gays are deformed ....

[Telstra]

I wouldn't waste your time arguing with her whether it is nurture or nature - what difference does it make - either way it wasn't your choice who to be attracted to. Just explain to her, or in fact ask her "why would I choose to be attracted to men" I don't know why i'm like this, but I am, what am I supposed to do.

I've had a lot of success with that line of questioning

Thats why Sy Rogers comes in ....
http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=278332



Repent and don't sin LOL. Well sucking cock isn't a sin ..

 

[Kulindahr]

why are some religious people so irritated by
other peoples sexuality ?

Is it because they are sexually confused ?

Well, what poolerboy said above -- they think it'll tear the social fabric.

But really, it's because we evolved in a situation where reproductivity was highly important, and anyone not likely to reproduce was a liability to the tribe. So it's their DNA telling them we're a threat.

 

[kallipolis]

...and thus they put it into their 'sacred' scriptures* in order to pretend that 'God' is against homosexuality and thus justify their own bigotry on grounds of religion.


*Presumably 'God' is quite content with this situation, or one might have expected 'Him' to let them know that they were/are in error.

Only if they were listening. Which I some how doubt.

 

[Telstra]

Well, what poolerboy said above -- they think it'll tear the social fabric.

But really, it's because we evolved in a situation where reproductivity was highly important, and anyone not likely to reproduce was a liability to the tribe. So it's their DNA telling them we're a threat.

Actually i am quite annoyed with her.
Basically she viewed homosexual couples as a thread to society.
She said homosexual couples should not adopt children because of setting bad examples ... etc ...

She said god say this and god say that.
I said god is silent. God doesn't come from human mouths holes !!!

 

[Deandbn]

^ she is brainwashed by "god (the bible)" .......


She won't change her mind.

Then why are you wasting your time on her.

Let her live in cloud cuckoo land if she wants.

She could even live in cloud ostrich land if she liked and dig her head in the sand.

"]Wish her well as you wave her goodbye tra-la-la

The ignorant girl

 

[Kulindahr]

I wouldn't waste your time arguing with her whether it is nurture or nature - what difference does it make - either way it wasn't your choice who to be attracted to. Just explain to her, or in fact ask her "why would I choose to be attracted to men" I don't know why i'm like this, but I am, what am I supposed to do.

I've had a lot of success with that line of questioning

That's a very strong argument: "If it's a choice, why did I choose it?" Furthermore, "Why didn't I know I chose it?" Beyond that, "How did I choose it when I wasn't old enough to get sexually aroused?"

It just doesn't make sense that anyone would choose something that gets people thrown out of their churches, rejected by families and tossed out of their houses by parents, beat up if they live in the wrong places, denies them many legal benefits and privileges, and makes many of them miserable for their entire lives.

Besides which: if it's a choice, why are there thousands upon thousands of men who try counseling, prayer, fasting, casting-out spirits, anointing with oil, and everything else known to man in order to change... and can't?

 

[Kulindahr]

Actually i am quite annoyed with her.
Basically she viewed homosexual couples as a thread to society.
She said homosexual couples should not adopt children because of setting bad examples ... etc ...

She said god say this and god say that.
I said god is silent. God doesn't come from human mouths holes !!!

Did you try the points I made from the Bible? If she's talking from anything earlier than the book of Matthew, it doesn't count -- God says so, in the Book of Acts, when He tells the Apostles what rules there should be for Gentile Christians... and He doesn't put "being gay" in there.

Then there's that wonderful video from West Wing....




edit: There's no point in telling her "God is silent" -- she doesn't believe that. You have to meet this on her terms, or just forget it. That means learning what the Bible really has to say, and showing her that she's wrong. For example, 'evangelicals' love to quote Paul's statements, but at least one of them is about promiscuity, not about being gay -- and given that, there are just as many straight people working on going to hell as there are gays.

 

[Kulindahr]

...and thus they put it into their 'sacred' scriptures* in order to pretend that 'God' is against homosexuality and thus justify their own bigotry on grounds of religion.

<sigh>

No one caught my ironic humor?

 

[Telstra]

Did you try the points I made from the Bible? If she's talking from anything earlier than the book of Matthew, it doesn't count -- God says so, in the Book of Acts, when He tells the Apostles what rules there should be for Gentile Christians... and He doesn't put "being gay" in there.

Then there's that wonderful video from West Wing....




edit: There's no point in telling her "God is silent" -- she doesn't believe that. You have to meet this on her terms, or just forget it. That means learning what the Bible really has to say, and showing her that she's wrong. For example, 'evangelicals' love to quote Paul's statements, but at least one of them is about promiscuity, not about being gay -- and given that, there are just as many straight people working on going to hell as there are gays.

She read so many christians books.
I know enough off what the bible is about and don't need any quotes from the bible.

Logical discussion without quotes from the bible is better.
Illogical discussion always get quotes from the bible.

She said the bible is inspired by god. If no quotes from the bible, there is nothing to discuss because you don't believe in god.

I said you don't that.

 

[Kulindahr]

She read so many christians books.
I know enough off what the bible is about and don't need any quotes from the bible.

Logical discussion without quotes from the bible is better.
Illogical discussion always get quotes from the bible.

She said the bible is inspired by god. If no quotes from the bible, there is nothing to discuss because you don't believe in god.

I said you don't that.

Logical discussion based on the Bible is better.

That's what the West Wing episode was about, as well as the passages I referenced: if she's quoting anything at all from the Old Testament as a rule, then she is wrong -- according to the Bible.


The main reason is that if you aren't quoting from the Bible, she won't believe you're being logical: from her point of view, there's no such thing as logic without the Bible, so anything you say arrives at her brain as being superstition, lies of the devil, or whatever. The fact that in reality her view is closer to superstition won't ever cross her mind until she can be shown from the Bible that what she is spouting is wrong.

Not that such an occurrence is likely: most such people don't actually believe the Bible, but a set of views that they already decided is what the Bible is going to say, before they even go there -- like the preachers who tried to uphold slavery based on race, a couple of centuries back.

BTW, slavery is a good comparison: it's allowed, with restrictions, in the Old Testament; it's tolerated, with more restrictions and with serious admonitions, in the New -- but it didn't take too long before Christians started to realize that the basic premises of the Bible's message leave no room for slavery. A similar case can be made for homosexuality: once it was condemned and the penalty was death; then it was condemned and the penalty was exclusion -- and now it should be accepted or at least tolerated. The principle in both cases is the same: once it was proper to subject other humans to inhumane treatment, but it is no longer.

 

[poolerboy]

once it was proper to subject other humans to inhumane treatment

It is never right to enslave (let alone beat) a person or stone a child because he is unruly. The Jews, who only have the Hebrew scriptures, I guess are fucked.

Moreover, there are also N.T. homosexual passages. I'm guessing the next step is to interpret these into a way that satisfies our current standard of decency rather than be honest about the actual intent of the author and meaning to readers around that time. As they say, go with God (so to speak).

 

[Telstra]

She read so many christian books.
I know enough [STRIKE]off[/STRIKE] of what the bible is about and don't need any quotes from the bible.

Logical discussion without quotes from the bible is better.
Illogical discussion always get quotes from the bible.

She said the bible is inspired by god ...if no quotes from the bible, there is nothing to discuss because you don't believe in god.

I said you don't know who believe or don't believe in god .

i have to correct the errors .

 

[Kulindahr]

Moreover, there are also N.T. homosexual passages. I'm guessing the next step is to interpret these into a way that satisfies our current standard of decency rather than be honest about the actual intent of the author and meaning to readers around that time. As they say, go with God (so to speak).

Red what I wrote above, about slavery.

 

[poolerboy]

Red what I wrote above, about slavery.

I did read it. I feel the comparison is not apt as you open the door to have a whole host of sins be done away with merely because of this view of dereliction.

 

[hotatlboi]

Here we go again, didn't really want to get into this since it's off topic for this thread but I can't let this foolishness go.

it's allowed, with restrictions, in the Old Testament

You can beat your slaves to the point of death, as long as they eventually recover. Really noble restriction there.

it's tolerated, with more restrictions and with serious admonitions, in the New

Nope, nothing about slavery really changed much in the new. The old Mosaic law was never repudiated or deemed incorrect. Hell Jesus even confirmed the correctness of slave abuse when he said the servant who doesn't do his master's will shall be beaten with many blows (Luke 12:47).

but it didn't take too long before Christians started to realize that the basic premises of the Bible's message leave no room for slavery.

Except for where it is explicitly commanded for slaves to respect and obey their masters in the NT (by Jesus, Paul, et al).

once it was proper to subject other humans to inhumane treatment, but it is no longer.

Quite correct. But that's because of sociological change about the value of human life and freedom, not some profound new understanding of why the Bible really condemns slavery, because it doesn't. The Bible was actually used to defend slavery for a long time (just as it is used to defend homophobia today).

 

[Kulindahr]

I did read it. I feel the comparison is not apt as you open the door to have a whole host of sins be done away with merely because of this view of dereliction.

It only opens the door to having people treated as people.

 

[Kulindahr]

Here we go again, didn't really want to get into this since it's off topic for this thread but I can't let this foolishness go.

The foolishness is that you're acting like a fundamentalist and not paying attention to the whole picture -- for example, history and what the Bible teaches about people.

Christians began noticing as early as the fourth century that slavery was incompatible with the real message of the Bible; specifically, that since man is made in the image of God, and since Jesus is the True Image of God, and since Jesus died equally for all, then it is, in essence, blasphemy for one man to claim ownership over another.

For those who actually read the Bible, it's the principles such as that which constitute the real message -- as even the apostle Paul, who tolerates slavery in his letters, demonstrates in his arguments from the Old testament (Galatians is particularly sharp in this). The principles always trump the details, which are acknowledged as fleeting -- consider Jesus approval of the violation of a number of Old Testament laws by individuals such as David.

Quite correct. But that's because of sociological change about the value of human life and freedom, not some profound new understanding of why the Bible really condemns slavery, because it doesn't. The Bible was actually used to defend slavery for a long time (just as it is used to defend homophobia today).

It was the real understanding of the Bible that drove the change: society didn't catch up until a good fifteen centuries after the Bible's message on the subject of slavery was grasped. Even the much-despised Roman church taught that slavery was against the dignity of man, long before there was racial slavery in existence.

What something is used for isn't definitive of what that thing is. I've seen people use baseball bats to get into houses, but that says something only about the people using them, not about the bats.

 

[Dolmance]

That's a very strong argument: "If it's a choice, why did I choose it?" Furthermore, "Why didn't I know I chose it?" Beyond that, "How did I choose it when I wasn't old enough to get sexually aroused?"

It just doesn't make sense that anyone would choose something that gets people thrown out of their churches, rejected by families and tossed out of their houses by parents, beat up if they live in the wrong places, denies them many legal benefits and privileges, and makes many of them miserable for their entire lives.

Besides which: if it's a choice, why are there thousands upon thousands of men who try counseling, prayer, fasting, casting-out spirits, anointing with oil, and everything else known to man in order to change... and can't?

Hey there Kulindahr,

I think an even stronger argument that you can build from this is: how does it matter one way or the other? It is my considered and sincere opinion that the bleating about "choice" routinely vomitted up by homophobes is a red herring: a very deliberate attempt to obfuscate and distract from the real issue, which is: how is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation legitimate?

To clarify: let us theoretically allow those who bleat on about homosexuality being a matter of conscious choice their assumption. The only response any reasonable or considered human being can give is: so what? Is the discrimination and outright spite they evince towards self proclaimed homosexuals any more valid for that? Unless they can rationally and logically determine and express how the "choice" impacts negatively on anyone outside of those who make it, then their position is still ilegitimate, even within the confines of the assumption they feel obliged to assert.

 

[Kulindahr]

Hey there Kulindahr,

I think an even stronger argument that you can build from this is: how does it matter one way or the other? It is my considered and sincere opinion that the bleating about "choice" routinely vomitted up by homophobes is a red herring: a very deliberate attempt to obfuscate and distract from the real issue, which is: how is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation legitimate?

To clarify: let us theoretically allow those who bleat on about homosexuality being a matter of conscious choice their assumption. The only response any reasonable or considered human being can give is: so what? Is the discrimination and outright spite they evince towards self proclaimed homosexuals any more valid for that? Unless they can rationally and logically determine and express how the "choice" impacts negatively on anyone outside of those who make it, then their position is still ilegitimate, even within the confines of the assumption they feel obliged to assert.

Well-spoken... from the essentially secular worldview of the West.

The trouble is, they're operating in a different worldview: the world of curses and blessings in Deuteronomy. They don't realize that they're not even in the New Testament; they've bought into the premise that Law makes holy, that obedience is the great virtue -- and that imposing obedience by force is not only legitimate but required.

Imposing obedience by force is what led to the Crucifixion: Jesus wasn't obedient to the norms, He praised people in the Old Testament who had violated the Law, He violated the Law as they taught it -- so to end that, they killed Him (though they didn't even have the guts for that; they handed Him over to someone else to do it).

In both cases, this behavior was prophesied, told of beforehand, yet they went through with it: then, they killed the Promised One; today, they kill Him anew by denying what He accomplished. They don't get that Jesus made sin not the issue any longer, so they worry about sin, and inevitably choose not the ones that God said are worst, but the ones that get under their skin and bother them.

They, not the Jews, are the heirs of those who said, "His blood be on us and on our children!", because they are the same line of people who would kill rather than have their comfort zone disturbed.


Anyway... from one point of view you're right: if they can't live in the world that is to a great extent a product of what Jesus taught (mercy, compassion, etc.), then one response is to ignore them. In public, that's not a bad option: just don't respond; tune them out, shun them in the religious sense of the word.
Unfortunately, they can vote -- and so a more fitting response quite often may be to step into their worldview, accept the terms they're actually using -- not the ones they claim to be using -- and do exactly what we saw in that excellent clip from West Wing.

 

[hotatlboi]

The foolishness is that you're acting like a fundamentalist and not paying attention to the whole picture -- for example, history and what the Bible teaches about people.

What the Bible teaches is that slavery is a perfectly acceptable institution. That's the teaching directly about the kind of people in question, slaves. You can claim that some kind of subtle reading of another part invalidates this, but if you do that then really you open yourself up to anyone being able to claim invalidating any part of the Bible they don't like.

For those who actually read the Bible, it's the principles such as that which constitute the real message -- as even the apostle Paul, who tolerates slavery in his letters, demonstrates in his arguments from the Old testament (Galatians is particularly sharp in this).

For those who actually read the Bible in an objective fashion, the principles it espouses re: slavery are transparent and very clear in their repulsiveness. What Galations is particularly sharp in is noting how the OT Law was NOT invalidated and is still an example worthy to aspire too (which is of course utter hogwash). Basically, the jist is, even though salvation cannot be granted through the Law, it is still a good moral code.

It was the real understanding of the Bible that drove the change: society didn't catch up until a good fifteen centuries after the Bible's message on the subject of slavery was grasped.

On the contrary, slavery was able to linger for those 15 centuries in no small part because of the Bible's message on it. It took that long for man to realize it was wrong because religion and the Bible was so central to society for so long that to question it was blasphemy.