I don't know what Aretas means by "the Orthodox Church". Does he/she mean "Eastern Orthodox"?
As for Sodom, the sin of that city was NOT homosexuality.
Ezekiel 16:49-50 states what the sin of that city was in black and white
[QUOTE="Ezekiel 16:49-50“}
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. As for marriage being for creation (by which I must assume 'creating healthy adults'), that would mean that any heterosexual who is infertile should not be able to be married. This is where the lie of the 'Orthodox Church' is most apparent - because infertile heterosexuals -can- be married in church. This demonstrates that the real issue is bigotry, not scripture. But ALSO, there are 500,000 children in foster care at any particular time in the USA (not including all of those children who lack parents in third world countries). Gay couples should be able to be married so that they can provide stable, loving households for these children. But, the 'Orthodox Church' would rather these children grow up bouncing around from foster home to foster home than be given such loving, stable households.
No matter how you slice it, its not scripture, its bigotry (destructive bigotry) plain and simple.
Bill Hicks had some pretty sharp words about pro-lifers, and why those who whine about abortions should adopt orphans instead of whining. The world lost a great man when he died.
Machaeus wrote: Hippygriff wrote:
Aretas wrote:
OMG you compared Human beings with our advanced social behavior to animals and plants!
Define "advanced". How is our social behavior better than other primates?
I take some offense to that (only some). We at least TRY not to take a piss on a public wall, or on another person/primate.
While I admit (most) humans may not engage in the same act I do ask, is the human analog that much better?
I was kinda joking. My apologies for not making that more clear.
And Sissyl, that's...a bit tangential. This isn't the "hate on everyone you disagree with" thread.
Just so we're clear.
Yes, it is a bit tangential. It was suggested, however, that homosexual couples should adopt. I just felt that this was relevant to that discussion. And no, I do not hate. Do not accuse me of doing so. It is the thread Disagree with everyone you disagree with, same as all other OTD threads, and I intend to do so. The reason I complain about religious organisations and their policies is that these policies hurt people in the most cruel way possible.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I wasn't going to dig into this, but I failed my will save
Aretas wrote: Orthodox Statement on Homosexuality Again, what do you mean by "Orthodox"? Do you mean "Eastern Orthodox"?
Aretas wrote: Thus, the Orthodox Church condemns unreservedly all expressions of personal sexual experience which prove contrary to the definite and unalterable function ascribed to sex by God's ordinance and expressed in man's experience as a law of nature.
Thus the function of the sexual organs of a man and a woman and their bio-chemical generating forces in glands and glandular secretions are ordained by nature to serve one particular purpose, the procreation of the human kind.
However, the human sexual apparatus appears to have been designed not only as the medium by which the necessary physical contact for the purpose of sex is affected, but as the generator as well and the center of a highly complex system of feelings which all together are known by the name eros, love between husband and wife.
Therefore, any and all uses of the human sex organs for purposes other than those ordained by creation, runs contrary to the nature of things as decreed by God and produces the following wrongs:
Those purposes being love and procreation. Gay couples are certainly capable of love for one another.
Aretas wrote: a. They violate God's ordinance regarding both the procreation of man and his emotional life generated by his instinctive attraction to the opposite sex not only for procreating but for advancing the personalities of a man and a woman to a state of completion within the association of the Sacrament of Marriage. For all this, homosexuality is an insult to God, and since it attempts to alter the laws regulating creation it is a blasphemy. If denying the so-called "instinctive attraction to the opposite sex" is a blasphemy, than why do many churches (including the Catholics) teach celibacy for their priests.
Its worth noting that the Bible never says that all men have an instinctive attraction to the opposite sex, nor does it say that "denying" such alleged attraction is a blasphemy.
Aretas wrote: b. Homosexuality interferes with the normal development of societal
patterns and as such it proves detrimental to all. These endangered patterns include personal values regarding sex which people normally take to be a vital part of their existence and a valuable asset to their living a normal life, esteemed by others.
In point of fact, homosexuality provides stability to societal patterns - for example, by ensuring that there will be couples able to take on children when the parents of those children are unable to continue raising those children.
Aretas wrote: . The homosexual degrades his own sex and thus denies to himself the self-respect that is generated from the feeling that one is in line with God's creation. Living life the way that God made us is not degrading ourselves. Trying to live "straight" when God didn't make us that way is blasphemy.
Aretas wrote: Homosexuality appears to be of two kinds: physico-genetic and habitual. Physico-genetic homosexuality is of physical origin due to secretory abnormalities that may produce organic changes. This type of homosexuality is rather rare and is treated as any other medical disorder. "Physico-genetic" homosexuality is not a medical disorder. You won't find it listed as a medical disorder in any professional peer-reviewed medical journal. What "Physico-genetic" homosexuality is is how God made us.
Beyond this point the post I'm responding to just gets too ridiculous to even try to respond to.
Sissyl wrote: Yes, it is a bit tangential. It was suggested, however, that homosexual couples should adopt. I just felt that this was relevant to that discussion. And no, I do not hate. Do not accuse me of doing so. It is the thread Disagree with everyone you disagree with, same as all other OTD threads, and I intend to do so. The reason I complain about religious organisations and their policies is that these policies hurt people in the most cruel way possible. That same post you responded to was also talking about foster homes. [sarcasm]Tell me, how do you feel about the pro-life stance with regards to children that have already been born? [/sarcasm]
The fact is your post was off topic.
Very well. Consider it off topic then. For that, I am sorry.
I suggest just ignoring the Troll. And let the poor deluded sod stay poor and deluded.
A CR20 Seagull wrote: I suggest just ignoring the Troll. And let the poor deluded sod stay poor and deluded. And you consider me a troll, then, I take it?
No, I am the troll, remember.
No, I will not simply ignore it. It has been simply ignored long enough.
Just a quick note, not all children, perhaps not even most children, in foster care are available for adoption. For many, they have been taken away from parents/guardians that didn't have their s*#t together. But once those adults get things straightened out, then the kids get returned.
@Sissyl. No. I meant that Aretas guy >>
pres man wrote: Just a quick note, not all children, perhaps not even most children, in foster care are available for adoption. For many, they have been taken away from parents/guardians that didn't have their s*#t together. But once those adults get things straightened out, then the kids get returned. Which is a disaster in slow motion for those children. It means not being able to get new parents that could love them. I wish it would be easier to think outside the traditional core family.
A CR20 Seagull wrote: @Sissyl. No. I meant that Aretas guy >> Well, I find it very hard to tell with religious people. Shame on me, I guess, if it is true.
Sissyl wrote: pres man wrote: Just a quick note, not all children, perhaps not even most children, in foster care are available for adoption. For many, they have been taken away from parents/guardians that didn't have their s*#t together. But once those adults get things straightened out, then the kids get returned. Which is a disaster in slow motion for those children. It means not being able to get new parents that could love them. I wish it would be easier to think outside the traditional core family. You assume that children are only taken out of homes that the parents don't love them, or that the kids would want "new" parents.
I have had family members in the situation where the kids, they had a single parent that was going through extremely difficult financial problems and suffering from depression and thus was having difficulty providing for themselves, let alone their children and home. It was not that they didn't love their children and you suggesting that they didn't because they had problems is insulting to say the least. Once they were able to get things back on track, both emotionally and financially the children returned to the home and continue to have a (reasonably) good relationship with their parent to this day.
EDIT: Anyway, this is getting off topic. My original point was that the value given for the children in foster care may be misleading, not all of those children are available for adoption, so saying people should adopt them all is probably not accurate.
Normally I would stay far away from such topics on a discussion forum, especially one on Paizo. The only reason why I'm responding is to counter the argument that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. I don't think an argument can be made that homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible.
While there is a difference between the moral law and the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament, the former transcending all of redemptive history, and the latter being fulfilled in Jesus Christ and thus no longer required, the declaration of homosexuality being an abomination in the sight of the Lord (Lev. 18:22) is that of a moral declaration which continues today.
The idea that one who believes someone's behavior is sinful to God makes them "phobic" is absurd. It would mean that Christians are "sinnerphobic," which means that Christians are afraid of people who sin, and therefore, are afraid of themselves. I guess in some sense that's true. If we are honest with ourselves as fallen humanity, we recognize that we are capable of some pretty evil things.
Since words do not seem to mean anything these days, then I suppose if we're going to simply redefine what a phobia is, then I guess not much can be said about it. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. I don't fear homosexuals. I think that, like those who covet or overeat, they are sinning against God, and I'm the worst sinner I know, because I know myself better than anyone else and how much I fall short of God's standard.
I guess since people are intolerant of Christian beliefs, and are afraid of Christian morality being taught, that would then make them "Christiaphobic," and bigots against Christians?
I won't deny that homosexuality seems to be singled out among the many sins condemned in the Bible, and in a lot of ways that is unfortunate. I think the government getting involved in marriage at all can cause a variety of problems that lead me to conclude that marriage should not be sanctioned by the gov't at all. I don't think it was intended that way by the Founders in the first place. Marriage licenses as we know them today did not come about until after the civil war. Marriage is a biblical concept, and it is something that should be handled and dealt with by the church. I mean, who is the government to declare what a proper marriage is? That, to me, is God's business, and I think it might be a slippery slope to allowing the government to further intrude into our lives than is necessary.
I think Christian beliefs are attacked because of their public involvement in the politics involved with a federal marriage amendment. I think this wouldn't be an issue as much if marriage became a private matter between families and dealt with by the church.
Knight Protector wrote: Since words do not seem to mean anything these days, then I suppose if we're going to simply redefine what a phobia is, then I guess not much can be said about it. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. I don't fear homosexuals. I think that, like those who covet or overeat, they are sinning against God, and I'm the worst sinner I know, because I know myself better than anyone else and how much I fall short of God's standard. Words do not mean what their parts mean. This may be unfortunate, but it's always been true. Homophobia has never meant "fear of homosexuals". It was originally coined to refer to heterosexual men's fear that others might think they are gay and quickly expanded to mean prejudice against homosexual's regardless of motivation.
Knight Protector wrote: I won't deny that homosexuality seems to be singled out among the many sins condemned in the Bible, and in a lot of ways that is unfortunate. I think the government getting involved in marriage at all can cause a variety of problems that lead me to conclude that marriage should not be sanctioned by the gov't at all. I don't think it was intended that way by the Founders in the first place. Marriage licenses as we know them today did not come about until after the civil war. Marriage is a biblical concept, and it is something that should be handled and dealt with by the church. I mean, who is the government to declare what a proper marriage is? That, to me, is God's business, and I think it might be a slippery slope to allowing the government to further intrude into our lives than is necessary.
I think Christian beliefs are attacked because of their public involvement in the politics involved with a federal marriage amendment. I think this wouldn't be an issue as much if marriage became a private matter between families and dealt with by the church.
Oddly, marriages or very similar arrangements by other names in other languages exist in most cultures, even those that predate or do not use the Bible. Christianity and the Bible do not have exclusive claim to control marriage.
So a couple of questions and observations:
Aretas wrote: Orthodox Statement on Homosexuality
The position of the Orthodox Church toward homosexuality has been expressed by synodical canons and Patristic pronouncements beginning with the very first centuries of Orthodox ecclesiastical life.
Which Orthodox church? They're not all the same you know.
Aretas wrote: Thus, the Orthodox Church condemns unreservedly all expressions of personal sexual experience which prove contrary to the definite and unalterable function ascribed to sex by God's ordinance and expressed in man's experience as a law of nature. How do we know what is the law of nature? Few creatures actually mate for life and some individual animals of a species never mate at all. How do we get the "law of nature" when there is so much diversity?
Aretas wrote: Thus the function of the sexual organs of a man and a woman and their bio-chemical generating forces in glands and glandular secretions are ordained by nature to serve one particular purpose, the procreation of the human kind. The sexual organs are also great at generating pleasure, we are one of the few species that generate pleasure from self stimulation, why then do most churches take the stance that this act is evil or sinful?
Aretas wrote: However, the human sexual apparatus appears to have been designed not only as the medium by which the necessary physical contact for the purpose of sex is affected, but as the generator as well and the center of a highly complex system of feelings which all together are known by the name eros, love between husband and wife. For example we now know that the sperm serves two functions, one fertilizing the eggs, and two creating a soft plug to block off the sperm of another. Similarly male sexual organs seems designed like a plunger to remove these soft plugs. This would seem to indicate that your god designed humans to have multiple sexual partners.
Aretas wrote: Therefore, any and all uses of the human sex organs for purposes other than those ordained by creation, runs contrary to the nature of things as decreed by God and produces the following wrongs:
a. They violate God's ordinance regarding both the procreation of man and his emotional life generated by his instinctive attraction to the opposite sex not only for procreating but for advancing the personalities of a man and a woman to a state of completion within the association of the Sacrament of Marriage. For all this, homosexuality is an insult to God, and since it attempts to alter the laws regulating creation it is a blasphemy.
But what if you're not instinctively attracted to the opposite sex? Supposing we could prove that homosexuality is biological and not mental would that suggest to you that your god has made a mistake or that the church has been misinterpreting his intent or would you attack the science?
Aretas wrote: b. Homosexuality interferes with the normal development of societal patterns and as such it proves detrimental to all. These endangered patterns include personal values regarding sex which people normally take to be a vital part of their existence and a valuable asset to their living a normal life, esteemed by others. Have you ever heard the expression "it takes a village to raise a child"? Supposing every man and woman joined and had kids? That would require a significant portion of your population pregnant, nursing, or raising children. This would leave a smaller group to gather food and an even smaller group to protect the pregnant and nursing children. Biologically it would be better if not every man and woman mated and had children, it would ensure that there were more hunters, gathers, and protectors, but obviously you can't biologically code a creature to do what's best for a community but biologically you could ensure that they weren't interested in mating.
Aretas wrote: c. The homosexual degrades his own sex and thus denies to himself the self-respect that is generated from the feeling that one is in line with God's creation. Not sure what they mean on this one. How would someone degrade their own sex? A man or a woman walking out on his own children would seem to me to be a worse offence then falling in love with someone of the same sex.
Aretas wrote: Homosexuality appears to be of two kinds: physico-genetic and habitual. Physico-genetic homosexuality is of physical origin due to secretory abnormalities that may produce organic changes. This type of homosexuality is rather rare and is treated as any other medical disorder.
Habitual homosexuality may have more than one cause. All, however, point out to a moral failure at some stage of the individual's development, or to the animate environment from which the homosexual originated.
Habitual? Like I didn't want to be attracted to men/women but popular culture made it so enticing? I got hooked on cigarettes so it was only natural that I move onto sucking on something else?
Also: homosexiality is "treated as any other medical disorder"? Seriously? Any non-religious based or funded groups have any success "curing" homosexuality?
Aretas wrote: Thus, although homosexuality followed as a way of life by the sufferer, may be subject to psychopathological investigation and treatment, the origin of it, in all but the few physico-genetic cases mentioned above, brings with it a moral failure. It is because of the realization of this that homosexuality has been described from ancient times as a moral stigma. Because if they did it in ancient times it must be correct? Like how we all still keep slaves and burn and stone folks to death.
Aretas wrote: Thus, the Orthodox Church cannot subscribe to the demand that homosexuals be recognized by society and its agencies as legal spouses and as deserving the same respect as men and women enjoy in the state of wedlock. I'm all for allowing men and women to enjoy wedlock, it just seems your folks want to put more restrictions on who can get to enjoy wedlock.
Aretas wrote: Society and its values, religious and societal, have legitimate claims over the behavior of its members, especially in so vital a function as the sexual one on which not only the survival but its quality as well depend. No one has the right to do whatever he wishes with his body and still claim recognition and respect on the part of society. Right, and thankfully societies values can change.
Aretas wrote: The Orthodox Church believes that homosexuality should be treated by society as an immoral and dangerous perversion and by religion as a sinful failure. In both cases, correction is called for. Homosexuals should be accorded the confidential medical and psychiatric facilities by which they can be helped to restore themselves to a self-respecting sexual identity that belongs to them by God's ordinance. And I'm thinking that religions are pretty much alone on that regard. I doubt there are many atheist pro-life anti gay marriage groups out there.
Aretas wrote: In full confidentiality, the Orthodox Church cares and provides pastorally for homosexuals in the belief that no sinner who has failed himself and God should be allowed to deteriorate morally and spiritually. Just as long as they continue to play along and agree that they are at fault. Besides with more and more folks coming out of the closet it would seem that most people know someone that is gay. It wouldn't help the church to continue the stance that homosexuals should be put to death.
Aretas wrote: Psychiatric restoration, without religious direction and reconciliation with God, is bound to prove short lived. probably because it isn't possible
Aretas wrote: A healthy society and various religions do not recognize perversions. Rather, they work to restore the homosexual to the status of a self-esteemed individual and thus to a valued instrument of their own survival and wellbeing under God. Without perversions and sins most religions would be out of business. They need people to fail in order to sell them salvation. With most of the great unknowns being explained by science and found to be not magic sin is the only game most churches can hang onto. When you think about it in the Judeo-Christian mythos original sin was only questioning the word of god and seeking knowledge. For that we are eternally cursed, I rather like that idea, but what I hate are folks that say that questioning in of itself is wrong.
Knight Protector wrote: the declaration of homosexuality being an abomination in the sight of the Lord (Lev. 18:22) is that of a moral declaration which continues today. So… Why is that part of Leviticus more important than the parts that are commonly ignored or forgotten?
Other Abominations (Lev 11:9-12)
Quote: 9: These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10: And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12: Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
God Hates Shrimp!
I was gonna stay away from this if it was a secular accusation of 'homophobia' against secular types in general. But since it's one self-serving 'theologian' trying to tell other people what to believe, and committing egregious errors of reasoning to do so, I'll weigh in.
First, the Bible judges truth. It is not we, Christians or otherwise, who judge the Bible. So inserting our believes, whether it is Christians making up extraBiblical stuff to justify errant positions, or atheists using it to concoct reasons not to believe based on something the Bible doesn't actually say, both behaviors are wrong. So if the Bible says God prohibits homosexuality, that's it. No amount of wanting it to say something else matters. I know some people really want the Bible to admonish killing children who insult their parents or release bears to murder kids who poke fun at old men, but that's not the truth. So needing it to say something so you can write it off as hateful and absurd doesn't change reality, any more than needing conservatives to be racists makes us so.
Second, this article is worthless bias, with no valid commentary on the scripture or on how real people ought to behave in real situations. It's the writing of someone who doesn't remotely represent biblical Christianity. And in order to make herself look like the reasonable person, she ascribes only the most extreme and hateful positioning to those who might disagree with her. Everyone here should be above and immune to such behavior. Christians love gay folk like they love anyone else. Can't condone it, like any other thing the Bible calls sin. But this talk of parents telling kids they're an abomination and going to Hell is exaggerated nonsense. The tactic of making millions of people all sound the same is reprehensible. And as anecdotal evidence (more valuable than dramatic hyperbole), I note that in my life I have had two good friends that were gay, and both had been effectively separated from their parents for life. Neither set of parents were Christians. The strongest Christian presence for both men was...me. And I'd go to dinner with them on Christmas, be their family, etc. One once asked if I wasn't afraid of being assumed gay because I was out with a known homo on Thanksgiving. I asked if he ever thought Jesus was afraid of being seen with thieves, tax collectors, hookers, etc. Because we were friends and not strangers over the internet, he wasn't offended at some assumed comparison betwen him and a hooker. He understood the expressed point: Jesus loves everyone, isn't afraid to love anyone, and still hates sin. By doing my best to emulate Jesus, my gay friends were appreciative of my honesty and never mistook my faith for membership in the KKK. SO it ought to be with all of us here. Stop ascribing hate to people as a broad reference group, and stop inserting meaning into Scripture in order to tell students of that Scripture what it really means.
Third, there's no such thing as homophobia. It's a made-up, divisive term with no more meaning than 'social justice', 'corporate greed', or 'building a bridge to the 21st century'. Glossy marketing doesn't change reality. Parents of gay kids still love their kids. If they're Christians, they think sin has no excuse and that no sin is worse than any other (meaning all should be avoided). And they believe all sin is a choice. Insofar as there's no evidence that homosexuality is not a choice, and it would still be a choice even if there were a genetic proclivity, those parents have an argument. And their motivation is obedience to God and the demonstration of grace and love for their kids. Moreover, the relationship between a parent and a kid is none of the author's business. She generalizes the entire dynamic, when in every case the issue, every reaction, any confrontations, etc are entirely specific and individual. Don't tell me any Christian man that doesn't support his daughter's lesbianism is uniformly judgmental, cruel, ignorant or wrong. Let's let the parents parent.
Fourth, let's disabuse everyone of this notion the Bible doesn't judge homosexuality. It absolutely does. Nowhere in the Bible is the practiced excused or accepted. No one is exempted. The Bible makes no distinction between whether someone does it for fun, out of rebellion, because they feel they are born to such, etc. You might not care what the Bible says, which is a different issue. But trying to insert intent and meaning to soften the position is dishonest. The Bible can never say something it never said. And for the one comment I saw: Sodom was absolutely destroyed for rampant homosexuality. Sodomites were guilty of pretty much everything. You'll note that instead of hating them, Abraham prayed for them to be spared. You'll note that God was interested in the idea until the men of Sodom demanded that Lot send Gods own angels outside so the same men could rape them. Sodom wasn't solely homosexual, they had rotten hearts, were arrogant before God, and had totally abandoned reason for sensate sins. But homosexuality was a big part of that, or the scene where they were resolute to rape the newcomers would have been a different scene. Was Sodom destroyed only because its men were gay? Of course not. But trying to write the part of homosexuality out of the script is another example of trying to revise the text so it doesn't judge behavior we want to defend.
So to be clear: Christians love gays like they love anyone, exceptions are not ascribable to all of us, and the Bible definitely judges homosexuality as sin. The effort to make the Bible say something it doesn't fails fro both directions, and attempting to drag out stereotypes to maintain division doesn't help anyone here. If you want to know what Christians really think about gay folk, email me or the staff at my church. But if you do, you have to acknowledge when you aren 't treated with hate and abuse.
I'm not normally one for trying to speak on another poster's behalf, but I wanted to address an issue: I think what Aretas was trying got say is that until the last few decades, homosexuality was treated as a mental illness because it was widely believed to be a choice. People with weak parental relationships or poorly developed sexual identities were considered treatable like anyone else. To this day, Christian counselors approach the idea of homosexuality as a choice, and gay men voluntarily set appointments with such counselors to sort through the issues that lead to their orientation. Sometimes it remains a struggle, sometimes they reject the counseling after they try it, and sometimes they leave homosexuality behind and fall for women and raise families. The horror!
Please do not take such comments to mean that Christian psychologists think you can bleed out homosexuality with leeches or what not. I am sure that's not what Aretas meant.
I'm not sure homosexuality is a choice and I think the science would support my skepticism. Men who leaves "homosexuality behind" and then "fall for women" and then decide to "raise families" could just be lying to themselves and others to try to fit into Christian society. Now it's possible that I and many others are wrong on this issue, perhaps homosexuality is a choice, but if it's not forcing someone into a lifestyle simply to appease the community would be a horror.
Aretas wrote: Have a civil union but don't attempt to destroy the sacrement of marriage by calling it marriage. Or is the destruction of marriage what the radical left/gay/lesbian/bisexual/tranny community aspire to do? No. Christianity has no right to define marriage. It isn't your ceremony, it is everyone's ceremony. You didn't invent it, and you don't get to decide what gets done with it.
Aretas wrote: I don't know what is so difficult to understand. Its not Homophobia. Homosexuality is a perversion of the natural order, its that simple. If your going to do it keep it behind closed doors and don't flaunt it infront of 1st graders. Have a civil union but don't attempt to destroy the sacrement of marriage by calling it marriage. Or is the destruction of marriage what the radical left/gay/lesbian/bisexual/tranny community aspire to do?
Shifty: Westernized Taliban? Seriously! I don't believe homosexuals are in fear in the US of getting arrested by the special police like they are in Islamic countries/regimes like Iran.
Sissyl: Your comments are the only ones that are toxic & moronic. I simply laid out a statement, no hate whatsoever and you jump all over it like a pack of monkeys fighting over a banana! Lets stop it before Big Brother monitor shuts this down.
Anyone have any oil?
Not all Christians hate gays. Freely granted.
Some do. That is easily seen by listening to them rant.
You and the staff at your church can only speak for your church. You cannot say "what Christians really think".
And some parents, not all and not all Christian, do reject their gay kids. They may still "love" them, but if they beat them or kick them out of the house and let them live on the streets, I don't think it really counts.
There is homophobia. It is not made up. People have been beaten and killed for being gay. Or for being thought gay.
And a large part of all of that comes from some churches preaching against homosexuality. "Abomination" and "perversion of nature" do not inspire tolerance and do not help those trying to come to terms with their own homosexuality or that of their loved ones.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: Not all Christians hate gays. Freely granted.
Some do. That is easily seen by listening to them rant.
You and the staff at your church can only speak for your church. You cannot say "what Christians really think".
And some parents, not all and not all Christian, do reject their gay kids. They may still "love" them, but if they beat them or kick them out of the house and let them live on the streets, I don't think it really counts.
There is homophobia. It is not made up. People have been beaten and killed for being gay. Or for being thought gay.
And a large part of all of that comes from some churches preaching against homosexuality. "Abomination" and "perversion of nature" do not inspire tolerance and do not help those trying to come to terms with their own homosexuality or that of their loved ones.
No doubt this comment will get modded out of existence, but: Until we observe it among other animals, I submit that it is religion that is a "perversion of the natural order" (whatever that means).
Ancient Sensei wrote: I'm not normally one for trying to speak on another poster's behalf, but I wanted to address an issue: I think what Aretas was trying got say is that until the last few decades, homosexuality was treated as a mental illness because it was widely believed to be a choice. People with weak parental relationships or poorly developed sexual identities were considered treatable like anyone else. To this day, Christian counselors approach the idea of homosexuality as a choice, and gay men voluntarily set appointments with such counselors to sort through the issues that lead to their orientation. Sometimes it remains a struggle, sometimes they reject the counseling after they try it, and sometimes they leave homosexuality behind and fall for women and raise families. The horror!
Please do not take such comments to mean that Christian psychologists think you can bleed out homosexuality with leeches or what not. I am sure that's not what Aretas meant.
Yeah, we used to think that. Even psychiatry used to consider homosexuality a mental illness. Then they got more data and changed. They learned better.
Gay people, particularly those who have been taught that it is horrible or sinful, do try to change. They go to counseling (and far more extreme approaches, aversion therapy involving electric shocks, for example) and some apparently do change. Of course, some also live in denial for years without therapy before admitting their true nature, much to the distress of their wives and children, so it's hard to say aversion therapy really accomplishes anything.
Ancient Sensei wrote: First, the Bible judges truth. It is not we, Christians or otherwise, who judge the Bible. Oh, really? If that's true, then why did humans have so much debate over which scriptures should be included in the Bible and which shouldn't? That sounds a lot like judging what the Bible should be to me.
Hmmm, interesting thread. While I don't consider myself Christian, I do believe in God. I'm straight as an arrow. I wouldn't say I'm homophobic, and I certainly don't agree with the stance that organized religion has taken against being gay, however, I am not comfortable with homosexuality in general. I've never explored why, don't care to know...until I have to figure it out. I don't care if someone is gay or straight - anything more than a quick hug or holding hands in public needs to be kept in the privacy of your own home. Keep ALL details of your relationship to yourself and your partner/spouse - everyone else, parents, siblings, extended family, friends can go jump off a bridge if they don't like who you're with, it's none of there business...essentially follow the mistakenly discontinued "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.
Now here's where an admission: I'm terrified of waking up and having one, or all three, of my kids 'come out' when they get older. It means I'm going to have to figure out why same-sex relationships bother me and reconcile that with the fact that I've got a child that's gay. I'd like to think I'll get past it, but knowing who I am, will more than likely take the stance: It's your life, live it the way you want, don't tell me about that part of it, I don't want to know.
Another confession, I get in a lot of trouble right now, from a lot of people in my wife's family and my own, when my kids are playing 'house'. Long story short, I've told my boys that "boys don't kiss boys, anything more than a handshake, a high five/hand slap, or a quick hug is inappropriate." I also get yelled at because I am reluctant to hug my boys for more than a second or two, if at all.
Question, Apple: Was that right to do? Perhaps he should be more clear and say, "In a perfect world" or "In theory" or "We are supposed to do this blah blah blah". People seem to love strawmen here.
Now I recall why I tried to leave these forums, and only BUY STUFF here.
What Ancient Sensei said was what is SUPPOSED to happen for Christians. What we are SUPPOSED to realize and how we are SUPPOSED to act. Is that so hard? Christians are not perfect, and we realize this if we are any kind of smart. Yet, you and every other person who prefers to spit bile as opposed to reasonable conversation wants to judge us as though we ARE or HAVE TO BE perfect, simply because we believe in God.
Please, get past the hate in your own heart. You don't have to seek God or even a god to do so, but I've found it actually helps a bit.
TBH I believe it is genetic, but I don't know. If there is an actual "gay gene" then what's the difference? We all sin sometime. Whether you believe in sin or not is another matter.
EDIT: Yay for Gendo. This is what we're SUPPOSED to do: See ourselves, Accept ourselves, Accept others, Reject our flaws and try to push past them. This is a fairly universal concept in religion, right?
Edit the Second: Just thought of a point. Think of homosexuality and all other traits of the mind and body as ability scores. Sometimes you roll high STR, sometimes you roll low. Some people roll low on the Kinsey Scale, sometimes you roll high. Sometimes you roll angry, sometimes you roll nice. Sometimes your will is weak, sometimes it's strong.
In short, if you want to be RPG-ish, some people genetically roll that they have to be angry at something (low CHA), and sometimes they have a hard time not giving into that tendency (low WIS). Just a thought.
Machaeus wrote: Please, get past the hate in your own heart. … Granted I only skimmed Apple's posts, please show me where the hate is?
Machaeus wrote: TBH I believe it is genetic, but I don't know. If there is an actual "gay gene" then what's the difference? We all sin sometime. Whether you believe in sin or not is another matter. What's the difference? Imagine if the bible said that people with your combination of hair and eye color were abominations.
Hippygriff wrote: Machaeus wrote: Please, get past the hate in your own heart. … Granted I only skimmed Apple's posts, please show me where the hate is? Well, that was more an "in general". My apologies for not making that clear. Still, some *cough*Bugleyman*cough* claim intellectual superiority in the same breath they insult me and others like me. (And before anyone asks, no I haven't sought "counseling".)
Hippygriff wrote: Machaeus wrote: TBH I believe it is genetic, but I don't know. If there is an actual "gay gene" then what's the difference? We all sin sometime. Whether you believe in sin or not is another matter. What's the difference? Imagine if the bible said that people with your combination of hair and eye color were abominations.
You missed the rest of my post.
What part of "we are flawed by nature, we believe this is our key to overcoming that and being happy" do you not get?
Knight Protector, you referenced Leviticus as saying that homosexuality is a sin. Leviticus also makes cheeseburgers a sin. Are you cherry-picking? Do you eat cheeseburgers?
Ancient Sensei, it is certainly true that there are Christians who try to claim the Bible says things that it doesn't actually say. For example, the Bible doesn't make homosexuality any worse than eating cheeseburgers.
Let's look at the verses commonnly asserted to be against Christianity
1.) The story of Sodom is commonly claimed to be against homosexuality. But, as Ezekiel shows, the story of Sodom wasn't condemning homosexuality. It was condemning failure to care for the poor.
2.) Leviticus makes homosexuality no worse than eating Hamburger Helper
3.) Romans 1:26-27 refers to men and women exchanging natural sexual relations for unnatural ones - having sex with people of a sex that is not natural to them. Since gays are -born- gay, exchanging natural sexual relations for unnatural ones would involve them having sex with people of the opposite sex.
4.) 1 Corinthians 6:9 "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers--none of these will inherit the kingdom of God." Since most gay men are not male prostitutes, this has nothing to do with homosexuality.
5.) 1 Timothy 1:10 "fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching" Again, no reference to gays.
There is a reference to Sodomy, but "Sodomy" means "like those of Sodom".
Philo describes the people of Sodom as
"As men, being unable to bear discreetly a satiety of these things, get restive like cattle, and become stiff-necked, and discard the laws of nature, pursuing a great and intemperate indulgence of gluttony, and drinking, and unlawful connections; for not only did they go mad after other women, and defile the marriage bed of others, but also those who were men lusted after one another, doing unseemly things, and not regarding or respecting their common nature, and though eager for children, they were convicted by having only an abortive offspring; but the conviction produced no advantage, since they were overcome by violent desire; and so by degrees, the men became accustomed to be treated like women, and in this way engendered among themselves the disease of females, and intolerable evil; for they not only, as to effeminacy and delicacy, became like women in their persons, but they also made their souls most ignoble, corrupting in this way the whole race of men, as far as depended on them"
And Josephus describes the people of Sodom as
"About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, in so much that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices” "Now when the Sodomites saw the young men to be of beautiful countenances, and this to an extraordinary degree, and that they took up their lodgings with Lot, they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence; and when Lot exhorted them to sobriety, and not to offer any thing immodest to the strangers, but to have regard to their lodging in his house; and promised that if their inclinations could not be governed, he would expose his daughters to their lust, instead of these strangers; neither thus were they made ashamed"
In other words, "Sodomy" in the Bible refers to gluttony (not just of food, but of all appetites) and self-indulgence (even to the extent of violence towards others in order to appease one's gluttony).
Why must we be subjected to a religion's idea of what is and isn't a "flaw"? Why condemn someone as a sinner for their biology? Why would a loving god create gay people if being gay is an abomination?
Unfortunately, LilithsThrall, that is arguable. It would be nice if we got some writing in the sky that told us what exactly it was supposed to mean, but there would be people on each "side" who ignored what it meant. And if you recall, seeing just the aftermath of God's power unleashed on Sodom turned someone into a pillar of salt (I'd call it divine fallout, and now I want to make some kind of campaign out of demigod PCs who have to curtail their powers lest chaos reign). Who's to say the same wouldn't happen here if the clouds formed into letters?
EDIT: Hippy,
What religion, including Atheism (yes, I went there), doesn't state that there are flaws in humanity? Who is to say on this mortal coil what a "flaw" is? Scientists? They can be imperfect. Christianity assumes God is perfect, or at least omnipotent. Thus why we accept His law.
You also seem to not recall the story of Jesus. He died to save us from our sins. IE, you are a sinner, or you are a sinner who realizes this and tries to be better than that.
Hell, if you want to be brutally honest, it's those who reject God, not sinners, who perish in Hell, from my (admittedly limited) understanding. If it were sinners, we'd all be screwed. It'd be worse than Shin Megami Tensei with a dose of 1984 and a dash of Brave New World.
Whether I'm right or not, though, is the issue. I'll ask a close friend of mine.
Machaeus wrote: Unfortunately, LilithsThrall, that is arguable. It would be nice if we got some writing in the sky that told us what exactly it was supposed to mean, but there would be people on each "side" who ignored what it meant. And if you recall, seeing just the aftermath of God's power unleashed on Sodom turned someone into a pillar of salt (I'd call it divine fallout, and now I want to make some kind of campaign out of demigod PCs who have to curtail their powers lest chaos reign). Who's to say the same wouldn't happen here if the clouds formed into letters? What is arguable? Are you saying that when Ezekiel says that the sin of Sodom was failure to care for the poor, that it is arguable whether he is actually saying that? Its pretty clear. If a person still finds that 'arguable', then giant letters in the sky won't make it any clearer.
Machaeus wrote: And if you recall, seeing just the aftermath of God's power unleashed on Sodom turned someone into a pillar of salt (I'd call it divine fallout, and now I want to make some kind of campaign out of demigod PCs who have to curtail their powers lest chaos reign). Who's to say the same wouldn't happen here if the clouds formed into letters? Logic. If god really wanted people to see, understand, and spread a message it would be absurd for him to choose a method that would kill those that see it.
I think we are sort of wasting our time talking about religion and sexuality, because at the end of the day there is no logic in arguning with these guys because their final standpoint is always 'faith', which is not really based on reason and proof.
Best to keep the efforts focused on the ascendant Secular population and see that they grow fully into a balanced and rational population who don't harbour old ignorances.
Gendo wrote: Hmmm, interesting thread. While I don't consider myself Christian, I do believe in God. I'm straight as an arrow. I wouldn't say I'm homophobic, and I certainly don't agree with the stance that organized religion has taken against being gay, however, I am not comfortable with homosexuality in general. I've never explored why, don't care to know...until I have to figure it out. I don't care if someone is gay or straight - anything more than a quick hug or holding hands in public needs to be kept in the privacy of your own home. Keep ALL details of your relationship to yourself and your partner/spouse - everyone else, parents, siblings, extended family, friends can go jump off a bridge if they don't like who you're with, it's none of there business...essentially follow the mistakenly discontinued "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.
Now here's where an admission: I'm terrified of waking up and having one, or all three, of my kids 'come out' when they get older. It means I'm going to have to figure out why same-sex relationships bother me and reconcile that with the fact that I've got a child that's gay. I'd like to think I'll get past it, but knowing who I am, will more than likely take the stance: It's your life, live it the way you want, don't tell me about that part of it, I don't want to know.
Another confession, I get in a lot of trouble right now, from a lot of people in my wife's family and my own, when my kids are playing 'house'. Long story short, I've told my boys that "boys don't kiss boys, anything more than a handshake, a high five/hand slap, or a quick hug is inappropriate." I also get yelled at because I am reluctant to hug my boys for more than a second or two, if at all.
You might want to try to deal with it before you're forced to. It'll be easier for you and much easier for your kids if they do turn out to be gay. Do you want them afraid to tell you?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "Keep ALL details of your relationship to yourself and your partner/spouse"? Does that include the existence of the relationship? No one needs to talk about intimate details, but what about the normal things that everyone does talk about? "Yeah, I saw that movie with my boyfriend last week." "I don't know what to get my husband for Christmas." Etc.
Everyone else "can go jump off a bridge if they don't like who you're with, it's none of there business" seems to counter that.
And for the record: Don't ask, don't tell wasn't quite what it sounded like. It meant you would be discharged if anyone officially found out you were homosexual. In practice it wasn't about not making a big deal about it. It was about hiding. Lying. Getting caught when someone accuses you.
I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm jumping on you. I think you're trying and don't intend any harm, but it's easy to slip into the "why can't they just keep it to themselves and not bother me" thought process, without realizing just how hard that really is.
Hippygriff wrote: Why must we be subjected to a religion's idea of what is and isn't a "flaw"? Why condemn someone as a sinner for their biology? Why would a loving god create gay people if being gay is an abomination? The Religion doesn't condemn gays, some religious people do. What the religion provides is a common body of knowledge - a domain language as it were - whereby we can reach these bigots and attempt to show them the error of their ways.
Machaeus wrote: Question, Apple: Was that right to do? Perhaps he should be more clear and say, "In a perfect world" or "In theory" or "We are supposed to do this blah blah blah". People seem to love strawmen here.
Now I recall why I tried to leave these forums, and only BUY STUFF here.
What Ancient Sensei said was what is SUPPOSED to happen for Christians. What we are SUPPOSED to realize and how we are SUPPOSED to act. Is that so hard? Christians are not perfect, and we realize this if we are any kind of smart. Yet, you and every other person who prefers to spit bile as opposed to reasonable conversation wants to judge us as though we ARE or HAVE TO BE perfect, simply because we believe in God.
Please, get past the hate in your own heart. You don't have to seek God or even a god to do so, but I've found it actually helps a bit.
TBH I believe it is genetic, but I don't know. If there is an actual "gay gene" then what's the difference? We all sin sometime. Whether you believe in sin or not is another matter.
What I said isn't in any way, shape, or form hateful. I was just pointing something out that goes contrary to what he said. The truth of the matter is that humans did judge what should and shouldn't go into the Bible, and a lot of scripture got left out. That is a nonjudgmental statement of fact. I didn't say "screw all Christians for judging the Bible" or anything, I just pointed out how the Bible came into being and how it contradicts his statement.
...I can't really blame Hippygriff for missing the strawman I made. The argument wasn't perfect, I knew that. And those fleeing Sodom were warned not to look. I was just spouting off like a retard. Typical me.
Shifty: You DO realize that that's not going to help your case, right? People are already scared enough about their children going to public schools and being brainwashed to not accept anything but the government as a god.
And besides, you haven't had any close encounters.
EDIT: Apple, I already said that I meant that as a general. Perhaps I'm more retarded than I thought, looking back at my post. Do I need to edit?
Machaeus wrote: Shifty: You DO realize that that's not going to help your case, right? People are already scared enough about their children going to public schools and being brainwashed to not accept anything but the government as a god.
And besides, you haven't had any close encounters.
Wow I wonder if thats really what the religious nutters think?
And I will admit, no close encounters with any Aliens... except this guy who was here to carry out domestic chores.
Obvious bait. Not going to eat it. Troll for my breed of fish elsewhere.
To think I used to like ninja-boy's posts.
LilithsThrall wrote:
The Religion doesn't condemn gays, some religious people do. What the religion provides is a common body of knowledge - a domain language as it were - whereby we can reach these bigots and attempt to show them the error of their ways. Godspeed, LT. You're a better man than I.
LilithsThrall wrote: Hippygriff wrote: Why must we be subjected to a religion's idea of what is and isn't a "flaw"? Why condemn someone as a sinner for their biology? Why would a loving god create gay people if being gay is an abomination? The Religion doesn't condemn gays, some religious people do. What the religion provides is a common body of knowledge - a domain language as it were - whereby we can reach these bigots and attempt to show them the error of their ways. Yeah… I should've logged out hours ago…
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Oh I'm being deadly serious.
I'm sure that most (99%) religious folk are normal and sensible people who completely accept that government is there for the administration of our society, and to ensure we have things like schools and roads; the thought that a Govt could be used as a Deific figure (or that people believe that the Govt is trying to get people to believe it is) is 'nuts', hence they'd be 'nutters'.
Secular nutters on the other hand have their own delusional fears no doubt, but those delusional wouldn't be about Govt trying to become God.
You lost me on the Close Encounters bit anyway, no idea what that was about :p
Quote: or atheists using it to concoct reasons not to believe based on something the Bible doesn't actually say, both behaviors are wrong. You have a bad habit of insisting this is happening by conflating "this is how I interpret the bible" with "this is what the bible says". You engage in the very behavior you're decrying here by selecting which bible verses to bounce off of each other.
Neither I, nor any other atheist i know, needs to "concoct" a reason not to believe the bible.
Quote: any more than needing conservatives to be racists makes us so. There's a high correlation between conservative areas and racist and "homophobic" ones. (I don't like the term either. I dislike broccoli. I don't run out of the room when its present). Applying a real, statistical trend to every individual is a very human failing, but so is applying one singular exception as the rule. "you are a conservative , therefore you are a racist" is unfounded and wrong. "The government is conservative, therefore its racist and hates gays" has unfortunately been an all too direct observation. SOMETHING has to be causing that, and the only sensible answer is that its the conservatives themselves. Conservative ideology is ostensibly about letting people run their own lives without government intrusion, and its hard to imagine anything more intrusive than the government deciding which tab can go into which slot.
|
