I used to blog on this in the past and to tell the truth, I cannot remember my login name. I was around during the time of PeppermintFrost whom I recall being told actually WON a scholarship or something from this site. I read many posts saying that it was ridiculous that someone who espoused such ancient, religious beliefs that were completely inflexible and immune to reason would be selected as a winner for a "progressive" institution. I have to wholeheartedly agree.
I just popped on and took a look to see what interesting posts were around and I saw a few threads on homosexuality which I read through. As I am personally gay myself, I have an obvious interest and was curious as to what kind of discussions were taking place. I think the most disheartening thing I discovered was that the arguments stay the same. I mean I know we have new people being born, and all levels of education and enlightenment, but sometimes you REALLY get frustrated when you see the sheer amount of ignorance and misinformation that is peppered incessantly throughout people's attitudes and beliefs.
It's so hard to even condense a general statement or two encompassing homosexuality in a relatively short treatise because the tangents and extremes that end up flowering from such discussions end up being so convoluted and fractionated that your head spins.
Let me just try to state a few simple points that lie at the crux of the matter that really have to be held to as iron core facts that should always be returned to when evaluating such an issue.
1) Homosexuality is natural.
Right off the bat many people immediately have the opposite reaction to this kind of a statement and most don't even have the gumption to even try to back up their argument with anything proving that it is NOT true. Why is it true? Simple. The world we live in is the natural world. Everything happening on this earth is nature in action. Not only is man a part of nature like any other form of mammal, plant, flora or fauna, but HUNDREDS of species also engage in homosexual, bisexual, asexual, forcible rape, etc etc. acts.
The simple truth is that many people have this simplistic view of nature somewhat likened to simple fables like Noah's Ark that make it sound like sexual intercourse is naturally monogamous, freely given and taken and completely heterosexual for a pro creative purpose only.
Science has evidenced quite convincingly that this is completely false. There is every form of sexual expression under and over the rainbow imaginable. (No pun intended). Now unfortunately too many people enamored with religious beliefs tend to regard science as something like a schizophrenic uncle. Sometimes nice and useful but ultimately untrustworthy and unreliable. What's sad is that it is not justifiably regarded as being the ONLY discipline that has actually stood the test of time for centuries and brought us into the incredible level of sophistication we enjoy now. Our lifespans our FAR longer, our general health, sanitary conditions, technological advances are stellar beyond belief. Why? Because science is truth. It may not be COMPLETE truth, and sometimes an assumed truth that looks reasonable might be misunderstood based on limited or temporarily non-contextual data, but ultimately, it does one simple thing. It is a method that DESCRIBES reality. It only works because observation must be recorded accurately and needs to be able to be REPRODUCED by anyone else trying to prove the theory of each individual hypothesis.
Why am I going off on such a huge tangent? because the important point to these discussions must be understood. ONLY scientific methods have any validity when able to verify reality we can measure. Concepts like the soul for instance are currently not measurable b y science because it is not part of our observable reality. So it remains spiritual, imaginative, religious, etc. Whatever domain you wish to postulate it, it's fine. It's not something science would rule on because it's not it's domain.
But back to the point. Homosexuality IS measurable. It IS part of the natural world and it can be measured, statistically recorded, evaluated, compared and judged by many other disciplines that encompass the domain of science.
Now on to the next huge topic. Religion. Most of the worlds problems today are inarguably the clash of science and religion. We've already had our big showdowns between the Catholic church and Galileo, and I could go on with many examples but that's enough. Lets be honest and realistic here. Every battle that has ensued between religion and science has always been won by science. Why? It's not scientists fighting for their individual beliefs. That's exactly what many people think of automatically, but they miss the one crucial difference between the religious "belief" of the opponents on the religious side and the science argument. Religion starts their argument from a preconceived belief, and tries to demonstrate that it is true. Science observes REALITY, and then tries to understand and explain the mechanism as to why something is the way it is.
Is this understandable to most? Science is not a grand conspiracy of people trying to push individual beliefs. They are people observing, interpreting and then having to PROVE that their hypothesis has merit by demonstrating that anyone can discover and validate their proposal by following their suppositions and tests.
As I figured, even trying to encapsulate a point in the most condensed but comprehensive way, I find it is very lengthy. Still, so many people post one liner, "Homosexuality is just wrong.", "marriage is a sacred institution", "the penis is meant to be in the vagina", "It's unnatural...blah blah blah"...that I really wanted to put this out in a serious way that stops the bullshit. Those kind of statements above are known as a priori arguments. You may as well just state "because I say so". It's meaningless, irrelevant and not even remotely convincing or factual. I have learned so much in the last 7 years or so about true debating style and how you can be actually effective and validate your points or just meaningless squawk like a parrot.
So to (for now) sum it up back to the point, homosexuality is completely natural. Many animals do it. It's been accepted and affirmed by every major medical and psychological body of importance in the world and categorically defined as immutable, unchangeable except by forced attitude and choice behavior, and intrinsically neutral in terms of any kind of "right" or "wrong" judgments. Even common sense, (although unfortunately it really isn't that common), would demonstrate to people that boys and girls being beat up, harassed, lynched killed, and indeed even choosing to suicide themselves because the innate nature of their being is so strong and immutable that they cannot deal with this stubborn refusal to see them as equal choice human beings simply born the way they are. Lets be honest. How many people of ALL ages have you met that you instantly knew were gay? I'm not saying every single gay person is obvious by mannerisms, but there is undoubtedly a significant majority of people that instantly ping your gaydar. Christ, I've met people from foreign places like Tahiti that as soon as they opened their mouth told me they were on my team. Do you think they all get together and take a test in a secret club to learn the "lingo" or something? Sometimes I get so aggravated that the plainest thing as the nose on your face is sometimes completely invisible to some people.
So what's the point here? The only real body of argument that uses the terms "unnatural" or "wrong" with any serious suggestion of a factual evaluation of the term are religious or ideology based schools of thought. There is NOTHING factual about such terms. Morality is defined as a belief based on a system of ethics and this is and has been completely different in sometimes drastic ways throughout all forms of humanities history. Only the belief that "GOD" is an ultimate arbitrator of morality gives someone the serious belief that something is "right" or "wrong" with no critical evaluation as to the why.
But lets be honest again. Whose God? What God or Gods? I mean even the largest religions in the world today that are essentially a triumvirate of the same God..Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are fighting and arguing over their individual beliefs and so called correct faith. And they all agree they worship the SAME GOD.
Isn't this the height of insanity???
Leave this for now. I expect potential responses from people can be delved on into more depth.
2) Religion is completely and utterly unprovable.
I'm sorry, but even though many people may argue this with a knee-jerk reaction, they have to be honest and admit to themselves that it is the truth. Religious texts and oratorical stories are essentially nothing more then hearsay. If we cannot prove any true principles of any of these stories, how can people expect every other person in the world to just accept them as unquestioned fact? It'd be little different then us having a nuclear war, and 300 years later people discovering a Harry Potter book that describes the city of London as part of the fictional plot and immediately asserting that EVERY sentence in the book must be true because they discovered London really existed. We know the difference of course, but how would they? Can you see how this could easily become a religion believing in wizards and muggles?
I'm just trying to seriously expand people's minds here a little and see the potential of a serious, factual and hopefully cohesive discussion that doesn't keep going round and round in stupid circles that go nowhere.
I think one of the most important disciplines people in the world would be best served by more then any other form of teaching would be the concept of logical fallacies. So many people assume they are logical when they don't even know the true meaning of the word.
Just for a simple demonstration. The classic circular argument.
The Bible is the word of God.
Why do you believe that?
Because the Bible tells me so.
How do you know the Bible is fact?
Because God wrote the Bible.
I implore people. Do a favor for yourselves and read up on the very subject. Logical fallacies. Begging the question, the Strawman argument, Slippery slope, Red Herring, etc. etc. There are so many and they are so commonly used over and over and over, and the saddest thing is most people do not even REALIZE they are using these fallacies. And the truth is that fallacies are...well...FALLACIOUS. It's the complete opposite of factual. They are errors in thinking. In logic itself. And I'm sorry, but if you even try to argue that logic can't be trusted, you're beyond hope! You have to admit some serious common ground in sensibility and any fool that tries to argue you can't trust logic is truly hopeless. If you want to go to the extremes of arguments that postulate such idiocy that we could all just be the dream of some unknown being and go poof in the next hour when they wake up, be my guest, but there is a name for that kind of philosophical wanker shit. It's called Solipsism. Again, please read up on these concepts before you even begin to debate against my position so we can save time.
Well that's enough for the moment. At least I got a start. Anyone care to comment and truly discuss an issue in serious and comprehensive depth?
We are all gay, more gays will see the light in future generations to come.
Our past lives are partly the cause of this to grow stronger, having lived both genders on numerous accounts in the past affects not only our sexuality, but also our emotional state in regard too!
If it wasn’t for religious structures that inflame us with fear, there would be no such thing as sexual intimidation or oppression, we are on a path of all becoming bisexual, once the obstacles upon this path are cleared, all other problems will solve
themselves for the better.
I will be gay in the next live,
That was a very long blog you wrote, Iol, like really long, I will read it trough later on.
;-)
Though I haven't blogged on it (and I will), the Bible presents and actually much more leniant view on homosexuality than many Christians actually make it out to be. Though you may disagree, which is fine, the Bible is completely inerrant and infallible, and it is the only way to find what humans really need: an unrestricted, completely unfair love.
"the Bible presents and actually much more leniant view on homosexuality than many Christians actually make it out to be."
I've heard many of those arguments, and personally find them unconvincing. The most orthodox interpretation is indeed the most accurate. The same applies to many other kinds of apologism some try to gloss over when dealing with other violent, horribly cruel and unfair behaviour recorded therein. But by all means, comment on the points and I'll respond.
"Though you may disagree, which is fine, the Bible is completely inerrant and infallible, and it is the only way to find what humans really need: an unrestricted, completely unfair love."
You're right. I disagree. Not only is the Bible a book filled with words that can be evaluated and measured against known reality, but it's quite clearly a contradictory mess regarding many different things it comments on. It's extremely easy to show that the Bible is not even remotely inerrant. But since you say you'll comment later I'll defer the argument for now.
The second part of your post is actually an even bigger claim to my mind. I find it absolutely ridiculous that anyone could point out the Bible as a moral guidebook to love. There are a few, VERY cherry-picked lines mostly said by Jesus and the apostles that first of all are not new, (such as do unto others. this was said by Chinese philosophers FAR before the time of Jesus), and more importantly are so contrasted by the sociopathic mass-murdering narcissistic despot described as God that is referred to in the Old Testament. Love is an emotion that is not fully understood, but it is easily measured and there is more then enough evidence that people of all cultures and religion experience love no matter WHAT their individual beliefs. To suggest the Bible is a necessary blueprint for this is arrogance and not even remotely compelling. Indeed, many people following the Bible more to the true "letter of the law" have been rightly jailed for cruel and unusual punishment and crimes against their fellow man.
However I smell a feint that will undoubtedly take another form of apologism. I've seen it many times before. People seem to think that taking certain quotes out of context and ignoring the contradictory ones is somehow reasonable. Not to mention somehow still "inerrant". It baffles me greatly, but lets see where you'll go with it first. Maybe I'll be surprised...
Well, that's a lot to take in. I actually agree with a lot of what you had to say. Love is an emotion we will never fully understand. We will never truly know why people are attracted to this person and not that person.
This is, however, a much bigger issue than I think anyone can ever blog about and successfully convince anyone. This is conveyed much better in a book, where people can read the entire thing, rather than a blog (that would either be a really, really long blog, or quite a lot of installments).
I'll definitely try to cover everything in my next blog (it might be a few more days for me to get it completely right, though). I think, for now, it's safe to assume that we disagree on almost anything.
To Jesus_zealot:
I am quite baffled here. You start off your post with:
"Well, that's a lot to take in. I actually agree with a lot of what you had to say."
and end it with:
" I think, for now, it's safe to assume that we disagree on almost anything."
?????? What? That couldn't be more contradictory from beginning to end. It can't be both. Are you sure what you aren't really saying is that you really can't disagree with my logic and the points I raised specifically, but you feel we are going to disagree on your ultimate beliefs because they are going to be essentially irrational in nature?
That would be the general gist I would assume from past debates that ended up in that general vicinity...but please don't let me put words in your mouth if that is not the case. If you have a better explanation, please let me understand.
I'll try to explain what I mean.
I do agree with you in that Christians have done a poor job presenting a distinctive message to homosexuals. We Christians somehow rationalize in our minds that God doesn't care about our sins but only about the sins of those who have not accepted His forgiveness. We somehow warp our minds and logic enough to believe that the Bible points at other people and not us.
This is so wrong.
The Bible points that finger at everybody - Christians and homosexuals alike. While some people believe that the Bible can only be applied to those who want to believe it, I disagree. The Bible has never been proven wrong in itself, and there are reams upon reams of evidence that the BIble actually has historical and spiritual validity. Though there are times when I even don't like what the Bible says because it makes me look at myself in the mirror, I must soften my heart and allow God to mold me into the person He wants me to be.
"We Christians somehow rationalize in our minds that God doesn't care about our sins but only about the sins of those who have not accepted His forgiveness."
"Sin" is a religious concept that has no factual nature to it unless you believe it exists. So to a non-believer, it's a worthless concept. Little difference then trying to tell people they have to be concerned about voodoo hexes that were cast on them. If one doesn't believe in voodoo, hexes are a product of the imagination and therefore irrelevant.
On top of this, you're begging the question, (another logical fallacy), that God exists. Establish this first. Prove God exists and actually interacts with this world. Prove that Christianity is the 'proper' God. So far, no church, ecclesiatical body, Mosque, Dalai Lama, Bishop, Pope, Imam, Wiccan, etc etc etc, has been able to prove this. Anyone can write stories. Anyone can cobble them together and try to portray things as historical fact. But in the modern world we deal with a little something called evidence. Without it, words are just drivel.
"The Bible has never been proven wrong in itself, and there are reams upon reams of evidence that the BIble actually has historical and spiritual validity. "
Why do you believe this to be true? It's not. The Bible has been proven inaccurate again and again and again. Even the prophecy of Jesus and his coming was not borne out the way it was described. Why do you think the Jews don't believe it was him? The bible has the definition of PI wrong. It refers to the weather of the world in mystical, completely inaccurate terms that bear no relation to modern climatology understanding.
All anyone needs to do is visit something like this site: http://www.atheists.org/christianity/contradictions.html
It's a VERY small list of some obvious Biblical contradictions and the only excuses I've ever seen trying to argue that is what I described earlier as the 'moving the goalpost' fallacy. Moral relativism abounds when dealing with this subject. Conveniently what was literal in one phrase is all of a sudden allegorical in the next because otherwise it would contradict, so one has to make it poetic or even potentially mythical designed to teach a lesson...Of course no footnotes were included by God that made it CLEAR which passages should be interpreted as what. It's all done AFTER the fact in order to make the book fit reality as fluidly as possible so it can be deemed 'inerrant'. Well I hate to break it to you, but even these tactics still fail.
As the conclusion of that page I linked above says:
What is incredible about the Bible is not its divine authorship; it's that such a concoction of contradictory nonsense could be believed by anyone to have been written by an omniscient god. To do so, one would first have to not read the book, which is the practice of most Christians; or, if one does read it, dump in the trash can one's rational intelligence -- to become a fool for god, in other words.
To be an Atheist, one need only be able to laugh when such obvious nonsense is offered as being "divine" truth. If you are laughing, then you belong in the only organization dedicated to determined Atheist activism -- dedicated to doing something about the intrusion of religion into all areas of our government and our private lives.
Now granted, this is from an Athiest organization, but one important thing to remember is that as long as the points of evidence are logically sound, the motive of the people putting it forth is irrelevant. Attacking an atheist for being an atheist instead of their argument, is called an ad hominem fallacy. May Christians do this all the time by attacking someone who doesn't live by their idea of morals as being immoral and therefore someone who could't possibly know anything about good values, so anything they say is suspect. Again. Ad hominem. Attacking the person instead of the argument. Fallacy. So many arguments are worthless because of logical fallacies, but you still hear them over and over like a broken record because for some strange reason some humans seem to think repeating something more often somehow makes it true. Silly of course, but it's still done.
"Though there are times when I even don't like what the Bible says because it makes me look at myself in the mirror, I must soften my heart and allow God to mold me into the person He wants me to be."
If there really IS a God, and trust me when I say that nothing would make me more happy then this being true. Who wants to face the potential of ultimate oblivion? A short trip in existence faced with an eternity of non-conscience once life has passed? Again, if there really is a God, he should be able to be discovered as a personal relationship involving you. You can read all the texts you want and believe anything you desire, but ultimately if you CANNOT reach any degree of true communication with this inscrutable being, what's the difference in mouthing prayers and platitudes to Aslan? How about Zeus?
It may be comforting to let your doubts slide and just believe so you can offset the fear of death, but is it really worth it considering you won't live your life as fully as you could if you were not hampered by unsubstantiated moral beliefs on every human nature imaginable?
Morality has never needed religion to flourish. Morality stems from one simple thing common in almost all humans except apparently some disturbed individuals with psychiatric issues like sociopaths. Sympathy towards a fellow human being is the primary emotion that leads to care, love, concern. It's not a learned behaviour, and it's definitely not endemic or exclusive to Christianity. We all have the potential for it and we don't need the concept of God to be good to each other.
Again, a lot to digest.
If one can't "attack" (I much rather prefer confront, challenge, to make one wonder) another person's beliefs (opinions, convictions, whatever), then who can they attack? A person becomes what they believe, so the person becomes the argument. I'm not trying to attack anyone, but Christianity is a revolution in the world of religions. There has never been any other "religion" like Christianity.
"Of course no footnotes were included by God that made it CLEAR which passages should be interpreted as what. It's all done AFTER the fact in order to make the book fit reality as fluidly as possible so it can be deemed 'inerrant'. Well I hate to break it to you, but even these tactics still fail."
Again, I'm not sure you understand the entire situation? If one reads the Bible in English, he misses out a lot on the word plays, true meaning, and that's not including context! The Bible was written in different languages, which means that words might not have the same meaning as they do in English.
An example from the Bible is a verse in Luke.
"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be My disciple."
No, it's understandably hard to read that verse and say that Jesus wants us to hate our relatives in order to follow Him, but we miss the translation. In Greek, the word used for "hate" in the passage here means to feel detached from, to not be concerned about as much as we are with the calling of God. Jesus isn't telling us to hate our family, but rather that the love we have for our parents should be like hate when we think about our love for Jesus.
"If one can't "attack" (I much rather prefer confront, challenge, to make one wonder) another person's beliefs (opinions, convictions, whatever), then who can they attack? "
Of course you can! The difference is in order to have a valid argument, you must attack the SOUNDNESS of a person's argument, not the person themself. Conversely, if your point of view is not based on factual evidence, but simply belief, then you cannot debate someone.
Think about it. If you're a devout Christian and you are arguing the truth of God and world with a devout Hindu, a devout Wiccan, etc....How are you going to prove your belief is the "correct" one? It's all based on an Appeal to a Divine Authority, ergo = God, and Whatever copy of the Bible your personal church sect considers "perfect". You'll point to the Bible. The Hindu will point to the Veda. And so on, and so on...
"I'm not trying to attack anyone, but Christianity is a revolution in the world of religions. There has never been any other "religion" like Christianity. "
Just because Chirstianity became extremely popular does not in any way shape or form validate ANY of the claims found therein. Now you're using an Appeal to Popularity fallacy. See what I mean? Logical fallacies abound out there and only by understand them can you possibly find truth. If the world is NOT logical, then we have an extremely weird "creator" trying to fool us by making the natural world look like something it is not.
Besides, there is one very sensible reason why Christianity became so popular. Most other religions of greek and Roman Gods were tales of powerful being that were selfish and spiteful at times, along with being jealous and vengeful. The afterlife in any of these other religions was vague, but most if they suggested any continued existence entered a very dull place of apathy. Only heroes were suggested to attain great, fascinating realms.
Here comes Christianity with the promise that ALL can be saved, just follow the precepts outlined within, give God his due, and you will all live eternally, happy ever after. What a great sales campaign. Is it any wonder the unwashed masses of peasants living dreary, laborious lives were so willing to latch on to a concept that suggested reward for their struggles? Infinite love and eternal care?
It's honestly not difficult to see why Christianity has become so worldwide.
"Again, I'm not sure you understand the entire situation? If one reads the Bible in English, he misses out a lot on the word plays, true meaning, and that's not including context! The Bible was written in different languages, which means that words might not have the same meaning as they do in English."
I am WELL aware of this. It seems that you're missing my point actually. The Bible is arguably a Jewish faith based structure in the main. It branched off into Christianity and Islam, but it sprung from them. Even the jews admit freely there are definite and unexplainable contradictions in the Bible. However they also have an oral law of teaching which can supersede the bible. It's horrendously complicated.
But in any event, MY point is that the book is cobbled together from 2000 year old scattered anectdotal reports, and this is only the ones the churches CHOSE to accept as 'gospel'. How the hell could they possibly know this? Are they professing psychic powers?
Look, I don't get my jollies out of toppling over people's secure religious beliefs, because quite frankly it didn't make ME any happier when it happened. Still, if you're willing to test your faith and evaluate it by objective and factual methods, then you have to be prepared to understand that religious stories can never be proven by any method known today. Maybe if we learn to travel in time....make a machine that can read the "Akashic record" if such a thing truly exists which states that all things ever thought or done in the universe is recorded on the skein of time and space.
Other then this, seek a personal relationship with God and/or Jesus. See if you can actually sense them. Have their 'works' as is suggested flow through you. Basically if you can't apply the belief of their existence to any practical usage in your life, then what use is the concept?
"Just because Chirstianity became extremely popular does not in any way shape or form validate ANY of the claims found therein."
But why did Christianity become popular? Think about it: When Christianity started to explode across the world, the Roman Empire started to persecute the church. Christians were thrown into arenas to be torn apart by lions or gladiators (a lot of this can be found in Foxe's Book of Martyrs).
Take, for example, Polycarp, the disciple of John the Apostle. All he had to do to escape a burning death on the stake was turn away from Christ. "Reproach Christ," the proconsul said, but Polycarp remained resolute.
He answered, "Eighty and six years have I served him, and he never once wronged me; how then shall I blaspheme my King, Who hath saved me?"
Or take Peter and John in the Bible. They were preaching the gospel to the Jews as Jesus had told them, but the high priests did not want the people to turn from them to another leader. So Peter and John, after a long story, were flogged and told to never speak of Jesus again.
They could have followed these orders, they could have simply shut up and never said anything again of Jesus, and they would have lived out their lives.
But they didn't.
"The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ."
The Bible did not branch off from Islam. Rather, Islam branched off of Christianity. Mohammed lived in the Middle East where there was a plethora of religions. Of course, the big ones: Christianity and Judaism, but he also was influenced by Zoroastrianism, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Egyptian religions, and the many pagan religions of the Middle East. As Mohammed wanted a religion that people would follow, he had to make Islam something like the religions people were used to.
When it comes to biblical canon, this is where things get tricky, just because there's a lot that goes into it. Church denominations (not sects) don't pick what books they want in their Bible; the proper books that were supposed to go into the Bible are already predetermined, but the process was a long one.
People mostly refer to the writings of Athanasius, Origen, and Irenaeus (a disciple of Polycarp).
All three wrote which books they believed should be included in th New Testament, as these were the mosr crucial. If people got the New Testament wrong, then people would have a distorted view of Jesus. Many other early church "fathers" included the books that are now in the New Testament, so it can be assumed that the books in the New Testament are the correct ones.
Of course, this is an assumption. Suppose, for argument's sake, that we got a wrong book, or a book isn't included or something - what are we to do? The disputed books are written about by the early church fathers, and they each come to a general conclusion: Hebrews, James, II and III John, II Peter, Jude, and Revelation are all to be included in the canon.
Many of the "apocryphal books" (the gospel of Mary, the gospel of Judas, etc) that are argued to be inluded in the New Testament are not because of a simple reason: they were written much later. As always, time distorts memory whether we like it or not. The Gospel of Judas is believed to have been written, at the earliest, 280 AD, long after the apostles had died. How could a book be authoritative and be written so long after the events it affirms? Books were expensive in biblical times, so the author would probably not have had an encyclopedia to research the detah of Jesus on. In essence, it's like Abraham Lincoln's great-grandson writing a biography of Lincoln, and only consulting his uncles (Lincoln's grandsons) for information, who had no access to anything but memories of stories: it cannot be authoritative.
On the last part, you're completely right: how can one have a relationship with something he cannot feel? That's the only crux with Christianity. Each person has a conscience, but depending on how much that person has desensitized his conscience, he won't know if he's doing right or wrong. I've been like that, but the light of God softened my heart, and I now know what I feel: an unspeakable joy in the freedom of Christ's blood.
I had that once. It made me suicidal. There is a big difference between deciding not to lie or steal and denying the core of your being. I'm glad that your experience of faith is much more positive than mine was, because peace with oneself is very important for making peace in the rest of the world. My path to peace was to quit denying who I am. If that means I can no longer be a part of the Christian family (I was excommunicated), then so be it. I will not be suicidal again. Christianity gave me no peace, because it denied me my basic needs as a human being...and love, human connection, and sex are basic needs. Try to live without them (and even if you are celibate right now, try living with the knowledge that you will NEVER have an honest sexual relationship with anyone). It drives people insane.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
As much as I am going against the norm here, I am celibate. I'm straight and am not dating anyone. Because I know that I can better serve God as a single (being married, I would have to be rightfully concerned about my wife), I'm happy with where God has me now.
And about the ex-communication: Jesus never excommunicates anyone. The Catholic Church has sightly changed what God originally intended, and there is no one that can be outside of God's forgiveness and grace.
Think about it: When Christianity started to explode across the world, the Roman Empire started to persecute the church.
And then a Christian came into power and gave everyone he conquered an ultimatum -- convert or die.
History is told by the victor, my friend. It will always be distorted.
Many of the "apocryphal books" (the gospel of Mary, the gospel of Judas, etc) that are argued to be inluded in the New Testament are not because of a simple reason: they were written much later.
And what about the ones that were written before even the earliest of the Canon?
How could a book be authoritative and be written so long after the events it affirms?
Be it 15 years, or 150 years, as you said, time distorts memories.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
You're absolutely right, Constantine did order Christianity on the entir Roman Empire, but he made a mistake, like everyone else doe sin the world.
One quesion, though - which books were written before the canon that "should be" included in the Bible? The most earliest dates for the canon that have been either suggested or proven are in the 50s and 80s AD.
Enoch is the big one. Written in the second century BCE.
Jasher, is another big one, primarily because it's referred to in not one, but two places elsewhere in the Bible (Wikipedia cites as many as five references to the Book of Jasher), in Joshua 10:13 and II Samuel 1:18.
1st and 2nd Maccabees were also written before the Canon was established, around 100 BCE (though these are canon in the Catholic Bible, though only the Catholic one).
Sirach, again written in about 100 BCE.
I think there are others, but I don't really feel like researching all 20 or so books that are considered apocryphal. These should get you started.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
But Enoch is the Apocrypha for the Old Testament, not the New. Again, Enoch was the great-grandfather of Noah, who lived at least a century or two before the books were written.
The Book of Jasher is essentially Genesis with a lot of detail, so the author was probably quite familiar with this text. As Moses wrote Genesis, it's only fair that it should be included in the Bible, as the first five books were considered the Law. Basically, Genesis is like a 10-page version of Moby Dick.
I and II Maccabees are essentially history books, so they don't have much to do with actual biblical teaching. The author was obviously a devout Jew who didnt use the name of God, but rather said "Heaven" and "He" to replace the Holy Name. In my opinion, it doesn't matter that these book are included in some versions of the Bible and not in others, simply because they don't have any authority on spiritual teaching.
"But why did Christianity become popular?"
I already gave one major reason. It was a wonderful sales pitch. A God who supposedly loves you unconditionally, (yet if you don't do exactly what you're told you will be punished eternally), and offers eternal life and happiness.
"Take, for example, Polycarp, the disciple of John the Apostle. All he had to do to escape a burning death on the stake was turn away from Christ. "Reproach Christ," the proconsul said, but Polycarp remained resolute."
This is by no means exclusive to the Christian faith. Many religions have had zealots and martyrs. I have no doubt many people believed completely that Christianity was truth. They really didn't have much else to counterbalance this belief though did they? The scientific method wasn't discovered for many centuries to come.
"They could have followed these orders, they could have simply shut up and never said anything again of Jesus, and they would have lived out their lives.
But they didn't."
They believed. This is also assuming the stories regarding them are completely accurate to begin with. Still, how does this prove anything?
I'll tell you what doesn't make sense. Why send the 'messiah' at a time when you had extremely poor recording capabilities? Why is it that miracles, once commonplace, have mysteriously stoppd happening in areas where science and reason has taken hold?
If God is just as important today to every single person on this earth, why is Jesus not coming forth at a time when we have satellite TV? The internet? We have ways of broadcasting his amazing powers and miracles all over the world. EVERYBODY could be shown the truth and would have every reason to believe in God and his son.
Can you think of any good reason why God would allow the world to take a chance on picking the right religion in the "pick a prophet" game? These are the questions you should be seriously asknig yourself. If our salvation is SO important, and he will NOT save us if we do not believe in the Bible and everything contained therein no matter HOW nonsensical or contradictory to our best evidence to date, then why is he not coming forth and showing that he EXISTS. That there really is a God. That the world is not just a material dimension and there are phenomena proving more to life.
Why is it that so many researchers desperately searching for any signs of this possibility have not come forward and documented proof yet? I have little choice but to believe the most likely and sensible answer. It doesn't exist.
"The Bible did not branch off from Islam. Rather, Islam branched off of Christianity."
I know that. I said the Christianity and Islam were offshoots of Judaism.
"Church denominations (not sects) don't pick what books they want in their Bible; the proper books that were supposed to go into the Bible are already predetermined, but the process was a long one."
No, this is incorrect. The council of Nicea was just one major meeting deciding what to accept as Biblical canon. Also compare different branches of Christianity and their Bibles. Some have gospels the others don't recognize, and the original root of it all, Judaism, has other gospels describing entities such as Lilith, the war in heaven fought by angels and demons, etc.
Nothing was "predetermined". It was human beings that wrote them. Someone had to compile them in the first place.
"Many other early church "fathers" included the books that are now in the New Testament, so it can be assumed that the books in the New Testament are the correct ones.
Of course, this is an assumption."
A HUGE assumption. And that's all you can do is assume it is true. We have history barely 60 years old that have people arguing over accuracy. Just one example is the holocaust deniers.
Besides, even the gospels that make up the main portion of the New Testament are contradictory. here's a relatively easy list of them:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.ht...
"The Gospel of Judas is believed to have been written, at the earliest, 280 AD, long after the apostles had died. How could a book be authoritative and be written so long after the events it affirms?"
The main gospels are still not verified totally as to authorship., OR the exact year they were written although they speculate the latest was about 140AD. Still, they also believe that two of them drew heavily on the Gospel of Mark. So they aren't even independant corroborations. They are just new spins on the same story.
"Each person has a conscience, but depending on how much that person has desensitized his conscience, he won't know if he's doing right or wrong."
This kind of belief is dangerous. Basing your idea of right and wrong solely on whether it 'feels' right is not a very sensible method to determine ethics. Many people in places like Afghanistan feel it's right to bulldoze people like myself because I'm a 'deviant'.
"I've been like that, but the light of God softened my heart, and I now know what I feel: an unspeakable joy in the freedom of Christ's blood."
While this sounds poetically interesting, how do you KNOW this is a 'light' of God's? Did you hear voices telling you clearly this was divine experience? If this is only a subjective feeling that you are assuming must be God, how do you ultimately discover if this is what you believe it is?
"It was a wonderful sales pitch. A God who supposedly loves you unconditionally, (yet if you don't do exactly what you're told you will be punished eternally), and offers eternal life and happiness."
God does not eternally punish those who sin. He does send those who do not accept his forgiveness to hell, but it's pointless to not accept his forgiveness and live for him.
A.W. Tozer said it best:
“The Holy Spirit can invade the human heart and make room for Himself without expelling anything essentially human.”
God created us, so he knows exactly how we were made to live. Giving our lives over to him is not a sign of weakness, but rather of complete personal realization: we realize that we cannot live without God.
"...Christianity and Islam were offshoots of Judaism."
Kind of. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. This is explained in depth in the Bible. Everything in the Old Testament points to Jesus as the Messiah.
"Also compare different branches of Christianity and their Bibles. Some have gospels the others don't recognize..."
Mormonism, for example, is a cult, like Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, etc., are cults, are though they believe some things like Christianity, they add to the Bible a lot, which goes against what the Bible says.
If you're talking about the gospels being different spins on Mark, then you're halfway right. Though people believe that Mark was the first gospel to be written, much of Matthew and Luke (while none of John) can be found in Mark. But each gospel has it's own characteristics, and rightly so. How boring would it be if all the gospels had the same stories in them? It just goes to show that the authors remembered things differently - nothing too unordinary.
"Basing your idea of right and wrong solely on whether it 'feels' right is not a very sensible method to determine ethics."
Actually, it halfway is. Ethics are based on situations; morals are absolutes.
"Did you hear voices telling you clearly this was divine experience? If this is only a subjective feeling that you are assuming must be God, how do you ultimately discover if this is what you believe it is?"
I did forget to tell you (a tone of sarcasm here): following God makes one schizophrenic. All Christians hear strange voices and assume it's God.
No, I know this is God (sarcasm taken away). There is no way these thoughts can be mine. I am sinful by nature, and God is slowly growing me to trust in His words more and more. He guides us into truth, and opens our eyes to what He is trying to teach us.
"He does send those who do not accept his forgiveness to hell, but it's pointless to not accept his forgiveness and live for him."
It's pointless to just believe something with no corrobarating proof. It's even more pointless to follow teachings that include harmful statements that say it is right to condemn homosexuality, masturbation, kill children for being disobedient, mix certain fabrics together, and countless other claims that ultimately cause a great deal of hurt and mental anguish to people.
How could you possibly think of a being that the Bible claims to be the most infinitely loving and forgiving entity imaginable as such a cruel dictator? Someone who could easily send a person to a (supposed) realm of eternal torture because they did not really HAVE any free will to do what they wanted, only the illusion of such since exercising in any way God doesn't approve of is going to eventually lead to punishment forever. Millions of people genuinely see no trace of spiritual things in life and therefore in good conscience, see no reason to follow what they see as ancient fables. It's ok for God to just say "Ha ha. Jokes on you. You were supposed to just believe with no proof. Now it's too late"
Pretend God was laying it out in a few simple statements:
Believe in me even though I will not appear to you personally or give any direct evidence that I exist, and do not follow your inborn attraction towards members of the same sex. Deny yourself and pretend you aren't what I created you to be. It's umm....just a test.
Do you not see how truly ridiculous the whole concept of God - heaven and hell is? To start with, hell is not even a part of the originating religion. Jews have no belief in such a place of abode. This was conveniently added to the New Testament. Great. A brand new threat thats even more sadistic and nonsensical.
"God created us, so he knows exactly how we were made to live. Giving our lives over to him is not a sign of weakness, but rather of complete personal realization: we realize that we cannot live without God. "
How can you "give over" your life to a being you cannot even communicate with? Or see? Or measure? Normally something fitting that criteria is called something other then God, it's called imagination.
Millions of people live 'without God'. If they couldn't as you say, they would all be dead obviously.
""...Christianity and Islam were offshoots of Judaism."
Kind of. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. "
Only if you believe it. Where's the evidence? There certainly isn't enough to convince the jews.
"Everything in the Old Testament points to Jesus as the Messiah. "
Not according to what I'VE read it doesn't.
This is lengthy, but at least it is able to be referenced:
Prophecies to Identify the Messiah, Which Jesus Does Not Fulfill:
1) Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus (the messiah) would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Yet no one, not even his parents, call him Immanuel at any point in the bible.
2) The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth. Hence, this prophecy could not have been fulfilled.
3) Isaiah 7:16 seems to say that before Jesus had reached the age of maturity, both of the Jewish countries would be destroyed. Yet there is no mention of this prophecy being fulfilled in the New Testament with the coming of Jesus, hence this is another Messiah prophecy not fulfilled.
Prophecies Christians Use to Verify Jesus as the Messiah, Yet Clearly Fail:
4) The gospels (especially Matthew 21:4 and John 12:14-15) claim that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. But the next few verses (Zechariah 9:10-13) show that the person referred to in this verse is a military king that would rule "from sea to sea". Since Jesus had neither an army nor a kingdom, he could not have fulfilled this prophecy.
5) Matthew (Matthew 2:17-18) quotes Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:15), claiming that it was a prophecy of King Herod’s alleged slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus. But this passage refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is clear by reading the next two verses (Jeremiah 31:16-17), and, thus, has nothing to do with Herod’s massacre.
6) John 19:33 says that during Jesus’ crucifixion, the soldiers didn’t break his legs because he was already dead. Verse John 19:36 claims that this fulfilled a prophecy: "Not a bone of him shall be broken." But there is no such prophecy. It is sometimes said that the prophecy appears in Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12 & Psalm 34:20. This is not correct. Exodus 12:46 & Numbers 9:12 are not prophecies, they are commandments. The Israelites are told not to break the bones of the Passover lamb, and this is all it is about. And Psalm 34:20 seems to refer to righteous people in general (see verse Psalm 34:19, where a plural is used), not to make a prophecy about a specific person.
7) "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." Hosea 11:1. Matthew (Matthew 2:15) claims that the flight of Jesus’ family to Egypt is a fulfillment of this verse. But Hosea 11:1 is not a prophecy at all. It is a reference to the Hebrew exodus from Egypt and has nothing to do with Jesus. Matthew tries to hide this fact by quoting only the last part of the verse ("Out of Egypt I have called my son").
8) "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2 The gospel of Matthew (Matthew 2:5-6) claims that Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy. But this is unlikely for two reasons.
A) "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb’s second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 2:18, 2:50-52 & 4:4).
B) The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from Micah 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did. It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make this verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan.
"Actually, it halfway is. Ethics are based on situations; morals are absolutes. "
I don't agree with the idea that morals are absolute. This sounds like a religious argument that basically is committing a black and white fallacy. And ethics are a system of morals, so they are interconnected.
And as I gave as an example, feelings are very different depending on your personal upbringing, culture, society and especially in relation to this argument....any religious beliefs. So individual interpretations of right and wrong cannot be accepted as truth and put into law just because someone feels it to be true. It needs to be demonstrated or argued as such. The proof is in the pudding after all..
"I did forget to tell you (a tone of sarcasm here): following God makes one schizophrenic. All Christians hear strange voices and assume it's God."
Of course I asked it more in the form of a rhetorical question. I already knew the answer. But in order to debate the point, it has to be addressed.
"No, I know this is God (sarcasm taken away). There is no way these thoughts can be mine. I am sinful by nature, and God is slowly growing me to trust in His words more and more. He guides us into truth, and opens our eyes to what He is trying to teach us."
Well if that's what you believe, then I do hope that those thoughts remain benign and ultimately harmless towards other people and society at large. I naturally doubt that you have any truly meaningful experience that bespeaks of divine communication that medical science and psychiatry could not easily explain, but that's what you believe for now.
descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth.
I never could understand the argument about tracing Jesus' genealogy through Joseph. If he is truly the begotten son of God, then he is no blood relation, whatsoever, to Joseph. Joseph is more of a step-father or foster father. On the other hand, if he is Joseph's son by blood, then he is not the begotten son of God.
"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."
I don't even know how that one can get so grossly misinterpreted. The Tribes of Israel were always considered God's Children, first of all. Second, he called them out of Egypt, not into it. That one can't get any more clear as to the meaning!
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Matthew records the legal genealogy of Jesus; Joseph if Jesus' legal father. Luke records Jesus' biological genealogy (the genealogy of Mary). This can be easily misinterpreted.
It shouldn't even be in there in the first place. It's nothing more than a legal documentation at that point and has no justification being in the Bible. Neither can it be used to justify Jesus' lineage because his lineage isn't supposed to trace back through Joseph at all, especially when the prophecies regarding it are about his blood line, not his legal line.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Actually, the lineage has every right to be in there. Matthew is so obsessed with making sure the Jews understand that Jesus is the Messiah the Old Testament prophesied about, so he is saying that Jesus is the son of David and the son of Abraham, a king and a Jew.
The first bit about the Old Testament Law, I have actually blogged about on my profile - go check it out. The Old Testament, as the entire Bible explains, is meant to be fulfilled through Jesus. Jesus himself said that he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. Jesus added to the Law by making it about a person's heart and not so much his actions; what was the person thinking about while acting instead of what he didn't do.
"To start with, hell is not even a part of the originating religion. Jews have no belief in such a place of abode."
This is only half true. The Old Testament (OT) is filled with references to "sheol," which is like the Greek afterlife - everybody goes there. But, God was able to save those who trusted in him during their life: "Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness."
Technically, there was no such thing as heaven or hell before Jesus, but now that Jesus offers salvation to whoever wil take it, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Of course, this doesn't mean shouting "Jesus!" right before you die. Calling on the name of the Lord means to give him your life and live to do his "good, pleasing, and perfect will" for your life.
Now I get to the part I love - I love when the Bible talks about prophecies abut Christ.
1) The name "Immanuel" means, "God with us." Jesus is God in human form, so Jesus really is God with us.
2) Matthew records the legal genealogy of Jesus, while Luke records the biological genealogy of Jesus. Joseph is the legal father of Jesus, whil God is his true father.
3) This one is weird. Prophecies tend to morph as time goes on. The prophecy was originally about Ahaz's son, but Matthew, who was so interested in writing to his fellow Jew, put the prophecy down as it could be applied to Jesus.
4) You're right - Jesus didn't have any army. But, then again, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews," as Jesus says in John. Zechariah 9:9 can be interpreted to be about Jesus, though the entire passge might not necessarily be exactly fulfilled until the Glorious Day of Christ when he returns to earth.
5) This one is like 3 - the prophecy morphs and Matthew applies it to a situation that can be interpreted as a fulfillment of prophecy.
6) There actually is a prophecy about the breaking of Jesus' bones. Psalm 22:17: "I can count all my bones." Psalm 34:19-20 actually does have to do with Jesus. Think about it: "A righteous man may have many troubles, but the LORD delivers him from them all; he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken." Jesus had many troubles (I suppose being crucified would have been a problem), and God delivered him by resurrecting him from the dead.
7)This is the same as 3 and 5 - the prophecy morphs.
8) Micah is saying, "Yes, there will be a man who will defeat the Assyrians. But, out of Bethlehem, the smallest of the town, will come a ruler (using Micah's words) "whose origins are form old, from ancient times."" The Jews had known the Messiah was going to come ever since Adam and Eve, so this passage can also be applied to Jesus.
Morals (from American Heritage Dictionary): "Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong." Key word: standard, something that is absolute.
Ethic: "A set of principles of right conduct. b. A theory or a system of moral values" Ethics are situational; doctors don't have the same ethics as a lawyer.
"...I do hope that those thoughts remain benign and ultimately harmless towards other people and society at large."
Actually, this I can't help. I don't believe that homosexuality is a right way to live, so that offends much of the world. Muslim's don't believe Jews or Christians are fit to live, so there goes another chunk of the world. Atheists don't believe in God (or a higher power), so that should exclude much of the entir world. So far, I think we've done a swell job remaining harmless toward other people! Beliefs naturally include things that are not good - if someone believed everything was good, he would be a walking logical fallacy.
"Believe in me even though I will not appear to you personally or give any direct evidence that I exist, and do not follow your inborn attraction towards members of the same sex. Deny yourself and pretend you aren't what I created you to be. It's umm....just a test."
I thought a lot about what I could say to this, and I've come up with one thing. If you're right, and after we die, we, essentially (or at least how it sounds you would believe), rot in the ground, I would still be fine believing something that isn't true. I'm wrong, but I'm still dead.
If, however, I am right, and there really is a God who offers eternal life to whoever is willing to reach our their hand and take it, then I am ahead again. I am allowed the right to go to heaven. Either way, I'm ahead.
"The first bit about the Old Testament Law, I have actually blogged about on my profile - go check it out. The Old Testament, as the entire Bible explains, is meant to be fulfilled through Jesus. Jesus himself said that he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. Jesus added to the Law by making it about a person's heart and not so much his actions; what was the person thinking about while acting instead of what he didn't do."
Yes I've heard this convenient bit of explanation which is cleverly crafted by Christians to try and explain away the umcomfortable atrocities and unbelievably silly and laborious rituals and laws contained within. But I don't buy it! To start with, even if this was true, it cannot justify the actions contained within. God's entire personality is nothing short of a murdering, narcassistic, cruel and vicious sociopath whose demands to continually slaughter other civilizations, including CHILDREN is only interrupted by bringing wrath down upon his own chosen people every time they commit some other kind of victimless crime. I have read the entire Bible. There is nothing sensible about it. The Old Testament and New are like completely different religions. There is also no direct scriptural explanation as you gave above either. It's just what church scholars have concocted to try and have it make sense.
And the last nail in the coffin? Jesus and his own words since you believe it be so inerrant.. following the line you quoted out of context..Jesus continues to say "5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven"
After just discussing the OLD testament and it's laws, don't even TRY to pretend this next phrase doesn't mean exactly what it sounds like. Until heaven and earth pass. Just to be clear, it hasn't passed. Agreed? Fine. Not one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. So Jesus did NOT fullfill the law because the second part of his own PROPHECY is unfulfilled. So nice try, but that so called 'explanation' by people is not convincing.
"This is only half true. The Old Testament (OT) is filled with references to "sheol," which is like the Greek afterlife - everybody goes there."
I know that. The point is, Hell is a much newer concept invented by the New Testament. Until then, it was unheard of. Now all of a sudden the ovens were fired up and presto! we have Satan.
"Calling on the name of the Lord means to give him your life and live to do his "good, pleasing, and perfect will" for your life."
Which in translation means giving your money, dedication and free will over to the only people with enough spiritual authority to guide you throughout life and make your choices for you....your local church. ;)
"1) The name "Immanuel" means, "God with us." Jesus is God in human form, so Jesus really is God with us."
So? It still fails. They never called him that by name. A prophecy is supposed to be clear, unambiguous and fullfilled exactly as written. Not "assumed" to be fullfilled by playing word games surrounding what a name might mean.
"2) Matthew records the legal genealogy of Jesus, while Luke records the biological genealogy of Jesus. Joseph is the legal father of Jesus, whil God is his true father."
They don't even agree on majority of names. Have you read them both? There are 28 generations listed from David to Jesus in Matthew's genealogy, while Luke's (3:23-31) has 43. Except for David at one end and Jesus at the other, there are only three names in the two lists that are the same.
"3) This one is weird. Prophecies tend to morph as time goes on. The prophecy was originally about Ahaz's son, but Matthew, who was so interested in writing to his fellow Jew, put the prophecy down as it could be applied to Jesus."
What? No it isn't. It specifically follows the reference to the child Immanuel. Which you believe is Jesus. However it is a vague prophecy anyway.
"4) You're right - Jesus didn't have any army. But, then again, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews," as Jesus says in John. Zechariah 9:9 can be interpreted to be about Jesus, though the entire passge might not necessarily be exactly fulfilled until the Glorious Day of Christ when he returns to earth.
5) This one is like 3 - the prophecy morphs and Matthew applies it to a situation that can be interpreted as a fulfillment of prophecy."
Ok, I'm going to stop here. It's laborious to nitpick over these. I just disagree with you. Prophecies don't "morph", and they shouldn't need any interpretation or apologizing. If people can conveniently try to fit happenings in a way to retroactively fulfill these so called predictions, then they aren't very specific or amazing in the first place. We're talking about God here. If he wanted to REALLY impress, he could have made a prophecy about the entire world growing dark for a day with angels cavorting in the heavens above and flinging butterscotch pudding down from the heavens. Now THAT would be a specific and splendidly impressive prediction. If it actually happened, I'll bet no one would be needing to think of mitigating reasons like the ones above.
"Morals (from American Heritage Dictionary): "Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong." Key word: standard, something that is absolute."
I can play that game too. From Merriam-Webster:
1 a: the moral significance or practical lesson (as of a story) b: a passage pointing out usually in conclusion the lesson to be drawn from a story
2plural a: moral practices or teachings : modes of conduct
And "standards" does not mean the same thing as absolute. Again, definition: 3: something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example : criterion. It's a MEASURE of something, so this automatically indicates fluidity.
And your definition of ethics was exactly what I said. A system of morals.
"Actually, this I can't help. I don't believe that homosexuality is a right way to live, so that offends much of the world. "
Your word. Believe. And until you can actually demonstrate that your belief has any validity outside of your own mind, then it has no right to infringe on other people's right to live as they choose. It also doesn't give you the right to harm other people whether by preventing them from living life to the fullest, insulting and condemning them, or interfering with them in any way. The only thing you have the right to do if you so choose is not to personally associate with them as much as possible. And that's probably for the best.
"Muslim's don't believe Jews or Christians are fit to live, so there goes another chunk of the world."
And yet you cannot see the irony of this situation as you have to face the same intolerance based on nothing more then a religious based tenet just as unsubstantiated as your own Bible quotes?
"So far, I think we've done a swell job remaining harmless toward other people!"
Harmless? Are you on crack?? Christians have done MORE harm to this world over the centuries then people like Hitler and Stalin COMBINED. Christianity has supported crusade against millions of people of different faiths and slaughtered them religiously. It has spearheaded Inquisitions where people were tortured beyond belief and murdered for "heresy". It has been responsible for the burning and torture of countless women accused as 'witches'. But let's not stop there at some of the old fun stuff, what about the last couple of centuries? Well considering it's hatred of homosexuality, it has deliberately instilled unimaginable fear and guilt into millions of people over the years, and there is more then enough evidence linking this religous drivel directly to people's suicides over the issue. Not to mention the churches around the world have and STILL try to interfere with any progressive protections bringing gays out of the closet and into the 21st century. If they had their way, it'd still be illegal and they'd be preaching every week about how morally sick these deviants are and causing more mental and emotional anguish to these poor people who simply want to just live their life as they feel without being condemned by these idiots with neanderthal ideas and not a shred of proof that their words have any veracity in the first place.
But I shouldn't stop there...the churches have been pretty hard on heterosexuals too. Especially those poor saps in Africa. Oh no....condoms are an unspeakable evil...It's be better to get sick and die of AIDS then dare to interfere with procreation. The Catholic Church has interfered repeatedly with efforts to teach safe sex and spread condoms. They are a one of the largest accomplices to murder imaginable.
But of course you feel this is all excusable because they are following divine 'principles'. Well that just makes everything all right then. I mean hell, why give a shit what happens in THIS world, right? It's only the next one the really matters.
Harmless my ass!
"I thought a lot about what I could say to this, and I've come up with one thing. If you're right, and after we die, we, essentially (or at least how it sounds you would believe), rot in the ground, I would still be fine believing something that isn't true. I'm wrong, but I'm still dead."
Except you wasted your ONE shot at life by letting beliefs that were of no validity interfere with all of your choices. Even that one thing itself, sexuality, is a very large part of life. It's the most pleasurable physical activity we can indulge in. Denying yourself this pleasure for no good reason is an egregious waste. Not to mention harmful. It's been well established that for males, regular ejaculation leads to much better overall prostate health and those abstaining from sexual relations showed much higher statistics of disease and disorders. It's use it or lose it in many ways.
"If, however, I am right, and there really is a God who offers eternal life to whoever is willing to reach our their hand and take it, then I am ahead again. I am allowed the right to go to heaven. Either way, I'm ahead."
This is a very old argument called "Pascal's wager". Here's a detailed explanation of why this "false dilemma" fallacy is not very convinging.
http://www.wikihow.com/Discount-Pascal's-Wager
Actually, to the Muslims, Christians and Jews are "People of the Book" and are therefore more respecting and more tolerant of them than members of the non-Abrahamic religions.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Again, a lot to digest.
If one can't "attack" (I prefer confront, challenge, to make one wonder about) another person's beliefs, then what are we supposed to attack? A person becomes what they believe, and their convictions encompass, so confronting the person about his beliefs is the same as questioning his beliefs.
"Of course no footnotes were included by God that made it CLEAR which passages should be interpreted as what. It's all done AFTER the fact in order to make the book fit reality as fluidly as possible so it can be deemed 'inerrant'. Well I hate to break it to you, but even these tactics still fail."
One thing I think you miss is that the Bible was not written in English, so footnotes are completely "allowable." Words don't have the same meaning that they do in English, so we can't understand what the author might have really meant.
For example, a verse in Luke has this very problem.
"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be My disciple."
Now, this verse is understandably misinterpreted to mean that Jesus is telling us to hate out family in order for us to love Him. Instead, the Greek word for hate used in this passage means to detach oneself from, to not feel obligated to. Our love for Jesus hsould be like hate to our parents because we love Him so much. We also need to be primarily concerned with the calling of God instead of our earthly callings. When we put God into perspective, everything else just falls into place.
In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, they are not.
The issue doesn't necessarily lie in the Bible itself, but rather faulty interpretations of the Bible, especially by those in power. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is most often used as evidence that the Bible is against homosexuality, when in fact, the story has nothing to do with homosexuality to begin with.
As one who believes that the Bible is neither infallible nor inerrant (Divinely inspired or not, it was still written and translated by humans), I will be interested in seeing your point of view on the matter in your blogs, as you seem to be a well-written person.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
"In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, they are not."
Hey. I like that quote. ;)
"The issue doesn't necessarily lie in the Bible itself, but rather faulty interpretations of the Bible, especially by those in power. "
The problem though is that we simply do not have the ability to absolutely PROVE what is a "correct" interpretation of anything even remotely as old and unsubstantiated as the Bible. It is a translation of a translation of a translation of a series of events that were written by numerous people under unknown or misleading authorship in languages and undefined time periods that at BEST correlate loosely some of the gist of the Judaistic story. The Churches themselves have cherry-picked certain gospels as literally. "gospels", and dismissed others of equally valid authorship as to time and place and veracity. Gospel of Mary Magdelene? Thomas? Judas? Those are only some of the most commonly know disputed texts. The Bible presents itself to so many people as a seamless beginning to end word of God when it is the furthest thing imaginable from a fax from heaven. Indeed, some of the most pious and practical researchers of scripture have ended up researching themselves completely out of their beliefs when they realized that there is no such thing as "original manuscripts". I read a few intensely fascinating stories of born-again Christians that went over to study the bare bones of their faith in universities, churches and ancient repositories in Israel, Palestine, Egypt, etc. When they discovered how nebulous and vague the origins of the written word were, they became disillusioned and in most cases...atheist.
I think it's fairly telling that the ones who do NOT dig so deep and choose to keep a vague, un-examined generalized belief in the 'truth' of God and spirituality, keep holding on to their faith by not really subjecting it to hard scrutiny. Again as I made a reference to them earlier, a familiar logical fallacy tactic employed by too many religious supporters is called "moving the goalposts". It's amazing how so many people can hold up their idea of science and evidence to an almost unbelievably impossible 'absolute proof' standard, and yet allow their OWN beliefs to be so mutable that they can pull any excuse out of their ass that they feel exonerates any criticism .
One thing I want to stress on this blog is that I will not hesistate to call people dishonest and hypocritical if they cannot subject their own beliefs to a completely fair logical and unbiased judgement. If your beliefs cannot be substantiated, then simply call them what they are. Beliefs. Admit you have no evidence and that you choose to ignore rational thought over the presupposed belief of your choice. At least it's intellectually honest.
Indeed. And it always cracks me up when people explain the exclusion of the apocryphal texts as "the church felt that they were not divinely inspired." As humans, who's to say that they aren't? While I can understand the argument for the ones that were simply written after the original canon was put in place, that doesn't explain the ones that were actually written before the canon gospels.
I think you'd enjoy an entry I made in my personal blog regarding my recent encounter with a person who called herself Christian. Suffice to say, she didn't like the idea of challenging her faith.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
This was a double post somehow. Deleted.
So to (for now) sum it up back to the point, homosexuality is completely natural. Many animals do it. It's been accepted and affirmed by every major medical and psychological body of importance in the world and categorically defined as immutable, unchangeable except by forced attitude and choice behavior, and intrinsically neutral in terms of any kind of "right" or "wrong" judgments.
I'm fairly tolerant of homosexulaity for a person of my generation. My biggest concerns are about the health issues that accompany the gross promiscuity that in many cases seems to accompany the homosexual lifestyle . I really don't care if homosexuals make themselves sick but their illnesses seem to spill into larger society with the impact being at the very minimum that we are forced to pay for it.
But on the otherhand my big issue is over-population. I think reproductive habits are closely tied to culture and I see the increasing acceptance of homosexuality in our culture (and if you look at it from my 50 year perspective the change has been huge), to be a cultural shift in response to too many people. So homosexuals are helping me out from that perspective. They don't usually have babies.
But your argument I quoted above is not overly convincing. The same could be said of pediophilia. The day may come when society is convinced to accept that behavior as acceptable too but I hope I never see it. The same could probably be also be even said for murder. It happens in the animal kingdom. It has been happening among men at least since Cain and Abel and my guess is a lot longer than that. It is measurable. A certain number of humans are destined to be murders and that is just part of (human) nature. In some societies it is even acceptable such as honor killings in some Muslim cultures. Just because something is natural is no argument that it is right.
But just don't get pregnant and I'll try to be tolerant.
Ahh. Some excellent debate points and I will gladly discuss. It's late though..will return to this tomorrow. I actually agree with you halfway. :)
Several of my friends, both gay and lesbian, have children. We're getting creative.
And while there are certainly gay people who are promiscuous, it is irrational, uninformed, and unfair to blame us for the spread of STD's. Not all, and in fact, not a majority of gay and lesbian people are promiscuous, or any more promiscuous than straight people. And the fastest growing group of HIV cases are African American straight women, and IV drug users, regardless of orientation. When I worked in an adult foster home for people with AIDS, every resident but one was heterosexual. This is an organization with several houses that cared for almost 100 people. I know it's a small sample, but it is one example of where the disease argument breaks down upon practical application. Another example is the fact that lesbians have the lowest (by a landslide) rates of STD infection of any group. Less than all heterosexuals of any adult age group. So if that really is your biggest concern, you should be fine with lesbians. Oh, but then that would be a slippery slope.
STD's can happen to anyone who has sex with anyone. Use a condom. Or don't have sex with anyone but your wife and you shouldn't have to worry about it so much.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
STD's can happen to anyone who has sex with anyone. Use a condom. Or don't have sex with anyone but your wife and you shouldn't have to worry about it so much.
I am monogamous. I worry about it a) because I am taxed to pay for it and b) because I have a daughter. Otherwise, I couldn't care less.
I've never heard of lesbians being wildly promiscuous. It may happen (I have no idea) but there is not enough of it going on where it has become part of the stereotype. But gay men have there bathhouses and I have read numerous articles where some gay man is talking about having sex with more different partners in one wild night then I and all of my friends added together have had in a lifetime. It is promiscuity beyond what has ever been described in the wildest Turkish orgy. There is almost always truth underlying sterotypes and the bathhouses would not exist if there was not truth in this case. But I am sure there are quite a lot of gay men in committed monogamous relationships.
I think lesbians have among the lowest incidences of STDs so I certainly don't blame them. But gay men are one of the highest risk categories and it is perfectly rational and informed to blame them. The fact that intravenous drug users are even MORE unhealthy is both not surprising and not exculpatory. The fact remains that some gay men (too many) engage in behavior that impacts greater society in a very negative way.
Yes, the sad reality is that now you can catch an STD from just about anybody and there is a fairly high probability that it is going to happen. I hit sexual maturity in the 70's and things were quite different then. You could have sex with just about anybody and there was a very high probability you would NOT catch an STD. It is perfectly rational for anybody who has witnessed this change to blame the people who have engaged in the very high risk behaviors for giving us this sad new reality.
I'd like to note that while AIDS didn't become a known threat until the early 80s, it has a latency period of up to ten years. This means it actually started spreading in the US in the 70s.
I'd also like to note that the world did not have half the population we have now.
It's a scientific fact that when a species overpopulates an area and the ecosystem can no longer contain the population, two things set in - starvation and disease. What does AIDS do to humans? Turns the victim's immune system against itself and opens it up to other diseases. Something as simple as a cold or the flu can be deadly to someone with a compromised immune system. But not everyone has HIV or AIDS, so the ones that do, die off and you're left with the ones that don't. Regardless of the number who had it, it's that many fewer members of the species that survive, resulting in a more sustainable population.
Some sources say that we've already exceeded a sustainable population (chart in the link shows max populations after the fossil fuels are depleted). If that's the case, then it's no wonder that almost 40 million people have AIDS, with around 5 million more contracting it each year. It would also be no wonder that other diseases, such as malaria and influenza have become an increasing problem.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
"Turns the victim's immune system against itself and opens it up to other diseases."
One nitpick....It doesn't turn the immune system against itself. You are thinking of an autoimmune disease. It just makes for a deficient, or dsyfunctional immune system when the CD4's in particular become so low they cannot orchestrate the immune defenses properly.
It's an extremely efficient virus unfortunately, and doubly bad that it uses sex to spread. It's one of the hardest vectors to control because of the 'stigma' surrounding sexuality. There is a horrible element of morality blame on people that contract the disease which is as a rule completely absent from any other serious disease.
Still, with every successive generation humans will adapt and likely become immune even IF they do not discover a vaccine or cure. It tends to work that way in nature.
I stand corrected.
Still, with every successive generation humans will adapt and likely become immune even IF they do not discover a vaccine or cure. It tends to work that way in nature.
Except for the fact that the HIV virus adapts even more, and in some cases, better, partially because its "generations" are faster. It doesn't help, either, that a virus in general, isn't technically "alive" by the traditional definition.
doubly bad that it uses sex to spread. It's one of the hardest vectors to control because of the 'stigma' surrounding sexuality
Indeed. The sad part, too, is that sex isn't the only way it spread (just like it's not how HIV crossed species). HIV was once used to discriminate against Haitians, now it's used to discriminate against gays.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
HIV was spreading in the 70's but the vast majority of that spread was strictly in the high risk communities. When it bloomed into AIDS in the 1980s, it was fairly isolated.
Since you seem interested in population issues, I would be honored if you'd take a look at the blog I wrote a few days ago called Hunger and Tough Love.
Interestingly enough, before it came to North America, it wasn't even spread through sex at all. It's speculated that it was spread from a specific species of monkey through blood contact, generally when using said monkeys for food.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
for quite some time. Just ask any veteran from WWII, Korea or Vietnam about the "clap," I don't think they will be blaming it on homos.
Syphilis is also a pretty old one.
Today, 26% of young girls between the ages of 14 and 19 have an STD. 48% of African American girls (the words used in the CDC study) in the same age range have an STD.
http://www.cdc.gov/stdconference/2008/media/release-11march2008.htm
Surely they aren't being infected by homosexual men.
I had the pleasure of meeting a young woman, in her early 20's at the hospital. She has AIDS and is pregnant. I doubt its cause she was hanging out with homosexuals.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
Several of my friends, both gay and lesbian, have children. We're getting creative.
I suspect that as a group you have and will always have very low fertility rates. Even if one of you manages to have 5 or 10 children there will still be offset by the large numbers who have one or none. That is a good thing! I say that not because I think you are unfit to reproduce or raise children but because I believe the earth is running up against (or perhaps well past) its sustainable carrying capacity. Everybody should have low fertility.
Cultures adopt behaviors that help their populations reach harmony with their environment. My mother is an anthropologist (Tenured Professor Emeritus at Vanderbilt ) and she has written books on that very subject. For example this one:
Population Pressure and Cultural Adjustment (Paperback)
It has never been mentioned in her books but I hypothesize (but have no way of testing) that the increasing acceptance of homosexuality in our culture is in part a response to population pressure.
If my hypothesis is correct, then there is hope for the blogger who wrote the title to this blog. There is still plenty of bigotry but there has been ENORMOUS change in the last 50 years too. Cultures are highly resistant to change so it takes time.
I was raised to hate. I choose to tolerate. I raised my daughter to be tolerant. She chooses to accept.
I read in another blog here the other day that it's estimated that the planet can sustain 5 or 6 billion people. Since we're way past that, it explained the food shortage. I also read somewhere that scientists think that homosexuality might be a response to overpopulation (alas, I can't find that article and it was the only one I found). So your logic may have some basis in fact, and would make sense.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
"My biggest concerns are about the health issues that accompany the gross promiscuity that in many cases seems to accompany the homosexual lifestyle . "
There are a great many things that can be said about this. But first lets start with some obvious things.
Not all homosexuals are promiscuous. In fact, of the newer generation, there was a study just released showing that over 90% of young gays saw themselves in a monogamous relationship by the age of 30.
There are two major reasons why promiscuity is fairly high for MALE homosexuals. Female homosexuals are not necessarily any more promiscuous to my knowledge...but I could be wrong. The first reason is that because society had kept them fearful of openly being themselves, anonymous sex became a habit pattern for many. When you set sexual patterns in life, they are VERY hard to break. Humans are creatures of habit after all. Heterosexuals brought up by the idea and practice of monogamy tend to be better at sticking to it. But the more people that you sleep with increases your desire for novelty and new experiences because lets face it, there is nothing more exciting as a sexual turn-on then a brand new experience with a new body. This is inarguably true for the great majority of people. So after years of having new, exciting, relatively shallow experiences, do you think it's so easy to jump into a full committed, long-term monogamous relationship with the mind completely reversing and shutting off the previous lifestyle of before? It's why so many struggle.
The second main reason is even more obvious. We are talking about men, Gay men are no more promiscuous then straight men are. The only difference is they don't have the restraining influence of a women to temper them. Men are naturally horny and can have sex with little or no emotional interest being there. If women had the same sexual nature as men, I daresay you would see little difference between the two groups. Indeed there are many straight men visiting strip clubs, into pornography, hookers, massage parlours, etc etc. Sometimes gay men seem much more visible because many have lashed out in a somewhat public way by declaring their right to sex, and this has extended to places like bathhouses and cruising grounds. The real fight is the right to make your own choice to follow your natural biological attraction, but to many people they wrongly judge their focus as the desire for shallow sex only. Sure many will always do this, and quite frankly it IS anyone's right, but not everyone is like that and as the study I references earlier mentioned, many of the new generation do not even seek that.
"I really don't care if homosexuals make themselves sick but their illnesses seem to spill into larger society with the impact being at the very minimum that we are forced to pay for it. "
Now as to the health issues, this is really a red herring to the issue of being gay. Disease is an INCIDENTAL concern that has always been present as a method of transmitting foreign life forms that survive with us as hosts.
Your post suggests that homosexuals are MORE to blame then heterosexuals. This is unfair for many reasons. Heterosexuals have kept Syphilis, Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Herpes, Human Papilloma Virus, and countless other diseases in the sexual gene pool for hundreds of thousands of years. Just because in the last couple of DECADES, one of the biggest and most serious STI'S, AIDS, passes a little easier between men having sex with men, hardly points to an overall implication of unrepentant, disease-infested group of deviants.
In fact, AIDS is FAR more prevelant in heterosexuals in Africa, and are they stopping it? Are they curbing their promiscuity? Not even close! Men and women are still having children they cannot afford to raise, and in many cases passing on AIDS to them blithely. Many are visiting prostitues all the time, and the epidemic keeps spreading. Does this indicate that heterosexuality is a problem? Of course not. It's again, INCIDENTAL to their sexuality.
The bottom line is that if all STI's were wiped off the face of the earth, there would be really no problem with promiscuity among homosexuals OR heterosexuals unless dealing with ethics regarding relationships and the production of children.
In any event, I also remember studies showing that on average, homosexuals practice safe sex at a much higher percentage then heterosexuals, so they are overall showing greater responsibility.
There are always exceptions. But exceptions do not a demographic make.
"But on the otherhand my big issue is over-population. I think reproductive habits are closely tied to culture and I see the increasing acceptance of homosexuality in our culture (and if you look at it from my 50 year perspective the change has been huge), to be a cultural shift in response to too many people. So homosexuals are helping me out from that perspective. They don't usually have babies."
Again. Excellent point, and one that bodies like the Catholic Church are completely wrong-headed on. They bemoan the falling birth rates and suggest that any culture slowing down the birth of children is morally inept. Bullshit! We DO have to be concerned with overpopulation, and it is not a bad thing at all to slow down our population rate. We are on a very finite planet. For all we know, homosexuality MIGHT have something to do with a species and a natural facet in our genes designed to curtail our reproductiveness.
"But your argument I quoted above is not overly convincing. The same could be said of pediophilia. The day may come when society is convinced to accept that behavior as acceptable too but I hope I never see it. The same could probably be also be even said for murder. It happens in the animal kingdom. It has been happening among men at least since Cain and Abel and my guess is a lot longer than that. It is measurable. A certain number of humans are destined to be murders and that is just part of (human) nature. In some societies it is even acceptable such as honor killings in some Muslim cultures. Just because something is natural is no argument that it is right."
And you're absolutely right. That is a reason as to why another fallacy is called the naturalistic fallacy. However, I stated the obvious in my first post because people that start off with the default belief that homosexuality is UNnatural, are implying a moral judgement that is intrinsically impossible. There really isn't any such THING as "unnatural". We are all part of nature. So countering that insinuation of "wrongness", or "deviancy" is a first step to putting homosexuality where it belongs. In neutrality. Pedophilia is wrong because the demonstration of that desire causes HARM. It is not a consensual relationship, or even if it IS, we don't consider it that way because there is an imbalance of power in relation to a child and an adult. On top of this, pedophiles seem to have no problems having "normal' sexual relations. Most homosexuals, DO. On top of this, how can they form a long-term bond with someone who will eventually, grow out of their desire? They would have to continually toss aside people getting older and chasing younger ones. It doesn't even make sense.
The point is that pedophilia although possibly 'natural', is intrinsically a harmful expression that no one BUT the pedophiles thinks is desirable. So it's not even a comparable analogy.
Now physically and medically we can determine whether homosexualiy is DESIRABLE or not. This is where value judgements come in. Obviously it would not be "desirable" to be gay in a place like Iran, so the very social climate makes it a dangerous form of self expression. But this isn't a reality judgement, it's a human foible interfering with an unbiased evaluation.
Putting aside all incidental issues such as self-esteem problems - brought on wholly by society, NOT the condition of being gay, or disease - brought on wholly by transmission vectors and their individual evolutionary abilities, we have to ask is there anything REALLY wrong or intrinsically harmful with being gay?
Physically, no. Just being gay does not offer any benefit or detriment to quality of life unless interfered with by outside influences. ergo- disease, societal pressure, ostracism, etc.
Mentally and emotionally? Unequivocably no. As the APA states:
No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.
In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better-designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this removal.
For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.
So ultimately, we are back to square one. Everything in life is neutral by default when dealing with the issue of morality. If proponents of a theory whether religious or scientific, wish to support their claim, they have to understand that they cannot default the concept of homosexuality as wrong, immoral or unnatural just because of something they believe, personaly feel icky about, or pick at by using incidental sub-issues. They have to prove it first or their words are just drivel.
Not all homosexuals are promiscuous. In fact, of the newer generation, there was a study just released showing that over 90% of young gays saw themselves in a monogamous relationship by the age of 30.
This is good news. When gays quit behaving in a irresponsibly promiscuous manner then my concerns about health issues will largely be addressed.
There are two major reasons why promiscuity is fairly high for MALE homosexuals.
These seem like reasonable explanations.
Your post suggests that homosexuals are MORE to blame then heterosexuals. This is unfair for many reasons. Heterosexuals have kept Syphilis, Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Herpes, Human Papilloma Virus, and countless other diseases in the sexual gene pool for hundreds of thousands of years.
I am fully aware that heterosexuals can and always have gotten these diseases.
My concern has been the irresponsibly promiscuous behavior that has caused these diseases to become a major problem. In the 70's when I was young, STD's were something that were basically only found in isolated groups of people like prostitutes and drug users. They are now common in our entire population. I think it is perfectly reasonable to blame this spread on the people who engaged in extremely risky behaviors. Gays are one of those groups. And it is cost society dearly. I have a 20 year old daugher and I am very hopeful that she manages to navigate the biological minefield that I never even had to really think about.
When I start reading that gays are not behaving irresponsibly anymore then my concern about health issues will largely be addressed.
When I start reading that gays are not behaving irresponsibly anymore then my concern about health issues will largely be addressed.
Why don't we start with people in general? You single out gays and make it seem like it's a huge deal when it's promiscuity in general that has caused many of the issues we have today.
How do you think those isolated cases stopped being isolated? Those prostitutes usually serve people that have or eventually obtain families and then spread it to them.
If you want to blame anyone, you can blame your own generation as a whole, because it's never just any one group. If it was just any one group, it would stay in said group, not "spill over" into another.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I've behaved irresponsibly myself plenty of times. But that does not make irresponsible behavior right or something I approve of.
The reason I am singling out gays in this discussion is that we happen to be in a thread that is discussing homosexuality. If we were in a thread talking about prostitution or intravenous drug use, then you would find that I have very definate health concerns about those activities too.
Human beings have always been promiscuous and I doubt that changed much even in Victrorian times when everybody was very uptight. It just went deeper into the closet.
But for thousands of years people have been able to enjoy their promiscuity with a fairly low risk of catching a disease. The main thing you needed to do was stay away from sea ports, prostitutes and drug users.
Something has changed in the last 30 years and now the normal promiscuous and irresponsible romp of a couple of college kids has a much higher chance of turning into a death sentence or a much higher chance of resulting in one of the lesser STDs.
I blame this change on the EXTREMELY irresponsible behavior of the high risk groups. Homosexuals are just one of those groups.
It is one thing for a couple of college students to have irresponsible sex and it is an entirely different thing for a gay WHO KNOWS HE IS PART OF A HIGH RISK GROUP to have sex with 40 people in a bathhouse in a single night. In the former case a scolding is in order. In the latter case, a castration would be more appropriate.
The biggest health problems gay persons are dealing with, are inflicted upon them by organized religions, being the biggest and most dangerous virus upon this globe, STD’s come on the 3th or 4th place!
Organized religions being radical when it boils down to using condoms are causing all of the STD’s to remain circulating not using any, while sinners or hypocrites amongst their herd do use them!
It seems there is a serious interest in finding out how to use genitals in more alternative ways! How interesting,
http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics
The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.
François-Marie Arouet
Religion is the root for bathhouses to appear,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAzMuHyg8Eg&NR=1
DEFENATLY BECOMING PART OF A HIGH RISK GROUP IN MY NEXT LIFE!
My quote of the day: You may now slit my throat…
Got carried away again, lol, from now on I’ll stick myself upon that fine line and only bring freshness…
:-)
"It is one thing for a couple of college students to have irresponsible sex and it is an entirely different thing for a gay WHO KNOWS HE IS PART OF A HIGH RISK GROUP to have sex with 40 people in a bathhouse in a single night. In the former case a scolding is in order. In the latter case, a castration would be more appropriate."
Actually you are missing one crucial point here. Serosorting. Anyone who goes to a bathhouse and has unsafe promisuous sex KNOWING they are as yet still negative, is an absolute idiot and yes I'll agree with you in this regards.
BUT for people who are already infected? Especially many people who got infected by partners who were unfaithful, possibly unknowingly back in the early days, by many other possible vectors, this does not apply. Why? Because to these people it's one of their last refuges to go and have bare sex with people in the same boat. It's hardly fair to expect them to keep practicing safe sex and never know the far greater pleasure of condomless sex. And make no mistake, safe sex is not just a "little" difference. It's HUGE. I live in a very large gay community in Toronto and I've read discussions from many and seen surveys and focus groups, and quite frankly it's summed up quite succintly. Once you go bare, it's REALLY hard to go back. Most men would rather not even have sex if they have to use a condom. The whole "barrier" concept combined with the very unnatural feel of plastic on either end is like night and day when compared to natural flesh. So that's reality and when dealing with people who have already joined the "club", you have to be realistic.
It's stupid to throw arguments about "viral mixing" or any of the other minor in comparison STD'S. Do you really think they'll care? They already have the bomb. The ONE consolation they have left is not having to worry about it any further. Other STD'S can be treated and/or cured, and again more responsibility in regular testing and reporting can keep those situations to a minimum. It's already far better then the 70's. People were still much more irresponsible then.
So people that keep sex among themselves and do not spread any further into the other population are doing the greatest service. It contains it completely as long as the idiots do not go in and act ridicuolously irresponsible and pick it up themselves. No one in today's world has any excuse for playing unsafely with fellow homosexuals, just as no needle drug addict has any excuse to share needles and not know better.
Now ideally even HIV positive people would pair off and not necessarily live an entire life unpartnered, but that STILL may happen and really it isn't anyone's right to make a moral judgement regarding same. Having sex with other people is not intrinsically wrong or right you have to remember. And even having multiple partners is nothing more then a personal choice that is not anyone's right to judge. Just as a quick mental exercise, why would a human being who chalked up a score of killing 30 human beings in a run in Iraq designated a 'hero', while a person who shared an intimate encounter with 30 human beings decried as an unwholesome person? Does this really make sense? Food for thought.
So to sum up, we must not be so quick to make blanket judgements on people's behaviour. Some of it is inexcusable, others are not to be judged. Things are rarely black and white.
Nice Rationalization. Yet the new cases of HIV keep on popping up and the gay male community keeps on being one of the communities with the most new cases.
"Nice Rationalization. Yet the new cases of HIV keep on popping up and the gay male community keeps on being one of the communities with the most new cases."
And the same thing can be said with heterosexuals in Africa, and also the huge number of visible minorities that are overtaking other demographics in North America.
As we've discussed, individual behaviour is of paramount importance here. You cannot blithely paint an entire demographic group with a specific brush and suggest they all are 1) to blame, or 2) to act identically in behaviour no matter what their current status or situation.
Lets state what should be the most important point. Who needs to be the most careful out there? The people who are positive or the people who are negative?
Who has the most to lose?
It's common sense. The person who is currently uninfected has the greatest responsibility to protect THEMSELVES from the virus. Especially if they choose to have any kind of relationship with people not infected as well. It's of even GREATER importance if they are bisexual and might involve people in a low risk group involving future breeding.
People have to be educated and need to take full reponsibility for their own health. Every single person out there should be aware of, educated in the transmission facts regarding STD's and offered full access to such protection as condoms for any and all sexual situations until they fully committ to a monogamous, or at the very least a closed group of people that are of known status and not involving unsafe encounters with people who are not verified.
This is the only strategy that will eventually stop the virus from being spread any further. It cannot be put on the people who are positive because indeed, up to 20% of them don't even know they have it and because of sexuality being a factor and the stigma of AIDS, many will NOT get tested. This is reality and we have to face it or deal with the consequences.
Judgement is not needed here. Sensibility and education is combined with a very strong message of look after your OWN back yard and don't expect others to guard your health. It's your body and your life. Treat it as such.
one of being the key phrase there.
The other chart topper? High risk heterosexual contact. Go figure.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
many diseases that we think are "new" are not, it is simply that science and medicine have allowed us to "discover" them. Life expectancy has also increased over the past couple of hundred years. Part of this is because we have things called Prophylactics, which include vaccines and condoms. In the past when people died of cancer, they didn't know they had cancer, they just died. Knowing that something exists does not call it into existence, it just makes us aware of its existence.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
“In fact, AIDS is FAR more prevalent in heterosexuals in Africa, and are they stopping it? Are they curbing their promiscuity?”
Many people ignore certain conditions which are daily realities upon the continent of Africa.
Not only do they carry a far greater sexual appetite, they consider it a normal part of their social lives.
Many don’t enjoy the “so called” luxuries of television sets and mingle more openly when it boils down to sex.
In many cases or situations they carry a (survival)need in brining life upon this earth if they which to prolong their stay amongst the living. Having kids in Africa is same as “ensuring future care assurance” when reaching that age.
Sadly enough depending on what is affecting the various types of climates within their surroundings, things can backlash when war, draught, viruses or other misfortunes kick in upon their societies, which then immediately turn into sites of imaginable trauma.
On top of that, the ones who are most vulnerable to these conditions, are not always well informed or educated to deal with whatever misfortunes that might pop up!
On the other hand they are extremely well informed about the wishes of Mr. Right in the sky. Mr. Right being their biggest hope is making such that the use of contraceptives is a still a mayor taboo which is difficult to tackle, it jeopardizes to many aspects of their being, realities which are difficult to understand for anyone not having had the experience to get in touch with their soil.
African Africans are amazing people but sadly enough they have been strongly affected by the words and books of
God’s.
I’ve gone twice trough your blog, what an enlightenment!
Hope you stay around!
"African Africans are amazing people but sadly enough they have been strongly affected by the words and books of
God’s."
I agree, and I would also like to hasten to explain that I didn't intend my previous comments to be necessarily critical of Africans and their sexual behaviour involving HIV and children. Obviously some ARE to blame for such reprehensible acts as raping young virgins thinking it will "cure" them of AIDS, among other individual poor choices of action. But ultimately as you stated, many are not educated as well as they could be regarding true birth control, disease transmission and many other factors that deal with their living conditions.
I was really making the point that just as it's stupidity to point fingers at the behaviour of heterosexuals in Africa, it's just as disingineous to point a finger at homosexuals and claim it's their 'fault' for STD'S. It's a red herring an well as a non-sequitur.
It's been my experience that when many people are arguing religiously against homosexuality, they constantly go off on side tangents such as this in order to demonize them by suggesting that their innate nature is demonstrably pernicious. But this would only be a valid point, IF every character of gay sexuality was consistently this way in each and every case. If not, then it is individual behaviour at fault and using the generic stereotype of "gays" is irrelevant and incorrect.
If people wish to demonize promiscuity itself that's a different argument and it can and DOES apply equally to all human beings and their sexual behaviour. It doesn't even make one whit of difference if even a phony number like 95% of the gay population was shamelessly wanton and had 50 sexual partners a week. Again that would be completely INCIDENTAL to their innate sexual attraction.
As I also said before in another post, the reality is that a grand majority of humanity loves sex because it is one of the most pleasurable activities we can engage in, and the male of the species is particularly driven to multiple sex partners. But it's also been drilled into people's heads by so many truly unauthoritative and ultimately unprovable 'authorities', that it is "sacred", "special", HAS to be "monogamous", and other countless value judgements that have no real factual basis. Again many animals engage in sexual activity for much more then procreation. Dophins are well documented to masturbate regularly and will even try to have sexual relations with humans. Our closest species relatives like the Bonobo monkeys go all over the MAP of sexuality. Hetero, homo, bisexuality, etc. They use it to strengthen social bonds. Now if you want to argue whether marriage and monogamy should be preferable to shallow bonds and sexual variety, that's again another argument and again just incidental to sexuality, not reflective on the innate attraction. I'd like to add on top of this how unbelivably hypocritical the people are the on one hand dare to suggest marriage is THEIR religious domain only and should be denied to any other type of two people that do not fit their criteria, and then on the OTHER hand condemn homosexuals for being promiscuous. How the hell can you expect to have it any other way if you don't even allow them to PAIR bond in the same kind of monogamous union? The nerve!
So back to the other point, yes the issue of disease is an important one to be aware of. We are competing with organisms that live off us. Not really much different then us feeding on other organisms to live. That's reality. That's life. Now if you wish to have more CONTROL over your individual life, we have the mental ability and scientific knowledge to be able to understand and affect how efficiently these organisms spread. We're lucky in that regard, and the knowledge of this lends us some degree of responsibility to ourselves and others including and especially our children.
But ultimately, this is a simple scientific fact of living and our choices regarding safe sex and hopefully our ability to win the battle some day and maybe eradicate said disease may lead us into a golden age where it'll be a moot point. But this is neither here nor there to the issue of gay or straight.
Life in many cases loses all meaning making many to dwell in hope, because the evolution we ARE all being part of, regardless of form, gender or sexual preference is evolution itself, a natural part and process of existence which sadly enough, get’s tackled over and over again by religious structures who are putting their best effort in place to put barriers in front of one’s eyes. Like walls for people not to see or grasp the reality and bigger picture life contains.
Only this way they can gain and keep power over the minds and thoughts of masses, people part of those herds are unaware and therefore fooled!
To spread words in God’s name with the sole purpose to push blame upon “our own” human evolutional progress, by pretending sicknesses arises from sexual activities brought to life by gay’s is not only shamefully absurd and criminal, it is the best and most effective way to stir up hateful tensions by creating differences within its own herd, differences of which we all know the effects they cause inside thoughts and more clearly for all to see and witness trough the violent conflicts that pop up in our societies were ever evolution pushes through a barrier.
Most people which are indoctrinated are lacking personal identity, which makes them hardly to question the book of emotional attachment, nor the authority which is pulling the strings in the name of Mr. Right!
Many blindly follow all emotional moods of the herds, trying to fit in while act accordingly to each setting which is being orchestrated by the one’s in control.
It is absolutely an amazing experience to live a life amongst people in fear!
Just like dogs sniffing their way through life in perfect ignorance, only to make sure to hang around the designated asses pointed out by whomever is in control of their thoughts.
Most of the sicknesses around are caused by this fear, making many think to be unable to let go of this obedient practice which brings forward nothing more than frustration, affecting the “inner self” of each and any who “are” controlled by fear while holding on to what is destroying them!
Which circle is more vicious than one pushing too long for a past once lived, while the future seems nothing more than a clouded road to hell?
Many fearing dead which will never become a reality, never having lived one to start with!
Got carried away again, wish could write the way you think, but then again, reading your thoughts, already made one fulfilled!
I couldn't sit and read half of the artical much less the (I assume) heated arguments afterword, but you should make a novel out of them. I just wanted to say that you provided way too many arguments for me to even begin to choose a side. I think ( to go for a section near the top right quadrant of your blog) that most people who would disagree with your statments are afraid to for fear of sounding a bigot.
In my experiance the only statment anyone can make that will please any homosexual blogging on the injustice against homosexuals is "I completly agree." If you would care to actually go and look at it I had an instance in ( I believe it was edible womans blog) a blog where I had agreed that the atrocities commited against the GLBT (thank you pro U for the term) highschool community were an out rage, I would gladly post it for you.
After I commented on how I disagree with the idea that homosexuality is "right" (for lack of time and a better word) and I used the term brainwashing when discribing my apprehension toward a GLBT specific tolerance class to start ( I believe) at an elementary level, I had two understanding replys( for the most part) and one that made me want to quit out of the argument right then.
Now I know the way I put things was not reflective of how I actually feel, and sounded fairly close minded. In truth I believe that it is not my place to say the GLBT lifestyle is wrong, and I have a couple gay friends whom I love with all my heart.
What I want to know is why you care so much if I dont agree. I'm accepting, understanding, and never discriminatory or unpolite. I know the main problem is the beatings and rapings and those are horrific. That any human being could treat another in that way is dumbfounding. Unfortunatly, since my view is considered bigoted and racist I rarely give it so no one will call me a bigot ( which is possibly the only person different from me that I can actually hate).
I have never gotten to argue with a homosexual that would just tell me how it is, or someone to tell me why I am wrong. They just call me a bigot or racist or gay basher untill I shut up or they stop talking to me.
So, though this has been all over and I have written way more than I intended, please persent me with a situation so I can say how I feel. Then look to find the flaws in my logic and show me why I am wrong. Don't just call me a bigot then send me on my way to be another bigot in the pool of bigots. Show me the light so that I might truly see the error of my thoughts.
Well, for starters, why do you disagree with the GLBT lifestyle?
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
"So, though this has been all over and I have written way more than I intended, please persent me with a situation so I can say how I feel. Then look to find the flaws in my logic and show me why I am wrong. Don't just call me a bigot then send me on my way to be another bigot in the pool of bigots. Show me the light so that I might truly see the error of my thoughts."
Hey there. You sound very reasonable and I would love to discuss this in fair and non-judgemental manner. I read this coming in late and I'll look tomorrow and get a better chance at starting a thread. Already I know you are not the kind of person I would just label 'bigoted' or 'intolerant' and leave it at that.
There are some very close personal people in my life such as my immediate family and others that could easily fit along the lines of your position that I would never label so quickly and immutably. I believe we would likely agree in the main although might have some sticky points that we would slightly differ. So what? The world doesn't have to 100% agree with all. We just have to be able to RESPECT our rights enough that we can still express ourselves. There's that fine line between tolerance, respect and understanding....if it's tinged a bit with love all the better. We can have a world that can live with differences. As long as we don't have people believing that the only way to be equal is to be equal like THEM.
I'll pick this up tomorrow. I like your sensitivity and I think we will not really be so unlike in our opinons. ;)
"In my experiance the only statment anyone can make that will please any homosexual blogging on the injustice against homosexuals is "I completly agree." If you would care to actually go and look at it I had an instance in ( I believe it was edible womans blog) a blog where I had agreed that the atrocities commited against the GLBT (thank you pro U for the term) highschool community were an out rage, I would gladly post it for you. "
Not necessarily. As you've possibly noticed, I have agreed halfway with a few people so far that some others in the gay community might jump up in arms about. Again, one of the realities of life and not a gilded stereotype is that I do NOT represent a borg-like opinion of the "gay agenda". I am a separate human being with my own opinions. The only "agenda" shared by all homosexuals is the cause to be treated as equal to hetero's and their right to express their innate sexual attraction without censure, suppression, religious drivel without factual basis, and hateful words and actions. That's all!
"After I commented on how I disagree with the idea that homosexuality is "right" (for lack of time and a better word) and I used the term brainwashing when discribing my apprehension toward a GLBT specific tolerance class to start ( I believe) at an elementary level, I had two understanding replys( for the most part) and one that made me want to quit out of the argument right then. "
I'm assuming you're referring to another blog? I would have to see the original comment in order to discuss it. I'd be interested to see the specific reference to the tolerance class as well. The important thing to remember here though is that you would need to know EXACTLY what was being presented and in it's entirety of context in order to make a full and proper judgement, even as an opinion.
"In truth I believe that it is not my place to say the GLBT lifestyle is wrong, and I have a couple gay friends whom I love with all my heart."
I admire very much that you admit this. You are far more fair-minded then the average person expressing reservations or even outright revulsion and condemnation towards homosexuality. You are correct of course. No human being can say with any authority that the GLBT lifestyle is wrong. To start with, that's not even an accurate sentiment because there isn't any "lifestyle" generic enough to sum up as such. The only thing gays share is a similarity in sexual attraction. Some gays have even gone through their entire life refusing to act on it and choosing a hetero life in order to have children and a family in spite of their innate desire to bond with a same-sex partner preferentially. This in my personal view is sad, but it's not a judgement call I can make as to "right" or "wrong" either. Who's to say? If there IS truly a God, then maybe he/she/it could, but if there isn't, then the concept is like the one of sin. Irrelevant and meaningless.
In general the do unto others golden rule is still one of the best to follow in this world. If it isn't hurting anyone and you are made happy by it, run with it. Chances are it's your best choice.
"What I want to know is why you care so much if I dont agree. I'm accepting, understanding, and never discriminatory or unpolite. I know the main problem is the beatings and rapings and those are horrific. That any human being could treat another in that way is dumbfounding. Unfortunatly, since my view is considered bigoted and racist I rarely give it so no one will call me a bigot ( which is possibly the only person different from me that I can actually hate). "
You personally are obviously not a huge concern or worry to me or the gay community at large. But even the minor feelings you have still have a cumulative effect if they are expressed to others. As long as you continue to remain open minded and are willing to change your opinion if you feel enough evidence is shown to be indicative of homosexuality truly being morally neutral, then you are being the best you can be regarding your beliefs and attitudes. Mindless inflexibility without allowing reason to persuade is the sign of an intolerant bigot. A different opinion alone does not.
But now to answer your question in a general sense. It's important for me and all other homosexuals to be looked at fairly. Walk in my shoes for a minute...I happen to be one of the people that has a very good long-term memory. I remember at the age of 2 years old seeing my uncle in our guest bed asleep and I was physically interested in him and crawled into bed to 'explore' him. It's a known fact to medical and psychiatric professionals that children DO have very definite sexual feelings. Most people pretend otherwise and ruthlessly suppress any show of this the instant children express anything. Whether masturbatory, playing doctor, etc. But the reality is that it's still there. It's not fully flowered until puberty no, but it doesn't magically "spring" into being out of nowhere at the age of 13. That is so much propaganda.
So anyway, that's a true personal story of mine. I also remember looking at a playgirl ARGUING with fellow boys how a man's body was much more intersting then a females. Imagine. Obviously before I got too old I figured out that my views were a little er...uncommon and shut up rather fast. So to me I always remembered knowing my preference and have never ONCE had a similar attraction to a female. I had one girlfriend my entire life for a yeah and a half, and every single time we attempted sex, I would start sweating, panic and have to stop. Nothing felt more WRONG to me then trying to do something I did not want to do.
So I look back and think of the waste of time, no good teenage experiences of first love, derision and censure throw my way even though I wasn't 'out' per se, kids aren't stupid.
All of this bullshit negativity and bigotry telling me that something is WRONG with me simply because of how I feel naturally. Do you have any idea what that feels like to be told that you are just...WRONG? A mistake? Or worse, a deviant? Of course homosexuals are lobbying and getting more and more belligerent and demanding respect. We are OWED it. We've suffered for simply being who we are.
If people have a problem with us, then the very least we expect is honest and fair dialogue and the option of an open mind. People have been brought up by their parents and churches particularly to be judgemental towards homosexuality. They are not necessarily to blame for that. But they DO owe us the right to revise their opinion, especially when the original claims are found to be without true basis. Again as I've said before, the issue about homosexuality being a disorder of any kind is settled in the medical and psychiatric community. It is unequivocabally not. It's considered innate, essentially immutable and HARMFUL interference to try and alter it. The only remaining fringe groups left in their camp are ones like NARTH and they have as much respectability left as the HIV dissidents that claim it isn't the cause of AIDS has. In short, none. They are considered fringe wacko's as far out there as conspiracy theory nuts and tinfoil hats.
"I have never gotten to argue with a homosexual that would just tell me how it is, or someone to tell me why I am wrong. They just call me a bigot or racist or gay basher untill I shut up or they stop talking to me. "
I hope that I have answered you in a way that you feel is respectful. :)
You have to understand the knee jerk reaction to someone attacking your innate being as a person. It's not much different then trying to talk to a black man by saying "look, you have to understand that while I respect you as a person, my belief that you don't have a soul because you aren't fully human is just my personal opinion. It shouldn't earn me the title of bigot just because I express this." Do you see the similarity? That kind of statement could EASILY have been said and meant a few centuries ago. Many believed that.
Now people took refuge in religion as an excuse to justify this behavior. Now most know about science and genetics, DNA, chromosomes, etc. Would you think it reasonable for someone to wave the Bible at someone in an argument and dismiss our genetic science of today? People are doing the same thing regarding homosexuality to this day. Is it any wonder gay people get outraged at times?
"So, though this has been all over and I have written way more than I intended, please persent me with a situation so I can say how I feel. Then look to find the flaws in my logic and show me why I am wrong. Don't just call me a bigot then send me on my way to be another bigot in the pool of bigots. Show me the light so that I might truly see the error of my thoughts."
I hope I gave you some food for thought in some of my general replies. Please present your opinions to me and I promise I will discuss things respectfully with you. I'm honestly anxious to see what you think.
Well thank you. All of you. This was much better recieved than I intended, and even though I am over matched I will try to explain my feelings in a way that is least offensive to you, as we are talking about something I know is who you are. You have every right to be offended by any interpertation of my word, I only ask that you keep in mind that I am not trying to offend only to work through my thoughts on how I feel about homosexuality.
I have never been able to write or talk about my fellings and opinions on this issue so this will be a very raw and probably disjointed effort until I can really understand my over all "stance," if you will, on this ( I want to say issue but I don't like the way it sounds).
I will start with my basic view and try to explain my reasoning afterword.
I feel that homosexuality is not wrong, necessarily, it just goes against my view of the basic intentions of God and science. I know that sounds broad but let me explain. God, of course, is an omnipotent being (supposedly), so saying what he intends is a bit presumptious. Judgeing from what I know of the bible, however, he created life and gave everthing it's counter part. I had read a book entitled the divine romance ( I only made it halfway through but it had a compelling plot).
It started with Adam shortly after creation, and talked of him roaming the land god had created for him. As Adam wandered he began to wonder why he had no counter part. He called to God and said if the lion has the lioness, the ass has a mare, where is my counter part. God was hurt by this, knowing all to well the pangs of lonliness he knew his son was feeling...I'm sure you know the rest.
I just feel that god intended us to use the gift of our opposite, our missing rib if you will. The hard part about that is that I know there is love in homosexual relationships. Gay people find their other halfs. I just think that when God gave us a counter part he sacrificed one of his biggest desires, companionship.
He had created one of himself, a son that would live with him in a world of peace and beauty for all time. But his son was made to perfectly like himself and wanted to bear his own children and find his own contentment.
Perhaps I should clarify before I go on. I am not a run of the mill christian. I believe there is a God, but the bible and all other religious texts seem to corruptable to me. The one quote I believe is,
" You do not even understand earthly things do not even try to comprehend heavenly things." - Jesus
Now science I am even more shakey with. I understand there is nothing in science that says homosexuality is wrong. I just feel that the way are bodies are made up, a penis was "designed" to go into a vagina. Ovaries were made to recieve sperm and make a baby. I know homosexual sex occurs in nature all the time, but so does poo flinging and butt sniffing. I dont mean to compare what you feel to how animals feel about poo slinging, but I don't think that animals feel what you feel.
What an animal does is, mostly, instinct. They eat because they are hungry and have sex for reproduction mostly. I remember you saying some different reasons why homosexual sex is used in the wild, but I don't feel that the sex is even the biggest part of being homosexual. All in all I would say that it is unfair to compare an animal's homosexual tendancies to that of the human homosexual relationship.
I am going to post this for now so my internet doesn't shut down and I lose it. There is more to come and I will fix the grammer in this in a minute.
Hey there. I won't go too laborious in the religious part because this is where we really have little choice but to agree to disagree. :)
The simple truth is that faith based beliefs are impossible to debate logically because they do not have any basis in logic. In order for your beliefs in God and by extension at least some of the Bible, to be accepted as a factual component, the other person would have to agree with you and share the same beliefs. You're probably unaware of this, but the specific fallacy you invoke by this kind of tactic is referred to as an "Appeal to Authority". If you want a good description of this, here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Now for example, in the past when I was in my early twenties, (I am now 38), I DID believe in God. I had an alternate journey though that led into a more new age style belief but essentially Christian. Later on I ran into logical fallacies and other people with FAR greater intelligence and scientific knowledge then me, and the internet is one of the best places to test your beliefs because of the nature of type and respond. In real life arguments are won by 'style over substance' a lot and people with enough true knowledge that could for example whip a Creationist's ass are in the unenviable position of trying to cram even a basic comprehension of TRUE science in order to comprehensively explain and refute the other person's position.
As you can imagine, most often the creationist 'wins' because the audience is just not able to grasp the other's arguments effectively enough and people pushing the simple view tend to learn little clever one line comebacks that stirs emotionalism in the listeners who mistake this witty repartee as evidence that their opinions are sound too. Example, "So who was the last monkey in your family tree, your great-grandmother?" (snickers from audience). That kind of dig is not even accurate and is a VERY common tactic called the Strawman fallacy. Take the opponents argument, change it into a hugely false caricature of what they are saying and then "knock it down" like a man made of straw and by doing so suggest the opponent's ORIGINAL argument was likewise demolished. It's a very deceptive form of debate that many people use deliberately AND unwittingly.
Sometimes they win the argument by simply interrupting the lengthy arguments of the scientist, shouting them down and winning over the crowd by their forceful personality. It's a travesty really, but charisma wins over hearts many times when logic fails.
So my point is, in the past we could have met more in the middle because I would have chosen to accept your basic beliefs along with mine and we would be suspending our logical evaluation on this point by agreement.
But I no longer believe this way and so in order for us to discuss God and the Bible as having any authority whatsoever as to the world or any creatures in it, both need to be proven to be true. I know you cannot do this. Neither can I . Since I now believe that it makes far more sense to turn to science on matters such as homosexuality and the truth regarding it's origin, presence, commonality in other mammals, etc, the bringing up of God or the Bible is pointless as a debate issue.
Even if it was someone who we KNEW existed like Einstein, and you trotted out a book claimed to have been written by Einstein with quotes regarding being gay, this would still be unproven at best. Do you understand? Also unimportant, because the only time it is reasonable to appeal to authority in an argument is if the authority is accepted and known to be a TRUE expert on the subject. Appealing to God and his word is the biggest Appeal to Authority of all since it's suggested by believers that he actually exists, created everything, and has opinions on what is right and wrong that is found in one major place. The Bible. Of course we cannot PROVE that any words in the Bible are specifically from God. Heck, we can't even prove the ones attributed to Jesus are actually his words. Many 'gospels' NOT accepted by the Catholic church and others, also quote Jesus but it's not considered 'canon'. So ultimately it's only a belief of whatever someone chooses to accept is the truth because some other humans told them so. I can;t live with that as an arbitrary way of accepting truth all of my life. Can you? Can you especially expect me to just listen to their beliefs that regardless of whatever science shows, I should just pretend my being gay MUST be wrong and miserably deny myself any form of happiness in partnering with my only natural type of desirous partner? I only have one life to my knowledge and unless I have a PERSONAL experience showing any other form of truth I can accept as being real, I don't want to waste my life on unsubstantiated stories and beliefs that are not even going to help me be happy.
"I just feel that god intended us to use the gift of our opposite, our missing rib if you will."
Just an aside here...many people actually do believe that men are short one rib compared to women because of the Biblical story. This is false. We have the exact same number as women, so this is also just a general fable. Men have never had one less rib.
"I just feel that the way are bodies are made up, a penis was "designed" to go into a vagina."
The problem with this one line is manyfold and the very concept of "design" is where so many of the current battles are raging these days.
Science has a lot to say about the word design. Science agrees that yes, most things have a FUNCTION, and have evolved into a PURPOSEFUL activity, but 'design' is not a factual word in relation to life. This implies that there IS or was an actual designer that laid out blueprints that nature followed. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that this is not laid out this way at all. Natural selection is the process by which organisms choose a path leading to "hopefully" improvements in life and procreation. Every living organism is trying to stay alive and reproduce. It is the one basic thing we share with all living creatures. But all fossil evidence show no "perfect" pathway, just random selective processes that ultimately lead to a certain current state. Nothing even now is "finished". We are ALL transitional fossils in the making and every single organism evolves and adapts to life. Commonly though, this is seen on an extremely long period of time for most 'dramatic' changes. Individual lifetimes rarely show any major alterations. It took millions of years for successive water breathing animals to evolve to breathe air a well, (like amphibians), and longer still to turn their water breathing ability into a vestigial part of their past.
Humans look for patterns and things that make sense. So to just look at us from the perspective of only a few decades, it's easy for us to just say, "Wow the human body is amazing. This fits here, this does this, and this is obviously designed to be the way it is. But 'meant' to be again implies something or somebody is up there keeping score and judging us based on our actions. But other then suggesting this is the case and naming it God, where is the proof? What if simply using your body in any way you wish does absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things? You can ask trite questions like, is it "natural" to cut our toenails with clippers? Is it "natural" to make musical instruments to harmonize and accompany us?
The whole concept of 'design' and 'natural' are part and parcel of the naturalistic fallacy. It only exists as a concept. Not proven reality. Here is a good basic description of it: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Naturalistic_Fallacy
"What an animal does is, mostly, instinct. "
What we do is mostly instinct too. The only major difference between us and other animals is that we have evolved to a markedly higher form of consciousness allowing us to alter our instincts by involving our brain. We can conceptualize more then average whereas animals just react without thinking as much.
But when we're born, we have the instinct to suckle immediately. We are amazing animals, true, but we are really not that different. We are still animals.
"I remember you saying some different reasons why homosexual sex is used in the wild, but I don't feel that the sex is even the biggest part of being homosexual. All in all I would say that it is unfair to compare an animal's homosexual tendancies to that of the human homosexual relationship.
"
Sex IS the biggest part of being homosexual. it's the one defining characteristic. The comparison to any other animal is valid when stating the reason for the comparison. It is not exclusive to humans. It's not even exclusive to mammals. So it's simply to demonstrate that in this case, it is NOT our big brains choosing some alternate form of sexual expression. There is EVIDENCE that it is a part and parcel of our innate desires and it is shared by other creatures too.
Allow me finish my thoughts on the religious aspect. God sacrifice to us (men) was to give us what we wanted most (women). Now, because there was only one man and woman on the planet, homosexual sex wasn't a factor. I am hetrosexual so I can't understand the physical aspects of the attraction, but what I do understand is the want for your other.
This is why I will never condemn someone just because they love someone other than myself. Also, this is one of the reasons why I think it is wrong. God exists on a universal level, but he also exists on a worldly level. Dogmatic law (love that movie) is what we hold true on earth, so shall god hold it true in heaven, or something like that. I believe that because so many christian and indeed most religion hold that homosexuality is immoral (maybe not in the actual scriptures, but in their hearts), I think that may be what decides it for god.
However, if you dont believe in religion it doesn't matter to you, but it make a world of differance to someone who does.
The one reason that makes all my points sound hollow even to my ears is that there is, undeniably, love. I would never say anything to destroy the contentment of two people who love each other. There is so little in this world that fills a person with such a feeling, that feeling that is so bittersweet and strong you want to cry just thinking about sharing it with anyone.
There is nothing in this world I find more precious and if i thought for one second I would be able to convince you to think one way or the other on this topic I would never talk to you again. For me though, I go to sleep every night thinking of what my wifes laugh will sound like, the fell of her hair brushing my face, the smell of her perfume. Women have their spell on me, I couldn't Imagine being able to have the same conversations and feeling with a man as I do with a woman.
Men, too me, have a different personality track. I dont think along the same guidelines as either gender if you ask me, but the trust you can have with a woman is fundemantally more secure to me. Women can keep a secrect long after your dead and buried no problem but, unless he is your best friend, men have to talk out how they feel about what they know (in my general experiance).
So, aside from specific facts, I am not sure if there is much to discuss about my opinions. I hope it has been as respectful of you feeling as you were of mine, I tried not to hold back so I could accuratly describe my feelings on the subject( thats a much better word:))
I will stop now and wait for your responses
First of all, bravo on the response. It seems you worked hard to keep the tone from being offensive while still voicing your thoughts and opinions, and it shows in your writing here.
Now, on to the critique, hopefully to help you sort things out. I'll try to keep the ultimate choice up to you by simply presenting you with questions, counters, other sides and whatnot to make you think a little.
Overall, it seems that you feel homosexuality is wrong biologically (not necessarily morally), and for good reason, the parts fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. You do also recognize that relationships, regardless of their orientation are (at least ideally) based on love and that the physical attraction is basically icing on the cake. This is actually a fairly good place to be for one that feels he's understanding, but still disagrees. Too many people think that just because they're not attracted to the opposite sex, that there's no love involved and it's all about sex and pounding everything that moves, which couldn't be farther from the truth (at least any more so than straight people).
Imagine being able to have the same conversations and feeling with a man as I do with a woman.
and
What an animal does is, mostly, instinct. They eat because they are hungry and have sex for reproduction mostly.
This is actually part of the reason why science has deemed it a natural phenomenon.
If you think about it, the idea that all animals have sex just for reproduction is actually a very broad assumption. Recently, though, biologists have found that the "sex for reproduction" idea was actually quite off (you recognized this by the "mostly" part). If you've ever been sexually active, you know what it feels like. To put it bluntly, it feels good. It would stand to reason, then, that many animals feel the same about it and would, therefore, practice it while not actually fertile.
One thing that people seem to forget, too, is that we are also animals, and when it comes down to it, we run mostly on instinct as well. Barring mental illness, we eat when we're hungry, fight or run when we feel threatened, have a desire to seek shelter, as a group species we seek the comfort of others, and so on.
I think it's safe to say that the feelings you feel for members of the opposite sex are instinctual, correct? You didn't have to "learn" to like women, you just did. So, again, it would stand to reason that the same impulses could, for whatever reason, shift on an instinctual level from the opposite sex to the same sex, not?
Okay, so if you agree with me so far, we've reasoned that scientifically, homosexuality is a natural occurrence (there's also theories as to why it occurs in the first place, but that's beyond our scope here). So, what about spiritually? Does God say it's okay?
Well, like you mentioned, the Bible doesn't really specifically say that homosexuality is morally wrong (there are verses that appear to allude to homosexuality, but when put in the context of the time and circumstances in which is was written, they take on a whole new meaning, but again, that's out of our scope here). So, that leaves us with, basically, guessing what God does and does not approve of.
Well, God created everyone, right? And he's omnipotent, right? So, if he creates people that are blind or deaf (or both) or physically or mentally disabled, why would he not create people with different needs sexually? If he has the power to bring unnatural plagues down on a population, or create the universe, or care about each and every one of the 7 billion people on this world, why would he not also be responsible for how gays feel? That was one thing I never understood. Supposedly, God made the deaf or the blind, or the wheelchair-bound to test others of their faith. These people were supposedly angels (or special in a sense that almost puts them above other humans), yet a difference in sexual orientation was an abomination.
And why is it an abomination? Because gays can't naturally reproduce. When put in that context, it makes perfect sense. However, it also assumes that everyone who is straight can reproduce naturally, which isn't the case. There are a number of people who, thanks to genetics or some disorder, are unable to have kids. Are they an abomination, too? The pieces fit, but the picture is all wrong.
" You do not even understand earthly things do not even try to comprehend heavenly things." - Jesus
Nice quote. Here's a question for you. Could that not apply to sexual orientation, as well? We can't even fully understand it on a scientific level. Who are we, then, to say that it's not part of God's plan?
One thing I've noticed, too, is that a lot (not necessarily all, but it holds fairly consistent to those I've met) of gay couples have one member that's more masculine (sometimes known as "butch"), and one that's more feminine. It's not always a huge difference, but it can still be there. It's almost as if they take the equivalent of the different "roles" one may see in a heterosexual relationship, one more dominant, one more submissive. Just an interesting thought.
Finally, another question for you. What's your stance on gay marriage/civil union? The key to this "fight" is legal status and privileges (including status being honored in other states), so churches don't have accept it.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
It's nice to be able to casualy talk about such a controversal subject. But enough pleasantries, down to business. The point I wanted to to make was just because animals commit acts that ring of homosexuality, doesn't mean that you can compare their acts to the love that the sex between two men or women should be expressing by those same acts. What should be the topic of discussion is whether it is natural for two men or woman to love each other.
Homosexual sex in nature, at least what I understand of it, is use as a sort of handshake, or to force another into submission. Gay sex in humans is (idealy) an expression of the love you feel for that person. I'm not saying it is unnatural to have meaningless sex (far from it) but it is not a good argument that homosexuality is right/wrong because animals participate in a kind of sex that looks like what we do.
Now my feelings on God. I read a book called God's Debris which has a very compelling theroy on God and creationism/evolution. The book theorizes, in as basic as I can put the idea, that God grew tired of the boring life it would be to be omnipotent.
Being able to do whatever you want and having no sense of time because it doesn't exist for you would get pretty dull after awhile. Eventually he thought to test himself. What other challenge would be greater than to attempt to destroy himself, but more than that, put himself back together. So this explains the big bang and blah blah blah.
Back to the point, we arn't some spectacular creation that god is so intently watching that he makes every car crash happen. He doesn't Introduce millions of desieses to see how we react. No, God put some of himself into a cup and now he is watching what we do. He wasn't sitting there one day and thought, what if these two men were to couple, what would the reaction be. I would bet that he watched it take place, and maybe it even pissed him off for some reason. I just dont think god has put much a hand in anything for quite some time.
You should watch the episode of futurama where bender becomes god. It really sums up how I feel about the big man up stairs. But like we must keep reiterating for fear of sounding pompous, we simply do not know what god intends, so I will not live my life based on assumptions. I just look around and I see what god does, I see what men do.
As to marrige/ civil union, I have no problem with gay couples being provided the same benifets as straight people, that's just a no brainer. I dont feel, however, that they should force chruches to marry gays. I suppose it's up to the religious institution as to whether or not they will alow homosexual marrige. But as far as the government is involved, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuite of happyness, right?
I hope I havn't been to brash in this response, but if I have I would like to apologise in advance.
"What should be the topic of discussion is whether it is natural for two men or woman to love each other. "
But this is still a naturalistic fallacy. Lets look at this from another perspective. Is it 'natural' for a dog to love a human and vice versa? What about a parrot? Based on the 'natural' scheme of things, neither animal would interact with us much and we'd probably just share a world and learn to live with each other. But mankind is so exceptional in brain power that we really do so many new things that would not happen anywhere near as quickly or at all if we were just existing on the bare bones of evolution. Our factory production of milk is extremely sophisticated, but it's just a fancy way of us suckling from a cow! Not even our own species.
That's why you have to understand that 'natural' and 'unnatural' are just concepts. They aren't really factual in and of themselves. More importantly, that's not the criteria you judge actions by. We have to judge actions based on desirablity, benign or malevolent expression, consequences and results of ideas in practice, etc. We certainly have the ability, and the right to judge things. But not by pointing to a book of unsubstantiated stories that claim a supreme being has laid it down in black and white. We judge by evaluating ideas by merit and exoneration. If something is essentially harmless in and if itself, then it is morally neutral. Square one.
"Homosexual sex in nature, at least what I understand of it, is use as a sort of handshake, or to force another into submission. Gay sex in humans is (idealy) an expression of the love you feel for that person."
Actualy no, there is loads of evidence of full pair-bonding with loving couples that continualy reject advances from their opposite sex cohorts. There have been stories in the news about gays birds that paired as a couple and raised a foster egg together. That's just one. I've seen others too but can't recally examples at the moment.
"Now my feelings on God. I read a book called God's Debris which has a very compelling theroy on God and creationism/evolution."
The problem here is that this story might be a 'theory' in the general sense of the word, but it is not a scientific theory. In science, a completely unsubstantiated and/or dreamt up theory is actually called a hypothesis, and even this has more basic evidential beginning then gospel accounts. They aren't really a theory, and neither is the book you are referring to. Why? Because a true theory, proposes a mechanism of action that you can test, and validate as factual. In science, a theory is actually a very well-evidenced framework that has passed the basic beginning idea of how something might be the case based on a proposed explanation. For example, the theory of gravity. It's still called a theory because we do not know EVERYTHING about it, and some parts of the theory might be slightly inaccurate and need to be revised when evidence shows a different gist. But the basic bones of the theory itself is so well established, that it is considered a theory, AND a fact. Same with Evolution. It has been borne out by countless fossil records, scientific studies of animals and plants regarding natural selection and evolution in bacteria.
A travesty in the current legal battles in places like America is borne out by people who do not fully comprehend the complete context and comprehensiveness of Evolution. Heck, so many of them argue against Evolution as if it was also the explanation of the origin of life. It isn't even remotely concerned with it. That scientific theory is called abiogenesis.
But creationists and Intelligent Design organizations are not interested in understanding science and giving a fair appraisal of it. They just want to point out the gaps of theories, pretend that their pseudoscientific half-truths throw the entire theory of Evolution into doubt, and then have the unmitigated gall to suggest that THEIR personal beliefs, (with no mechanism proposed, no evidence of their 2 humans starting the population of the earth, no proof that a global flood could happen in any possible way, etc.), win by default and should be given at the very least equal consideration. It's unbelievable.
"I dont feel, however, that they should force chruches to marry gays. I suppose it's up to the religious institution as to whether or not they will alow homosexual marrige"
And I totally agree with this too! Churches DO have their beliefs, and they set them up as truth. Therefore their principles are based on these ideals, and they should not be forced to comply with civil law. Religion IS protected and even though in many cases I could argue that it really SHOULDN'T be, it's the way it is.
So they should be allowed to refuse to marry a same-sex couple. Heck, they refused inter-denominational marriages for centuries. the catholic church can refuse divorced people. This is their right. You don't have to join their flock.
But of course this ALSO means their nose should be yanked out of civil matters. they should not be interfering.
Also there is one other sticky issue that needs to be addressed. Children. I see many Christians practically forth at the mouth when they feel their right to raise their child under their belief system is infringed upon. "What??? How DARE they teach homosexual tolerance in the classroom. In our house, it's an ABOMINATION".
I have HUGE problems with this. Why? Because just as there is no way to prove religious beliefs from any sect or creed are truth, why should it be okay to raise children under the tutelage of parents and priests that tell them straight out that this is absolute, authoritative fact? This is unethical to me, because they CANNOT prove this is fact. So we have situations where young boys are sometimes terrified that they are going to hell because they've masturbated, others that are condemning themselves for having premarital sex, and the list goes on...
Quite frankly, this is mental child abuse. I personally feel children should ALWAYS be informed that religion is based on belief and not fact first and foremost.
We had a situation here in Ontario where a young student at a Catholic school somehow came to terms with his sexuality and I guess basically rejected the teaching that it is sinful. So he wanted to take his partner to the dance and the school refused. They were arguing for religious "freedom", and he was arguing for his charter right to not be discriminated against based on sexual orientation. it was a very public battle, and the judge ultimately sided with the student and the school had to comply.
Now some of you might automatically think "It's a CATHOLIC school, he shouldn't be pushing his opposing principles on the curriculum."
But think about this....who pushed THEIR principles on a young, impressionable mind? Who has now been attending the school almost undoubtedly under the command of their parents and not their individual choice? What are his options? He came to the enlightenment that his orientation is not a problem OR a sin, and so now he wants to make his own choice.
Is this his fault? Should he suffer? What, he's been attending a specific school for years, and has social bonds formed with the fellow student. Should he basically have no other option then to switch schools quickly and hope to find a same-sex partner he's interested in to attend his prom? It's the parents and the school who put him in this position in the FIRST place. why should he be the one to lose out? I think the judge made the absolute right decision in this case. Yes we should have religious freedom of expression....but we should NOT be able to brainwash children into accepting religion as fact and expecting them to follow it unquestioningly and obediently.
"Allow me finish my thoughts on the religious aspect. God sacrifice to us (men) was to give us what we wanted most (women). Now, because there was only one man and woman on the planet, homosexual sex wasn't a factor. I am hetrosexual so I can't understand the physical aspects of the attraction, but what I do understand is the want for your other. "
As I stated before in the other response, this is not a debate point we can truly discuss logically. It's not involving any. It's dealing with pure speculation. The evidence we have does not show any likelihood of coming forth from one man and one woman. Where are they in their remains? Where did they come from in the first place unless "magically" placed on Earth? See the biggest blow to religion these days is the uncomfortable fact, (and it IS uncomfortable to me too. Do you think I want to die and suspect I just wink out of existence?), that we have learned so much by discovering fossils, testing and re-testing Darwin's original theory that has never been disproved, in fact just continually strengthened (except some minor suppostions that others have proposed alternate theories that still fit into his basic framework). Scientists discover whatever facts are there and see if they support or refute a theory. They have no "agenda" and in fact the biggest way to make a name for yourself is to discover a new, better theory that describes reality more accurately. There are no "sacred cows" in science. The whole idea is completely backwards to science.
So again, the uncomfortable fact is that there is no more major frontiers out there that need the concept or variable of "God" in order to explain our world or the universe. He's completely unnecessary in order for us to explain how reality exists.
There is a golden rule in science that is called Occam's Razor. It basically means that if any theory can work without extra variables being part of the equation, then those extra variables are almost certainly uneccessary to the thoery and therefore not factual. God has become the victim of occam's razor. We don't NEED that concept to explain life or it's continued existence. To people not fully versed in science and biology, the idea that there must be some kind of "soul" to explain the phenomena of life, is somewhat understandable, but this is because they are not educated enough to realize there are other, testable and far more sensible reasons as to how life exists and "works".
"However, if you dont believe in religion it doesn't matter to you, but it make a world of differance to someone who does. "
And this is why people have to learn to agree to disagree. There is nothing wrong with you believing that you are right and there really is a God. But your opinion is just as much a right as mine to believe that there ISN'T, and therefore I certainly do not want people's unsubstantiated beliefs interfering in my choice of how to live my life in the pursuit of happiness.
This is another reason why it's so important to have separation of church and state. People's religious beliefs have no place in secular law. Because they cannot evidence them, they are just a fancy way of saying "because I (or God) said so."
We cannot make laws based on that form of illogic. So the other big thing to remember is that people with religious beliefs should always have the right to live their own life based on their beliefs, but their right to express them stop cold at the moment they impact someone else's choices. This is why evangelicals who interfere in secular issues like the legality of being homosexual, having CIVIL marriages, adoption, etc etc. are being completely unfair and by extension setting their beliefs up as more important than those who believe otherwise.
"Women have their spell on me, I couldn't Imagine being able to have the same conversations and feeling with a man as I do with a woman. "
And vice versa. They have ZERO effect on me regarding their physicality. Any form of sensuous feeling, and certainly any sexual actions.
"Men, too me, have a different personality track. I dont think along the same guidelines as either gender if you ask me, but the trust you can have with a woman is fundemantally more secure to me. Women can keep a secrect long after your dead and buried no problem but, unless he is your best friend, men have to talk out how they feel about what they know (in my general experiance). "
This is totally individual. Impossible to paint one gender with either brush. Your personal experiences may have been true for you, but wouldn't be the same for others.
"So, aside from specific facts, I am not sure if there is much to discuss about my opinions. I hope it has been as respectful of you feeling as you were of mine, I tried not to hold back so I could accuratly describe my feelings on the subject( thats a much better word:))"
And you probably have now realized the impasse we have arrived at. Agreeing to disagree is the most adult thing people can do when reaching this state. The only important thing remaining is to respect each other's right to live their life without each other dictating what the other should or should not do.
I am sorry. I never explained my stance on religion. because we were arguing my theroy on whether homosexuality was either "right/wrong" I decided to bring up religion because it IS the deciding factor in many peoples feelings on this subject, wether or not I believe that particular religion. I feel that right or wrong is based on individual perception, but we must have an over all preception on right and wrong that everyone can follow otherwise there would be chaos.
I suppose, to sum it up, what I'm saying is alot of people feel that homosexuality is wrong based on their religious beliefs and I wanted to point that out because, wether you like it or not, religion has been a source of security and law for so many people for so long that trust for what they say is almost unconditional. Their powerful with their opinons alone I guess is what I want to say in a nutshell.
As far as agreeing I'm basicly saying that I'm not gay and don't see why people are gay, but I do understand that these men love other men and no matter what, that's more important to me than what's in between your legs. I dont understand the physical attraction, or the mental really, but love is just as mysterious as gravity and god, and I am not I a postion to say how any of it works. I hope that cleared more up than it clouded, either way it will have to do for now.
Our brain is the most sophisticated pharmacy one can think of, all our whishes, needs, desires, emotions, jealousy, joy, pain, hurt and hornyness are being triggered by “peptides”.
All which one might feel when coming across attraction is not a set standard, only the emotional (rush) experience is exactly the same regardless of gender or the mix they might represent.
Same goes the other way around, when “nono” emotions manifest themselves.
"I decided to bring up religion because it IS the deciding factor in many peoples feelings on this subject, wether or not I believe that particular religion."
This is true. But it really shouldn't be. It's not a qualified authority on any subject unless you can prove it's fact.
"I feel that right or wrong is based on individual perception, but we must have an over all preception on right and wrong that everyone can follow otherwise there would be chaos.
"
Right or wrong is a judgement of morals. A collection of moral is an ethical system.
So what we need is an ethical system that people can agree on. We do NOT need religion for this. We can agree on a basic set of morals by starting with the golden rule "do unto others'. Expounding on this, we look at the consequences of something and decide if this is morally neutral depending on form of expression, or always harmful and undesirous.
"I suppose, to sum it up, what I'm saying is alot of people feel that homosexuality is wrong based on their religious beliefs and I wanted to point that out because, wether you like it or not, religion has been a source of security and law for so many people for so long that trust for what they say is almost unconditional. "
Understandably. Most people fear death, and do not want to die. Also many if not most people want to desperately believe that we are eternal somehow. It's a truly horrible thought to ponder that we might be just temporary conscious entities that face oblivion. No further experiences, no future place of abode, no NOTHING. Just dissolution. It's one of the scariest thing I can imagine and I really don't want this to be true, but can I just believe something to make me feel better even though I know it has no true substantiation? No. I pray desperately every day that if there IS some spiritual existence and an afterlife, that the universe somehow demonstrates it to me long before I have to face the reality of death. If this never happens, I pray that I am not conscious while it's happening.
So the point here is that we understand the "why" of many people's condemnation of homosexualtiy, but ultimately it's completely worthless as a point of debate. It's an opinion based on a snippet of unsubstantiated ancient stories. Sure they can dig their heels in and say, "Well that's what I believe is truth." But to be quite frank, who gives a damn what people believe? Hitler believed he was the saviour of the human race. Does his opinion have any factual weight just because he managed to garner the support of millions of people? Not very different from Christianity and the arguement that "it's been around for so many years and accepted by so many people, it MUST be true". Sadly this is just not logical.
Is it easy for you to write the way you do?
You make me jealous,
lol :-)
"Is it easy for you to write the way you do? "
I've always been pretty good at stringing words together. :)
The funny part is in fact, that life is indeed eternal, even for Hitler!
The sad part, most amongst us are too young to tap into this reality, they all look up to Mr. Right in the sky, by doing this, they will do so for many more lives to come, living the same lives in doubt and fear.
Quite amazing this is, while the key to it all is accessible for all!
Indoctrination is a bizarre element of destruction.
"The funny part is in fact, that life is indeed eternal, even for Hitler!"
Are you referring to the scientific concept that nothing truly dies, it just changes form? Supposedly this is true, even for energy. It must go SOMEWHERE. I guess this is the one small consolation even an atheist can cling to. :)
http://www.loveearth.com/uk/film/
Not really, that’s actually the funny part, in order to understand it one needs to go through the experience
I’m fully aware about the feeling my presence is pretty much weird inside this platform, maybe even annoying to some, lol.
But for me the reality about ALL it is not that new, while many things which I write down might bring eyebrows to go dance a tango…
Why?
Because it is my truth of what I have lived in experience or as a witness, same truth which has drawn me to read every single comment you bring inside, to me you POP OUT BIG TIME!
You are an amazing individual, I deeply wonder about the content of all the experiences you have lived till now, not that I which to know, but I do wish more would read between the lines of the thoughts you present us.
All which you bring like culture still having come to life, while already forming future for a better past,
I’m not jealous, I was trying to get your attention, ;-) That’s my ego talking…
See me, see me, see meeee haha
What I write down here will be read and interrelated in 100 or maybe more different ways, this is amazing, if I care, I can read in my own blogs and amazing comments I sometimes receive. They always seem to point out or reflect the boundaries which are hardly ever addressed.
Some days become a warzone, while on other days this platform can provide moments of joy which are heart filling.
We all know this to be a fact, otherwise we wouldn’t be around other than to vent frustration, the ones which prefer so, never remain for a long time, they are being vaporized by confusion, :-)
That’s mostly the careless kind which don’t shift gears!
Yes, it’s all about energy, but in order to tap into these fields one needs to knock at some doors inside, there are no keyholes, so there is no peaking!
http://www.progressiveu.org/223152-muslims-and-christians
The link above is not that bad a reflection of what could be found within.
Have a fully experienced day,
:-)
Now for some freshness, lol
Sex can bring one to experience a fragrance of the beyond, also the main reason why “certain” females which are experiencing their first (real) orgasm, will more likely become strongly addicted (attached) to the person who made this orgasm to become a reality of experience!
Most women don’t reach climax because they are too stressed, unconnected and ashamed for various reasons which are not always understood, any male who can put aside these obstacles within the emotional world of a female, making her to let go, will fill this female with a sensation of bliss which is not to be described or understood only by those who have been there.
All species that act in sexual activities enjoy sex, because of that split second of “divine” which comes along with it. Once this starts to fade in a relationship mostly means there is a unspoken or disguised presence of conflict which lurks around making a disconnection to occur.
Hence trouble in paradise!
Although sex being the easiest way to create a connection with what matters only in this world, unfortunately so, most people are to filled with shame and guild in order to access this connection.
We all know where this negative feelings arise from, don’t we? This makes many to sexually behave like beggars begging from other beggars. This mostly resolves into more conflicts and frustrations to arise which them lead to hate and all other weaknesses we all know by heart.
Therefore masturbation has become very popular amongst both genders, but that’s another story which brings us in areas which go much wider while even less understood than sex between two individuals.
“One thing that people seem to forget, too, is that we are also animals”.
We are in many ways far different than all (other) species, some might never realize, but it is our arrogance which is pushing many not to understand we (humans) are in fact amazing creatures.
We have entered a face in which we are actually on the breach of losing our reptilian brain, some amongst us already did so but their numbers for now are too few to affect others.
Our narrow minded greed is sadly enough pushing us farther and farther away from many (realities) things we could easily achieve or become conscious about.
We are cutting ourselves lose from nature and therefore we fill our lives with what is hitting the news, only to see and witness the struggles of power between “you and me” all this while bringing harm to our one and only true mother and all of her beauty!
Most amongst are too young to understand, not referring to children nor adults!
The good news is, it’s never too late, sex is a good key to find and create the necessary awareness with what matters only in this world!
in the words of the truly great professor xavier: "people fear what they do not understand."
Yours truly,
.demosthenes :-SS
YES.
I don't understand how you can give such lengthy, patient replies, but they're brilliant and help far more than people like me who are easily frustrated. Keep it up!
T.k.
People have to be patient. Most of the population simply does not have the proper education in regards to the issue of homosexuality. It's not their fault. People don't "seek out" understanding to issues that are socially taboo as a rule.
Once they actually confront their ignorance and realize things are not as simple as they assumed before, and at the same time far more complex then religious thought usually gives credence to, they start expanding their viewpoint.
It's easy to sit there from a superior vantage point of knowledge and criticize others when you've gone down the road a hundred times. But that isn't going to win many people over. You'll just come across as an arrogant ass. You may still be RIGHT, but what good if they don't care to listen to you?
That's why the internet exists.
1) It forces hotheads to slow down and think before saying something unfortunate.
2) It's anonymous, which saves us from physical violence when we, uh, say something unfortunate.
T.k.
And isn't it great that the internet has changed the nature of debate? Actually being able to READ something and have to respond without being able to talk over someone, cut them off, or play little witty word games to make other's arguments look foolish even when they're not, has made a huge difference. I'm convinced that internet debates have done more to open people's mind then any other conversational actions they've ever had. I firmly believe that the internet and it's massive impact on human communication will prove to be the greatest boon to mankind and knowledge. Anyone with half a brain just ends up learning truth eventually unless they are deliberately holding on to a stubborn viewpoint and only allowing themselves to be exposed to the equivalent of mental jerk-off sessions.
People have to be patient. Most of the population simply does not have the proper education in regards to the issue of homosexuality...It's easy to sit there from a superior vantage point of knowledge and criticize others when you've gone down the road a hundred times.
This is an interesting argument. To a point, I agree with you. For example, when I came out to my parents, they reacted badly (go figure). But, I realized that it had taken ME 21 years to get used to the idea that I was gay. I figured I could give them some time to do the same. BUT, there comes a point--and frankly, I think we're long past it in this country--that the pretension of surprised ignorance about homosexuality stops being genuine, and starts being an excuse for people who don't want to learn.
As a professor of mine once said, "There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself." For someone to live in the United States today and to still be ignorant about the subject of homosexuality...well, frankly they have to be living with their heads in the sand.
There really isn't a good excuse for this ignorance any longer, and I really don't think that it is right to expect gay people to accept a second class citizenship while the "slow" people come to realize on their own that gay people have the same basic rights human rights as anyone else.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
(I really admire your arguments by the way. Have read quite a few,. Kudo's from another fellow guy on your team) :)
"But, I realized that it had taken ME 21 years to get used to the idea that I was gay. I figured I could give them some time to do the same. BUT, there comes a point--and frankly, I think we're long past it in this country--that the pretension of surprised ignorance about homosexuality stops being genuine, and starts being an excuse for people who don't want to learn."
Oh agreed. I mean it mainly about the people starting off discussions with an open mind. The ones who are starting off with the "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts." are going to get the well fuck you attitude from me. Then they deserve it.
"As a professor of mine once said, "There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself." "
LOVE that quote. I'll have to sig that.
"There really isn't a good excuse for this ignorance any longer, and I really don't think that it is right to expect gay people to accept a second class citizenship while the "slow" people come to realize on their own that gay people have the same basic rights human rights as anyone else."
Absolutely. The ones that stick their nose out in the public realm and interfere with our rights we're fighting for deserve to have it stuck up their ass sideways. Thankfully here in Canada we've come a fair bit further along then your country...at least on the marriage issue. Downtown Toronto here is wonderful. It's very common to walk by two guys holding hands or even exchanging a kiss. It'd be hard to find anywhere in the city core where this would raise an eyebrow.
However the outlying areas and small towns are still a bit different....but hey..we're getting there. :)
While i must say i agree that religious people are ignorant( isnt that evident by their beliefs) How arrogant can YOU be that you defend a TRULY IRRATIONAL way of living and call the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the world ignorant and intolerant for not accepting your beliefs. YOU DISGUST ME. Just because an act occurs in nature does not mean that you can justify homosexuality as being equally valid as a means of procreation. It is evident that you believe in science and logic but If you truly were a logical person you would not attempt to argue against the very basics of the creation of life. It is true that many species are capable of homosexual acts but that does not change anything. Its natural for mothers of some species to feed upon their offspring in times of hunger but you dont see people defending the eating of babies. HOW IGNORANT CAN YOU BE?? We are a rational species capable of using our minds to contemplate and predetermine our actions, we are not slaves to desires perhaps created by uncontrollable sexual tension or a genetic disorder. Is it not obvious that two men cannot naturally create life together? Homosexuality is irrational from a scientific standpoint, thats the truth. Sorry for crushing your invalid beliefs
Homosexuality is irrational from a scientific standpoint, thats the truth. Sorry for crushing your invalid beliefs
Actually, it is a MYTH that homosexuality doesn't make sense from a scientific perspective. In fact, there is a great deal of discussion in the literature about homosexuality can occur through the process of natural selection.
Male Homosexuality Can Be Explained Through A Specific Model Of Darwinian Evolution, Study Shows
Homosexuality Has Evolutionary Benefits to Individuals and Society
Evolution and Homosexuality
Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality
Re: evolution of homosexuality and why does it persist?
Evolution 101: Why Did Homosexuality Evolve?
On adaptive success and theories of homosexuality...
Evolution and Cross-Cultural Variation in Male Homosexuality
HOW IGNORANT CAN YOU BE??
I would suggest that in the future, before you lambast someone for their "ignorance" of science, you might want to do a little study yourself to make sure that you know what your talking about.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Why dont you do some research first yourself because purely homosexual animals do not exist, however there is evidence to suggest bisexuality can occur from extreme sexual tension in some animals. You did nothing to refute my evidence you merely relied upon a false assumption that many homosexuals make. THERE ARE NO PURELY HOMOSEXUAL ANIMALS(excluding humans of course). There has obviously been homosexual behavior observed in nature but the animals themselves do not only seek out same sex partners, if this were the case then logically such a gene in an animal would disappear because it obviously cannot be passed down to the next generation if the animal does not mate with the opposite sex. Obviously then all animals carrying this gene must be BISEXUAL, or bicurious, and not HOMOSEXUAL. By the way, you homosexuals are in no position to call ANYONE ignorant or rude. You know whats ignorant and rude? A very small group of insane, pompous men who attempt to change the world into accepting and validating the action of putting a penis in another man's asshole. I've never met anyone more arrogant or ignorant in my life. 99.9% of the world has done things one way for hundreds of millions of years, and you attempt to call me ignorant. I suppose the definition of ignorant is someone who can see the truth all around them in every animal on the planet but they still defend the position that the people who follow the natural way are ignorant and oppressive and that penises in men's butts are the answer? Insanity indeed
Your comment speaks for itself. You clearly know very little about gay couples, families, lifestyles, or sexual practices. Your opinion of gay people seems to be based on ONE act, an act in which countless heterosexual couples engage on a nightly basis, and you are condemning an entire group based on one act you have heard about or perhaps experienced.
The lives of gay people don't hurt in you in any way. Why are you so angry at us?
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
...by the phrase:
PURELY HOMOSEXUAL ANIMALS
...but it sounds to me like your moving the goal post now that your original assertion has been proved false. Obviously, you didn't read the research I provided for you since your inaccurate assertions are specifically addressed in the material. For example...
...the animals themselves do not only seek out same sex partners...
Factually incorrect.
T...logically such a gene in an animal would disappear because it obviously cannot be passed down to the next generation if the animal does not mate with the opposite sex.
Factually incorrect.
...this one is good, too...
In general terms, these are examples of what is known as kin selection.
Unfortunately, the research doesn't fit nicely with your assumptions. This is probably because you are making the common mistake of viewing sexuality in terms of behavior, only. Sexuality also conveys a sense of identity, and in the higher primates a preference that is driven both by biological and social factors.
One particularly interesting species which challenges your position is the macaque, or specifically female macaques belonging to a species found in Japan that mate with males to produce offspring, but are almost exclusively lesbian in their sexual behavior when not seeking to become pregnant. When given the choice, female Japanese macaques will almost always choose a female partner for sexual intercourse. This is similar to the drives and behaviors which are seen in humans. If a gay person wants to have a kid, opposite-sex copulation is possible, just not preferable.
...A very small group of insane...
Factually incorrect. Per the American Psychological Association...
I've never met anyone more arrogant or ignorant in my life.
Have you tried looking in a mirror?
99.9% of the world has done things one way for hundreds of millions of years, and you attempt to call me ignorant.
Factually incorrect.
Like much of what you say, this is also false. A more correct accounting would be that somewhere between 3% and 12% (depending on which studies you prefer) of the world is likely to have been involved in doing it "another way." Here's another great quote from the American Psychological Association...
In conclusion, I would suggest that your obsession with "penises and butts" is not only childish, but more than likely an expression of your own deep seated insecurities.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
about penises in female assholes? Just curious.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
I was wondering around the site, out of boredom, and looked at dragonwolf's profile to see where she has been lately, and found my way over to this blog. It is over a year old, and I read most of it, which has taken me a good 45 minutes. I was wondering as I was reading, thinking to myself, "this is a very progressive blog," admiring locke's openness and honesty, thinking this is a great example of healthy and progressive exchange.
See, every now and then I read old blogs, not too often because I like to interact with people who are still here, and get frustrated when i want to comment, and realize that the person is long gone. The other day I was reading ediblewoman's blog about the "Dastardly Plan to Destroy Marriage" and I saw some really disgusting and rude remarks. I was shocked. Surely I know that people have all kinds of opinions, but in my experience on this site, which I joined in September '08 (I think) has mostly been positive. I really wondered the other day, "Do people still make rude comments like that here?" I thought that maybe the site does a good job of weeding out those kinds of people.
Then, lo and behold, I find this comment, and it's a fresh one! Thanks for not disappointing me and keeping the site nice and diverse! Its important not to get too comfortable, and to not think that the world is a friendly and safe place.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!