate in the public sphere.
Yes. On public property and in public institutions paid for by everyone, freedom should be demanded because such places are publicly financed.

But someone's house or store are bought and paid for by the individual, and you are not owed anything from that property. You can't set up a gay pride club in my house without my permission. Without my permission, any would-be trespassers, thieves or home invaders forfeit their "right" to life and health. If you're a Mormon missionary, you are not entitled to a warm seat and a coffee; if I wasn't a nice person, I'd be well within my "right" to slam the door in your face. Private property isn't open to the whim of the public, period. It is well within my natural right to be as inclusive or or exclusive as I want if I own a church, a house, or a business. If you have rotten teeth, you are not owed my toothbrush. Your dental entitlements can best be served elsewhere by people willing to help you resolve your tarter-related issues.
<<<“It is well within my natural right to be as inclusive or exclusive as I want if I own a church, a house, or a business.�>>>
This is where we disagree. Everything else you’ve said is simply a straw man of my argument.

ImageImage
What if your right to exclude people results in the excluded not being secure in their right to life, liberty, and ability to have gainful employment, food and shelter?

Darias wrote:
nursebenjamin wrote:Disregard for basic human rights in the past have resulted in the enslavement of groups of humans, genocide, and other barbarous acts.
I believe you will find, without much effort, that states are largely, if not solely responsible for such brutality. It all starts with the children right? Who monopolizes education, and forces support and mandatory access to that indoctrination via extortion? Markets, or the state?
Again, I don’t really disagree with what you are saying, except for the fact that the government currently protects us from these egregious acts of brutality of the past. If there was no government or laws, what would prevent a bunch of strongmen from grabbing you and forcing you into enslavement or forcing your children into sexual slavery?

Darias wrote:
nursebenjamin wrote:Each state prohibits discrimination on the bases of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or disabilities. Some states, in addition, prohibit the discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation and perceived sexual orientation.
Well, that's relatively new. States are usually in the "business" of discrimination, and while hypothetical company A might have the ability to discriminate on its own property, the state has the power to force all to discriminate, whether you're in the public or private sector (see Jim Crow). ...
Governments should not be studied by themselves; but should be studied along with anthropology, history, science, and sociology. Our notion of which sets of discrimination should be allowed and prohibited have changed over time. Women used to be considered property -- to be bought and sold by fathers and husbands. Races of people were enslaved; others groups of people were exterminated. The issue is not the organization of people into a governing body, but the attitudes of people through the ages.

Darias wrote:
nursebenjamin wrote:If you feel that your business can not accommodate black people, or the disabled, or a Jew, then don’t have a business. Do something else. If you live in a state that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and you feel that you can not accommodate gay people, then don’t own a business in that state.
I agree with your advice. If you're a bigoted business owner than you probably don't have a strong command for economics, and you probably won't do so well. "Do something else" is merely a suggestion, not an order. I'm not your mom, I can't make you act like a rationally self-interested, decent human being. Stupidity and hatred aren't crimes and they shouldn't be. They're an economic punishment in and of themselves, and because of that, there is a natural drift away from hateful policies towards profitable ones.
I think that you put to much trust in the free market. The assumption that the free market will alleviate harmful/hateful practices can be incorrect, or in some cases will take too long. If not for progressive policies of the federal government, blacks would likely still be enslaved in the Deep South.

Darias wrote:
nursebenjamin wrote:Now, a business does not have to accommodate everyone. You don’t have to put up with drunks, threatening, or disruptive people. No business has to accommodate pornography, or gambling or puppies or babies or a million and one other things out there. However, there are a few protected classes of people that you cannot discriminate against. One is entitled to freedom from discriminate on the basis of race, religion, color, nationality, sex, or disability, (and in some state, sexual orientation).
Oh, so businesses are permitted to discriminate against alcoholics, drug addicts, risk takers, promiscuous persons, the age impaired, the financially challenged, and the non-sentient. I'm glad you cleared that up. So to recap, everything you want is a fundamental right and everything you hate should be banned?
Our notions of what discrimination should be allowed and prohibited have changed over time. I think that we are currently on about the right track. However, for example, if photographers start saying, “I will not take a picture of your wedding because of your shoe size,� and this becomes a problem, then we are free to add shoe size to the list of protected classes of people.





I think that you are missing the forest of the trees. Just because governments in the past have sent gays to concentration camps to die or denied their right to be married, does not mean that everything will now turn out hunky-dory for this class of people if we eliminate their right to be free from discrimination.[/quote]

User avatar
10CC
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1595
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 9:51 am
Location: Godzone

Post #139

Post by 10CC »

Danmark wrote:
East of Eden wrote: Orientation may be something we are born with, just as lots of other disorders happen in the fallen world (IMHO much same-sex attraction is the result of childhood trauma, as some in the videos I posted attest to), but ACTING on those feelings are something else. There is also evidence alcoholism and pedophila [sic] are born conditions, but it doesn't excuse the behaviors.
What is your evidence for these statements? I'm aware that one may inherit a predisposition for more or less susceptibility to alcohol abuse, but not alcoholism itself. At any rate, alcohol dependence and pedophilia are recognized by the DSM as disorders; homosexuality is not.

There simply is nothing dysfunctional about homosexuality, except in the context of a rigid, antiquated, science denying religious fundamentalism that finds moral evil in what nature produces.
The bible never ever condemns paedophilia. Is the rape of children not worth mention by your god?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 17612
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #140

Post by otseng »

East of Eden wrote: Your bigotry is noted.
:warning: Moderator Warning


You know better than to use the b-word on another poster.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Post Reply