Why do Christians like to fixate so much on homosexuality?

Post Reply New Topic

Well you seem to have the right of it so I would not get too bent out of shape over it.
A value is worth defending. Defend it with integrity and fiercely.
Just don't take to heart someone saying something that is false. Know it for what it is and let it go.

Because they know something that you don't?

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3376181.html

This is what they mean when they say that it will bring "the end of civilization". It will, in a way.

Civilization was a wrong turning.

Technology is fine - but civilization is a cancer.

If I were God, and had to be watching everybody all the time, I might be tempted to say "Okay. Will somebody please stone these guys to death?" I must be more powerful than God, in fact, because I can just delete a file or close a browser window. God doesn't have this power. He and I both have the same tastes in porn, and really don't want to watch male-on-male.

Romans 1:24-29



Actually if you are homosexual and seeking shelter you are far better off going into a Christian Church than a police station in most parts of the world.

Romans 1:26 reads



It doesn't say that this was specifically Lesbianism. It could have been bestiality, which is expressly forbidden.

And, anyway, Romans 1:24 reads



Whatever they did was God's idea in the first place.

It would be possible - and I think more effective both as point and entertainment - to do the same thing with NON-absurd logic and real evidence.

Not my business to show you how, but the "God's idea in the first place" is weak.

You can do better.

Sounds like a challenge



Yes or a Christian boarding school. I know this I read the papers.


Now let's place the bibles down and stop trying to sift through its contents for what verse may possibly under some interpretation back a point.
Let's look at things logically a second.

I knew a guy who was properly the equal in scholarly recital of the bible. His kids were good kids. Both were well-mannered. The eldest had a very jumpy and nervous disposition. She at 10 had a very bad bedwetting problem.
I found out that this bastard saw fit to beat his daughter with a long rod when he felt she did wrong. Completely justified in his belief.

Sounds kind of wrong doesn't it. Morally makes him a bad person.

Not so apparently. "Spare the rod and spoil the child". Is that in the bible? What does it mean? It IS in there right? Bad and white? God's word? Did it give rise for his behaviour or ways of dealing with his child?

Yes. It could have meant simply that children ought to learn that they will be punished for indiscretions and that not to do so does not help them? Or perhaps it means that big rod-like pieces of wood are fair game for using against children? Or perhaps it has some other meaning that some guy writing it meant specifically or generally 2000 years ago that may have had context at the time or may even apply now.

Have a shot at it people. What do you think?

So now let's, with this uncertainty of interpretation of exactly what constitutes clear dictate from God, look at the bible. I think we, if we are to see goodness and value in there need to have this kind of generalised perception of what the bible is "supposed" to be.
"Be good to those around you", "Be a loving person", "help each other", "Do not steal, rape, murder, disgrace yourself or your family". These are concepts that are actually good and moral and helpful.
These are the types of things that good and moral people ought to aim for and are backed strongly by the bible and its teachings.

You can select a verse or two to try to make a point or two if it will make you feel better and more self-righteous in acting in a way that does not support these principles but I feel that in doing so that if there is a God in Heaven he would be looking down on you for doing so with an exasperated countenance and say to the long dead Gospel writers "You see how they are reading it now? Why did you put that in there? Can't you see they are too stupid and arrogant to not read it their way"

But let's take it just one step further. A tolerant and morally good man will find no fault in people finding themselves and finding ways to be accepting of themselves and of finding love and comfort in others who can reciprocate the same. He will see little worth in people being miserable and unable to feel good about themselves and to be isolated by their identities. He would be able to see the worth for the community to allow people to find their way and no doubt support them in being tolerant and morally good people.

Were a Christian to object strongly to taking this role and say "Yes, yes, except the heathens, the gays, the witches, the infidels, they can all be damned and burn for eternity" I suspect they are not anymore tolerant or good than that terrible man with the bedwetting daughter, regardless of what verse they can cherry pick.

So



is THAT better

My point was addressed to pandabear who has a tendency to adopt personae and modulate both logic and evidence in ways that are on the whole more skilful and less annoying than some, but still occasionally confusing to a literalist who cannot be certainn which hat he is talking through.

I have not yet, I think, had occasion to characterize or in depth critique you, but no matter.

Your post [no, I do not do challenges, though you are free to take anything as a benchmark by which to test yourself] is on the whole not a bad effort. Some syntactic issues, but as I pointed out a while back to pandabear it is not really justified in this forum and this medium to hold spelling against the poster, and I woulld say the dame for syntax.

I see just two logicologistical problems -

FIRST you are really arguing a straw man when you [for you here read "one", this applies to many not just you] argue that Christians do / have done / will do stupid sinful evil things. Not only do people of any and all orientations frequently do stupid sinful evil things - which of course is no excuse - there is nobody contending with you. I know only one person claiming Christianity who MIGHT claim to be beyond sin [part of the doctrine of her church], but even she would not maintain that other Christians are sinless and blameless. That is part of the doctrines of most of our churches and many of us are frequently if not constantly aware of our shortcomings.

We do not always respond appropriately - when someone says "You Christians do bad things", we should simply say, "Absolutely. What else is new?" We do not always so respond.

SECOND you do not separate part from whole.

Consider:

People who follow Christ are called Christians.
Ergo anyone who is called a Christian follows Christ.

...NOT

Some Christians consider the Bible an inerrant encyclopaedia and rule book.
Ergo all Christians hold this view of the Bible.

...NOT

Some who call themselves Christians cite certain scriptures as justifying often very undesirable practices, frequently ignoring context and twisting the meaning [Peter in one of his ep;istlses complains aboutr this, as do I]
ERGO all Christians back their evil deeds and attitudes with Bible quotes.

...NOT

Of course, both of these are very common in this forum and other venues where religion is seen as appropriately the object of political polemic and action, rather than philosophical discussion and reasoning.

------------

Disclaimer - some people here seem to think my doing the professor thing a pose and a sneer. In fact I have talked this way since forever and in this post I am responding to your tone as I read it by intending to be friendly and helpful - you DID close with "is THAT better Wink"

No you misjudged what I was intending to put forth
Basically said cherry-picking verses from the bible out of context to make a case against a people (in particular homosexual people) is wrong and in the same way as choosing the (cherry-picking) the spare the rod and spoil the child is wrong.
My example of the man beating his child is an example of this and yet in this thread and others we see Christian people doing exactly this.
Are all Christians this way inclined?
No but the Christians who do are?
Is picking out the bits that make your point and discarding the bits that don't a good practice? I do not believe so.
So we have a dilemma.
What makes a good Christian?
One who knows the book inside out and can use any points in isolation to make a case for their righteous points of view? "Look it says here Verse blah, line blah, blah, blah...word of God right there. If I behave in this way I am excused from all examination because I believe in God and am therefore doing what he says"? Maybe. But were that person to take into account aspects like the man beating his child with rods and say "Well he is a bad Christian" or "Well yes but that aspect ought not be followed in that way because it is not in line with my belief structure" Then that person is not a Good Christian, that Christian is a hypocrite.
Maybe a Good Christian is someone who works within the "spirit" of the bible and afford the bible not an absolute verse by verse truth but as a guide to morality. A Christian who believes strongly in the community building and binding principles of the bible.
Maybe a Good and moral Christian is one who would not shun homosexuals and see them as an abomination in the same way they would not see a Child beating Father in positive light. Maybe a good Christian is moral enough not to gauge their interpretations of the bible as absolutes and see more value in conforming to the general principles of a gentle, tolerant, Christian ethos.
There are indeed many (if not most Christians) who do that.
I tend to concentrate solely on actions and behaviours of a person regardless of their own religion or sexual identity or culture or race or creed. I believe there is value there.

We may perhaps be on close enough to common ground. Christians - not everyone who assumes the name merits it, as Jesus repeatedly indicates. For the Christ, it lies in the intent and the attitude and yes, we muck it up like every other human, but we try.

Whether we like it or not, homosexuals are still on the list of Green Monkeys [anybody not familiar, I reexplain here the concept comes from a story based on the alleged fact - true for all I know to the contrary - that if you paint a monkey green the others in the group will attack it]. In the US homosexuals are Green Monkeys, Aspies are Green Monkeys, Christians in Academia who Come Out are Green Monkeys - you can maker your own list, it varies a bit with community, in a lot of places AfroAmericans and Muslims are Green Monkeys.

The Green Monkeys we have always with us, and not all can stay in the closet and not all can fake normal social interaction and by no means all can be gleichgeschaltet by our so wonderful schools. AND that means there are other monkey who will attack them [including always some who will attack so no one will see THEM as Green Monkeys].

And it does not matter in the LEAST if the one attacking Green Monkeys does so because of scriptures which say - or can be made to say - they are abominable or designed to be subservient or enemies of God ---- or because of "scientific" studies which show them to be inferior or defective or enemies of the State.

It would be more honest if the Green Monkey hater just said "I don't like them". That is what one good socialist racist i knew said - straightforward, honest, I respect him for that much. But whatever he says, however he justifies it, he WILL git them godless race-defiling subhuman mongrel Green Monkeys.

It is noteworthy that Jesus and Gautama do not model anti-Green Monkeyism. Those who do - that strikes me as prima facie evidence they are not folloeing the one they claim to follow.

OK in short....YES.

I do not think it ought to be at all a hard thing for a moral Christian to follow moral beliefs and reconcile this against the bible. In fact doing the opposite ought to be harder and yet I see a lot of intolerance or difficulties by some members in doing exactly this.

But then your last paragraph makes this point well.

Thanks for taking the time o respond in the way you did. Much appreciated.

Well, Christians also "fixate" on murderers, rapists, child molesters and thieves.

So what's your point?

Murderers murder and hurt people and society as a whole by their actions.

Rapists rape and hurt people and society as a whole by their actions.

Child molesters molest children and hurt people and society as a whole by their actions.

Thieves steal and hurt people and society as a whole by their actions.

What was your point?

Are you seriously comparing homosexuals to murderers?

Seems a very bad comparison. Not very tolerant