Abhor - aberration
And thank you for not blessing me with your nonintellectual appropriateness.
1.) “abhorition” is not a word.
2.) Homosexuality is neither abhorent nor an aberration.
3.) Homosexuality is in no way related to, or analogous to pedophilia.
4.) We all know that homosexuality was once illegal. What is your point? We once had slavery too. We have evolved as a country, or at least some of us have.
Seeing as you’ve stated that your original post was stated as you intended it to be, I’ll address it.
Bingo. Right there. There is no victim in homosexuality, there is no-one hurt. Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is like comparing dancing to assault and battery.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?
You can compare things all you like; that doesn’t mean the comparison is valid, or proves anything. Why do you compare homosexuality and pedophilia? What do you think we can learn from the comparison? What, in other words, is your point?
Not long ago, the treatment for depression was brutal institutionalization. Fortunately, we’ve come a long way since then in our understanding of human medicine and psychology. Unless of course, you really insist on using outdated psychiatric ideas to support your argument, whatever it is.
Meanwhile, you might want to check out the current state of psychiatric and psychological thought on homosexuality.
From the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.
And thank God for that.
Except that eternal damnation is not specified for homosexuals and Jews; it’s specified for all mankind. The central tenet of Christianity is that mankind is doomed to perdition, saved only by acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice. That tenet does not spring from dislike of those who elect not to follow the Christian path; it springs from a belief that the Christian message represents the one universal truth.
Now, that belief may be misguided. It may be wrong. It may turn out that heaven is run by South Park’s Super-Best Friends. But that belief is simply not driven by animosity towards non-Christians. Christianity does not take joy from the view that non-Christians are doomed. The Christian view is that lost souls are a tragedy, something to mourn rather than celebrate.
Now, obviously, there are a lot of asshole individual Christians out there who do wear their proclaimed salvation as a badge of honor, who do just flat out dislike Jews and homosexuals, and who do take some pleasure at the thought of those “outsiders” left to an eternity of separation from God. Well, they’re assholes, and I hold no brief for them. A religious faith should not be evaluated by its most idiotic members. Suffice it to say that traditional Christian doctrine is a very different thing than what those yokels preach, and that difference should be recognized.
Well, as more than one person has pointed out, your spelling and grammar could do with some checking. I’m not normally one to point out such errors, as it often smacks of pettiness or smugness, but when the incoherence of your ideas matches that of your spelling and grammar so well, then maybe there’s a link.
And, while certain errors of usage are inevitable in a text-based medium such as this one, you don’t do yourself any favours by making words up. “Abhorition” indeed!
You are still yet to demonstrate any valid link between pedophilia and homosexuality, except at the most mundane level. Yes, a minority of the population are gay, and an even smaller minority of the population are pedophiles. What’s your point? I’m a vegetarian, and a left-hander, and a grad student, each of which is a minority position in society. And at least one of those characteristics–my left-handedness–is something that i did not and cannot choose. Did you know that left-handers were once considered a sign of evil. My Hungarian grandparents even wanted to try to force me to become right-handed as a kid, but my mother told them where to go.
You say that pedophilia involves desires and does not always mean actual molestation. This is correct. Yet you then say that what distinguishes pedophilia from homosexuality is that, with pedophilia, “there is usually a victim in these desires.” Here you are wrong. While a child may become a victim of the act of child molestation, there is no victim of “desires.” The desire has to be acted upon for a victim to exist.
And, in making the distinction between pedophilia and homosexuality, you imply (correctly) that there is no victim in a regular homosexual relationship. It is a relationship between consenting adults, and as such is no-one’s business but their own. Just because the majority of society is not gay (“spurned by a majority” is the silly phrase you use) does not mean that there is something wrong with homosexuality. It doesn’t even mean that the majority of society thinks homosexuality is wrong or immoral, although i’m not sure what the actual figures are on that issue.
Your point about society’s earlier intolerance for homosexuality is totally irrelevant. As DtC pointed out, slavery was once legal. Does that make it right? Women were once killed as witches because they dared to speak in a male-dominated society. Should we return to those days? Those who questioned Puritan interpretations of religion in Massachussets Bay were banished to places like Rhode Island, or were physically punished. Perhaps you’d like a return to such a narrow society?
Just because an idea or a practice was once considered wrong (or right) does not mean that we should still consider it wrong (or right ) today. And if you’re threatening to deluge us with “psychoanalytical sites out the wazoo,” go ahead. I think you’ll find that the broad psychological and psychoanalytical consensus surrounding homosexuality today is that it is something about which people have little, if any, choice. You are welcome to continue living in the dark old days of aversion therapy and “curing” homosexuality, but you’ll have to excuse me if i choose to remain in the twenty-first century.
I’m really sorry if you find my ideas “rediculous.” However, while you may feel that others have nothing “pertinant” to say, we will go on “insising” that we do.
While sarcasm mightn’t be a good debating tactic, it’s fun.
The assholes and yokels are all that I’m talking about. I’m sorry if i didn’t make that clear. I don’t think Christianity is hateful. I think that some Christians are, and especially a certain breed of Christian.
I find this Christian idea to be the most despicable aspect of the religion, particularly the more fundamentalist sects. Hating all of humanity is hardly better than singling out two sub-sets within that whole.
Well, sure. There are assholes in every crowd.
I understood your point to be that a belief in Christian faith as the exclusive means of salvation to be de facto hateful. If I misunderstood, I apologize, but if you’d clarify your position I’d appreciate it.
Well, I hardly think a belief in mankind’s inherent imperfection and consequent need of salvation translates to “hating all of humanity.” While I share your disdain for fundamentalism, I disagree that this particular doctrine is hateful.
I think Robert Heinlein summed up the common personality traits of people like Spite and Snoopyfan and the other fundies:
from “If This Goes On”
Duhh…yeah, man can be “privy to” what God thinks and says about particular things. It’s called the Bible.
And away we go!
:rolleyes:
Esprix
Ok, I think the notion that salvation is exclusive to Christianity is erroneous and not particularly logical or compassionate, but that most of the people who hold this view are perfectly decent, well meaning and often very kind. I also think there is a subset of Christianity which fixates on this doctrine and takes emotional satisfaction in the expectation that the majority of the human race (and three quarters of the human race is not Christian) is going to be tortured forever. (See the latest Chick tract posted in the pit)
I think it’s hard to reconcile the belief in a God of love with eternal hell for good people. I don’t believe, for instance, that a good God would further punish six million holocaust victims simply for not being Christians. I think that if one believes that God does this, then one necessarily has to believe it is deserved because God cannot be unjust.
This belief is not universal in Christianity. Most Christians find a way, through scripture, through church doctrines or through private contemplation to reconcile a belief in Jesus as a Savior with a faith that God is just and fair and will judge people by their hearts and not their beliefs.
It is those individuals who cannot make this leap, who are emotionally invested in their own exclusivity, who honestly believe that being Jewish or being gay (and those were just meant to be two examples, not the totality of groups who are hellbound) is worthy of excruciating and never ending physical torment who I feel are hateful.
Think about it. What happened to Matthew Sheppard was rightly regarded as an attrocity, yet, according to some, what he will suffer at the hands of God is much worse and will never end. Furthermore, it is also believed that Sheppard’s killers have a chance to be forgiven and go to Heaven (not that that would be easy or likely for them, just not impossible). Poor Matthew, by contrast having died “in his sin” has no chance ever at forgiveness.
I find this to be an execrable viewpont and an unacceptable God, and so do most Christians. Anyone who can’t see a problem with this dogma, or who actually thinks it’s just, has a very deep problem in his or her own heart.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Same ole same ole “God’s plan of salvation is hateful and cruel” garbage. It’s so hateful, don’tcha know?
:rolleyes: You still don’t get it I see. Maybe someday.
Save your eye-rolling, smilies, H4E. Yes, we all know you approve of God burning people in his private torture chamber for all eternity. You’ve established that quite firmly.
So how do you explain differing interpretations of the Bible?
How do i, as an ignorant atheist/agnostic (i tend to vacillate), work out which Christian is telling me the truth about God’s thoughts?
And don’t just tell me to read the Bible, because i have. And all it tells me is what the people who wrote it were thinking. It’s an interesting historical and philosophical document, but little more, IMO.
No. You don’t get it.
If God did exist, i believe that his/her plan of salvation would not be hateful and cruel. I also believe that it would be quite different from what many Christians believe it to be. It’s people, including some Christians, who are hateful and cruel, not some putative deity.
Diogenes: Fair enough. I’m not trying to play apologist for Christian doctrine, though I know it certainly sounds that way. But let me add this:
Christian doctrine holds that eternal separation from God is a consequence of man’s innate imperfection. It is, in a very real way, the natural order of things – the default condition of mankind. I think it is something of a mischaracterization to say that Hell is a “penalty” for rejecting the salvation message. Christianity holds that mankind is drowning in a sea of his own imperfection, and that God has tossed him a life preserver in the form of Jesus Christ. It is somewhat incorrect the characterize God as “penalizing” those who elect not to grab hold.
I realize that’s a slender distinction, one that doesn’t change actual spiritual outcomes, but I do think it changes the tone of the doctrine. And it’s on that basis that I think perfectly reasonable, non-hating, non-fundamentalist people can legitimately believe in the exclusivity of Christ’s salvation.
Like I said, I’m not trying to be an apologist for the Christian faith. There are certainly difficult philosophical questions presented by Christian doctrine – why the need to nail your kid to a tree in the first place? Why can’t God just snap his fingers and remove mankind’s imperfection, at least for those who were basically decent folks? Why the need for religious experience at all? But I do think Christianity gets short shrift around here and that its traditional doctrines are not so bereft of reasonableness and compassion as many make them out to be. I think it a mistake to characterize those doctrines, undistorted by fundamentalism, as “hateful.” YMMV, of course.
It may or may not be, it depends upon to whom you talk. I do know that your presentation of it here has been pretty obnoxious though.
As I said to another of your co-religionist who can only quote Bible verses out of context; oh the irony!!
DCU, I would disagree with this. Not your interpretation of the doctrine, but the historical context in which it’s been applied in western culture.
For better for for worse, Christianity has been the only religion seriously practiced in western culture for at least 900 years (I count this date since the fall of the last Pagan temples at Uppsala, Sweden, which fell in 1100). It’s had a strong foothold in the west since Constantine converted the Roman Empire in 350 (I believe that’s the correct date).
Since that time, Christianity has had no serious religious competition. It’s only been recently, within the past 100 years or so that Westerners have seriously considered the validity of other religious and philosophical positions.
I feel most Christians believe in the exclusivity of the Christian message not necessarily because of its content, but simply because they’ve never been seriously taught any other religious or philosophical postion, except for Atheism.