An accidental homosexuality experiment?

[StSapphire]

What I am saying is that religious teachings are traceable, not that it's religious or not. If someone says that the ten commandments are similar to older laws found in other semitic cultures, there will allways be some people that jump up and say "I knew it! It's all fake! No God involved.". Sigh.

I'm confused, then. On this specific topic, do you think that homophobia is (exclusively?) based upon religious thinking? And if you think it is, do you think that that religious thinking is traceable to pre-religion thought processes (ie a non-religious foundation)?

And for that last point, that's often merely mentioned because so many religious people make some sort of claim that their holy book wasn't written by humans, but that it "came from God" and does not contain influences from wicked, sinful humans, as a basis for its infallibility.

The arugment is still that the gay issue comes from a religious mindset that once ruled the western world, and is a part of our heritage. Wether this mindset is man made or from God, don't matter. The claim is that the AD ban of religious discussions are hard to handle because of this, and this creates threads that are religious in the nature, but at the same time, belivers are not allowed to tell their versions. That's all I'm saying, nothing more or less. I think the fact we are discussing something like this in the thread, and not which mindset is superior, is the reason Reba have been allowed to make "religious" replies, but not sure. There is a religious ban policy on AD, so you know.

It does matter where the basis is. If a religious mind set is man-made, then there are non-religious explanations and we can discuss those. If the religious mind set is purely "divine" or otherwise not "of man", then it's purely a religious discussion, just as much as asking whether the host during a Catholic mass is really Jesus's flesh or if it's just a cracker.

And of note - we've discussed all sorts of things, including each others' opinions on who is "right" and why (well, as far as I can tell, you've refrained from posting what your own opinion is, but nobody except yourself is preventing you from having done so).

I'm well aware of the policy, and it would appear that the primary injunction is "keep it civil and don't get personal", (which, to the best of my knowledge, we've been doing here) with a bit of leeway appearing to be allowed since we're specifically in the "On-topic Debates" forum, which seems to be given much more leniency than, say, the Current Events or General Chat sections.

You have been allowed to express that your worldview is superior, as it includes some math that you claim some religions don't. This is an example of how the religious ban on AD allows seculars to express how right they are and how wrong religious people are, while religious people aren't allowed to explain why their faith is the best one. This is close to ethical monoism, and as unappealing as ethical relativism.

Uh... everyone who expresses their opinion thinks that their worldview is superior to the ones they don't hold. If they did think someone else's opinion was superior... presumably, they would hold that opinion, then.

However, I didn't explain (in very much detail, at least) how my worldview was formed or "defend" it in much of any way, other than saying "well, duh I think I'm right". That was no more "preaching secularism" than Reba being allowed to say that she thinks homosexual activity is immoral because God says so.

I'm a agnostic atheist, btw.

Why? (No, not being flippant, I'm actually curious why.)

 

[Reba]

Independent churches are allowed to set their own doctrines, so he (presumably) had a different interpretation of that doctrine than your church. (Or, less generously, he saw more of a profit in preaching something else - many churches are not ideologically pure, especially when doctrine conflicts with sustenance.)

Yes, I know that each church can have its own set of doctrines and statement of faith. However, Camping has specifically said that he believes the church age is over, and that, in his opinion, the faithful shouldn't belong to any church.

That's why I use the term para-church. It's an organization that fulfills some of the functions of a church but not completely.

 

[StSapphire]

Yes, I know that each church can have its own set of doctrines and statement of faith. However, Camping has specifically said that he believes the church age is over, and that, in his opinion, the faithful shouldn't belong to any church.

That's why I use the term para-church. It's an organization that fulfills some of the functions of a church but not completely.

Sorry, that bit you quoted was in response to your comment about Billy Graham, not Camping. Or at least, I thought your comment I was responding to was about Graham (and infant baptisms).

 

[StSapphire]

Yes, I know that each church can have its own set of doctrines and statement of faith. However, Camping has specifically said that he believes the church age is over, and that, in his opinion, the faithful shouldn't belong to any church.

That's why I use the term para-church. It's an organization that fulfills some of the functions of a church but not completely.

I think you made the same mistake I've almost done several times, we seem to be mixing up this topic and the one about Camping,

 

[Reba]

Sorry, that bit you quoted was in response to your comment about Billy Graham, not Camping. Or at least, I thought your comment I was responding to was about Graham (and infant baptisms).

Sorry about that. I'm bouncing back and forth on these posts and threads too much.

About Graham and baptism: Yes, independent churches can set their own doctrines. However, if Graham claims to be a Southern Baptist preacher, then he's not an independent and he should be following SBC doctrines. As far as I know, SBC doctrine still teaches that baptism is for believers only, and that would exclude infants. (I'm not a member of SBC, so I don't keep up with all their changes but I doubt that they've changed on that one.)

 

[Reba]

I think you made the same mistake I've almost done several times, we seem to be mixing up this topic and the one about Camping,

 

[StSapphire]

Sorry about that. I'm bouncing back and forth on these posts and threads too much.

Haha, I know the feeling.

About Graham and baptism: Yes, independent churches can set their own doctrines. However, if Graham claims to be a Southern Baptist preacher, then he's not an independent and he should be following SBC doctrines. As far as I know, SBC doctrine still teaches that baptism is for believers only, and that would exclude infants. (I'm not a member of SBC, so I don't keep up with all their changes but I doubt that they've changed on that one.)

Ah. Yeah, I dunno how that stuff all works. It's well beyond both my level of interest and caring, lol. That was just my slight 0.01 cents (not 1 cent, but 1/100th of a cent) based on the minuscule knowledge that I had, lol.

 

[jillio]

Back to homosexualty: a naturally occurring phenomenon or a sinful choice?

 

[deafskeptic]

I wonder why he converted if he didn't believe in their doctrines? I wouldn't convert to something that I didn't believe in.

People don't always follow doctrines to the letter and i assume that's the case here.

 

[Reba]

People don't always follow doctrines to the letter and i assume that's the case here.

The doctrine of believer's baptism is what makes a Baptist a Baptist. Infant baptism vs. believer's baptism is not a minor difference of not following to the letter. A Baptist preacher knows the significance of the difference. That's why I'm surprised about Graham. I knew he had compromised a lot in recent decades but I didn't know that he also quit following the doctrine of baptism. He's really changed since his early evangelistic years.

 

[Daredevel7]

Back to homosexualty: a naturally occurring phenomenon or a sinful choice?

Actually, who says that it would one or the other? I wonder if people do believe that being gay is something that you were born with, but ACTING upon it is the sin itself. A test from God? Does anyone here believe that?

 

[flip]

I'm confused, then. On this specific topic, do you think that homophobia is (exclusively?) based upon religious thinking? And if you think it is, do you think that that religious thinking is traceable to pre-religion thought processes (ie a non-religious foundation)?

And for that last point, that's often merely mentioned because so many religious people make some sort of claim that their holy book wasn't written by humans, but that it "came from God" and does not contain influences from wicked, sinful humans, as a basis for its infallibility.



It does matter where the basis is. If a religious mind set is man-made, then there are non-religious explanations and we can discuss those. If the religious mind set is purely "divine" or otherwise not "of man", then it's purely a religious discussion, just as much as asking whether the host during a Catholic mass is really Jesus's flesh or if it's just a cracker.

And of note - we've discussed all sorts of things, including each others' opinions on who is "right" and why (well, as far as I can tell, you've refrained from posting what your own opinion is, but nobody except yourself is preventing you from having done so).

I'm well aware of the policy, and it would appear that the primary injunction is "keep it civil and don't get personal", (which, to the best of my knowledge, we've been doing here) with a bit of leeway appearing to be allowed since we're specifically in the "On-topic Debates" forum, which seems to be given much more leniency than, say, the Current Events or General Chat sections.



Uh... everyone who expresses their opinion thinks that their worldview is superior to the ones they don't hold. If they did think someone else's opinion was superior... presumably, they would hold that opinion, then.

However, I didn't explain (in very much detail, at least) how my worldview was formed or "defend" it in much of any way, other than saying "well, duh I think I'm right". That was no more "preaching secularism" than Reba being allowed to say that she thinks homosexual activity is immoral because God says so.



Why? (No, not being flippant, I'm actually curious why.)

We are talking past each other here. I don't have an opinion on wether homophobia have natural explainations(naturalism) or is part of a divine created world. You brought up homophobia, I didn't not. I've not been talking about homophobia at all. Will probably explain this further later for those of you who want. Too short on time now.

Reasons for beeing an agnostic atheists, is most probably due to my secular upbringing surrounded by religious/commerical traditions. I can relate to igtheism, too, for same reasons.

 

[StSapphire]

We are talking past each other here. I don't have an opinion on wether homophobia have natural explainations(naturalism) or is part of a divine created world. You brought up homophobia, I didn't not. I've not been talking about homophobia at all. Will probably explain this further later for those of you who want. Too short on time now.

Reasons for beeing an agnostic atheists, is most probably due to my secular upbringing surrounded by religious/commerical traditions. I can relate to igtheism, too, for same reasons.

Hey!

That's stuff we don't disagree about, lol. (I had to look up what "igtheism" was, first, though. ) We obviously disagree on whether or not you should go around "correcting" or in any other manner telling people that they're wrong, but I'd guess that we might actually not disagree on nearly as much as I previously would have guessed, lol.

 

[Loghead]

Actually, who says that it would one or the other? I wonder if people do believe that being gay is something that you were born with, but ACTING upon it is the sin itself. A test from God? Does anyone here believe that?

That thought has crossed my mind.

 

[jillio]

The doctrine of believer's baptism is what makes a Baptist a Baptist. Infant baptism vs. believer's baptism is not a minor difference of not following to the letter. A Baptist preacher knows the significance of the difference. That's why I'm surprised about Graham. I knew he had compromised a lot in recent decades but I didn't know that he also quit following the doctrine of baptism. He's really changed since his early evangelistic years.

Unless you can somehow connect Baptists to homosexuals, we are getting off topic again.

 

[jillio]

Actually, who says that it would one or the other? I wonder if people do believe that being gay is something that you were born with, but ACTING upon it is the sin itself. A test from God? Does anyone here believe that?

No more than I believe that acting on heterosexual inclinations is a sin.

But why would an all loving God create a homosexual just to put him or her through a lifetime of misery and testing?

 

[Daredevel7]

No more than I believe that acting on heterosexual inclinations is a sin.

But why would an all loving God create a homosexual just to put him or her through a lifetime of misery and testing?

No idea, but isn't that what some religious people would say about people who were born "not normal"? It doesn't have to be homosexuality. It can be any deviation from the norm. Deaf, blind, mentally handicapped, and so on? Just in case deaf people freak out, I'm not saying that being deaf is a misery/abnormal, but OTHER people can perceive it to be.

I've heard deaf people on AD saying that other people tell them that they are deaf because one of their parents sinned or it's a form of punishment.

That's never happened to me BUT I've been told by others that being deaf is a test from God, "to push me beyond my abilities", and so forth.

So... couldn't the same thing apply for gay people too?
"Here, I made you who you are, a deaf person, let's see if you can go through life and still love me."
"Here, I made you who you are, a gay person, let's see if you can abide by my rules."

Different tests, but same outcome if you "pass", right?

 

[deafskeptic]

No idea, but isn't that what some religious people would say about people who were born "not normal"? It doesn't have to be homosexuality. It can be any deviation from the norm. Deaf, blind, mentally handicapped, and so on? Just in case deaf people freak out, I'm not saying that being deaf is a misery/abnormal, but OTHER people can perceive it to be.

I've heard deaf people on AD saying that other people tell them that they are deaf because one of their parents sinned or it's a form of punishment.

That's never happened to me BUT I've been told by others that being deaf is a test from God, "to push me beyond my abilities", and so forth.

So... couldn't the same thing apply for gay people too?
"Here, I made you who you are, a deaf person, let's see if you can go through life and still love me."
"Here, I made you who you are, a gay person, let's see if you can abide by my rules."

Different tests, but same outcome if you "pass", right?

Why would anyone be tested in such a manner or why would someone test them like this in the first place?

 

[jillio]

No idea, but isn't that what some religious people would say about people who were born "not normal"? It doesn't have to be homosexuality. It can be any deviation from the norm. Deaf, blind, mentally handicapped, and so on? Just in case deaf people freak out, I'm not saying that being deaf is a misery/abnormal, but OTHER people can perceive it to be.

I've heard deaf people on AD saying that other people tell them that they are deaf because one of their parents sinned or it's a form of punishment.

That's never happened to me BUT I've been told by others that being deaf is a test from God, "to push me beyond my abilities", and so forth.

So... couldn't the same thing apply for gay people too?
"Here, I made you who you are, a deaf person, let's see if you can go through life and still love me."
"Here, I made you who you are, a gay person, let's see if you can abide by my rules."

Different tests, but same outcome if you "pass", right?

Absolutely it could be applied to others. It is simply a belief that I don't understand. To me it comes from a need to use a belief in God to transmit some form of superiority to themselves. Just like any other form of prejudice, or racism, or sexism, or any other ism.

Had a "Christian" in Walmart tell my son, at the age of 7, that if he "prayed hard enough, God would cure him." He replied, "I'm not sick." That's my boy!

 

[Daredevel7]

Why would anyone be tested in such a manner or why would someone test them like this in the first place?

Like I said... I have no idea.

Someone asked if homosexuality is a sinful choice or born with it. This implies that if you are born with it, it's automatically not a sin. I wonder if people thought otherwise.

That's why I asked if anyone believed that gay people ARE born like that, that it is just not a choice and still believed that it's sinful behavior. One person already said that it crossed his/her mind.

I'm not a believer, just trying to understand the beliefs of others.

Also, if a scientist irrefutably proves that being gay is something that you are born with (from genes or whatever), does this mean everyone will automatically think it's not a sin anymore? Doubtful.