Author: What the Bible really says about homosexuality

[loco]

In each of these links, there is an excerpt taken out of context and a lot of personal opinion about Peter Singer. I posted an interview with Peter Singer where he addresses the topic of disabled infants and infants in general with reference to his book containing this topic. Did you not read the interview at all?

No matter how hard you try to simplify and misrepresent Peter Singer, you fail. You cannot simply point to a link that contains an out of context quote and use that as proof of your point. BTW taken out of context generally means without all of the details. To take something out of context is to ignore the overall meaning of an utterance in order to assign undue importance or meaning to a part of it. For example: Joe says "I think Fred is not a man to trifle with." The CNN network anchorman gleefully reports it as "Joe says Fred is not a man." That is taking Joe's words out of context. In this case Peter Singers view are have more depth than you are allowing for.

Taken out of context is a form of a lie. Therefore to do so is being dishonest. If you didn't realize with all the provided information, that you were continuing to be dishonest then you are lacking in intelligence.

Primemuscle,  I know what taken out of context means.  I did not take anything out of context.  I simply posted what I read with links to the source.

You keep saying that you are not a follower of Peter Singer and that you do not agree with him.  Will you please tell me what exactly it is about Peter Singer's views and ideas that you do not agree with, and why?

Thank you!

[loco]

This. But Primemuscle, I wouldn't put too much effort in your responses to Loco. He has a tendency of ignoring what he doesn't agree with and reposting saved links and stuff with bold words, usually out of context, to back up his original position. He'll do it over and over then resort to name-calling or a red herring to distract from the argument. Either he's too dishonest to engage productively in an argument or he's too dumb. I bet his reply to this will only be something against me personally, and not refuting anything I've said.

Mr. Magoo, when have I resorted to name calling?  When have I called you names?

In the same post above, you first accuse me of resorting to name calling, then you call me dumb.   

[loco]

And many people think homosexuality is sin. Get over it!!

LOL   

[loco]

Unlike many of the people who post on this site, loco backs up what he says.  You may not agree with what he says, or his interpretation, but he doesn't just make stuff up. 

And he's absolutely right about Singer. 

Thank you, Beach Bum!   

[avxo]

You must think these people are either stupid or dishonest as well:

American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position.
http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html

I think that Steve Forbes can choose to donate or not donate based on whatever criteria he has. He could stop donating because they don't have a Department of Stripping Science, for all I care.

Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp

Simon Wiesenthal is entitled to his opinion. But if this quote is accurate and not taken out of context (the ellipsis indicate that bits were cut out in at least two places) then he is, at the very least, misrepresenting Singer's position.

Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm

If his claim is that Singer supports euthanazing disabled babies, he's wrong. If he claims that this could lead to older children and adults being valued less, then he doesn't understand Singer's philosophy at all.

Unlike many of the people who post on this site, loco backs up what he says.

Unlike many people who post on this site, he seems to not say very much - instead he copy-pastes stuff, and then claims that he "simply posted what [he] read with links to the source."

And he's absolutely right about Singer.

For some definition of right anyways...



Anyways, we seem to be going in circles. We have loco copy-pasting the same text, we have you repeating that Singer is wrong, we have Primemuscle and me telling you both you're misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting Singer's position.

On top of that, it's now blatantly obvious to me that neither you nor loco care about what Singer actually says. You just care about what you think he says. I don't quite understand why anyone would willingly avoid knowledge and reality, but I'm sure that you have your "reasons."

Now I'm really done with this thread.

[garebear]

And many people think homosexuality is sin. Get over it!!

Slaveowners thought black people were subhuman.

I'm glad abolitionists didn't get over it.

[loco]

I think that Steve Forbes can choose to donate or not donate based on whatever criteria he has. He could stop donating because they don't have a Department of Stripping Science, for all I care.


Simon Wiesenthal is entitled to his opinion. But if this quote is accurate and not taken out of context (the ellipsis indicate that bits were cut out in at least two places) then he is, at the very least, misrepresenting Singer's position.


If his claim is that Singer supports euthanazing disabled babies, he's wrong. If he claims that this could lead to older children and adults being valued less, then he doesn't understand Singer's philosophy at all.


Unlike many people who post on this site, he seems to not say very much - instead he copy-pastes stuff, and then claims that he "simply posted what [he] read with links to the source."


For some definition of right anyways...



Anyways, we seem to be going in circles. We have loco copy-pasting the same text, we have you repeating that Singer is wrong, we have Primemuscle and me telling you both you're misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting Singer's position.

On top of that, it's now blatantly obvious to me that neither you nor loco care about what Singer actually says. You just care about what you think he says. I don't quite understand why anyone would willingly avoid knowledge and reality, but I'm sure that you have your "reasons."

Now I'm really done with this thread.

Interesting!  You claim that because of my opinion about Peter Singer's views and ideas I am "either stupid or dishonest."  But when I show you other well known people who share my opinion about Peter Singer's views and ideas, suddenly they are neither stupid nor dishonest.    

You are really done with this thread?  You know what that means?  Absolutely nothing.  You said that before, but came back for more.  Why do you even bother saying that?  Your words mean nothing, I see.

[Man of Steel]

Homosexuals and heterosexuals are welcome in my church.  We're all broken sinners and have a fallen short and are in need of the Lord's grace.  I've lied, cheated, stolen, lusted, experienced fits of unjustified anger, watched pornography, taken the Lord's name in vain, disrespected my parents, etc.....in life.  I may not have the sin of homosexuality in my list of sins, but that doesn't mean I'm any better than someone that does.  Everyone can fall into the grace of God!   

[Dos Equis]

Homosexuals and heterosexuals are welcome in my church.  We're all broken sinners and have a fallen short and are in need of the Lord's grace.  I've lied, cheated, stolen, lusted, experienced fits of unjustified anger, watched pornography, taken the Lord's name in vain, disrespected my parents, etc.....in life.  I may not have the sin of homosexuality in my list of sins, but that doesn't mean I'm any better than someone that does.  Everyone can fall into the grace of God!   

Wurd.   

[loco]

Homosexuals and heterosexuals are welcome in my church.  We're all broken sinners and have a fallen short and are in need of the Lord's grace.  I've lied, cheated, stolen, lusted, experienced fits of unjustified anger, watched pornography, taken the Lord's name in vain, disrespected my parents, etc.....in life.  I may not have the sin of homosexuality in my list of sins, but that doesn't mean I'm any better than someone that does.  Everyone can fall into the grace of God!   

Same here.     

[Skeletor]

Homosexuals and heterosexuals are welcome in my church.  We're all broken sinners and have a fallen short and are in need of the Lord's grace.  I've lied, cheated, stolen, lusted, experienced fits of unjustified anger, watched pornography, taken the Lord's name in vain, disrespected my parents, etc.....in life.  I may not have the sin of homosexuality in my list of sins, but that doesn't mean I'm any better than someone that does.  Everyone can fall into the grace of God!   

The hypocritical self-righteous zealots could learn a lesson (or two) from your (perceived) humbleness. But as it appears, they can't.

[Primemuscle]

Primemuscle,  I know what taken out of context means.  I did not take anything out of context.  I simply posted what I read with links to the source.

You keep saying that you are not a follower of Peter Singer and that you do not agree with him.  Will you please tell me what exactly it is about Peter Singer's views and ideas that you do not agree with, and why?

Thank you!

Perhaps I misstated. You may not have taken Peter Singer's remarks out of context, but the folks to whom you linked did. They did this because they simply took what they wanted from what he wrote. They provided an incomplete and inaccurate picture of Peter Singer.

Maybe it would help if I gave you an example.

I have stated that I am bisexual (this is documented on Getbig). I have also stated that I have been married for 47 years and I am not sexually active with anyone beyond my wife, whom I love completely. If you were to quote me as saying I was bisexual but then neglect to post anything about my relationship  and commitment to my wife, you'd be giving folks an inaccurate view of who I was and what our relationship meant to me. Sorry, this is a bit simplistic, but it is what comes to mind at the moment. Obviously, my relationship with my wife is much more complicated than I wish to go into here.

Likewise in his interview, Peter Singer explains in more detail what his views are. By ignoring this, you are inadvertently presenting an inaccurate view of Peter Singer's philosophy and beliefs. Further by ignoring his explanation and simply reporting what serves other folks purpose, his comments become out of context.

The bottom line is he said what he was quoted as saying so to cite that is not a completely dishonest. But, he said much more than that and so the impact and meaning of what he said and wrote is being (presented) taken out of context.

I don't recall saying that I did not agree with Peter Singer. Fortunately, I two very healthy children. Both are mature adults these days. Therefore I never had to put his philosophy to the test, as it were. However, my wife and I have discussed whether we would have brought a seriously handicapped child into this world. Our feeling is that we would not have done so. So, this sort of indicates we probably agree with Peter Singer. Let me just close with this, my wife and I thank God that we never had this decision to make.

Let me also say that Peter Singer's views are controversial and they are a hard pill to swallow. I completely understand why some folks would be so put off by his teaching that they would have a lot of difficulty looking deeper into what he says.

The bottom line is that each of us would have to be in the situation to which he refers to honestly know what we would do. Again, I thank God that I never was.

[garebear]

Exodus chapter 12 verse 43:

The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it."

Why are we ignoring the Bible on circumsising our slaves?

It's a slippery slope, people.

[loco]

Perhaps I misstated. You may not have taken Peter Singer's remarks out of context, but the folks to whom you linked did. They did this because they simply took what they wanted from what he wrote. They provided an incomplete and inaccurate picture of Peter Singer.

Maybe it would help if I gave you an example.

I have stated that I am bisexual (this is documented on Getbig). I have also stated that I have been married for 47 years and I am not sexually active with anyone beyond my wife, whom I love completely. If you were to quote me as saying I was bisexual but then neglect to post anything about my relationship  and commitment to my wife, you'd be giving folks an inaccurate view of who I was and what our relationship meant to me. Sorry, this is a bit simplistic, but it is what comes to mind at the moment. Obviously, my relationship with my wife is much more complicated than I wish to go into here.

Likewise in his interview, Peter Singer explains in more detail what his views are. By ignoring this, you are inadvertently presenting an inaccurate view of Peter Singer's philosophy and beliefs. Further by ignoring his explanation and simply reporting what serves other folks purpose, his comments become out of context.

The bottom line is he said what he was quoted as saying so to cite that is not a completely dishonest. But, he said much more than that and so the impact and meaning of what he said and wrote is being (presented) taken out of context.

I don't recall saying that I did not agree with Peter Singer. Fortunately, I two very healthy children. Both are mature adults these days. Therefore I never had to put his philosophy to the test, as it were. However, my wife and I have discussed whether we would have brought a seriously handicapped child into this world. Our feeling is that we would not have done so. So, this sort of indicates we probably agree with Peter Singer. Let me just close with this, my wife and I thank God that we never had this decision to make.

Let me also say that Peter Singer's views are controversial and they are a hard pill to swallow. I completely understand why some folks would be so put off by his teaching that they would have a lot of difficulty looking deeper into what he says.

The bottom line is that each of us would have to be in the situation to which he refers to honestly know what we would do. Again, I thank God that I never was.

The quotes attributed to professer Singer are clearly disturbing when taken out of context as you've done here. Did you read the links you posted? While I may not agree with what he says, he makes some interesting points no matter how horrific they may seem to some people.

Primemuscle,
Will you please tell me what exactly it is about Peter Singer's views and ideas that you do not agree with, and why?

Thank you!

[Man of Steel]

The hypocritical self-righteous zealots could learn a lesson (or two) from your (perceived) humbleness. But as it appears, they can't.

I've never understood why people that call themselves Christian that are supposed to profess the love of Christ congregate in groups while carrying signs and posters screaming at homosexuals in areas that homosexuals normally socialize telling them to repent or burn!!  I don't understand that at all.  If you want to interact with homosexuals why not assemble outreach for that community and invite them into your churches, share a meal with them, get to know them, etc.....We're all broken sinners - every one of us!  Why not help others see Christ through your witness? Christ engaged all types of people and changed their hearts and forgave them.  Now, there are churches that already do exactly what I've outlined here, but I don't understand the aggresive groups that I mentioned.  Why don't they come to my house and picket me with signs and call me "LIAR!" or "ADULTERER!"??  If all they're doing is pointing out other folks' sins then why not do point out other sins?   Just seems like a completely ineffective approach  if providing a witness for Christ is the intent...he didn't command that of us his body of believers.

[Primemuscle]

Primemuscle,
Will you please tell me what exactly it is about Peter Singer's views and ideas that you do not agree with, and why?

Thank you!

Obviously, you take everything that one says quite literally. You bolded a part of a post where I wrote that "I may not agree with what he says, " and another where I wrote, " I don't recall saying that I did not agree with Peter Singer." To my way of thinking, writing or saying "may not" is not the same thing as writing or saying do not or "did not." One is an absolute while the other is not.

Here's the thing, I neither agree nor disagree with Peter Singer's views based on what little I know of them and him. Furthermore, unless I was faced with one of the difficult situations he mentions, I have no idea what I would do. Since I am past the point of fathering children and since I cannot get pregnant, not being female, it is most unlikely that I ever would be in a position to decide if an infant should be kept alive or not. It is not my place or desire to make decisions for other people.

[garebear]

.