Jump to content

Documentary On Homosexuality And Religion


Recommended Posts

The really blazingly obvious part is not only that Onan pulled out rather than masturbated; it's that the instructions from Judah were directly to Onan in the context of the situation, not instructions from God to people in general.It's like taking the story of Lot to mean that we shouldn't look over our shoulders.
I'm not disagreeing with you.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 222
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Speedz,The OT isn't a pick and choose menu, it's the direction God gave the entire Nation of Israel.The NT is the direction God gave the individual Christian.Where the NT changes, you can make the adjustment, such as eating cloven footed ( or feeted, you're the vegetarian ).I read a good book called None of These Diseases, written by a man that researched the dieatary customs, medical practises, etc from the Egyptians living during the time of the Exodus, and showed the powerful changes God's rules made and how they were all in line with all that we know of germs/diseases. Things such as NOT spreading donkey dung on cuts and flesh wounds.With the entire tribe of Israel having grown up in bondage you would assume they would bring with them the 'wisdom' of the best and brightest Egyptians when they left and wrote down their rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, isn't he the guy that got shot? Am I confused or something? I thought he was Nikki's husband and he got shot in the arm.
Right, except I was shot through the gut.This issue charges me up because it's much more sinister than, "Oops, I misunderstood that passage." I think the goal of a church that interprets Onan in this manner is to make a whole bunch of people feel bad about themselves. Not that it isn't possible to go years and years without masturbating, but condemning masturbators is painting with a pretty wide brush.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The OT isn't a pick and choose menu, it's the direction God gave the entire Nation of Israel.The NT is the direction God gave the individual Christian.Where the NT changes, you can make the adjustment, such as eating cloven footed ( or feeted, you're the vegetarian ).
What about things in the OT that aren't specifically retracted in the NT?
I read a good book called None of These Diseases, written by a man that researched the dieatary customs, medical practises, etc from the Egyptians living during the time of the Exodus, and showed the powerful changes God's rules made and how they were all in line with all that we know of germs/diseases. Things such as NOT spreading donkey dung on cuts and flesh wounds.With the entire tribe of Israel having grown up in bondage you would assume they would bring with them the 'wisdom' of the best and brightest Egyptians when they left and wrote down their rules.
Yeah...I take this as Jews being smart. And, more specifically, certain Jews being extremely smart to pretend that such good medical practices were orders from God.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am pretty sure they called themselves evangelical christians in the film. It's not the crazy stuff I am talking about, I know most christians aren't like that, but the pro-abortion, anti-gay, morally-superior shit is what gets my goat.Desmond Tutu is a famous South African archbishop who has won the Nobel Peace Prize among many other awards. He has spent his life promoting human rights and trying to improve the quality of life for the poor. He is a role model for everyone.
I just popped in Jesus Camp and at the 9:30 mark the screen goes black and this is written:"Becky Fischer is a Pentecostal children's minister"the next page at 9:37 says:"She runs conferences and an annual summer camp for Evangelical kids."...I'm guessin' that the kids that go to her Pentecostal church and Pentecostal camp are probably Pentecostal. This is simply a director trying to smear or paint a specific light on the term "Evangelical". That being said, since you had such a negative reaction to me saying that I was Evangelical, I will never label myself as that again. I'll have to come up with something that Hollywood hasn't smeared yet however, which may prove impossible.
Will one of you please just admit that you're all very subjective about what you choose to believe in and follow from the OT?I'll seriously consider this. It's true...before watching that 45 seconds of the West Wing I was a bible thumping gay basher, but after hearing that speech I totally changed my mind. I guess that's the power of television for ya.
Jesus came to fulfill the law, so everything in the law is now "clean" unless specifically mentioned in the New Testament as wrong.
What about things in the OT that aren't specifically retracted in the NT?Yeah...I take this as Jews being smart. And, more specifically, certain Jews being extremely smart to pretend that such good medical practices were orders from God.
Everything that was wrong in the LAW of the Old Testament is now clean unless specifically mentioned in the New Testament. Tattoos? now ok. Murder? Still bad.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What about things in the OT that aren't specifically retracted in the NT?Yeah...I take this as Jews being smart. And, more specifically, certain Jews being extremely smart to pretend that such good medical practices were orders from God.
Jesus said He fulfilled the Law. The Law requried sacrifices to 'pay for your sins' Leviticus clearly gave the price list, two turtle doves for this three rams for that. Christ paid for all sins. Now we are to live a life 'worthy of the calling'.When you recieve the Grace of God you find yourself wanting to do the things that please God, as a natural reation, not a 'requirement' or in fear of getting uninvited to heaven.And you pay nothing for this gift, other than asking.It really doesn't make any sense from a man's perspective..shouldn't religions use works to get to heaven as a control leash over the masses? Yet Christ freed us from the bondage of sin, and from the bondage of religion, by making a way that goes directly to the problem...sin.Kind of like Vets..you guys aren't like people doctors, we expect you to actually heal our animals, give us medicine that prevents disease, not medicine that masks the symptoms and allows for progression of the sickness. If the vet world did what the people world did, we would never take our dogs to you. And the cattle industry would be gone.God isn't about playing religion, He's about real religion: “This is true religion, pure and undefiled in the sight of God, to look after widows and orphans in their time of need. And to keep oneself unspotted from the world” James 1:27
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus said He fulfilled the Law. The Law requried sacrifices to 'pay for your sins' Leviticus clearly gave the price list, two turtle doves for this three rams for that. Christ paid for all sins. Now we are to live a life 'worthy of the calling'.When you recieve the Grace of God you find yourself wanting to do the things that please God, as a natural reation, not a 'requirement' or in fear of getting uninvited to heaven.And you pay nothing for this gift, other than asking.It really doesn't make any sense from a man's perspective..shouldn't religions use works to get to heaven as a control leash over the masses? Yet Christ freed us from the bondage of sin, and from the bondage of religion, by making a way that goes directly to the problem...sin.
Dude, none of this makes any sense to me. You need to remember that I'm not a Christian. I appreciate the effort, and assume that what you are saying is probably right in terms of your religion, but speak to me in terms I can understand. Like this:
Jesus came to fulfill the law, so everything in the law is now "clean" unless specifically mentioned in the New Testament as wrong. Everything that was wrong in the LAW of the Old Testament is now clean unless specifically mentioned in the New Testament. Tattoos? now ok. Murder? Still bad.
Thank you. I'm not sure why it took so many posts over the past year or so for someone to explain this so succinctly (sp).I wonder if there are any examples of things not specifically mentioned in the NT that are still followed from the OT.
Kind of like Vets..you guys aren't like people doctors, we expect you to actually heal our animals, give us medicine that prevents disease, not medicine that masks the symptoms and allows for progression of the sickness. If the vet world did what the people world did, we would never take our dogs to you. And the cattle industry would be gone.
Uh...you have an odd view on medicine. Or maybe an odd view on veterinary medicine. Or a strange combination. But that's for another thread.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
FYI I haven't watched it all yet, but the first few minutes are so damn entertaining that my expectations are high for the rest of the documentary.The blurb on googlevids:For The Bible Tells Me So - 98 minAn exploration of the intersection between religion and homosexuality in the U.S. and some religious have used its interpretation of the Bible to stigmatize the gay community. We meet five Christian families, each with a gay or lesbian child. Parents talk about their marriages and church-going, their children's childhood and coming out, their reactions, and changes over time. The stories told by these nine parents and four adult children alternate with talking heads - Protestant and Jewish theologians - and with film clips of fundamentalist preachers and pundits and news clips of people in the street. They discuss scripture and biblical scholarship. A thesis of the film is that much of Christianity's homophobia represents a misreading of scripture, a denial of science, and an embrace of quack psychology. The families call for love.Watch it here and share your thoughts and reaction: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=80...12330&hl=en
NO WAI!!!
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Interesting science article copied from Slate.com's Human Nature column:Gay couples can't have biological kids together. So if homosexuality is genetic, why hasn't it died out?A study published last week in PLoS One tackles the question. It starts with four curious patterns. First, male homosexuality occurs at a low but stable frequency in a wide range of societies. Second, the female relatives of gay men produce children at a higher rate than other women do. Third, among these female relatives, those related to the gay man's mother produce children at a higher rate than do those related to his father. Fourth, among the man's male relatives, homosexuality is more common in those related to his mother than in those related to his father.Can genes account for these patterns? To find out, the authors posit several possible mechanisms and compute their effects over time. They conclude that only one theory fits the data. The theory is called "sexually antagonistic selection." It holds that a gene can be reproductively harmful to one sex as long as it's helpful to the other. The gene for male homosexuality persists because it promotes—and is passed down through—high rates of procreation among gay men's mothers, sisters, and aunts.This theory doesn't account for female homosexuality, which another new study (reviewed in Human Nature last week) attributes to nongenetic factors. It also doesn't account for environmental or prenatal chemical factors in male homosexuality, such as the correlation between a man's probability of homosexuality and the number of boys previously gestated in his mother's womb. But it does explain the high similarity of sexual orientation between identical twins, as well as patterns of homosexuality in families. It's also plausible because sexually antagonistic selection has been found in other species. And many scientists who think environmental and prenatal factors influence homosexuality also believe that genes play a role.The authors note that according to their computations, the theory implies some testable predictions. One such prediction can be checked against existing data. The prediction is that on average, if you're a straight man, the reproductive pattern among your aunts will reverse the pattern seen among aunts of gay men. That is, your paternal aunts will produce children at a higher rate than your maternal aunts will. The authors check this prediction against the available data. Sure enough, it holds up.I don't know to what extent this theory will end up explaining male homosexuality. But its emergence threatens to change our thinking about gay men in several important ways.First, it implies natural limits to homosexuality. You don't need to worry that gay teachers or television characters will "convert" hordes of boys. Sexually antagonistic selection is self-limiting and impervious to postnatal cultural factors. The authors' computations show no scenario in which male homosexuality spreads throughout a population.Second, by the same token, you can't culturally eradicate the gay minority. It's sustained by genetics and natural selection.Third, if the authors are correct, we're not really talking about genes for homosexuality. We're talking about genes for "androphilia," i.e., attraction to men. The importance of the genes lies in what they do not to men but to women, by increasing reproductive output so powerfully that these women compensate for the reduced output among their male relatives. You can't isolate gay men as a puzzle or problem anymore. You have to see them as part of a bigger, stronger, enduring phenomenon.Fourth, this larger phenomenon can't be dismissed as a disorder. The study's press release concludes that "homosexuality should not be viewed as a detrimental trait (due to the reduced male fecundity it entails), but, rather, should be considered within the wider evolutionary framework of a characteristic with gender-specific benefits."Fifth, the benefits aren't really confined to women. They protect society as a whole. The authors' computations indicate that as a society's birthrate falls, female carriers of androphilic genes account for a larger share of the output. In short, the genes provide a "buffer effect" against extinction.The study's lead author, Andrea Camperio Ciani of the University of Padova, sees these ramifications as a happy ending. "This is an example where the results of scientific research can have important social implications," he tells LiveScience. "You have all this antagonism against homosexuality because they say it's against nature because it doesn't lead to reproduction. We found out this is not true because homosexuality is just one of the consequences of strategies for making females more fecund."But the word consequence suggests a sixth, less happy implication: How would gay men see themselves and be regarded in a society that understood their condition as a side effect of female evolution? Would male androphilia be treated like sickle-cell anemia—the unfortunate cost of a genetic mutation that's beneficial in other people? We medicate sickle-cell anemia. Would we medicate homosexuality?I don't know, and neither does Dr. Camperio Ciani. Science, like culture and politics, has its happy moments. But don't mistake them for endings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When you recieve the Grace of God you find yourself wanting to do the things that please God, as a natural reation, not a 'requirement' or in fear of getting uninvited to heaven.And you pay nothing for this gift, other than asking.It really doesn't make any sense from a man's perspective..shouldn't religions use works to get to heaven as a control leash over the masses? Yet Christ freed us from the bondage of sin, and from the bondage of religion, by making a way that goes directly to the problem...sin.God isn't about playing religion, He's about real religion: "This is true religion, pure and undefiled in the sight of God, to look after widows and orphans in their time of need. And to keep oneself unspotted from the world" James 1:27
I've done some reading about D/s relationships, and it's eerie how similar this sounds to the sub's explanation of how they derive satisfaction from the relationship. There was an earlier post from someone else (lois, bravehrt, maybe BG), that I clicked quote on but I lost it, that had a similar sentiment and made me think the same thing. I'm not bringing this up to be antagonistic or judgemental, I just find it interesting that the language would be virtually identical. Do any of you 'saved' posters consider yourselves to be submissive? To God I mean, not sexually. Actually that's probably a more interesting question but you may not want to answer it, haha.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But it does explain the high similarity of sexual orientation between identical twins,
The concordance of sexual orientation in identical twins is actually low if you think this is a genetically determined condition, which shows that genes are only one among many factors that contributes to this complex trait. Genes are evidently not determinant of sexual orientation (twin studies prove this), or at least have limited penetrance, so many of these conclusions are unwarranted, e.g. "you can't culturally eradicate the gay minority. It's sustained by genetics and natural selection." (by the way what a loaded statement!) I'm pretty sure culture has a huge impact on how the behavioral patterns supported by these genetic factors are expressed, especially when it comes to the difference between having sex with men and adopting a "gay" identity. I really wish these articles would stop trying so hard to simplify the issue in order to support the politics of the situation. Science journalism, sigh.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The concordance of sexual orientation in identical twins is actually low if you think this is a genetically determined condition
There's a chance that you don't understand how the genome works. Look up some studies on homosexuality in monozygotic versus dizygotic twins. It's pretty obvious that genetics does play a strong part in sexual orientation.
Genes are evidently not determinant of sexual orientation (twin studies prove this)
See above. It's almost hard to believe that anyone who even knows that twin studies exist could say something this ridiculous, even if you follow it up with a complete contradiction. Smack yourself on the back of your head.
many of these conclusions are unwarranted, e.g. "you can't culturally eradicate the gay minority. It's sustained by genetics and natural selection."
Sigh.
I'm pretty sure culture has a huge impact on how the behavioral patterns supported by these genetic factors are expressed, especially when it comes to the difference between having sex with men and adopting a "gay" identity.
What do you mean when you're talking about "behavioral pattern expression"? I think you're even confusing yourself here.As for the difference between having sex with men and adopting a gay identity...you want to expand on that one for us?
Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a chance that you don't understand how the genome works. Look up some studies on homosexuality in monozygotic versus dizygotic twins.
My previous post was admittedly quite tightly packed. So I take some responsibility for the fact that you're almost certainly misunderstanding me. I did not say that genetics play no part. I said they clearly do not determine sexual orientation. In monozygotic twins the concordance rate is around 35%. That means you have most of the twins who are genetically identical yet with differing sexual orientation. Yes, there is almost certainly a genetic influence (on every behavior?), but one can also take the twin studies to show that non-genetic factors have even more of an influence. If this were a genetically determined condition like eye color, then you would have 100% concordance in monozygotic twins. You don't. There must be other factors. Therefore, the twin studies prove that sexual orientation is not derived solely from genes.
What do you mean when you're talking about "behavioral pattern expression"? I think you're even confusing yourself here.
What I mean is that it is a long complicated road from a gene to a behavior. The relationships between genes and traits like hair color, height, sex, etc. are relatively straightforward. When it comes to relating a gene to something like "shyness" or "aggressiveness" (a behavioral pattern) you are dealing with a huge entangled web of causality involving multiple genetic, epigenetic, social, cultural, and experiential factors. Take something like schizophrenia, which has an even higher concordance rate in identical twins than sexual orientation. Behavioral geneticists have been working for years to relate the disorder to genes and while there are many many candidate genes that appear have some kind of relationship to the symptoms, the way in which they relate to the actual phenotype of schizophrenia is far from understood, and multiple non-genetic factors have been identified as well. This is a highly studied complex behavioral condition with genetic components that is still barely understood after intensive study. The origins of sexual orientation have received a smidgen of scientific attention compared to schizophrenia. It's just absurdly premature to say that we know anything about how someone becomes gay.
As for the difference between having sex with men and adopting a gay identity...you want to expand on that one for us?
Having sex with someone of the same sex is a behavior. "Gay" is a socially constructed category, which is not universal. For example, there are several cultures which include rituals of man to man sex but do not have a concept of "gay" (e.g. the Sambia in New Guinea). Ancient Greece is a great example -- male to male sex was normalized, but the modern categories of sexual orientation were not part of the culture. Research on the sexual behavior of men shows that many men who consider themselves straight have had sexual contact with another man at some point in their life (10% in a recent study, most of them married). The group of men who have sex with men is not identical with the group of men who call themselves gay.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I've done some reading about D/s relationships, and it's eerie how similar this sounds to the sub's explanation of how they derive satisfaction from the relationship. There was an earlier post from someone else (lois, bravehrt, maybe BG), that I clicked quote on but I lost it, that had a similar sentiment and made me think the same thing. I'm not bringing this up to be antagonistic or judgemental, I just find it interesting that the language would be virtually identical. Do any of you 'saved' posters consider yourselves to be submissive? To God I mean, not sexually. Actually that's probably a more interesting question but you may not want to answer it, haha.
Many sinful acts are just perversions of things God invented. Take sex, God invented it, commands us to go and do it, but gives us a clear set of guidelines that are for our own health. Then we corrupt it, take sex outside of marriage, and end up with STDs, Aids, unwanted pregnancies, deviate pracitises etc. I heard it once said that Satan can only corrupt because hate does not create.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Many sinful acts are just perversions of things God invented. Take sex, God invented it, commands us to go and do it, but gives us a clear set of guidelines that are for our own health. Then we corrupt it, take sex outside of marriage, and end up with STDs, Aids, unwanted pregnancies, deviate pracitises etc. I heard it once said that Satan can only corrupt because hate does not create.
now we know who is behind the Jackie Childs account."Who told you to put the balm on?"
Link to post
Share on other sites
now we know who is behind the Jackie Childs account."Who told you to put the balm on?"
Yea, my hair just got messed up because this entire post went way over my head.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea, my hair just got messed up because this entire post went way over my head.
a true ninja would say this. sorry, I was making a mediocre Seinfeld reference.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Because it's a non issue. I don't know one christian who targets homosexuals in any way. To do so would be deploreable and ungodly. Sin is sin. How may times do I need to type that before someone actually reads it?
Not one?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Hate...mily_in_Americahttp://youtube.com/watch?v=mT_WHiHaXdw
Link to post
Share on other sites
Many sinful acts are just perversions of things God invented. Take sex, God invented it, commands us to go and do it, but gives us a clear set of guidelines that are for our own health. Then we corrupt it, take sex outside of marriage, and end up with STDs, Aids, unwanted pregnancies, deviate pracitises etc. I heard it once said that Satan can only corrupt because hate does not create.
well that didn't answer my question.... do you consider yourself submissive?
Link to post
Share on other sites
well that didn't answer my question.... do you consider yourself submissive?
Reminds me of a Chick tract I saw when I was first saved. It showed a young woman saying to Jesus I want to be your love slave.Meaning I want to serve You because I love You.But that's not what I saw then, or how you see it now.Serving God means very much being submissive to His will. Do I do it very well? nope, I am still very prideful and selfish. Mainly because I am so cool.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...