Homosexulaity and the Bible

[Jan Ardena]

Given that homophobes like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have tremendous followings and make a lot of money ($32m for Beck last year, $12m for Palin), or considering that fanatics like the recently-disgraced Dr. George Rekers are paid extravagant sums (up to a quarter million dollars) to testify against gays in court, I'm not sure your complaint withstands the scrutiny of fact. Rekers, for instance, only fell into disrepute after he was caught returning from a European holiday with his gay male prostitute. Other than that, he was highly respected by many, being a founder of two nationwide political organizations (Family Research Council, National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) and a professor emeritus at University of South Carolina Medical School. Rekers has since resigned from NARTH, and FRC claims to have had no contact with him for over a decade. His status with USCMS is unclear, as nobody has announced his departure, but the school has removed his faculty page.

His homophobia appears to have never hurt him professionally. Indeed, it was part of his profession. The ethical conundrum presented when he took a prostitute on holiday, though, appears to have tarnished his public image somewhat.

Hi Tiassa.

Do you agree with this definition of homophobic?

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=homophobe

If no, please state why.
If yes, can give some quotes or links as to what these people said, so
I can see for myself if they are being homophobic?

thanks
jan.

 

[GeoffP]

Not to mention that they have already used homosexuals as a scapegoat for the Church's child sex abuse scandals.

So how's that social education going? I take it the social education hasn't reached the upper regions of the religious leadership yet?

Seemingly not, although the remainder of society is settling into it. You had a specific idea that would be effective?

 

[Dywyddyr]

How so?
I was directly replying to the insult you directed at me.

No you were making claims that it's a cliché that the bible is a programming tool. If that were the case then you would be aware of it (since you HAVE claimed it's a cliché you have got past) and yet you ALSO claim to not understand what I was talking about. Can't have it both ways: it's another diversion attempt.

Why don't you answer the question.
Just for a change.

More of your dishonetsy:
I mentioned the bible because that is the subject under discussion and YOU raised the question of programming in the same sentence as "scripture".

What is the point of this question?

Explain to me why SOME rules in the bible are followed and others not. And "different societies, different people" won't cut it. Or is god not bothered when people decide not to follow the rules in the bible?

No you haven't, and I suspect you won't.

Lie again, see my comment two above this.

LOL!!
Please explain how you arrive at your conclusion.

So what did you mean by "the bible tells it like it is"?

You're the one who has issues with words and their meanings.

Only because you persist in claiming that words don't mean what they actually do.

The subject matter is scripture along with homosex.
The notion of programming was brought into the ring by the thread starter.
I merely responded to him.
You're wrong again are'nt you?
Why are you always wrong?

Did YOU mention programming in the same sentence as scripture, or did you not?
Oh wait, you did:

Maybe that is why is mentioned in scriptures, so that we can choose not to become programmed creatures.

Why did what become unlawful?

Do keep up: selling your daughter.

I doubt it.

Now we're getting somewhere. You doubt the bible was wrong on morality, yet it's acceptable to ignore the bible's moral instructions. Why is that?

I suppose it depends on what is regarded as "negative opinions".

See Tiassa's reply, or read anything by Pat Robertson:

once warned viewers of his 700 Club. "Many of those people involved with Adolf Hitler were satanists. Many of them were homosexuals. The two seem to go together."

Homosexuals are satanists?

Homosexuality is an abomination.

"[Gays seek] to destroy all Christians."

If you like.

In other words it's one more unsupported opinion from you stated as if it were true. I suppose it makes a change from lying...

 

[Bells]

You know, I often ridicule a belief common among Seventh-Day Adventists that the Pope is the Devil. Benedict, though ... well, shit, they might be onto something.

I mean, if I was cynical to the point of conspiracy theory, I might wonder if maybe he didn't protect pedophile priests as part of Church agenda against homosexuals, but that's more than a little far-fetched. It's much more probable that the guy is, simply, evil.

You know what it strange? My mother also commented on the same thing when it all really blew up recently and the Vatican came out and attempted to blame it on homosexuality and homosexuals in general. What makes that strange is that my mother is, or was, a strict Catholic.

She attends her local Church with a priest who is, to say the least, progressive and who often flaunts all the rules of the Church.. without the Church knowing of it sometimes. There apparently was an issue recently where he got into trouble for blessing a homosexual union.. not marrying them, but blessing them and the hierarchy found out. As he apparently commented at the time. He merely gave two people a blessing. My mother was there at the time he gave the blessing.. yes.. it was done during Sunday Morning Mass.. which makes me suspect the priest wanted to make a point.. I jokingly said to my mother that his actions and their support of him (the priest) could result in ex-communication, as recently occurred in a parish not far from where my mother lives. She shrugged and said that 'this is what the Catholic Church should be like and not what some idiot in the Vatican thinks it should'.

I have to admit, I am that little bit more proud of my mother at the moment. She is taking a stand and is facing possible excommunication as a result and she does not care. She is does not like or trust the Pope and any mention of Australia's Cardinal and she gnashes her teeth and calls him a protector of paedophiles (which he did and even supported one in a court proceeding several years ago, something she never forgot.. not to mention that he is well.. an arsehole in general)..

But yes, I find it strange that she also said the same thing. And sad to say, I couldn't really disagree with her when she said it, because well, one never knows.

The Pope is only interested in keeping the Church and not losing numbers. He cares nothing for individuals. So blaming paedophile priests on homosexuality and homosexuals.. I can't say I am surprised they did it. It is something they would do. The attempt to kill two birds with one stone. Blame homosexuals and then protect the priests and say that they are mentally ill by referring to their homosexuality in a round about way and say they need help.. They've done it before. So yeah, can't say I am surprised. The Church is now a lot more hardline, and this current Pontiff is a lot more vocal and sneering towards homosexuals and homosexuality in general. The comments he has made right from the start.. we really shouldn't be surprised they bring out the 'blame the homosexuals' card now. They've been building up to it.

Seemingly not, although the remainder of society is settling into it. You had a specific idea that would be effective?

Make a stand. Walk out.

 

[GeoffP]

Make a stand. Walk out.

But of course! PM me to let me know when you abandon socialism for all the ills committed in its name and become a card-carrying Republican, rather than remaining within the meme and attempting to fix it. We can stage our walkouts together.

 

[GeoffP]

Oh: and you might want to get hold of Sam also, so that she can properly time her apostacy.

 

[Bells]

But of course! PM me to let me know when you abandon socialism for all the ills committed in its name and become a card-carrying Republican, rather than remaining within the meme and attempting to fix it. We can stage our walkouts together.

If you truly believe in something, you make a stand for yourself Geoff.

I mean my mother, a quiet and lovely and nice old woman who is Catholic through and through is facing possible excommunication. She has been a strict Catholic all her life. She's making her stand and I cannot even begin to describe just how proud I am of her. She is telling the leadership of the Church that she is not satisfied and happy and she's happy to be excommunicated as a result. That takes true courage.

 

[GeoffP]

If you truly believe in something, you make a stand for yourself Geoff.

Ah, so you're not leaving, then. There's a variety of ways to make such a stand. You seemed to be implying that I should leave my Catholic faith, rather than stand up against intolerance.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

No you were making claims that it's a cliché that the bible is a programming tool.

You claim it is obvious that the bible IS a programming tool, then proceed to give examples by way of Doreens post. The response made by the person writing the letter, are based on ideas which have become cliches (for want of a better expression), acceptable modes of thought. So while the cliche may be obvious, the meaning they convey isn't.

Explain to me why SOME rules in the bible are followed and others not. And "different societies, different people" won't cut it.

What's left, if you take out different societies and people?
Is this how you arrive at all YOUR conclusions, take out the bits you don't like?

Or is god not bothered when people decide not to follow the rules in the bible?

It funny how you're prepared to disscuss God in the negative.
As for God not being bothered, I don't see why that should be the case.
The relationship between God and Adam, is a good marker to understand how
bothered, or not, he is.

So what did you mean by "the bible tells it like it is"?

The bible in not written for the accepance of the general public, either you accept or don't. The reason we accept or don't accept is what's important (IMO).

Did YOU mention programming in the same sentence as scripture, or did you not?
Oh wait, you did:

Yes, but it wasn't an issue, it was a response to Michael.
Why are you making an issue of it?

Do keep up: selling your daughter.

Good government I would imagine.
How didit spiral out of control?
Bad government, I would imagine.

Now we're getting somewhere. You doubt the bible was wrong on morality, yet it's acceptable to ignore the bible's moral instructions. Why is that?

Acceptable to whom?

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You claim it is obvious that the bible IS a programming tool, then proceed to give examples by way of Doreens post.

Please learn to read: I gave Doreen's post as examples of modes of thought and instructions. (As per your request).

The response made by the person writing the letter, are based on ideas which have become cliches (for want of a better expression), acceptable modes of thought.

So his direct references to bible verse are clichés? Explain that please. You're saying the bible is a cliché?

What's left, if you take out different societies and people?
Is this how you arrive at all YOUR conclusions, take out the bits you don't like?

I am asking you why some parts of the bible are taken to be valid instructions and some aren't? Are we allowed to ignore the bits we don't like? If so what does that mean for god's word?

It funny how you're prepared to disscuss God in the negative.

It was a straight question.

As for God not being bothered, I don't see why that should be the case.
The relationship between God and Adam, is a good marker to understand how bothered, or not, he is.

So god gave these instructions not caring whether we would take any notice of them or not?

The bible in not written for the accepance of the general public, either you accept or don't. The reason we accept or don't accept is what's important (IMO).

Which would negate your comment that the bible "tells it like it is". If it's not written for everyone then it must be, of necessity, somewhat obscurantist.
One more time: which bits should be accepted and which shouldn't? And why?

Yes, but it wasn't an issue, it was a response to Michael.
Why are you making an issue of it?

Because you made a fatuous remark about scripture letting you be free of programming.

Good government I would imagine.
How didit spiral out of control?
Bad government, I would imagine.

How is that a response to my question "why did it (selling your daughter) become unlawful?"

Acceptable to whom?

Society in general.
Are you stating that you, personally, consider it moral to sell your daughter? Or keep slaves?

Now, one more time: is the bible correct on what is moral and what isn't? Why did god give instructions if we aren't expected to follow them (or at least pick choose which we will follow)?

 

[Bells]

Ah, so you're not leaving, then. There's a variety of ways to make such a stand. You seemed to be implying that I should leave my Catholic faith, rather than stand up against intolerance.

I left many years ago. You probably still believed in Santa when I left.

You do what is right for you. If you're happy being represented by an organisation that has that kind of belief, then so be it.:shrug: If you think you have the power to change it from the inside, then more power to you.:shrug:

 

[GeoffP]

I left many years ago. You probably still believed in Santa when I left.

I never stopped.

You do what is right for you. If you're happy being represented by an organisation that has that kind of belief, then so be it.:shrug: If you think you have the power to change it from the inside, then more power to you.:shrug:

I thank you. I am not currently happy about much of the Church's tradition, and am working to change opinion at least within my own congregation and contacts.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Please learn to read: I gave Doreen's post as examples of modes of thought and instructions. (As per your request).

Please learn to think.
So what?

So his direct references to bible verse are clichés? Explain that please. You're saying the bible is a cliché?

Read my response this time, then get back to me.

I am asking you why some parts of the bible are taken to be valid instructions and some aren't?

I'm asking you why omit culture, and people.

Are we allowed to ignore the bits we don'ht like?

No, you will recieve electric shocks.

If so what does that mean for god's word?

What do you think it means?

It was a straight question.

What's a straight question?

So god gave these instructions not caring whether we would take any notice of them or not?

Did God care about Adam?

Which would negate your comment that the bible "tells it like it is".

Why?

If it's not written for everyone then it must be, of necessity, somewhat obscurantist.

One more time: which bits should be accepted and which shouldn't? And why?

I don't understand what you mean by "accept".
Please explain what is being offered by the bible, why we should find ourselves in the position of accepting?

Because you made a fatuous remark about scripture letting you be free of programming.

The "scripture LETTING you be free of programming" ?
That's classic.

How is that a response to my question "why did it (selling your daughter) become unlawful?"

What's wrong with my response?

Society in general.

Society in general?
That narrows it down then.
Way to go Einstein.

Are you stating that you, personally, consider it moral to sell your daughter? Or keep slaves?

Why would you ask that question?

Now, one more time: is the bible correct on what is moral and what isn't?

It's not a moral treatise, and it doesn't claim to be.
Like I said it tells it like it is, either you understand it or you don't.

Why did god give instructions if we aren't expected to follow them (or at least pick choose which we will follow)?

Who did he give instruction to?
At what point in time did he give these instructions?
Did he mention that these rules are to be carried out thru all time?

Please answer all my questions this time, thanks in advance.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

@ Jan
Since you appear to be incapable of answering any of my questions with anything other than diversions or dismissals, and equally incapable of maintaining a solid position with regard to your own claims this is obviously futile.
When you finally understand what your own claims are please formulate them and get back to me.

 

[Jan Ardena]

@ Jan
Since you appear to be incapable of answering any of my questions with anything other than diversions or dismissals, and equally incapable of maintaining a solid position with regard to your own claims this is obviously futile.
When you finally understand what your own claims are please formulate them and get back to me.

I'm only giving you a taste of your own medicine.
It is clear that you cannot cope with anything that challenges
your cliched thinking, so you concoct this deception by not answering any of my questions. Pathetic.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I'm only giving you a taste of your own medicine.

Still getting it wrong.

It is clear that you cannot cope with anything that challenges your cliched thinking, so you concoct this deception by not answering any of my questions. Pathetic.

Challenges my thinking?
You make assertions about the bible and then retract them. You make claims about it what it says (tells it like it is) and then you claim it isn't meant to be understood by everyone...
And you STILL have to support your contention on "clichés" since the only time you have referred to clichés was with regard to what it says in the bible.
So effectively you're claiming the bible is clichéd yet, somehow, you have the gall to accuse me of thinking in them.

Does the bible contain rules?
Are these rules meant to be taken seriously?
If so why?
If not what does that mean about god's pronunciations vis a vis humans? We can ignore whatever god says if we don't like it?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Challenges my thinking?

yes.

You make assertions about the bible and then retract them.

such as?

You make claims about it what it says (tells it like it is) and then you claim it isn't meant to be understood by everyone...

that is a lie.

And you STILL have to support your contention on "clichés" since the only time you have referred to clichés was with regard to what it says in the bible.
So effectively you're claiming the bible is clichéd yet, somehow, you have the gall to accuse me of thinking in them.

Your just kidding ;yourself.
Either that, or please explain why you have come to this conclusion, despite my statement being contrary to it.

Does the bible contain rules?

I've already covered this, please respond to my responce.

Are these rules meant to be taken seriously?

Don't try to deceive me.
Let's discuss the topic of Doreen's post, first.

If not what does that mean about god's pronunciations vis a vis humans? We can ignore whatever god says if we don't like it?

You're jumping the gun.
You wish to accept that slavery, selling your daughter, etc, are part and parcel of religion. That needs to be addressed first.

jan.
jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

such as?

Was the bible incorrect on the morality?

I doubt it.

It's not a moral treatise

Now, one more time: do YOU consider it moral to own slaves or sell your daughter? If not why not?

that is a lie.

Wrong:

The bible just tells it like it is.

Post #104.

The bible in not written for the accepance of the general public

Post #129.
Would like to continue denying what you write?

Your just kidding ;yourself.
Either that, or please explain why you have come to this conclusion, despite my statement being contrary to it.

Your post #129

The response made by the person writing the letter, are based on ideas which have become cliches

Yet the "ideas" (actually referenced statements) given in the post you're referring are (as I have stated) taken directly from the bible. Therefore your claim is effectively that the bible is a cliché.
And as for "your statement contrary to it", you claim many things and then reverse position when asked to back up or justify that position. Hence my request for you to decide exactly what your stance is.

I've already covered this, please respond to my responce.

The closest you've got to "covering it" is to claim that it varies by society. Yet you have also said that the bible is not wrong as far as morals go.

Don't try to deceive me.

Deceive? I'm asking for a straight answer.

Let's discuss the topic of Doreen's post, first.

Oh, you mean the post that contains the biblical clichés?

You're jumping the gun.
You wish to accept that slavery, selling your daughter, etc, are part and parcel of religion. That needs to be addressed first.

No I'm not "jumping the gun": those things are directly stated in the bible (as are other rules, e.g. homosexuality is bad). Why should one set of rules be ignored and not another?
If it is no longer moral to sell your daughter, or keep slaves why is it still moral to not steal, murder or covet your neighbour's wife? Why does religion generally regard homosexuality as a bad thing but doesn't think twice when someone says that slavery is bad?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Now, one more time: do YOU consider it moral to own slaves or sell your daughter? If not why not?

Why do you feel the need to ask me this?

Wrong:

Post #104.

Post #129.
Would like to continue denying what you write?

I never deny what I write.
I've explained what I meant by these.

Yet the "ideas" (actually referenced statements) given in the post you're referring are (as I have stated) taken directly from the bible.

The questions by the person were asked in such a way as to assume the biblical passages were moral instructions given by God.
This assumption has become a cliche, or preferred mode of thought.
Why do you refuse to accept any other explanation?

Therefore your claim is effectively that the bible is a cliché.

More like, that's want you want/need my claim to be.

And as for "your statement contrary to it", you claim many things and then
reverse position when asked to back up or justify that position. Hence my request for you to decide exactly what your stance is.

More deception.
I think you are unable to discuss this topic in any depth, unless the discussion is on your terms. Meaning that some things, acceptable by you, must be taken for granted, and no explanation must be attempted.

Thee closest you've got to "covering it" is to claim that it varies by society.

What do you mean "the closest"?
That is the major reason, which is why it is unfavourable to you.

Yet you have also said that the bible is not wrong as far as morals go.

Do you regard keeping slaves, and selling daugters a rule, and moral, imposed on to the people by God?
If yes, why?

Oh, you mean the post that contains the biblical clichés?

As purported by some, yes.

No I'm not "jumping the gun": those things are directly stated in the bible (as are other rules, e.g. homosexuality is bad). Why should one set of rules be ignored and not another?

Do you really need to ask that?
People don't adhere to things if it doesn't apply to them.
Take New Orleans during that hurricane period. Values started to change
very quickly.

If it is no longer moral to sell your daughter, or keep slaves why is it still moral to not steal, murder or covet your neighbour's wife?

Where do get the idea that any of these things are based on morals?
Are morals relative to each and every individual, or is it a one size fits all?

Why does religion generally regard homosexuality as a bad thing but doesn't think twice when someone says that slavery is bad?

I don't know that that's the case, generally speaking.
In my experience people generally think slavery is a bad thing.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Why do you feel the need to ask me this?

Just answer the question. It comes back to why are some biblical rules/ instructions followed and not others?

I never deny what I write.
I've explained what I meant by these.

Please point out exactly where you have "explained" what you meant by both of those statements.

The questions by the person were asked in such a way as to assume the biblical passages were moral instructions given by God.

Ah, so they weren't instructions from god? How do you know? Isn't the entire bible supposedly the word of word god?

This assumption has become a cliche, or preferred mode of thought.

So explain to me which parts of the bible ARE the word of god, and which aren't. And which of the parts that are should be taken seriously and which shouldn't.

Why do you refuse to accept any other explanation?

Because, up 'til now, you haven't even attempted to give an explanation.

More like, that's want you want/need my claim to be.

Wrong: my explanation followed logically from your words.

More deception.
I think you are unable to discuss this topic in any depth, unless the discussion is on your terms. Meaning that some things, acceptable by you, must be taken for granted, and no explanation must be attempted.

You're lying. Again. I have already shown where you reversed position and linked to a previous thread where you consistently did so.

What do you mean "the closest"?
That is the major reason, which is why it is unfavourable to you.

I mean that you have not, in any way, "covered" the subject, you have made vague statements that haven't been fully explained.

Do you regard keeping slaves, and selling daugters a rule, and moral, imposed on to the people by God?
If yes, why?

See above about the supposed origin of the bible.

As purported by some, yes.

You being one of them.

Do you really need to ask that?
People don't adhere to things if it doesn't apply to them.
Take New Orleans during that hurricane period. Values started to change very quickly.

Of course it needs asking: why is homosexuality viewed as bad thing (and the bible claimed as justification for this view) when other instructions in the bible are disregarded?

Where do get the idea that any of these things are based on morals?
Are morals relative to each and every individual, or is it a one size fits all?

Excuse me, are you seriously suggesting that there is no moral aspect to slave ownership or selling your daughter? If there were no question of morality to either of those do you think that they would have been abolished?

I don't know that that's the case, generally speaking.

Which? Homosexuality or slavery?

In my experience people generally think slavery is a bad thing.

And tell me why they think it's a bad thing if you don't think it's a question of morality.