I have done, but not to that extent. But you're basically making a point that I agree with.
jan.
Demonizing people
- Thread starter Sorcerer
- Start date
I have done, but not to that extent. But you're basically making a point that I agree with.
jan.
Call it moralizing, demonizing or even criticizing it is what it is and IT is no game. Demonizing is not a strong enough term for people like those at Timberlake Christian School in Lynchburg VA or any homophobe.
I just did.
jan, what's your point here? quinn was pretty clear on what he is saying... but you keep saying he is generalizing - do you have no counter-argument?
To explain - Quinn is, the way I read it, saying that the words alone aren't enough for some of the more rabid, conservative religious out there who go so far as to even call to stone them to death.
To explain - Quinn is, the way I read it, saying that the words alone aren't enough for some of the more rabid, conservative religious out there who go so far as to even call to stone them to death.
It's not entirely clear though, is it?
Why is this thread predominantly about homosexuals?
Why is this in the ''religion'' forum?
jan.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
The OP, which was a split off from another thread, specifically mentioned gay people being demonized by the religious. What's wrong with talking about gay people anyway? Would you rather pretend we don't exist?
Oh, simple enough in my opinion - the groups going after homosexuality the most are those of religious persuasion. The only "real" argument I've heard against homosexuality is that homosexual couples cannot reproduce on their own... but this can be countered in three ways:
1) Artificial insemination
2) Adoption (there are plenty of kids out there needing good, safe homes)
3) Overpopulation (do we REALLY need to continue growing our population at the current rate?)
Generally, that's enough to stuff-up the ones not attacking from a religious viewpoint. Of course there are some that ignore facts and continue to argue the point... but really, it's only the religious minded ones that cannot be outright disproven, in part because of how little concrete... well, anything... there is to back religious beliefs. Short of Christ himself (or God if you prefer) descending from the heavens on a chariot of light pulled by unicorns, I don't know of much that could sway people of other religions that any one religion is "correct", which means unfortunately that the worst parts of all religious beliefs tend to come out in debate.
MR was listing the cardinal sins of the Bible. Jan is agreeing with the list. Quinn is talking about demonizing people (the topic here). I haven't yet understood the relevance of sin to the question of why religions demonize people. The Bible does not create a God Squad of vigilantes that are authorized to do the punishing. I think that's more or less the intent of this thread which the Bible thumpers can't answer. They know it's wrong to demonize people for their sins: they have been told judge not lest ye be judged. They have been warned against being hypocrites. Yet they persist.
Now we need only try to figure out, under their own system of law, which is more egregious: to engage in forbidden conduct (e.g. to be gay) or to sit in judgment of others? To me the second must be the worse of the two, since it can lead to serious harm, physical injury and even death. Drawing from some other warnings in the Bible which forbid the "malice aforethought" which precedes actual crimes, then it could be construed that demonizing gays may be similar to attempted assault or attempted murder, or conspiracy to assault or murder, since the demonization is what constitutes the "malice aforethought" of those kinds of violent acts.
Now we just need to find one person who believes in God, who will stand up and declare that God forbids all such judgment, and warns them about the consequences of being hypocrites. I mean, I'm saying this as an atheist. Surely there is a Bible-thumper out there somewhere who can quote chapter and verse on this just to set the record straight.
Yet the title of the thread is ''Demonizing People''. Are homosexuals the only demonized people?
There's nothing wrong with talking about gay people, or any other people, and I wouldn't rather pretend they don't exist. But I get the feeling you would like me to.
jan.
No, homosexuals are not the only people that some religious folks demonize. The ones at Timberlake Christian school demonized an eight year old girl for not being girly enough.
Kittamaru,
''Going after'' a group of people is different than having an opinion. Do you agree?
In my opinion the religious argument against homosexuality, is the the fundamental idea of a man having sexual relations with another man.
jan.
''Going after'' a group of people is different than having an opinion. Do you agree?
In my opinion the religious argument against homosexuality, is the the fundamental idea of a man having sexual relations with another man.
jan.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
So why would you like to change the subject to non-gay people who are demonized? Is there a particular case of demonization by the religious that you have in mind? Witches perhaps?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
The idea of a man having sexual relations with another man isn't an argument at all. It's just an idea.
That's fine and all, and one is more than entitled to their opinion. The problem is, people take that opinion and then proceed to beat others about the head with it. The way I look at it, if I don't agree with something that doesn't harm me, I simply don't do it, plain and simple. If a gay person hits on me, I let politely let them know that I'm straight and that I don't' have any interest in them like that. Guess what - they don't hit on me after that! Problem solved.
This whole fracas about "gay marriage" is just that, a fracas - why should they not be entitled to the same rights as anyone else?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Leviticus 19:19
"You must obey all my decrees. "Do not mate two different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two different kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven from two different kinds of thread."
Indeed, further evidence as to why we shouldn't take the bible verbatim.
Aside from your oh so pleasant manner, thank you. Apparently I read Sorcerer's post a bit too hastily.
Sorcerer,
I apologize for my previous reply to you. Homosexuality is not an "unforgivable sin", so on its own will not condemn anyone to hell, even if considered a sin. If someone claims that homosexuality alone will send someone to hell, they would be held responsible for, at lease, justifying this Biblically (which I assure you cannot be done). So such posts would face moderation.
wow..if the bible were a user at sciforums I would accuse it of putting something totally unrelated into that verse..(read verses before and after that one)
just before it is talking about favoritism, just after it is talking adultery.. its like it just doesn't fit with the rest.
so IMO (without knowing what its about) I would have to say it is some sort of analogy. not to be taken literally
For one, the statistic is "men who have sex with men are nearly 20 times more likely to be infected with HIV than general populations" in the world, not just the US. And "20 times more likely" is not 20%, it is 20 times the percentage of the general population risk (which is about the difference between receptive vaginal and receptive anal sex here: http://www.thebodypro.com/content/68672/putting-a-number-on-it-the-risk-from-an-exposure-t.html ).
I have also condemned promiscuity, which increases anyone's risk through shear number of exposures and is very prevalent among the homosexual population (Many "open" gay marriages: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0 ). But I have already said that this alone is not the only reason for my opinion.