- This topic has 883 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Paladin (2)
Quote Have you considered that if you have a son, and at age three he wants to dart into traffic to retrieve a ball, and you don't allow him to he might take that as “Persecuting” him? If at age four, he tries to touch the hot grid on a stove, and if you don't let him do what he wants to do will he accuse you of persecuting him?
The dangers are real, and demonstrated. You have a responsibility to make such a judgement on behalf of your son. You should still make such judgements in the light of the kind of relationship you want to have with your children. To what extent do you allow your children to learn for themselves? The myth of eternal punishments is only real in your head. You cannot possibly teach children about that experientially. Not only that, but young children are not capable of seeing thought the quite advanced, abstract concepts of salvation and punishment for religious crimes. To teach them those things I think would be to take a step down the road of intellectual abuse of the child. Now, are you viewing me as a child you can teach about your nasty mythology? Would our relationship be based on you transmitting righteousness to me?Quote Much of life's decisions are based on wrong information. Some turn out good, some turn out badly. Is it the decision or the circumstance that is to be blamed? I do not know. I only know what I try to do with those circumstances and decisions that turn out badly. I try to rectify them. I don't accuse others of persecution when they try to advise me or encourage me to attempt to learn from a source I dissaproved of yesterday.
The dangers you perceive cannot be substantiated. It is not just a matter of the information changing from ‘yesterday’. For all we can tell, your religious mythology has always been just that, the imaginings of anonymous writers, some of whom could see a political opportunity when one presented itself. The christian meme is a powerful one, and it brings power to those who know how to use it. So for you to repeat those mantras without questioning them, and to make life unpleasant for others in the process, is unfortunate, to put it mildly.Quote I strive to be fair with those with whom I disagree. Sometimes I even fail at that. Does that make me bigotted? No, it makes me cautious. I want to impress every reader with my wisdom and fairness, and what do I exhibit? Sometimes anger and frustration. BECAUSE I am as clay in the potter's hands. He does not want me to become proud from victories on the internet, he wants me to humbly present his love through applying myself in his stead, so that it is not I who express myself, but it is himself expressed through me.
Is there any chance at all that your scripture is wrong? If not, then you are bigoted.Quote Is Jesus a bigot? He looked out over the city of Jerusalem and cried. He wept. He said “O Jeruslaem, Jerusalem, how often I would have gathered you as a hen gathers her chicks, under her wing, and you would not.” Does that represent a biggotted point of view? Or does it represent one who cares, and is frustrated by “Jerusalem, who would not?”
How do you know Jesus said that?Quote I developed an essay on homosexuality after debating the issue with a preacher from the UFMCC (Metroploitan Community Church) in California, who claimed that Christians had perverted the scriptures to condemn homosexuality. I studied the issue before I responded to “his application of truth.”
Because I hate homosexuals? No. Because I love my brothers under Adam, and want to share with them that freedom I exercise in Christ. Freedom from my previous life in sin and temptation, and guilt of practicing those things that are better left alone.
So this is all about you. Is your projection onto others supposed to help them or you?Quote I only issue warnings as I perceive them from God's word, to a dying, and denying world.
…who have justified their denials in every way, from ethical to scientific arguments. Yet your goat-herder bigotry is the only thing you will listen to.Quote It was not “I” who described homosexual behaviour as “abomination,” But I will not hesitate to inform the one practicing such behaviour, that God hates the practice, for it was HE who so designated it.
OK. Be clear then. You think homosexuality is NOT an abomination? From the standpoint of billions of people on the planet, the god of which you talk is a figment of your imagination. The ‘warnings’ you pass on from that figment are things for which you take no personal responsibility at all: people kill themselves or live in closeted misery because of the doctrines that you parrot, yet you are ‘just putting it out there’ as a warning to others. That is intellectual surrender and in my view the real abomination.Stuart
Paladin (3)
Stu: Tear up your bible then.
Quote I really hope you do not consider that an adequate response. “Sophomoric” is the term that come to my mind when I see that kind of response. “Immature” also vies for top billing. “Bible” is not a reference. It lacks specificity. If you tell me which author, where in his book, or what chapter and verse, whatever constitutes a source reference, but “bible” just doesn't get it.
Well perhaps I should ask you firstly what you really know about the authorship of your bible. How many of the books are written by people who we would reasonably call identifiable historical figures whose existence and identity have some corroborating documentary evidence?Secondly, it is goat-herder bigotry we are talking about here, not the attitudes of specific goat-herders. The OT, along with its absurd genealogies and assessment of historical warfare in superstitious terms, codifies the religious moral expectations of an ancient people, a significant economic activity of whom was goat-herding. Specifically the writers were fishermen and tent-repairers too.
Stu: I think you are confusing this with the ethics of consent.
Quote Nope! Responding to YOUR comments. It was YOU who went from “spectrum of sexual attraction” to “animal kingdom” as being “exactly the same.”
Now I call your ability to read into question. You have introduced the issue of whether humans should have sex with animals of other species, not me. Just so we are clear, there is no animal known that is capable of homosexual activity that has not displayed homosexual activity. As a separate point, I believe sexual activity is a matter of consent. Animals of other species are unable to give consent, so bestiality is wrong.Quote Look, NO ONE can control what thoughts or temptations pop into their head at any given moment. But you CAN choose what do do with the image it creates in your mind. You can choose to enjoy it and build a fancy memorial to it, or you can simply let it fester for a while, stewing until it become a poison to the system, or you can “flee temptation” and go to immediate prayer to God, who will replace any temptaton that bothers anyone, with solace.
I think we both know that is not what really happens.Quote I truly am my brother's keeper. As surely as Jesus died for us all. He “kept” us all. This is why we are told to “come out from among them;” precisely because a brother in Christ will pray with you when you are tempted, while a brother homosexual will put his hand on your leg and encourage you to sin. And you think it is the “Christian” who “hates you?”
How many gay men have put their hands on your leg?Quote But WHAT YOU DO ABOUT THOSE FEELINGS IS YOUR CHOICE. A beautiful woman walks into my view in a public store, I immediately remember the last time I enjoyed the favors of me wife. Does that make me evil? Not unless I attempt to feed on the temptation with this stranger who reminds me of my wife. If I immediately remind myself of who I am, a child of God, a brother to Jesus, and pray for release from this temptation, I have done what I should do when tempted.
So are you saying that those who do not pray are unable to control themselves?Quote If instead, I feed the temptaton, fantasize possibilities beyond reality, and enjoy the feelings I generate through an overactive imagination, I damage my soul, and place myself in jeopardy. Humans do not have control over their temptations, HUMANS HAVE CONTROL OVER THEIR REACTION TO TEMPTATIONS.
Once again your characterisation is a black-and-white one. Some humans have such control more than others. It is a skill you can practise to get your neocortex to intervene when you are headed for actions that are based on the emotional response from your reptilian brain. Christianity has old, brutal technology.Stu: If you advocate people feeling those attractions but not acting on them well then you are either a closet homosexual or a straight hypocrite, or maybe you sit somewhere else on the spectrum.
Quote OR, I am on to something You need to consider.
How does that follow? Are you advocating that gay people should lead celibate lives? If you lead an active heterosexual life then you are a hypocrite.Quote Well I DO remember my own days as an adolescent. I wanted very much to please my parents, but there certainly were times when THEY didn't think so. I never attacked the rules they made, I just invented loopholes. Got caught almost every time, but once the theme was developed, it just would not go away. They spent a great deal of time trying to figure out how to word their rules so there was no room for loopholes. I think I taught them more than they taught me. Except they were bigger and could hit harder. Oh the Wonders of adolescence. I never miss it.
My memory is different. In any case, sexuality is not the passing whim you are making it out to be with this comparison. Imagine a world that told you your attraction for a monogamous life-long relationship with a woman was leading you to the wrath of god, and they had scripture that backed them up. You would laugh at their lack of understanding of your feelings. Well some gay people seem to have the ability to laugh at your ignorance, but there are many who commit suicide because of those who preach the same.Quote “MY OT IMAGERY?” Perhaps you mean “The O.T?” It is not MY imagery. I did not write the old testament. And it is certainly condemned in the new testament. So why limit yourslef to accusations against the old testament. Or did you miss that part in the OP?
You should take responsibility for what you preach. After all, if no one preached as you do there would be less misery in the world. It is YOUR Old Testament, not mine. Unless you disown it. You seem cocksure about preaching from it but unwilling to take responsibility for its brutality.Quote Look, my brother, at the scriptures themselves if you doubt me, or if you truly think it is made up by men. God has issued imperatives. He h
as prepared vessels of clay and entrusted them with the task of warning their fellow sons of Adam, and gives us each one lifetime to react.
Look, my fellow human, at the scriptures themselves if you doubt me, or you really think they were inspired by a supernatural being. You have never been able to show anyone else that your god exists. The warnings you preach are just one point of view, unfortunately based on the brutal mythology of a brutal ancient people, and that mythology does not have any mechanism for correction because it is fixed in absolute terms by those who preach it. You have a lifetime to do the right thing by your fellow humans, and at the moment you are preaching bile that makes people miserable on the basis of something you cannot show with any probity to be actually true.Quote He gives us no promise of how long a lifetime we have. But we all have exactly that, a lifetime. How will you spend yours? In hate and expressions of hate? Or will you compare the OP with scripture and decide by what you find? There is hope. But hope must be colored with the color of the blood of Christ. Please consider what I have said.
I consider it to be anti-human and itself an expression of hatred. What is worse, you seem to have based your hope on a human sacrifice. I do not require a person to die in order that I live a good life. If you can show me that I do not live a good life, I can take your criticism, but you will have to make a good case. I certainly do not believe in telling others that the circumstances of their lives over which they have little or no choice should be grounds for judging them.Quote If you are knowledgable in the Old Testament, you know of all the nations God displaced in the land of Canaan, when he gave the land to Israel. Every one of those nations were put out for idolatry and homosexuality. God does not tollerate it in his people. He put Israel out of the same land and sent them into captivity over the same issues.
This is a very Jewish bible, isn’t it! Written by humans with political imperatives. Can you ever remember an army that did not claim that god was on their side, and god ensured their victory? How do you think a history written by the Sodomites would read? We were bad and we were punished? I don’t think so.Quote God destroys nations, not over the practice of homosexuality, but over the issue of a nation ACCEPTING the practice as “not evil.” Homosexuality is NEVER the starting place in a society. It is almost always the “last straw” just before God destroys a nation in judgment.
Yes your loving god is big on destroying things it created. Is it petulant or just incompetent?Quote Look at Sodom and the three cities with her;
Eze 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.Look at the United States in comparison;
“Pride” – consider such things as “gay pride” which is being touted as “good” by many, and “acceptable” by many more.
The non-religious may feel varying degrees of happiness or repugnance concerning sexuality that is foreign to them, but on the whole they do not persecute people for it, they show tolerance or support. The only reason ‘gay pride’ exists is because of religious bigotry. If christians and muslims stopped preaching from their illegal books the movement would have no reason to exist.Quote “and committed abomination before me” describes the depth of depravity to which a society sinks, while declaring “Oh, come on now, little white lying isn't so bad; stealing a little bit can't be enough to destroy a nation; committing just a little bit of fornication is not sufficient reason to destroy nations, look at (name any nation) and you will see “everybody's doing it.”
This nation has not only accepted homosexuality, and “gay marriages” are more “accepted” every year, but the really bad thing that will overthrow this nation is the fact we now use Abortion as a birth control method. We have slaughtered millions of innocents, so women can be somehow perceived as “equal” to men. Free to express themselves in sexual perversity without consequences. Other than the destruction of their nation, that is. And you wonder at the motive for trying to clean up this nation's act?
I live in a different nation to you, and I do not feel the need to answer for your country’s politics. You seem to have gone off on a bit of a tangent here. Is homosexuality just one part of your rant against the antics of your fellow humans? Does your intolerance know no bounds?Widespread stealing could be enough to ‘destroy a nation’, although it would have to be pretty anarchic to achieve that. This is the problem with your argument, you have NO grounds to oppose homosexuality except for the contents of your book of mythology. There is no actual damage done to a nation as a whole on any of the counts except stealing, which I agree is wrong. Where in your scripture does it condemn abortion? Where gay marriages? It does oppose gender equality I guess.
Quote Then you have missed the point of the OP. Christianity is not involved with instructing the world on “the understanding of human sexuality.” It is charged with practicing and teaching that “new and living way” that leads to life, instead of death.
…except for those who feel so much oppression that they kill themselves because of it. I think this is a ‘new and living way’ that the world could do without.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 22 2009,10:35)
If you want to discuss the points raised in the OP, I will continue dialogue with you. If you simply want to express your hatred and fear of Christianity, not interested.I am discussing the points raised in the OP. If you were not addressing this from your Judeo-christian viewpoint then I expect that you would not be writing such homophobic nonsense in the first place, as I explained to you. If you think you can separate your views on homosexuality then you might be able to take the lead in this: the chief reason that christianity homophobically preaches death is because christianity does not care about people more fundamentally. Now that we may have addressed the root cause of the brutality christianity shows to gay people (as outlined in your OP) you seem to want to shy away from that.
I can understand you not wanting to defend your belief system. It is immoral.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 23 2009,17:06)
(Stu)Quote I am discussing the points raised in the OP. If you were not addressing this from your Judeo-christian viewpoint then I expect that you would not be writing such homophobic nonsense in the first place, as I explained to you. (P) O.K. Let's begin with the position expressed in the OP and see where the oppression begins.
(Palidin)
Quote Today, 7/17/09, Friday morning, I opened the newspaper to see the article named in the title of this essay. I have seen for a long time, the unfairness of judgment practiced against homosexuality,
Is THAT what you are talking about? “I see the unfairness of judgment practiced against homosexuality?”
Or is it the next part of the opening sentence?
(P)Quote have just the opposite effect intended by various authors of articles attempting to deal with the subject nonjudgmentally. My effort to deal with the issue nonjudgmentally. Is THAT the beginning of your “persecution?”
Or maybe it is this part;
(P)Quote It is hard to do. It is harder to do and show love instead of judgment. And it is still harder to do with any degree of compassion shown in the writing of the article because of the nature of the issue. Is it the declaration of effort to show compassion? Or is it when the issue is introduced?
(P) Or perhaps it begins with a declaration of my love and concern for my brothers in Adam.
Quote I love my brothers in Adam, but I love my brothers in Christ much, much more. It is because I wish my brothers in Adam to become my brothers in Christ, I am moved to make this appeal. Or perhaps you don't know what “appeal” means.
Other than the opening remarks, most of my post is straight from the scriptures, and if you have a problem with THAT, I can't help you.
If you want to rebutt any of the scriptures, just reference it and show your legitimate rebuttal. Rejection is not rebuttal. Rebuttal is when you prove the scriptures to be wrong.
(Stu)
Quote If you think you can separate your views on homosexuality then you might be able to take the lead in this: (P) I have a news break for you Stu. My OP already took the lead.
(Stu)
Quote the chief reason that christianity homophobically preaches death is because christianity does not care about people more fundamentally. (P) I know. That's why so many Christians have died to bring the gospel to lost folks. That is why so many Christians devote their lives to the aid of needy people, (Mother Theresa for examp[le). Just no love to be found is there?
(Stu)
Quote
Now that we may have addressed the root cause of the brutality christianity shows to gay people (as outlined in your OP) you seem to want to shy away from that.(P) “as outlined in my OP?”
Quote
I have seen for a long time, the unfairness of judgment practiced against homosexuality,(Stu)
Quote I can understand you not wanting to defend your belief system. It is immoral. It is not my belief system that is immoral, it is your attitude and demeanor; Your “in your face” attack without reason or truth.
If you wish to take issue with the reasoning shown in my post, feel free, but all you have done so far is apply generalizations to me that do not apply. You accuse without evidence, and smartmouth with no evidence.
If you want honest dialogue, I will discuss the issue with youl If all you want is to get a Christian told, consider it done. I have been soundly whipped. Put THAT in your victory pile and move on.
Stu said:
Quote My dictionary defines a homophobia as a fear or hatred of homosexuals. If it is not fear, then why do christians go on about it so much? If you are against homosexuality then remember it is not compulsory! The evidence of fear is in the obsession with others who are gay. Is fear not the only credible motive for persecuting others?
Strictly I suppose christians claim to 'love the homosexual but hate the homsexuality'. So it is hatred of the act not the person. I feel the same about christians. Love the person, oppose the nasty set of religious beliefs that has parasitised his brain.
I think christians should feel ashamed to expose their ignorance and one-dimensional view of the world that is evident in their homophobia. It is not as if christianity has anything constructive to add to our understanding of human sexuality. It is all brutal morals written in brutal times by people quite happy to brutalise others.
Stu,
Why do homosexuals have to corrupt the Christain Church? Why can't they start their own religion and ordain their own? They are not content with just co-existing either. What about the recent controversy surrounding Miss California? A homosexual judge asked her about her views on gay marriage to make an example of her. What did her views on gay marriage have to do with anything?thinker
Some thoughts:
1. I believe that sexual orientation is similar to handedness; most people are born right handed, a minority are left handed and an even smaller number have no dominance or ambidextrous. Most of us are heterosexual, a minority are homosexual and some are bi-sexual. I believe in most cases this is not a choice but a condition of birth like handedness. For those who are not bi-sexual can you imagine anything that would suddenly make you change orientation? For those who look at homosexuality as a choice can you as a heterosexual even imagine switching? You can't because it is so alien to your make up.2. Homosexuality is not in itself wrong, but just as in any form of sexuality there can be perversions and evil. This is true for straight and gay.
3. I will agree that due to historical repression, humiliation and abuse many gays hid their orientation and probably looked to the supposedly celibate Catholic priesthood for sanctuary and in their suppressed nature may have led to a variety of problems. Yet sexual repression of young men can cause similar problems for heterosexuals also.
4. If Christians can't come together with a little understanding it speaks poorly of the community.
As far as the Miss CA controversy, it just shows that gays can exhibit the same prejudices and pettiness as the rest of us. Being gay makes you neither evil or noble.
Quote (Cato @ July 24 2009,06:28) Some thoughts:
1. I believe that sexual orientation is similar to handedness; most people are born right handed, a minority are left handed and an even smaller number have no dominance or ambidextrous. Most of us are heterosexual, a minority are homosexual and some are bi-sexual. I believe in most cases this is not a choice but a condition of birth like handedness. For those who are not bi-sexual can you imagine anything that would suddenly make you change orientation? For those who look at homosexuality as a choice can you as a heterosexual even imagine switching? You can't because it is so alien to your make up.2. Homosexuality is not in itself wrong, but just as in any form of sexuality there can be perversions and evil. This is true for straight and gay.
3. I will agree that due to historical repression, humiliation and abuse many gays hid their orientation and probably looked to the supposedly celibate Catholic priesthood for sanctuary and in their suppressed nature may have led to a variety of problems. Yet sexual repression of young men can cause similar problems for heterosexuals also.
4. If Christians can't come together with a little understanding it speaks poorly of the community.
As far as the Miss CA controversy, it just shows that gays can exhibit the same prejudices and pettiness as the rest of us. Being gay makes you neither evil or noble.
Nice ideas. I happen to agree with quite a few of them, however you must realize the bible doesn't.Love,
MandyQuote (Cato @ July 24 2009,06:28) Some thoughts:
1. I believe that sexual orientation is similar to handedness; most people are born right handed, a minority are left handed and an even smaller number have no dominance or ambidextrous. Most of us are heterosexual, a minority are homosexual and some are bi-sexual. I believe in most cases this is not a choice but a condition of birth like handedness. For those who are not bi-sexual can you imagine anything that would suddenly make you change orientation? For those who look at homosexuality as a choice can you as a heterosexual even imagine switching? You can't because it is so alien to your make up.2. Homosexuality is not in itself wrong, but just as in any form of sexuality there can be perversions and evil. This is true for straight and gay.
3. I will agree that due to historical repression, humiliation and abuse many gays hid their orientation and probably looked to the supposedly celibate Catholic priesthood for sanctuary and in their suppressed nature may have led to a variety of problems. Yet sexual repression of young men can cause similar problems for heterosexuals also.
4. If Christians can't come together with a little understanding it speaks poorly of the community.
As far as the Miss CA controversy, it just shows that gays can exhibit the same prejudices and pettiness as the rest of us. Being gay makes you neither evil or noble.
But why can't homosexuals start their own religion and ordain their own? Why must they force non gay religions to ordain them?thinker
Quote (thethinker @ July 24 2009,12:52) Quote
But why can't homosexuals start their own religion and ordain their own? Why must they force non gay religions to ordain them?thinker
I disagree thinker. I do not think homosexuals are forcing Christians to do ANYTHING those Christians are not willing to do to keep the peace. THAT is wrong.When the Episcopalian community voted to ordain gay Bishops, they WERE in fact TAKING A STAND they understood and chose. ANY person who does not agree with their Bishops should separate themselves from among them and go elsewhere, and not support this very wrong decision.
AS for the homosexual position on THIS issue, I think they are correct. ANYTHING they can do to disrupt Christianity is EXACTLY what I would be doing if I hated it so much. I also would set out to Show them how totally double-standard and bizarre their position is. ANYTHING except consider myself, whether I am in the faith. For THIS I do not faul the homosexual, I fault the Christians who fall for it. AND who fall because of it.
Quote (Cato @ July 24 2009,06:28)
1. I believe that sexual orientation is similar to handedness; most people are born right handed, a minority are left handed and an even smaller number have no dominance or ambidextrous. Most of us are heterosexual, a minority are homosexual and some are bi-sexual. I believe in most cases this is not a choice but a condition of birth like handedness.There is no factual evidence for this scientifically. It is strictly the result of an experimental balloon raised by the homosexual community to justify ammoral bahaviour, and jumped on by community activists who want only to keep peace in the community.
Sexual preferences are not even an issue until puberty. And only after one enters the condition of puberty, does it become an issue. It is NOT some “condition we are born with.”
Quote For those who are not bi-sexual can you imagine anything that would suddenly make you change orientation? More to the point, is there any reasonable set of conditions that would cause you to react to sexual stimuli differently?
How about family life, school influence, social mores, and religious license? All influences effect the natural inclinations of individuals as to how they react to different stimuli.
Quote For those who look at homosexuality as a choice can you as a heterosexual even imagine switching? You can't because it is so alien to your make up. So is going to hell, but I can imagine it. What does “what I can imagine” have to do with “every thought and intent of the heart?” They are opposite sides of the same coin.
Quote 2. Homosexuality is not in itself wrong, but just as in any form of sexuality there can be perversions and evil. So you now have good homosexuality and bad homosexuality?
I don't think so.Quote This is true for straight and gay. Gay homosexuals I understand, but “straight homosexuals?” I think you are trying too hard to appease the gay crowd.
Quote
3. I will agree that due to historical repression, humiliation and abuse many gays hid their orientation and probably looked to the supposedly celibate Catholic priesthood for sanctuary and in their suppressed nature may have led to a variety of problems. Yet sexual repression of young men can cause similar problems for heterosexuals also.Agreed! What has that to do with the issue? I can remember when movies were banned for saying “sweat” instead of “persperation.” What has that to do with how homosexuals make their choices? What has that to do with how any category of sinners make their choices? Are you saying that being told they can't do that makes them do that?
Quote
4. If Christians can't come together with a little understanding it speaks poorly of the community.If the Christianity comes together with those of whom GOD instructed “Come ye out from among them and be ye separate” THAT Christian community is in deep trouble. And it is my opinion that there are many Christian communities that are in fact, in deep trouble, not for homosexuality.
Being gay makes you neither evil or noble.
Being homosexual is a result of being ready to do evil.
Paladin,
I think it is rather absurd to view homosexuality as a choice. Having sex is a choice but your orientation is not. I do not ever remember a time when I did not like women, even as small child of 4-5 well before it was overtly sexual. Can you really imagine that one day you will decide to start wanting men? Most homosexuals likewise determined their own orientation well before puberty, though as it is oppossed to public norms often hide it. It is only for those of a bisexual or lack of dominance where this is a choice. Immorality comes to form not from basic orientation, but in how one treats others.
I will admit that gays often make me uncomfortable as their motivations are alien to me and goes against my expectations of behavior, but that is my problem. Intellectually I can not fault them for their different natures. To say their sexual orientation is the result of their readiness to do evil is a jingoistic statement of ignorance. All of mankind is always in a condition of readiness for evil or good for that matter.
Cato,July wrote:[/quote]
(Cato)Quote Paladin,
I think it is rather absurd to view homosexuality as a choice. Having sex is a choice but your orientation is not. I do not ever remember a time when I did not like women, even as small child of 4-5 well before it was overtly sexual.Fallacy! There is NOTHING sexual about a child's ability to love people of either gender prior to puberty. It is not an issue. A child experiencing a FAVORITE UNCLE certainly cannot be construed as FAVORING HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES.
Surely you are not trying to equate a 5 year old child's “I like women,” with “I am going to be homosexual.” Sexuality has more to do with training and expectation than with any faulty memories of childhood fixations.
Quote Can you really imagine that one day you will decide to start wanting men? Nonsequitor fallacy. What I may or may not imagine has no bearing on the issue under consideration. The purpose of asking such a question is to hope my supposed natural revulsion will kick in with strong denial, which can neither be verified, nor tested in any way. So it is moot.
Quote Most homosexuals likewise determined their own orientation well before puberty, though as it is oppossed to public norms often hide it. And you know what “most homosexuals” determined HOW? By WHAT process of intellectual exercise? What study of scientific evidence? Which standard publication were you reading prior to puberty which helped you reach this decision?
Quote It is only for those of a bisexual or lack of dominance where this is a choice. Immorality comes to form not from basic orientation, but in how one treats others. That is absolute nonsense. “Immorality” is determined by what our parents teach us is immoral. Or our schools and communities, and/or frineds, and/or circumstances of survival.
Quote I will admit that gays often make me uncomfortable as their motivations are alien to me and goes against my expectations of behavior, but that is my problem. I guess I am more fortunate, in that they do not make me uncomfortable any more than liars, cheats, adulterers, tax-dodgers, gossips, and all other manner of sinful behaviour.
But the liars, cheats, adulterers, tax-dodgers, gossips and other sinfully behaving persons are not trying to convince me God did not legislate against such behaviour. They are not claiming that such behaviour is o.k. with God as long as it is accepted in society. They do not say “Christians have perverted the scriptures because they hate and fear liars, cheats, adulterers,” and etc.
Quote Intellectually I can not fault them for their different natures. To say their sexual orientation is the result of their readiness to do evil is a jingoistic statement of ignorance. I did not say that. I said “Being homosexual is a result of being ready to do evil.” This means men who practice a little evil will be willing to do more evil things.
Why do you think kids begin experimenting with the “little” stuff? It is because they perceive greater consequences with the “bigger stuff.” But the “little stuff” carries with it a certain feeling of “getting away” with something, plus the tantalizing tease of the flesh.
Once you begin to taste the sensual “badness,” the desire naturally moves on to a desire for a full course meal of “bad.”
When a nation begins with arrogance, moves on to disregard for the needs of those who cannot help themselves, escalates to experimenting with immorality, debating morality, justifying evil choices, they will continue to spiral downward into a morrass of their own making till God abandons them to a fully vetted lust for the desires of flesh.
Sin in a naiton, is ALWAYS a gradual growth, because even Satan knows that if he tempts men with the really evil first, they will probably move back toward the good; so he begins with the “just a little risque” category and designs a regimen of sins considered “little” before moving on to the harder stuff. You know, you've heard of society's reaction to “little white lies.” Acceptable; “black lies” – not acceptable. It will ALWAYS be a progressive practice, not a born-to-be sin.
Quote (thethinker @ July 24 2009,04:19) Stu said: Quote My dictionary defines a homophobia as a fear or hatred of homosexuals. If it is not fear, then why do christians go on about it so much? If you are against homosexuality then remember it is not compulsory! The evidence of fear is in the obsession with others who are gay. Is fear not the only credible motive for persecuting others?
Strictly I suppose christians claim to 'love the homosexual but hate the homsexuality'. So it is hatred of the act not the person. I feel the same about christians. Love the person, oppose the nasty set of religious beliefs that has parasitised his brain.
I think christians should feel ashamed to expose their ignorance and one-dimensional view of the world that is evident in their homophobia. It is not as if christianity has anything constructive to add to our understanding of human sexuality. It is all brutal morals written in brutal times by people quite happy to brutalise others.
Stu,
Why do homosexuals have to corrupt the Christain Church? Why can't they start their own religion and ordain their own? They are not content with just co-existing either. What about the recent controversy surrounding Miss California? A homosexual judge asked her about her views on gay marriage to make an example of her. What did her views on gay marriage have to do with anything?thinker
As I said before I don't see why any gay person would want anything to do with christianity, (nor for that matter straight people!) however as some of them persist because they think they can twist scripture to accept homosexuality or just ignore the OT and Paul, we are watching a schism, aren't we. The Anglican church is once again dogmatically inflexible to the realities of the world and there will soon be 39,001 denominations (well, not exactly that many, but one more than before).Anglicanism does not even seem to particularly need a belief in god, 13% of vicars in the UK do not think there is one. So why should they be quibbling about a mere point of sexuality if their clergy cannot even agree on what they collectively are worshipping?
Good question re Miss California. What motivates homosexual beauty contest judges to open activism like that? It is a bit strange to have such a politically correct response from someone who is in the non-PC business of judging a beauty contest! Only in America, as they say in some countries…
Is there any actual practical reason to discriminate against gay people being allowed to make the same commitment as straight couples? I don't mean superstitions from scripture, I mean actual reasons from reality. I always think of the British actor Nigel Hawthorne who lived in a defacto marriage situation with his male partner for many years, in a far more stable and devoted relationship than most marriages. It had all the hallmarks of any marriage as far as I can tell. Why should it not be officially recognised as such if they wanted? Why should they not be able to elect the same mutual legal rights in regards to the other as for marriage, and call it such?
Stuart
Quote (Paladin @ July 24 2009,22:04) For THIS I do not faul the homosexual, I fault the Christians who fall for it. AND who fall because of it.
In what way do christians 'fall' because of their concession of equal rights for gays?Stuart
“Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture.” Statement on Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, 1994-JUL.
It is complex subject with genetic and environmental factors contributing to the effected orientation.
Now it is clear you view it as choice and a sinful one, sensual badness which moves on to a full course meal of bad, is I believe how you phrased it. You also claimed that, “”Immorality” is determined by what our parents teach us is immoral. Or our schools and communities, and/or frineds, and/or circumstances of survival.” So immorality is evidently circumstantial and is based on what we are taught. So if we are taught being gay is ok it no longer is immoral? No, for you clearly view it as evil. You go on and postulate that Satan tempts us with small evils first which lead to ever greater evils. Well I am not sure if Satan is a being rather then a title, but assuming he is, I would agree, that is a better method of leading people astray and into sin. Yet if that is true and homosexuality is one of those evils like petty thievery leading eventually to murder, then gay individuals should be some of the worst people in our society since they have their feet firmly planted on that slippery slope of sin. Yet I doubt gays (outside of their sexual orientation and intimate behaviours) are any worse then the rest of society when it comes to all the various other sins that we do to ourselves and one another.
I guess it all comes down to being gay is evil because? Because Scripture tells you so? Do you think gays should be put to death? Lev 20:13 ” 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. That's holy scripture.
Paladin
Quote O.K. Let's begin with the position expressed in the OP and see where the oppression begins.
It begins at line 4, with Come ye out from among them and be ye separate from the unclean thing.Quote If you want to rebutt any of the scriptures, just reference it and show your legitimate rebuttal. Rejection is not rebuttal. Rebuttal is when you prove the scriptures to be wrong.
In regards to its historical claims in general the bible is both right and fictional, like any piece of historical fiction (have you read the thread entitled ‘The too hard basket’?). In regards to the superstitions about sexuality, those which invoke god, it is not my job to ‘prove scriptures wrong’, because firstly you are begging the question of the existence of the god that you allege hates homosexuality, and secondly you bear the burden of proof with these things you assert without evidence. If you wish to evoke scripture to justify other scripture then you will be likely committing the further logical fallacy of circular logic.Stu: the chief reason that christianity homophobically preaches death is because christianity does not care about people more fundamentally.
Quote I know. That's why so many Christians have died to bring the gospel to lost folks. That is why so many Christians devote their lives to the aid of needy people, (Mother Theresa for examp[le). Just no love to be found is there?
The martyrdom complex. Christianity gets off on pointless death and sacrifice, doesn’t it. As far as I have been able to fathom Mother Theresa uselessly presided over a place where people went to die with no hope of any practical help for their medical conditions, and had little to offer except her religious piety and venomous regurgitations of Catholic doctrine. I think the point about christianity being anti-human has been made already. So often scripture tells people to put aside the things of this world, and reject their families in order to follow Jesus, and so forth. Great family values!If you can show me an example of christians making a service sacrifice where they do not set up their corporate logo of an ancient means of execution, and prostyletise and judge as they choose the medical supplies they deem to be godly enough for them to distribute, then I will agree that those people are doing unquestionable good. As I have already implied, I personally consider the mission of spreading the christian message to be an immoral act, and there is no useful act of service anywhere that cannot be done equally well by an atheist, and in many cases this is happening.
Quote It is not my belief system that is immoral, it is your attitude and demeanor; Your “in your face” attack without reason or truth.
I have given you plenty of reasons. If you want me to bore you with them again I can! Truth is a personal conclusion about the world. If you think your bible gives you an objective Truth about the world then I think you are either gullible or ignorant about what it says. It would certainly not be a sustainable philosophical / epistemological argument in modern terms.Quote If you wish to take issue with the reasoning shown in my post, feel free, but all you have done so far is apply generalizations to me that do not apply. You accuse without evidence, and smartmouth with no evidence.
Charming. See above.Quote If you want honest dialogue, I will discuss the issue with youl If all you want is to get a Christian told, consider it done. I have been soundly whipped. Put THAT in your victory pile and move on.
Well I would expect, in that case, you to concede that you should consider changing your stated beliefs if you are a person of ethical standards and you agree that I have made good points regarding it.Stuart
I have come to the point of view now that I don't care any more about the arguments of how much choice gay people have in their sexual orientation, we are talking about consenting adults doing stuff in private. Indeed people who are in what could be called the 'middle' of the spectrum, those who are bisexual, probably can choose to have a same-sex or heterosexual relationship. So for me the choice argument would be a spurious one for gay activists to use, I don't think they need to make any such sop to bigots, they should just get on with doing whatever they want with whatever consenting adult wants to share it. As long as the bigots are not stopping them living their lives as they see fit, which unfortunately seems to be what some of them want to achieve.
Stuart
Paladin
I think Cato has responded really well to your post, but I would like to pick you up on this point he made:
Cato: Can you really imagine that one day you will decide to start wanting men?
Quote Nonsequitor fallacy. What I may or may not imagine has no bearing on the issue under consideration. The purpose of asking such a question is to hope my supposed natural revulsion will kick in with strong denial, which can neither be verified, nor tested in any way. So it is moot.
Let’s cast it in more immediate terms. You currently feel revulsion to the idea of two men in bed together, as do I and probably Cato, even though you cannot see into the future, which is fair enough.Are you able to put yourself in a gay person’s shoes and see how exactly the same revulsion could apply to the idea of a man and a woman together? I will trust that you feel such revulsion, because I believe you and I feel the same way as you, but I would expect you to trust that a gay man is stating honestly his feelings by saying the obverse.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
