Question for Christians on this board

[Phil Hellmuth]

Christianity brings a wide scope of code to follow by. However, one of the important questions (which rather gets over looked) is the philosophy aspect. There is really no clear cut distinction on how Christians are supposed to believe regarding the mind philosophy of their religion. Is the mind physical or is it something not physical and just relates to our physical body?

Dualism is the belief that the mind and the body are two completely different things.

Physicialism is the belief that everything is physical, everything can be explained due to the physical .

While many Christians would jump out and say Dualism is correct there are problems that arise with this position.

1. If Jesus was a human being, he had to have the mind of God entailed into the body. But if the mind of God is present, how could he be a true physical human being?

2. Another viewpoint would say "jesus was an exception" he was dualist in the standpoint that he did have two entities. He had the gift of being God and also being human.

Christian physicalism is usually meant to be a doctrine about human persons--that we humans are the sum total of our physical body and nothing more. God created us, we are limited, but can reach him if we accept him after death.

Further, traditional dualism suffers from the problem of redundancy... that one's personality is accounted for both in terms of neurological structures and by virtue of possessing a soul... one of the two seems extraneous. Notice that this is also problematic for Dualist interpretations of the Incarnation. If Jesus' 'soul' was immaterial, what work was his brain doing?

Just wanted to shed some light on this topic, feel free to give your input.

[leemajors]

1. If Jesus was a human being, he had to have the mind of God entailed into the body. But if the mind of God is present, how could he be a true physical human being?
if God was a human, he would be a perfect human. a perfect human could not be without fault.

[ggoose25]

it seems traditional dualism raises some difficult questions.

what are the counter-arguements against physicalism?

[ggoose25]

The question then is: if the human mind is totally physical, what separates us from the animals?

[ggoose25]

phil you might like this:
-----------------------------------
Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior

NYT
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: March 20, 2007

Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days.

Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Slide Show
The Beginnings of Morality? Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are.

Moral philosophers do not take very seriously the biologists’ bid to annex their subject, but they find much of interest in what the biologists say and have started an academic conversation with them.

The original call to battle was sounded by the biologist Edward O. Wilson more than 30 years ago, when he suggested in his 1975 book “Sociobiology” that “the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized.” He may have jumped the gun about the time having come, but in the intervening decades biologists have made considerable progress.

Last year Marc Hauser, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, proposed in his book “Moral Minds” that the brain has a genetically shaped mechanism for acquiring moral rules, a universal moral grammar similar to the neural machinery for learning language. In another recent book, “Primates and Philosophers,” the primatologist Frans de Waal defends against philosopher critics his view that the roots of morality can be seen in the social behavior of monkeys and apes.

Dr. de Waal, who is director of the Living Links Center at Emory University, argues that all social animals have had to constrain or alter their behavior in various ways for group living to be worthwhile. These constraints, evident in monkeys and even more so in chimpanzees, are part of human inheritance, too, and in his view form the set of behaviors from which human morality has been shaped.

Many philosophers find it hard to think of animals as moral beings, and indeed Dr. de Waal does not contend that even chimpanzees possess morality. But he argues that human morality would be impossible without certain emotional building blocks that are clearly at work in chimp and monkey societies.

Dr. de Waal’s views are based on years of observing nonhuman primates, starting with work on aggression in the 1960s. He noticed then that after fights between two combatants, other chimpanzees would console the loser. But he was waylaid in battles with psychologists over imputing emotional states to animals, and it took him 20 years to come back to the subject.

He found that consolation was universal among the great apes but generally absent from monkeys — among macaques, mothers will not even reassure an injured infant. To console another, Dr. de Waal argues, requires empathy and a level of self-awareness that only apes and humans seem to possess. And consideration of empathy quickly led him to explore the conditions for morality.

Though human morality may end in notions of rights and justice and fine ethical distinctions, it begins, Dr. de Waal says, in concern for others and the understanding of social rules as to how they should be treated. At this lower level, primatologists have shown, there is what they consider to be a sizable overlap between the behavior of people and other social primates.

Social living requires empathy, which is especially evident in chimpanzees, as well as ways of bringing internal hostilities to an end. Every species of ape and monkey has its own protocol for reconciliation after fights, Dr. de Waal has found. If two males fail to make up, female chimpanzees will often bring the rivals together, as if sensing that discord makes their community worse off and more vulnerable to attack by neighbors. Or they will head off a fight by taking stones out of the males’ hands.

Dr. de Waal believes that these actions are undertaken for the greater good of the community, as distinct from person-to-person relationships, and are a significant precursor of morality in human societies.

Macaques and chimpanzees have a sense of social order and rules of expected behavior, mostly to do with the hierarchical natures of their societies, in which each member knows its own place. Young rhesus monkeys learn quickly how to behave, and occasionally get a finger or toe bitten off as punishment. Other primates also have a sense of reciprocity and fairness. They remember who did them favors and who did them wrong. Chimps are more likely to share food with those who have groomed them. Capuchin monkeys show their displeasure if given a smaller reward than a partner receives for performing the same task, like a piece of cucumber instead of a grape.

These four kinds of behavior — empathy, the ability to learn and follow social rules, reciprocity and peacemaking — are the basis of sociality.

Dr. de Waal sees human morality as having grown out of primate sociality, but with two extra levels of sophistication. People enforce their society’s moral codes much more rigorously with rewards, punishments and reputation building. They also apply a degree of judgment and reason, for which there are no parallels in animals.

Religion can be seen as another special ingredient of human societies, though one that emerged thousands of years after morality, in Dr. de Waal’s view. There are clear precursors of morality in nonhuman primates, but no precursors of religion. So it seems reasonable to assume that as humans evolved away from chimps, morality emerged first, followed by religion. “I look at religions as recent additions,” he said. “Their function may have to do with social life, and enforcement of rules and giving a narrative to them, which is what religions really do.”

As Dr. de Waal sees it, human morality may be severely limited by having evolved as a way of banding together against adversaries, with moral restraints being observed only toward the in group, not toward outsiders. “The profound irony is that our noblest achievement — morality — has evolutionary ties to our basest behavior — warfare,” he writes. “The sense of community required by the former was provided by the latter.”

Dr. de Waal has faced down many critics in evolutionary biology and psychology in developing his views. The evolutionary biologist George Williams dismissed morality as merely an accidental byproduct of evolution, and psychologists objected to attributing any emotional state to animals. Dr. de Waal convinced his colleagues over many years that the ban on inferring emotional states was an unreasonable restriction, given the expected evolutionary continuity between humans and other primates.

His latest audience is moral philosophers, many of whom are interested in his work and that of other biologists. “In departments of philosophy, an increasing number of people are influenced by what they have to say,” said Gilbert Harman, a Princeton University philosopher.

Dr. Philip Kitcher, a philosopher at Columbia University, likes Dr. de Waal’s empirical approach. “I have no doubt there are patterns of behavior we share with our primate relatives that are relevant to our ethical decisions,” he said. “Philosophers have always been beguiled by the dream of a system of ethics which is complete and finished, like mathematics. I don’t think it’s like that at all.”

But human ethics are considerably more complicated than the sympathy Dr. de Waal has described in chimps. “Sympathy is the raw material out of which a more complicated set of ethics may get fashioned,” he said. “In the actual world, we are confronted with different people who might be targets of our sympathy. And the business of ethics is deciding who to help and why and when.”

Many philosophers believe that conscious reasoning plays a large part in governing human ethical behavior and are therefore unwilling to let everything proceed from emotions, like sympathy, which may be evident in chimpanzees. The impartial element of morality comes from a capacity to reason, writes Peter Singer, a moral philosopher at Princeton, in “Primates and Philosophers.” He says, “Reason is like an escalator — once we step on it, we cannot get off until we have gone where it takes us.”

That was the view of Immanuel Kant, Dr. Singer noted, who believed morality must be based on reason, whereas the Scottish philosopher David Hume, followed by Dr. de Waal, argued that moral judgments proceed from the emotions.

But biologists like Dr. de Waal believe reason is generally brought to bear only after a moral decision has been reached. They argue that morality evolved at a time when people lived in small foraging societies and often had to make instant life-or-death decisions, with no time for conscious evaluation of moral choices. The reasoning came afterward as a post hoc justification. “Human behavior derives above all from fast, automated, emotional judgments, and only secondarily from slower conscious processes,” Dr. de Waal writes.

However much we may celebrate rationality, emotions are our compass, probably because they have been shaped by evolution, in Dr. de Waal’s view. For example, he says: “People object to moral solutions that involve hands-on harm to one another. This may be because hands-on violence has been subject to natural selection whereas utilitarian deliberations have not.”

Philosophers have another reason biologists cannot, in their view, reach to the heart of morality, and that is that biological analyses cannot cross the gap between “is” and “ought,” between the description of some behavior and the issue of why it is right or wrong. “You can identify some value we hold, and tell an evolutionary story about why we hold it, but there is always that radically different question of whether we ought to hold it,” said Sharon Street, a moral philosopher at New York University. “That’s not to discount the importance of what biologists are doing, but it does show why centuries of moral philosophy are incredibly relevant, too.”

Biologists are allowed an even smaller piece of the action by Jesse Prinz, a philosopher at the University of North Carolina. He believes morality developed after human evolution was finished and that moral sentiments are shaped by culture, not genetics. “It would be a fallacy to assume a single true morality could be identified by what we do instinctively, rather than by what we ought to do,” he said. “One of the principles that might guide a single true morality might be recognition of equal dignity for all human beings, and that seems to be unprecedented in the animal world.”

Dr. de Waal does not accept the philosophers’ view that biologists cannot step from “is” to “ought.” “I’m not sure how realistic the distinction is,” he said. “Animals do have ‘oughts.’ If a juvenile is in a fight, the mother must get up and defend her. Or in food sharing, animals do put pressure on each other, which is the first kind of ‘ought’ situation.”

Dr. de Waal’s definition of morality is more down to earth than Dr. Prinz’s. Morality, he writes, is “a sense of right and wrong that is born out of groupwide systems of conflict management based on shared values.” The building blocks of morality are not nice or good behaviors but rather mental and social capacities for constructing societies “in which shared values constrain individual behavior through a system of approval and disapproval.” By this definition chimpanzees in his view do possess some of the behavioral capacities built in our moral systems.

“Morality is as firmly grounded in neurobiology as anything else we do or are,” Dr. de Waal wrote in his 1996 book “Good Natured.” Biologists ignored this possibility for many years, believing that because natural selection was cruel and pitiless it could only produce people with the same qualities. But this is a fallacy, in Dr. de Waal’s view. Natural selection favors organisms that survive and reproduce, by whatever means. And it has provided people, he writes in “Primates and Philosophers,” with “a compass for life’s choices that takes the interests of the entire community into account, which is the essence of human morality.”

[Phil Hellmuth]

it seems traditional dualism raises some difficult questions.

what are the counter-arguements against physicalism?


i got this from a philosophy site which answers your question. There are also other arguments against physicialism that I will show you later.

"The main argument against physicalism is usually thought to concern the notion of qualia, the felt qualities of experience. The notion of qualia raises puzzles of its own, puzzles having to do with its connection to other notions such as consciousness, introspection, epistemic access, acquaintance, the first-person perspective and so on. However the idea that we will discuss here is the apparent contradiction between the existence of qualia and physicalism.
Perhaps the clearest version of this argument is Jackson's knowledge argument. (There are also a number of other arguments in this area -- for a very good recent discussion, see Chalmers 1996). This argument asks us to imagine Mary, a famous neuroscientist confined to a black and white room. Mary is forced to learn about the world via black and white television and computers. However, despite these hardships Mary learns (and therefore knows) all that physical theory can teach her. Now, if physicalism were true, it is plausible to suppose that Mary knows everything about the world. And yet -- and here is Jackson's point -- it seems she does not know everything. For, upon being released into the world of color, it will become obvious that, inside her room, she did not know what it is like for both herself and others to see colors -- that is, she did not know about the qualia instantiated by particular experiences of seeing colors. Following Jackson (1986), we may summarize the argument as follows:
P1. Mary (before her release) knows everything physical there is to know about other people.
P2. Mary (before her release) does not know everything there is to know about other people (because she learns something about them on being released).
Conclusion. There are truths about other people (and herself) that escape the physicalist story.
Clearly this conclusion entails that physicalism is false: for if there are truths which escape the physicalist story how can everything supervene on the physical. So a physicalist must either reject a premise or show that the premises don't entail the conclusion"

[mookie2001]

why do they ignore like half of the 10 commandments but judge gays to hell?

[spurster]

I wouldn't say that Christianity is Dualist. The Apostles' Creed states a belief in the resurrection of the body. If the physical part was strictly separate from our souls, Christians wouldn't need their bodies again.

[Phenomanul]

why do they ignore like half of the 10 commandments but judge gays to hell?

Does that one hit a little too close to home????

For the umpteenth time.... Homosexuality is an abomination before GOD. The act is despicable. Christians therefore 'hate the sin', but not the sinner -- an attitude that is not equivalent with 'judging' someone.

[johnsmith]

Does that one hit a little too close to home????

For the umpteenth time.... Homosexuality is an abomination before GOD. The act is despicable. Christians therefore 'hate the sin', but not the sinner -- an attitude that is not equivalent with 'judging' someone.


Posts like Mookie's in a thread that is trying to be honest and serious should not be merited with a response.

[clambake]

Interesting question about the ten commandments and those who break them.

Gods on the list.

[101A]

Interesting question about the ten commandments and those who break them.

Gods on the list.


O.K. I'll bite.

Which one?

[clambake]

clue: He's a single father.

[DarkReign]

clue: He's a single father.

.....and then the thread went to hell.....

[clambake]

Sorry DR, I should have been clear. #7

[Spurminator]

I don't know, a thread starting with 6 interesting and relevant posts has got to be at least a 2007 Political Forum record.

[Phenomanul]

Christianity brings a wide scope of code to follow by. However, one of the important questions (which rather gets over looked) is the philosophy aspect. There is really no clear cut distinction on how Christians are supposed to believe regarding the mind philosophy of their religion. Is the mind physical or is it something not physical and just relates to our physical body?

Dualism is the belief that the mind and the body are two completely different things.

Physicialism is the belief that everything is physical, everything can be explained due to the physical .

While many Christians would jump out and say Dualism is correct there are problems that arise with this position.

1. If Jesus was a human being, he had to have the mind of God entailed into the body. But if the mind of God is present, how could he be a true physical human being?

2. Another viewpoint would say "jesus was an exception" he was dualist in the standpoint that he did have two entities. He had the gift of being God and also being human.

Christian physicalism is usually meant to be a doctrine about human persons--that we humans are the sum total of our physical body and nothing more. God created us, we are limited, but can reach him if we accept him after death.

Further, traditional dualism suffers from the problem of redundancy... that one's personality is accounted for both in terms of neurological structures and by virtue of possessing a soul... one of the two seems extraneous. Notice that this is also problematic for Dualist interpretations of the Incarnation. If Jesus' 'soul' was immaterial, what work was his brain doing?

Just wanted to shed some light on this topic, feel free to give your input.

Humans were created with three entities:

The body: Our physical self. Tissues, organs, blood, bones, etc... all comprise our body. Unique to our DNA. Can be measured with the same physical parameters we use to define our surroundings (mass, height, width, color, smell, etc...) or measured in active terms (how strong, fast, loud someone is).

The soul: Our emotions and personality. Can be shaped by our environment. Our soul is comprised of all the characteristics that make each and every one of us unique, that which defines who we are. Are we jovial, bitter, intelligent, humorous, optimistic, malicious, resourceful, etc...

The spirit: Often, and incorrectly, used interchangably with the word soul, our spirit is our eternal lifeline. It is a mirror image of everything defined by our soul but this entity lives on forever. The spirit is also our connection into the realm of consciousness, and serves as our connection with GOD (animals have a body and a soul, but not a spirit).


So to answer your question, the mind is physical when concerning the physicallity of our brain. The physical interactions involved in our synaptic responses, the physical 'electrical' wiring that enables our bodies to heed our mind's command, etc...

The mind is also a meta-physical entity when concerning the concept of consciousness - even while self-awareness itself can be construed as a physical concept. Our subconscious thoughts, our dreams all occur in a realm which is not defined by physical parameters.

GOD of course is supernatural and cannot be constrained or bound by any of the above definitions.

Furthermore, the significance of JESUS (during his time on earth) being fully human and fully GOD has nothing to do with how that duality would be defined. It has everything to do rejecting temptation and defeating sin while being human. JESUS faced the same struggles as His fellow peers without giving in to temptation - and he did so without Divine intervention, even while being fully divine Himself. He felt pain, just like us. He went thirsty, hungry, got sick, faced the cold, or heat exhaustion just like us. He endured all of these seemingly normal human experiences and never once complained. JESUS was without blemish. It had to be this way, otherwise His self-sacrifice on the cross would hold no worth whatsoever as an atoning act. The sacrifice would have no redeeming significance had He sinned at all.

[mookie2001]

hememegoaoaba you know damn well most christians ignore at least half of the commandments, yet what REALLY gets them excited/off the couch/protesting in the streets is the thought of two men with a civil union


dam the republicans had 2 themes to the 04 election, sep 11th and banning gay marriage in states in which it wasnt permitted

[clambake]

Some would suggest that Jesus did not live without sin. What would you say to those people/ theologist?

[Phenomanul]

Some would suggest that Jesus did not live without sin. What would you say to those people/ theologist?


They are entitled to believe what they see fit....


It had to be this way, otherwise His [JESUS] self-sacrifice on the cross would hold no worth whatsoever as an atoning act. The sacrifice would have no redeeming significance had He sinned at all.

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

O.K. I'll bite.

Which one?

#6 God kills constantly

[Phenomanul]

hememegoaoaba you know damn well most christians ignore at least half of the commandments, yet what REALLY gets them excited/off the couch/protesting in the streets is the thought of two men with a civil union


dam the republicans had 2 themes to the 04 election, sep 11th and banning gay marriage in states in which it wasnt permitted

So you judge them.... on the perception that they are judging gays? I see.... It's a two way street mookie.

Personally, I believe GOD's laws supercede the laws of men; most Christians believe this to be true - but it is irrelevant. The people that lobby to vote on 'moral' issues simply want their viewpoint reflected in the laws that govern their land. Does the democratic process not hold this accessibility to self-governance to be a virtue?

So basically what you are saying is that you feel angered by the fact that others (with differing viewpoints) are granted the same access to the democratic process as yourself. You would rather they not lobby at all. That's not how democracy works.

But don't fret. There will come a time when Christianity becomes an 'archaic belief system. When the Christian viewpoint becomes the minority one. And when that time comes, you will feel free to do as you please under a considerably more relaxed set of moral laws. Moral code will be governed by relativism. It will be a time when being politically correct will trump Absolute Truth itself. That day is not far from today.

[clambake]

Aren't theologist as close as one can get to scientific fact?

[Phil Hellmuth]

Aren't theologist as close as one can get to scientific fact?


yes but they are pretty far away when it comes to contemporary philosophical aptitudes.

[jochhejaam]

most christians ignore at least half of the commandments, yet what REALLY gets them excited/off the couch/protesting in the streets is the thought of two men with a civil union


1. A Christian by definition (in part) is one who is an adherent to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and that would precipitate them from "ignoring" any of the Commandments.

2, Christ/God condemn homosexuality, therefore his followers (those that adhere to His teaching) are compelled to do the same.

With that being said, the thrust of Christianity is not to condemn homosexuality (sin in every form is condemned ), but to pass along the Message that Christ defeated our compulsion to submit to the temptation of sin.
The verse reads as follows; "For Christ did not come into the World to condemn the World, but that the World through Him might be saved".

Are you following any of this mook?

[gtownspur]

You should have used biblical examples with food or something for Mooks to understand.

[clambake]

Interesting Joch. Faith without question. Mirror image of current democracy. A deadly mix, religion and politics. An untrue expression of faith being powered by the push that want to believe. They do know how to secure their engine.

God gave us lust for knowledge. I think God expects us to use it.

[Phenomanul]

Interesting Joch. Faith without question. Mirror image of current democracy. A deadly mix, religion and politics. An untrue expression of faith being powered by the push that want to believe. They do know how to secure their engine.

God gave us lust for knowledge. I think God expects us to use it.


Joch never implied we didn't have to ''study the scriptures''.... or that we are to accept everything without question.

As far as your 'deadly mix' comment on religion and politics is concerned...
Why are Christians somehow expected to be completely quiet on the political front? We have been instructed to be the 'light of the world'... and though the political arena should not be the main venue for Christians to impact their world, there's no denying that its sphere of influence is in fact greater and far reaching. Nevertheless, tasks in that area should be limited to social outreach i.e. helping widows, orphans the needy, and rehabilitative programs for prisoners, etc... making war or the such should not be the chief objective.

The thing that bothers me however, is that others also expect us to remain completely immobile when it comes to shaping the laws that we ourselves are governed by. Again people, it is a democratic process; we live in a democratic society. Men fought to give every citizen in this land the right to self-governance -- i.e. a 'government for the people, by the people.' Anyhow, we are no less Christians for being concerned that the sanctity of marriage be upheld, for being concerned that our government is not doing enough about preventing pornography from reaching our children, for being concerned about the sanctity of life and that this is a fight we are compelled to embrace. The issues will change with the times.... just as the laws will change with time.

Again, eventually secularism will have its way and purge as much of the 'biblical' morality out of our laws as possible.



1. A Christian by definition (in part) is one who is an adherent to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and that would precipitate them from "ignoring" any of the Commandments.

2, Christ/God condemn homosexuality, therefore his followers (those that adhere to His teaching) are compelled to do the same.

With that being said, the thrust of Christianity is not to condemn homosexuality (sin in every form is condemned ), but to pass along the Message that Christ defeated our compulsion to submit to the temptation of sin.
The verse reads as follows; "For Christ did not come into the World to condemn the World, but that the World through Him might be saved".


To supplement Joch's passage: Here is one of my favorite passages.

JESUS - I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.

John 16:33

[101A]

#6 God kills constantly

In modern English, "Thou shalt not murder" is a more accurate translation.

[clambake]

You can study the scriptures and find 10 different interpretations from 10 different self-proclaimed experts. The odds of accuracy are impossible. Which leads individuals to choose their own, preferred definition that is a phantom, not an absolute.

[turambar85]

So you judge them.... on the perception that they are judging gays? I see.... It's a two way street mookie.

Personally, I believe GOD's laws supercede the laws of men; most Christians believe this to be true - but it is irrelevant. The people that lobby to vote on 'moral' issues simply want their viewpoint reflected in the laws that govern their land. Does the democratic process not hold this accessibility to self-governance to be a virtue?

So basically what you are saying is that you feel angered by the fact that others (with differing viewpoints) are granted the same access to the democratic process as yourself. You would rather they not lobby at all. That's not how democracy works.

But don't fret. There will come a time when Christianity becomes an 'archaic belief system. When the Christian viewpoint becomes the minority one. And when that time comes, you will feel free to do as you please under a considerably more relaxed set of moral laws. Moral code will be governed by relativism. It will be a time when being politically correct will trump Absolute Truth itself. That day is not far from today.

So, out of curiousity, do you believe that it is a good thing for God's laws to become man's laws? Is this what God would desire, if God were capable of desiring in the first place?

[xrayzebra]

So, out of curiousity, do you believe that it is a good thing for God's laws to become man's laws? Is this what God would desire, if God were capable of desiring in the first place?

Ever read the US Constitution? And Declaration of Independence. Obviously some people do and did.

[clambake]

Some thought the reasons for war were gospel.

[2centsworth]

You can study the scriptures and find 10 different interpretations from 10 different self-proclaimed experts. The odds of accuracy are impossible. Which leads individuals to choose their own, preferred definition that is a phantom, not an absolute.
did you come up with that by yourself? Please backup your argument.

[clambake]

It's a faith in the unknown. That's a reach, at best.

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

In modern English, "Thou shalt not murder" is a more accurate translation.

Wrong. Kill is the most accurate translation. Murder is the more PC version. Just like they are changing slave to servant. Oh yeah and God does murder.

[turambar85]

Ever read the US Constitution? And Declaration of Independence. Obviously some people do and did.

LOL, X-ray, I wasn't referring to you, but the argument stands, and it irrelevant to your point.

I am not asking if it is American, but if it is from solid religious rationalization.

Simply spouting American tradition is not a viable argument for all topics X.

[turambar85]

Wrong. Kill is the most accurate translation. Murder is the more PC version. Just like they are changing slave to servant. Oh yeah and God does murder.

There is a fundamental difference in kill and murder. I am sorry, but you are mistaken.

Kill isn't more PC, but simply means a just murder, whereas murder is an unjust killing. Thus, God cannot murder, but only kill. And we can both kill and murder, but our just and reasonable killings are not murder.

[xrayzebra]

LOL, X-ray, I wasn't referring to you, but the argument stands, and it irrelevant to your point.

I am not asking if it is American, but if it is from solid religious rationalization.

Simply spouting American tradition is not a viable argument for all topics X.

Splitting hairs is not an argument. American tradition? How
so? Our country, contrary to the liberal point of view, was
founded on Christianity.

[turambar85]

Splitting hairs is not an argument. American tradition? How
so? Our country, contrary to the liberal point of view, was
founded on Christianity.

Again, X, this is not in regards to the American historical tradition, but whether or not a Christian, qua Christian, is acting wisely in promoting laws based on his or her beliefs.

You are entirely missing the point being made, per usual.

The question is, as religious beliefs are founded on faith, and faith is founded on free will, if we might consider ourselves wise to make laws based on God's dictates, particularly when you consider that Christ himself said "give unto Caesar that which is Caesars."

Once religious faith laws are taking into the political spectrum, not only do they lose the article of faith that made them favorable to God, but they also become enmeshed in the single most crooked profession known to man, even including that of the lawyer. And, then the greater question becomes begged when you consider that, to God, all sins are created equal. Thus, to lie is as bad as to murder...so we must, if making laws solely from religious views, they must be treated equally, and we must receive prison or death for telling lies.

I am not saying that Christians should keep their religious views to themselves from a purely secularist point of view, but rather of one that would protect a historical tradition of personal faith and understanding.

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

There is a fundamental difference in kill and murder. I am sorry, but you are mistaken.

Kill isn't more PC, but simply means a just murder, whereas murder is an unjust killing. Thus, God cannot murder, but only kill. And we can both kill and murder, but our just and reasonable killings are not murder.


Ok I see what your saying. Let me clarify what Im saying. We were talking about God breaking the 10 Commandments. Yes I know there is a major difference between killing and murdering. The translation of the oldest existing text is thou shalt not kill. Some Bibles replace kill mith murder. They do that to sugercoat it and help make sense out of a senseless book. Im not saying we shouldnt kill. Thats what the Bible says.


All of that aside.
Is genocide considered murder?
Is there such a thing as a just genocide?
Does God have to play by the 10 Commandments?

[turambar85]

Ok I see what your saying. Let me clarify what Im saying. We were talking about God breaking the 10 Commandments. Yes I know there is a major difference between killing and murdering. The translation of the oldest existing text is thou shalt not kill. Some Bibles replace kill mith murder. They do that to sugercoat it and help make sense out of a senseless book. Im not saying we shouldnt kill. Thats what the Bible says.


All of that aside.
Is genocide considered murder?
Is there such a thing as a just genocide?
Does God have to play by the 10 Commandments?

Conceivably, and I will not stand in defense of the legitimacy of the Bible following translation, or prior to at that point, my only beef was with the use of terminology.

In response...

Yes,
No,
Yes, or he is not God. The 10 commandments can be fake, the Christian God could be wrong, but if God were in a position to follow or break laws, we would find the choice to not even exist. The handcuffs of perfection are the price you pay to be God.

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

Yeah I think God can do anything he wants. So when he murders people and commits genocide its ok. Hes like Fuck you guys Ill do what I want. Do as I say not as I do.

Yeah the commandments could be fake. It bothers me when people pick and choose from it.

[turambar85]

Yeah I think God can do anything he wants. So when he murders people and commits genocide its ok. Hes like Fuck you guys Ill do what I want. Do as I say not as I do.

Yeah the commandments could be fake. It bothers me when people pick and choose from it.

Ok, God in the abstract could...however, God as a perfect entity could not.

[xrayzebra]

Again, X, this is not in regards to the American historical tradition, but whether or not a Christian, qua Christian, is acting wisely in promoting laws based on his or her beliefs.

You are entirely missing the point being made, per usual.

The question is, as religious beliefs are founded on faith, and faith is founded on free will, if we might consider ourselves wise to make laws based on God's dictates, particularly when you consider that Christ himself said "give unto Caesar that which is Caesars."

Once religious faith laws are taking into the political spectrum, not only do they lose the article of faith that made them favorable to God, but they also become enmeshed in the single most crooked profession known to man, even including that of the lawyer. And, then the greater question becomes begged when you consider that, to God, all sins are created equal. Thus, to lie is as bad as to murder...so we must, if making laws solely from religious views, they must be treated equally, and we must receive prison or death for telling lies.

I am not saying that Christians should keep their religious views to themselves from a purely secularist point of view, but rather of one that would protect a historical tradition of personal faith and understanding.

Once again, you missed the point. Laws based on his
or hers faith. I answered the question. The answer, look
at what you own country was based on.

But once again, you want to put out the same old
arguments. We are not in a college class or with some
instructors, filling in the for the professor, we are talking
real world. Read the documents that your country was
founded. on. I didn't miss the point. You did!

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

Ok, God in the abstract could...however, God as a perfect entity could not.

Who says God is perfect and just and loving? Organized Religion.

An all powerfull being has power over everything. Assuming God exists and is all powerfull of course.

[turambar85]

Once again, you missed the point. Laws based on his
or hers faith. I answered the question. The answer, look
at what you own country was based on.

But once again, you want to put out the same old
arguments. We are not in a college class or with some
instructors, filling in the for the professor, we are talking
real world. Read the documents that your country was
founded. on. I didn't miss the point. You did!

I can't miss the point of my question, good God.

I asked whether or not it is a good idea, not whether or not it is common practice. Our country was founded on slavery as well, but we were able to overcome that....

Stop living based on what you assume to be the views of dead men, and live in the present. Explain why it is good logically, why I am flawed logically, and then we can have debate.

That which is in the real world began in a college classroom. The founding fathers weren't gargage men.

[turambar85]

Who says God is perfect and just and loving? Organized Religion.

An all powerfull being has power over everything. Assuming God exists and is all powerfull of course.

I only said perfect.

And whether or not this is true is irrelevant. I am simply saying that if God is perfect, he cannot break commandments.

[xrayzebra]

I can't miss the point of my question, good God.

I asked whether or not it is a good idea, not whether or not it is common practice. Our country was founded on slavery as well, but we were able to overcome that....

Stop living based on what you assume to be the views of dead men, and live in the present. Explain why it is good logically, why I am flawed logically, and then we can have debate.

That which is in the real world began in a college classroom. The founding fathers weren't gargage men.


Well you live in the country. oh forget it. you want
an argument. You don't really want any truth. Live in
peace.

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

I only said perfect.

And whether or not this is true is irrelevant. I am simply saying that if God is perfect, he cannot break commandments.

Yeah I added just and loving.

Since God breaks the Commandments, he isnt perfect.

[turambar85]

Well you live in the country. oh forget it. you want
an argument. You don't really want any truth. Live in
peace.

No, it is not that I want an argument...I want a reasoned discussion to find whether or not I might be wrong. I do not wish to hear that we have this system, have had this system, and will have this system in order that you might claim its just nature...I want to know whether or not it was just to have been instituted in the first place...

No, not even if it is just, but if it is smart. I want to know how you respond to my claims regarding faith and politics.

[turambar85]

Yeah I added just and loving.

Since God breaks the Commandments, he isnt perfect.

We have no proof of God, we have no proof of God breaking commandments.

All that we have is the ability to use our measure of reason to see what God could do if "he/she" had specific attributes, and then judge by those whether this idea of God is compatible with our universe.

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

We have no proof of God, we have no proof of God breaking commandments.

True True


All that we have is the ability to use our measure of reason to see what God could do if "he/she" had specific attributes, and then judge by those whether this idea of God is compatible with our universe.

I dont know. Im not sure.

[Phenomanul]

I only said perfect.

And whether or not this is true is irrelevant. I am simply saying that if God is perfect, he cannot break commandments.


Your perspective on this matter is rather binding.

We can't judge or decide to end someone's life because humans are not perfect.

The difference is that GOD is.

HE is Supremely Just... and therefore is entitled to judge; we on the other hand are not.

So when He decides to end someone's life, He really can do as He pleases, because ultimately He isn't doing it at some whim. There is a purpose behind everyone of His actions... perfection requires it. We simply don't always understand that purpose, nor is it always revealed.

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

Your perspective on this matter is rather binding.

We can't judge or decide to end someone's life because humans are not perfect.

The difference is that GOD is.

HE is Supremely Just... and therefore is entitled to judge; we on the other hand are not.

So when He decides to end someone's life, He really can do as He pleases, becuase ultimately He isn't doing it at some whim. There is a purpose behind everyone of His actions... perfection requires it. We simply don't always understand that purpose, nor is it always revealed.

So our definition of being perfect isnt the same as Gods?

[Phenomanul]

So our definition of being perfect isnt the same as Gods?


NO.

We can't conceive GOD's concept of perfection. It is too simple and yet infinitely complex. :smchode: :smchode: :smchode:

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

NO.

We can't conceive GOD's concept of perfection. It is too simple and yet infinitely complex. :smchode: :smchode: :smchode:

Yes thats right because the Bible version of God does not fit my definition of perfection, justice, or love.

[Phenomanul]

Yes thats right because the Bible version of God does not fit my definition of perfection, justice, or love.


Have you even read the Bible or are you simply basing this on 'what you think you know about the Bible' from some passage you heard here or a fragment read there?

I'm curious to know how you would define said terms.

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

Yes Im reading it as we speak.
I have read it throughout most of my life. Focusing on the meat and ignoring the geaniologies. 11 years of Catholic school, church twice a week, altar boy, Colombian Squire. The more I learn about organized religion the easier it is to see through it. There is nothing I want more than to live forever but I see that as an empty promise made by men, not God.

My definitions, without going to the dictionary
Love is to do whats best for another.
Perfection, just doesnt have any flaws
Justice, not punishing someone for unfairly or without clear reason

Tell me about yourself holyman.
I gota go buy some Hooks tickets. I live in Corpus to.

[angel_luv]

We have no proof of God, we have no proof of God breaking commandments.

All that we have is the ability to use our measure of reason to see what God could do if "he/she" had specific attributes, and then judge by those whether this idea of God is compatible with our universe.


And why does God have to be "compatible"? God, as the Creator and Ruler of the Universe, is under no obligation to anyone- it is His benevolence which prompts God to make Himself accessible to humans.

[Phenomanul]

Yes Im reading it as we speak.
I have read it throughout most of my life. Focusing on the meat and ignoring the geaniologies. 11 years of Catholic school, church twice a week, altar boy, Colombian Squire. The more I learn about organized religion the easier it is to see through it. There is nothing I want more than to live forever but I see that as an empty promise made by men, not God.

My definitions, without going to the dictionary
Love is to do whats best for another.
Perfection, just doesnt have any flaws
Justice, not punishing someone for unfairly or without clear reason

Tell me about yourself holyman.
I gota go buy some Hooks tickets. I live in Corpus to.


We'll have to continue the discussion later... I'm late for an appointment.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Does that one hit a little too close to home????

For the umpteenth time.... Homosexuality is an abomination before GOD. The act is despicable. Christians therefore 'hate the sin', but not the sinner -- an attitude that is not equivalent with 'judging' someone.

I think you've become entangled amongst your own semantics hegamboa, to say (devout) christians hate the sin, not the sinner, and don't judge gays, is, well

dude you're wrong.

[td4mvp21]

I think you've become entangled amongst your own semantics hegamboa, to say (devout) christians hate the sin, not the sinner, and don't judge gays, is, well

dude you're wrong.


Although my beliefs are almost exactly Christian, I have to agree with this. Christians are the most judgmental people ever, especially the more devout ones. Most of the ones I know shun gay people as well as alcoholics, smokers, druggies, etc., people with problems that are considered sin in the Bible.

[turambar85]

And why does God have to be "compatible"? God, as the Creator and Ruler of the Universe, is under no obligation to anyone- it is His benevolence which prompts God to make Himself accessible to humans.

God must be compatible with the logical system that he/she instilled.

For instance, if God if perfect, then God cannot make a square circle because to do so would be to lie to manking, which is a self-serving weakness.

Under the same reasoning, God could not go against his/her own commandments.

[angel_luv]

God must be compatible with the logical system that he/she instilled.

For instance, if God if perfect, then God cannot make a square circle because to do so would be to lie to manking, which is a self-serving weakness.

Under the same reasoning, God could not go against his/her own commandments.


But aren't you making the assumption that God's and mans' logic need be the same?

God can be perfectly right without making sense to you or me.

[turambar85]

But aren't you making the assumption that God's and mans' logic need be the same?

God can be perfectly right without making sense to you or me.

Then, even assuming you are right, which is not a given, God would be deceiving us in a manner contrary to the nature supposed of God if we were to be lead to believe that a logical system was universal, when God could break from its use on a whim.

[angel_luv]

Then, even assuming you are right, which is not a given, God would be deceiving us in a manner contrary to the nature supposed of God if we were to be lead to believe that a logical system was universal, when God could break from its use on a whim.


Or maybe our finite brains are only capable of comprehending portions of the universal truth of which God is Master.

There is no shame in God being smarter than you. And He is, whether you ever acknowledge it or no. :)

[Phil Hellmuth]

Or maybe our finite brains are only capable of comprehending portions of the universal truth of which God is Master.



or maybe our brains will unlock the secret of God? who knows. neurology is a outstanding and almost and infinite area of work.

I have a question for everyone. If we exactly figured out the science of neurology (EXACTLY) would that bring more case for proof against or for the existence of God???

[angel_luv]

No matter how great the man or woman, he/she can't outdo God.

[angel_luv]

:lol I say that as if anyone could even come close.

[Guru of Nothing]

Or maybe our finite brains are only capable of comprehending portions of the universal truth of which God is Master.

There is no shame in God being smarter than you. And He is, whether you ever acknowledge it or no. :)

God, or a Christian God?

Remember, God hates adjectives.

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

or maybe our brains will unlock the secret of God? who knows. neurology is a outstanding and almost and infinite area of work.

I have a question for everyone. If we exactly figured out the science of neurology (EXACTLY) would that bring more case for proof against or for the existence of God???

I dont know.
I fold.
What do you have Phil?

[Spurminator]

Edit: Derailment withdrawn after further thread reading..

[angel_luv]

God, or a Christian God?

Remember, God hates adjectives.


The God of the Christian Bible.

[Phenomanul]

I think you've become entangled amongst your own semantics hegamboa, to say (devout) christians hate the sin, not the sinner, and don't judge gays, is, well

dude you're wrong.


It's not like the concept is beyond comprehension.... I thought you were smarter than that. Judgement is cast when one man condemns another for their actions be it literal or in their mind. I have not the right, nor the authority to do either. Am I capable of judging others? Sure, it is an inescapable human attribute that can sometimes occur without much effort. Many times much like an involuntary response. I try not to dwell on such matters, for I've never claimed to be perfect.

Ever heard of the biblical phrase "let he who is without sin cast the first stone..."? Or "don't worry about the speck in your brother's eye when you have a log sticking out of yours"

Well.... that's exactly the topic they refer to... We should avoid casting judgement. So while we have been given the knowledge and spiritual discernment of knowing what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'... i.e. we can identify one from the other.... calling something by its name is not tantamount to passing judgment on it. It's not a matter of semantics. The concept is crystal clear...


Although my beliefs are almost exactly Christian, I have to agree with this [CBF's statement above]. Christians are the most judgmental people ever, especially the more devout ones. Most of the ones I know shun gay people as well as alcoholics, smokers, druggies, etc., people with problems that are considered sin in the Bible.

Which is why we and other churches take them in and help them break the 'shackles' that have bound them to their vices. I see.... While that may be true for others [being judgemental Christians]... It certainly wouldn't apply to those who have taken JESUS"s ministry to heart - the true Christian calling. But we ought not take glory for this -- that belongs solely to GOD. Again, calling a sin by its name is not tantamount to passing judgment on those who practice it. Nor is having an aversion to the sin tantamount to a rejection of the 'sinner'.


Food for thought - since you consider "christians to be the most judgemental people ever" The world's most notorious dictators and tyrants... Self-proclaimed judges... the likes of Nero, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin.... Yeah... some 'christians' they turned out to be. :rolleyes Oh wait!...... That's right - most of these cruel tyrants ruled with a wanton disregard for life because they lacked the conviction that they would be held accountable to a higher authority. They took it upon themselves to do as they pleased.

[Guru of Nothing]

The God of the Christian Bible.

God loves most those who know.

[ploto]

I understand where the person is coming from, though, who sees all that judgmental behavior. Many Christians spend their time with all the don'ts-- while I focus on the do's. I think that Jesus was much more interested in the good things that we are supposed to do.

[Phenomanul]

God must be compatible with the logical system that he/she instilled.

For instance, if God if perfect, then God cannot make a square circle because to do so would be to lie to manking, which is a self-serving weakness.

Under the same reasoning, God could not go against his/her own commandments.


But aren't you making the assumption that God's and mans' logic need be the same?

God can be perfectly right without making sense to you or me.


Then, even assuming you are right, which is not a given, God would be deceiving us in a manner contrary to the nature supposed of God if we were to be lead to believe that a logical system was universal, when God could break from its use on a whim.


It may seem paradoxical to you because again you are bound to a logic construct that's infinitely inferior to GOD's.

It's like saying that GOD can't break the natural laws that He Himself set forth when creating our universe... But you know what? He can if He so pleases, He is Supernatural! - not bound to anything; not bound by time, not bound by dimensions or physical laws; He is only bound by the very attributes which define His essence... Holiness, Justice, Grace, Love, Omniscience, Omnipotence, etc...

And I disagree with the notion that GOD would choose to do things 'on a whim'. GOD does everything with a purpose.... again, His very perfection requires that to hold true. Why? Because doing things 'on a whim' undermines the existence of a greater plan; the lack of a plan would suggest a lack of order, and a lack of order (i.e. chaos) completely opposes the structure that is required for perfection.

The constraints and rules placed on creation do not apply to the Creator.

Good dialogue...

[Phenomanul]

Good night. I have to wake up earlier than usual tomorrow...

[sabar]

God has to operate in a different sense of logic in any religious system or he could otherwise not exist under the systems own rules. If we know all that God knows, nothing would prevent us from being God himself except for the lack of knowledge which would eventually be revealed through either our own determination or random chance. I don't think you can argue this much.

However, this also seriously weakens the entire notion of God as it trys to paint the universe as something more surreal and turns people away. The perfect system would be one where God must exist in our world and under the same laws we must exist under, for it makes God human, living, and believable.

Of course it's called FAITH for a reason.

Onto the mind and body.

The greatest proof for any concept of a soul is the fact that the brain is incredibly complex and has not yet been explained. We can replace hearts, lungs, and kidneys. We replace bone with steel alloys and soon we will be looking at artificial blood. But replacing our mind, our brain is totally incomprehensible. The sheer mechanics of our mind are totally unknown to science in this day and age. No one knows how memory works. How it is stored, retrieved, where it goes. We know the area of the brain in which damage results in memory loss, but that is it.

This here is an example of the best proof of a soul, the fact that no existing physical structure and command system has been found for the human mind. We know how cells work, how DNA scribes protein, how cells communicate, but we still don't know the exact mechanic behind hearing, sight, taste, memory, or anything truely having to due with the mind. Some people say they can "feel" their soul being seperate from the body, most people agree this to be our mind, our thinking.

But if a soul truely exists, doesn't there have to be some interface with which the physical world and the mind communicate? Visual data and memory are clearly affected if we put a bullet through the brain or an ice pick through the frontal lobe. This is undeniably physical, but the base structure is still... unknown.

I have my own opinions but I won't pollute the discussion with them, I'd rather add various things. I play the devil's advocate for the sake of argument.

[jochhejaam]

I understand where the person is coming from, though, who sees all that judgmental behavior. Many Christians spend their time with all the don'ts-- while I focus on the do's. I think that Jesus was much more interested in the good things that we are supposed to do.

Part of which is to refrain from doing the "don'ts". There's at least equal emphasis on both.

God sent Christ to His creation because we were steeped in doing the "don'ts".

V. I (Jesus) came into this World to call the unrighteousness to repentance, not the righteous. That would imply that His purpose and focus is on those that "do the don'ts".


With that being said, overly judgemental Christians/people, pharisaical types, do far more harm than good.

[td4mvp21]

Which is why we and other churches take them in and help them break the 'shackles' that have bound them to their vices. I see.... While that may be true for others [being judgemental Christians]... It certainly wouldn't apply to those who have taken JESUS"s ministry to heart - the true Christian calling. But we ought not take glory for this -- that belongs solely to GOD. Again, calling a sin by its name is not tantamount to passing judgment on those who practice it. Nor is having an aversion to the sin tantamount to a rejection of the 'sinner'.


Food for thought - since you consider "christians to be the most judgemental people ever" The world's most notorious dictators and tyrants... Self-proclaimed judges... the likes of Nero, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin.... Yeah... some 'christians' they turned out to be. :rolleyes Oh wait!...... That's right - most of these cruel tyrants ruled with a wanton disregard for life because they lacked the conviction that they would be held accountable to a higher authority. They took it upon themselves to do as they pleased.

That has nothing to do with the fact that I think Christians are the most judgmental people ever. I don't know how many of those dictators proclaimed to be a Christian (probably few, if any), so what does that have to do with anything? Christians are extrememly judgmental, it's almost ridiculous. Christians seem to think that because they have Christ they can sit on a throne and tell people how to live. That's one of the many reasons why I quit going to church.

[Phil Hellmuth]

Christians seem to think that because they have Christ they can sit on a throne and tell people how to live. That's one of the many reasons why I quit going to church.

I am not a devout Christian, but that is pretty weak in my opinion about not going to church anymore b/c of how christians are. CHurch is about God. It is not about the free donuts and the soccer moms with the screaming kids in the back. Only one who matters is God. Don't let people's shared beliefs and traits take away your devotion and dedication to God.

i could be getting the whole situation wrong because maybe you do go to a church that has annoying people, but you get my drift.

[Phenomanul]

That has nothing to do with the fact that I think Christians are the most judgmental people ever. I don't know how many of those dictators proclaimed to be a Christian (probably few, if any), so what does that have to do with anything? Christians are extrememly judgmental, it's almost ridiculous. Christians seem to think that because they have Christ they can sit on a throne and tell people how to live. That's one of the many reasons why I quit going to church.


That's fine... it is simply your opinion... but don't let that experience cause you to make such a general and condemning comment of all Christians.

My opinion.... those people you hung around with at church may not have been true Christians (though only GOD is capable of knowing)... that, or someone forgot to address and stress the importance of not judging one's neighbor.

BTW none of the above tyrants were Christians... and that fact is significant: it shows what can happen when GOD's authority is completely taken out of the picture.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

It's not like the concept is beyond comprehension.... I thought you were smarter than that. Judgement is cast when one man condemns another for their actions be it literal or in their mind. I have not the right, nor the authority to do either. Am I capable of judging others? Sure, it is an inescapable human attribute that can sometimes occur without much effort. Many times much like an involuntary response. I try not to dwell on such matters, for I've never claimed to be perfect.
Well i was taking judge to mean "that gay man is wrong, gayness is wrong" whereby a person is judging something [gayness] to be wrong. And this does in fact happen, on tv, in real life, everywhere.
So, you are right in the sense taht christians do not send gays directly to hell, but you are wrong in thinking that christians do not flat out think gays and gayness is wrong. Cuz they do. It's written all over history, their faces, their actions.


Ever heard of the biblical phrase "let he who is without sin cast the first stone..."? Or "don't worry about the speck in your brother's eye when you have a log sticking out of yours"
Yes, I have, and have you ever MET a christian hypocrite? I happened to go to private schools most of my life like The One and Only did, and I met plenty and plenty and PLENTY of these along the way. It is in this sense that I said you were wrong. Most people I have met in my life are from a Christian home, and most Christians I have met do not follow scriptures like they think they do.


Well.... that's exactly the topic they refer to... We should avoid casting judgement. So while we have been given the knowledge and spiritual discernment of knowing what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'... i.e. we can identify one from the other.... calling something by its name is not tantamount to passing judgment on it. It's not a matter of semantics. The concept is crystal clear...
I get what you really meant now, and you are right, but still, in your original post you seemed to imply Christians don't treat gays any differently or look down on them, or try to impose their views on them, when they do all the time. it is just 'the sin' they look down on....i dont think thats entirely true