Doublepost bad!

QF very much T.

To say that you know people who work with drug-users and prostitutes.. you're actually sort of proving the point.. they're working to try and change those people. You only change things you don't like about people. If you thought the people were just fine, you wouldn't want to change it. So, by working with people in any way that involves that changing, then you're just demonstrating how you think they are below you.

Now, if you were helping drug users deal with their money problems so that they could continue buying drugs, while hating drugs.. that would be an example of loving the person but hating what they're doing. But otherwise, if you're trying to change them, then their actions have, in fact, affected how you view them.

If I hate the fact the my boyfriend chews his nails, I'm quite likely to try to get him to stop. Even if I don't, it's still a behavior that I hate. That in no way means that I hate my boyfriend or any intrinsic aspect of him.

In order to say that one "hates the sinner because one hates the sin" you would have to hate drug-users and prostitutes as people and human beings, as well as their practice of drug abuse and prostitution. My argument isn't that one loves the use of drugs, simply that you can love people as people, while hating specific actions that they perform.


To say that you love someone doesn't mean that you think they're perfect, it means you love them in spite of their flaws. And by helping people to change -- especially the people that come specifically for help to change -- it in no way necessarily infers that you feel superior or are mentally degrading them. Perhaps the key aspect is that even if they refuse to implement your changes, you still help them with other areas (food and shelter come to mind) despite the continuation of what you perceive as a vice.


Edit: To put it in more concrete terms since my previous discussion was abstract by necessity, I'm gay. I was raised in a Christian, conservative home. Once my dad left the military, we've lived in the same place for 11 years and as a homeschooler, I've known most of the people I know now for at least 9 of those years (outside the people I met at work/college). Almost all of my friends are also Christian and conservative. They strongly disapprove of my homosexuality, but they have no problems with me personally. They would prefer that I have sex with girls, but they love me anyway. Out of deference for their feelings I don't generally rub it in their faces, but when I do bring it up it doesn't really bother them.

Way to entirely ignore the other posts on this subject.

*cough*

There's a big difference between disagreeing with an action and censoring an idea. To apply it to the homosexuality discussion, there are people who say that they think homosexuality is wrong, and there are people who vote against gay rights, discriminate against gays, or seek to physically harm openly gay people. The same broad term "homophobe" has been applied to all of them. Then, homophobia gets associated with the more extreme forms of dissent. After that, the label becomes so emotionally charged that our rather innocuous Daruin is going to be dismissed off-hand as a religious nutjob. While it's not outside the realm of possibility, and his verbiage tells me that he is indeed influenced by an evangelical or high-church flavor of Christianity, the idea needs to be considered on its own merits.

Now, I know that the natural reaction is going to be to point out that you are indeed responding to his post. This is true. You did, however, completely skip any mention of the belief itself. It was dismissed. What you got into instead was a debate on semantics--can you love a person and hate an act. It is, indeed, semantics. It's a cliched phrase that's used to describe a number of different attitudes, from Catholicism's "you're a pariah until you repent and reform," to Requiem's very gentle mix of tolerance, evasion, and eagerness to look past the differences.

Formal debates always include time to define the terms being debated. I've found it to be a good habit for life outside of debate. I think Aiakon has some vague sense of this, as implied by his one-liner. Yes, it's possible to disagree with an act and still get along just fine with a person committing the act, but you have to soften your stance against the act to do it. Once you do that, do you really still hate what you're disagreeing with? Probably not. You get accustomed to it, and eventually, it's no big deal. You can't, however, get along just fine with a homosexual and then put on your white robes and hood at night and go lynch a homosexual couple. It doesn't work that way without a fair measure of insanity.

Disagreeing with an action and censoring an idea are different, true. But they do bear similarities, and I think the effect on culture can be similar.

Even without advocating censorship, and without any hint of government censorship, things the majority doesn't want to hear can quite easily not be heard. The media, and people themselves, self-censor all the time, and whether that is out of respect or fear, it amounts to the same thing. As long as society in general disagrees with you, there is a strong incentive to remain silent. I think this is just as chilling to free speech as active censorship.

Alright, I'm back in the debate.

Basically all I'm going to say right now is thank you requiem, you pretty much hit on the nail my thoughts.

And

Edit: stupid computer again.

And that if someone you love is doing something that you see as harmful to them, then you should want to win them over to what you believe is right, otherwise you aren't practicing love. Just like a father corrects a child when they do something wrong. This doesn't mean I try to force my opionons on you, however, it does mean I may debate the subject with you, or practice a forebearance and love that will try to win you over in a less pronounced way. Tolerance does not equal love. Love sometimes has to take the hard route, even to the point perhaps of risking the friendship in order to say what you feel must be said. That doesn't mean you go out of your way to make someone feel guilty about their way, but also don't go out of your way to make them not feel guilty either. There's sort of a balance.

All true. The problem comes when you try to prove something is harmful, when there's no data to back that up, or when the harm is outweighed by other factors. For example, unless you're being told to drink poisoned juice, or you're going to let your child die for lack of treatment, I'm not going to say your religion is wrong, even if I think you're going to be forever damned, because I can't do anything to prove that. There's just as much chance I'm wrong about it as there that you are.

No, that I disagree with. If I think your religion is wrong and harmful (and this includes everyone from the socially destructive and irresponsible Christians to the Wiccans with their delusions of grandeur and tendency to slip into personality cults), I'm going to say something. However, if you still hold those beliefs after being challenged and taking a thoughtful look at your stance, I'm never going to do anything more than start some infrequent debates to keep the dialogue open. It's unfortunate that people shy away from those debates. We're too worried about offending people to actually care about their well-being or their impact on society.

I honestly believe that this is what the Great Commission is meant to be. Because, to me as a Christian, all other religions are harmful in the sense that they deviate from God. However, if even after I've told you the Good News, I should stop pressing it. Instead, I should then 'soft sell'. Perhaps those door-to-door evangelists can learn from marketing, as they really managed to give a bad impression of Christians to the entire paternal side of my family.

With regards to the article, all I can say is that it is -very- political. I'm politically naive, as I do not know what left and right really means, and as much as I try to follow it, all the political terms like liberals, left/right and whatnot really distracted me from the whole point of the article, which is free speech.

That's pretty much what I said, only in other terms.

It might sound paradoxical, but the article is political because it's trying to dispell any notion that it's a political phenomenon. Common wisdom says that right-wing/conservative/Republican politicians tend to believe in censorship, whereas left-wing/liberal/Democratic politicians tend to promote free flow of ideas. Not true. They just censor different things.



And your religion is harmful in the sense that Christian evangelism in Africa has helped contribute to unsafe sexual practices, the AIDS epidemic, and the deaths of about 3300 African Christians every day, and by lending your voice to the popular Western support of this Bronze Age relic, you ensure its continued "life-saving" activity overseas. Great Commission my foot. Congratulations.

Interesting.... I'm sure its a Christian belief that tells Africans that if they have AIDS, the only way to cure themselves is to have sex with a virgin, never realized that before! And here I thought it was a generally uneducated population who lives in recluse unhygienic poor villages that was causing such a problem. I should have known it was because of religion. How silly of me to think otherwise.


I am sure that the many ethnic wars and numerous warlords who respond to attempts of further education with gunfire isn't a factor either. I keep forgetting that everything is the fault of white Europeans who happen to have a belief that there is more to this world than meets the eye.

Or it's the Christian teaching that inexorably links sex and procreation that's brought about bans on the sale of condoms in some areas that caused the markedly higher incidence of AIDS among Christians than any other African religious group.

What is your source for this?

I have not heard of any places that ban the -selling- of condoms. And if there was a ban on the selling of condoms, it would affect all people of that area equally.

From every report I have heard, it was the raping of young girls that keeps spreading the AIDS and general distrust of white authorities telling blacks on how not to have children.

Jan Stephan wrote an article called "The World's Laws on Contraceptives" or something like that. Can't remember offhand where it was published. At any rate, used it as the primary source for an essay I wrote a couple years back.

EDIT: Alternatively, you could say that Christian girls are more likely to get raped and condom sales are a false indicator. I honestly don't know how well the religious groups in Africa get along.

Interesting.

I found the article and read the blurb but I have to pay $35.00 to read it. The article was published in 1981, AIDS was only recognized in 1981. Something tells me that the availability of codoms in Africa in 1981 if it was a factor at all, would have been minor.


I decided to do a little wiki check. This is what I found in the talk page section
Here is what I found in the actual article

Do we really want to get into a Christian vs Wiccan who does more harm argument? There's 2000 years of bloody history on one side, and fifty years of eccentric treehuggers on the other. It's not much of a contest, really.

That's the "Christian vs. Wiccan: Who did more harm?" argument. But either way the Christians win hands down, at leas by sheer numeric advantage.