07-22-2007, 04:14 AM
Gee, I thought that men wrote the bible. (Maybe some women helped, it wouldn't surprise me, although they probably haven't received any credit.)
07-22-2007, 04:14 AM
07-23-2007, 04:35 PM
Part of the problem with Christians who support the idea of homosexual activities are being a sin -- except a sinner to repent -- that is stop doing that sin --
They usually offer no support to people who are homosexual such as is offered people who have drug or alcohol addictions. So do they just expect someone to change their sexual orientation or it the sexual orientation theory total crap? About the only website I have found that discusses the matter is this one. http://www.narth.com/
Homosexuality was taken off the DMV as a mental disorder in order to help with prejudice against homosexuals. In many countries it was illegal to be a homosexual and it is still illegal in some countries. It was also said that therapies for "overcoming" homosexuality were not effective. So what help could someone who did not want to be homosexual get from psychiatry?
They usually offer no support to people who are homosexual such as is offered people who have drug or alcohol addictions. So do they just expect someone to change their sexual orientation or it the sexual orientation theory total crap? About the only website I have found that discusses the matter is this one. http://www.narth.com/
Homosexuality was taken off the DMV as a mental disorder in order to help with prejudice against homosexuals. In many countries it was illegal to be a homosexual and it is still illegal in some countries. It was also said that therapies for "overcoming" homosexuality were not effective. So what help could someone who did not want to be homosexual get from psychiatry?
07-23-2007, 07:26 PM
Some people do not understand the scriptures and just one verse is quoted her. You need to read the whole chapter:
"If we do take the bible as literal we have to take awful laws imo as legal. Like when a virgin gets raped in the fields, the man has to pay her father and has to marry the girl. What law will force a girl to marry her rapist? (Deut 22:28)"
The case being that a righteous woman would refuse premarital or extramarital sex. If in a town and she did not scream and people came to rescue her, she would be considered guilty unless other facts in the investigation by the elders were found out that proved her to innocent. If she was in a field and no one could her scream, then she would be innocent. Deut 22:25 The penalty is death to the man and not the woman since she is considered innocent.
Deut 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die." The penalty is death for willing participants.
Had he abused an engaged girl, in the fields, he would have been brought to death. (Deut 22:25-26). Why is the punishment different then?
Because he 'spoiled' goods belonging to another man. The whole girl is not important at all.
The girl is important so the rapist is fined. See Exodus 22:16 "if a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps wih her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins." And since widows could also remarry, women were not considered "worthless" if they were not virgins. nor were they consider "property" if divorce was not allowed in some cases. Male relatives also have some obligations to care for female relatives who were widowed or orphans. Refer to Ruth.
So really, if a man knows that the girl is going to scream and he gets caught, he is going to have either be executed (if she is married) or pay a fine and marry her with no option of divorce -- he might not be so likely to rape a woman. So really, are these laws for protecting the women or the men?
"If we do take the bible as literal we have to take awful laws imo as legal. Like when a virgin gets raped in the fields, the man has to pay her father and has to marry the girl. What law will force a girl to marry her rapist? (Deut 22:28)"
The case being that a righteous woman would refuse premarital or extramarital sex. If in a town and she did not scream and people came to rescue her, she would be considered guilty unless other facts in the investigation by the elders were found out that proved her to innocent. If she was in a field and no one could her scream, then she would be innocent. Deut 22:25 The penalty is death to the man and not the woman since she is considered innocent.
Deut 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die." The penalty is death for willing participants.
Had he abused an engaged girl, in the fields, he would have been brought to death. (Deut 22:25-26). Why is the punishment different then?
Because he 'spoiled' goods belonging to another man. The whole girl is not important at all.
The girl is important so the rapist is fined. See Exodus 22:16 "if a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps wih her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins." And since widows could also remarry, women were not considered "worthless" if they were not virgins. nor were they consider "property" if divorce was not allowed in some cases. Male relatives also have some obligations to care for female relatives who were widowed or orphans. Refer to Ruth.
So really, if a man knows that the girl is going to scream and he gets caught, he is going to have either be executed (if she is married) or pay a fine and marry her with no option of divorce -- he might not be so likely to rape a woman. So really, are these laws for protecting the women or the men?
07-24-2007, 04:56 AM
This whole thread---eek!
07-24-2007, 03:23 PM
"10. “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.”
That one makes no sense. No one in the history of the world ever kept that commandment. I don't care if somebody covets my stuff. It doesn't hurt me any."
Well coveting will hurt you. Being jealous and envying people can start the thinking and discontentment leading to some people acting out their feelings in actions towards the person they are envious of.
That one makes no sense. No one in the history of the world ever kept that commandment. I don't care if somebody covets my stuff. It doesn't hurt me any."
Well coveting will hurt you. Being jealous and envying people can start the thinking and discontentment leading to some people acting out their feelings in actions towards the person they are envious of.
07-26-2007, 04:13 AM
I believe that some so-called Christians are driven by fear. I saw this so clearly back in 88 or 89, I forget which, when we were trying to get an HIV anti-discrimination ordinance passed by city council. The process entailed two public hearings followed by a session where the council was to make its decision. At the first session, several people with HIV or AIDS testified and a few people opposed testified. Very civil. But one of the people there alerted the Christian radio stations that this ordinance was being discussed...so at the second hearing hordes, hundreds, of "Christians" showed up to demonstrate. They had all sorts of placards saying things like "protect our healthy children from AIDS" and "AIDS is God's punishment for queers"--stuff like that. I was given the job of "personing" an information table....and I had people yelling at me and telling me I was doing the work of the devil. It was one of the strangest experiences of my life and I understood for the first time how it was that the Holocaust could have happened in Germany. I really believe these were mostly "good" people--the kind who would bring casseroles to sick people and comfort the sorrowful. But they were terrified of the unknown--no amount of epidemiology could overcome, palliate or address their emotional response to the unfamiliar.
The city council passed the anti-discrimination ordinance.
I love liberal California.
The city council passed the anti-discrimination ordinance.
I love liberal California.
07-26-2007, 05:40 AM
It was Pasadena, Max
I have spent the past hour or so pouring through the AIDS community newsletter journals we put together between 87 and 90 trying to find the issue where several of us wrote about the process of getting that ordinance passed. (Life before the internet--geez...I tried googling and couldn't find it.)
It was October 88.
In that issue, we have an interview with William Thomson, then mayor of Pasadena. He said: "Pasadena, I think, has a very long, and a very good history of being a caring and compassionate community. It is one in which people get involved and demonstrate their concern for each other." "It was interesting to see the discussion [about the ordinance] taking place because we had people present with very deeply held religous views who were quite concerned about the prospect of AIDS spreading and spoke very strongly in opposition to the ordinance. We had people who were equally sincere in their religious convictions who were speaking passionately in support of it."
This is so weird....reading through various people's commentary written almost 19 years ago on a process that was so profound--we devoted most of an issue to it, since so many people in our small AIDS organization were involved. And so many of these people are now dead. I'll quote parts of the testimony from one of the women in our group. We printed the whole thing under the title...."Deciding on an AIDS ordinance: what would the Master do?"
"My name is Catherine and I'm HIV positive. Shortly after I found out I was HIV positive my doctor, whom I'd been going to with my son for many years, sent me a letter in the mail stating that he wouldn't treat me or any member of my family anymore....For the past couple of Mondays I've sat and listened to lots of things said here, some in the name of Christianity. Since I'm also a Christian, I became very perplexed over the tone here. So I looked up the word 'Christianity' and it said: "the religion founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ." So I looked up 'Jesus' and 'Christ' and it said: "The Messiah, Jesus." So I looked up "Messiah" and it said: "a liberator or deliverer."
We all know that Jesus lived an exemplary life of service. He's the model. As Christians we can always ask the question in any given situation: What would the Master do? or What would He have me do? If Jesus was a liberator and deliverer, and we are to follow in His ways, then we need to ask ourselves the question: Is what I'm standing up for herre tonight going to deliver my brothers and sisters with AIDS? Will it liberate them? -- or will it oppress them, deny them?
Jesus came to strengthen the weak, heal the sick, seek out the poor, and bind up the wounded. And he told us to do the same. But as I've sat through these proceedings for the last three Mondays, it has sounded more like what's wanted here is to bind me up, not my wounds. As I've said, I'm HIV positive, and that means that unless I have sex with you or my blood intermingles with yours, I am not a danger to you....Being HIV positive means that I need even more encouragement, health care and support. It means I could die next month or next year or ten years from now. But if I die ten years from now, within that ten year period, I could live a pretty healthy life. Should I be denied jobs, health care, housing, trade, and on and on for ten years? Can one imagine Jesus, the liberator and deliverer, endorsing such an attitude? Jesus asks us: How are we responding to those of the flock he has entrusted to our care?...
As flawed human beings, oftentime we hide a bad motive under a good one. If we're going to talk Christianity here, let us first look deeply into ourselves and check our true motives for how we feel about this ordinance and then ask the quesiton: What would the Master do?"
I have spent the past hour or so pouring through the AIDS community newsletter journals we put together between 87 and 90 trying to find the issue where several of us wrote about the process of getting that ordinance passed. (Life before the internet--geez...I tried googling and couldn't find it.)
It was October 88.
In that issue, we have an interview with William Thomson, then mayor of Pasadena. He said: "Pasadena, I think, has a very long, and a very good history of being a caring and compassionate community. It is one in which people get involved and demonstrate their concern for each other." "It was interesting to see the discussion [about the ordinance] taking place because we had people present with very deeply held religous views who were quite concerned about the prospect of AIDS spreading and spoke very strongly in opposition to the ordinance. We had people who were equally sincere in their religious convictions who were speaking passionately in support of it."
This is so weird....reading through various people's commentary written almost 19 years ago on a process that was so profound--we devoted most of an issue to it, since so many people in our small AIDS organization were involved. And so many of these people are now dead. I'll quote parts of the testimony from one of the women in our group. We printed the whole thing under the title...."Deciding on an AIDS ordinance: what would the Master do?"
"My name is Catherine and I'm HIV positive. Shortly after I found out I was HIV positive my doctor, whom I'd been going to with my son for many years, sent me a letter in the mail stating that he wouldn't treat me or any member of my family anymore....For the past couple of Mondays I've sat and listened to lots of things said here, some in the name of Christianity. Since I'm also a Christian, I became very perplexed over the tone here. So I looked up the word 'Christianity' and it said: "the religion founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ." So I looked up 'Jesus' and 'Christ' and it said: "The Messiah, Jesus." So I looked up "Messiah" and it said: "a liberator or deliverer."
We all know that Jesus lived an exemplary life of service. He's the model. As Christians we can always ask the question in any given situation: What would the Master do? or What would He have me do? If Jesus was a liberator and deliverer, and we are to follow in His ways, then we need to ask ourselves the question: Is what I'm standing up for herre tonight going to deliver my brothers and sisters with AIDS? Will it liberate them? -- or will it oppress them, deny them?
Jesus came to strengthen the weak, heal the sick, seek out the poor, and bind up the wounded. And he told us to do the same. But as I've sat through these proceedings for the last three Mondays, it has sounded more like what's wanted here is to bind me up, not my wounds. As I've said, I'm HIV positive, and that means that unless I have sex with you or my blood intermingles with yours, I am not a danger to you....Being HIV positive means that I need even more encouragement, health care and support. It means I could die next month or next year or ten years from now. But if I die ten years from now, within that ten year period, I could live a pretty healthy life. Should I be denied jobs, health care, housing, trade, and on and on for ten years? Can one imagine Jesus, the liberator and deliverer, endorsing such an attitude? Jesus asks us: How are we responding to those of the flock he has entrusted to our care?...
As flawed human beings, oftentime we hide a bad motive under a good one. If we're going to talk Christianity here, let us first look deeply into ourselves and check our true motives for how we feel about this ordinance and then ask the quesiton: What would the Master do?"
07-26-2007, 05:59 AM
And reading myself, 19 years ago, I find this: "And the truth shall make you crazy"
"One balmy night last August I had the furtune (I'm not sure whether it was good or bad) to sit at an information table outside Pasadena's City Hall while the Hearings for the AIDS anti-discrimination ordinance were proceeding upstairs. I talked with several who showed up, including a woman who shouted to me that the Devil was blinding my eyes from the TRUTH! Truth, in her eyes, meant that AIDS patients should all be put away in a hospital somewhere so that normal people wouldn't have to deal with them.
"No," mused I, the Devil is not doing me such a favor. As I have become increasingly "AIDS Aware" over the last two years, my eyes have had to encompass difficult, wondrous, and complex truths. Let me share three of them.
<what follows is a discussion of the first truth "AIDS is not a 'civilized' disease... and the second truth, "AIDS makes things once familiar and ordinary seem very strange" and the third truth: "AIDS calls into question one's relationships with others."> Regarding this last truth, I wrote:
"For me, one of the most painful aspects of the anti-discrimination ordinance hearings was listening to people who I think are basically well-intentioned commit themselves to views that have disgusting implications. I often find myself wondering how people would respond to me if I said I was HIV positive. Who would shun me? Who would embrace me? It scares me to recognize that I don't know some of the important people in my life all that well. (I'm not sure I know myself all that well either.) So whom do I trust? As I experience the dark side of others, I wonder about the dark side of myself. Am [u]I[/] really all that trustworthy, given my internal dragons? Am I willing to confront difficult facts about my own lack of emotional and intellectual integration as I criticize others for their insensitivity? Am I strong enough to grow in the ways I need to grow? Am I walking in the way of truth?
"The Truth Shall Make You Free." The Devil, I say! What it comes to AIDS, the truth shall make you crazy.
---------
Max, thank you for your question that sent me on this search through my pile of AIDS newsletters....I have a hard time looking at them, because they bring back so many memories of an astonishing period of my life. I had never heard of Asperger's then. But because of the differences I always perceived in myself, I guess, I've felt a connection to other outsiders.
"One balmy night last August I had the furtune (I'm not sure whether it was good or bad) to sit at an information table outside Pasadena's City Hall while the Hearings for the AIDS anti-discrimination ordinance were proceeding upstairs. I talked with several who showed up, including a woman who shouted to me that the Devil was blinding my eyes from the TRUTH! Truth, in her eyes, meant that AIDS patients should all be put away in a hospital somewhere so that normal people wouldn't have to deal with them.
"No," mused I, the Devil is not doing me such a favor. As I have become increasingly "AIDS Aware" over the last two years, my eyes have had to encompass difficult, wondrous, and complex truths. Let me share three of them.
<what follows is a discussion of the first truth "AIDS is not a 'civilized' disease... and the second truth, "AIDS makes things once familiar and ordinary seem very strange" and the third truth: "AIDS calls into question one's relationships with others."> Regarding this last truth, I wrote:
"For me, one of the most painful aspects of the anti-discrimination ordinance hearings was listening to people who I think are basically well-intentioned commit themselves to views that have disgusting implications. I often find myself wondering how people would respond to me if I said I was HIV positive. Who would shun me? Who would embrace me? It scares me to recognize that I don't know some of the important people in my life all that well. (I'm not sure I know myself all that well either.) So whom do I trust? As I experience the dark side of others, I wonder about the dark side of myself. Am [u]I[/] really all that trustworthy, given my internal dragons? Am I willing to confront difficult facts about my own lack of emotional and intellectual integration as I criticize others for their insensitivity? Am I strong enough to grow in the ways I need to grow? Am I walking in the way of truth?
"The Truth Shall Make You Free." The Devil, I say! What it comes to AIDS, the truth shall make you crazy.
---------
Max, thank you for your question that sent me on this search through my pile of AIDS newsletters....I have a hard time looking at them, because they bring back so many memories of an astonishing period of my life. I had never heard of Asperger's then. But because of the differences I always perceived in myself, I guess, I've felt a connection to other outsiders.
08-04-2007, 08:03 AM
It's very important in my view not to dismiss the various different types of sexuality as being "all the same". The main types are ethically/morally the same but that does not make them the same overall.
In my view there are 4 basic types of sexuality (not including the actual illegal and downright disgusting ones):
Heterosexuality - attraction to the opposite sex
Homosexuality - attraction to the same sex
Bisexuality - attraction to both sexes (though some bisexuals complain about this description as they may prefer one sex over another)
Asexuality - no sexual attraction
Those 4 basic types are all the same in terms of ethics - if your partner is consenting then it's good, but the partner may be the same or opposite sex. On top of the 4 basic types there's also the illegal types such as paedophilia, zoophilia/beastiality, necrophilia etc - this is due to the total lack of informed consent in these cases, but do not lump them all together - that kind of oversimplification causes major problems.
In my view there are 4 basic types of sexuality (not including the actual illegal and downright disgusting ones):
Heterosexuality - attraction to the opposite sex
Homosexuality - attraction to the same sex
Bisexuality - attraction to both sexes (though some bisexuals complain about this description as they may prefer one sex over another)
Asexuality - no sexual attraction
Those 4 basic types are all the same in terms of ethics - if your partner is consenting then it's good, but the partner may be the same or opposite sex. On top of the 4 basic types there's also the illegal types such as paedophilia, zoophilia/beastiality, necrophilia etc - this is due to the total lack of informed consent in these cases, but do not lump them all together - that kind of oversimplification causes major problems.
08-05-2007, 08:04 AM
hyke Wrote:
Yes Guess Who.
You know what I said, but you don't react. As I said I do take the theological in your thread serious. You seem not too.
Taking the bible literal is letting men getting away with rape again and again.
How would you ever tell a women it would be safe to be a Christian if you can't distance yourself from those texts in the bible?
And I'm dead serious about that question.
You can not, I mean CAN NOT talk about the love of god and take those texts as righteous. Unless you still think women are just property of men and have no value or personality of their own.
You know what I said, but you don't react. As I said I do take the theological in your thread serious. You seem not too.
Taking the bible literal is letting men getting away with rape again and again.
How would you ever tell a women it would be safe to be a Christian if you can't distance yourself from those texts in the bible?
And I'm dead serious about that question.
You can not, I mean CAN NOT talk about the love of god and take those texts as righteous. Unless you still think women are just property of men and have no value or personality of their own.
I wondered about these things myself. It is a common criticism of christianity that women are treated as second-class citizens and all too often, quotes from the bible are used to justify treating women and homosexuals as lower class people.
I also think it's presumptuous to say who is and isn't "saved". God is the only one who really knows. All you can say is you think somebody is "likely" to go to heaven or hell. As you don't know their innermost thoughts and all their deeds, you're really relying on guess work and that is all.
08-24-2007, 09:21 PM
It may be USED offensive, but there is nothing offensive in the ethymology of both "homosexual" and "negro"....
"Homosexual" - from Grees "homos" = "the same" and latin "sex" = "gender", i.e. someone who loves people of own gender. What's offensive about it?
"Negro" - from Spanish "negro"="black". Well, they are black. Nothing offensive. It are racists who made it sound offensive.
"Homosexual" - from Grees "homos" = "the same" and latin "sex" = "gender", i.e. someone who loves people of own gender. What's offensive about it?
"Negro" - from Spanish "negro"="black". Well, they are black. Nothing offensive. It are racists who made it sound offensive.
08-24-2007, 09:23 PM
Edit: the latin word for gender is "sexus".
08-24-2007, 09:25 PM
"Gay", on the other side, is an euphemism... So what is less offensive? I still don't understand why they (people of unusual sexual orientation) needed to construct an euphemism for their sexual preferences.
08-25-2007, 04:57 PM
Ziyaret has been given a 24 hour ban and has been warned to not be abusive/threaten etc.
08-26-2007, 01:28 PM
Quote:
A "euphemism" is a polite and pretty word for something frightening, evil or disgusting. If that is how you see gay people, I can't help you.
Not really. Here is how Wikipedia defines it. "Euphemism is the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant to the listener; or in the case of doublespeak, to make it less troublesome for the speaker." That's the situation with "homosexual" and "gay". "Homosexual" is actually "inoffensive" (see ethymology of it), but it "may offend" gay people because of its offensive use. So they (gay people) substitute "homosexual" (which may offend them) by "gay".