"You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality"
As I am more or less ignorant when it comes to the New Testament (I hang my head in shame - really - but in the meantime:) what is the meaning of "blood" in this context?
Posts: 97 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blood. Like the red, drippy stuff that comes out when you kill animals or get a paper cut. Honest.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
in food? cuz don't christians eat meat with food? and wouldn't that constitute "picking and choosing" regarding commandments?
Posts: 97 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by skillery: I know a person who has one X and one Y chromosome in each cell, has a surgically-created vulva, and lives with and has sexual relations with a person who has two X chromosomes. Not even the Bible could find a saint/sinner shoebox for this person based on what I've just described.
Why do you think that? Do you think that such things are the sum total of a person's existence? Look at the good and evil they do in their lives if you want to know what kind of person they are. Keep your head out of their chromosomes, their crotches, and their bedrooms. None of those places are any business of yours.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But Telp didn't and BB was pretty disrespectful about Telp not knowing it,
If he was disrespectful, it was in response to a charge of hypocrisy founded on factually inaccurate perceptions of the faith of the people he was levying that charge against. And right after an admonition from you that people should educate themselves about a group before judging it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It might have been more helpful to give Blackblade a hand instead of setting him up for a failure (in your expectation, anyway). I prefer to educate people rather than make them look bad. I'm kind of disappointed that after the last time this came up, you're still doing it.
How, exactly, would that have been more helpful? What is it you think I'm trying to help here?
I had no idea of whether or not BB was familiar with the basics of the Bible enough to know about the Council of Jerusalem. Many Christians aren't. Telp obviously wasn't.
So I presented an oppurtunity for BB to provide information instead of insult for Telp or to expose a common ignorance of one of the basics of the Christain religion.
If it were the first case, BB had an opportunity to make up for or at least explain his previous impolite behavior. If it were the second, it gave him an opportunity to recognize a serious flaw in the way he holds his beliefs.
I'm not sure how "giving him a hand", by which I assume you mean me telling Telp (and possibly BB) about the Council of Jerusalem, would have been more helpful here. From my perspective, it wouldn't have served as well in either case.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would serve better than seemingly delighting in pointing out someone else's short-comings, which serves nothing but ill.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I understand Reiko. Are you saying that it is better that a person have a deeply flawed conception of their religion and why they believe in things than for someone to point this out?
Do you think that not knowing what the Bible says while claiming to be taking your instructions from it is okay?
If so, I disagree with you on both these things.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm amazed that a search of the archives turned up exactly what I'm remembering. I usually have dismal luck with searches.
The impression I got from this thread was that asking that question is something of a litmus test for you. And I very strongly disagree with the way you set people up. If you're telling me that your motivations in asking that question have sincerely changed, I'm delighted, but I think you still need to work on your phrasing. If they haven't, I remain deeply disappointed, because I think you do people a disservice.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have many motivations. Part of it is yes, I do like to know when people are lying to me (and often to themselves). My motivations have no changed in that regard at all. Part of it is also I regard the many Christians out there who know very little about their religion to be troublesome, both based on what I know about people like that and from what should be their perspective.
Don't you think that it is better for people to know the Bible, especially those who claim to base their lives around it?
Let me address it from a different angle. You're Catholic. One of the differences that many Protestant groups have with your conception is that they believe that the salvation is based solely on faith, as per Paul's statement from Ephesians:
quote:“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
Now, I've had occasion to discuss this with various Protestants and - being a former red letter Christian - I've been amazed by how many of them haven't even considered what Jesus had to say at the end of Matthew 25:
quote:31 "But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory.
32 Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33 He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then the King will tell those on his right hand,'Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
35 for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you took me in.
36 I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.'
37 "Then the righteous will answer him, saying,'Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink?
38 When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you?
39 When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?'
40 "The King will answer them,'Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'
41 Then he will say also to those on the left hand,'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels;
42 for I was hungry, and you didn't give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink;
43 I was a stranger, and you didn't take me in; naked, and you didn't clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn't visit me.'
44 "Then they will also answer, saying,'Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn't help you?'
45 "Then he will answer them, saying,'Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn't do it to one of the least of these, you didn't do it to me.'
46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
When I mentioned this, they wre caught by suprise with the very idea. Is it better that I not bring this up in such a way that would encourage them to consider it?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've done that, too. It's part of the give-and-take of inter-denominational dialogue. I say "but have you considered this?" I don't dig a hole for anyone to fall into before I enlighten them. You're talking really fast here, but things still don't add up. There are constructive ways of debating, and what you do with this Council of Jerusalem question is not one of them.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How would you suggest that I handle it? You may have noticed in the previous thread you linked I specifically mentioned times were I tried the "Have you considered this?" approach and had it yield poor results.
Both in terms of changing someone's mind and in terms of adversarial debate, what I did has turned out to be a more effective tactic than what you are proposing.
We're dealing with a situation where there is a common attack made on the Christian reliance on Levitical laws as against homosexuality. Telp was by no means the first person to bring up a bunch of the other laws from Leviticus that Christians no longer follow. And, time after time, the response to this, by people who claim that the laws from the Bible say that homosexuality is wrong, lacks any sort of reference to the part in the Bible where it is clearly laid out how Christians are supposed to view the laws from Leviticus and which compeltely answers the objections raised.
If you don't know the Council of Jerusalem, you have no business talking about what the laws of the Bible say you should believe. I have trouble understanding at times why people who apparently believe that people should follow the laws in the Bible have problems with me insisting that people should know this.
Mentioning it the way you do has led to, in my experience, congitive dissonance and lies - "Oh...yeah...I knew about that all along." Setting it up the way I have creates a social and personal situation that generally precludes lying and is extreme enough to sometimes counteract the cogntive dissonance.
People who don't know the Bible but claim to are insincerely religious. Most of the time, they don't even know this. They are complacent in their ignorance and thier lack of commitment to the religion. This is a problem affecting many, many Christians. This group also tends to exhibit the highest levels of many of the bad things that seem to plague certain types of religious people (prejudice, for example).
I do try to disrupt their conplacent insincerity, but that's because I do truely believe that sincere Christianity has a large potential for good. I'd figure that this would be a goal I would share with actual Christians, but it seems I am going to keep meeting with people who are upset because my insisting on sincere religion makes people in their in-group look bad.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is important when discussing the Bible to recall the context in which it was written. The Apostles lived during certain times and their views sometimes reflected those times. And they did nhot always get things right. The reference in Acts to sexual immorality - as well as Paul's two cautions should be read with an eye to, for example, the perceived conflict between earthly things and spiritual things and the influence of the Stoics on the early Church.
It should also, most importantly, be read in the context of the whole of the Gospels. It is interesting to note that Jesus is not recorded as mentioning it even once. It always strikes me as odd that something that wasn't even on His agenda should be so high on ours.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So does that mean, by new testement laws, christians who have a rare steak are committing a sin equal to the vague, ill defined "sexual immorality"?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was refering to the actual bible verse. If you'd like to be the one to clarify, that'd be swell =)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well...the context of that verse was an argument as to whether or not gentiles who wanted to become Christians must follow the whole of Mosaic Law. This was quite a fierce argument in the early church. I think that this may have indicated a compromise position.
And, as you said, "sexual immorality" is pretty vaguely defined. It could reference all of OT Law regarding sexual behavior (not just homosexuality) or we could read it as behaving in ways that were considered sexually immoral at the time. I think it is most helpful for me to understand what "sexual immorality" means for me (let me know if it would be helpful for you to know that if you haven't already figured it out from other posts) and refrain from that behavior.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now, I've had occasion to discuss this with various Protestants and - being a former red letter Christian - I've been amazed by how many of them haven't even considered what Jesus had to say at the end of Matthew 25:
One of the best homilies I have ever heard (and I have been spoiled - I get to hear a lot of great preachers) was on this text.
The priest noted that students, upon receiving some new bit of information, always wanted to know "if it was going to be on the final". He read the text and said, " That's what's going to be on the final."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Telp: If I came across as direspectful it was never my intention. I admit that when I made my initial response to your post I was mildly caught up in my emotions. I could have more respectfully explained why your reasoning for disliking evangelical logic was flawed. You are right that Jesus did not say, "I have come to destroy the prophets and what they said," but he did say, "I have come to fulfill the law." Meaning that the Law of Moses was designed to set people up for the new law that Jesus was bringing. Jesus time and time again presented his new ideas when the pharisee presented the Law of Moses' perspective. The ideas were incompatible. Adultery was not tolerated, but you didnt need to execute the offender, it was more important to help the person and address the condition that brought about the offense. It honestly is not about picking and choosing what you believe. The Old testament is useful as showing us a history of God's dealings with His people, but it isnt useful as rule book for how modern Christians ought to live.
So in one sense the OT does count as Christian in that it was pointing the people towards belief in a Christ who would save them from their sins. But in another it does NOT count as Christian in that it does not dictate authoritively how Christians ought to worship their God.
MrSquicky: I must confess I do not see the flaw you described me as, "having." I personally feel I am acceptably versed in the Bible. Were you suggesting that I knew the NT rejects homosexuality but that I did not know where?
Karled: I merely meant that many people HONESTLY think the world will be a better place if homosexuality is opposed, rather then embracing it. Homosexuals believe they (and the world)will be happier if society accepts homosexuality as normal or even beautiful and its right to express that part of themselves. Both sides think the world will be a better place if their view prevails, and both sides think the world is a terrible place if their view fails.
I was not suggesting that we could lump every homosexual into one big group and effectively discuss them as such. Obviously being homosexual is one part of the individual, we don't lump all the black haired people together and discuss patterns of behavior. Though apparently red haired people are ill tempered.
Pixiest: The NT is not binary code. You dont have all sins as 0's and all good acts as 1. You could argue the commandment to abstain from blood is to abstain from pagan rites where drinking the blood of animals would allow you to consume its strength. Or you could argue its unhealthy to just drink raw blood (most people agree this is true). Its doubtful Paul wanted us to take that passage to the Massai living in Africa and strongly condemn them from drinking the blood of their cattle which they do as a survival measure. Or it would be equally wrong to create a "gospel hobby" around this principle and say "Those who drink rare steak are as bad as murderers!"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Why do you think that? Do you think that such things are the sum total of a person's existence? Look at the good and evil they do in their lives if you want to know what kind of person they are. Keep your head out of their chromosomes, their crotches, and their bedrooms. None of those places are any business of yours.
Exactly! Did I not make my point?
You're an ornery, contrary little stinker aren't you.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, you have helped formulate what is one of my biggest struggle with that particular passage. I understand your interpretation is very common (perhaps even canon?), but I've always felt that the interpretation doesn't include the full meaning of "fullfilment". Now it may be that the underlying Greek/Aramaic is more clear, but to me Jesus says he doesn't come to abolish the Law, and even after his death Jewish Christians, such as they were, still were required to follow all of the Mosaic Laws. Rather, he came to fulfill it, and to me that means he was the living, breathing embodiment of the Law, which is not only awesome in it's premise, but also works to hearken to the Old Testament prophecies.
I don't think Jesus replaced, or even modified (speaking of course from a Christian apologist's perspective) the Law. I don't think the New Testament supports this view with it's use of "fulfillment". His example was to be the Law (which, from this POV is circular in logic) and teach it to everyone he could. --
BB, you mention a sophistication with the :don't drink blood", and its one that some more liberal/progressive Christian theologians have put forth, which is that all these requirements were related to how they were to worship in a Gentile Christian way. "Sexual immorality" could mean (and I think this idea has some merit) no modified Dionysian Ecstasies allowed between the sermon and the offering
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Why do you think that? Do you think that such things are the sum total of a person's existence? Look at the good and evil they do in their lives if you want to know what kind of person they are. Keep your head out of their chromosomes, their crotches, and their bedrooms. None of those places are any business of yours.
Exactly! Did I not make my point?
You're an ornery, contrary little stinker aren't you.
Ornery, yes. Contrary, frequently. Stinker, <sniffs> not that I can tell. And no, you didn't make any point except that you're of a prurient bent.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: BB, you have helped formulate what is one of my biggest struggle with that particular passage. I understand your interpretation is very common (perhaps even canon?), but I've always felt that the interpretation doesn't include the full meaning of "fullfilment". Now it may be that the underlying Greek/Aramaic is more clear, but to me Jesus says he doesn't come to abolish the Law, and even after his death Jewish Christians, such as they were, still were required to follow all of the Mosaic Laws. Rather, he came to fulfill it, and to me that means he was the living, breathing embodiment of the Law, which is not only awesome in it's premise, but also works to hearken to the Old Testament prophecies.
I don't think Jesus replaced, or even modified (speaking of course from a Christian apologist's perspective) the Law. I don't think the New Testament supports this view with it's use of "fulfillment". His example was to be the Law (which, from this POV is circular in logic) and teach it to everyone he could. --
BB, you mention a sophistication with the :don't drink blood", and its one that some more liberal/progressive Christian theologians have put forth, which is that all these requirements were related to how they were to worship in a Gentile Christian way. "Sexual immorality" could mean (and I think this idea has some merit) no modified Dionysian Ecstasies allowed between the sermon and the offering
-Bok
Interesting point on Jesus being the embodiment of the law, he did in fact observe it all the way until he himself was ressurected (to many this signifys the conclusion of the law). I think you might find it interesting that the conference in Jerusalem was very much rooted in "How much of the Law of Moses still applies to Christians," specifically on the question of whether its right to be circumcized. Paul argued circumcision was unrequired, many Jews still supported it and Peter sympathized with them. It was ultimately decided that Paul was in the right.
For Mormons its an even easier problem to solve as there is a passage in the Book of Mormon about Nephite who followed the Law of Moses to the letter but looked forward to the day when Jesus would come and the law would no longer be neccesary. There was even a group of radicals that had to be corrected when they errenously interpreted the star that signified Jesus' birth as the end of the law of Moses.
Alma 25:15-16 "15 Yea, and they did keep the law of Moses; for it was expedient that they should keep the law of Moses as yet, for it was not all fulfilled. But notwithstanding the law of Moses, they did look forward to the coming of Christ, considering that the law of Moses was a type of his coming, and believing that they must keep those outward performances until the time that he should be revealed unto them. 16 Now they did not suppose that salvation came by the law of Moses; but the law of Moses did serve to strengthen their faith in Christ; and thus they did retain a hope through faith, unto eternal salvation, relying upon the spirit of prophecy, which spake of those things to come."
and 3rd Nephi 1:24 "24 And there were no contentions, save it were a few that began to preach, endeavoring to prove by the scriptures that it was no more expedient to observe the law of Moses. Now in this thing they did err, having not understood the scriptures."
theres one scriptures that describes post ascencion Nephites
4th Nephi 1:12 " 12 And they did not walk any more after the performances and ordinances of the claw of Moses; but they did walk after the commandments which they had received from their Lord and their God, continuing in fasting and prayer, and in meeting together oft both to pray and to hear the word of the Lord."
Of course you might not accept the BOM as canon (I do).
Sorry for derailing the thread, Ill get back on topic, but to quote Mr. Card
"If we can't digress, why bother conversing in the first place?"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa: Prurient? What terminology might I have used that would have been less offensive to your sensibilities?
If you are offended then you should know that homosexuality is all about "chromosomes and crotches," and you should avoid threads with such words in their titles.
My point: the authors of the Old Testament and New Testament may not have anticipated everything that people of the future would do with their "crotches," and it would be foolish to expect to find Biblical commentary on every instance of what we may percieve as deviations from the Judeo-Christian norm. It would be even more foolish for one person to judge another based on a personal interpretation of Biblical content.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:no modified Dionysian Ecstasies allowed between the sermon and the offering
I'm still trying to figure out if this would hurt or hinder church attendance. I mean, there are some people I definately do now want to see in modified Dionysian Ecstasies.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Dag, What's your point?
This was:
quote:If he was disrespectful, it was in response to a charge of hypocrisy founded on factually inaccurate perceptions of the faith of the people he was levying that charge against. And right after an admonition from you that people should educate themselves about a group before judging it.
Was there some particular point you were incapable of understanding? Is there something specific you'd like clarified?
If not, just reread the quote. That was my point.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, to me that passage illuminates that God does not discriminate among the nations, as far as who was given the Holy Spirit. It doesn't say the Law is superceded. I see nothing to suggest that Mosaic Law didn't still apply to Jewish Christians. ---
Who exactly do you "now (sic)" want to see in Ecstasies, hmmm?
posted
Bokonon at the risk of being offensive did you mean the Bible passage did not have the same meaning for your as it did for me? Or the BOM verses as well?
I think the fact God kept telling Peter to not call anything common or unclear went directly in the face of several rules laid out in the Law of Moses.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, I didn't say that you did or didn't know the passage I was talking about. I specifically left that open.
It is, however, a common thing, both on Hatrack and in the outside world.
---
There are major problesm with the way Christianity is practices by a large number of people today. There were even more problems clearly existant in history. It bothers me that when someone points these out or tries to do something about them in a way that makes the people with a problematic grasps of religion look bad, he gets jumped on by people who in a perfect world should be helping him.
In this thread, BB, you've repeatedly stuck up for Exodus and the ex-gay movement. Why? You don't seem to know anything about them.
I do. And I crticized them based on this knowledge. They are doing bad. They are violating important codes of professional ethics and causing predictable harm to many of the people who trustingly come to them for help. Many of them straight out lie about their programs and their successes. The rest pursue treatments that rest not on a valid scientific basis, but rather on political and religious ideology.
I brought up snake oil salesmen before. It's sort of like that, sort of like a couple of steps above beating schizophrenics to get the demons out of them. Oooh, or excorcizing them, something that still goes on in certain places.
Although, to me, it's worse in a way. The excorcists are ignorant. The ex-gay people are not. Though a number of them have had their credentials revoked because of their unethical behavior, they purport to be trained therapists. They knowingly violate the ethical codes set up for the therapist/client relationship.
In response to this, you said:
quote: I just get riled up when people get so angry at people who think they are doing right. If they are not doing good in your opinion, at least work with them instead of railing against them.
I'm not sure what role you see me taking in the assistance with these creationists in the psychological sphere. My focus is more on exposing the emptiness of this position and their unethical behavior so that Christians and others who are struggling with being gay don't at the very least get swindled and often get more psychological trauma dumped on them.
Until not that long ago, some groups would strap people into a chair a pull A Clockwork Orange aversive conditioning sessions on them. You think people shouldn't have tried to stop them?
---
You see, I'm honestly trying to do good. I also have whatI think are good reasons for the beliefs I have.
I don't just blast Christianity or religion. There are many, many instances on this site where I've stood up for both. I've repeatedly said that Christianity, done right, has great potential for improving society.
When I think it's being done wrong or that there are problems with certain types of belief or groups, I go into an explanation of why I think so, often pulling in examples or work from outside the religious sphere. The work I do is almost entirely on the more general issues that I then see specific instances of.
But it seems like all some people read is "blah blah blah. I'm baselessly and simplistically attacking Christianity/religion. blah blah blah."
posted
It makes me wonder why he thinks his girlfriend is with him. Must be for the money or the nice car, because it obviously can't be for the nice body. o_O
Posts: 2762 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, the former, at least for this particular passage. I'm not a member of the LDS, and so while I'm sure it backs up your point, it is moot to me.
Peter was given a specific vision, at a specific time. He is also in an era where the law (from a Christian perspective) was so overrought in its attempt to satisfy the Mosaic Law, that I would say it actually failed it. Hence, IMO, Jesus' embodiment of the Law. Of course, if God makes something previously unclean, clean, that doesn't mean he's abolished his Law in all times and places, rather he has simply performed a miracle, which is within his right and power
posted
Bok, kind of like any official secret that the president gives to the press is no longer a secret since the President has the miraculous legal power to de-classify it, so he can never be a leak.
Sorry for the digression, but the comparison, both valid arguments but uncomfortable, screamed out at me.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Karled: I merely meant that many people HONESTLY think the world will be a better place if homosexuality is opposed, rather then embracing it. Homosexuals believe they (and the world)will be happier if society accepts homosexuality as normal or even beautiful and its right to express that part of themselves. Both sides think the world will be a better place if their view prevails, and both sides think the world is a terrible place if their view fails.
I don't think honest intent ameliorates destructive behavior. As far as one view "prevailing" I hope with all my heart that it is my view and that has less to do with the fact that I'm gay but with the fact that I love freedom and believe that sexual identity is one area even more fundamental than the freedom of speech or religion where no one should be forced into someone else's concept of what they should be.
However, insofar as the discussion is about groups like Exodus, I'm a little ambivalent. I think their tactics are naive and largely ineffectual, but are they harmful? This raises a whole host of questions, the answers to which could have ramifications far beyond any questions of "curing" homosexuality. To the degree that their program is voluntary, should they not have the right to provide assistance to people who want to fit their mold?
I look at the program as just one more example of misguided religion.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr.Squicky/KarlEd: Sorry to lump you both together this post sorta flip flops between you two, so not every comment is directed to one.
I know little or nothing about the program Exodus. All I have heard anybody say is its a program where they attempt to super charge homosexuals with masculinity (whatever that entails) and by so doing cure them from homosexuality. Reminds me of the Simpsons Episode "Homers Phobia" when he tries to cure Bart from his perceived path down homosexuality and tries to make Bart go hunt for a deer to make a man out of him. Obviously its just ridiculous, but it was humerous.
I can agree that Homosexuality is not a bi product of a lack of "Masculinity" if that term can even be defined. Not that this is related but I did watch a Brainiac episode where the made a dweeby guy do tons of "manly things" like get a lap dance, work out, practice primal roaring, and they made a tough biker guy listen to bed time stories, sing childrens songs, where a bib and have nap time.
Their testosteron levels were then measured again (they were measured both prior to any activities and then after) and dweebs levels had increased significantly and bikers levels had plummeted. I just thought it was humerous (obviously you can't really call that REAL science much less solid evidence) it was just funny at best.
I guess my point is Ill have to withold judgement on Exodus until I actually read up on them, I am open to any possibility. I could be biased but I know my church has programs for helping homosexuals fight that part of themselves. Its not at all what Exodus is (from your descriptions) but I know people who have done it and said it helped them so much, and I know some who did and said, "It did nothing for me."
But I stand by the principle of what I said earlier. I don't think its fair to be pissed of at a homosexuals who says, "I've been freed from my affliction!" and then categorically pleased when somebody, "Comes out of the closet."
You dont think honest intent ameliorates destructive behavior, well I agree, but at least understand that some Christians honestly believe that promoting a philosophy of, "Do whatever feels good." is an evil mind set.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My guess is that these kinds of programs are harmful in that they reinforce the idea of homsexuality as something to be "cured".
I would also point out that there is an enormous difference between lovingly and responsibly living in a way that is consistant with one's orientation and "doing whatever feels good". This is true whatever the orientation.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lissande: It makes me wonder why he thinks his girlfriend is with him. Must be for the money or the nice car, because it obviously can't be for the nice body. o_O
I don't think he has a problem with her, say, complimenting his biceps or something. It's the butt in particular that makes him have a spazzfit. Weird weird weird weird.
quote:I guess my point is Ill have to withold judgement on Exodus until I actually read up on them
And if you had done that, I wouldn't really have had a problem. But you actively defended them and attacked me for criticizing them.
If there were an effective therapy that resulted in a large percentage of people who were gay becoming straight, I wouldn't have a problem with people offering it and other people going through with it, so long as their participation was voluntary. I don't have a problem with these groups counseling the gay people that come to them in how to lead a celibate lifestyle. I do have a problem with people saying that they have a "cure" for homosexuality when their therapy may possibily work only in a very small number of cases, if at all.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I think their tactics are naive and largely ineffectual, but are they harmful?
Yes. There's sort of an online community of Orthodox Jews who are gay, and I know one guy in NY who spent 3 years trying to go the NARTH route. He nearly killed himself over what they called his inability to get with the program. He finally got away from those vampires and started living his life.
So yes, they can be extremely harmful.
The suicide rate of gay teens is 3 times that of straight teens. And it's not because they're gay. It's because they're gay in a society that sees being gay as something to be "fixed".
That mindset is not only harmful; it's often lethal. It's cruel, and it reflects an utter unwillingness to see things from another perspective.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Y'know, I'll agree that they're harmful. I bought into the whole belief...'gays are by and large, effeminate, weak, speak with lisps, and do things that should never be done by any man'. I was proud of the fact that, while I wasn't the biggest, strongest guy in the world, I was pretty tough, I was a man, I'd never be like those 'damn homos'. Then, when I figured out that I was gay, I spent about half a year in a painful, self-destructive hell, fueled in part by those very same beliefs. Only recently have I finally let myself believe that one can be tough, strong, capable, intelligent...and still be gay. Took me a long damn while, and I think longer than it would have, had I not been exposed to those beliefs of 'weakness' and 'wrongness' from an early age.
Now, you can't convince my friends that there isn't something at least a little wrong with someone that's gay, usually along the lines of a lack of masculinity. (Which is one of the reasons I get away with it--I dont' fit the stereotype, so they don't bother to question the lie of my 'straightness'.) Between the way the people around you act, and the way society and the media portray such things, I can't say I'm surprised that the suicide rate is so high. Saddened, but not surprised. I'm just also not so naive that I think it's gonna change anytime soon.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that they are harmful, certainly from my point of view. However if that harm is largely or in part due to the prevailing belief that homosexuality is "wrong", does it then follow that the belief should be erradicated by fiat?
Lisa, how do you reconcile what you write above with being part of a society which you have strongly indicated would kill unrepentant homosexual men had they the authority to do so? (or if I have misread your assertions in other threads, please feel free to correct me.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I agree that they are harmful, certainly from my point of view. However if that harm is largely or in part due to the prevailing belief that homosexuality is "wrong", does it then follow that the belief should be erradicated by fiat?
It would be really, really nice if someone just gave an absolute order, like, say, "Be nice to the gays...OR ELSE." But do you really think that would change anything? If you supress the public symptoms of it, it'll still continue in private.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we're growing out of it, too, and I believe that many religions in 50-100 years will bear only passing resemblance to their present incarnations.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
starLisa
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
