Interesting talk btw Athiest Prof & Christian Student
-
Originally posted by earthlings73:
What you'd stated is true. Words may appear over the years within a certain language, but it does not mean that similar words did not exist in other languages. In all honesty the greek term I had used "arsenokoites" can mean different things to different people - whether it meant homosexuals or as some of us had termed - homosexual offenders. It all depends on who did the research. Nonetheless the truth remains that it refers to some kind of sexual offence.
Err.. The word "homosexual" does not appear until 1869. So how would an ancient greek word be tranlated to mean homosexual in English?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual
[b]The word homosexual translates literally as "of the same sex," being a hybrid of the Greek prefix homo- meaning "same" and the Latin root sex- meaning "sex." The first known appearance of the term homosexual in print is found in an anonymously published 1869 German pamphlet written by the Hungarian Karl-Maria Kertbeny.
[/b]
The point I am trying to drive is that the Romans and 1 Corinthians has very little in terms of space to move around translation. And to compound the issue further, historically, Corinthians is known as a city with heaps of sexual deviant practices (just check any history book). Hence when we attempt to look at the relevancy of Ecclesiastes against Corinthians, Eccl has nothing specific or explicity that is sexual in nature while the entire passage in the 1 Corin quotation has heaps of issues with regards on sexual conduct. Anyone seeing
Eccl as having a sexual message is seeing an implied message and a very very very loose one at that.
At the end of the day the argument will return to whether homosexuality is natural or not. And if it is, does that also mean that God had intended it to be so, which is what I think the Eccl verse is taken to mean. If this is the case, then we should ask ourselves if a person is born with the propensity to be violent, then should this person seek help. Or a person who is born to have an unnaturally high sex drive, he should attempt to reign it in. So my argument really is: if someone is born in a certain way, should this person attempt to modify his behaviour and ultimate modify his religious creed to suit his lifestyle.
I am aware that all the non-Christian postings in this thread is pro-gay (not that you guys are gay yourself). I am not anti-gay. I am saying that there are many Christians who will change their basic religious tenets to suit their personal agenda. My stand in this is no different from the way I see City Harvest Church or the white supremist churches in the world. Call me ultra-conservative or non-progressive, but that's the way I see it. -
Why do you care if I "defy God"? What does it matter to you? The Messiah is the Alpha and Omega. He exist for all. Jesus in his time, made a mockery of some of the laws in the OT... When Jesus died, he forgave the sins of all who will accept him as his personal saviour, hence the act of crucifixion and resurrection promised salvation for all who will accept him from that time on - nothing difficult, just basic Biblical theology.... anyway you don't believe in Jesus, so it probably don't mean anything to you.
Chrtistianity was based on jewish scriptures. How can they forsake their teachings completely and assume they r different ? In tat case why should the mesiah exist of r people who do not exist at tat time ? The OT is included as part of the bible for a reason. Jesus in the NT had himself said the importance of the OT laws. U wanna defy him ?
yeah... and black people get lynched too, so what's your point? Murdered gay people by Christians only? There are huge bunch of anti-gay non-Christians out there... why put the blame on Christians (again?)
There were articles from earthlings tat shows gays being murdered. Sort of death sentence being laid onto them isn't it ?
How can you argue from a point of view that you do not believe in? Oxymoron isn't it? The only reason for your to argue using the Bible is so that you make a mockery out of Christianity - that is not "arguing from the Scripture" it is arguing AGAINST the scripture. But coming from you, I am used to it.
Tat is very interesting but all along I have been arguing from the scripture point of view isn't it ? Or r u gonna tell me christian don't read bible ? And as said countless time, the teaching of christainity is gonna affect people of all belief and religion, which obviously include me. So I can't comment on anything tat is gonna influence me. But anyway u r gonna reply the same thing back anyway
Teaching of Christianity affect people all the time??? No lah, currently the teachings of Jihadist is affect more people more of the time..... losing love ones because of suicidal bombers etc etc... I like to read some of your comments on this. You know, since our last exchange, I'd have not seen any more of your comments in the other forums.... see that you are still keeping EH high on the rating... thanks.
Bigamy is not wrong if the multiple partners agree isn't it. So assuming that is so, would you ok it? Maybe being a nymphomaniac is normal, so no need treatment what? Interesting phrase - current moment is considered a mental illness.....
Bigamy, adultery involves another third party (current partner) so it is wrong and no one will stand up to it. Paedophile is a crime committed on another person who is deemed not matured enough to undertsand the nature of the business. For promiscuous sex, it depends on your definition of it. If u talk about a hooker doing it for a living and religious people go all out and condemn and curse them, I will stand up for them as well. If u talk about sex with boyfriends, I will stand up for them too. If u talk about nymphomaniac, it really had a very damaging influence to his wellbeing and at the current moment it is considered as a mental illness and as such, should be encourage to visit the pyschatrist. And as such, we do see eye to eye on such issues
Seems u r keen on expanding issues, why don't u expand on the topic of masturbation and contraception while u r at it ? These 2 points r perhaps the topics tat seem incredibly wrong IMO yet upheld by the religion to be right. We probably do not se eye to eye on these 2 so u wanna discuss them ?
Masturbation old issue right? One thread many moons ago right? Same mexican standoff right? Remember the blood and the sweat? Talk before already. Contraception, no issue what. I am not RC. I use condom. Actually quite frighten here.... I say I use condom, you might whack me using the RC stand. If I say I don't support contraception, you also whack me by saying I conservative.... so not sure where you want to go here???? Wah damn scared alreadddy...
I agree with you that there are many Christians who are very unyielding in their stance with regards to many non-Christian issues. I do not happen to be one of them. And again I repeat myself: I am not anti-gay. I am anti Christians who change their basic religious creed to suit their own agenda. How many times must I repeat this statement before it is understood? But you say you are powerless because of choices made by Christians.... as I remember you were not happy with Christians who go into other forums to discuss choices made by other non-Christians. Isn't this contradictory? You come in because it's our fault, we go to other places to discuss it is also our fault.... so you think everything is our fault????
Lets say I am powerless to a choice made by christians. A poitn I need to make is there r many christians who do not respect the choices made by gays. However this being a forum, why don't we jut thrash it out and talk about it to get deeper understanding on the issues.
Well seems you did not really answer my question because you shifted the blame to the Christians.... let me ask you a couple of questions:
Is everything wrong caused by Christians only?
What do you hope for Christians to discuss in EH that does not piss you off?
although not really my point lah... but my opinion is one can be discriminated without discrimination put on them. Sometimes it is a martyr's syndrome. When you read about comments by black people, it always seem that the whole world is against them, but many issues are really a lack of self worth.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of course got diff. One implies the theology is wrong and full of discrimination, the other only says xtians sometimes get too arrogant and forgot what the Lord has taught them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And to the homosexual, wat is the diff ? To them they r gonna be treated differently whether they focus on the sin or the sinner
To the gays out here reading this. Please walk with your heads held high, don't let anyone look down at your choice.
Myself and my boys have been called fatty or variation of this name all our lives but we do not feel discriminated and continue to maintain our self confidence. I am not saying the problems faced by gays are the same as us. You fellas probably have gone through worst, but the feeling of discrimination can be two ways, given and perceived.
And one more time: I AM NOT ANTI-GAY! I AM ANTI CHRISTIAN WHO TRANSLATE THE BIBLE ANY OLD HOW..... braack!!! vomitting blood already.... not to you SIS... just a little pek chek....
Take care buddy.... how's work.... not too busy I hope.... -
1) nobody is saying we shouldn't submit to the authority of god.Originally posted by HENG@:u say its safer to submit to the authority of god and obey his words spoken in the bible.
i will point out that:
Obviously we do not submit to the same God. To each his own.
2) the bible are not his spoken words. it is the word of MAN who wrote what they THOUGHT what god had said.
The Bible IS the spoken word of my God, the God who sent his son Jesus Christ to die for my sin on the cross and resurrected on the third days. This is what I believe, by faith initially, and through experience, the walk with Jesus, God confirmed to me that the Bible is indeed His word.
3) are u 100% sure that your personal understanding of the bible is absolutely correct?
I read the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit, I interact with God through prayers, so that I can be clear of His word and His will. I learn from other Christians, including scholars, but more from Christians who experienced God. If I act anything foolish, either with wrong understanding or twisted meaning of His Word, or against His will, knowingly, GodÂ’s discipline will be on me, and I will have to be accountable to Him. His is a living God and He knows what everybody is doing.?
4) are u not letting your own biasedness fool u into thinking your personal understanding of the bible IS correct?
If I agree that I am biased then I wouldnÂ’t be doing what I am doing. The intention to speak out my understanding of God is not to condemn, but not to condone. If somebody is diabetic, it would be wrong if I do not say anything when he is chewing bars of chocolate. But if he insists that chocolate is not sugar, then I rest my case.
If you xtians can quote me this as saying homosexuality is wrong and yet other xtians who aren't gay can point it out that when u ignore the "offender" that follows "homosexual", you are also taking it out of context, might u not be grossly mistaken in some of your interpretations, however minute your mistake in overlooking some words might be?
Christians will have to account to our God in the end for what we do. If we use the word of God to condemn others unjustifiably, or if we intentionally twist the word of God to justify a wrong doing, then our punishment would be greater than those non-Christians, who do not know God!! If non-Christians call themselves Christians and twist the word of God to justify a sin, well, they better hope that they have a chance to repent in the future and may God have mercy on them. Each of us has to watch out what we say, especially when we quote the word of God.
The rules were written for a long time, the owner confirmed what were written through the experience of members. If anybody has any doubt, they can always go to the owner. You decide, ask him for clarification on what you do not understand, if you want to enter the gym, or if you choose to question him on his right to set the rules, you probably has decided that you do not want to go in.Originally posted by HENG@:U say that members don't question the owner because the believe he knows better, but im asking u, the owner didn't write the rules, he told his member of staff to write the rules based on a rough guideline, and the member of staff writes it up as best as he could, but with his own views, prejudices and misunderstandings written into those rules, are u going to simply follow them blindly in the belief that the owner personally wrote the rules himself without making clear who actually wrote the rules?
So why do u say i am questioning god when i am questioning the bible itself, which was written NOT by god but by man? I am questioning if the bible hadn't been written with some human prejudice, biasedness, views, belief, misgivings and misunderstandings in? If for even a passage like 1 Cor 6:9, xtians can give 2 different explanations which both sound logical, then who are YOU to say that i am twisting the bible, and that you are not? The risk might be on your own heads all this while, that I will remind u.
Our fundamental difference is that you do not believe that the Bible is the word of God, to you it is written with some human prejudice, Â…Â…. but to me, the Bible is the basis of my belief, without which, there is no Christianity!! With such fundamental difference, I cannot hope for your agreement on issues whose morales are based on the Bible. Thank God, the world is big enough to accommodate all kinds of people.
Discussions and arguments among Christians are theological, discussions with non Christians are at most philosophical, but Christianity is a personal encounter with God, it is not a philosophy, can share experience but cannot debate. Also my knowledge is not so good as uncle Eng and Icemoon lah...
-
Why do you care if I "defy God"? What does it matter to you? The Messiah is the Alpha and Omega. He exist for all. Jesus in his time, made a mockery of some of the laws in the OT... When Jesus died, he forgave the sins of all who will accept him as his personal saviour, hence the act of crucifixion and resurrection promised salvation for all who will accept him from that time on - nothing difficult, just basic Biblical theology.... anyway you don't believe in Jesus, so it probably don't mean anything to you
Basic biblical theology ? If jesus cruxification and resurrection promised salvation regardless of laws u break then why condemn homosexual ?yeah... and black people get lynched too, so what's your point? Murdered gay people by Christians only? There are huge bunch of anti-gay non-Christians out there... why put the blame on Christians (again?)
It is basically because the pope had sort of place an encouragement for people to be anti-gay. As such, the number of people who r anti-gay increases. Why put the blame on them ? Because they made the problem worseHow can you argue from a point of view that you do not believe in? Oxymoron isn't it? The only reason for your to argue using the Bible is so that you make a mockery out of Christianity - that is not "arguing from the Scripture" it is arguing AGAINST the scripture. But coming from you, I am used to it.
I have probably heard tis from u a billion times and I have probably answered them too. If I use science to discuss about homosexuality nobody really give a damn about it. If I use the scripture then will christian start to pay attention to it because they can't brush it aside as wrong. The real question is, U believe they r infallible words from the god. U thought tat the way u make sense of it is the only way. I am trying to show tat either they r really just empty words or the way u translate the verses may not be the correct/only way
Teaching of Christianity affect people all the time??? No lah, currently the teachings of Jihadist is affect more people more of the time..... losing love ones because of suicidal bombers etc etc... I like to read some of your comments on this. You know, since our last exchange, I'd have not seen any more of your comments in the other forums.... see that you are still keeping EH high on the rating... thanks.Bigamy is not wrong if the multiple partners agree isn't it. So assuming that is so, would you ok it? Maybe being a nymphomaniac is normal, so no need treatment what? Interesting phrase - current moment is considered a mental illness.....
Then let me ask u tis question. If bigamy and everybody, including the children agree to it, r u gonna condemn and stop him ? If u ask me, it is their business and since they r so happy with tat decision, let them be. From the way u reply it seems u r gonan stop, curse or perhaps cut off relationship with him if he choose to do the things which tat really isn't anything wrong with it. Nymphomaniac is obviously more destructive to his own self and to others than being homosexual
As said before, it is consider as a mental illness. So wat is your problem with itI agree with you that there are many Christians who are very unyielding in their stance with regards to many non-Christian issues. I do not happen to be one of them. And again I repeat myself: I am not anti-gay. I am anti Christians who change their basic religious creed to suit their own agenda. How many times must I repeat this statement before it is understood?
Isn't tat wat I have been arguing about U think your interpretation is right and others r wrong. Tat is why u come in and said out your points. I think your interpretation is wrong, which is similar to your behavior and I come in and states out why I feel u r wrong (emphasising on homosexual acts yet ignoring other blatant laws tat were stated)But you say you are powerless because of choices made by Christians.... as I remember you were not happy with Christians who go into other forums to discuss choices made by other non-Christians. Isn't this contradictory? You come in because it's our fault, we go to other places to discuss it is also our fault.... so you think everything is our fault????
Why don't u refresh my memory but tellign when have I ever not happy with christian who go into other forums to discuss choices made by non-christians ? Wat do u mean by choices made by non-christians ? U mean these non-christian choose to be buddhist and some guy go in and shoot their religion ? Please use less vague words so I get a better picture of wat u r complaining aboutWell seems you did not really answer my question because you shifted the blame to the Christians.... let me ask you a couple of questions:
Did I ever say everything wrong is caused by christian ?
Is everything wrong caused by Christians only?
What do you hope for Christians to discuss in EH that does not piss you off? Why do u get tis idea from ? Wat do I hope Christian discuss in EH. Why, tis very topic about homosexuality etc should be discussed in EH. Did I say i am pissed off ? So everybody who argue for the sake of gays r all pissed off while u r the only one tat is not pissed off ?although not really my point lah... but my opinion is one can be discriminated without discrimination put on them. Sometimes it is a martyr's syndrome. When you read about comments by black people, it always seem that the whole world is against them, but many issues are really a lack of self worth.
The words made by the pope is already a blatant attack and cause much discrimination on gays. U mean when the pope say tat gays r wrong, making a lot of christians reinenforced with tis idea and come out openly, and proudly to say they discriminate gays is really the homosexual fault because they have a low self esteem ? Com'on... when a country openly condemn another u also see much backlash form the abused country as wellTake care buddy.... how's work.... not too busy I hope....
Hopefully after tis week I will be more free. Bad news huh
-
Wait .. let's go one step at a time, shall we? Is his interpretation on homosexual acts correct or wrong? If wrong, why is it wrong? Dun care whether he emphasized homo acts yet ignored other blatant laws.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I think your interpretation is wrong, which is similar to your behavior and I come in and states out why I feel u r wrong (emphasising on homosexual acts yet ignoring other blatant laws tat were stated)
Basic biblical theology ? If jesus cruxification and resurrection promised salvation regardless of laws u break then why condemn homosexual ?
The issue is not whether a homo can receive salvation, but whether a homo christian who has received Christ should keep his old habit. Now, if a behaviour is considered a "sin" (note how Scripture defines sin, in particular how the OT defines sin .. check a hebrew lexicon), then it would be not pleasing to God. Now if something is not pleasing to God, then it should not be done, cos God has loved you, will you bear to break His heart? So don't bring in "Jesus promised salvation regardless of laws u break" .. obviously xtians shouldn't use this to justify them telling lies and other bad things.
It is basically because the pope had sort of place an encouragement for people to be anti-gay. As such, the number of people who r anti-gay increases. Why put the blame on them ? Because they made the problem worse
So should we blame the non-xtians who are anti-gay as well? Are you saying they are less guilty than those xtians who "made the problem worse"?
I have probably heard tis from u a billion times and I have probably answered them too. If I use science to discuss about homosexuality nobody really give a damn about it.
Not all issues can be discussed via science. If science shows a person suffering from "genetic booz effects" (forgot what was the term Uncle Eng used), hence natural the way you define it, then should we allow him to indulge in alcohol? This is not a scientific issue you know?
Then let me ask u tis question. If bigamy and everybody, including the children agree to it, r u gonna condemn and stop him ? If u ask me, it is their business and since they r so happy with tat decision, let them be.
Moral issue. If you volunteered to be stabbed by me, is it right? If I kill you, am I a murderer? I heard the state views suicide as a criminal case? Why is the state so kaypoh?
The words made by the pope is already a blatant attack and cause much discrimination on gays. U mean when the pope say tat gays r wrong, making a lot of christians reinenforced with tis idea and come out openly, and proudly to say they discriminate gays is really the homosexual fault because they have a low self esteem ?
Nope. You twisted his point. He means many gays complained they are discriminated, but many times it is 'cos of lack of self worth. They complained until it is like the whole christian world is against them. -
If this is the case, then there is really no need to recognise sin, we also should not condemn bigamist, drug addicts etc either. The issue here about salvation is whether one wants to acknowledge his behaviour as sinful. Only then will salvation come.
Basic biblical theology ? If jesus cruxification and resurrection promised salvation regardless of laws u break then why condemn homosexual ?
What has the pope got to do with me? My opinions, as well as the whole bulk of protestants are entire our own...
It is basically because the pope had sort of place an encouragement for people to be anti-gay. As such, the number of people who r anti-gay increases. Why put the blame on them ? Because they made the problem worse
Nope, you can use science to discuss homosexuality for non-Christians. My argument is still: Christians should not misuse scripture to justify their stand. Period. Yes I believe that the Bible is the infalliable word of God as should every Christian. A Christian should not change that. Where you are concern, you don't see the Bible as a Christian does, so it make this entire exchange rather difficult.
I have probably heard tis from u a billion times and I have probably answered them too. If I use science to discuss about homosexuality nobody really give a damn about it. If I use the scripture then will christian start to pay attention to it because they can't brush it aside as wrong. The real question is, U believe they r infallible words from the god. U thought tat the way u make sense of it is the only way. I am trying to show tat either they r really just empty words or the way u translate the verses may not be the correct/only way
You only assume that being nymphomaniac is destructive.... and it is considered as a mental illness.... but doesn't the bulk of the society considers homosexuality a mental illness too...? And who decides what a mental illness... obviously it depends on who you are siding isn't it. Where bigamy is concern it is a social decision isn't it. Even if the participants agree to it, the society and the government condemns it doesn't it...
Then let me ask u tis question. If bigamy and everybody, including the children agree to it, r u gonna condemn and stop him ? If u ask me, it is their business and since they r so happy with tat decision, let them be. From the way u reply it seems u r gonan stop, curse or perhaps cut off relationship with him if he choose to do the things which tat really isn't anything wrong with it. Nymphomaniac is obviously more destructive to his own self and to others than being homosexual As said before, it is consider as a mental illness. So wat is your problem with it
No, where this case is concern, I don't think you are wrong: from the non-Christian stand point. All I am asking Heng is to tell me where, as he claimed, that I have twisted my scripture.... I had already state my views on the other laws of the OT. I know you will continue to disagree with many of these because your mindset and world view of Christian is different from Christians, so this one got no ending.
Isn't tat wat I have been arguing about U think your interpretation is right and others r wrong. Tat is why u come in and said out your points. I think your interpretation is wrong, which is similar to your behavior and I come in and states out why I feel u r wrong (emphasising on homosexual acts yet ignoring other blatant laws tat were stated)
What the difference between Christian who goes into a Buddhist forum and telling them that they are wrong and you coming to EH and telling us we are wrong?
Why don't u refresh my memory but tellign when have I ever not happy with christian who go into other forums to discuss choices made by non-christians ? Wat do u mean by choices made by non-christians ? U mean these non-christian choose to be buddhist and some guy go in and shoot their religion ? Please use less vague words so I get a better picture of wat u r complaining about
I was ASKING a question. I did not say you made that claim that everything wrong is caused by Christian? I am asking if you think that way, and you have already answered that question.
Did I ever say everything wrong is caused by christian ? Why do u get tis idea from ? Wat do I hope Christian discuss in EH. Why, tis very topic about homosexuality etc should be discussed in EH. Did I say i am pissed off ? So everybody who argue for the sake of gays r all pissed off while u r the only one tat is not pissed off ?
The second one is also a question: What do you hope for Christians to discuss in EH that does not piss you off? again you have answered that question.
Again the Pope thing. hey, I don't care about the pope. My opinions are entirely my own. As I'd clearly stated: I have an issue with individuals or groups who use the Bible for their own agenda. I am sure we agree on the stand on City Harvest. See, here is where we may have disagreed (but I think did not) that CHC has twisted scripture for their own benefit.
The words made by the pope is already a blatant attack and cause much discrimination on gays. U mean when the pope say tat gays r wrong, making a lot of christians reinenforced with tis idea and come out openly, and proudly to say they discriminate gays is really the homosexual fault because they have a low self esteem ? Com'on... when a country openly condemn another u also see much backlash form the abused country as well
The difference is that you are sympathetic to homosexuals but not to the folks at CHC. Look, I am sympathetic to the homosexual plight too, and declared that they should have their own rights. Just don't use unrelated verse like Eccl to make these claims and ignore the strong words in Romans and 1 Corinthians.
Buddy, I can tell that you are very compassionate person who have your own brand of justice and I respect that. Also I agree with you that many Christians are really a pain in the neck. My angle for this argument is a very very small angle: the Christian intepretation of the Bible to suit one's needs. Anyone wishes to counter that must prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Eccl HAS HOMOSEXUAL IMPLICATION and ROMANS/CORINTHIANS has other meanings. It as simple as that. As much as there are other verses in the OT that condemns homosexuality, I have refrain from using that as prove because I don't wish to go through the OT/NT differences again as well as the difference between the Mosaic convenant and the New convenant concept in the Bible.
Hopefully after tis week I will be more free. Bad news huh
after tis week I will be more free. Bad news huh
Not really bad news lah.... you know we don't talk that much anyway.... All I want is for some comprehensible explanation from gay-Christians as to how Eccl is homosexual related and that Romans/Corin does not apply to them.... and possibly any other evidence that the Bible condones homosexuality... -
Ice-man....
Kam sia...... you know what I am talking about...... at least no need to vomit blood today....
Jehovah Shammah! Bro... (sis? sorry not sure) heheheh -
simi laide? haha .. never heard before.Originally posted by Chin Eng:Jehovah Shammah! Bro... (sis? sorry not sure) heheheh
Cannot be hebrew cos they don't call God Jehovah. -
Let's discuss these issues one step at a time:
Originally posted by Icemoon:
The issue is not whether a homo can receive salvation, but whether a homo christian who has received Christ should keep his old habit. Now, if a behaviour is considered a "sin" (note how Scripture defines sin, in particular how the OT defines sin .. check a hebrew lexicon), then it would be not pleasing to God. Now if something is not pleasing to God, then it should not be done, cos God has loved you, will you bear to break His heart? So don't bring in "Jesus promised salvation regardless of laws u break" .. obviously xtians shouldn't use this to justify them telling lies and other bad things.
"Do not do it" means total abstinence or orientation change?
1) Total abstinence - Does that mean that someone with a homosexual orientation should not have the rights to love? Is this fair? Or is it that "gays can love but cannot have sex?
2) Orientation change - We have illustrated time and again that orientation change therapy doesnt work because you simply cannot teach a fish to fly. This position is taken by the majority of the health professions. Not just by gay organisations. The following article details both camps and should be a good summary, you are encouraged to read specifically the red paragraph:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proponents
Various religious and ex-gay organizations, including PFOX, Exodus International, NARTH and the International Healing Foundation, as well as various minor ex-gay and transformational ministries advocate the belief that reparative therapy is genuine and works.
Conversion therapies are also advocated by various religious family values groups such as the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family.
Specific proponents, such as Charles Socarides, often have gay sons, leading some to suspect they are working out their own psychological issues in public through their advocacy of a therapy that doesn't work.
Opponents
Reparative therapies are opposed by a variety of groups, including gay rights organizations such as GLAAD, Stonewall and Outrage.
More importantly, many various professional medical and psychological bodies condemn conversion therapies. Such bodies include:
American Psychiatric Association (APA)
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Medical Association
American Psychological Association
American Counseling Association
American Federation of Teachers
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Social Workers
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Education Association
Royal College of Nursing.
On the question of whether therapy can change sexual orientation the APA answers:
"No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable." [4] (http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#cantherapychange)
Some religious organisations also oppose reparative therapies, including The Interfaith Alliance, New Ways Ministries and People for the American Way.
In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association developed and endorsed a statement reading:
The most important fact about 'reparative therapy,' also sometimes known as 'conversion' therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a 'cure.' ...health and mental health professional organizations do not support efforts to change young people's sexual orientation through 'reparative therapy' and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm. -
Continuing from the last post.
It is clear that even those who proposed that "orientation change" therapy works couldn't change his own orientation. There are tonnes of related articles if you are keen. The fact simply is, you can't teach someone to fall in love with another person that you are unattracted to.
john paulk, leader of ex-gay ministry quits
By News Editor
John Paulk, possibly the most well known "ex-gay" man in the United States, has announced on Monday he is resigning from his leadership role in Focus on the Family, a group that "converts" gay people to heterosexuality.
John Paulk, a self-described ex-gay has announced on Monday he is resigning from Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family to move with his wife and three sons closer to family in the Pacific Northwest.
John Paulk's media credentials include a Newsweek cover feature (with his ex-lesbian wife Anne), a series of religious right-sponsored ads that appeared in newspapers across the US and his 1998 autobiography, Not Afraid to Change: The Remarkable Story of How One Man Overcame Homosexuality.
"My time at Focus on the Family has been the most rewarding professional and ministry experience of my life. I will always have a heart for men and women struggling with homosexuality, but after working 16 years on this contentious issue, it's time for me to pursue other endeavours," Paulk said in a statement released Monday.
The 40-year-old, who joined the conservative Christian group in 1998, will leave his post as manager of the Homosexuality and Gender Department at FoF, on May 6.
Paulk and his wife, Anne, who claims to be a former lesbian, drew national attention in 1998 for appearing on the cover of Newsweek and full-page ads in newspapers like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal with messages about "overcoming" homosexuality and appearing in Oprah, 60 Minutes and other TV shows.
They promote the belief that gays and lesbians can leave homosexuality through prayer and counselling, a belief rejected by the medical establishment.
In 2000, Paulk caused a scandal after being spotted and photographed in a gay bar in Washington, D.C. He initially said he didn't know it was a gay bar, but later admitted he knew. Later, he claimed that he had gone in to use the bathroom although other patrons said he spent nearly an hour at the bar.
Paulk was removed (but later reinstated) as chairman of Exodus International, an interdenominational Christian organisation with chapters around the world including Singapore and Australia. The incident was also a major setback to the "ex-gay" movement.
Paulk is the author of "Not Afraid to Change: The Remarkable Story of How One Man Overcame Homosexuality" and co-creator of FoF's Love Won Out seminars.
Mike Haley, who helped create Love Won Out, will take over Paulk's position.
"(Paulk's) leaving is nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's a sinking proposition, the thinking that homosexuality can be changed through therapy." Said David Smith, spokesman for the national gay rights group Human Rights Campaign. -
Yup, Christianity is not the only religion that's against homosexuality. All 3 religions from the Abrahamic root are homophobic. In fact, Iran just executed 2 young teens (15-16) 2 weeks ago, reason being:"They are gays". But that does not mean that Christians have the rights to make things worse.Originally posted by Icemoon:So should we blame the non-xtians who are anti-gay as well? Are you saying they are less guilty than those xtians who "made the problem worse"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality
The world's three major Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, have historically been the primary sources condemning homosexuality in the world. The first recorded law against homosexuality is found in Leviticus, and it prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts between men. Today some major denominations within these religions have accepted homosexuality, arguing that it was originally intended as a means of distinguishing between Judaism and pagan faiths, and is thus no longer relevant.
Christianity
Main articles: Homosexuality and Christianity
The attitude of Early Christians toward homosexuality has been much debated. One side has cited denunciations of sodomy in the writings of the era, such as in the Didache and in the writings of Saint Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Eusebius, St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and in doctrinal sources such as the "Apostolic Constitutions" - for example, Eusebius of Caesarea's statement which condemns "the union of women with women and men with men". Others claim that passages have been mistranslated or they do not refer to homosexuality. Some Christians maintain that the Bible, principally in Leviticus 18 and Romans 1, denounces homosexual activity as a sin, in the eyes of God an "abomination" — a term used to describe a wide range of offenses, from incest and bestiality (sex with animals) to the eating of prohibited foods.
Among the prominent Christian figures known to have had same-sex relationships, Richard I of England had a relationship with King Philip II of France, Ralph Archbishop of Tours had his lover John installed as bishop of Orleans with agreement of both the King of France and Pope Urban II, and a number of popes and cardinals, especially during the Renaissance, also shared the popular tastes for handsome youths, so prevalent at the time in northern Italy.
Other Christians of the time were critical of homosexuality. St. Thomas Aquinas denounced sodomy as second only to bestiality (sex with animals) as the worst of all sexual sins, and St. Hildegard's book "Scivias", which was officially approved by Pope Eugenius III, related visions in which same-sex relations are condemned as "perverted forms". -
Science had demonstrated that homsexuality is not a mental disorder/emotional problem. but Alcoholism is.Originally posted by Icemoon:Not all issues can be discussed via science. If science shows a person suffering from "genetic booz effects" (forgot what was the term Uncle Eng used), hence natural the way you define it, then should we allow him to indulge in alcohol? This is not a scientific issue you know?
The general opinion of psychologists can be summarised in the paragraph below. APA is the biggest Psychologist Association in the world. It represents the voice of those who have credentials to classify whether a certain deviation is considered as abnormality or not.
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?
No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information. In the past the studies of gay, lesbian and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.
When helping gays, APA proposed targeting at other symptoms that MIGHT be associated with being gay (i.e., depression or other mood issues if that particular gay for one reason or another choose not to accept his homosexuality). Such treatment is similar to those straight clients who might experience depression, lack of self-worth, etc. But not ALL gays need to receive treatments. Most gays are rather well-adjusted and contribute a great deal to the society.
No treatment (from APA professionals) was ever done to address homosexuality itself..
For Alcoholism:
http://www.health-news-and-information.com/4cfvhs/libv/i13.shtml
For someone with a serious drinking problem, APA says willpower alone isn't enough; outside help is essential. (Read about "Addiction") An alcoholic may need medically supervised detoxification, otherwise potentially life-threatening withdrawal symptoms such as seizures (Read about "Seizures") may occur. Depending on the extent of the problem, outside treatment and therapy may involve office visits, hospital stays or residential treatment programs. Alcoholics also need ongoing help resolving psychological issues that may be associated with problem drinking.
Alcoholism is a problem because Alcoholics cause excessive harm not only to himself but to his family and friends. And APA (American Psychological Association) recognises this as a substance dependent disorder. -
Err... If there is evidence that SIS gave you instruction to kill him (with a vidoe tape) and SIS has been proven to be worthless of a life, you might have the right in stabbing him. In fact, this is very similar to the moral debate behind euthanisia. Is it right to end someone's life if he/she has found not to be able to perform normally anymore?Originally posted by Icemoon:Moral issue. If you volunteered to be stabbed by me, is it right? If I kill you, am I a murderer? I heard the state views suicide as a criminal case? Why is the state so kaypoh?
As for suicide, no comments. Not exactly a moral issue other than the fact that his/her parents will be overly upset. If the state is interested in helping, they should resolve the depression problem. -
There are 2 points here:Originally posted by Icemoon:Nope. You twisted his point. He means many gays complained they are discriminated, but many times it is 'cos of lack of self worth. They complained until it is like the whole christian world is against them.
1) Gays being murdered in cold blood just because they are gays.. Remember Matthew Shepard:
The attack
Shortly after midnight on October 7, 1998, 21-year-old Matthew Shepard met Aaron James McKinney and Russell Arthur Henderson in a bar. After he confided to them that he was gay, they deceived him into leaving with them in their car. He was robbed, severely beaten, tied to a fence and left to die. McKinney and Henderson also found out his address, intending to burgle his home. Shepard was discovered 18 hours later, alive and unconscious.
Shepard suffered from a fracture from the back of his head to the front of his right ear. He also had catastrophic brain stem damage, which affected his body's ability to regulate heartbeat, body temperature, and other vital signs. There were also about a dozen small lacerations around his head, face and neck. His injuries were deemed too severe for doctors to operate. Shepard never regained consciousness and remained on full life support. He died at 12:53 a.m. on October 12 at Poudre Valley Hospital in Fort Collins, Colorado.
The blood on Shepard's face had been partly washed away by tears, indicating that he had been conscious for some time after the beating. He had been pistol-whipped 18 times with a .357-caliber revolver.
Police arrested McKinney and Henderson shortly thereafter, finding the bloody gun as well as the victim's shoes and credit card in their truck. The two murderers had attempted to get alibis from their girlfriends.
[edit]
The trial
It is believed that McKinney and Henderson had posed as homosexuals in order to trick Shepard into trusting them. During court cases both of the defendants used varying stories to defend their actions. Most notably they used the "gay panic defense", arguing that they were driven to temporary insanity by Shepard's alleged homosexual advances towards them. At another point they stated that they had only wanted to rob Shepard, and never intended to kill him.
Henderson pleaded guilty on April 5, 1999 and agreed to testify against McKinney to avoid the death penalty; he received two consecutive life sentences, without the possibility of parole. The jury in McKinney's trial found him guilty of first degree murder. As it began to deliberate on the death penalty, Shepard's parents brokered a deal, resulting in McKinney also receiving two consecutive life terms without the possibility of parole. Shepard's parents stated, "We are giving him life in the memory of one who no longer lives" (local Roman Catholic clerics garnered considerable publicity when they stridently opposed the death penalty in the case). Since being imprisoned, McKinney and Henderson have both attempted to justify their actions by claiming that they were dictated by the Bible.
It's just strange that people can even think of using the Bible as a defence on such crimes. -
It's even more outrages that a local Rev did not want to give Matthew his peace:
The aftershock
As Shepard lay in intensive care, around the world well attended candle-lit vigils were held in support. The public reaction, and media attention, was dramatic and brought issues of homophobia and gay-bashing to the forefront of public debate.
People in the entertainment industry expressed their own outrage and responded in various ways to the hate represented by the attacks. Actress Ellen DeGeneres hosted Shepard's memorial services in Washington, D.C. where she said that her coming out of the closet shortly before the attacks was "to keep this type of thing from happening". Lesbian singer Melissa Etheridge wrote the song "Scarecrow" in a tribute to Shepard, referring to his initially being mistaken for a scarecrow when he was found. Elton John and Bernie Taupin wrote the song "American Triangle" a tribute to Shepard (I've seen a scarecrow wrapped on wire/left to die on a high ridge fence). It was featured on John's 2001 album, Songs from the West Coast. The fence upon which Shepard was tied and left to die has been declared a nationally protected monument. The rock band Thursday, also played a song named "M. Shepard" about the incident and the reason society let it happen. Three films were made about the story of Shepard: The Laramie Project (based on the play of the same name), The Matthew Shepard Story and Anatomy of a Hate Crime. The Laramie Project and The Matthew Shepard Story both won numerous awards. Matthew Shepard can also be seen in the documentary Dear Jesse, in a brief interview.
The anti-gay Rev. Fred Phelps and his supporters picketed Shepard's funeral, as well as the trial of his assailants. They displayed signs typical of their protests, with slogans such as "Matt Shepard rots in Hell", "AIDS Kills Fags Dead", and "God Hates Fags". Phelps has since made attempts to gain a city permit to build a monument "of marble or granite 5 or 6 feet in height" on which will be a bronze plaque bearing Shepard's picture and the words: "MATTHEW SHEPARD, Entered Hell October 12, 1998, in Defiance of God's Warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22."
As a counterprotest during Henderson's trial, Romaine Patterson, a friend of Shepard's, organised a group of individuals who assembled in a circle around the Phelps group wearing white robes and gigantic wings that literally blocked the protesters (who were confined to a small protest square by police) from the view of passers-by. While the organisation had no name in the initial demonstration, it has since been ascribed various titles, including 'Angels of Peace' and 'Angel Action'.
A similar angel tactic has been reused a number of times at other protests by Phelps, but less effectively as the "Angels" are now required to stay in their own separate protest square.
Matthew's parents Judy and Dennis are now active supporters of gay rights and tolerance educators.
The Shepard case prompted President Bill Clinton to renew attempts to extend federal hate crime legislation to include gay and lesbian individuals, women and people with disabilties. These efforts were rejected by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives in 1999.
You might think that this happened in 1999, a good 6 years ago.. However, such hate crimes are prevalent.. You can just key in gay bashing on google search engine.. And tonnes of articles will surface.. -
Returning to your other point about self-worth..
Isn't self-worth related to whether people are being discriminated or not? Just imagine if someone tells you day-in day-out that "you are a worthless piece of xxxx", how would be feel?
Psychologists had demonstrated that homosexuality is not an emotional problems. Problems will arise only if the homosexual in question cannot reconcile homosexuality with his own self-concept.. When will such things happen? It's only through negativism that such negative self-concept, self-worth will rise.
The most prevalent cases would be religions.. In fact, I was always wondering why gays choose to be Christians?
Is it doing them more harm than good? Hmm.. Just wondering.. -
wow .. that is one whole load of replies.Originally posted by earthlings73:The most prevalent cases would be religions.. In fact, I was always wondering why gays choose to be Christians? Is it doing them more harm than good? Hmm.. Just wondering.. How to reply siah? Anyway thanks for breaking them up and increasing the post count.
Gays choose to be Christians 'cos they think God will forgive them? cos they know even if the whole world reject them, God will stand by their choice. my 1 cents.
Imagine God clapping His hand in heaven .. "you are the one I made bent" .. *diao* -
Because from these exchanges, it's clear that there are lots of misunderstandings and misconceptions abt gays. To include everything under one post would make the post too long and hence would not appear on the board.Originally posted by Icemoon:wow .. that is one whole load of replies. How to reply siah? Anyway thanks for breaking them up and increasing the post count.
Gays choose to be Christians 'cos they think God will forgive them? cos they know even if the whole world reject them, God will stand by their choice. my 1 cents.
Imagine God clapping His hand in heaven .. "you are the one I made bent" .. *diao*
btw, most of the articles I've included are from neutral parties, i.e., American Psychological Association and Wikipedia.. Not from gay sources.. -
then as u say, to each his own. I wish you luck when u have to face God.Originally posted by sgdiehard:The rules were written for a long time, the owner confirmed what were written through the experience of members. If anybody has any doubt, they can always go to the owner. You decide, ask him for clarification on what you do not understand, if you want to enter the gym, or if you choose to question him on his right to set the rules, you probably has decided that you do not want to go in.
Our fundamental difference is that you do not believe that the Bible is the word of God, to you it is written with some human prejudice, Â…Â…. but to me, the Bible is the basis of my belief, without which, there is no Christianity!! With such fundamental difference, I cannot hope for your agreement on issues whose morales are based on the Bible. Thank God, the world is big enough to accommodate all kinds of people.
Discussions and arguments among Christians are theological, discussions with non Christians are at most philosophical, but Christianity is a personal encounter with God, it is not a philosophy, can share experience but cannot debate. Also my knowledge is not so good as uncle Eng and Icemoon lah... -
-
I have read Earthling's story before....
that story is a fine example of what SHOULD not happen to a gay person. There is no way the two murderers can justify their actions, and by using the Bible to support what they are doing is a good example how felons can twist scripture. There is also no reason for the anti-gay pastor to stage the protest.
The American society is full of people who very bias inclination. These people do not necessarily have to come from the main-stream Christian groups. There are groups in America that calls themselves Christian but are in fact, racist, or at best ultra-conservative in their outlook of the world. I have personally met people who have never left their home state, or even their home town. So it is safe to say that some portion of the American society is extremely ulu.... I have even been mistreated because I am non-white - in Disneyland, no less, by some redneck and his son. On the other hand, I have met wonderful Americans who welcome me to their homes and trust me to play with their children....
I enjoy Ellen DeGeneres immensely despite of her orientation and am feeling really good that she is said to be hosting the new Emmy Awards. Melissa Etheridge, not so much because I don't like her songs (not because she's gay). Elton John music is cool. Loved his collaboration with Blue.
I don't think there are that many Christians here in Singapore that will make a distinction between these entertainers and non gay entertainers.
The issue is still: How does a gay-Christian justify FROM the Bible, that the Bible supports homosexuals...? If a gay-Christian comes up to me and say that he/she sees no justification in the Bible but is unable to revert from his/her lifestyle, I am ok with that because every individual have our own bugbear of sins. As I'd said, I have plenty and will never claim that I am perfect. I admit my sins to God and continue to move on, will not attempt to justify for whatever I am doing by blatantly twisting scripture. I do not see a homosexual sin as larger than any other sins.... in God's eye, sin is sin. -
Thank you, actually what I need grace not luck. Your analytical mind, your zeal and persistance in what you do will certainly help a lot of people if it is used in interpreting God's word the way God wants it. May God reveals Himself to you. Have a good day.Originally posted by HENG@:then as u say, to each his own. I wish you luck when u have to face God. -
Being a non-christian, I'm not qualified to address this issue.Originally posted by Chin Eng:The issue is still: How does a gay-Christian justify FROM the Bible, that the Bible supports homosexuals...? If a gay-Christian comes up to me and say that he/she sees no justification in the Bible but is unable to revert from his/her lifestyle, I am ok with that because every individual have our own bugbear of sins. As I'd said, I have plenty and will never claim that I am perfect. I admit my sins to God and continue to move on, will not attempt to justify for whatever I am doing by blatantly twisting scripture. I do not see a homosexual sin as larger than any other sins.... in God's eye, sin is sin.
There are 2 events being held in conjunction with IndigNation (the inaugural Gay PRIDE month in Singapore). They will definitely welcome straights for the discussion. In fact, their panel includes straights too. btw, the pastor helping out this effort is straight who's happily married (for 50 years) with 4 children.
A Safehaven Forum
Sex and the Christian Gay Person
In a world where there are so few models and much suppression of open discussion, it is pretty hard to figure out just how Christian gay and lesbian persons should live as sexual beings? Is only sex after marriage permissible? But we aren't allowed to marry! How do I re-connect with my body, which I have rejected all these years? I feel guilty each time I feel sexual. Is sexual experimentation acceptable? And then what about relationship models – is monogamy the only option? What about recreational sex for the single gay person? If sex is not just for procreation, why not just recreate? Come and hear our panel of straight and gay persons (which include a retired bishop and a newly married gay man) share their views and answer your questions.
Exploring Paul, Homosexuality and the Romans
– An Intensive Workshop on Biblical Interpretation
by Center for Reflexive Theology
The issue of what St. Paul taught about homosexuality has become one of the most divisive theological issues of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The Center for Reflexive Theology (CRT) is pleased to announce a series of lay workshops on methods of Biblical interpretation using PaulÂ’s statements on homosexuality in Romans. We will start with a textual analysis of Romans in August exploring what the text of Romans itself says. In following months, the CRT workshops will focus on an historical analysis of ideas and concepts that influenced St Paul, followed by a contemporary reading of Paul and ending the series with a summary of various approaches to PaulÂ’s view of homosexuality. The objective of the workshops is not to defend or speak against homosexuality but to explore how to approach an ancient text so that it can remain relevant to the 21st century. Come and be enriched. -
Wait .. let's go one step at a time, shall we? Is his interpretation on homosexual acts correct or wrong? If wrong, why is it wrong? Dun care whether he emphasized homo acts yet ignored other blatant laws.
Well, according to some response from gay website, they say his, and probably most christians interpretations r wrong. Chin Eng says they have twisted the words of the scripture and tat is why he come out to state his stand. For me, if u ask me, christians have been twisting the words of the bible when it come to issues such as prawn eating etc as well. If u ask a person who strictly follow the words, he will come around and tell him tat he had committed a crime as serious as gays.The issue is not whether a homo can receive salvation, but whether a homo christian who has received Christ should keep his old habit. Now, if a behaviour is considered a "sin" (note how Scripture defines sin, in particular how the OT defines sin .. check a hebrew lexicon), then it would be not pleasing to God. Now if something is not pleasing to God, then it should not be done, cos God has loved you, will you bear to break His heart? So don't bring in "Jesus promised salvation regardless of laws u break" .. obviously xtians shouldn't use this to justify them telling lies and other bad things.
So u meant to say tat christian had to follow certain rules and code to please god. Homosexual, to most christians r wrong because they interprete god do not like homosxual. However god also interprete prawn eating as an abomination but christians still go all out and eat prawns. To most people, they feel a ban on prawn eating is ridiculous and their idea of god would not impose such insignificant ridiculous rules. SOmewhere something must be interpreted wrongly and prawns should be allowed to eat. Similarly to some gays, their idea of god would not be unfair and impose rules that was, to their understanding, caused by god himself.So should we blame the non-xtians who are anti-gay as well? Are you saying they are less guilty than those xtians who "made the problem worse"?
If u ask me, yes all people regardless for their belief should be blamed for discrimination. Especially so if someone important and influential publicly condemn and bring encouragement for the masses to openly and proudly discriminateNot all issues can be discussed via science. If science shows a person suffering from "genetic booz effects" (forgot what was the term Uncle Eng used), hence natural the way you define it, then should we allow him to indulge in alcohol? This is not a scientific issue you know?
As said before, if he get some "genetic booz effect diesease or something", when he drink more than usual (I hope I get your effect right), we don't go and condemn him, ill treat or isolate him for his actions.Nope. You twisted his point. He means many gays complained they are discriminated, but many times it is 'cos of lack of self worth. They complained until it is like the whole christian world is against them.
Well, the whole christian world is sort of against them. Some of them r not allowed to even go to church or at least face some form of discimination from some of the members.If this is the case, then there is really no need to recognise sin, we also should not condemn bigamist, drug addicts etc either. The issue here about salvation is whether one wants to acknowledge his behaviour as sinful. Only then will salvation come.
Then if tat is the case, many serious crimes have been committed on a regular basis for a normal christian. In tat case, then how do u classify wat is sinful and wat is not ? Shouldn't we follow the OT since god personally come down, in fact for numerous occasions to emphasis on its importance. Or should we just follow the laws given by the country since they have been weighted and rationalise.What has the pope got to do with me? My opinions, as well as the whole bulk of protestants are entire our own...
The starting fuse for tis debate is the comment made by the pope. No one is saying tat the pope is emulating u or something. Wat is your comment on the remarks made by him ?Nope, you can use science to discuss homosexuality for non-Christians. My argument is still: Christians should not misuse scripture to justify their stand. Period. Yes I believe that the Bible is the infalliable word of God as should every Christian. A Christian should not change that. Where you are concern, you don't see the Bible as a Christian does, so it make this entire exchange rather difficult.
For a long time I have been asking why does christian not follow the rules stated in the OT. And very similar to the response of homosexuals, they came up with many reasonings and lines tat, to me, is also twisting the words of the scripture to suit their purpose. They say tat the rules r for jews, yet can't give an answer why is it for jews and not for christians. They say tat christians do not have to since they r given grace but they find it difficult to explain why does jesus states tat those who do not follow OT r not likable to god and give a terrible conclusion tat christians can do anything they like without any fear of retribution. IMO, their behavior is similar to gays trying to say tat the 2 verses in the bible is interpreted wrongly. U see, these 2 groups of people r really the same. Aren't u committing the same offence tat u disapprove ?You only assume that being nymphomaniac is destructive.... and it is considered as a mental illness.... but doesn't the bulk of the society considers homosexuality a mental illness too...? And who decides what a mental illness... obviously it depends on who you are siding isn't it. Where bigamy is concern it is a social decision isn't it. Even if the participants agree to it, the society and the government condemns it doesn't it...
Not really, I believe the bulk of society treat it as a natural ailment. Who decides if it is a mental illness or not, well, obviously the experts in tis field such as psychartrist and perhaps people who study genes in human being. On bigamy, its wiser to talk from an individual level. (Tis is because from the society point of view, it is almost impossible to have no victim in tis arrangement.) If u know someone who had a mistress who lived together with his wife and they all lived happily, r u gonna discriminate him or isolate him ?What the difference between Christian who goes into a Buddhist forum and telling them that they are wrong and you coming to EH and telling us we are wrong?
For one thing, if u go around the forum posting other threads on religion, it is likely someoen will suggest we go over to eternal hope for the discussion. So here we r in eternal hope.I don't wish to go through the OT/NT differences again as well as the difference between the Mosaic convenant and the New convenant concept in the Bible.
If u do not want to go through the differences, then I really see no point in discussing about ROMANS/CORINTHIANS or Eccl either. -
Well I have already stated who Leviticus is meant for.... the Israelites and their leaders. There are so many verses in this book stating clearly who should be reading it. So can we now give the prawn issue a rest. I just had three crayfish last night....
Well, according to some response from gay website, they say his, and probably most christians interpretations r wrong. Chin Eng says they have twisted the words of the scripture and tat is why he come out to state his stand. For me, if u ask me, christians have been twisting the words of the bible when it come to issues such as prawn eating etc as well. If u ask a person who strictly follow the words, he will come around and tell him tat he had committed a crime as serious as gays.
[/quote]
Aiyah... the prawn issue again..... well let's look at the context of Leviticus:
Leviticus
1:1The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting. He said, 2"Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `When any of you brings an offering to the LORD, bring as your offering an animal from either the herd or the flock.
4:1The LORD said to Moses, 2"Say to the Israelites: `When anyone sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands--
7:22The LORD said to Moses, 23"Say to the Israelites: `Do not eat any of the fat of cattle, sheep or goats. 24The fat of an animal found dead or torn by wild animals may be used for any other purpose, but you must not eat it. 25Anyone who eats the fat of an animal from which an offering by fire may be made to the LORD must be cut off from his people.
and....11:1The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2"Say to the Israelites: `Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: 3You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud.
4" `There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5The coney,A though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 6The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 7And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.
9" `Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales--whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water--you are to detest. 11And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. 12Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you.
..... plus many, many verses speaking clearly who the target audiences are.... unless I am an Israelite, I'd say the entire book of Leviticus is not really meant for me, doctrinally.
Quote one verse without the context in which they were spoken and written can be so dangerous.....
Like I say I really don't care what his comments are. I like him less than John Paul. He also condemned Harry Potter...
The starting fuse for tis debate is the comment made by the pope. No one is saying tat the pope is emulating u or something. Wat is your comment on the remarks made by him ? and maybe coffee and diet coke too... who cares....
You assume that all bigamous relation are problematic. Might not be so.
Not really, I believe the bulk of society treat it as a natural ailment. Who decides if it is a mental illness or not, well, obviously the experts in tis field such as psychartrist and perhaps people who study genes in human being. On bigamy, its wiser to talk from an individual level. (Tis is because from the society point of view, it is almost impossible to have no victim in tis arrangement.) If u know someone who had a mistress who lived together with his wife and they all lived happily, r u gonna discriminate him or isolate him ?
My argument is NOT on discrimation. I have specifically stated that I am against discrimination.My argument is about translation and understanding of the Bible.
[quote]
If u do not want to go through the differences, then I really see no point in discussing about ROMANS/CORINTHIANS or Eccl either.
Ecclesiastes is a book about the vanity of life and worldly wisdom....
Romans and Corinthians are books written to Gentile Christians....
It's okay if you don't see any point to discuss these books.... I am sure you have a good reason for feeling so and I respect that.