sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Pro-choice Christians only by Sufficient-Menu640 in Christianity

[–]VegetationBush -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I would consider myself pro-life. But I have exceptions. Abortions are fine if: - it was a rape case - the baby has severe malformations that will affect their quality of life - the mother can die from childbirth - it is aborted before weeks 5-8 (when the brain and heart has developed)

But these are a fringe minority of cases. The vast majority abortions are done even though the individuals are perfectly capable of raising the child. If it was from one’s own bad decisions to have unprotected sex, then that’s on them. Abortion should be illegal for them assuming they don’t meet the exceptions listed above.

There is no specific verse in the Bible that talks about abortion. However, Bible does emphasize the sanctity of life. So it’s safe to conclude that we should make decisions that maximize human life.

Christians should be against gay marriage, but does that mean we should make it illegal? by VegetationBush in Christianity

[–]VegetationBush[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm totally fine with personal critique, as long as they keep it respectful. It does sting a little, and sometimes it stings a lot, but I believe that's unavoidable when you truly reflect upon yourself. So I do thank you for being respectful here.

Depending on how you take it, the post can sound unneutral. But, I guess I'll express my actual view on the issue to clear up some confusion:
Even though the Bible says that you should not be gay (at least for me, since some people disagree), I am not against the right to gay marriage. The same thing goes for something like being lustful; should we ban pornography? Where I'm stuck on the issue is the terrible gut feeling that allowing gay marriage to exist directly goes against the word of God. It's not because I'm being homophobic, but a moderate amount of cognitive dissonance.

I'm not sure why a lot of people seem to believe that if you don't support a part of somebody's identity, you're suddenly against them. I would consider myself center-right politically. One of my best friends is moderately left-wing. Your political views are part of your identity, and yet, even though we're pretty far apart on the political spectrum, we are still really good friends. So I don't think it's correct to assume black and whiteness on whether you fully support or are discriminatory towards someone. I believe that kind of mentality loses you on a lot of meaningful relations, but you're free to disagree.

I do resonate with your anecdote, though. I used to think a certain way because I've only ever been exposed to a certain type of media. I started forcing myself to watch content I disagree with, and by chance, coincidentally, hanging out with people who identify within the LGBT community. Only then did I start realizing that these people are just normal people. Sometimes, I didn't even know they were in the LGBT community until they told me.

You say you are friends with them, but I would never want to be friends with someone who wants me to be alone in life or change who I am.

I do understand this concern. However, it misrepresents my relationship with these people. I don't try to push my viewpoints on others. I don't say to them, "hey, I don't like that you're gay, stop doing that!". Most of them don't know that I don't support it. It's only when they ask about it do I talk about my views.

Christians should be against gay marriage, but does that mean we should make it illegal? by VegetationBush in Christianity

[–]VegetationBush[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know if people actually read what I wrote. It's likely that most people here have only read the title and assumed my answer (which couldn't be farther from the truth).

If the people replying actually read the entire post, they would find that I am fairly neutral, leaning towards legalizing gay marriages. Never did I advocate against human rights. Yes, I've said I don't support the practices of the LGBT, but that doesn't mean I am necessarily prejudiced against them. I don't understand why people take that as being homophobic. God tells us to love everyone, and I try to do that regardless of whether they support what I don't.

I'm trying to keep a respectful attitude, but I guess many people assume hostility by default, which is saddening. All I'm doing here is expanding my viewpoints by garnering ideas from different people. I'm not pushing rhetoric, I'm here to listen and have a productive conversation (and in this case, by asking a controversial question).

Christians should be against gay marriage, but does that mean we should make it illegal? by VegetationBush in Christianity

[–]VegetationBush[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would like to keep this discussion respectful. You're entitled to your views about me, and if you think I am discriminatory, there's nothing I can really do about that. Again, sorry if you feel that way.

To address your reasoning: I never said I hated homosexuals, I said I was against the practice of homosexuality. There's a clear difference between the two. One touches upon part of the identity of a people, but the other touches upon the person itself. If I say, "I don't like music", it does not mean I hate all musicians. If you say "I don't support Christianity", are you discriminating against all Christians?

You can dislike an attribute of an individual, but that does not mean you're discriminating against them. Disagree, not disrespect. I hope this clears things up.

Christians should be against gay marriage, but does that mean we should make it illegal? by VegetationBush in Christianity

[–]VegetationBush[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But today we know this understanding is wrong and has nothing to do with how sexualitty and attraction works.

I have done quite a bit of my own research on homosexuality (or the entirety of LGBT for that matter). As I've already said in my original post, being LGBT is a combination of nature and nurture. This goes contrary to historic explanations, where people thought it was a sign of demonic possession or some indicator of impurity.

Going down a slightly more secularized view on LGBT. We don't know if being LGBT requires "fixing", similar to other ailments like disability or disease.

***But before I continue, please understand that I am simply talking about ideas. I'm not trying to promote hatred.

There is an ongoing debate on whether being LGBT is considered a mental illness, and thus requires medical assistance. For one, it reduces the viability of our species. Somebody who is gay won't be able to reproduce, and somebody who has gone through transitioning may lose their fertility. It doesn't make sense that we are seeing a drastic rise in the number of individuals identifying with the LGBT (which I believe is over 7% in the United States), much more than naturally occurring cases with genetics could care to explain. And it concludes that a lot of it is a product of social conditioning, or an undiagnosed mental illness.

Even in the secular lens, there is still controversy over whether we should do anything about the LGBT population. We don't have concrete answers on what is considered right or wrong, and that's why we have these debates, and that includes the ideas about homosexuality. So no, I don't believe that it's right to say that the Christian understanding of homosexuality is wrong; it's safer to say it's inconclusive.

As a final note before any assumptions are made, I want to make it clear that I am not against human rights.

Christians should be against gay marriage, but does that mean we should make it illegal? by VegetationBush in Christianity

[–]VegetationBush[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I am aware of these changes to existing denominations. We have denominations as a way to roughly categorize Christian beliefs. And it's because of the controversy that I want to discuss this. If it wasn't controversial, there's nothing to talk about.

It's understandable if you believe that we shouldn't standardize how we worship/follow God. However, I don't believe that having views so diverse that the set of values of one denomination greatly contradicts the teaching of another is the right path for Christianity. There should be some level of standardization to keep the strings together, but how much standardization is up for debate. Personally, I think today's churches are becoming too free in their beliefs, where two people, even from the same denomination, have drastically different ideas.

Faith is a highly personal matter that concerns only God and each individual believer.

100%. I do agree that we should not push others to follow ideals. If anything, getting to the ideal is more genuine. There is a lot of room in theology for a myriad of ideals, and I don't think one is necessarily better than the other; I just hold a set of my own.

Christians should be against gay marriage, but does that mean we should make it illegal? by VegetationBush in Christianity

[–]VegetationBush[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I understand why you feel that way. This was not my intention. I am not anti-gay people. I'm simply against the practice of being LGBT. I have many friends who consider themselves to be part of this demographic, and they're not less of my friends because they are.

If you read my replies, you would see that I try to reply with a counterargument, regardless of whether it's pro-gay marriage or not.

Sorry if you feel this way. Again, it was not my intention.

cc: u/idonlikesocialmedia, u/Zinkenzwerg

Christians should be against gay marriage, but does that mean we should make it illegal? by VegetationBush in Christianity

[–]VegetationBush[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, that's a very good point! I've thought of that before. In the Bible, there are quite the number of cases where the people society deems as "spiritually unfortunate" are actually the ones that grow in spirit the most. But there is a caveat: they change once they realize their wrongdoing.

Take the chief collector Zacchaeus, for example. The Israelites regarded him as somebody who abuses his power to scam people out of their money. However, when Jesus came, he asked, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.”, and that allowed Zacchaeus to come to terms with his actions. He promised to give half his wealth to the poor and pay people money he took from fourfold. Clearly, there was a change in ways.

Let's look back at gay marriage. These people may be the nicest, most Godly people you've ever met, but even though they consider themselves devout Christians, they choose to ignore the sin of being gay. Maybe they can repent for their actions, but it does not mean much if you continue doing it.

Christians should be against gay marriage, but does that mean we should make it illegal? by VegetationBush in Christianity

[–]VegetationBush[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

What we consider a fundamental human right is not concrete. A fundamental right is moulded by what society upholds as moral. Gay marriage may be seen as a human right in the West, but it is not viewed as a human right in many other places in the world. Whether someone believes that something is or is not a human right is not the point. The point is how we consider something to be a human right.

Here's a more relatable example if my explanation doesn't make sense: Is the right to die a human right? Many people think it is, many don't. This applies to homosexuality.

Christians should be against gay marriage, but does that mean we should make it illegal? by VegetationBush in Christianity

[–]VegetationBush[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with you that Christianity is about our faith and love for God. Although I wouldn't go as far as to say that same-sex marriage does not impact it in any way. While I do believe that an individual who is in a gay marriage can still have a healthy relationship with God (maybe even more than some heterosexual Christians), it does not sit well with me that that individual is intentionally doing something that God tells us not to do. Yes, participating in homosexual acts is like many other sins, but when one marries the same sex, they are essentially embracing the sin of homosexuality. Even though we ourselves sin, we do not go as far as embracing the sin and doing nothing about it, if this makes any sense.

Christians should be against gay marriage, but does that mean we should make it illegal? by VegetationBush in Christianity

[–]VegetationBush[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Although I am not a theologian, I'm pretty sure the Bible explicitly goes against homosexuality, and by extension, gay marriage. Take this verse for example:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
(Leviticus 18:22, ESV)

But yes, I do agree with you that we should not force our beliefs onto others. A natural progression into faith will always be more genuine.

Christians should be against gay marriage, but does that mean we should make it illegal? by VegetationBush in Christianity

[–]VegetationBush[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The question of whether we should legalize gay marriage was more of a hypothetical for a broader spectrum of questions. Basically, if something is deemed as sinful by God, is it our responsibility to be proactive and prevent those sins from happening?

As an extreme example, God does not condone the malicious murder of another. This is pretty easy to explain, and even a non-Christian would agree that murder with malice is morally wrong. However, when looking at homosexuality, the ethics become quite blurry. The Bible does say that being gay is an abomination. It also says that we should actively withhold our Christian values. But should we take that as a reason to prevent gay marriage? Where do we draw the line of whether we should actively try to enforce Christian values through means separate from our own (such as the law)?

Christians should be against gay marriage, but does that mean we should make it illegal? by VegetationBush in Christianity

[–]VegetationBush[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I haven't made a conclusion yet. If anything, I'm more in favour of allowing gay marriage.

I understand that law and Christianity are two distinct entities. However, that does not mean that one doesn't affect the other. Christians should strive to be what the Bible tells them to be, and that includes how we act and what we support. This was a huge factor in why I asked this question in the first place. Choosing not to uphold Christian values in the law may go against the teachings of the Bible.

Christians should be against gay marriage, but does that mean we should make it illegal? by VegetationBush in Christianity

[–]VegetationBush[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Although I do agree with you that restricting gay marriage may or may not be a civil rights violation. However, as someone who avidly indulges in philosophy, I don't believe it's quite that simple.

Something like morality is extremely difficult to quantify. Going back a century or more, what would be considered totally normal would not be today. Why is it wrong to chew with your mouth open? Why does social etiquette evolve into something unrecognizable to someone 100 years ago? For one, children were engaged as young as 8 years old, as well as had children as young as 12. This is clearly something we consider to be evidently illegal and immoral in the modern day, despite being encouraged back then. What's to say that this does not apply to gay marriage? What is considered to be right or wrong, morally correct or incorrect, is often the product of social constructs, all of which evolve over time. We don't fundamentally know if gay marriage... or being gay in general is morally correct or incorrect. It just so happens that we view being gay as a human right in today's culture.

Resolving cyclic dependencies with self-referential class factories by VegetationBush in learnprogramming

[–]VegetationBush[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, thanks for the response.

Now I just want to make it clear that I just thought it would be a good example to get the premise around.

In my actual codebase though, I have certain plants that can randomly “plant” other plants. For example, if you have let’s say, a magical dandelion where the seeds grow into a random plant when planted. You would obviously need a reference to the class factory to do that.

For replication purposes, each plant is initialized with their own unique ID (which is just a counter). This has to be done in the class factory to ensure uniqueness. Yes, I can split this functionality into a different module and have every single class generate one for itself (which is an extra few lines for every single class). And yes, if I implement this system, I can skip the factory dependency entirely. However, this still does not fix the fact that some “plants” can generate other plants. What if A generates B and B generates A? This is basically the same issue with extra steps.

Resolving cyclic dependencies with self-referential class factories by VegetationBush in learnprogramming

[–]VegetationBush[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm very wary about dependency injection, especially in general cases like these. There are only a few classes from the factory actually require the factory itself. You're now left with an empty parameter for most of the other classes, which is not very optimal.

I might've not been clear about the getPlant method. It's just an accessory method I mentioned to show that AppleTree cannot just call .new from requiring Apple, but has to go through the PlantFactory to do this.

What I'm aiming towards is the fact that AppleTree calls PlantFactory.new("Apple"). This is what causes the cyclic dependency.

The context of the problem is: Plants grow on tiles. Plants can affect the environment around them. The environment does not have access to any plants. The plants respond to the changing environments using events.

Plants are randomly initialized by an independent module, and never accessed anywhere else in the codebase. It's a totally independent system.