I’m just wondering, if Jesus were neither to condone nor condemn homosexual sex acts, would it be best to refrain from such as not to lead others astray in their Christian walk? Not that that would be an easy thing to do, but I wonder if God would call homosexuals to remain celibate.
That does sound rather dismal, doesn’t it? 
PS: Sorry, Sample, I wasn’t reading as closely as I should!
That’s absurd. Jesus never condoned the eating of pheasant. He never said it was okay to drink coca-cola or fly in airplanes. Silence is not condemnation. There is no reasonable justification for thinking that committed, loving gay relationships are sinful, and I refuse to condmen myself to a life of celibate, lonely hell just because others get their pants in a twist over who I love.
Their problem, not mine.
I check my messages every day. Nothing so far.
I hate to bail on the thread, so here’s fair warning that I’m about to leave town. We’re going to Kansas City for New Years. Have a great December 31st everyone, and don’t have too much fun in the thread over the weekend!
Happy New Year!
I think he calls me every day, but I don’t answer the phone while I’m making love, so I’ve missed it every time and he doesn’t talk to the machine, so…
:dubious:
“Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no
sense of decency?”
-Joseph Welch.
Having been in an analagous religious situation myself (24+ years of mormonism before I left the church) I can honestly posit that he does NOT see the disconnect. I would have not seen it, and even if I had, I would have pushed those thoughts to the back of mind, where I really wouldn’t have to examine a belief that I was supposed to hold as ‘truth from god’ but that made no sense to me as a rational human being. (I would have called them attempts of Satan to pull me from the ‘straight and narrow’ path). Eventually despite my efforts, I could no longer maintain the disconnect, and left mormonism. It takes effort to maintain that logic/passion split, let me assure you.
This ‘hate homosexuality, love the homosexual’ is nothing more than a cowardly attempt to rationalize bigotry. I denounce it, and I denounce those who use it. Either piss, or get off the pot.
And I thought I was reaching, quoting Tom Petty in Great Debates! You rock, Guin!!! 
I read your post a few times and I still can’t figure out whether or not you’re being sarcastic. So at the risk of being whooshed, I’m going to assume you were serious and say:
Hell no! That’s the last thing that should happen to this board. If we prevent people like prisoner from posting, then his lame accusation about the board will become true – it will be just a haven for “worldly liberals.” People will say it’s controlled by the homos and the atheists and the liberals and that decent-thinking people can’t get a word in without being drowned out. Without input from everybody, you don’t get debate.
(Note I’m not claiming that prisoner is actually debating, just that it’s good to hear something different just for the sake of its being different, not because it’s necessarily valid.)
Personally, I think spectrum is over-reacting. But then, I don’t know him nor the details of his experience, and I sure as hell won’t presume to speak for him. But again, for me personally: Whenever Martin Hyde says that I’ve got a mental illness, or prisoner says that my marrying the person I love would help bring about the downfall of family, or Clothahump calls me a pervert demanding special treatment for my deviant sexual practices, or kanicbird says the idea of same-sex marriage is as absurd as calling dogs “cats,” it’s actually helpful. It pisses me off, sure, but it also forces me to think about it and remind myself why their arguments fall apart, and why I’ve got nothing to be ashamed of.
It seems to me that whether or not Jesus would condemn or condone certain behaviors is beside the point. He gets to do that, but we don’t. Although it’s really, really, really hard to do sometimes, we are just supposed to love and not judge.
I know. I’m not very good at the not judging part sometimes.
spectrum, when people hurt you with their words, remember that just because they call you a giraffe doesn’t make you one. Use the disparaging remarks to practice tapping into your inner strength. You are much stronger than you know. Your rage keeps you from feeling your strength.
prisoner, what would happen if you put down the few pebbles you have in your hand? You don’t seem to have a lot of heart in throwing stones anyway. What if you decided to judge only what behavior is right for you and released the need to pass judgment on others?
(And when you have mastered that, then come and teach me.)
Hell no, you weren’t wooshed. But it seems to me that my suggestion is going down like a lead condom. If every gay reacted like you do, then I wouldn’t see a problem. But alas, if posters are willing to subject themselves or their gay comrades to pain in order to find “legitimate” targets to hurl their own brand of heavy duty condemnation go for it. Everybody loves a party.
Not a bad sentiment on the surface, but I think there’s a more serious issue here. The rise of the “religious right”, the righteous bigots, the theocrats, the superstitious pseudo-Christians, is a very real threat to everyone’s liberty in this country.
These people aren’t just name-calling. They’re organized, well-funded, and extremely politically active. And scum like Chancellor Karl Rove are ready, willing, and able to exploit them to increase their own power.
I’m about to leave my political party because I can’t stand being in bed with these idiots anymore. Ever since W’s strategy won his dad the White House, then won it for himself 12 years later, the national leaders have eagerly surrendered the party to them because they have enough volume to carry elections with a single, manageable agenda that doesn’t need to be split among various factions.
Advising gays to shrug it off because it’s not factually true is, to my way of thinking, bad advice. Some things need to be tackled head on. These people can’t be simply ignored – it’s an opening for them to gain more ground. And they also can’t simply be told they’re wrong – the true believers won’t hear it, and the string-pullers won’t care.
The religious bigots should be met with determined opposition. Homosexuals are part of American culture, and part of every culture on the planet, now, then, and forever. They are not responsible for the decline of the family, and if that point of view isn’t spoken loud and clear (and publicly), then the God Squad will gladly take advantage of the silence to shout their own message.
Kick ass and take names, spectrum!
When they came for the Communists, I said nothing, because I was not a Communist…
Well, I wouldn’t go that far-don’t give the Church too much credit.(by Church, I mean first Catholic and then Protestant–I’m aware that Church usually means just the Catholic one) It was the Church that wanted to shut down Gallileo; it was the Church that set medicine back by refusing to allow the study of human anatomy. It was the Church that refused (oops, sorry, refuses) to accept pre-marital sexual expression by individuals. There are more examples, I just can’t think of them off the top of my head.
There has probably been more pain and death and violence done in Jesus’ name than just about any other-an irony that never fails to jostle me in my darker moments.
The conservative Christiabn movement that seems to have the media attention, and the floor at the present moment in time is not indicative of Christianity as a whole. I struggle with this daily as I wish and wash about my spiritual status. I try to hang on to the fact that there are Christians that walk the walk-that do try to see Jesus in everyone they meet. I admire those people.
Those who hold stances similiar to the one that spawned this thread are those who turn me off of religion entirely. How can you say you “love” someone and yet deny them a basic human social structure–I would even say need? How can someone dis-enfranchise an entire population and say they are open-minded and complain of presecution?
Mendosa --thank you. I thought as much. It requires Prisoner to think outside of the box that he has been told is right and good and safe.
Sadly, alot of people never make it out of that box. I do respect Prisoner for staying and at least engaging in dialogue.
As to the whole Republican/conservative Christian bedfellow thing–IMO they use each other to consolidate power. The con. Christians needed the GOP more than teh GOP needed them in the past, but now–the balance of power has swung in to the conservative Christian camp. Moderate GOP’ers are just waking up to this–I foresee dissent within the party and soon(it can’t happen soon enough for me).
Sorry, OT.
Aw, thanks Poly. I have to say, it was a lot nicer than some of the things I was THINKING of saying to him.
A hijack of a hijack, here.
The problem for Galileo was twofold: first, he got caught in politics between the Spanish and thier desire to control all of Italy. Because Galileo’s patron was one of the few Italian princes independant of Spain, when step two occured, they were eager to use the papal inquisition to slap his patron. Secondly, Galileo was not a particularly good astronomer. He couldn’t prove the Copernican thesis, in spite of his support of it. (In a large part because he ignored things like Grassi’s observations of Halley’s comet - and then accused Grassi of making up the data he had.) The two men who actually were most instrumental in carrying the prosecution against Galileo were two astronomers, Schiener and Grassi, who were more motivated by a desire for revenge than anything else. Galileo had accused one of being a fraud, and had stolen and taken credit for the other’s work.
This isn’t to say that the trial of Galileo was right or proper, but it was not the unthinking reactionary quashing of a man who was simply right, in spite of church teaching of the time. His intuition was correct, but his proof was grossly lacking.
And, eleanorigby, I don’t think anyone can have any doubt about that second paragraph of yours I quoted. I would prefer to see it reworded to say ‘in the name of religion,’ but that’s a quibble.
Oh, I know about the other evil perpetrated in the name of other deitys–I was just focusing on Jesus, given the topic.
Even with Galileo as not the best example, still organized religion has not been a true friend to science over the years.
That is not to say it did not do good. It provided a structure and system for human geography throughout the ages. That alone makes it praiseworthy.
hope that makes sense–I gotta go to bed–been here too long!
I know. Like I said, it was a quibble.
Actually, I’d rather say organized religion has not always been a true friend to science over the years. Copernicus, Schiener, Grassi, Mendel, and many others who’ve made real, and fundamental, contributions to science have been priests or monks.
Again, I’m not trying to disagree with the gist of what you’re saying, just pointing out that the issue isn’t as black and white as it is often presented.
Um. It was only priests and monks who were ALLOWED to read books. And study. Correct me if I’m wrong, Copernicus was quite persecuted and scorned for his views in his lifetime. I think it was not until the 1980’s that the Catholic church FINALLY officially recognized that he was right, and they were wrong all along. The Earth DOES in fact, revolve around the sun… :rolleyes:
No. Of course people other than priests and monks could read books; few could afford books or education, though. Even back in the Dark and Middle Ages, though, there were tradesmen and such who could read and write. By the days of Copernicus, literacy was becoming widespread. What, you think Shakespeare couldn’t find any Catholic actors? (Okay, that was 40, 50 years after Copernicus. Close enough.)
And while the Church recently apologized to Galileo for persecuting him - persecution that, to be honest, was political in nature, not scientific - you don’t think the Church was telling its flock all those years that the Sun revolves around the Earth, do you? Come on, man.
I think you’re conflating the Protestant Reformation’s emphasis on individual study of the Bible and understanding God’s words and will that way vs. the Catholic Church emphasized having the layity directed in their understanding by the clergy. That is different from preventing the layity from being allowed to read; to choose one example not at random, Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince was published in 1515, two years before Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses into the church door. Remember, with the invention in the West of the Gutenburg press one of the largest categories of publishing became how-to books.
Actually, you are wrong. Copernicus didn’t actually publish his seminal work until just before he died. Kepler had great difficulties because of his theories. The papal announcement in 1992 was not the Catholic Church’s admission that Copericus had been right, but simply that it had erred to prosecute Galileo. Check out this site for a much more detailed explaination of Galileo than I care to try to type here. Again, Galileo failed in his trial by trying to prove the earth moved using the evidence of the tides. In 1822, the Catholic church officially recognized in the catechism that the Copernican hypothesis described reality, not simply as a theory, which it had been for long years before that.
Oh, and a mea culpa - Copernicus was a canon, not a full priest. I’m not entirely certain of the difference, which is how I came to equate the two.
And on preview: Thanks, RickJay.