7 ms·

Several statements he made in this post seemed weirdly manipulative to me, and that was one of them. I mean, its great that he chooses and advocates the view t

by jshevek 12y ago

Several statements he made in this post seemed weirdly manipulative to me, and that was one of them. I mean, its great that he chooses and advocates the view that homosexuality can be a 'gift'. That it can be a positive thing! Props for that! But the phrasing...does he really believe that the imaginary being he worships chose for him to be gay? Like the creator of the universe is really sitting there saying "oh, I'll make this one straight! and this one bi! and this one gay!"

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- jshevek 12y ago
  >> If he truly does believe in God, then, knowing for sure that he is gay, he has to believe that God made him gay. No, not at all. This is only one very narrow view of how a deity may function, or the kind of relationship a diety may have with the universe, or the humans within it.
  - seunosewa 12y ago
    What are the other views of how a diety may function? If God didn't make him gay, who did? (from a believer's POV)
    - Kalium 12y ago
      Others believe that while a deity may have the ability to shape to such a degree, said deity also chooses not to. Others believe that said deity is not that powerful. In both cases, the matter is then left to personal and/or environmental factors.
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      This is the main difference between Deism and Theism. Deists (like Thomas Jefferson), did not believe that god was still around, but had just started the whole shebang and then left. Also, even in Theism you can have a pretty hands-off god. In modern Catholicism, evolution probably made him gay, but god created evolution. Pope John Paul II wrote an encyclical accepting evolution ages ago, so Catholicism doesn't require god to be involved with every single detail of creation.
    - jshevek 12y ago
      >> What are the other views of how a diety may function? Well, what makes a deity a deity? Surely 'creating the universe' is sufficient to qualify. Why assume that a creator has any interest in the universe? Every day I create a new configuration of a complex, thriving ecosystem in my bowels. I don't give a crap about all those little bacteria living their little bacteria lives. Last week I saw someone drop paint on the floor, and it splattered in a beautiful pattern. They didn't even notice the beauty they had created. If God was truly powerful and awesome, why stop at one universe? Why assume that the creation of the universe was even worthy of their notice? Most of the 'founding fathers' of the US were Deists. They believed in a God who created a universe, wound it up, and let it go on its own. For many reasons (including the supposed existence of free will), many people who believe this also believe that God had no idea how the universe would evolve over time. Some believe the opposite. All of the scientists I've known, who also believe in God, also believe that God plays ZERO active role in anything that is happening in the universe. For some, God is the fully incomprehensible outside of all time and space. For others, God simply manages the afterlife, and leaves the universe to its own machinery. There are so many views on God, and God's role. The important thing is to ask: Why do people assume that if God has quality X, then God must also have quality Y? Does it actually follow, or is it just an unjustified belief that it must be so? I have trouble believing that someone smart enough to run the worlds richest company would think that his God intentionally, specifically, knowingly chooses individuals' sexual orientations - especially given what I believe he must know about the science behind orientation-related proclivities. I could be wrong. Maybe Cook is brilliant at business and ignorant of science. I just suspect that he was intentionally, perhaps a little dishonestly, saying that bit about God for some well considered reason related to the fact that fundamentalist christians in the US are the main source of homophobia in this country. TL;DR - See "Deism", for example.
rpearl 12y ago
What you might call "understanding the universe", seeing how it works, the mechanisms by which conscious experience happens... a religious person might call that "knowing god" and both of these are reasonable views of the same whole, just taken from opposite sides.
- jshevek 12y ago
  I don't understand how your comment relates to mine. Are you saying that if someone wants to "know god", they are likely to conclude that god does, indeed, sit around saying "This one is gonna be gay! and this one will be straight!"?
  - rpearl 12y ago
    It does relate... I'm not articulating what's in my head very well. I'll try again, I guess... The experience that you call "you" is the result of a direct, unbroken chain of physical chemical interactions all the way back to the beginning of time. Religious people who think of the nature of things and remain religious call this complex interaction of the physical processes, this fundamental fabric of reality, "God" If Mr. Cook gives the name "God" to this amazingly complex interaction of physical things that results in conscious experience, then it is rational for him to conclude that this process resulted in him being gay. There is no big sky entity that points at a person and says "gay" or "straight", but there is a series of implications chained all the way from the beginning of things that directly results his homosexuality. And if you call that "beginning of things" God, then you get the conclusion he vocalizes, but with quite rational thoughts behind it: "I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me." This stuff gets very vague or very abstract quickly. In general it's probably a good idea to assume that people's beliefs come from reasoned thought, though some probably start from axioms we might find irrational.
    - jshevek 12y ago
      Thanks for explaining. I think your main point is contained in the last sentence, and I recognize that most of my response here addresses tangential aspects, not your main point. >> Religious people who think of the nature of things and remain religious It sounds to me like you are trying to say that this is true for all people in that group, and I don't believe this is true. This is one method of rationalizing a belief in God, but not the only. >> call this complex interaction of the physical processes, this fundamental fabric of reality, "God" Some non-religious 'believers' may do this, but most 'religious' people do not. Essentially no Christian, Jewish, or Islamic fundamentalists thinks this way. Obviously many new agers think this way, and there are some offshoots of the main religious who do, but on the whole its a rare viewpoint. While some religious people believe that God continuously provides the means whereby the universe continues to act, most hold that the universe and God are separate. Its actually sacrilege to some to suggest that God is the processes of the universe. Check out 'pantheism' on wikipedia, and contrast this with 'theism'. >> If Mr. Cook gives the name "God" Well does he?? Since Cook is an educated white male gay business leader in san francisco in 2014, I thought he was not religious. It turns out I was wrong. Is Cook pantheist? I seriously don't think so. But then, I was completely wrong about him religious just a few hours ago. >> with quite rational thoughts behind it: "I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me." I'm not sure that would be both honest and rational, as the speaker should know that the Christian community will misunderstand their unqualified pantheist use of 'God' as a theist use of 'God'. >> a good idea to assume that people's beliefs come from reasoned thought, though some probably start from axioms we might find irrational. I tend to assume that everyone's beliefs are informed by both rational and irrational thought processes. Did say something to imply otherwise? Or did I miss your point?

by jshevek 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

jshevek 12y ago
>> If he truly does believe in God, then, knowing for sure that he is gay, he has to believe that God made him gay. No, not at all. This is only one very narrow view of how a deity may function, or the kind of relationship a diety may have with the universe, or the humans within it.
- seunosewa 12y ago
  What are the other views of how a diety may function? If God didn't make him gay, who did? (from a believer's POV)
  - Kalium 12y ago
    Others believe that while a deity may have the ability to shape to such a degree, said deity also chooses not to. Others believe that said deity is not that powerful. In both cases, the matter is then left to personal and/or environmental factors.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    This is the main difference between Deism and Theism. Deists (like Thomas Jefferson), did not believe that god was still around, but had just started the whole shebang and then left. Also, even in Theism you can have a pretty hands-off god. In modern Catholicism, evolution probably made him gay, but god created evolution. Pope John Paul II wrote an encyclical accepting evolution ages ago, so Catholicism doesn't require god to be involved with every single detail of creation.
  - jshevek 12y ago
    >> What are the other views of how a diety may function? Well, what makes a deity a deity? Surely 'creating the universe' is sufficient to qualify. Why assume that a creator has any interest in the universe? Every day I create a new configuration of a complex, thriving ecosystem in my bowels. I don't give a crap about all those little bacteria living their little bacteria lives. Last week I saw someone drop paint on the floor, and it splattered in a beautiful pattern. They didn't even notice the beauty they had created. If God was truly powerful and awesome, why stop at one universe? Why assume that the creation of the universe was even worthy of their notice? Most of the 'founding fathers' of the US were Deists. They believed in a God who created a universe, wound it up, and let it go on its own. For many reasons (including the supposed existence of free will), many people who believe this also believe that God had no idea how the universe would evolve over time. Some believe the opposite. All of the scientists I've known, who also believe in God, also believe that God plays ZERO active role in anything that is happening in the universe. For some, God is the fully incomprehensible outside of all time and space. For others, God simply manages the afterlife, and leaves the universe to its own machinery. There are so many views on God, and God's role. The important thing is to ask: Why do people assume that if God has quality X, then God must also have quality Y? Does it actually follow, or is it just an unjustified belief that it must be so? I have trouble believing that someone smart enough to run the worlds richest company would think that his God intentionally, specifically, knowingly chooses individuals' sexual orientations - especially given what I believe he must know about the science behind orientation-related proclivities. I could be wrong. Maybe Cook is brilliant at business and ignorant of science. I just suspect that he was intentionally, perhaps a little dishonestly, saying that bit about God for some well considered reason related to the fact that fundamentalist christians in the US are the main source of homophobia in this country. TL;DR - See "Deism", for example.

rpearl 12y ago

What you might call "understanding the universe", seeing how it works, the mechanisms by which conscious experience happens... a religious person might call that "knowing god" and both of these are reasonable views of the same whole, just taken from opposite sides.

jshevek 12y ago
I don't understand how your comment relates to mine. Are you saying that if someone wants to "know god", they are likely to conclude that god does, indeed, sit around saying "This one is gonna be gay! and this one will be straight!"?
- rpearl 12y ago
  It does relate... I'm not articulating what's in my head very well. I'll try again, I guess... The experience that you call "you" is the result of a direct, unbroken chain of physical chemical interactions all the way back to the beginning of time. Religious people who think of the nature of things and remain religious call this complex interaction of the physical processes, this fundamental fabric of reality, "God" If Mr. Cook gives the name "God" to this amazingly complex interaction of physical things that results in conscious experience, then it is rational for him to conclude that this process resulted in him being gay. There is no big sky entity that points at a person and says "gay" or "straight", but there is a series of implications chained all the way from the beginning of things that directly results his homosexuality. And if you call that "beginning of things" God, then you get the conclusion he vocalizes, but with quite rational thoughts behind it: "I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me." This stuff gets very vague or very abstract quickly. In general it's probably a good idea to assume that people's beliefs come from reasoned thought, though some probably start from axioms we might find irrational.
  - jshevek 12y ago
    Thanks for explaining. I think your main point is contained in the last sentence, and I recognize that most of my response here addresses tangential aspects, not your main point. >> Religious people who think of the nature of things and remain religious It sounds to me like you are trying to say that this is true for all people in that group, and I don't believe this is true. This is one method of rationalizing a belief in God, but not the only. >> call this complex interaction of the physical processes, this fundamental fabric of reality, "God" Some non-religious 'believers' may do this, but most 'religious' people do not. Essentially no Christian, Jewish, or Islamic fundamentalists thinks this way. Obviously many new agers think this way, and there are some offshoots of the main religious who do, but on the whole its a rare viewpoint. While some religious people believe that God continuously provides the means whereby the universe continues to act, most hold that the universe and God are separate. Its actually sacrilege to some to suggest that God is the processes of the universe. Check out 'pantheism' on wikipedia, and contrast this with 'theism'. >> If Mr. Cook gives the name "God" Well does he?? Since Cook is an educated white male gay business leader in san francisco in 2014, I thought he was not religious. It turns out I was wrong. Is Cook pantheist? I seriously don't think so. But then, I was completely wrong about him religious just a few hours ago. >> with quite rational thoughts behind it: "I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me." I'm not sure that would be both honest and rational, as the speaker should know that the Christian community will misunderstand their unqualified pantheist use of 'God' as a theist use of 'God'. >> a good idea to assume that people's beliefs come from reasoned thought, though some probably start from axioms we might find irrational. I tend to assume that everyone's beliefs are informed by both rational and irrational thought processes. Did say something to imply otherwise? Or did I miss your point?