Page 3 of 9 [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9  Next

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

28 Jul 2008, 8:24 pm

nightbender wrote:
Laws, Symposium, Phraedrus
And birth control is evil

Are you Catholic?

I don't see any great evil in birth control. If everyone were like the Irish, this world would be far too crowded. Anyways, simply because Plato wrote it doesn't mean it's true.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

28 Jul 2008, 8:33 pm

The_Cucumber wrote:
The justification for religious homophobia is found in the book of Leviticus.... roughly one page before it also condemns wearing clothing of more than one fabric.

Well, no, it is found in both the New and the Old Testament. So, this characterization of it only being Leviticus is false, and a mischaracterization by those who dislike Christian opposition to homosexuality. I mean, I already cited 1 Cor 6:9, which states:

1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

and there is also 1 Timothy 1:9-10

1 Timothy 1:9-10 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, (10) the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

Both of these are in the found in the ESV if one doubts the translation I am using. Now, we can argue that Christianity is wrong, but considering homosexuality to be immoral is much more established than laws on cloth, or a number of the other things that people try to draw as equivalent to homosexuality found in Leviticus.



Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 29 Jul 2008, 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

28 Jul 2008, 8:45 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Now, we can argue that Christianity is wrong, but considering homosexuality to be immoral is much more established than laws on cloth, or a number of the other things that people try to draw as equivalent to homosexuality found in Leviticus.

What do you care? I thought you were a moral nihilist.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Judith
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 85
Location: NOVA

28 Jul 2008, 8:47 pm

[quote="Ancalagon]By saying "still be", you're assuming that it is one now, which is debatable.

Most Christians who are against homosexuality are actually against homosexual acts, rather than the orientation itself. Assuming that homosexuality is wrong the question reduces to: if you had a genetic predisposition to stealing, does that mean stealing's okay? After all, you can control your actions, even if you can't control your impulse.

I'd generally consider anyone who's against the orientation to be ignorant or stupid.[/quote]

I said "still be" mainly because mainline Christian sects do consider it a sin. This is not my own personal opinion. I strongly suspect that the straight/gay continuum is genetic to a great degree and have noted that it isn't necessarily an all or nothing orientation. All people are deserving of unconditional love because they are human beings. Period. If we begin to judge them based on what we perceive as a sin, we forget that all sin carried the exact same price, and therefore is equal in its cost and in its wrongness. How many of us are willing to be judged as harshly as we judge those we know who are gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual?

IMHO, the only time that we should judge should be for discernment for the safety of our families. I would not be likely to allow a known pedophile to sleep over in my kid's room. That's just common sense. There's a difference between that and the sort of judgement that's been seen in some of these posts.

Judith



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

28 Jul 2008, 9:12 pm

Orwell wrote:
What do you care? I thought you were a moral nihilist.

A moral nihilist can still have a concern about good theology, can't he? I was not arguing outside of the Christian logic, but only within it, as noted by the statement "Now, we can argue that Christianity is wrong". Christianity presupposes morality, so, to say "considering homosexuality to be immoral is much more established" can be a correct statement no matter who says it so long as they aren't an epistemic nihilist or a metaphysical nihilist or something of that sort, as I never invoked morality by saying "established" only correct hermeneutic.



Malsane
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 29 Jun 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 346
Location: Iowa, USA

28 Jul 2008, 11:51 pm

This article made the fury rise in me. [sarcasm]How large of her to consider gays human![/sarcasm] This is one of the reasons I really dislike Christianity. It causes so much hate, sadness, and pain. There is no good reason for such harm to occur. So many gays die from hate crimes and suicide because of bigotry.



nightbender
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,203

29 Jul 2008, 9:57 am

Orwell wrote:
nightbender wrote:
Laws, Symposium, Phraedrus
And birth control is evil

Are you Catholic?

I don't see any great evil in birth control. If everyone were like the Irish, this world would be far too crowded. Anyways, simply because Plato wrote it doesn't mean it's true.


yes



nightbender
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,203

29 Jul 2008, 10:06 am

Malsane wrote:
This article made the fury rise in me. [sarcasm]How large of her to consider gays human![/sarcasm] This is one of the reasons I really dislike Christianity. It causes so much hate, sadness, and pain. There is no good reason for such harm to occur. So many gays die from hate crimes and suicide because of bigotry.


your comments have made a fury rise in me.

Christiany has been the greatest force for good in history. All the wonderful things in Western society( rule of law, indiviudual rigths, respect for the human person, tolerance, forgivness) arouse out of Christiany)

source
Dinesh D'souza Whats so great about Christiany

and most hate crimes are faked, and the sucide rate for homesexuals is extremely high in places such as holland that have completely accepted the practise.

your confusing the dispensalist types that got their divinty degree from a mail order school with the geniune church

you forget the defination of bigotry is zealousy holding to a opinon you do not agree with.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,829
Location: Stendec

29 Jul 2008, 10:12 am

nightbender wrote:
Christiany has been the greatest force for good in history. All the wonderful things in Western society( rule of law, indiviudual rigths, respect for the human person, tolerance, forgivness) arouse out of Christiany)

source
Dinesh D'souza Whats so great about Christiany

So who is this guy and whay should anyone believe him? Did he die on a cross or something?


_________________
 
“I must acknowledge, once and for all, that the
purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis.”

— Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock, in the Star Trek
episode "The Mark of Gideon" (ep. 3.16, 1969)


nightbender
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,203

29 Jul 2008, 10:24 am

are you refering to me, D'nesh D'souza, or Jesus Christ :?



ed
Odd Duck
Odd Duck

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,878
Location: Whitinsville, MA

29 Jul 2008, 11:07 am

I think Christians have forgotten who it is that they worship.

Jesus was the Son of God. Therefore everything that He said can be considered the Word of God. Notably, He never said anything about homosexuality, either positive or negative. We do know that He befriended Mary Magdalene, a prostitute, and rebuked his apostles for criticizing her.

Paul was not the Son of God. He never met Jesus, never heard Him speak, never even saw Him. He was an anti-Christian bigot who reportedly had a change-of-heart, and became a pro-Christian bigot. Those who take Paul's word over the Word of God are worshiping a false prophet.



nightbender
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,203

29 Jul 2008, 11:36 am

the idea of mary mageldene being a prostitute comes from a mideaval pope. Nothing in the gospels mention the prostitute being mary magedelen.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,829
Location: Stendec

29 Jul 2008, 1:05 pm

nightbender wrote:
are you refering to me, D'nesh D'souza, or Jesus Christ :?

I had highlighted the name D'nesh D'souza to make it obvious as to whom I referred.


_________________
 
“I must acknowledge, once and for all, that the
purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis.”

— Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock, in the Star Trek
episode "The Mark of Gideon" (ep. 3.16, 1969)


nightbender
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,203

29 Jul 2008, 1:11 pm

he is a big tiem conservative activist and writer recently published a book detailling the achievenments of Christianity and it contributions to western civilation challenging Christiopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and their ilk.



ThatRedHairedGrrl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,037
Location: Walking through a shopping mall listening to Half Japanese on headphones

29 Jul 2008, 1:30 pm

Quote:
Adultery and murder were banned then and are just as banned now.


But that depends on how you define those offences, too.

Murder back then simply meant the killing of another member of the Hebrew nation (it's blindingly obvious from other parts of the Old Testament that killing people from the surrounding 'filthy heathen' nations was perfectly OK if God told you to.) And adultery meant a married woman sleeping with another man, or a man sleeping with a married woman. The marital status of the man meant nothing, as has been the case for adultery laws throughout most human cultures in history, because adultery was a property crime - a man ruining another man's property, i.e. 'his' woman, by possibly impregnating her and therefore casting doubt on the paternity of the kids he'd be raising. The same applied to sex before marriage - for a female only - it was making a girl worth less to her dad, who legally owned her and would get good money for her on her marriage if she were a virgin.

Similarly, you have to look at the cultural context to see what the ban on homosexuality was actually all about. Most references to 'homosexuality' in the Bible, more likely than not, don't refer to what we today would call a gay relationship. Complicated, but more here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

What I find slightly annoying is when I hear Christians say, in justification of their sexual rules, 'God intended for sex to be an act of love within marriage between one man and one woman...' when our very idea of marriage as a relationship based on love, rather than a financial transaction between a man and a girl's father, only came into existence very recently. Have rules if you want to, but please don't give them modern justification when they actually originate in a very primitive culture indeed, and had a totally different meaning to the one you give them.

Anyway...my main response to that article was...how very sad. For the son, yes, but also for the mother. Because, there must be a real agony of a struggle going on in her heart and mind. When you deeply believe in a God who will forever reject your own flesh and blood, your child (or regard the child as having rejected him, it's the same thing) for being the person he is...you either have to come down on one side or the other, reject God or reject your son...or you have to compartmentalize yourself to a degree I can't even imagine. Unless he changes his persuasion, and he's highly unlikely to - those schemes for 'curing' homosexuality have a success rate of virtually nil, even if he wanted to change - she's going to live the rest of her life trying to deal with that.


_________________
"Grunge? Isn't that some gross shade of greenish orange?"