Off-Topic: Elton John today

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by LikeAWillow

There's evidence that sadistic personality disorder has biological routes. Should a sadist be accepted for acting on their impulses?

I know your finger is hovering over the reply button right now.Take a deep breath before you jump right back up on that soapbox.

I'm not equating homosexuality with sadism. I think what I just said was complete bull****. If it's not, I'm Tom Bundy for the relations I've had with other women. It is a hole in your argument, though, and when you have the balls to ask a poster with a thought out, structured, and well-intentioned post to



,especially when your own are little more than rhetoric, you hurt our cause more than you help it. Fiver is trying to have a discussion with you. Being militant in response degrades that discussion.

Are you drunk? What the hell was that? Before you call someone out on their so-called "rhetoric," why don't you learn to write in something other than some incoherent non-sequiturs? Is this the by-product of growing up in the Facebook and Twitter generation? What is a hole in my argument?

Oh, and if you are trying to sound smart and insist on namedropping, why don't you at least get the name correct? It's Ted Bundy.

[iamnotafraid]

HejiraNYC,
Why all the name calling? Do you think she deserved that?
We all have different opinions, but name calling and putting
people down isn't that a little silly and mean?

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by iamnotafraid

HejiraNYC,
Why all the name calling? Do you think she deserved that?
We all have different opinions, but name calling and putting
people down isn't that a little silly and mean?

Please re-read. I didn't call her any names.

Secondly, if someone is going to call me out, then he/she had better have something rational to say. I love to engage in a friendly debate, but if you come on with the sole intention of stirring up **** without adding anything meaningful to the discussion, then you'd better be prepared to get as good as you can give. What can I say? I don't turn the other cheek. Jesus would not be proud!

[holidayroad]

Originally Posted by paleshadow

I think that if Jesus appeared on Earth and declared that all men and women were created equally and as God intended them to be, many people would denounce him. I believe the Bible can be a convenient way to support ones repulsions to things they don't understand, or agree with.

I'm not attacking anyone, but I would like to ask those who take the Bible so literally why they do? Why is it that the bible is the moral gauge? It was written by a person, and translated many times. Why do you believe that the author of the bible had a hotline to God and wasn't just someone who had an opinion, and felt a need to explain what couldn't be explained at the time? If I wrote a list of things I thought were right and wrong, dug a hole and buried it, and someone dug it up thousands of years from now, could my ideas about morality become a template for the morals of a whole civilization?

Even though I don't agree with them,I live where the majority of people take the Bible Very seriously (in the 'bible belt'). I can tell you (with their own words) why they take it so literally, because they are honestly afraid that if they don't, they will go to hell. You can not have a valid conversation with these people about the Bible, because to them, even questioning the bible and its meaning is a sin. When I have ever mentioned that man wrote the Bible and that there have been numerous versions/changes over the years, they will only say things like 'You shouldn't question the Lord'.This book is the 'word of God' to them and you cannot convince them otherwise. (I am not saying all Christians are this way, I have met many Christians who were not like this.)

[paleshadow]

Originally Posted by holidayroad

Even though I don't agree with them,I live where the majority of people take the Bible Very seriously (in the 'bible belt'). I can tell you (with their own words) why they take it so literally, because they are honestly afraid that if they don't, they will go to hell. You can not have a valid conversation with these people about the Bible, because to them, even questioning the bible and its meaning is a sin. When I have ever mentioned that man wrote the Bible and that there have been numerous versions/changes over the years, they will only say things like 'You shouldn't question the Lord'.This book is the 'word of God' to them and you cannot convince them otherwise. (I am not saying all Christians are this way, I have met many Christians who were not like this.)

Thanks for the reply. It is funny how none of the people who seem to reference the bible here answered. I have asked some people in person why they feel that way, but it is hard to find someone that follows the bible who A. will not get offended, and B. who will not try to lecture me. I asked someone I work with last night about this, and he just stood for a long time looking off into space and then finally said "I don't know". I guess it's just about blind faith, which I think is fine if it makes you happy, and a better person in general, but not when it encourages discrimination, fear, and hatred.

[markolas]

Oh lord, I can't believe I missed this thread. The title makes it sound so innocuous!

Originally Posted by iamnotafraid

Even if you don't believe in Hell, can you imagine not telling someone that they need to be saved or need to repent? Love is the reason that some Christians will try and lead you to Christ.

I cannot imagine pestering someone about something they've made clear that they are not and never will be interested in doing.

If someone kept badgering me about "accepting Christ" after I'd told them I will never change my religion, I wouldn't think twice about cutting them out of my life. I couldn't care less if somebody thinks homosexuality is a sin. But if you make it obvious by doing things like ignoring my relationship with my boyfriend, insisting that I introduce him as my "roommate" or some such nonsense, not including him in invitations, or generally making it known that you think we're "living in sin," then you're not going to be a part of my life. Your religious freedom ends where my nose begins. Or something like that.

[bucklind17]

It always boggles my mind a bit why so many are so concerned about this when it doesn't personally affect them. You (and that's a general you) care enough about their souls to remind them that they are sinning and will go to hell because of their actions, but you don't care enough about them as human beings to accept them as they are and let them live their lives their way. One might believe homosexuality to be a sin and all homosexuals will go to hell, but who does it help to remind those who don't believe any such thing that it is your belief? What makes one person's personal belief or interpretation to be more important than the belief of the person in question?

[jaycee]

Originally Posted by paleshadow

Thanks for the reply. It is funny how none of the people who seem to reference the bible here answered. I have asked some people in person why they feel that way, but it is hard to find someone that follows the bible who A. will not get offended, and B. who will not try to lecture me. I asked someone I work with last night about this, and he just stood for a long time looking off into space and then finally said "I don't know". I guess it's just about blind faith, which I think is fine if it makes you happy, and a better person in general, but not when it encourages discrimination, fear, and hatred.

Hmm... the only thing is several believers sincerely believe, for example, homosexuals are going to hell. So what they're in fact trying to do is help them, while the rest of society tells them not to help. (At least, I think that's probably the way many Christians feel about it...) So they don't really see it as discrimination in the same way as, for example, racism.
In any case, good beliefs are merely a shortcut to a rationally desirable outcome, like the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as they do unto you," or usually even better, "Treat others as you would like to be treated"), while bad beliefs... well, there's plenty of them, so I won't labour the point... anyway, as with any shortcut, people can tend to miss things - many anti-abortionists, proclaiming the sacredness of human life, don't spare a moment's thought on animal welfare. And often it's not because they haven't considered it, but because they think humans are much more intrinsically important - we're made in God's image, after all!
Ultimately, I don't think anyone should justify any of their actions/behaviours/ethics according to simple, irrational beliefs. If you want to practice those sorts of things in your private time, that's okay - just don't let it deeply affect other aspects of your life.

[Zombie]

Been sitting with this stuff for a couple days now so I could formulate my reply properly. Let's see how it goes...

Originally Posted by Fiver

I don't look at it that way. The act of gay sex is voluntary. The act of adultery is voluntary. You can't choose not have the thoughts or urges, but ya have the choice whether or not to act on them.

Any sex act is voluntary, both heterosexual acts AND homosexual acts - excluding rape, which is, by definition, y'know...involuntary.

If you can't choose what sexual thoughts and urges you have, that goes for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, yes? Then why is it only okay for heterosexuals to act on those thoughts and urges they were born with?

That's basically calling a large section of the population broken. "Sure, you were born thinking this way, but - and I'm not judging here, it's just the way it is, I'm real sorry - it actually turns out that it's bad wrong to be this way, so you can't have a normal, fulfilling love life with a partner of your choosing, unlike us lucky heterosexual folks that happened to be born with the "right stuff." Sorry 'bout that. But you can think about it all you want!"

Why in the world would a loving god create a large section of the population to be broken if he thought homosexual sex was such a bad thing? Why would he condemn these people to a life empty of the love, compassion and human connection with someone they are attracted to and connect to just as the heterosexuals are "allowed" to do, on pain of eternal damnation?

Or, perhaps more importantly, why on earth would you want a god like that?

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

That's pretty offensive- comparing gay sex (between two single consenting adults) with adultery (which has all kinds of violative connotations to it).

I found it offensive for entirely different reasons - adultery is easily avoided. Don't cheat on your wife/husband. If you want to get laid, you can always just go bang your spouse, and be abomination-free. That's easy.

Gay people, however, don't have that choice, according to this logic - they don't have the option of being able to have sex with someone they are actually attracted to without not passing go and heading straight to the Bad Place.

I think that's terrible.

Originally Posted by LikeAWillow

There's evidence that sadistic personality disorder has biological routes. Should a sadist be accepted for acting on their impulses?

I know your finger is hovering over the reply button right now.Take a deep breath before you jump right back up on that soapbox.

I'm not equating homosexuality with sadism. I think what I just said was complete bull****. If it's not, I'm Tom Bundy for the relations I've had with other women. It is a hole in your argument, though, and when you have the balls to ask a poster with a thought out, structured, and well-intentioned post to

,especially when your own are little more than rhetoric, you hurt our cause more than you help it. Fiver is trying to have a discussion with you. Being militant in response degrades that discussion.

I may be reading everyone's replies wrong, but I don't think that your equating a person with "sadistic personality disorder" (which isn't actually a real clinical disorder, as far as I know) acting on those sadistic impulses with homosexuals acting on their "impulses" is actually a good way to try to point out a perceived hole in the argument.

Mind you, I am not defending or agreeing with anyone in this particular area of this thread (other than I do agree that less militant is usually good all around, in any discussion) - I just don't think that analogy is intellectually honest.

Sadism, by nature, hurts people. We stop violent sociopaths and psychopaths from acting on their harmful impulses because they are harmful impulses. They hurt people - of course they shouldn't be allowed to do that. But homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone. It's like trying to compare apples to 747s.

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by Zombie

It's like trying to compare apples to 747s.

-both are delicious dipped in peanut butter
-apples can fly for a little bit if you throw them real hard.

point, set, match.

[Fiver]

Hey Zombie, I've been thinking about this for the past few days as well. I've realized finally what HejiraNYC was trying to get across.

My statements weren't helpful to the conversation. I don't think the original poster was looking for an outside opinion on what he stated. If he was he would've asked, or gone to a church with similiar beliefs to my own and asked someone there. It really wasn't my place to bring up my view on the matter, and for that I wanna apologize again.

Like I said before, I initially just wanted to post to clear up things said about the Bible that I thought were inaccurate, but I went too far.

If this was a topic called say, "The Bible and Homosexuality" it would've been okay, but I do regret what I said, cause I feel it was out of turn. I know in most threads we meander and end up on totally different subjects, but seeing as how Nikolaj was looking for support, and that this is such a serious matter, I think this is different. As the saying goes, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." I really do feel regret for any hurt feelings I caused, and think I made a mistake.

If you want to continue just for discussion's sake, and I don't mean this as a challenge or anything, then I'd rather do it through PMs.

The only thing I will respond to here is this

Originally Posted by Zombie

Gay people, however, don't have that choice, according to this logic - they don't have the option of being able to have sex with someone they are actually attracted to without not passing go and heading straight to the Bad Place.

I don't believe a person goes to Hell because they've had homosexual intercourse. It's like... if I lie once, I'm a liar. But if I ask God to forgive that sin, I'm not guilty of it anymore. That's what I believe the verse in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is saying

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor
covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the
kingdom of God."

because the very next verse says:

"And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

I know this is bringing up the issue again, but that's a very important statement to me, as I don't believe people who are gay go to Hell for being gay. As I said before, I only believe that those who don't accept Jesus' sacrifice will go to Hell. And once again, it's just a belief of mine, and I don't want to push it on anyone here, it's a personal choice to believe it or not.

[T8rBoi]

Originally Posted by Fiver

I don't believe a person goes to Hell because they've had homosexual intercourse. It's like... if I lie once, I'm a liar. But if I ask God to forgive that sin, I'm not guilty of it anymore. That's what I believe the verse in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is saying

And now gays are like liars.

I know you are gonna come back and say that isn't what you meant, but why does everyone keep making their points by comparing gays to adulterers or liars or sadists.

But the real point here is that you interpret the bible to say homosexual acts are sins. (just like the adulterers, people who wear mixed fabric clothes or men who shave - let's not just cherry pick our biblical sins, lets get them all out there)

Gays who act on their sexual impulses and desires are Sinners in your eyes. Unless they accept and get the forgiveness of YOUR god, they will be going to a place of unspeakable horrors for eternity.

I got that right, correct?

and I reiterate the point someone made above, how can you not let gays get married and then call their "out-of-wedlock" sex a sin?

[jaycee]

Originally Posted by Fiver

I don't believe a person goes to Hell because they've had homosexual intercourse. It's like... if I lie once, I'm a liar. But if I ask God to forgive that sin, I'm not guilty of it anymore.

Excellent! That's means that we can do pretty much anything we like (except mortal sins), ask your god for forgiveness, and be forgiven! No harm done! That's the best morality I've ever heard of! Accountability to an imaginary friend is much better than the secular Golden Rule, or any form of accountability in which we're not accountable to each other!
Joking aside, the thought that homosexuality is a sin in need of forgiveness is absolutely appalling. The thought that a person needs to ask your god for forgiveness for such an intrinsic quality as sexuality is disgusting. Actually, I think a quote from Richard Dawkins is suitable here:
"ANDREW DENTON: What's your moral code?
RICHARD DAWKINS: I suppose it's a version of the Golden Rule, don't do unto others what you wouldn't wish them to do to you. I do feel intense vicarious sadness when I encounter sadness in others. It doesn't have to be in my own species, I mean it could be of another species as well. My moral code is definitely nothing to do with the sort of busy-bodyish religious moral code that cares about what people do in private. What they do with their sex organs and things like that, seems to me to be an utterly private matter, nothing to do with morals. I despise that kind of alleged morality, deeply despise it."
(From http://www.abc.net.au/tv/elders/tran...s/s2757522.htm)
As usual, I couldn't have said it better myself!
But who am I to talk? I'm only an unbeliever that's going to go to hell when I die anyway...

[David]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

It doesn't make sense to me either. Imagine someone who devotes their life to good, does great things, affects positive change in the world, shows people incredible kindness and through it all shows great humility, yet because they have "laid with men" and not repented for that one thing, they would be turned away from heaven? Crazy. If people are to be judged surely it should be on how they have treated others and not who they have loved? (Not that I think it's a sin anyway).

Normative Judaism highly prizes the person who does good deeds, but nonetheless considers homosexual acts a sin. The concept of sin, however, has a vastly different resonance in Judaism--sin requires repentance, true, but even unrepented sin doesn't lead to damnation. The idea of damnation, in fact, is alien to normative Judaism. Eternal punishment is a Christian tenet, not a Jewish one.

I bring this up also to raise a question: Earlier someone said that Christianity doesn't accept homosexuality because of the fear of hell, & yet Judaism, with no fear of hell, also doesn't approve of homosexuality--or, more accurately, homosexual acts.

Does anyone know how other major religions view this?

[LiamMcConville]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

Please re-read. I didn't call her any names.

Secondly, if someone is going to call me out, then he/she had better have something rational to say. I love to engage in a friendly debate, but if you come on with the sole intention of stirring up **** without adding anything meaningful to the discussion, then you'd better be prepared to get as good as you can give. What can I say? I don't turn the other cheek. Jesus would not be proud!

Why should any one grace you with a rational response when you've been posting nothing but irrational/extremist blabber?

Every post you've made in this thread has been equally judgmental & intolerant as the Christians you've accused throughout.

My original point was that you show insensitivity and inflict pain to people every time you express your "opinion" about homosexuality which, as you've acknowledged, is not a choice. If you can call something "wrong" but cannot really articulate what "right" would be, how does that really help anyone? Again, you're entitled to your opinions (which I hope, for your sake, will evolve), but please think before you express them.

What a joke. "I'm being a crybaby bitch because Christian's don't accept my sexual orientation, but I'm going to be equally intolerant and insensitive to their lifestyles. That will teach them! Ha!"