The Christians hating gays contradiction

Originally posted by Lucid LunacyWhen I think a Christian is being preachy, what I really mean is that they are using scripture to express themselves, instead of their own thoughts and feelings concerning the scriptural interpretation.

See Lucid, everyone does this with whatever source they use. For example scientific discoveries are often used as proof without presenting one’s own thoughts and reflections on the matter. Bonobos have appeared almost as much on this thread as scripture – for some science is indeed a scripture. Scientific discoveries are as capable of being taken out of context as scripture, they can be manipulated by the mind of man to draw conclusions which are not absolutely provable. We all have our source of authority, for Christians Scripture is one of those. (Let not this analogy be taken to the extreme in people’s imagination who might consider I am rubbishing science the way some rubbish Scripture.)

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Clearly you weren't around for all the post where we demonstrated that it is a product of nature.

Good Wolf I’m using your line only as an example and not specifically replying to you but generally to this phenomenon which has appeared a few times in the last pages. The contention that “we have demonstrated,” be it about what’s “natural” or what’s a “proper” translation of a scripture verse, etc. etc, is erroneous. What you have done is made a proposition, a proposition is different from proof. This pertains to all sides of the argument, we have propositions which may be proofs to ourselves but evidently are not to others otherwise this thread would have passed away pages ago.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Homosexuals are produced by nature. Their sexual orientation is produced by nature and therefore natural, by the natural natural definition

(at least one of the common accepted usage of the word).
The problem is you just straight up refuse to believe it was born. That's really the hang up.
There are plenty of other uses for the word 'natural', outside of Christian context, that would also show homosexuality to be in accordance with 'natural'.

I, for one, have not said “homosexual acts do not occur in nature” I have distinguished between “nature”, “the law of nature” and “Natural Law.” That something occurs in nature does not mean it is moral. I bring up the phenomenon of infanticide again. Now some have, and will, speak of bonding, the necessity of survival, dominance etc, in the context of infanticide and homosexual acts – these do not make either action moral. Morality pertains to the rational nature of humanity alone.

Originally posted by Good Wolf
I'd also remind you that there is more that one hole where it FITS.

Not naturally, i.e. not by design, hence the lack of lubricating glands - I believe spit or purchased lubricant is required to allow it to fit without discomfort.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
is that sexual orientation does not equal sex. That's what my response to you was about. You keep making the argument as if we were all strictly referring to sex when we speak of sexual orientation, and sexuality. This is not the case. It encompasses so much more.

As I have consistently said throughout this thread, thank you for affirming it.

Originally posted by Supercertari

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Clearly you weren't around for all the post where we demonstrated that it is a product of nature.

Good Wolf I’m using your line only as an example and not specifically replying to you but generally to this phenomenon which has appeared a few times in the last pages. The contention that “we have demonstrated,” be it about what’s “natural” or what’s a “proper” translation of a scripture verse, etc. etc, is erroneous. What you have done is made a proposition, a proposition is different from proof. This pertains to all sides of the argument, we have propositions which may be proofs to ourselves but evidently are not to others otherwise this thread would have passed away pages ago.

Well I never said proof, but that's not the point. It's a fact that it happens in nature, not a proof. Whether it is right or wrong, that is the debate and that is what you accept or not.

Originally posted by Good Wolf
I'd also remind you that there is more that one hole where it FITS.

Not naturally, i.e. not by design, hence the lack of lubricating glands - I believe spit or purchased lubricant is required to allow it to fit without discomfort.

Yea but it didn't have to be the purpose of the design. That wasn't the point. Just that it fits and is used that way.







[edit on 21/11/2008 by Good Wolf]

Originally posted by Simplynoone
Maybe I do Lucid ..actually maybe we all do

Hey as long as we are both open to new thinking then all is good

But let me ask you something:

How often are you open to having a non-Christian teach you Christianity?

Likewise, a non-homosexual teaching one about homosexuality

I am not saying we all don't have valid knowledge to share, because I am sure we do. However, certainly you actually being a Christian gives you some authority over non-Christians in Christian discussion. Apply this same reasoning to homosexuals.

As example, you would say there is a distinctly spiritual experience associated with accepting Christ as your Savior, and recognizing his sacrifice. Something you believe a non-Christian would not have a knowledgeable experience of. Correct? Likewise, a homosexual has the knowledgeable experience of having the homosexual orientation, which you do not. This is very important to remember, for both sides.

Not a difference ... but something in common ...I want everyone happy too ..believe me ...

I believe your word. And I am happy to hear we share that in common

I think we may have different ideas as to how that is best achieved though.

I am sorry it makes you sad ...yall make me sad too ....when I think about what COULD happen if your beliefs were wrong and you end up in a place you do not want to be ...all because your choices were not good ones for you

And every non-Christian could reverse that exact same thinking on to you.

What 'could' happen 'if' your belief is wrong!

You believe. But many don't believe this. I don't.

I do not believe homosexuality is sin. I do not believe God detests it. I do not believe the Divine feels it is an abomination. I do not believe it hurts my soul.

I think I need to smoke cigarettes .and I ENJOY them ..they make me happy ............is that good for me ? In any way ?

See this is my idea about compassion

Maybe it is good for you.

Despite the health risks of smoking. Maybe you really need it for other reasons.

Maybe it is part of your daily routine to make your really hard life a little more tolerable. Maybe you work an incredibly stressful job, and it takes the edge off a little. Maybe you lost a husband or a wife recently, and you picked up smoking because of that. Maybe you are terminally ill and you said "screw it I am smoking"... Or maybe you just really like smoking, and you really like freedom...

Don't always assume you know what is best for someone, even if it seems obvious at first. I think that is what I mean by being compassionate. Sometimes people really do know what is best for themselves. It takes compassion to let go of your own beliefs long enough to really listen to the other person.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

Originally posted by Supercertari

See Lucid, everyone does this with whatever source they use.

I agree both sides are guilty. No doubt about it. Would you believe me if I said that I also want to see personal thoughts and feelings from people posting non-religious material? I most certainly do!

My point about Christianity specifically, which many Christians on ATS seem to now agree with me on, is that with the apparent dissonance between Christians and other Christians within Christianity (30+thousand denominations), makes it ever more crucial to share your biblical interpretation. We cannot, because of this, necessarily infer your interpretation from reading the scripture alone. I am not saying don't post it...just include your personal interpretation.

As I have consistently said throughout this thread, thank you for affirming it.

Sex is a part of it, it is not the whole of it. That's what I was saying.

Sorry I have neglected to respond to your earlier comments about the 'Natural Law', and your related ideas. I still might in this thread... but in the course of writing a response I decided to create a new thread for it. Which will be more philosophical in nature.

Originally posted by Lucid LunacyI agree both sides are guilty. No doubt about it. Would you believe me if I said that I also want to see personal thoughts and feelings from people posting non-religious material? I most certainly do!

My point about Christianity specifically, which many Christians on ATS seem to now agree with me on, is that with the apparent dissonance between Christians and other Christians within Christianity (30+thousand denominations), makes it ever more crucial to share your biblical interpretation. We cannot, because of this, necessarily infer your interpretation from reading the scripture alone. I am not saying don't post it...just include your personal interpretation.

Oh yes, we should all give our own thoughts and reflections when citing sources, I agree there. Jumping in and saying "Jesus said ... so there!", or, "Science says ... so there!" doesn't oil the wheels of good rational discussion.
As for my biblical interpretation a look at my signature and the knowledge I'm a Catholic (with a capital C, underlined ) means my personal interpretation is always submitted to the mind of the Church, which I do keep alluding too with those peky quotes from papal documents I include sporadically in my posts.

Sex is a part of it, it is not the whole of it. That's what I was saying.

Sorry I have neglected to respond to your earlier comments about the 'Natural Law', and your related ideas. I still might in this thread... but in the course of writing a response I decided to create a new thread for it. Which will be more philosophical in nature.

As I have noted, and you manifest in your current state in life, it's not an essential part.

I've missed your Natural Law thread, is it so named for easy finding or might I be so cheeky as to ask for a link to it?

reply to post by Supercertari


I have long since collected you are Catholic and devout

That thread is in progress, and is not yet finished. I am making good speedway and will u2u when it's posted.

Indeed. I am personally doing fine with my celibacy at this juncture in time, and have been for the greater part of it.

However, I doubt you would think the rationale of my sexuality (bisexuality, celibacy) would apply to yours Or that simplynoone's (strongly dislikes sex) would apply to yours. Whereas, others in this thread have described the necessity of the intimacy (not uncommon). Therefore, it's best that we use our experiences as a sliver of the pie and not a representation of the whole.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Therefore, it's best that we use our experiences as a sliver of the pie and not a representation of the whole.

I agree, it is good though to note those examples that show, contrary to certain assertions, that the pie doesn't always have to be cherry.

reply to post by Supercertari


I think the overall assertion, based on the culmination of our posts, is that this pie encompasses many flavors. Whether it be the flavor of the biology, the psychology, or the sexual behavior; they were all ingredients in said pie

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
I think the overall assertion, based on the culmination of our posts, is that this pie encompasses many flavors. Whether it be the flavor of the biology, the psychology, or the sexual behavior; they were all ingredients in said pie

So perhaps more than a pie we are discussing parfait? Humans are some biological custard, layered with the syrup of psychology, surmounted by the cream of spirituality with a cherry on top (optional)?

(Sorry, I know this is nearly nonsense, but its good to have a chuckle, well I am anyway.)

p.s. Reason is the long handled spoon of course.

reply to post by Supercertari


I'm off to get me some pie.

reply to post by Good Wolf


If you'd want to even label it bisexual, but yeah you summed up what I was saying quite well... Bisexual just sounds like another orientation to me and not to mince words, the origins of the behavior come down to mating strategies from our past and how we rationalize them via the mind to understand the urges.

So... Bisexual lol, fine... none the less male submission to another male is a technique to survive and reproduce and so is making another male submit...

strong urges from either end of the spectrum explained as "homosexual" ... the word just doesn't get straight to the point of why the urges are there...


and lol, there is another aspect of Us as a species that changes the biological

we fall in Love when we mate very often





[edit on 21-11-2008 by mopusvindictus]

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by Supercertari

 

I'm off to get me some pie.

Don't forget the sprinkles!

(nice avatar, one of the best movies of recent years.)

Simplynoone

but I still put up with them ...because it FITS ...we fit together ...it is not trying to place a round peg in a square hole ..we just FIT

You put up with abuse because you 'fit'

But really it was because men act so much like animals when it comes to sex

Some women can be like that too.I speak from experience.




Good Wolf.

I'd also remind you that there is more that one hole where it FITS.

That had be choking on me coffee.
Like the new avatar.





mopusvindictus

I'm with you on the issue being choice, I pride myself on the ability to control and program my mind as I see fit, be who I wish to be.

Choice is done on the conscious level.Ever had your mind wonder,maybe to a woman you find attractive?? This is done with the subconscience.The subconscience exists and operates outside our consciousness,therefor it is beyond our control.Now,people can choose not to have sexual relations,but they cannot always choose what the mind will think about.Homosexuals are homosexuals on the conscious and subconscious levels.Just as heterosexuals are.





Deaf Alien

Is there any source or news that report this incident other than Dr. Bayer's book which I have never read. I can't seem to find any.

There were protests outside the building,but it was never stormed.The gays who protested had been part of a gay liberation movement that started in the late 60's.Homosexuality was actually reclassified thanks to people like Dr. John E. Fryer,a gay psychiatrist.




Supercertari

Not naturally, i.e. not by design, hence the lack of lubricating glands - I believe spit or purchased lubricant is required to allow it to fit without discomfort.

Same goes for well hung heterosexual men.A woman can feel discomfort and extra lubrication is needed.



[edit on 21-11-2008 by jakyll]

reply to post by dooper

Well, to me, only one thing matters in this situation, and that is love. Why, if love weren't the most important thing in the world, would millions of stories, poems, songs, and all that rot be written about it, why would it be one of the main driving forces in life? If you love women and only women, that's your business. Similarly, if you love men, and only men, that's also your business. It's just perspective, if you think it's wrong to have relationships with men(Or women, if you are yourself a lady), then you think that, and as long as you're not going about and harming homosexuals, that's fine to think what you want, but people will continue to be gay.
BTW, for anyone who wishes to know, I'm heterosexual, but I happen to have a very wide view of wrong and right.

reply to post by Kiltedninja

If you love women and only women, that's your business. Similarly, if you love men, and only men, that's also your business. It's just perspective, if you think it's wrong to have relationships with men(Or women, if you are yourself a lady),

Don't forget about that special middle ground!




[edit on 24/11/2008 by Good Wolf]

I didn't forget, I just didn't write it in their.

reply to post by whoswatchinwho


There is a huge difference between "christians" and "organized religion". You experienced organized religion which is a "for profit" entity. I think that is what most of those christians responding without hate stand against.

Going to church does not make you a christian and does not guarantee "salvation".

Living as a christian (which I don't always accomplish but I try) is what we should all be doing. Hate doesn't fit.

a true christian believes in love the sinner hate the sin. i do believe that genetics play a role in homosexuality, but also believe that some do chose the lifestyle to belong to something. it is believed by many biblical scholars that paul (correct me if i am wrong because it may be someone else) had homosexual urges that were described as a thorn in his side. paul was a better christian because he lived with temptation but didnt partake.

I have a reason to hate gays but not more than the way women hate socially/physically displeasing maniac guys, no offense meant.

Because I am a heterosexual male who'll never be attracted to another male, but gays in our place tend to be excessively expressive with their sexuality. I won't even dare getting close to them in a tight crowd. Because I've had, once, twice and got touched in various parts of my body. I've been sexually harassed by gay barber and so on and so forth.

I wouldn't have minded them if they behaved just like a normal female sexually speaking, but most I've met are sex maniac/pedophiles, sexual predators.

[edit on 26-11-2008 by ahnggk]