So here's the story:
I met my friend "Mark" junior year of high school. I had known that I had homosexual feelings ever since puberty, and for some reason my "gaydar," as many people call it, went off whenever he was around. By the end of senior year we had "come out" of the closet to one another and were secretly pseudo dating.
"Mark's" family was incredibly religious and yet he had already told his parents that he was gay when he was in his early teens. His parents had felt dispiar and told him that it was religiously wrong and sinful. They said they would pray for him.
By the time he was almost 20, "Mark" had had sexual experiences with several different men and he told me this when we met up again one summer to catch up on things. That night he told me he wanted to "fool around" with me, but I told him that I would rather have a relationship or just friendship, nothing inbetween. So we did not do anything seuxal.
That same night he told me that his parents wanted him to go to a religious camp in South-Central United States. At this camp, they specialized in making gay males turn "straight."
So just two weeks after he had told me that he wanted to fool around with me, and after he told me all the different boys he liked and was attracted to, he went off to this camp.
He returned swearing that he was now "straight."
My question is: How many of you believe that this is possible?
Do you think that "God" can "cure" people of their homosexuality? Are these camps a good or bad thing? Does it just further confuse homosexuals and make them repress their true feelings?
I have my own opinion on this, but I will wait for comments before I step in with them.
I don't think you can be cured of homosexuality or heterosexuality for that matter, because I don't think you choose your sexual orientation.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
do you mean can rather than "can't"
???
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -F.N.
Yep. Just fixed it.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Purity Balls: For the Rich, White, Christian, and (Slightly) Perverted
Yet another money scheme developed by the evil evangelistic churches of the bible belt. I think there should be camps to convert straights to gay. How would they feel about that?
How come we only ask ourselves the really big questions when something bad happens?
I wouldnt want to "turn" people but just let them see things from my perspective.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth!~JFK
I just feel sorry for "Mark" since this will probably screw up his life.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
i have been forced to go to church my whole life basically. I still love my girlfriend. that was brainwash or faking it to be apart of the fold. You cant cure homosexuality it is not a disease. we are humans not something contagious.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth!~JFK
I have heard of these camps and institutions that try to "cure" the human "condition" called homosexuality. Why is that homosexuality considered something abnormal and heterosexuality is what you were supposidly born to be? There is no cure. Those camps use coersion and emotional crippling techniques to fool someone into thinking that they want the 'norm.' It is brainwashing!
Throughout school I was always taught to be an individual and think for myself. At least that's what people, teachers, parents, and friends, told me. The more I look back I see that they give you a fraction of the information and tell you to think for yourself. What they're really saying is think for yourself as long as I approve of it.
There is nothing religously wrong with being gay. It may say so in the bible, but if you actually read that thing, there's alot of things in there that is outdated and not right according to today's society. The bible condones slavery, stoning your wife if she is not a virgin on your marriage night, descriminating against bastard children (excuse the phrase) from even walking into a church...and so on and so forth. We don't take the bible serious for these passages, so why do we take it so literally where sexuality is concerned?
I'm sorry that your friend is going to live a struggle. He's going to struggle against his true feelings and sexual urges against the brainwarping propoganda he learned at that fucked up camp.
I have never failed. I have successfully discovered 10,000 ideas that don't work.
-Thomas Edison
Wow, lots of comments....
Well here's my two cents anyway. I think before you get to the answer of "can homosexuality be cured" you must first figure out what homosexuality is. I know, stupid comment, but hear me out.
I don't think anyone has firmly agreed on what causes or leads to being gay. Is is some trauma or misconceptions during childhood? Chemical imbalance? Free choice? I cannot tell you, and therefore I can't guess whether or not it can be "cured". As far as I see, homosexuality isn't a disease. In other words, no cure. Maybe this friend just wasn't gay to begin with?
"My question is: How many of you believe that this is possible?"
I don't for starters. I think the freaks that run these camps are the same as the freaks that push abstinence, actually, they are the same freaks now I come to think about it. The tragi-hilarity lies in the fact that these fuckwits are given a second's credulity by the parents of a child when they tell those parents that their child is some kind of pervert that needs fixing, when in fact these camps aim to pervert naturally assigned sexuality. Essentially any religions that purports that homosexuality is in any way 'wrong', are nothing but a shower of dirty perverts, who should be kept away from people's children, not given unfettered access.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
You're absolutely right! It's crazy, but the people who run those things are usually religous fanatics preying on the fears of religous perents. They are warped and twisted for trying to change something that might as well be percieved as God's Will. God created is in his image, and that means gay people as well. If it weren't natural, then it wouldn't happen in nature with animals.
I have never failed. I have successfully discovered 10,000 ideas that don't work.
-Thomas Edison
These camps are bullshit. End of story. I'm glad your friend made it out of there also. Whenever i hear about these camps i think about the episode of South park when butters got sent to some gay-to-straight conversion boarding school. Every time one of the administrators would open a door to a kids room the kids would be dead or on the brink of suicide. I think that's something that a lot of parents don't consider. Your child might be convinced he is straight. But he also could be convinced that his parents hate him or that he is destined for hell, both of which can lead to suicide. When I was in my early teens, every Sunday at Sunday school my teacher would preach against the evils of homosexuality. Basically she was saying how evil I was. I always wondered if they thought about what the result of their actions could be. Luckily I'm too much of a wimp to ever consider suicide, but a few of my friends have tried for the same exact reasons.
I hope your friend realizes as i did that all that religious talk is bullshit.
Also, did your friend want to go or did his parents persuade him. Since he was over 18 I don't see how his parents could have forced him to go.
I'm gonna write a nonsensical book and leave it in a cave. 500 years later people will worship me
No, I don`t believe this cult camp has changed his sexual orientation. I`ve seen men who went to those things and they just confuse them and mess them up.
They teach them to redefine words so they won`t be ``gay`` anymore. In some of the Mormon camps they tell each other that they are not gay, they are ``same sex attracted`` (as if that`s not what gay means} and then they start saying, ``I`m ``SSA.`` Voila, they`re transformed!
That`s just one example. In other cases, I find that if you ask follow up questions like ``Are you still attracted to members of your own sex`` they`ll just redirect the answer to say they ``struggle with it now.`` And then a typical story is that they sneak out and have little ``accidents`` of sex... but that wasn`t ``the real me`` anymore they`ll say.
And the ironic thing is, the won`t even think of having a healthy and honest relationship with a man (or with a woman if they`re a woman} because they`ve been taught that doesn`t exist. So they end up looking for sex in airoort bathrooms or with strangers they meet in the woods somewhere.
Or in relationships with the other sex, they either admit it`s awkward, doesn`t really work, etc. or they get a girlfriend they act like it`s all just fine and then eventually it falls apart and they admit they were pressured by the group into pretending.
Then there are those who are confused and don`t understand bisexuality.
Unfortunately, his church has been telling him there`s something wrong with him probably since the day he was born. He sounds like he has internalized the messages. He`s likely been told there`s no such thing as a solid relationship between two men, it`s all anonymous and dangerous, etc., etc., That may be why he can`t relate when you talk about a relationship.
They don`t understand, either that sex can be perfectly safe with the same sex, because they`ve never been told that, so they end up doing risky things, like looking for sex in secret places with strangers in unsafe ways.
Two of the men who were founders of the biggest ``ex gay`` group, Exodus,ended up falling in love and getting married with each other years later, and then they admitted that they had never seen anyone change.
I watched an interesting series on YouTube by a Mormon who was in one of those groups. I felt sorry for him. He was pressured into marrying a woman. Joseph Nicolosi, who is one of the ones making the most profit from this industry, asked this guy to come on TV with him as the example of the cured ``ex gay`` in a wonderful marriage with a woman. But the whole time, the guy`s marriage was all just pretending and he was actually planning out his own suicide (His daughter saved him... He wanted it to look like he accidentally fell off a cliff while they were hiking, so he wouldn`t have to tell anyone the truth} After the suicide attempt he admitted to his family that it was all fake and they got divorced and he feels that his wife has a better chance for a good relationship now.
And then a typical story is that they sneak out and have little ``accidents`` of sex... but that wasn`t ``the real me`` anymore they`ll say
When you said that I got a little flash in my head about 12 step programs. It sounds kind of like a recovering alcoholic...but in this case it's a recovering homosexual.
"Hi, my name is Big Gay Al and I've been a recovering homosexual for 2 years now. Coming to these support groups really helps me to cope with my same sex attraction. I fell off the wagon last month and had kinky butt sex in the woods by the river. I know it was a mistake, and I will never do it again. I am back with my wife and she is very supportive. With her and your help I can remain a heterosexual for the rest of my life. Thank you."
And the AA director comes up and says, 'Thank you Big Gay Al, I know how hard it is to share a story like that. I'm sure we all have our little secrets of falling of the hetero band wagon, but we're here for you.'
It's crazy to think that you can change who you are just by changing the way you refer to yourself.
I have never failed. I have successfully discovered 10,000 ideas that don't work.
-Thomas Edison
And then a typical story is that they sneak out and have little ``accidents`` of sex... but that wasn`t ``the real me`` anymore they`ll say
When you said that I got a little flash in my head about 12 step programs. It sounds kind of like a recovering alcoholic...but in this case it's a recovering homosexual.
"Hi, my name is Big Gay Al and I've been a recovering homosexual for 2 years now. Coming to these support groups really helps me to cope with my same sex attraction. I fell off the wagon last month and had kinky butt sex in the woods by the river. I know it was a mistake, and I will never do it again. I am back with my wife and she is very supportive. With her and your help I can remain a heterosexual for the rest of my life. Thank you."
And the HA (Homosexuals Anonymous) director comes up and says, 'Thank you Big Gay Al, I know how hard it is to share a story like that. I'm sure we all have our little secrets of falling of the hetero band wagon, but we're here for you.'
It's crazy to think that you can change who you are just by changing the way you refer to yourself.
I have never failed. I have successfully discovered 10,000 ideas that don't work.
-Thomas Edison
In some cases.
I would be interested to hear what sort of treatment they applied.
Sexual orientation is far from an either or proposition. There is plenty of ambiguity to be had, it just is not popular with either of the extremes to admit it. Until recently the AMA actually considered this sort of treatment valid. That has now been reversed. The whole truth is very difficult to arrive at when so many people are convinced by their emotional convictions one way or the other.
Wouldn't it be nice if they were treating people to accept and love themselves and others (even their enemies) instead?
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
I don't believe it's possible to be "cured" from being homosexual because it's not a disease. I think the camps are just full of people who wants money and is candy coating it with "God" so they won't feel so guilty. These camps will just further confuse homosexuals. It's hard enough for them to come out in the open they don't need these things to confuse them more. I don't think you can choose which gender you like better.
When people say that they were turned straight that makes me think that they were going through a phase and want to become more devout, or that they were brainwashed.
~~~~~~~
"I am a Stephens Woman."
http://progressiveu.org/blog/ashestree
Probably a little bit of both.
How come we only ask ourselves the really big questions when something bad happens?
We should cure heterosexuality as well.
Seriously.
Whether or not it is valid, I think it is possible. Act, body, and identify are a part of sexual orientation. There are men who have sex with other men and still consider themselves "straight". If anything, we should define sexual orientation first like people above me stated. It's up to you if you're doing to take their words for it. If a gay men went to this kind of camp, he stops having sex with men and is attracted to women. Then he gets married and lead a normal life with his wife and kids. Is he still gay?
Sexuality is discursive. It is more complicated than people think. I don't really see why sexual orientations matter really. People can be attracted to anyone they like without having to give an explanation.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
I am yet another who believes that homosexuality is not a disease, and therefore cannot be "cured." If it ain't broke, don't fix it - not hard, is it?
I don't need drugs - I have genetics.
maybe "cured" is not a right word...english is pretty limited.
I personally think homosexuality is a choice, not genetic. As for "Mark," I wouldn't say that he was cured but rather made a choice against homosexuality. Maybe he'll later decide that he really is homosexual and this is just a phase. Maybe it does repress his feelings, but who of us has not repressed our feelings time and time again?
As for "Mark," I wouldn't say that he was cured but rather made a choice against homosexuality.
Do you choose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex? Do you choose who you fall in love with?
No?
Then how is it the choice of anyone else who they're attracted to/fall in love with, even if it's the same sex?
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
How do I say this? According to my beliefs, homosexuality is a sin. You choose to partake in it. I didn't mean to make it sound like he chose against his feelings but he chose against partaking in any homosexual acts. Maybe he no longer has those feelings and is "cured." Or maybe he still has those feelings and is fighting to choose against it. That's what I meant when I said I think he made a choice.
My questions still stand.
Yes, you can choose who you marry (to an extent), but did you choose to fall in love with that person?
I don't care what your religion says, I want your answer to the questions.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
No, you don't choose. But you choose what you do about it.
And how would you feel if you left the love of your life?
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I don't know. I've never been in love and would never claim to know what anything related to that type of situation feels like. But I don't think "Mark" was ever truly in love. He might of thought that he was but I'm not so sure. Too many people confuse love with lust.
If it weren't for the fact that people with views such as yours are keeping people who have fallen in love from enjoying the same benefits as hetero couples, I'd give you more credit. However, your belief that homosexuality is a sin is keeping others from enjoying their right to the pursuit of happiness.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Talk about stereotyping. Just because I'm a Christian, you assume that I oppose gay rights. You've linked me with a set of political beliefs based on my faith. Despite the fact that I think homosexuality is wrong, I don't oppose gay rights. They deserve to be happy just like the rest of us. Besides, the belief that homosexuality is a sin is not what is keeping gay couples apart. It's the fact that allowing them to marry would drive up health insurance rates.
``Despite the fact that I think homosexuality is wrong, I don't oppose gay rights.``
As for myself, I wouldn`t automatically stereotype you since most Christians I know personally don`t believe that homosexuality is a sin or inferior to heterosexuality and they support equal marriage rights.
I expect we will see more and more of those who DO believe that it`s a ``sin`` who will come around to supporting our right to equal treatment under the law, just as they have come around on allowing equal rights for other ``sinners`` such as Jews or Buddhists or interracial couples or those who mow the lawn on the Sabbath. Unfortunately, though, there are still a lot of fanatics who want their own religious ways forced on others under the law.
``Besides, the belief that homosexuality is a sin is not what is keeping gay couples apart. It's the fact that allowing them to marry would drive up health insurance rates.``
What! That comment sounds misinformed on many levels.
1. I don`t know who you think is``being kept apart.`` My husband and I are together whether we have equal rights or not. The only case in which the unfair laws would split us is, for example, if someday we were to be old and need nursing care, then the government could force us into separate facilities, which by federal law they can not do to heterosexual couples.
2. I don`t think any survey has ever shown that health insurance rates, and the belief that they rise for marrieds over singles, to be `the` issue for the anti gay groups. Reasons of `morals` and `sin` are frequently cited reasons in those surveys.
3. I don`t know where you got the idea that marriage drives up health insurance rates. Are you saying that the health insurance for two gay individuals is cheaper than for one married same sex couple. If so, that doesn`t sound like it adds up. Studies in Massachusetts have actually shown economic benefits as a result of equal marriage rights.
All I know is what I've been told and that's what I've been told.
Perhaps you should challenge those ideas and find ways to verify if what you have been told is right or even true, then.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
How am I stereotyping? You said yourself that you believe homosexuality to be a sin. I replied that there are people with the same views that are working to keep gay marriage banned and have therefore disallowed them any of the legal benefits that come with marriage. Whether you personally act upon your belief is your prerogative, but there are others who share your belief and act on them negatively.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Maybe you weren't stereotyping me but that's the way it came across. You lumped me together with a group of people because we agree that homosexuality is a sin. In your earlier comment, you put me with that group of people without realizing it.
Although I feel you read too much into it, if it came across that way, it wasn't meant to and I apologize.
My point still stands, though--people who are acting on their belief that homosexuality is a sin are keeping homosexual couples from enjoying the same benefits as heterosexual couples. We have separation of Church and State for this very reason. It is not the State's (aka - government's) job to decide what is "right" or "wrong" so long as the action/situation in question does not impose upon the rights given to us by the Constitution (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, speech, religion, etc).
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
"Maybe it does repress his feelings, but who of us has not repressed our feelings time and time again?"
I wonder if you would be so casual if it was a camp full of gay people forcing straight children into homosexuality?
I mean, Christians start losing their God-damned minds if a few people from a gay and lesbian society want to talk to kids about gay awareness issues, yet think nothing about bullying and conditioning children to fit in with their backward beliefs at these glorified concentaration camps.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
At the camp, were they really forcing him to give up his homosexuality? You're under the impression that he was forced and has no ownership over this change in his life. You think that Christians are intolerant, pious people who only care about their own kind.
"Christians...think nothing about bullying and conditioning children to fit in with their backward beliefs at these glorified concentaration camps." Why are you so sure that Christian beliefs are backwards? That sounds a little intolerant on your part. I don't know exactly how this camp worked, but I'm pretty sure they didn't shove their beliefs down his throat or brainwash him. He made that choice for himself.
"Why are you so sure that Christian beliefs are backwards?"
Largely because Christian religions are based off a book which is purported to be the divine word of God, yet is rife with errors. Errors which can't be corrected without an admission that the Bible is merely the speculative/manipulative word of man. Such an admission would undermine the entire Christian understanding of God and reduce it to nothing more than a fanciful ideal as opposed to the truth Christian leaders proclaim it to be. Hence Christian religions can't realistically progress at the rate it should, making it regressive, which would make it backwards. I think it is safe to say that any belief system that discourages critical thought is backwards.
"That sounds a little intolerant on your part."
Well, then you might want to get your hearing checked. Being religiously tolerant does not mean I must refrain from being critical, it doesn't even mean I have to respect a religion; it merely means I must respect a person's right to practice their religion. I can stand on a stage in front of a million people and tell them all not to join a religion or that organized religion is a sack of shit if I want, it still doesn't mean I'm intolerant; it means I'm dissenting. If I was religiously intolerant, that would be a bit rich, since if there wasn't a cliamte of religious tolerance in the West, Christians would still be burning and hanging Agnostics like me.
"I'm pretty sure they didn't shove their beliefs down his throat or brainwash him. He made that choice for himself."
When a kid is told that homosexuality is the most evil of evils by rabidly intolerant Christian family, friends and neighbours, it's no surprise that that kid will learn to hate himself for something he can not help, his very nature. If a bunch of Christian mind benders offer the false promise of cure, that kid could be forgiven for thinking that there was one, but also for thinking he might have a shot at ridding himself of his true nature in favour of one that is more pleasing to his Christian community. But the fact is, that all those camps teach the kid is how to hate himself and how to repress himself, both of which will only fuck him up in the long term. So basically, the kid 'chooses' to go to this camp because he has been convinced to hate who he is, that is hardly the best grounds from which to argue how free he truly was to make this choice.
If a kid knows that his parents hate who he truly is, it's not really fair to claim that he had a choice to not at least try to learn to hate who he is too, just so he can then use his new found self-loathing to repress himself, so they'll finally accept him.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
Show me an error in the Bible. Wait, show me one that you don't take out of context. People are always trying to disprove the Bible and fail at it.
As for the whole tolerance thing....I'm always told that I'm intolerant because I think that other people's beliefs are wrong. That's how I was using the word, the way the rest of the world uses it when it comes to viewing me.
I wish I could respond to the rest but I'm sure you wouldn't really pay any heed to what I have to say. All we're really doing here is arguing and not really paying any attention to what the other person is saying. So, I'm sorry for being mad at you. We're obviously both so grounded in our beliefs that there's no point in us trying to convince the other or point out the flaws in their arguments. We're not gonna hear it.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Exodus 22:20
You must kill those who worship another god.
Deuteronomy 13:6-10
Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own.
Deuteronomy 13:12-16
Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you.
Deuteronomy 17:2-7
Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own.
"As for the whole tolerance thing....I'm always told that I'm intolerant because I think that other people's beliefs are wrong."
No, you are told that you are intolerant because you are Christian. You see, when you state that you believe that the Bible is the word of God and that you believe God's word to be perfect, then you endorse all the things I've listed above, all of which are visciously intolerant calls for Christians to murder people with different beliefs. That is why I said Christianity is backward and stated that the only way to redeem it as a progressive and tolerant belief system would be to admitt that the Bible isn't actually the word of God and make the necessary corrections. But to do that, you would have to undermine the very basis of Christianity, thus reducing it to a speculative human belief system and not one that has any direct link to the divine and the 'one truth' that Christian leaders have claimed. If you don't agree with the things listed above, then maybe you should find a religion that doesn't parade human intolerance as the direct order of a perfect God.
"All we're really doing here is arguing and not really paying any attention to what the other person is saying."
Speak for yourself. I've broken down, considered and responded to your comments. You are the one who, by your own admission, couldn't be bothered addressing my points. If I really wasn't paying attention to what you were saying, then why do I highlight quoted text to which I am responding?
"We're obviously both so grounded in our beliefs that there's no point in us trying to convince the other or point out the flaws in their arguments. We're not gonna hear it."
Again, speak for yourself. I'm Agnostic, my concern lies with knowledge and it's relationship with truth, not belief and it's wild claims. If you highlight a flaw in my argument and back it up with evidence and reason, I'll change my stance. I mean, why wouldn't I? It would only strengthen my position. As an Agnostic, my concern lies with what is actual knowledge, as opposed to wild speculation. It is your belief system that is undermined by valid criticism, mine is only strengthened, because that's what Agnosticism is all about; critical thought, whereas Chistianity is about blind faith.
So basically, you don't want to hear logical argument, because it highlights the fallacious nature of your belief system. I'm all for people pointing out the fallacies in my stance, because I don't want to adhere to something that is fallacious.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
First off, I like how all the verses you chose were in the Old Testament before Christ. You chose verses from a time period where the only way to cover one's sins was to kill an animal. Since Jesus died and became the perfect sacrifice, these things aren't needed anymore. I don't support any of the things you listed above. God calls us to forgive others and love them. Christianity isn't about those things. It's about forgiveness and love.
Sure you've paid attention to what I've said. But to me it seems like you are only doing this so that you can point out the flaws in my statements.
"So basically, you don't want to hear logical argument, because it highlights the fallacious nature of your belief system."
Do you think I've always blindly been a Christian? Well, I haven't. I've struggled with logically believing. I'm a logical thinker. Sure, there is some blind faith involved but I have been logically lead to the conclusion that there is a God and Jesus is His Son. I personally believe that faith is needed for all belief systems including atheism and agnosticism.
You may be honestly considering all that I have to say, but I don't feel that you are. I just kind of feel like all you want to do is attack my stance. I wish I could actually sit down and talk with you about this because then we could have a better feel for each other. Then, at least I, and maybe both of us, wouldn't have a preconceived notion of what you're trying to accomplish here.
First off, I like how all the verses you chose were in the Old Testament before Christ
I don't know it if was you, or someone else, but someone in another part of this entire thread got all uptight because someone else referred to the New Testament as the "Christian Bible." They got all upset because the Christian Bible includes the Old Testament. The New Testament also refers back to the OT a number of times, reinforcing its importance in the Christian faith. If I'm not mistake, Jesus himself refers to the OT as "The Law." The OT is part of your Holy Book, whether you like it or not.
Also, (this is kind of off topic, but I'm curious to know) how do you explain the sudden shift in the demeanor of God between the Old and New Testaments? The OT God is ruthless, hardly forgiving, and dare I say, cold. The NT God is all about love and kindness and tolerance and forgiveness (until you get to Revelation, at least, when he decides to judge mankind).
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The Old Testament is part of the Bible. But it's mainly to show what Jesus has done for us. Jesus refers to it as the law, but we are no longer under the law. We are under his forgiveness.
The "shift" in personality is because Jesus blood covers our sins. God can't see them as soon as we ask Jesus to forgive us. God forgives and forgets our sins. In the Old Testament, there was nothing to cover sin except sacrificing an animal and that covering didn't last very long. God can't stand to be around sin because it opposes who He is. That's why God seems ruthless and cold. With Jesus, you're forgiven forever. Now God can be with us and we're not like the scum of the earth because of our sins.
So...he goes from "kill all your first born for not obeying me" to "believe that Jesus was my son and sent to save you and come to heaven" because his son was sent to earth? And he sent his son because past action wasn't working.
If God is all-seeing and all-knowing, even giving man free will, he should still be able to see the choices that are made and what comes of it and know that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit and know that Jesus would have to be the ultimate sacrifice. Why do everything else in between? Why even create man, for that matter? Or why place the forbidden trees in the Garden of Eden?
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Let's start with the simple questions. God put the trees in the Garden so that man would have a choice. If there were no Tree of Knoweledge of Good and Evil, then there's no choice to make. You just live on in happiness, not knowing that there is this thing called right and wrong. Why create man? Who knows? He's God. A lot of people have different answers for that and I'm not sure which one I agree with or if maybe they're all true.
God sees the choices that we make ahead of time. He knew what Adam and Eve were going to do but He had to let them do it. He gave us free will because He wanted us to choose to love Him. Would you rather be, and forgive my trekie-ness, a Borg or a human being? Because Adam and Eve messed up we all get to choose whether or not we believe in God and whether or not we love Him. If they hadn't messed up, we'd all be in the Garden knowing that God exists, as if He were a physical person.
So, He knew from the very beginning that He would have to send Jesus. Why do all the middle stuff? I don't know. God has perfect timing. He's kinda like Gandalf in that sense. God has a reason for that. I think it's to show us what life is like before forgiveness. It established a need for forgiveness because we couldn't get it on our own. To me it's like a giant love story. God creates us, we break His heart, there's a seperation period, and He rescues us. You'll probably disagree with me on that but there's a reason for the Old Testament. It's to show us what He's saved us from.
"First off, I like how all the verses you chose were in the Old Testament before Christ. You chose verses from a time period where the only way to cover one's sins was to kill an animal."
So what are you saying? Are you saying that the OT doesn't count as the word of God? Did God, the perfect all powerful creator, make so many mistakes on his first draft of his word that he needed to retract it all in such a short period of time? Surely he would have gotten it right the first time if he was the all powerful creator and would not have had to update his views in such a short period of time, no?
"Since Jesus died and became the perfect sacrifice, these things aren't needed anymore."
Really? Well how come millions of Christians felt otherwise for so many centuries when they were murdering non-believers and homosexuals and pointing to the Bible to justify their actions? Why is the OT even part of the Christian belief system if it is void?
C'mmon on now, do you really believe that the supreme, all-powerful, perfect creator needs to change his mind? God is not human, God is perfect, so surely that would lend God enough foresight to just spit out the NT in the first place, with no need for the OT. Only men make such colossal fuck-ups as is represented by the OT. But Christians, rather than accepting that they were bullshitted the first time round, would rather believe that God had a change of heart the next time he put his word on paper. The guys who compiled the OT lied about it being the word of God, that's plain as day to any sane individual with the slightest handle on critical thought, so what's to say that they didn't just do a better rewrite on the NT and make the same claim that God wrote it? It's not like they didn't pull that one before and it's not like most organised religions haven't pulled the exact same stunt with their religious texts.
"I don't support any of the things you listed above. God calls us to forgive others and love them. Christianity isn't about those things. It's about forgiveness and love."
If you are talking about Christianity which believes that the Bible is the direct word of God, then it is not about forgiveness and love. If you identify Christianity as following Christ's example, then it is. The sad fact is, that if Christians would just stop lying about the Bible being God's word, they would be free to follow the teachings of Jesus and ammend the more fucked-up beliefs without anybody raising an eyebrow, but they won't back down on the big lie.
A belief system, based on love and forgiveness invented by men, isn't enough for the Christian leaders is it? Because they would have to argue the case for the superiority of their views over those of other philosophers. They claimed that it was handed down from God, so it appears to be infallible and better than the belief systems of all other men, without them needing to argue honestly since God is perfect and can not be wrong. Unfortunately though, once you tell people that an idea came directly from God, you void any excuses you might come up with later to ammend any mistakes, because if you do that, you are clearly admitting to lying in the first place, as a perfect supreme being can not be fallible.
"Sure you've paid attention to what I've said. But to me it seems like you are only doing this so that you can point out the flaws in my statements."
If I didn't see any flaws, I wouldn't have commented in the first place. What would you have me do, only comment when I agree 100% with what somebody says? If everybody did that, nobody would learn anything and we'd all end up walking around thinking we were right all the time, because nobody took the time to correct or challenge our opinions. Being proven wrong is merely somebody offering you the opportunity to be right. You can't lose in an argument if you are interested in knowledge; you either learn something or you teach something.
"I have been logically lead to the conclusion that there is a God and Jesus is His Son."
Could you lead me through the logic that allowed you to deduce this as a fact? You see, many people are able to think with great logic regarding just about any issue, but when it comes to religion all logic goes out the window. I would be interested to see if you have applied any logic to reaching this conclusion beyond circular.
"I personally believe that faith is needed for all belief systems including atheism and agnosticism."
That's because you fail to understand the nature of Agnosticism. Agnosticism is an assertion that people should suspend belief until something is conclusively proven. As an Agnostic, I assert that no man can prove the existence or non-existence of God, something evidenced by their failure to do either. If somebody comes up with conclusive evidence either way, I'll happily accept the conclusion, but don't ask me to take your word for it without proof. Think about it, in what other part of your life could you see believing what somebody tells you without question being considered a strength? If you wouldn't trust a politician without cross checking what they're saying, why would you trust a religious leader? That's logical thinking.
"You may be honestly considering all that I have to say, but I don't feel that you are. I just kind of feel like all you want to do is attack my stance."
I do want to attack your stance, although attack isn't really what I would call it, that's what a religion would call it, I would call it questioning, or more accurately trying to get you to question your stance. You say you are a logical thinker, so you shouldn't feel attacked, you should feel challenged. It would be a lot less effort for me to just ignore your comments altogether, which would be a complete display of disrespect; not even bothering.
"I wish I could actually sit down and talk with you about this because then we could have a better feel for each other."
The problem with a scenario like that is, that honesty would go out the window in favour of amicablity. I have hundreds of Christian friends who I can't discuss religion with in an honest light because they become too upset and take things too personally. So inevitabley I will let the subject drop just to keep the peace. Online there is the opportunity for people to argue without social restrictions getting in the way. I can't make you feel threatened by violence or make you shut up because I'm upset, so you are free to argue honestly with me as I am with you. I find that in day to day exchanges with people in everyday life, I am starved of real discussion, with everything being reduced to inane small talk, for fear of offending. If I were to sit down and talk with you face to face, I probably would just drop the issue as soon as I saw you getting upset, which is great for socializing, but not so great for meaningful discussion and argument, which is generally what I come here for.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
The Old Testament is an important part of the Bible. It shows us that the Law doesn't work. No one gets to Heaven without forgiveness. God didn't mess up on this part. We did. Adam and Eve sinned, creating chaos. God then promised that Jesus would one day come. Then he invented the Law, which we can't possibly live up to. Throughout the Old Testament, Jesus coming is promised. It was a process, not a failure on God's part.
I cannot answer for other people's actions. Christians throughout history have been ruthless but I can't tell you why. The only thing is that we all have free will and make these stupid decisions on our own. All Christians have messed up just in different ways.
Christians have messed up the word Christianity. It's supposed to be about following Christ's example, but we've convinced the world that it's all about hypocrisy and piousness (just like the Pharisees). I still believe that the Bible is true, though. You're convinced that men messed up with the first part and tried to make a better second part. I'm convinced that we messed up in the first part so God wrote a better ending in the second part.
So you've pointed out flaws and I've gone back and revisited them. I've tried to explain these things to the best of my ability without going into some huge discourse that would take forever to read and write. Thanks for pointing out my flaws and really making me think about these things and ask myself questions. I know all the "right" answers, but I'm discovering for myself exactly what there is to believe and you're strengthening my faith.
You're the only person I know who defines Agnosticism that way. Most people use it as "There's something out there, but I'm not sure what it is."
The logical process I went through... I've grown up in a Christian home and I've gone to church my whole life. I've seen the hypocrisy and the, shall I call it stupidity?, of the church. Until I was about 12, I blindly believed. Since then, I've lost my faith and come back. I've studied other religions, asked millions of questions of people of different beliefs. Most of those people could never give me definitive answers about what they believed and how it was different from the way I grew up. I personally couldn't accept there wasn't anything out there, so I searched for it. I kept coming back to this Jesus guy. I don't know, He was like a magnet. Out of everything I looked at, He was the only one who made sense. I wasn't attracted to the church, I wasn't attracted to the religion, I was attracted to this guy. So, I figured I'd give it another chance. I've had my ups and downs with it since I "came back" to Jesus. In fact I keep walking away but keep returning to this Jesus guy. You're probably thinking that this isn't a very logical process but how do I describe the process I went through? I can't remember what exactly my mind was thinking. I just know that Jesus makes more sense than all the other things that I have looked at.
If you can accept that there is no God, then good for you. I personally think that there is one and Jesus is the answer. He's the only thing in my life that has ever made sense. He's the only thing that I keep coming back to.
"It shows us that the Law doesn't work."
Yeah, it shows us how failed the logic was in the first draft of "God's" word. In fact, it screams human error from every page.
"God didn't mess up on this part. We did."
I think that's a bit rich. A bunch of religious hustlers compile a book that is loaded with human errors and human intolerance, that only a homocidal maniac could believe that it was penned by a man with any capacity for compassion, empathy or forgiveness, let along God. Yet when we question the authenticity of this fallacious document and the identity of it's true source, we are told that it's not the authors' fault, it's ours? You feel free to take the blame for some ancient lunatic's sloppy fiction writing if you want, to the point where you feel compelled to defend it; I refuse to be blamed for another's incompetence and I find it offensive that people use God to bully people in suspending the disbelief, it's cowardly and dishonest.
"Then he invented the Law, which we can't possibly live up to."
What, like brutally murdering homosexuals, non-believers and people who look at us funny? There are actually people who lived up to these laws fairly well actually, who knows, maybe they'll get gold stars from God.
"It was a process, not a failure on God's part."
What kind of Godly process involves encouraging people to murder anybody who dares to question the authority of a law, which you claim God knew we could never live up to? That does not sound like a God to me, that sounds very much like an unscrupulous group of politicians exploiting peoples' ignorance and belief in woo woo.
"Christians throughout history have been ruthless but I can't tell you why."
They've used the OT to justify a lot of this ruthlessness. In fact moderate Christians like to accuse extremists of perverting the interpretation of the Bible, when in fact it is the moderates who have chosen to ignore vast tracts of the Bible. Most Christians I know aren't really Christians; they believe in God, but they pick what they want from his alleged word and discard the rest. I can't blame them for this, in fact I applaud them, because it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. What I don't applaud is the fact that, despite being able to completely disagree with and disregard OT laws that are just glaringly fallacious, they still can't accept that the Bible is just the word of man; it is right in some places, wrong in others, just like man, not God.
"You're convinced that men messed up with the first part and tried to make a better second part. I'm convinced that we messed up in the first part so God wrote a better ending in the second part."
I'm convinced of that, because a perfect creator would have foreseen our messing up and would have had no need for any ammendments. Whereas human authors could not have foreseen how society would develop and would need to make ammendments. Think about it rationally instead of rationalizing it to fit your beliefs. Your belief dictates that God is perfect, I am using this understanding of God to highlight the fact that a perfect being could have had no hand in the Bible. You see, a belief in a pefect being as author of the Bible necessitates a belief that the Biblical texts are perfect, which they are clearly not. It's not our fault, it's the authors' human error not ours.
"You're the only person I know who defines Agnosticism that way. Most people use it as "There's something out there, but I'm not sure what it is."
It's like this:
An Agnostic Theist doesn't know for certain that there is a higher power, but until proven otherwise they will assume there is.
An Agnostic Atheist doesn't know for certain that there is not a higher power, but until it is proven that there is, they will assume that there isn't.
An Agnostic believes that there is not enough knowledge available either way, so we suspend belief, because to believe in something conclusively without conclusive proof, is to believe based on faith, not knowledge. Agnostics assert that no man has demonstrated conclusively that they have definitive knowledge regarding the existence or non-existence of a higher power, so it is reasonable to deduce that no man has that knowledge, hence belief either way is just that: belief, and not knowledge.
The reason people you know who describe themselves as Agnostic do so in the manner you descrbed, lies with the fact that they haven't really made the effort to understand what Agnosticism actually is. They are actually closer to Deists, because they believe that there is a higher power, but don't know exactly what it is. This would suggest that they reject the assertations of organised religious institutions regarding the nature of God.
"I wasn't attracted to the church, I wasn't attracted to the religion, I was attracted to this guy."
No problem there, Jesus sounds like a great guy. Why does he have to be the son of God though? Would his teachings be worth any less if he wasn't? There's no proof to say that he was divine, but that doesn't make him any less great. I don't understand why Jesus can't enjoy recognition for being a brilliant reformer who tried to sway people away from the regressive and viscious teachings of OT scripture. He was murdered as a heretic, the same way many reformers who came after him were.
I would speculate that Jesus was either an Agnostic or a Deist. People who honestly believe that the Bible is the word of God and is infallible are actually at odds with what Jesus tried to do, which was to try and shift people away from regressive beliefs. He realised that people needed a belief in the supernatural, so rather than try to take that from them, he attempted to modify the nature of their belief from brutal intolerance and hate, to forgiveness and love. He was a great man and the fact that for some he needs to be the son of God in order for them to recognize his greatness is actually insulting to his legacy and to man in general.
"You're probably thinking that this isn't a very logical process but how do I describe the process I went through?"
It logical in so much that you are attracted to the teachings and deeds of a great man. What is illogical is that you believe that the OT and many other aspects of organized Christian religion are handed down from God.
"I just know that Jesus makes more sense than all the other things that I have looked at."
Like the alleged word of God in the OT for example.....
"If you can accept that there is no God, then good for you."
I'm prepared to if it is conclusively proven, the same way I'm prepared to accept there is a God if it is proven. All this bullshit about not asking for proof that organised religions tend to use to skirt difficult questions doesn't wash with me. Anybody should be wary of men who make claims they can not prove and who claim that critical analysis is against the law of the very thing they can not prove to exist in the first place. It's not really a case of what I'd like to accept or not, if something is conclusively proven, unless I am prepared to admit that I'd rather make-believe than accept truth. I suspend belief in the face of lack of knowledge and evidence either way.
This isn't the race track, I don't have to place a bet, despite the fact that organised religions attempt to bully me into betting on their guess, by threatening me with unfounded metaphysical devastation if I don't do as they say. At least Atheists don't tell me that I will go to hell if I don't believe them, they offer everybody the oppotunity to exercise true free will, not the gun-to-the-head mockery of free will proffered by churches who claim that you are free to believe or not, but who add that you will burn for eternity in a lake of fire if you don't make the choice they want you to make.
If i threaten somebody visciously and scare the living shit out of them with claims they can't actually prove or disprove, because they are so removed from reality and so made-up, if they don't believe and do what I tell them to, and another opposing choice simply says that you are free to believe them or not without threatening or scaring you, you could be forgiven for chosing the first option just to cover your ass. Christians even bring this up in the form of Pascals Wager to bully people into playing safe and choosing to follow the bully, because the bully might beat you up after school, the other guys won't.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
There's one thing that I really want to respond to. If Jesus isn't God then He's a liar or a lunatic. He said that He was the Son of God along with a lot of other things. If He really wasn't then He's either a liar or a lunatic.
"Think about it rationally instead of rationalizing it to fit your beliefs."
This is exactly what I feel you are doing. I feel as though you are rationalizing to fit your beliefs.
I have a question. What is your religious background? Did something deter you from Christianity? I'm just curious.
"If Jesus isn't God then He's a liar or a lunatic."
No. He was a man who saw how barbaric the religions at the time were as a result of the old testament and knew that the only way people would listen to him was to convince them he was the son of God. He hoped that, if he could convince enough people, the law of the OT would be changed. The only way "God's" law in the OT could be changed, would be through somebody who could convince thousands that he was speaking for God. In fact, that's why he was nailed to a cross and executed. He died for the sins of the men who claimed to be speaking for God when they wrote the OT and who wrote into it hate filled scripture in God's name. So he sacrificed himself, so that people would be able to enjoy forgiveness instead of intolerance and vengance, not from God, but from the liars who exploited God's name to spread their unforgiving, vengeful gospel.
He was a great man, one who sacrificed his life to save people from barbaric and unforgiving religious beliefs. The sad part is that his name was then exploited by the same brutal calibre of religious meglomaniac and attrocities have been carried out in his name ever since. Just like God's name before him, his name was hijacked by the churches and used as celebrity sponsorship for intolerance, tyranny, fraud, murder, you name it. Jesus was far from a lunatic, he may have lied, but he did it for the right reasons and when it came time to put his money where his mouth is, he was willing to die to liberate people from unforgiving religious tendencies.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
Basically, we're working off of two different premises here. You believe that Jesus was just some guy and then the religious leaders wrote Him into the Bible to make their story better. So do you propose that all the prophecy in the OT was written after His death in order to make the story work better? Then what do you think about the end time prophecies, which there are lots more of?
You say Jesus may have lied. I say then why follow him? Why follow someone who deliberately lied? That to me shows no integrity and I don't want to be living up to a liar or anyone without integrity. You probably think that He would still be someone worthy of following but I don't. I'm tired of looking up to people who aren't perfect. That's why Jesus is so vital to me. People have failed me, but He won't because He's never messed up.
"You believe that Jesus was just some guy"
Do you see now why Jesus would have had to lie to get religious people to take his message seriously? As soon as you consider my assertion that he was a man and not the son of God, you reduce him to being "just some guy". That's the problem, if a group of men tell the truth and don't pretend that their ideas, laws and instruction come from God, religious people don't want to know. But as soon as they lie to them and tell them that God declared these laws through their mouths, religious folks fall over themselves to fall at their feet and worship.
Atheists declare that their beliefs are completely mortal in origin, they tell the truth and as a result they are discriminated against more heavily in the US than any religious group. Whereas, countless religious groups lie and tell people that their beliefs are handed down from God and the majority of Americans trust them with their lives. Honesty may be the best policy, but lying clearly produces better results when it comes to controlling large swaths of the population.
"then the religious leaders wrote Him into the Bible to make their story better."
I believe that his name has been used by religions which call themselves Christian and who preach about love and forgiveness, but whose actions follow the 'eye for an eye' style religion from the OT. In other words, Christian religions, like Catholicism and Protestantism, have committed all manner of vengeful and intolerant attrocities which could be justified by the OT, but which are in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus.
"So do you propose that all the prophecy in the OT was written after His death in order to make the story work better?"
Might have been. Roman scholars wrote false prophecies about Roman rulers to convince the people of his links with divinity through mythology. But another possibility would be that Jesus was already aware of the prophecies, as were many others, and he saw an opportunity to fulfill them. Just like the Nazis were familiar with Nostra Damus' predictions and set about trying to fulfill them to scare people into thinking that this was the prophecy coming true, as opposed to somebody deliberately copycatting what they've read.
"Then what do you think about the end time prophecies, which there are lots more of?"
I think they're guesswork, just like all prophecies. But the thing with prophecies is, as I pointed out, many people are aware of them, so there is nothing stopping people from trying to bring them about, just to make them look as if they're coming true. The end of the world, armageddon and all that jazz has been prophecized hundreds of times and has failed to come true on the dates they said it would happen. The real danger is that some religious zealots might try to spark off another world war, just because they believe it's meant to happen.
"You say Jesus may have lied. I say then why follow him?"
Because you think his teachings about love and forgiveness have some value? Why do people have such a problem with following a man who teaches them to love their neighbours as they love themselves and to forgive? Why does he have to be a God? I mean, most Christians I know laugh at the way ancient Greeks and Romans needed to believe that their leaders were in league with Gods like Zeus and Neptune, in order to follow them. But nothing has changed. Just like those ancient people, todays Christians need believe that somebody is the son of God or in direct favour with God before they'll listen. Follow him because you agree with his teachings, not just because he claims to be the son of God, because lots have people have claimed to be the son of God over the years, and the nature of the God they claim to be the son of is usually different all the time.
"That to me shows no integrity and I don't want to be living up to a liar or anyone without integrity."
Then maybe organized religion isn't for you, because liars don't come much bigger than them.
"I'm tired of looking up to people who aren't perfect. That's why Jesus is so vital to me. People have failed me, but He won't because He's never messed up."
I can't relate.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
If Jesus were just some guy, that'd be fine. But He isn't. By saying that He was not God, He's reduced to just another prominent figure in history. That's not what humanity needs. We don't just need some other guy who did good things. We need a savior.
People mess up. Even with the greatest intentions, we fail. Throughout history, people have tried to follow Jesus example but messed up. People have felt that the OT justified their actions but it didn't. But that's why we need forgiveness. We need our blunders, no matter how big, covered up.
I can't follow Jesus if He's a liar. If the only thing that defines purpose in my life is a liar, then my purpose, my goals are based on lies.
Also, I've always known that organized religion is not for me. I follow Jesus first and foremost and the church is there as a tool. It's not perfect. The people there mess up but it's better to use a straight-head when you can't find a Phillips instead of no tool at all.
So...using your logic....people like Ghandi, and Martin Luther King Jr. are just "some other guys who did good things," instead of worthy role models to look up to?
Meh, I'd rather be able to look up to whomever I choose without feeling the need to worship them.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Well from what I learned in church earlier in life, God can do anything. The bible says that Jesus made a blind man see. So why wouldnt he be able to turn a gay guy straight? During my earlier Christian experience, certain bible camps and services were able to suppress my hunger for sex maybe it was the same type of thing but his problem was homosexuality. So I don't know really, Id have to be in his shoes. But if he says he was gay and now hes not, Id have to believe him.
``Well from what I learned in church earlier in life, God can do anything. The bible says that Jesus made a blind man see. So why wouldnt he be able to turn a gay guy straight?``
My answer to that would be kind of similar as if someone told you that being black is a curse and that God can change you from black to white. Just rub some lightening cream on your skin ten times each day, straighten your hair and die it blond, take accent training, refrain from dancing and basketball, stay in the company of whites, get surgery on your features, etc. etc.
You know, I would tell that kind of person that there is nothing wrong with you as you are.
``During my earlier Christian experience, certain bible camps and services were able to suppress my hunger for sex maybe it was the same type of thing but his problem was homosexuality.``
Some of us would say that his problem wasn`t his homosexuality, but, rather, all those around him who are trying to convince him that there is something wrong with him if he is homosexual.
I`m gay and it`s not a problem at all. The only thing in my life that`s related to my being gay that has ever been a problem is the prejudiced people that I`ve met who try to create problems.
Suppressing hunger for sex is a responsibility issue - Being homosexual has to do with who you are. Christianity teaches people to value who God made them, correct? It doesn't make sense for these camps to "fix" homosexuals considering they are born this way, ie the way the God made them.
It's all a scam & those poor people will probably have major issues in their life. For example, if a man who had been "fixed" married a woman & had children - what is he to do down the road when he has urges & feelings for other men? Is that fair to that woman? No.
Just let people be who they want to be - it's no ones' business but they're own. Let them deal with Judgement Day, if you/they believe in that
I'll be short and concise because its one in the morning for me. Every scientific study, although there haven't been many, I'll give you that, agrees that homosexuality is more or less socialized. People aren't born gay, we make them gay. One of the biggest factors is the number older brothers a boy has, and also the more aloof a guys father is and how dominating his mother is the more likely he is to be gay. I don't know about lesbians, but I'm willing to bet its because so little research has been done.
Anyways, if homosexuality was socialized to your friend, I bet it can be socialized out of him as well. Do I think it was a miracle? It depends on how you define miracle. Without going into to many words I'll just say that I bet God's hand was there, there are two things. First it was probably not in a blatantly supernatural way, although it could be I guess. Also I would be curious to know if it stands the test of time, but I'm not sure it would be appropriate to post such things online.
Mark's situation makes me think though. I'm a Conservative Christian, so I wonder what I would do if I were in Mark's parent's position. They were definitely right to pray for their son. Its the best thing to do when you don't know what to do.
What you stated in the first paragraph reminded me of some of the studies done by scientists regarding sexual orientation before. It was on New York Times and Yahoo featured news as well. I would go and search for the articles but I'm quite lazy. lol. Anyway, isn't it weird that these scientists are trying to distinguish between heterosexuals and homosexuals? It's like we have to have homosexuals compared with heterosexuals biological features so it can be proven that sexuality is in the genetics...
It's also note worthy that some homosexuals say, "We didn't choose to born this way," which would probably support the researchers' theory that homosexuality is a biological issue.
"Homosexuality" and "Heterosexuality" to me are just inventions...like every other labels. They are invented by language. Nothing more and nothing less.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
""Homosexuality" and "Heterosexuality" to me are just inventions...like every other labels. They are invented by language. Nothing more and nothing less."
That's like saying that gravity is just an invention of language, nothing more and nothing less, suggesting that we can defy the laws of physics if we give them another label. If homosexuality or heterosexuality are merely the invention of language, then you are basically saying that nobody is born with a natural sexual orientation, something which evolutionists would probably contest, but would no doubt be embraced by the people who run cure camps.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
Every word in language is an invention for us to identify certain things. Perhaps we can defy the law of physics if we give them another label. People will get used to the new label. It is really unfortunate how people can lose sleep over categorizations that others put on for them. Act, body and identify are important in defying one's sexuality. If no one comes out as gay, we'd assume everyone is straight. Unless you come out as being gay, no one will question your sexuality. At least, that was how things used to be. I'd like to think that no one is born with natural sexual orientation too. As I grew up I constantly heard a girl is supposed to be with a boy and a boy is supposed to be with a girl. When I asked people why, they replied that's how things are supposed to be. A man and a woman are needed for reproduction and blah blah blah. And people dismiss everything else that's not their ideal relationships.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
"Perhaps we can defy the law of physics if we give them another label."
What??!!
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
It might surprise you to learn that, yes, the concepts of heterosexuality and homosexuality are not universal. Consider Native Americans, for instance: though they were permissive to the point of almost worshipping what we would today consider queers (in the inclusive, non-derogatory sense), they had no real concept of people being gay or straight. Their definitions revolved more around gender than sexual orientation, and considered women who were masculine and men who were feminine to be a third gender rather than trans or gay. Different, but perfectly fine.
If you want another example, take a look at the old model of gayness: the Greeks. They saw same-sex attraction as a vital part of society but still different from opposite-sex encounters. We would consider them a nation of bisexuals, but they never saw it that way because of the specific roles to play in both scenarios.
Western ideas of gay and lesbian are currently clashing with other societies and their old understandings of sexual orientation and gender, so I don't see how you can say that the specifics of the concept are not at least partially cultural.
T.k.
"It might surprise you to learn that, yes, the concepts of heterosexuality and homosexuality are not universal....."
The concept of gravity didn't exist at all at one stage, does that mean it didn't exist, or that, had it been given a different name, it would have different properties?
"Western ideas of gay and lesbian are currently clashing with other societies and their old understandings of sexual orientation and gender, so I don't see how you can say that the specifics of the concept are not at least partially cultural."
In the West, many Christians hold a completely different understanding of what homosexuality is to more scientifically concerned secularists. Whether you call it same-sex, a third gender or whatever you choose to label it, it will not affect the properties of homosexuality; those being centred around being physiologically attracted to members of the same sex. You can call it 'jhfhdfhsdfg', that doesn't make it something else with different properties, it may make people THINK differently about it, but it doesn't change the mechanics. Calling a gay man straight doesn't make him so, now does it?
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
I think the point he was making was that homosexuality in other culters was not treated as something to be shunned or destroyed and that in many cultures it was actually upheld and rewarded.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Actually, the point I was making was that people behave differently based on how their society says they should, but also that no one has ever has a full, all-encompassing set of terminology for the variance in gender and sexuality. We say gay and straight, maybe bi if we're feeling openminded, but there are those who don't fit into any of those labels. One is not necessarily homosexual or heterosexual - there are other options.
T.k.
"Every scientific study, although there haven't been many, I'll give you that, agrees that homosexuality is more or less socialized. People aren't born gay, we make them gay."
Would you mind providing sources for one or two of these studies? Shouldn't be too hard if "every scientific study" has reached the same consclusion.
"One of the biggest factors is the number older brothers a boy has"
Can you cite something to back this up, because it sounds like Christian mumbo jumbo to me, a bit woo woo.
"Anyways, if homosexuality was socialized to your friend"
What do you mean 'if'? I thought every scientific study had concluded that there is no other avenue for developing such a chronic case of the gayness?
"Do I think it was a miracle? It depends on how you define miracle."
You could define a miracle as Christian weirdos being allowed to sexually torture kids in isolated locations with an aim to pervert the kids sexuallity into the twisted mould of their own and not having a SWAT team kicking down their door and charging them with chiid abuse. I think it's pretty miraculous how child abuse is tolerated to such a great degree as long as it's Christains behind wheel.
"Without going into to many words I'll just say that I bet God's hand was there"
I doubt that was God's hand fella. It was most likely the hand of somebody like John Paulk, who used to run these kinds of cure-camps. Poor John was prone to relapse and no doubt when he couldn't procure the services of a professional male prostitute he probably dropped the hand on the odd kid. Probably scared the shit out of the kid so bad that they just thought, well, pretending to be straight is a lot better than being turned in a circle rabid Christian Pedos just for being gay.
"I'm a Conservative Christian"
I can't wait to see what your idea of a scientific study is so....
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
> I'll be short and concise because its
> one in the morning for me. Every scientific
> study, although there haven't been many,
> I'll give you that, agrees that homosexuality
> is more or less socialized.
Your familiarity with the extant body of scientific research into the question of homosexuality is lacking.
What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?
There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.
From the APA Online: Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
"There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people."
In light of which, it would be far more reasonable to assume that a child who is gay in the midst of an environment that is openly hostile towards homosexuality, is most likely biologically homosexual. Most gay men that I know, well all of the ones I've spoken to on the issue, said that initially they felt their homosexuality was something they feared and something they felt would see them ostracized from their community of straight friends and family. From what my gay friends say, as children they pretended and even tried to practice being heterosexual out of convenience, but in the end confronted the fact that they were, despite their best efforts, gay, and that once they accepted that, they started to accept themselves and stopped pretending just to fit in with their environment.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
That study you discuss, about how the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to be gay, was determined by those scientists to show that homosexuality in men has a strong link to the environment the male fetus is exposed to the womb, not socialixed post-partem. A report on the study is linked to below.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13555604/
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Purity Balls: For the Rich, White, Christian, and (Slightyly) Perverted
I think those camps aren't good. Why is someone trying to change how people are and the way they want to live? It's stupid. I'm not very religious, but isn't it said that God loves everyone as they are? Then why is someone trying to brainwash how people are? I think its just brainwash what happened at that camp, everyone has the right to be what they want to be as long as they are happy
<[D4L] & [T.D.D]>
Basketball & Music is life
why would you wantto be cured, if that is even possible, from who you love? i do notthink you can be changed from gay to straight. you like who you like. there is nothing wrong with it. goodness, this makes me very frustrated!
i do not think he is straight. he is probably saying it to make his parents happy. if he ends up marrying a women they were get a divorce down the road.
I would like to know who came up with this idea of camps to cure homosexuals. The thought alone is degrading, I can't even imagine how he must feel going through it. You can't change who you are, and that's all sexuality seems to be, a part of who you are. I don't believe it's a disease that can be cured, in much the same way you can't change the fact that you like your favorite color.
"The only thing more dangerous than a gun is an idea."
the case of Michael Glatze A former gay activist who explains how he left homosexuality.Michael Glatze decided at the age of 13 that he was gay and eventually founded Young Gay America, a nonprofit media outreach project. Through a series of incidents,however, Glatze slowly began to realize that he was not gay at all but was dealing with fears about his own masculinity. He has since rejected his gay identity.
This follows the evidence presented in the Lauman Study - providing the kind of context one would expect concerning the "fluid" nature of human sexuality & the “extraneous factors primarily the “social milieu” in which the person finds himself.
It seems that for Michael the “social milieu” that was preventing his natural progression towards heterosexuality [as the Luaman Study above attests] was the homosexual community he found himself part of.
From an interview with Michael Glatze
Michael Glatze: Well, I think maybe the first thing that comes to mind is just that I
began noticing the nature of my desires, and the fact that I was able to change them.
J.N. That’s an interesting phrase: “the nature of desire.”
M.G. Although when I look back on my life in the gay community, there was always a sense that “You don’t question your same-sex desires.”
J.N. Yes. That’s a very big rule in the gay community.
M.G. Right. In fact -- it’s rule number one.
J.N. Rule number one: “Don’t ask why.” People “just are.” No questions about why.
M.G. As soon as you join the club, that’s the first rule. You can go ahead and examine any other thing’s cause, except for homosexuality.
J.N. I can explore the foundations of my alcoholism, my overeating, my depression-- but not my homosexuality.
M.G. Right. And ironically, it’s even OK for straights to question their heterosexuality.
J.N. (nods)
Among many.
Nice post. Following this discussion has been hillarious. The Gay is genetic crowd do have the politically correct mantle at the moment, and thus the more numerous supporters, allmost all of the other side is basing their opinion on a 3500 year old author.
Science is only a freind to most people when it supports their prejudged notions.
If you read what Jesus actually said he did not mention this topic specifically, but putting the truth before your own desires was a central theme.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
You want another opinion, do you? Well, I'm pro-human rights, but I don't buy into the supposedly genetic nature of homosexuality. I believe that sexuality is a complicated mix of factors, and though genetics may play a part, it is certainly not the only thing. That sound more reasonable?
However, I find the debate to be entirely moot. Who cares what causes sexual orientation or whether it's "fixable"? Anyone who wants to "fix" it is elevating their preferences over everyone else's for no logical reason.
Gay people are against the Bible? The Bible should not even be mentioned when it comes to public policy. We are not living in a theocracy. Oh, and the Bible never mentions lesbians.
Gay people spread disease? Vague. Yes, anal sex carries the highest risk of all the common sexual practices, but straights do it too. Also, like the above, lesbians are being ignored.
Gay people are gross? Not even worth responding to.
Gay people will corrupt the children? This makes no sense unless you have some other reason for condemning homosexuality, because otherwise, who cares who the kids grow up to love?
Gay people are bad parents? ORLY. Both sides have studies to back up their position, but I know which ones are better done.
It should not matter why people are the way they are. We are living in a country designed to protect the minorities, provided they do no harm. Without substantial proof that homosexuality is negative, there can be no justification in denying gays equal rights.
That's my position. No genetics; just sense.
T.k.
Yes that statement seems realistic. Of corse there are specific mechanisms involved as with all things study could help knowledge.
---
"It should not matter why people are the way they are."
I prefer knowledge to ignorance, and to the effected people it might matter a great deal.
---
Gender preference is only one aspect of this poorly understood subject.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
I did a fair amount of research on this area for a Senior Capstone Project at my University:
http://progressiveu.org/202031-constitutionality-same-sex-marriage-bans
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -F.N.
What an interesting anecdote. Can you provide us however with even ONE credible, peer reviewed longitudinal study that supports the claim that sexual orientation can be "changed" in the manner you describe?
I also have to say that I am surprised that you are still attempting to misrepresent the findings of the Laumann Study, which was a survey dealing with how people self-identify, not with actual sexual orientation, and which specifically noted the vast disparity between the number of people who consider themselves to be homosexual, verses the number who were actually having sex with people of the same-sex. I have of course previously provided you with a link to the actual sections of the study which you misrepresent, and debunked your fraudlent claims regarding its contents in this blog.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.