Why is Christianity loosing the cultural war ?

[iBrian]

soleil10, let's face it, you've boiled the entire problems of the world into a non-sequitur issue of sexuality.

Not agreeing with homosexuality I can comprehend, but you really do have a rabid homophobia that is quite disturbing.

I mean, seriously - homofascism? Where do you get this terminology?

 

[Marsh]

I do not know what other thread you are talking about. Homophobe is a tactical word used to shame people that do not agree with homosexuality. It is part of the strategy to silence people.

I do not know what you mean by the label fundamentalist. My concern is about the human right of children.

I can't believe this is happening, but I'm going to have to chime in on Soleil's side this time. Although perhaps not using the most sensitive terms possible, Soleil has voiced an opinion that is perfectly valid, and is receiving an intellectual stoning for it. If we are all respecters of ideas, then we should all be open to the ideas of others, no matter how we feel about them, and no matter how politically-incorrect they may be-- keeping in mind that some of the most important ideas of all time were, in their time, considered to be politically incorrect (i.e. everything Jesus said!).

Soleil thinks that homosexuality is not the normal state of affairs. I agree with that. I believe that when God created the living things of the Earth, they were created male and female for a reason (with the exception of asexual organisms), and the fact that homosexuality exists today is an indication that the equilibrium with which the world was created has been thrown off. I'm willing to debate this with any of you; what I am not willing to do is to sit down and have people call me a homophobe and a fundamentalist instead of debating it with me.

It's funny how the pendulum swings, isn't it? Not long ago, homosexual people (and they are people, so let them be treated as such, and not be labelled) lived "in the closet" because the world had silenced them; now, people (and they are people, so let them too be treated as such) who believe that homosexuality is not normal are being silenced because having such ideas is considered to be politically-incorrect. They are themselves being sent to the closet, if you will, by a regime of thought that seeks to define what is and is not normal based on the criteria, "Because we said so." Sounds familiar? Similar to the way that homosexuality has been historically denounced because leaders, religious and/or political, have said so, yeah?

Anyways, although I don't agree with what Soleil has implied about sexuality being a theatre of spiritual war, I do think that everyone should be entitled to their opinion on sensitive subjects.

Let the thoughts be discredited on their own lack of merit, and not the thinker on their unwillingness to comply with political norms.

 

[wil]

Homophobe is a tactical word used to shame people that do not agree with homosexuality. It is part of the strategy to silence people.

Not to me, to me a homophobe is one that is either one who feels their sexuality threatened by homosexuals or is concerned that homosexuals are an indication of the fall of society, or both.

If you don't fit in either of those categories, I wouldn't refer to one as a homophobe, if one did, I would.

 

[seattlegal]

Well said, Marsh! I'd rep you on that post, but I'm done repped out!

We are all sinners. Yet we have to live together.

 

[Avi]

Soleil thinks that homosexuality is not the normal state of affairs. I agree with that. I believe that when God created the living things of the Earth, they were created male and female for a reason (with the exception of asexual organisms), and the fact that homosexuality exists today is an indication that the equilibrium with which the world was created has been thrown off. I'm willing to debate this with any of you; what I am not willing to do is to sit down and have people call me a homophobe and a fundamentalist instead of debating it with me.

Marsh, nicely said, and perhaps I was too quick to jump on Soleil using a label.

My main point was about intolerence, which I did feel about his earlier posts when I read them on this thread. And I think his use of the word "homofascist" shows intolerence.

But now you have gotten me further interested in looking at the science behind where we are today in our understanding of homosexuality. I will do some research on this and come back to your post.

Also, I think your categorization of "homosexuality not being the normal state of affairs", can be very divisive and not have a productive purpose. There are people who will use this label of "not normal" to treat others unfairly, exclude them from opportunities. That is the boarderline that Soleil and now you are straddling.

Actually, on a related note, I did some research recently, and can provide references, that homosexuality has been clearly identified in some other species besides humans, so it is definitely not some man-made notion.

 

[Marsh]

Also, I think your categorization of "homosexuality not being the normal state of affairs", can be very divisive and not have a productive purpose. There are people who will use this label of "not normal" to treat others unfairly, exclude them from opportunities. That is the boarderline that Soleil and now you are straddling.

Actually, on a related note, I did some research recently, and can provide references, that homosexuality has been clearly identified in some other species besides humans, so it is definitely not some man-made notion.

Debate is all about straddling, so I'm quite happy to do just that.

By the way, you need not provide references that homosexuality has been identified within other species, because I believe that to be true already. I grew up on a farm, and my dad had a bull once that, over the course of the summer, did not breed with a single cow in his pasture! But just because homosexuality is the current state of affairs doesn't mean that it's the normal state of affairs, when we use the world at creation as our benchmark.

And yes, others may take what I say and twist it, pretending that I am backing up their nasty arguments that homosexual people are somehow less than the rest of us; that is the risk one takes when one takes a side. However, I maintain that it is possible to have this opinion, and to voice it in an intelligent and considerate manner. Yes, considerate. This means not voicing it at all to homosexual people, who will certainly be hurt by it, but that doesn't mean that we dismiss any idea that will possibly be hurtful.

 

[citizenzen]

If we are all respecters of ideas, then we should all be open to the ideas of others, no matter how we feel about them...

I respect the fact that Soleil10 is capable of formulating ideas.

I do not respect the ones currently spewing forth from her/his brain.

The fact that one can form thoughts does not magically imbue them with respectability. That is something that I save for thinking that embodies clarity, compassion and wisdom... something Soleil has shown precious little of.

 

[soleil10]

R Why is Christianity loosing the cultural war ?

Actually, on a related note, I did some research recently, and can provide references, that homosexuality has been clearly identified in some other species besides humans, so it is definitely not some man-made notion.

Humans are not animals,
We have a conscience. We are spiritual beings. We have moral values.

Animals follow their instincts.

Babies Salmon eat their own mother that dies after giving birth. Does this mean that we should do the same or that if someone does it, we should use the salmon to justify lifestyle to justify it.

It does not mean, we can find some inspiring behaviors from animals.

 

[soleil10]

I can't believe this is happening, but I'm going to have to chime in on Soleil's side this time. Although perhaps not using the most sensitive terms possible, Soleil has voiced an opinion that is perfectly valid, and is receiving an intellectual stoning for it. If we are all respecters of ideas, then we should all be open to the ideas of others, no matter how we feel about them, and no matter how politically-incorrect they may be-- keeping in mind that some of the most important ideas of all time were, in their time, considered to be politically incorrect (i.e. everything Jesus said!).
Soleil thinks that homosexuality is not the normal state of affairs. I agree with that. I believe that when God created the living things of the Earth, they were created male and female for a reason (with the exception of asexual organisms), and the fact that homosexuality exists today is an indication that the equilibrium with which the world was created has been thrown off. I'm willing to debate this with any of you; what I am not willing to do is to sit down and have people call me a homophobe and a fundamentalist instead of debating it with me.

It's funny how the pendulum swings, isn't it? Not long ago, homosexual people (and they are people, so let them be treated as such, and not be labelled) lived "in the closet" because the world had silenced them; now, people (and they are people, so let them too be treated as such) who believe that homosexuality is not normal are being silenced because having such ideas is considered to be politically-incorrect. They are themselves being sent to the closet, if you will, by a regime of thought that seeks to define what is and is not normal based on the criteria, "Because we said so." Sounds familiar? Similar to the way that homosexuality has been historically denounced because leaders, religious and/or political, have said so, yeah?

Anyways, although I don't agree with what Soleil has implied about sexuality being a theatre of spiritual war, I do think that everyone should be entitled to their opinion on sensitive subjects.

Let the thoughts be discredited on their own lack of merit, and not the thinker on their unwillingness to comply with political norms.

Marsh, you made my day. Thanks

 

[Janz]

Re: R Why is Christianity loosing the cultural war ?

Humans are not animals,
We have a conscience. We are spiritual beings. We have moral values.

Animals follow their instincts.

Babies Salmon eat their own mother that dies after giving birth. Does this mean that we should do the same or that if someone does it, we should use the salmon to justify lifestyle to justify it.

It does not mean, we can find some inspiring behaviors from animals.

Yes, we are ANIMALS..we are mammals to be exact. Arghhh

And after raising 2 children who are 24 and 28..I do feel (on occasion) as if my life has been drained out me.

 

[citizenzen]

I'm willing to debate this with any of you; what I am not willing to do is to sit down and have people call me a homophobe and a fundamentalist instead of debating it with me.

Well then Marsh, you should be much more comfortable debating with me and Avi1223 than your friend Soleil10.

How about a little proof as to who debates fairly and who doesn't?



The term "Homofacsism" was introduced by Soleil in post #116...

Concerning the Nazis you may want to read the Pink Swastika
“The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party is a thoroughly researched, eminently readable, demolition of the “gay” myth, symbolized by the pink triangle, that the Nazis were anti-homosexual. The deep roots of homosexuality in the Nazi party are brilliantly exposed . .

Now if it is Nazism, Communism or Homofacism, they are all based on a flawed Godless ideology.


Soleil10 used that term 6 times from posts #116 to #149




The term "Homophobe" didn't appear until post #165 when Avi asked...

2) Are you a homophobe? I thought one thread was bad enough, now I see we have another one here.



So I ask you Marsh? Who's displayed tolerance here? Who's shown a willingness to debate without wallowing in vitriol and mud-slinging? Yes. You guessed it, it's our (my) side... again.

I won't wait for your apology. I certainly don't expect one.

 

[Avi]

By the way, you need not provide references that homosexuality has been identified within other species, because I believe that to be true already. I grew up on a farm, and my dad had a bull once that, over the course of the summer, did not breed with a single cow in his pasture! But just because homosexuality is the current state of affairs doesn't mean that it's the normal state of affairs, when we use the world at creation as our benchmark.

Marsh, there are several logical problems that I see in your posts already. You are saying that your father's bull was homosexual but somehow he was different at the time of creation ?? So at the time of creation all bulls were heterosexual, but now there are some gay ones ? Marsh, that sounds like a lot of cock and bull to me

And yes, others may take what I say and twist it, pretending that I am backing up their nasty arguments that homosexual people are somehow less than the rest of us; that is the risk one takes when one takes a side. However, I maintain that it is possible to have this opinion, and to voice it in an intelligent and considerate manner. Yes, considerate. This means not voicing it at all to homosexual people, who will certainly be hurt by it, but that doesn't mean that we dismiss any idea that will possibly be hurtful.

This section is even more illogical. So you are considerate and don't discuss your concerns about homosexuals with these homosexuals ? But you are willing to do it here, on an anonymous forum ? Do you think there are no homosexuals reading your post ? Do you think it doesn't hurt them when you do that ? But then you say we should not "dismiss any idea that will possibly be hurtful". So why did you bring up not discussing it with homosexuals in the first place ? Do you only want to do it behind their backs ?

And I haven't even starting researching your basic premise about "homosexuality not being the normal state of affairs". But I am looking forward to what we find.

 

[Avi]

I have just started my research on the the topic that Marsh put forward,
"homosexuality not being the normal state of affairs" and this topic might take a little researching.

But I quickly came across this interesting section, which addresses the comments Soleil made about homosexuals being equal. This shows that Soleil was incorrect in saying the homosexuals are treated equally.

The Consequences of Devaluation

​

​

Western society has endorsed homosexuality as an illness and pathology​

​

(Tozer&McClanahan, 1999). In fact, until its removal in 1973,
the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) viewed homosexuality as an
illness (Ben-Ari, 1998; Lim&Johnson, 2001). However, despite the official
removal of homosexuality as a mental illness from the DSM, homosexuality
continues to be viewed in a context of pathology (Ben-Ari,
2001); thus, the social stigma surrounding the lesbian and gay population
persists (Ben-Ari, 1998). In addition to the stigmatization experienced
by the lesbian and gay populations, transgender persons have also
faced mistreatment due to their DSM-IV classification and are described
as suffering from Gender Identity Disorder, a “persistent crossgender
identification and a persistent discomfort with his or her sex”
(American Psychiatric Association, 1994).​

The consequences of devaluation may impact the physical, mental,
and social well-being of the LGBT populations. Berkman and Zinberg
(1997) explain that the greater prevalence of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and psychological problems found among gay men and
lesbians is correlated with the long history of homophobia and the lack
of acceptance of these populations within the American culture. Other
studies have supported these findings demonstrating significantly higher
rates of suicide attempts, runaways, substance abuse, harassment, ostracism, and violence among the LGBT populations (Cochran, Stewart,
Ginzler,&Cauce, 2002; Fontaine, 1996; Morrison&L’Heureux, 2001;
Bahr, Brish, & Croteau, 2000). Transgender people face discrimination
within employment, housing, and health care situations (Roen,
2002; Clements-Nolle, 2001). In fact, Lombardi (2001) found that 37%
of transgender people experienced economic discrimination, and 60%experienced harassment or violence.​

Ref: Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 53, issue 4, p.201-221, 2007. Published by Routledge (Francis and Taylor).

 

[soma]

Avi1223, Thank you for the info. We Christians have become self-righteous, more interested in a comfortable church, pastor and circle of friends forgetting about the discontented, wounded and people with alternative life styles. We need to get out of our comfort zone to feel the Holy Spirit. We need to stop rejecting people, seeking the Lord's benefits and seek God. The church is programmed to impress the people, but if it rejects anyone, the impressive buildings don't leave room for the Holy Spirit and spiritual renewal. That is why Christianity is loosing the cultural war.

 

[Quahom1]

Avi1223, Thank you for the info. We Christians have become self-righteous, more interested in a comfortable church, pastor and circle of friends forgetting about the discontented, wounded and people with alternative life styles. We need to get out of our comfort zone to feel the Holy Spirit. We need to stop rejecting people, seeking the Lord's benefits and seek God. The church is programmed to impress the people, but if it rejects anyone, the impressive buildings don't leave room for the Holy Spirit and spiritual renewal. That is why Christianity is loosing the cultural war.

Who's "we"? There are plenty out there who live outside the comfort zone, for the sake of others...(yes those are injured bodies on the deck).

 

[soma]

We is referring to Christians in general. You who are above us please give us some advice.

 

[Marsh]

How about a little proof as to who debates fairly and who doesn't?...

So I ask you Marsh? Who's displayed tolerance here? Who's shown a willingness to debate without wallowing in vitriol and mud-slinging? Yes. You guessed it, it's our (my) side... again.

I won't wait for your apology. I certainly don't expect one.

I certainly agree that within this exchange, your.... er, side, has displayed more sensitivity than Soleil has. I think everyone sees that, or at least hopefully they do. But consider this post:

Yes, CZ, I think Soleil is being subtle and stealthy. You watch, if Soleil responds to my comments at all, he will deny that he is homophobic and a gay basher. He will tell us that he is just doing what the Bible tells him.

I have read enough OT and NT to know that neither book condones hatred of homosexuals. Furthermore, phobias usually run in packs (like rats) and I suspect there are other ones there as well.

Now, I know you're not a big fan of people implying things, but it's pretty hard for me not to read into this one.

Anyways, I'm not sure what it is that you "don't expect" me to apologize for, CZ. I also don't know why you wouldn't expect to get one for me if an apology was warrented. Five years of marriage has made me an expert at apologizing.

And I certainly will engage in debate on the subject of homosexuality, and will try my best to do so in an intelligent, sensitive, considerate (i.e. Christian) way. But I'm not on Soleil's side in this one; I just think that everyone should be allowed to have their say-- yes, even if that say is unpopular or worded in an inflammatory way. Intelligent minds filter out bad ideas; trust us to sort them out for ourselves CZ.

 

[Marsh]

This section is even more illogical. So you are considerate and don't discuss your concerns about homosexuals with these homosexuals ? But you are willing to do it here, on an anonymous forum ? Do you think there are no homosexuals reading your post ? Do you think it doesn't hurt them when you do that ? But then you say we should not "dismiss any idea that will possibly be hurtful". So why did you bring up not discussing it with homosexuals in the first place ? Do you only want to do it behind their backs ?

No, I don't want to talk about people behind their backs. Honestly, the only time I ever discuss this topic with anyone is on this forum. This forum is, among other things, a place for debate; people's feelings should be taken into account, but that does not mean that we must hide what we truly think because we're constantly afraid of offending someone.

"Considerate" in terms of debating means that we discuss logically; it does not mean we try to please others with our thoughts.

 

[citizenzen]

"Considerate" in terms of debating means that we discuss logically; it does not mean we try to please others with our thoughts.

Marsh, I think we proved our desire to argue fairly and logically.

But do you remember the chariot race in Ben Hur? Sometimes you can only take so much, before you start fighting back.


[youtube]pbQvpJsTvxU[/youtube]

 

[Avi]

Marsh, I think we proved our desire to argue fairly and logically.

But do you remember the chariot race in Ben Hur? Sometimes you can only take so much, before you start fighting back.

CZ great race scene, and that homophobe really got what he deserved, right . The best parts of that scene were the knives on the wheels and when he starting whipping Heston