Off-Topic: Elton John today

[jaycee]

Originally Posted by Zombie

Ah, good ol' self-righteousness. It's such an intoxicating feeling, isn't it? We all succumb to it sometimes, and sure, it may help you feel better about yourself at the time and let you rest easy that night, so secure in the knowledge that you know what's what... but one day, you may wake up to realize that you've treated good people in a heinous way they absolutely didn't deserve just because you like the feeling - real or delusional, whatever the case may be - of being right.

It's discussions like these that remind me to be thankful I am atheist. I don't need a book to tell me who is and isn't a good person - all I need to do is open my eyes and my ears, and listen when someone opens his/her mouth - for good or for bad.

And damned if I don't love it when it's as easy to suss out as it is in this thread.

You're right on the money here!
I find it astounding that people make various quotes from the Bible, working out what's acceptable and what isn't from it, and telling us we're all sinners with sin being an unavoidable part of being human. Can't they think for themselves and work out how to be nice and genuinely ethical with rationality? Or don't they have any?
And why not quote some other holy books, like the Qur'an or the Vedas? They seem just as internally inconsistent with the contradictory logic they employ throughtout their writings. Perhaps it's because Christianity is correct, because if you believe it hard enough, Christianity must be true.
About the only religion I can tolerate anymore is Buddhism - despite the odd fault here and there (e.g. children born disabled are people that have done something terribly wrong in their past life), it seems a much more pleasant religion than any others (i.e. while other religions have a habit for turning out both good and bad people, buddhism doesn't seem to do the latter, so far as I know). I doubt I'd argue for a strong philosophical, rational basis for everything as passionately as I do nowadays if Buddhism was the only religion people might choose to follow that I had to "contend" with.
Please excuse the length of my rant!

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by iamnotafraid

Romans 5:8
But God Demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we
were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 6:1
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may
abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer
in it?

John Chapter 8 An adultress faces Jesus.
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman to Jesus who had been
caught in the act of adultery. And testing Jesus they said "Now Moses,
in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You
say we do?" And as they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and
said unto them, "He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first
stone."

And then Jesus said "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no
one condemned you?" She said "No, one Lord." And Jesus said to her "Neither
do I condemn you; go and sin no more.

Yes, we come to Jesus as sinners, but no where in the Bible does it state
that we are to continue dwelling in sin. The verses I pulled out of the book
of John backs this up. Especially verse 11 "go and sin no more".

You didn't particularly call me a "right winger", but everyone that thinks
homosexuality is a sin doesn't hate you. Nor do they want to control you
life. Many will tell you the truth because they are worried about where your
sin (all sin) will take you. And that's Hell.

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 have my own sins, so I'm not throwing stones at you. And I know that many on
this board are homosexuals by their own admittance. Some of my favorites on this
board are very open about it. I hold no hatred for them (or any others on this
board). But I wouldn't lie about my thoughts on the subject just to make friends.
And I do believe it is a sin. And I wouldn't want to be Elton John in the afterlife.
Christ commited no sin, He was and will always be perfect.

i am not a religious person or a biblical scholar by any means. however, i was raised christian and devoted a lot of time and energy when i was younger to trying to reconcile the beliefs i was taught with the knowledge that i was gay. in the end, i couldn't, but that is neither here nor there.

what i don't understand is why so many christians get hung up on homosexuality. there are countless sins that people commit every day, but it seems overall that christians are inordinately concerned about homosexuality and some go so far as to spread lies and demonize us in order to strip us of basic human dignity.

i understand the biblical argument is that sex should be procreative and therefore acting on homosexual urges is wrong. however, i have seen firsthand the psychic damage that is caused when gay people lead straight lives, and that damage has a ripple effect. the struggle to deny something as fundamental as your sexuality is unimaginable.

honestly, i don't mind being told i'm going to hell because i don't believe in an afterlife. i mind more when people try to lead me to christ (or any religion) because the implication is that my life is less meaningful because i don't belong to a religion.

i think the human need for transcendence is a universal one. i don't think i'm better or smarter than anybody just because i'm not a christian. i am still awed and humbled by the beauty of the natural world, the kindness of others, the scope of our universe; even though i don't see the hand of god in any of it. but i don't feel the need to talk anyone out of being a christian, muslim, jew, etc. so it bugs me when someone tries to talk me into being one.

you know i like you and i am not talking about you in particular with any of this. i just wanted to explain how things look from the other side.

Originally Posted by Nikolaj

Yes, what you did was deceptive. You copied and pasted my message under a header of which the default is 'Originally Posted By (Nikolaj)' and then you removed a good portion of what I had written.

nikolaj, i do this all the time, quoting just the parts of someone else's post that are pertinent to my response. i have seen many others do it too. the intent is rarely if ever to passive aggressively denounce what was omitted. i don't even think iamnotafraid was trying to debate your point.

Originally Posted by Nikolaj

double PS-- If "I" had a brother, I may not have turned out queer! I'm not complaining, I'm content with the truth.

really? how come? i'm not challenging you, i'm just always interested in what people think is the root of homosexuality.

[jaycee]

Originally Posted by carrie721

i am not a religious person or a biblical scholar by any means. however, i was raised christian and devoted a lot of time and energy when i was younger to trying to reconcile the beliefs i was taught with the knowledge that i was gay. in the end, i couldn't, but that is neither here nor there.

what i don't understand is why so many christians get hung up on homosexuality. there are countless sins that people commit every day, but it seems overall that christians are inordinately concerned about homosexuality and some go so far as to spread lies and demonize us in order to strip us of basic human dignity.

i understand the biblical argument is that sex should be procreative and therefore acting on homosexual urges is wrong. however, i have seen firsthand the psychic damage that is caused when gay people lead straight lives, and that damage has a ripple effect. the struggle to deny something as fundamental as your sexuality is unimaginable.

honestly, i don't mind being told i'm going to hell because i don't believe in an afterlife. i mind more when people try to lead me to christ (or any religion) because the implication is that my life is less meaningful because i don't belong to a religion.

i think the human need for transcendence is a universal one. i don't think i'm better or smarter than anybody just because i'm not a christian. i am still awed and humbled by the beauty of the natural world, the kindness of others, the scope of our universe; even though i don't see the hand of god in any of it. but i don't feel the need to talk anyone out of being a christian, muslim, jew, etc. so it bugs me when someone tries to talk me into being one.

you know i like you and i am not talking about you in particular with any of this. i just wanted to explain how things look from the other side.



nikolaj, i do this all the time, quoting just the parts of someone else's post that are pertinent to my response. i have seen many others do it too. the intent is rarely if ever to passive aggressively denounce what was omitted. i don't even think iamnotafraid was trying to debate your point.



really? how come? i'm not challenging you, i'm just always interested in what people think is the root of homosexuality.

I'm already back! It's just because the ever-insightful carrie721 posted.
I find the universe all the more remarkable at the thought that it's all a natural process! It seems more remarkable than thinking it was all created with a bit of magic, at least to me anyway...
(In case you want to know, I personally think the universe is a physical manifestation of an underlying piece of grand mathematics. Of course, I study particle physics, so in a way that shouldn't surprise anyone. Also, my philosophy of mathematics is Platonic. The best evidence I can think of to justify that philosophy is the magic of complex numbers, which, by the simple positing of i^2 = -1, reveals a whole lot of unexpected relationships, particularly e^ix = cosx + isinx. )
As for the roots of homosexuality, it's best described as a type of biological "misfire". As far as I can tell, this "misfire" and that of fetishes are related (i.e. the origins should be related, even though the desires can easily be independent). I myself have a latex fetish. (And, no, I'm not into forms of dom/sub, or much of anything beyond wearing latex. I'm rather boring in that way! )
Ultimately these issues all come down to genes, although sometimes (perhaps with this instance, for example) that can be as helpful as saying that we're made of fundamental particles - certainly, that's where the answer lies, but it does nothing to help our brains understand the problem!

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by jaycee

I'm already back! It's just because the ever-insightful carrie721 posted.
I find the universe all the more remarkable at the thought that it's all a natural process! It seems more remarkable than thinking it was all created with a bit of magic, at least to me anyway...
(In case you want to know, I personally think the universe is a physical manifestation of an underlying piece of grand mathematics. Of course, I study particle physics, so in a way that shouldn't surprise anyone. Also, my philosophy of mathematics is Platonic. The best evidence I can think of to justify that philosophy is the magic of complex numbers, which, by the simple positing of i^2 = -1, reveals a whole lot of unexpected relationships, particularly e^ix = cosx + isinx. )
As for the roots of homosexuality, it's best described as a type of biological "misfire". As far as I can tell, this "misfire" and that of fetishes are related (i.e. the origins should be related, even though the desires can easily be independent). I myself have a latex fetish. (And, no, I'm not into forms of dom/sub, or much of anything beyond wearing latex. I'm rather boring in that way! )
Ultimately these issues all come down to genes, although sometimes (perhaps with this instance, for example) that can be as helpful as saying that we're made of fundamental particles - certainly, that's where the answer lies, but it does nothing to help our brains understand the problem!

you just blew my mind by bringing up i^2 = -1. i have thought about that every day since i learned about "i" in algebra 2 way back in 10th grade. i have no idea why, but it fascinates me. i should take more math classes or something.

your point about the biological misfire is a good one. i haven't completely fleshed out my thoughts on the origins of homosexuality, but i definitely fall more on the "nature" side of nature vs. nurture.

[Zombie]

Originally Posted by jaycee

You're right on the money here!
I find it astounding that people make various quotes from the Bible, working out what's acceptable and what isn't from it, and telling us we're all sinners with sin being an unavoidable part of being human. Can't they think for themselves and work out how to be nice and genuinely ethical with rationality? Or don't they have any?
And why not quote some other holy books, like the Qur'an or the Vedas? They seem just as internally inconsistent with the contradictory logic they employ throughtout their writings. Perhaps it's because Christianity is correct, because if you believe it hard enough, Christianity must be true.
About the only religion I can tolerate anymore is Buddhism - despite the odd fault here and there (e.g. children born disabled are people that have done something terribly wrong in their past life), it seems a much more pleasant religion than any others (i.e. while other religions have a habit for turning out both good and bad people, buddhism doesn't seem to do the latter, so far as I know). I doubt I'd argue for a strong philosophical, rational basis for everything as passionately as I do nowadays if Buddhism was the only religion people might choose to follow that I had to "contend" with.
Please excuse the length of my rant!

Well, the Bible has changed many, many times over the years. You look at most of the copies of the Bible people have in their homes, and it is missing many of the other books that are out there - a group of dudes, several times over the years, has sat down to decide what Christians needed to read and didn't need to read, and they dumped off what they felt didn't jive with what they wanted you to read.

Mind you, it is possible to go now and read many of those deuterocanonical texts today, whereas it wasn't so easy to do so even 50 years ago. If people were able to read these texts with open eyes, then I think they'd be blown away at the sheer amount of material that was left out of the Bible, as well as the interesting and often completely contradictory information they provide.

And ignoring all of that, you have the problem of all the many different versions we have available now, each using their own unique language in a lot of cases. You have the King James Version and then you have the NEW King James Version and then you have the 21st Century King James Version. You have the New International Version and then you have the New International Version (UK) and then you have the TODAY'S New International Version. And on and on and on. They're all worded differently in spots. The translations differ. And depending on what version they were translated from, then you just get farther and farther from the translations that were used for the first slew of Bibles. A lot of people think that "dogs" in one of the previously quoted verses refers to homosexuals, but for all we know, 2000 years ago, they could've been talking about whatever was equivalent to today's popular teacup chihuahua. Who knows?

Nobody.
When you read the Bible, whatever you are reading is not the straight gospel truth coming from the lips of your deity of choice. You're reading a book that has been changed and modified to suit the needs of whoever was doing the writing at the time, over and over and over again, for hundreds and hundreds of years. So much for the word of god. You're reading the word of men. And men? Aren't exactly known for being super smart or rational or even reasonable a lot of the time. I'm just sayin.

And yet somehow, people think this book is the be-all, end-all final word that gives them the right to turn around and cast judgment and aspersions on someone else just because they happen to love differently than they do.

That is not being righteous. That is being self-righteous. And it is bull****.

Furthermore, I am tired of people couching their flat-out judgment and aspersions against others with, "But I said I sin, too! I'm admitting my faults! I'm humble!" like that somehow makes it okay to say someone else is an abomination and going to hell, again, just because they love differently than you do. What a crock.

Anyway, even the Dalai Lama has voiced aloud his issues with homosexuals, though that is mostly down to cultural mores rather than anything Buddhism actually says. I don't know any Buddhists that think what you said about disabled folks, nor do I recall anything like that in the texts I've read (and I've read a lot of them), but I mostly hung out with Soto Zen guys, and they are markedly lacking in the mumbo jumbo and the hocus pocus, unlike, say, the Theravadans.

Originally Posted by carrie721

i haven't completely fleshed out my thoughts on the origins of homosexuality, but i definitely fall more on the "nature" side of nature vs. nurture.

I figure it's nature. After all, I didn't have to "choose" to be straight. It's just how I am.

[Fiver]

^ One of the things I find amazing about the King James Version is that, being based off the Textus Receptus for the New Testament, and the Hebrew Masoretic text for the Old Testament, it still matches up with the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were found in 1947, and are far older. I've heard alot of people find the KJV to be confusing, since it was translated into old English, but I was raised reading it. I'm not against other translations, I just haven't used 'em much, so I have no room to speak on them.

As for the "Apocrypha", Catholic bibles include them. Protestants don't believe they are the inspired word of God as they believe the other accepted 66 books are, and the writers of these texts themselves never laid claim to this. Also, being raised as a Baptist, I can say that branch of Protestantism believes God gave His word to the Israelites to keep sacred and unchanged, and the Israelites took this deathly seriously. When copying the texts, if a single error was discovered in a manuscript, or some kind of blemish after use in public worship, the manuscript was promptly destroyed and the whole thing was re-transcribed. And those Apocryphal books? The Jews destroyed them when Jerusalem was reclaimed in 70 AD.

So, basically, what the Israelites accepted as canonical scriptures is what directed the decision to leave out the Apocryphal books.


Just thought I'd throw my two cents in regarding the Bible's validity and the accuracy of the translations available(Well, the KJV, atleast).

[Nikolaj]

Hi- to Carrie, I see your point about the copying and pasting- it was just what was omitted with what was left was then all edited together to look like it had been written that way, I don't think you do that- I myself, of course, have copied a portion of what someone has written to reply to it, but I didn't edit out a substantial part and then leave pasted on an ending to it by the author that changed or left out the point that had been made. The paste job completely changed the content and what was omitted changed what I was saying.
But, maybe I'm wrong, and it's possible I shouldn't have even mentioned it. I can say it doesn't matter to me now, so I'm sorry if I over-reacted.
All I can say to notafraid, is that the word 'offender' is in there, right where I said, in Corinthians, in the 1986 Gideons International King James New Testament. If the word was left out of your Bible, there must have been a homophobe editor at work! Because, an 'amplified bible' which mine is not, may add passages, words, meditations, but for a word to be taken out, it's a shame. And I believe you. No wonder so many gays and lesbians have been turned off to God when so many believe we're doomed to Hell just for being who the f*** we are. I don't believe it, and encourage gays and lesbians to find the truth, too. Sigh. I've got no debate or fight left in me on this, you know what you know, and I know what I know. It's good. Peace and good will to not afraid.
Back to Carrie, my 'if I had a brother maybe I wouldnt have turned out queer' comment was partially joking, partially not. I was close to my mom and my sister. I didn't have that same connection with my Dad, and wanted it, but my Dad was just so foreign to me- wrong word, but close, we didn't connect. But he's in his late 70s now and we get along well. I'm a better son now than I ever was. And he has his good points that I appreciate now. I just lacked male relatability (?) as a child and I'm sure I overstated that me having a brother would have made me less apt to want to find a meaningful male closeness that I lacked growing up.
Boy, this is all too much, I think I had better stick to the 'which demo was best' discussions in the Nicks and Rumours forums.
Thanks for letting me pass some time here!

[iamnotafraid]

Originally Posted by Nikolaj

All I can say to notafraid, is that the word 'offender' is in there, right where I said, in Corinthians, in the 1986 Gideons International King James New Testament. If the word was left out of your Bible, there must have been a homophobe editor at work! Because, an 'amplified bible' which mine is not, may add passages, words, meditations, but for a word to be taken out, it's a shame.

(note the above is edited for comment)

I also have The Gideons International King James Version (1980 Edition).
And the words "homosexual offender" is not in the text.

And on your "there must have been a homophobe editor at work" says a lot.
I need not comment further.

[jaycee]

Originally Posted by carrie721

you just blew my mind by bringing up i^2 = -1. i have thought about that every day since i learned about "i" in algebra 2 way back in 10th grade. i have no idea why, but it fascinates me. i should take more math classes or something.

your point about the biological misfire is a good one. i haven't completely fleshed out my thoughts on the origins of homosexuality, but i definitely fall more on the "nature" side of nature vs. nurture.

I doubt your fascination with i^2 = -1 could outdo mine! Or that of Roger Penrose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose). He wrote a book, "The Road To Reality" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roa...f_the_Universe), in which he spent a whole chapter detailing the intricacies of complex numbers and the amazing relationships they produce. It was one of the few chapters that I could understand! I think I've read ~40% of the book (non-sequentially), and understood little of it, but it's certainly worth buying if you're interested in maths and physics. Even when you don't understand it it's still enjoyable enough to read - it gives an insight into the thinking of a true genius, if nothing else! And that alone is worth the purchase.
As for nature vs. nurture, the best way to understand it is to think of genes reacting, or "switching on or off", depending on the environment you're in. Of course heterosexuality is prevalent, so nature is more likely in this case... for fetishes I'd expect nurture, in the sense that I'd expect it takes the sight of the object of fascination to be shown before your genes for the fetish "switch on"...
That's about as far as my minimal knowledge of evolutionary biology will allow me to speculate!

[Nikolaj]

Interesting. My 1986 version must be the corrected version, without the homophobe editor! I stand by that comment. If your 1980 version had been complete and correct, they would not have changed it for the later printing, it happens all the time, errors corrected in a later publishing!
Oh, and since you made a point of noting your copying and pasting, which we all do, I just say thanks for doing so in a way that was completely honest this time.

[iamnotafraid]

The NASB (New Amercan Standard Bible)
also uses the words "nor homosexuals" in
1 Corinthians chapter 6 verse 9.

[Nikolaj]

"nor homosexual offenders" is obviously the unedited, original passage or it would not have been put back in. The 'offenders' was left off, with the 's' at the end of 'offenders' put at the end of end of homosexual.
It's too bad, but again, I'm not disputing that it's written the way you say it is in your editions. I don't have a scanner, but I could maybe get to one, should proof be required. I don't lie, but you don't know that. I haven't even learned how to use the camera on my cellphone. Maybe I'll try to learn, but I don't feel the need to prove what is right in front of me, it's there as I typed it yesterday.

[Fiver]

Nikolaj, the greek word that was translated to "homosexual offenders" in your version and "abusers of themselves with mankind" in the KJV along with many other terms in other versions. Comes from the Greek word 'arsenokoitai' which is apparently a compound word that Paul made up.

"arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds"

A common theory is that Paul derived the word from the greek translation of the old testament. Specifically Leviticus 20:13:

hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos (Lev 20:13)

Translated in the KJV as: 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.

The only other translation I have on-hand is the NIV:

'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Just because someone translated it as homosexual, doesn't mean they were homophobic. I may believe homosexuality is a sin, but that doesn't make me a homophobe.

Originally Posted by carrie721

what i don't understand is why so many christians get hung up on homosexuality. there are countless sins that people commit every day, but it seems overall that christians are inordinately concerned about homosexuality and some go so far as to spread lies and demonize us in order to strip us of basic human dignity.

And I just wanna say, I agree with this completely, and it's sad. It's one of the reasons I'm not sure I wanna be a part of the Baptist denomination anymore, though I still agree with the main Baptist doctrines. My own immediate family never taught me to be this way; treating homosexuality as some far worse sin than our own, and setting anyone professing to be homosexual apart.

Maybe it's because I have an uncle who is an "out" homosexual, and we wanted him to know that while we didn't agree with it, we weren't going to condemn him in any way, and we still loved him. So from as young as I can remember, my parents taught me 'tolerance', if that's the right word. More like, what I consider decency to your fellow man or woman. It all made perfect sense to me as a kid.

[greendaze5]

Though the Bible is actually mum about Jesus having a sexual life or desires in any sense (whether with Mary Magdalene or any of the Apostles for example), I still say good for Elton John for speaking out, and to Nikolaj for the thoughtful letter. I applaud how you’ve been able to come to terms with being both gay and Christian.

Religion, when you take out the negativity (the judging and finger pointing, the intolerance, the righteousness, etc.) can be a good and positive force in people’s lives, and it’s sad when folks who do find comfort in their faith have to reject it, because of the notion that you can’t be gay and devotedly religious at the same time. To me, it’s not God Allah, Jehovah, Jesus, or whatever name He/She/It goes by that’s rejecting you, but the all too human religious authority figures.

A few years ago, Sister Helen Prejean (the nun who wrote ‘Dead Man Walking’, and who was played by Susan Sarandon in the movie version) came to my university to give a talk. The presentation was about prisoners’ rights, but she went off topic a bit, and she asked the audience a question – if Jesus was on earth today, to whom might He particularly want to minister to? I think everybody expected her to say wrongly convicted prisoners, drug adducts, victims of war or domestic violence, abused kids, disadvantaged visible minorities etc., etc. Her answer, surprisingly enough was gay people.

Not in the sense that queer people are the biggest sinners around and needed salvation, but that they are terribly oppressed and discriminated against, so much that Jesus, in Sister Helen’s opinion, would particularly want to embrace and give comfort to.

I always thought that was cool coming from a nun, and from someone from a religious background (traditional Catholicism) which is not known for embracing homosexuality.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by Fiver

Maybe it's because I have an uncle who is an "out" homosexual, and we wanted him to know that while we didn't agree with it, we weren't going to condemn him in any way, and we still loved him. So from as young as I can remember, my parents taught me 'tolerance', if that's the right word. More like, what I consider decency to your fellow man or woman. It all made perfect sense to me as a kid.

Cutting through the fog of religious indoctrination for a moment, don't you see something incredibly appalling and hurtful by what you just said? How would you feel if someone said, "Well, we think black people are abominations... but we'll hold our noses and accept you despite your dark skin color." How is this considered "tolerance?" Do you think human sexuality is something that can be simply turned on/off like a switch? You have a right to your own opinion (as shortsighted and ill-informed as it may be), but please have the decency to let your uncle live his life without the scorn of your family's judgment. Life is hard enough as it is- why do you have to perpetuate misery for others under the guise of religious dogma? I don't think Jesus would have approved.