The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Let's watch our judgmental language > Comments

Let's watch our judgmental language : Comments

By Richard Prendergast, published 13/7/2006

Official statements calling gays and lesbians ‘disordered’ and ‘violent’ don't make them feel welcome and respected by the church.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 40
  7. 41
  8. 42
  9. All
As if we didn’t have enough homegrown advocates or apologists for homosexuality: an American priest now assails us. This should thrill those who constantly - and wrongly - accuse all people who object to homosexuality of being bible bashers. Here’s a professional bible basher feeding them more of what they like.

True, he doesn’t say that homosexuality is a good or normal thing. But he tacitly gives it the nod by asking for them to be treated just like everyone else. He treats a Vatican directive on the matter with contempt. Under the new Australian IR laws, he could be legally sacked! Perhaps he, along with his lesbian friends, should leave the church. He could then denounce his own enforced celibacy and then be in a better position to take a normal view of life.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 13 July 2006 10:45:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article even if dated (2004) reminds me of the movie "the revenge of the nerds'. No disrespect intended to our fellow gay and lesbian citizens.

When it comes to accept gay and lesbians as Christian brothers and sisters then that is impossible because the "Gospel of Jesus" also mentions in John ; ' you must be born again...' meaning you have to die to your old ways and enter the family of God.

Baptising a child (or infant) does not make them a member of God's family. They must want to be born again by their own mature volition.

You cannot change the “Gospel of Jesus” to suit your wicked schemes. Chipping away at the Church and the Gospel is not going to make it crumble so you can rebuild it to your own taste.

Jesus loves you and died for your sins and is asking you to repent and sin no more… so don't insult him please!

Further more Jesus loves children and said: “let the children come to me” i.e. “do not hinder their chances to listen to my voice and understand my teachings…”

So by growing in a sinful (yet loving) environment – same-sex parents are making a mockery of Jesus’ teachings and commands by giving the child a false concept of love and the Gospel.

1 John:
6No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.
7Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.
8He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work.

The love one another can only apply to his real followers… the born again ones...not the pretend church-going ones.

A better suited command for the article should have been “love your enemies…
Posted by coach, Thursday, 13 July 2006 10:58:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How typical, OLO's resident hate-filled homophobes jumping on this article and denouncing what is to most people a logical, reasoned argument, not that they would know what that is.

No Leigh, i'm not an apologist for homosexuality, homosexuality has no reason to apologise to the likes of you.

And Coach, I am a spiritual person who beleives in God, but because of people like you, I reject the church and its narrow, inflexible view of the world, I'm sure all the good christians in the world don't wish to thank you for vandalising their otherwise humane institution.
Posted by Carl, Thursday, 13 July 2006 12:08:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is naive for the lesbian couple to expect acceptance in the Church, it isn't going to happen. The Church and gays and lesbians clearly need some distance and leave each other alone. Lets be realistic here, there is a time and a place. There are gay churches in the gap, but they are an Island.

That being said, the statement from the Vatican that describes allowing gays and lesbians adopting children as an act of "violence", actually provokes violence towards this minority group. A very nasty and deliberate choice of words.

Soon after this statement was made by a the Pope, a former member of Hitler's youth, the regime that mass murdered over 20,000 homosexuals in the WWII holocaust, has provoked violent anti gay riots in Poland and Russia.

In Warsaw this year, the riots have been caused by mobs of neo-Nazis, arm in arm with Roman Catholic Priests, bombing gay night clubs, a bohemian area that included their AIDS prevention offices, their Green Party Headquarters, and social welfare offices. All of these were blockaded and the precinct was burnt down.

The minority groups and social welfare advocates were violently bashed, kicked, and the pavements were covered in blood. In Russia more recently, the neo-Nazi's and church caused more violent "terrorism", and again, the police did very little to stop it.

The Vatican gives their connections violent language in Catholic and Orthodox countries and they respond with violent behaviour towards minority groups. Just like Ratzinger did when he was in Hitler's youth. He hasn't changed his spots at all. Once a Nazi, always a Nazi. The Pope just wanted to "blend in" when he was younger?

Did Jesus try to "blend in" to a Nazi party? NO! He made a stand against them and paid dearly for it.

The statement that the Vatican made was a serious attack. They should be held accountable for it.

Shame on the Catholic church. Jesus is not on your side.
Posted by saintfletcher, Thursday, 13 July 2006 12:12:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"calling gays and lesbians ‘disordered’ and ‘violent’ don't make them feel welcome and respected by the church"

Perhaps this is what the Church is actually trying to say. After centuries of this, as well as lots of stake burnings and other wonderful enquisitions and turtores you would expect the message to get through.
Posted by Narcissist, Thursday, 13 July 2006 1:03:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spitting derision at anyone who deviates from traditional policies - as determined in closed sessions with internal elites - is the whole point of churches.

If you want to think for yourself, or openly accept your own (let alone anybody else's) sexuality, you're just going to have to leave churches behind until they catch up.

If they ever catch up.
Posted by Dewi, Thursday, 13 July 2006 1:28:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Carl wrote:

"And Coach, I-am-a-spiritual-person-who-beleives-in-God, but-because-of-people-like-you, I-reject-the-church-and-its-narrow, inflexible-view-of-the-world, I'm-sure-all-the-good-christians-in-the-world-don't-wish-to-thank-you-for-vandalising-their-otherwise-humane-institution."

No one said that being a Christian is an easy journey.

Luke 9:23 :-

”Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me”.

"I am a spiritual person who beleives in God”- Carl also says.

What has spirituality to do with being a follower of Jesus ?

Believing in God - you say??

Even Satan believes in God.

"KNOWING" God is another matter. He revealed Himself through the ages and finally in the flesh : Jesus.

The question Jesus is asking you is are you willing to follow him?

It has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting a church, school, or institution...!

Don't blame me for your predicament - you are not doing us a favour either by staying away from "a church" . It is your life and your eternity that is at play.

Gay and lesbians will have to face the music one day at God’s judgement throne. But if they want to be accepted in His family of believers and call Him father, they need to obey His house rules.

So don’t blame me for bringing God’s message to you (and vandalising the church). It won’t meet the criteria of a good excuse for not hearing. Open the bible and see for yourself if you have eyes.

It would be interesting perhaps to hear what is your version of “church” – the otherwise humane institution – you have so gracefully rejected. It is possible that we are comparing apples and oranges.

_______

It is not up to the church to catch up with sinners - you silly billy you - it's the other way round.

It is not the churches that make the rules but God himself.

Sin is a selfish, self-seeking lust that separates us from God's love and joyful blessings. By chosing sin one must accept the consequences.

So don't hold your breath and expect God to change his mind for you and other sinners.
Posted by coach, Thursday, 13 July 2006 2:15:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see the catholic church as the most vile and despotic organisation ever to spread it's evil and corrupt tenticles across the World. While most of the congregation are good and faithful servants of their God and I've also met many wonderful nuns and priests in my days of enforced catholic upbringing, those at the top of the Vatican heap are the perfect epitime of corruption, greed, hatred and incitment to violence the civilised World has ever encountered. The pope must writhe in agony in the thought that the church can no longer burn people at the stake, put them to the rack, smash their knees with wedges and mallets and immerse their legs in copper boots filled with burning oil. The roman catholic church has been seen throughout history as an organisation of wrath and destruction of once beautiful primative societies and they haven't stopped yet. I don't hate religion per se. Each to their own, until they threaten the very fabric of moral obligation as the catholic church has done with the gay issue. The catholic church has been manipulating ideals of right and wrong since Roman times and I think it's high time those parts of the catholic congregation who still abide by it's hateful dogma took a good hard look around and got off at the next station. Time to end the hatred people!
Posted by Wildcat, Thursday, 13 July 2006 2:21:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Homosexuals claim that is the way they are born, they did not choose to be homosexual.
Heterosexuals are born that way and we cannot help the revulsion we feel toward that we see as abnormal.
However we can all agree to disagree and accept that people are different, without being stupid.
Instead of the homosexuals trying to force their way into everything why not have your own parallel institutions?
Recognise that the gulf cannot be crossed but that does not stop you from setting up your own ways as long as they are legal.
And let us all live in peace.
Posted by mickijo, Thursday, 13 July 2006 3:15:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On your marks... everyone assume their usual positions and antagonism when the 'gay issue' rears its head.

Although the Vatican's statement was short on tact, the sentiments were sound. The 'violence' (an unfortunate choice of words) seems to be the lack of developmental imput from a complete parental unit (ie Father/Mother, male/female). But don't let context get in the way of a good moral springboard ("As I talked to other gays and lesbians, it became clear many perceived this latest document from Rome as one more in a series of attacks upon their humanity").

I agree that the pastoral approach to gays and lesbians needs to be done with sensitivity, that is, without attacking their dignity. But this should not affect our reading of Scripture. Homosexuality is a sin, along with the adultery and fornication common in the present world. However, the message to everyone remains the same: "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom 5:8) Genuine faith produces a response to this.
Posted by MaNiK_JoSiAh, Thursday, 13 July 2006 3:34:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Coach, your a wonderful example of a true monotheist, non-caring, lacking understanding, ignorant, paranoid and hypocritical.

“Sin is a selfish, self-seeking lust that separates us from God's love and joyful blessings. By choosing sin one must accept the consequences.”

Coach, you sin every time you post, is not judgement a sin, “let he who casts the first stone”. However, your exempt aren't you, god loves you.

Who cares if homosexuals are thrown out of the church, if their stupid enough to believe in such unmitigated rubbish, they should expect nothing else but to be treated like all other followers of god not submitting to the power are, violently. I don't class having to be accepted into worshipping a myth as important, especially with the religions history in ongoing sexual deviance and denial.

If you had a brain, wouldn't you be running away with your kids for their safety. Instead of offering them up for psychological and maybe physical abuse to a bunch of supposed men in frocks.

But the article does represent the dilemma some with partly open eyes within the church have, in determining the method and end result of their preaching. I accept there's genuine people who truly and rationally believe love and caring are the highest ideals for humans to allude to, but you won't find them in religion or pushing their barrow. You may find them in real life, but not within illusions.
Posted by The alchemist, Thursday, 13 July 2006 3:45:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Coach says-

"Gay and lesbians will have to face the music one day at God’s judgement throne. But if they want to be accepted in His family of believers and call Him father, they need to obey His house rules."

This demonstrates my point exactly coach, I believe it is you who is not obeying the house rules and the rules that Jesus himself would want you to follow, your inability to accept homosexuals as equal human beings is contrary to the overall message of the bible. Your interpretation of the bible tells you to discriminate against homosexuals, which contradicts my interpretation. The bible is of course, full of contradictions, because it was written by men, not the son of god, and man is imperfect.

I don't have a problem with anyone being religous coach, unlike you, who has a problem with Islam, but while ever it contradicts my own personal beleif, that no person should be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual preference, race etc etc. I will not subscribe to it.
Posted by Carl, Thursday, 13 July 2006 3:56:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I don't have a problem with anyone being religous coach... no person should be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual preference, race etc etc. I will not subscribe to it."

If this were so Carl,I would expect such a vehement criticism of The alchemist's blatant Christophobia... but alas, Christians belong to an exempt sub-group of our society, open to any unfounded and scathing criticism. Whoops, we're exempt from playing the victim card as well... My apologies!
Posted by MaNiK_JoSiAh, Thursday, 13 July 2006 4:11:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am a Christian. I take seriously the words of Scripture, particularly when they make me feel uncomfortable.
In the episode of the parable of the Pharisee and the tax gatherer, the gospel writer comments

"He told this parable to those who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others."

My careful reading of Scripture leads me to be no longer so confident that I know everything that God thinks about sexuality. Is it not just possible that something fresh is breaking forth from God's Word and that an inclusive attitude to those whose sexuality is different from ours may be a Christlike response.

Ledingham
Posted by ledingham, Thursday, 13 July 2006 4:36:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Coach
Quote "Jesus loves you and died for your sins and is asking you to repent and sin no more… so don't insult him please!"

For once we are in total agreement coach. I call upon you...give up your worship of ego, give up your self righteousness & beg God's forgiveness.

There does it feel good when people talk AT you the way you talk AT others others rather than to them? Did that feel loving coach?

Something to think on...The bible declares that God is love. If that's so then EVERY instance of love is an instance of God in the world. That includes the love of lesbian mothers for their child. Just something for you to dismiss without thinking about :)
Posted by Bosk, Thursday, 13 July 2006 4:55:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think wildcat needs to see a psychiatrist......such hate in one person! And such a distortion of history! Seems like his/her life is controlled by negativity. He/she pleads that it's tiome to end the hatred of people....yet his/her hatred of Catholics is overwhelming. And saintfletcher.....what a vivid imagination. What movies has he/she been watching.
Posted by Francis, Thursday, 13 July 2006 4:55:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No member of Western society is forced to be a member of a particular church (after all, as many would remind us, we live in a secular society). Therefore, why should the church be forced to accept homosexuality? I am not arguing a question of right or wrong, I am arguing that a voluntary organisation should have the right to exclude or include members on any basis they see fit.

The same people who have been vigorously defending choice in other posts, are now attacking an institution because it has chosen to exclude certain groups from membership. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
Posted by Gekko, Thursday, 13 July 2006 5:31:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So what position are you adopting, Manik? Just because you personally are not throwing the faggots on the pyre, doesn’t mean that you are not complicit in the burning.

Where it exists, the “violence” that Prendergast writes about comes not from the parents, but from those who treat kids differently because their parents are the same sex. How do you expect a child to feel when people like you refer to the parents’ relationship as a sin? How do you know what goes on between them? How are you qualified to judge them? How do you dare to make a child suffer because of your judgements (not your god's - your judgements)?

Doubtless you think that you are being nice (respecting their dignity and all that), but at the point where you say it's OK to condemn this family's love for each other, you become one of the agents of misery and persecution. Are you sure it's your god telling you to do that, or just your inner inquisitor?

Prendergast looked at this family and saw love, caring and shared spirituality. When you look at them and see abomination, you share the responsibility if your judging takes some of the joy out of that child’s life.
Posted by w, Thursday, 13 July 2006 6:12:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No one forces anyone to go to this church or any other church. Could you imagine if one of the churches tried to tell the organisers of the mardi gras how to run their affairs. If people don't believe the bible is God's Word why do they have to convince those who do believe otherwise. I suggest people practicing sodomy or other practices (such as adultery, fornication etc) start their own religion instead of trying to change the clear teachings of the bible. Either the bible is the word of God and condemns the practices of homosexuality, fornication, lying, adultery etc or it is not God's Word and so we allow every minority group to determine what is right or wrong within the church.

It might not occur to some that God has the right to determine right from wrong. It is laughable that the clay tries to tell the Potter how it should be shaped.

If you want to join the labour party then sign on the dotted line. If you want to join the RSL sign on the dotted line, if you want to go to a private school sign on the line and pay your fees, if you want to be considered to be one of God's children then repent and receive the wonderful grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. ONly then will baptism mean anything
Posted by runner, Thursday, 13 July 2006 6:19:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It was not a film mate, if you read the news, you would find the facts. Your denial of the facts are disgusting.

Don't accuse me of making things up unless you do your homework. These are the events that lead to the riots and pogrom of the La Madame Nightclub and the Green Party headquarters in Warsaw.

If you don't like the facts, good! Suck on this mate!

http://www.thegully.com/essays/gaymundo/060403_poland_bar.html

The "terrible Twins": President Lech Kaczynski and his twin brother Jaroslav, who controls the Polish Parliament and the boss of the conservative Catholic party which now controls a big chunk of Parliament, are all virulent, card-carrying queer-haters. And for the first time in Polish history, the "gay question" was a centerpiece of an electoral campaign. The ultra-homophobic, anti-Semitic, and Catholic fundamentalist, the League recently became part of the hard-right national government led by the Kaczynski twins.

On March 8, queers participating in a women's march in Warsaw were met with "Ban the Fags" signs carried by counter-demonstrators from the National Revival of Poland, a party that denies the Holocaust.
WARSAW, APRIL 4, 2006. Warsaw's legendary queer and countercultural club, Le Madame, was stormed by the police on Friday, March 31, 2006 at 6 a.m., and shut down after a five-day siege. Many of the 50 people who were guarding the club at the time were brutally beaten or dragged out.

http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_512/apolishstonewall.html
http://www.bgogemini.org/eng/index.php?m=single&id=67
http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/lavender/2006-March/000084.html
http://www.faithinamerica.info

And in Russian riots: the Orthodox Church connection:
http://www.jewishmosaic.org/page/load_page/46

"the mayor of Moscow banned the march, European leaders condemned the ban, and every stripe of right-wing nationalist, ultra-nationalist, and nostalgic Communist came out against the march, using language reminiscent of pre-war fascism."

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/05/63f18d02-3626-4787-b3f4-d9439765c477.html
http://www.gayrussia.ru/en/project/detail.php?ID=6231

Look at the mess these violent sentiments have caused. Hence the Catholic dominated Eastern Europian regimes responded to these violent words from the Vatican.

Your denial is despictable. Since when were right conservative Christians on the same side as the Communists? Jesus is not on your side.
Posted by saintfletcher, Thursday, 13 July 2006 6:30:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How anyone can take a bunch of demonic clowns like the catholic church seriously is beyond me. Whether they be straight or gay or whatever. The question I have is why the various gays in the anglican church are prepared to demolish the entire structure (good on them)simply to assert their predeliction for anal sex. Seems very selfish but whatever erodes the foundations of these anachronistic institutions is fine by me. So c'mon girls, even plain chicks have the right to a bit of fun so don't let those men in dresses stop you. Instead of wasting your time in church have some play-time with your toys.
Posted by citizen, Thursday, 13 July 2006 7:00:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MaNiK JoSiAh, the Vatican’s statement about homosexual parenting causing “violence” to children is neither tactful nor sound. There is no reputable published evidence of harm to children from such an arrangement, and most studies fail to identify any significant psychological differences between children raised by two same sex parents compared with two opposite sex parents. A good start if you’re interested in this is http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html.

Mikijo, homosexual orientation may well be inborn (there’s not a lot of credible evidence one way or the other) but you’re possibly conflating homosexual orientation with homosexual behavior and homosexual identity, which don’t necessarily have a one on one on one relationship, something the Church and others seems to be tying themselves up in knots about. If your heterosexual orientation, behavior and identity line up, great. If you feel “revulsion” about people who don’t fit that configuration, there may be a problem. I don’t think homosexuals are trying to force themselves on the Catholic Church, although some seem to react to the Church’s more extreme pronouncements, and others are clearly angry at abusive treatment they’ve received. Richard Prendergast seems to be making a sincere effort to reconcile his Christian beliefs with the real world.

Ledingham, could I suggest your growing lack of confidence in pinning down the mind of God concords with some of the most profound thinkers in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and most other religious traditions. You’re probably on the right track.
Posted by Snout, Thursday, 13 July 2006 7:03:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Religion has a massive hangup about sex!
It takes a normal human aspect of life and demonises it. What is it afraid of...the admonishments from its various core works of fiction?
Fact - people are formed with neither total 100%male or 100%female sexuality. They are a mixture, and this drives their lifestyle.
Guilt and sexual repression leads to hatred and violence.
Religious gullibles need to grow up and get a life.
Posted by Ponder, Thursday, 13 July 2006 7:06:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It took the third paragraph to come to:
"They were just like every other family in their cares and concerns. The only difference was that they were a lesbian couple."
Does that mean they were not like every other family in their cares and concerns?
Does it mean they were not a family?
Does it mean they were a couple but not a family?
Does it mean they were a family but not a family?
Does it mean they were not just a family but were just like a family?
Does it mean they were not a couple?
Does it mean they were a couple but not a family?
Does it mean they were being judged by being a couple while being a family?
Does it mean the judgment discredited that they were a family but they were just like a couple with cares and concerns.
Does it mean they were not a family but were just like a family but then were not a family but a couple but did not have the cares and concerns of a family but with the cares and concerns of a family, just like a couple with cares and concerns.
What is the concern when they are just like every other family?
Posted by GlenWriter, Thursday, 13 July 2006 9:37:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two gay males are incapable of giving natural birth to a child that can be nursed and nurtured in that union.

However it may be possible for two lesbians who seek sex outside their relationship [violate their relationship] to give birth to a child and nurture it within a lesbian relationship. However the child will not fully understand the normal hetrosexual relationship that exists within society that it takes a male and female sexual relationship to produce a child and one in a lesbian relationship merely uses men for convenience. Their sexual orentation is violated for self fulfilment. The child will not fully grasp that temporary convenience is not the criterion for good hetrosexual relationships.

No child will fully thrive and mature with balanced views in a relationship other than a good hetrosexual family. All other relationships are second rate and ultimately destructive to good society [this includes single and blended families].

The fact is the violation of social norms of disoriented sexual practise that has been outlawed has primarly been between two men. The practise of the uncleanness of anal sex has been the threatning health scourge upon society that was condemned from the beginning of history.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 13 July 2006 9:40:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting point, Gekko. In fact, I’ve often wondered what organised religion offers gay people which makes up for all the intolerance and discrimination. The only explanation I can think of is that like straight people, gays are not immune to the religion virus. The need to believe in a god doesn’t discriminate – it’s just the believers who do.

As you point out, organisations and individuals make choices, and set up their rules accordingly – religious organisations are no exception. They are at liberty to make rules about taking your shoes off before you enter, wearing or nor wearing hats, compulsory attendance or compulsory financial support. Generally those rules apply equally to all members.

Further, there generally aren’t blanket exclusions of any particular groups. We would properly condemn a religion which refused entry to left-handed people, or red-headed people. There would be pickets outside a church which excluded Chinese or black people.

Yet for some reason religious organisations single out sexuality as the only arbitrary ground for exclusion. They’re not even singling out behaviours – in the case of Prendergast’s example, it’s the fact of them being together and being female that is found to be objectionable. Sydney’s Catholic cardinal excludes people who publicly declare their homosexuality, regardless of their sexual behaviour.

Let’s put aside for a moment the claims that certain religions make about loving fellow men and not despising others in their righteousness. Let’s refrain from inviting the believers here to remove the timber from their own eyes.

Yes, religious organisations can make choices. However they operate in the context of a greater society, which generally condemns arbitrary exclusions and discriminations. Despite this, religions set themselves above the society they inhabit, and reserve for themselves the right to make cruel and arbitrary judgements about just one small group of people.

Where do you propose that gay believers should go, Gekko? Do you want to send them off to non-straight churches, to make them sit on non-straight benches and attend non-straight schools? Would you like to force all gay people to stand up for straight people on buses, too?
Posted by w, Thursday, 13 July 2006 11:08:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo, bit puzzled about your last post. You said,

"No child will fully thrive and mature with balanced views in a relationship other than a good hetrosexual family."

This is obviously something you feel strongly about, but I can’t for the life of me find any credible evidence to back this assertion up. My experience, and the available data, suggest that the gender or sexual preference of parents seem to make little, if any, difference to the social and psychological adjustment of their children. This question seems to go to the heart of the Catholic Church’s official position about gay parenting doing “violence” to children, but like many similar arguments, the rest of your post seems to appeal to anxieties about rectal integrity rather than any sound objective examination of psychological or sociological data about child development.
Posted by Snout, Thursday, 13 July 2006 11:20:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Francis, please go back and read my post again. Never did I state I hated Catholics, just the hierarchy of the church itself, although with due respect, I didn't make that point terribly clear in hindsight. I grew up with Catholics, heck I attended a Catholic school and met some wonderful people as well as some not so nice ones, but one thing I learned throughout those and subsequent years is how the Catholic hierarchy twisted and bent God's rule to suit themselves. Did you know they actually took one of the ten commandments, split it in two and discarded one just so they could deny that the true sabbath was actually Saturday, the true 7th day of the week. Why would they do that you ask? Simply because Saturday was a trading day in those times and the Catholic church didn't want trading hours disrupted by people wandering off to church. The church lost too much money that way. So I'm sorry if I ruffled your feathers Francis. I try to get through life without making people angry. I don't always succeed, but I don't think it's fair that you should judge me and say I need a psychiatrist. I could equally judge you by saying your views are so clouded by religeous dogma that you believe that thousands of innocent people haven't been killed during the crusades and invasions of various countries by Conquistadors who did so in the name of Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church drummed up hatred then and continues to do so now. Take a good look at the history books and then tell me who had a distorted view of history.
Posted by Wildcat, Friday, 14 July 2006 1:11:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alchemist kindly observe:

>>Coach,-you-sin-every-time-you-post,-is-not-judgement-a-sin,-“let-he-who-casts-the-first-stone".-However,-your-exempt-aren't-you,-god-loves-you.<<

Of course I sin every time I breath We are all sinners- O wise one -. If God had to wait for us to become perfect He would have never send Jesus to save us.

Your quote from John 8:7 "If-any-one-of-you-is-without-sin,-let-him-be-the-first-to-throw-a-stone-at-her."
Jesus when presented with an adulteress caught in the act and asked to judge her - He bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger…
He was writing peoples sins – being God incarnate He knew all their sins.
When they were all gone, Jesus asked her:
"Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
11"No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared.
And then the punch line:
"Go now and leave your life of sin."
Jesus did not condemn her but condemn the sin. Adultery, bestiality, homosexuality, etc… is an abomination to God.
_________________

The problem with the world is they can’t handle the truth; attacking the institutions (catholic or otherwise) and treating the Word of God with contempt (i.e. mythical-or-at-best-a-misinterpretation-of-their-preferred-version-of-the-truth) is not going to change God’s mind about SIN.

Paul’s last words before his execution by the Romans:

2 Timothy 4:

3For-the-time-will-come-when-men-will-not-put-up-with-sound-doctrine.-Instead,-to-suit-their-own-desires,-they-will-gather-around-them-a-great-number-of-teachers-to-say-what-their-itching-ears-want-to-hear.

4They-will-turn-their-ears-away-from-the-truth-and-turn-aside-to-myths.
Posted by coach, Friday, 14 July 2006 11:42:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL!

Coach said: "...is not going to change God’s mind about SIN"

This is interesting Coach. Do you profess to know your god's mind? Surely this is the height of arrogance that a mere mortal can know the infinite and express that view.

In doing so, do you claim to be the vessel for that infinite being? Indeed are you not assuming the very crown of your god for yourself.

You claim you "Know God", to know the infinite would surely drive you mad. You claim you know the thoughts of Satan. How can you speak for Satan?

You claim that your knowledge of god, through knowing him gives you the right to cast damnation upon some souls "Gay and lesbians will have to face the music one day at God’s judgement throne" yet I put to you that your arrogance makes YOU the sinner that will come to really know Satan: "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven" --Luke 6:37 (KJV)

No human has the right to speak for or "Know" god.
Posted by Narcissist, Friday, 14 July 2006 12:21:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I respect Father Prendergast for trying to do something about the language the church utters which has become offensive in modern times.
Language, adapting to new ideas and concepts, is dynamic and normally adjust to new times.

Whatever Paul or John said, or whoever used the ‘offensive’ language in the past, would not have used the same language today as they have used thousands of years ago.

Jesus might even revise some of his old ideas if he still lived today ;)
I say that because toughts and ideas are naturally dynamic.
Through communication people exchange ideas and opinions. Opinions are changeable when people get more informed about things.

Father Prendergast, for a pastor anyway, seems to have a good perspective on changing times, language, opinions through communication.
Shame that such a small number of people pay attention to what he is saying.

PS did you know that ostriches are amongst the dumbest birds in the world? So don’t stick your head in the ground; instead, face the reality of today, not of thousands of years ago. The times, they are achanging!
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 14 July 2006 12:47:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
W,

You are making a problematic conflation between different types of organisations. You say "Do you want to send them off to non-straight churches... Would you like to force all gay people to stand up for straight people on buses, too?"

Private institutions should not be compared to public institutions, for the very reason that private institutions are set up by a group of like minded people who want to achieve what I would call a "private goal". For example, a private school, while adhering to certain basic standards (such as the curriculum set by the state), is normally set up to achieve something over and above basic education. It may be the teaching of particular beliefs, or the achievement of a certain standard. Therefore, private schools should be free to choose students as they see fit. A public school, on the other hand, while serving the same underlying function, has a different rationale for coming into being. Public schools are set up for the sole purpose of providing education to those who choose, for one reason or another, not to go to a private school. Therefore, while it is appropriate for private schools to select their students, it is not appropriate for a public school to exclude students on any basis.

Similarly, the Church is a voluntary organisation. It can exclude those that it wants to exclude. If I turned up to the company who organises the Mardi Gras, and insisted that I be accepted and participate in the decision making process, despite being oppossed to the Mardi Gras, would my position be seen as reasonable? Would I receive the backing of the public and sections of the legal system?

I think that the push by certain sections of the community to "secularise" the church is not about their desire to become part of the church community, but rather a hangover of the Marxist notion that all institutions (and all actions) are political, and that therefore, all institutions must be changed to suit an ultimate aim.
Posted by Gekko, Friday, 14 July 2006 2:19:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It seems generally accepted that asking individuals to live in a state of denial about their sexual orientation is unhealthy and destructive. Such denial is contrary to full human development and the journey toward holiness. The church needs to be a partner with those searching for such holiness."

The only 'generally accepted' part is where people like this ignore everyone who disagrees with them. The 2000 year old change doesn't change it's moral stance to the whims of some of it's congregation? Poor baby.

It is unhealthy and destructive to encourage people to live in such lifestyles. Perhaps this 'priest' should do a better job of trusting the whole bible, not simply the parts he currently likes.
Posted by Alan Grey, Friday, 14 July 2006 3:19:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
2000 year old church even
Posted by Alan Grey, Friday, 14 July 2006 3:20:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, churches are like special interest social clubs. But, unlike other special interest groups, they enjoy tax-free and rate-free benefits.

And they form pressure groups which are often successful in influencing so-called democratic governments, out of all proportion to the numerical membership of the pressure group.

And the unelected foreign dictator who runs one of the most powerful pressure groups in the world threatens excommunication [big deal!] to those representatives who do what they know their constituents want, rather than what the dictator wants.

And some of the more extreme church members get elected into parliament and, if they're fortunate enough to hold the balance of power, use this situation to force their beliefs onto all Australians. EG Brian Harradine and RU486.
Posted by Rex, Friday, 14 July 2006 3:22:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
lol @Gekko, if you join the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras as a member, and if you are voted in at the AGM to Join their Board of Directors, of course you would have a say at the Mardi Gras. You have to be on their management board silly.

The Reverend Fred Nile wouldn't miss Mardi Gras for the world, attends every March. He prays to God: please! rain on their Mardi Gras. But alas, he selfishly forgets the farmers or the water crisis.

lol @ Citizen: the "church bashing" to the Anglicans from the "girls" or "gay men", lol, that is funny. The wife and kids think this stupid statement is hilarious. Did I say I was gay? I would look as silly as Aunty Jack as a girl. What do you mean by "plain chicks also have a right", bla bla bla. Plain chicks? Mate, isn't that a tad sexist?

In my previous postings, it was clear that the Catholic Church in Poland and Russia were violently attacking gay people, the gay people were running for their lives. How could you possibly say this is church bashing? Sorry if they got in the way of the Christian fists and boots, and if their blood stained their nice brown shirts of their neo Nazi collegues.

The conservative Christians equate gay people to the end of civilization, to paedophiles, even those into bestiality. This is going to be their next tactic, as the Nazi Christians did in Poland. You guys are as predictable as a clock, and we have to disprove this garbage again. They are conspiracy theories that are relentlessly incorrect.

Yet when I join the dots it is dismissed as fantasy or a "conspiracy theory". I gave solid media coverage there is even video footage in my previous posting.

Actions speak louder than words, but these actions were caused by the Vatican's words. Yes they were crazy people in the Catholic church. So were the Nazis. The Vatican must be held accountable for its actions.
Posted by saintfletcher, Friday, 14 July 2006 3:59:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rex is right Gekko, the Catholic Church is very different to other voluntary organisations, it is wealthy, influential and powerful. The riots mentioned earlier in Poland are an extreme example of just how damaging its influence can be.
Posted by Carl, Friday, 14 July 2006 3:59:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
REX.... e.g. greens and democracts with any issue they feel strongly about.. forcing it on US.

How do you feel when balance of power is used for an issue you LIKE ?

I always worry about the impact of small groups and pressure lobbies in a democracy for presicely that reason.

How do you feel about ethnic ghettos ? about Immigration from politically aware countries, where the new migrants translate that political skill into using our own system for THEIR benefit and for the exclusion or reduction of ours ?

When it comes to judgemental language and homosexual behavior, the problem is, how do you describe the willful premeditated killing of another human being as anything other than 'murder' ?

Sin, is sin, and there is no way to sugar coat the pill. I suggest that rather than call unrepentant homosexual people 'an evil cancer on society' as a Swedish pastor did and ended up in Jail for a while on 'hate crime' laws; we instead limit ourselves to the biblical language as follows:

They have:

1/ Exchanged the truth about God for a lie.
2/ Have sinful desires.
3/ Are degrading their bodies with one another.
4/ Have abandoned natural relations
5/ Are consumed with lust for their own kind.
6/ Are committing indecent degrading acts.
7/ Are perverted.
8/ Will receive the due penalty for all that.

As long as we don't exceed this, we are on safe ground. (Romans 1:20etc)

I cannot see how any body calling itself 'Church' can entertain active homosexual behavior.

On the Church's being Tax Free. For goodness sake man, most are struggling to pay their pastor even a semblance of a living wage. We give a lot to missions, and what is given is given from ALREADY TAXED money, i.e. our own pockets. Would you want to tax funds destined for a home being built for Ugandan aids orphans ? We are sending a self supporting team to Uganda next month.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 14 July 2006 4:08:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey
"It is unhealthy and destructive to encourage people to live in such lifestyles"
And as we all know those living an unhealthy and destructive lifestyle should should be persecuted...shouldn't they Grey?

So I declare that the Fundamentalist christian lifestyle is unhealthy & destructive. After all I have as just as much evidence as grey has...NONE!

Or are you going to quote those anti-gay right wing sites as reliable sources again Mr. Grey

The FACT is that the homosexual lifestyle {please define what you mean by this Grey] is no more or less unhealthy than a heterosexual lifestyle. Both are caused by genetics. Both are involved with sex. Something that most fundamentalists seem hung up on.
Why is that by the way? The Gospels Jesus says that it ISN'T what goes into a man that makes him unclean but what comes out of him. You know, hatred, hypocracy, that sort of thing.
Posted by Bosk, Friday, 14 July 2006 4:22:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD, Coach, Grey

I challenge you all. Read this site.

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hitler/hitler.html

And notice the "coincidences" Then you make your usual speeches.
Posted by Bosk, Friday, 14 July 2006 5:03:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have no objection to the charitable arms of religious organisations getting tax breaks. And it may surprise you, but I give modest financial support to two Christian charities, one of them Catholic. I do it because I admire what these two charitable organisations do, that's all.

But that doesn't give me the right to preach to anyone about what they should or should not do in order to achieve salvation and/or avoid damnation. And it certainly doesn't give me the right to denigrate gay people who are doing no harm to themselves, to me, or to anyone else. [Unless we consider people like you who may claim to be suffering psychologically, because they can't keep their minds off what they may imagine to be other peoples' sex lives.]

If you want to read old, unsubstantiated documents and regard them as God's word, then go for it. But don't expect everyone else to be as gullible as you are. "we are on safe ground. (Romans 1:20etc)"
Safe ground indeed!

As for a politician using a balance of power situation to achieve a result, then I have no objection if the intention is to give people a reasonable choice over matters which are no business of the government anyway and most certainly no business of religious organisations. Or to give people the choice of voluntary euthanasia, which about 80% of Australians have consistently been in favour of for many years, but which has been denied to them just to please a selfish minority bunch of people like you. Or to give people who are currently dying of incurable diseases a chance of living through stem cell research, something else which is blocked to suit your mob.

And if your pastors are struggling to make a living, then maybe their services are not wanted by a sufficient number of clients. Is that in itself justification for the taxpayers to chip in?
Posted by Rex, Friday, 14 July 2006 5:11:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner, "No one forces anyone to go to this church or any other church. Could you imagine if one of the churches tried to tell the organisers of the mardi gras how to run their affairs."

Plenty of christian parents force their kids to attend their church, go to schools where their religion is rammed down their throats, listen to christain music at home and in the church, sit in on a variety of gospel presentations and all the rest of the deliberate indoctrination of the young.

Being neither a Sydney resident nor gay I don't have first hand knowledge of this but over the years I have seen plenty to suggest that church representatives do try to tell organisers of the mardi gras how to run their affairs. In particular Fred Nile comes strongly to mind for his attempts to impose his views of morality on others. I've not seen any evidence of widespread censure from the church for his efforts, rather widespread support.

Likewise on these forums plenty of evidence of christains trying to tell gays (muslims, women, non christians etc) how to run their affairs speaking not as humans beings participating in debate but rather as the representatives of God handing down decrees from on high.

Have a read of some of the posts by christains and try and put yourself in the shoes of somebody who does not recognise the "authority" of the christain god and you'll get the picture.

What you are suggesting chrisians don't do are exactly the things they do.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 14 July 2006 5:12:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"So what position are you adopting, Manik? Just because you personally are not throwing the faggots on the pyre, doesn’t mean that you are not complicit in the burning."

Sorry w, on this topic you may appear to have a concrete agenda that would prevent any meaningful dialogue. Not adopting a polarised view according to the already-set parameters (by previous comments) puts me in neither camp...

Snout, thanks for the link. It doesn't appear to contain any current scholarship on the issue (ie post 1996). It would be nice to see some objective information on the topic, as the article that you have provided was written by "a lesbian living with a female partner and raising three children" (http://www.narth.com/docs/patterson.html).
Posted by MaNiK_JoSiAh, Friday, 14 July 2006 5:15:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MaNiK, thanks for the link to NARTH critique of Patterson’s methodology. I’m not sure who NARTH are (they don’t give much detail about this on their site), but they raise reasonable considerations to bear in mind in assessing the validity of studies, including possible sampling flaws and researcher bias. Patterson herself appears to be quite candid in acknowledging these limitations. NARTH’s apparent critique of her work because she is a lesbian may be intended to point to potential researcher bias, but unfortunately reads as an ad hominem (ad feminam?) argument.

Assessing the credibility of sites on the net is a constant problem. NARTH may be quite correct in pointing out common pitfalls in psychosocial research, but they have identified precisely zilch research to falsify Patterson’s conclusions. Her paper was published for a general readership by the American Psychological Association, the peak professional body for psychologists in the USA. As a non-psychologist (I’m a medico) I’m open to the possibility that this professional group may have been infiltrated by nefarious political interests with little interest in safeguarding their scientific credibility. I’ve therefore checked the position statement of my own profession in the USA. You can too. It’s more recent (2002) – you are quite correct in raising an eyebrow at a decade old paper, but sometimes these are valid because there’s nothing new to say. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/medlineplus/leavemedplus.pl?theURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psych.org%2Fnews_room%2Fpress_releases%2Fadoption_coparenting121802.pdf
Posted by Snout, Friday, 14 July 2006 9:31:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here’s a more comprehensive link on the subject from an organization well known to be biased against the needs of children, the American Academy of Pediatrics.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/341

It links to numerous references remarkable in their consistency in concluding that it's the quality of the parent child relationship rather than the gender and sexual orientation of the parents that are significant in child development and adjustment.

Richard Prendergast is uncomfortable with the Vatican’s statement describing gay unions as doing “violence” to children because he is worried the language might offend the delicate sensibilities of homosexuals, which runs counter to his personal conception of Christian charity. MaNiK thinks the statement lacks tact. My objection is that it’s complete and utter ignorant tosh.

Now, I support the right of people to believe whatever misinformed rubbish they like. I also agree with Gekko that the Catholic Church has the right to decide who is and isn't welcome as members of their club.

But when the Church puts out a statement such as this, the intention is to influence public policy. As such, they are fair game for debate. When they talk crap, they need to be told.
Posted by Snout, Friday, 14 July 2006 11:56:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gekko - you seem to forget, the whole point of Christianity is inclusivity - "just love each other".

In my experience gay people have a much greater undertanding of love and inclusiveness than most clerics who use their self-proclaimed positions to spout poison and spread fear - which is the true opposite of love (hate being merely a symptom of fear).
Posted by K£vin, Saturday, 15 July 2006 12:49:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gekko, your private/public distinction is a furphy, and I suspect you know it.

All organisations, whether public or "private", exist in the context of a greater society, and operate within its conventions. Their choices about what rules they make and who they exclude are made with respect to external law and custom.

It's not acceptable in Australia to exclude groups of people based on their hair colour, handedness or ethnicity. This is a value which all the “respectable” religions observe. In most areas, it also extends to sexuality, both real and perceived.

In your distinction, the local netball team is a private organisation. All that’s required to join is a desire to play netball. For the netball club to discriminate on the grounds of the player’s sexuality (or the player’s parents’ sexuality) is neither legal nor acceptable in Australia. To join your local church, all that’s required is a desire to worship its god.

Except if you’re gay: then an additional entry requirement applies, that you give up your partner, your (god-given) sexuality, and a whole lot of your non-church social networks and relationships. If you’re already a member and discover that you’re gay, religions suddenly determine that your belief is not enough.

All the laws which apply to Telstra and the Queensland University of Technology (host of OLO) also apply to Mardi Gras, so your example is way off the mark. You *can* get onto the board of the Mardi Gras. I urge you to start working on your application now – it would require you to familiarise yourself with some of the exclusion and spite that gay people deal with daily. Take a look at the submissions to the HREOC Inquiry to see what I mean: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/samesex/submissions_index.html

As I said before, it’s a mystery to me why gay people would want to join a church that rejects them, but many do. Do religious people think it is better or worse for gay people to believe in god? If yes, why do you reject these believers? Where do you think they should go?
Posted by w, Saturday, 15 July 2006 9:32:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Father Richard Prendergast has challenged Church doctrine in a diplomatic manner, but dilpomacy is not enough.
The Church's teaching is that sex is for procreation. Any sexual activity that precludes procreation is condemned or at best avoided. Unless and until the Church changes its attitude no amount of sweet talk to gays and lesbians will achieve anything.
The ultimate question to be asked is where did this teaching come from and is it tenable.
Posted by fdixit, Saturday, 15 July 2006 10:52:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Manik, I would dispute your view that we’re discussing a binary issue here: there are a range of possible views. However, let’s just say it is a binary issue – in that case, having endorsed the Vatican’s position against same-sex couples, you have no basis for a claim that you are “in neither camp.” You’ve joined the forces of discrimination.

Nice attempt at patronisation, too, but it doesn’t work. This is not Online Non-entrenched Opinion, or even Online Mild Opinion. Yes, I have a view, one that is well-founded in the principles of fairness, and respect for individual human rights. It’s an opinion I am prepared to defend, but I’m also ready to modulate it when presented with a better view.

What about you, Manik? You say the Vatican’s sentiments are sound. Why?

And why are you prepared to accept the consequences for innocent third parties? (please read my posts again before you respond that, in Prendergast’s example, the child’s parents are responsible for any disadvantages that flow to her)

Being unwilling to defend your view arouses the suspicion that you are here for nothing more than to make mischief.

Finally, Manik, sitting “in neither camp” as you claim, does not mean that you are morally sound, or even neutral. As Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
Posted by w, Saturday, 15 July 2006 11:36:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not to mention Sir Joh Bjelkie Peterson's famous quote that any farmer knows: you can't just sit on the fence. If you have one foot in one paddock, and the other foot in the other paddock, someone is going to pull up the barbwire fence and castrate you.

There are gay friendly members of the Coalition including one who represents Cairns ( I don't remember the names of all Queenslanders ), Senator Amanda Vanstone, and former Liberal Premier of NSW John Fahey ardently protected the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras from threats of legal challenges, as a close friend of John Marsden. We currently have a gay Liberal Councillor on the Sydney City Council: Shane Mallard. The only member of the council who rides a bike to work and actually practices environmental responsibility.

Former Liberal Premier Dick Hamer in Victoria decriminalised homosexuality in their State, years before ALP Premier Neville Wran did. They didn't sit on the fence. They made a brave stand and took a risk with their peers. I admire these members of the Coalition more than the ALP NSW Government that cowardly does nothing. In fact some members of the NSW ALP are more homophobic than Fred Nile. They ironically have Penny Sharpe in the Upper House in the ALP in NSW who is a lesbian mother.

In response so some religious nut up the page somewhere, this agenda is not the property of the Greens and the Democrats. It never was. Take a look at Parliament. Take a look at history. The line in the sand is not necessarily drawn between the Political Parties in Australia. Nor is this a left or right wing argument. Some left wing people are more homophobic than some conservatives in this country.

I would hardly call gay High Court Justice Michael Kirby left wing. I doubt he ever voted for the ALP in his life. But he is moderate and fair and very well respected for this. The political geography is not what it seems on this issue.
Posted by saintfletcher, Saturday, 15 July 2006 1:16:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ_David, sorry, but I can't let your last post go through to the keeper. In it you stated..
"On the Church's being Tax Free. For goodness sake man, most are struggling to pay their pastor even a semblance of a living wage."
Some years ago whilst undergoing some major changes in my life and feeling rather vunerable, I was "persuaded" by a born again Christian to attend an evengelistic church. The first thing I noticed was the pastor who drove a brand new European car. He had his hair slicked back in true American TV evangelistic style, he wore the finest suit which was obviously well cut and expensive. Later, I asked my friend just how all this was payed for. He replied that in his church, you have to pay a tithe of 10% of all your income to the church. The church was pretty flashy too I might add. Once I witnessed "talking in tongues" I quickly backed away from there as fast as I could. A few years later, I was taken under the wing of a member of another evangelistic church, no tongues this time, but the same extremely well dressed pastor who also drove a brand new European car, same flashy hairdo and suit to go with it. I also noticed a couple of expensive looking rings on his hands. Then I began to take notice of other evangelistic cult churches and found them all to be the same. The pastors seemingly dripping money, while the poor dumb congregation offers up one tenth of their income each week to help pay for it all.
Posted by Wildcat, Saturday, 15 July 2006 1:47:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2
As for doing good deeds in other countries, yes, both the above mentioned churches build schools and churches in third World countries, but their motives are vary transparent. Their aim in building these churches and schools is to preach their brand of evangelistic nonsence to the poor and desperate inhabitants of such places with the further aim of converting them and setting up another money making machine. Unfortunately, in the process they destroy local culture and customs and create another mob of sheep to do the churches bidding in attracting more locals and more money, so David don't tell me your church helps the inhabitants of third World countries out of the goodness of it's heart. Evanegistic churches don't have a heart, so why not tax the heck out of them? The more tax our Government could glean from the churches, the less damage might be caused to the fragile, diverse, but unfortunately ignorant third World cultures.
Just for the record, all that bible thumpin' turned me off religion for life. Wildcat.
Posted by Wildcat, Saturday, 15 July 2006 1:48:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To say that Christians discriminate against sinners is not sensible. From the Church’s side everyone is a sinner. It seems our fellows gay and lesbians have not yet reached that stage of humility and surrender. To belong to a church, you must leave your past sinful life at the door and never collect it on the way home.

The issue at hand is the homosexual lobby sinners wanting an ever larger slice of the cake by claiming their rightful acceptance to God’s family: the Church. Last time it was a piece of the marriage institution (legal union).

What many posters don’t realise is the meaning of God’s plan for His Church. He doesn’t frown at sinners seeking to join His family; He welcomes them with open arms (the prodigal son) BUT He doesn’t leave them in their state of rebellion – He changes them.

As I said before to join a believers group – unlike a club or an office - one must be born again, renewed, cleansed, with a new slate.

The opportunity for homosexuals to be accepted by God is wide open BUT they prefer not to accept it. Instead they expect the Church and God himself to come to their level and accept them in their sinful status. This will never happen of course.

Some churches have adopted a more liberal approach with gay clergy and gay congregation. They are doing themselves an unspeakable damage, by believing that God is accepting their worship. They are only fooling themselves.

Contrary to the mardi gras depravity that is imposing and exposing its filth on society, the church will never force people to endure its teachings. Belonging to God’s family is a privilege not a social right.

A church door remains open – those who can’t take the heat should get out.

God-the-Son Jesus came to heal the sick – but every time He performed a healing miracle He asked the sick first if they wanted to get better…

Among other accolades, Jesus was called “friend of sinners”.

So do you want to be healed
Posted by coach, Saturday, 15 July 2006 1:55:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This quote below from Rita Carter's book "Mapping the Mind" might help you people think a bit more rationally about this issue.

Is there a gay brain?

"In 1991 the prestigious journal "Science" published a study showing that the brains of a group of homosexual men who had died of Aids were structurally different from the brains of hetrosexual men. The nucleus in the hypothalmus that triggers male-typical sexual behaviour was much smaller in the gay men and looked more like that in the brains of women. The author, Simon LeVay, then Associate Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and Adjunct Professor of Biology at the University of California, was immediately attacked by gay activists who feared the recognition of homosexuality as a physical-based condition might lead to it being re-stigmatised. LeVay, who is himself gay, then went on to discover that the corpus callosum differs between gay and straight men, too - in gays it was to be found to be bigger. Three years later a study led by molecular biologist Dean Hamer of the National Institute of Health in Washington, DC found evidence to suggest that a specific gene - carried on the maternal line-influenced sexual orientation in men. Put together, these studies provide strong evidence that homosexuality is rooted in biology-and hostility to the idea has largely disappeared."

No doubt God has just noted that down in this log and I guess Rancitas is one step closer to HELL.

I think the pope is an idiot. If he can't see that to abstain from sex, to abstain from expressing your particular sexuality, especially in a loving relationship, is unnatural and thus, according to Catholic thinking, which in turn is based on Aristotle's ideas, goes against God, then he is evidence that the Catholic anti-gay love stance is based on falliacious evidence rather than his mythic Papal infallibility (which in itself demeans God).

Go to a punk gig, they accept everyone and are far more moral than the Church will ever be.
Posted by rancitas, Saturday, 15 July 2006 5:12:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rancitas,

So do some recent papers mention a possible cure for this congenital anomaly ?

I am sure that science could find a way to reverse this irregularity in the brain or in the genetic mesh itself. God and even the pope will agree to this.

Would that be acceptable to you or would society wipe away a whole cultural colour with their superior intellect, subhuman love, and impeccable ethics?

Alternatively we could inject the rest of the population with the gay gene(s) and achieve homogenisation and complete acceptance from the anti-gay movement.
Posted by coach, Saturday, 15 July 2006 5:39:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wildcat,
You said: "The pastors seemingly dripping money, while the poor dumb congregation offers up one tenth of their income each week to help pay for it all".

If you take a calculator and work out 1/10 of the congreations income is placed into Church funds and a calculation is appropiated of the average personal offering and multiplied by ten then the pastor receives a reflection of what the income of the average of the members of his church. Assume 100 members earning $1,000 p w place $100 each into the offering and that $100 is multiplied by 10 it would mean the Pastor also receives $1,000 p w. He receives the average income of the offerings given by the congreation. The operations, charities and ministeries of the Church use the other $9,000.

However I know of no congreation that gives 1/10 of their income to the Church. Most put in their small change.

The Church for decades has been plagued by homosexuals abusing boys, is it any wonder they want to clean up this immoral behaviour. I say excommunicate practising homosexuals.

We have in our congreation former homosexuals who have abandoned the behaviour for purity and now make excellent members of the Church.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 15 July 2006 10:58:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We have discussed the violent attacks the Church has made against gay people in Poland and Russia, together with neo Nazis. This violence was a direct affect from the Vatican's violent language to gay people.

Coach: "To say that Christians discriminate against sinners is not sensible."

That is such a pathetic lie. What the Polish and Russian Churches did this year was not just discriminate against gay people, their pogrom physically brutalised large groups of gay people in a precinct of Warsaw, and later in Moscow. These pogroms were violent and bloody. Look back at my previous postings for references and video footage.

"wanting an ever larger slice of the cake....Last time it was a piece of the marriage institution (legal union)".

Civil Union is nothing to do with the Church, it legal issue. If the Church insists upon imposing over Government, then it should pay taxes.

"the church will never force people to endure its teachings."

Churches forced Governments against allowing civil unions and forced Governments to disallow the universal anti-discrimination act. The Christian Church always forces all Australians to its teachings. Forces funding expensive private schools from tax payers money. Yet it still does not pay taxes.

"would society wipe away a whole cultural colour with their superior intellect, subhuman love, and impeccable ethics?"

This line is identical to a line in Adolph Hitler's Mien Kemp regarding the "untermensch" (subhumans) needing to be "wiped away" as Coach puts it.

Philo also shows the same laguage used in Poland: "The Church for decades has been plagued by homosexuals abusing boys, is it any wonder they want to clean up this immoral behaviour. I say excommunicate practising homosexuals."

Try dealing with your paedophiles and you will find the dominant problem. Otherwise most of the paedophiles in the church that remain are heterosexual, and the girls are at danger.

Language from the Vatican provoked violence in Poland and Russia. The subsequent language used by neo Nazis in these countries are identical to the language used above. We have the hate listed above, when will the violence begin as it usually does?
Posted by saintfletcher, Sunday, 16 July 2006 2:42:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fletch, could you go easy on the nazi comparisons.

The forces of intolerance around here divide roughly into three camps:

First, there’s the people who genuinely don’t know how much their attitudes cause real misery for sexual minorities. They’ve been brought up to think a certain way, and are only now beginning to question their values. Treat them gently, tell them about real examples of misery caused by intolerance.

The next group are the zealots. They believe that their god has told them to despise certain groups. Suffering happens, and when it does, hey, that’s god’s will. The best you can hope for from these people is that they will come to accept that they can live and let live.

The saddest and smallest group are the repressed homosexuals. Everything the first two groups say around here reinforces their self-loathing, and their determination to cloak their real selves with surface piety and condemnation of difference. In a more tolerant world people will not have to suffer they way they do, but today, unfortunately, nothing you can say will help them.

What we don’t have around here is evil war-mongering mass murderers. Ultimately, just about everyone here is attempting to speak the truth as they see it. No-one here deserves to be associated with the most evil acts that human beings have ever visited upon each other. Making those comparisons only offends them, entrenches their positions even further, and makes your arguments less convincing.
Posted by w, Sunday, 16 July 2006 10:12:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Coach "it is not the churches that make the rules but God himself."

Never a truer word spoken, and sorta makes obsolete the rant that permeates most discussions on theology. How on earth do all these people know what God wants?

Alchemist "Coach, your (sic) a wonderful example of a true monotheist, non-caring, lacking understanding, ignorant, paranoid and hypocritical"

Gosh, Alchemist. Which polytheism do you subscribe to? And do they advocate tolerance? Ledingham offers an example - "My careful reading of Scripture leads me to be no longer so confident that I know everything that God thinks about sexuality. Is it not just possible that something fresh is breaking forth from God's Word and that an inclusive attitude to those whose sexuality is different from ours may be a Christlike response." Ledingham could've included 'faith' alongside sexuality but the sentiment is worthy.
Posted by bennie, Sunday, 16 July 2006 12:33:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good comment, w. Unfortunately, if it was left to the zealots, homo pogroms and burnings at the stake would again become a regular feature of Western culture. Violent tyranny is never far from the center in religion or politics.

Regarding priests and boys, there's a true word spoken in jest here: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27834
Posted by Sancho, Sunday, 16 July 2006 12:54:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
w nice post but I see the conclusion put by you in the last paragraph in a different light.

I don't think the kind of institutional brutality typified in Nazi Germany sprang out of nowhere. It could only exist when a foundation of intollerance was allowed. Where the "man in the street" was desensitised to the singling out of minorities. Likewise I suspect that not all Nazi's started out as evil killers, they started out small and built up to it.

The social climate which allows the kind of repression some posters want has as one potential outcome a slide to the kind of society which I doubt that any of those posters currently imagine themselves supporting.

I do agree that likening those who hold intollerant views as Nazi's is unlikely to help and may possibly harden positions. We should be ever on our guard against the seeds of extremism but don't assume that those who push in that direction have realised where they are heading yet or that all will go there when the consequences become apparent.

Cheers
R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 16 July 2006 12:58:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bennie, your mythical god hasn't said a word ever, however without fantasy and with factual evidence, I'm prepared to listen.

“How on earth do all these people know what God wants? “

Yep not even you or other followers according to your worldwide example.

Bennie, I understand you've no idea beyond illusional fantasy and can but continue on your merry go round ride of ignorance. I'm not a theist, tolerance is displayed by those not trapped in violent fantasies. Monotheism's the most intolerant belief ever dragged out of the sewer, otherwise, there'd be no debate on gays, Islam, Judaism, secularism, or atheism, there'd be enlightened discussion. Tolerance allows others the right to be, monotheism controls at any cost, no tolerance at all.

Daily we see the intolerance of monotheists in every endeavour of life. Its destroyed more cultures than anything else, its rate of sexual abuse within its ranks is high and continues even with 2000 years of saying no, it goes on. Not very tolerant of the believers. We see monotheistic intolerance with children, psychologically abusing them with lies about love and peace, yet providing examples of intolerant violence.

Homosexuality isn't for me, but I don't turn away from homosexuals. I hate tea, coffee, dairy products, eggs and eating enslaved animals for gluttony, (not very tolerant to animals is it). I don't berate or demean people for their choice, I accept their right to be and the fact they make life interestingly different for us all.

Sadly people like coach, have no idea of what life's really about, they're so intolerant and fearful of difference, they have to resort to suppression and degradation of people. Pathological liars display these signs as they can't see beyond their illusions. They display it when faced with truth, they lash out verbally with unsustainable statements, when that fails, they abuse, then attack.

As I said earlier, if homosexuals are stupid enough to want to be a part of this despotic belief, that's their problem and they should realise that monotheism relies on violent suppression for control, not tolerance.
Posted by The alchemist, Sunday, 16 July 2006 3:18:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@W the news articles about neo Nazis and ultra right wing Church groups in Poland and Russia happened this year. I am not talking about NAZI Germany in WWII. Surely decent Christians in their postings should agree that this is a travesty. They have failed to comment.

If this is too nasty to consider, and all you want to do is deny it, then we might as well ostrich our way out of Iraq and Islamic terrorism as well, and not even talk about such upsetting things that offend Muslims. Lets face it, upseting the Muslims drives them even further against us. Of course, Christians make their own rules for themselves seperate to Muslims.

I don't buy your argument at all, it smacks of middle class denial. I'm not after acceptance, I don't need it not being gay, I don't even think it is safe for gay people to go to these Churches. I am talking about violent fundamentalist Church attacks against gay people.

If the truth hurts, well that's just tough.

The Vatican is in Rome. We are already talking about another country. Warsaw is in Poland. Moscow is in Russia. None of this is happening in Germany, yet it's happening now. If this shocks people, then I'm surprised they didn't bother to see it on the news, nor do they care.

The European Union cares and certainly condemns this behaviour very seriously. It's a pitty none of you do. There is talk of the EU expelling Poland from the EU for this reason. Poland has abused their EU privileges and could be booted out: for being an oppressive dictatorship, run by an overzealous Christian fundamentalists.

What strikes me is the violent similarity in language that these neo Nazi Christians in Poland and Russia use, in comparison to some hateful language used in postings here.

Any Christian with any spine would condemn this behaviour just as much as I do. So far, this has not happened. Why? Because they agree with the violent oppression. Christians couldn't care less. The truth hurts? P-lease!
Posted by saintfletcher, Sunday, 16 July 2006 4:27:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Alchemist.
You got the wrong end of the stick. I've never suggested there is a god, but where faith leads to tolerance then fine by me.
Posted by bennie, Sunday, 16 July 2006 5:48:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo, I'm guessing that your church is one of the mainstream Christian churches. If you re-read my post, you'll find I'm refering to two evangelistic churches. I won't mention which two. I can assure you that both require their congregation to give one tenth of their wage to the church each week and those same parishioners freely give that amount. Some are average working people, some are very well off indeed. In my second reference, I know a lot more about that particular church than I do the first. I personally (to this day) know one family that double tithes each week, the theory being that you will receive "double the reward from God in return." Always sounded a lot to me like 'buying' God's favors, but I never said as much. The male in this family also told me he knows of several other members of his church who double tithe. With fanatics like these, I'm afraid your calculator is of no use.
Posted by Wildcat, Sunday, 16 July 2006 6:23:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How sad that those who say they are Christians, would deny the right of any person, to follow their personal religous beliefs.
I being born into a devout catholic family, still enjoy the love and support of my family as a gay man.
I could not retain my belief, because of the rejection by the catholic church towards gay people. Also the undertone of violence, that the catholic church espouses against my being.
My family are now concerned about their churches social attitude, and the vitriolic comments coming from the catholic church.
My families beliefs have altered, as one of their children is being used has a whipping stick, for no reason other than ecumanical dictate of what the church says goes.
To those "cristians" who would deny the right of anybody, to the right of belief and belonging. I pity you!
Posted by Kipp, Sunday, 16 July 2006 7:36:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
saintfletcher,
From my observation and Court documentation there are more abuse of young males in the Church than young females by adults; much of this also done by bisexual adults. They have a sexually obsessive mind. The sexual act of anal intercourse is condemned whether the male adult is homosexual or bisexual. Their actions spring from lust and power over the weak, two attitudes condemned by Christ and the NT. If the Church is to get its act together it must condemn sinful practises, accept sinners and protect the weak from exploitation.

Quote, "Try dealing with your paedophiles and you will find the dominant problem. Otherwise most of the paedophiles in the church that remain are heterosexual, and the girls are at danger."
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 16 July 2006 9:23:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fdixit: “Any sexual activity that precludes procreation is condemned or at best avoided. Unless and until the Church changes its attitude no amount of sweet talk to gays and lesbians will achieve anything. The ultimate question to be asked is where did this teaching come from and is it tenable.”
Good question. No, it is not tenable. Australian families have an average of 2.1 children. In many families one of the partners have been sterilized when they have finished their families; others are using contraception; some couples are infertile; some have gone through menopause; some decide not to have children at all; some are homosexual couples. Sexual activity for all these people is condemned?
People ought to stop having sex as soon as their families are complete?

Coach: “The opportunity for homosexuals to be accepted by God is wide open BUT they prefer not to accept it. Instead they expect the Church and God himself to come to their level and accept them in their sinful status. This will never happen of course.”
Never say never. Churches have widely accepted that people use contraception, whereas not such a ling time ago, they were condemning it. If they would still not accept this today, churches would be almost non-existant.
Churches need people more than people need churches. People can be perfectly happy without going to church. The church will, albeit slowly, accept this sinful status;)

Philo, I'm glad someone pointed out to you the difference between a homosexual and a pedophile :)
To be continued
Posted by Celivia, Monday, 17 July 2006 12:15:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rancitas: “Go to a punk gig, they accept everyone and are far more moral than the Church will ever be.”
LOL!
Indeed- why should the church have the monopoly on (the evolution) of morals? People, as individuals as well as members of a group/community/the world, only will want to live within the morals/guidelines of the church if they fully understand them and agree with those guidelines. People can live within their own morals or that of a group they connect with. They don’t need to be a slave to any church’s morals- morals that they do not understand or agree with.
I think that the church is facing a dilemma- it needs people to be able to exist while they also resist certain morals.
Now what happens if the ‘immoral’ group gets to big for the church to resist, e.g. the contraception-users? They won’t resist this group anymore. So I reckon the more gay/lesbian couples express themselves to the church, the better chance they have to be accepted without being afraid that the church is going to try to change their sexual orientation.

Edit Comment
Posted by Celivia, Monday, 17 July 2006 12:16:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Philo: I am alarmed about the information you give regarding slack Church procedures in following protocols. Especially when it comes to child protection. If you have a problem, then you need to take responsibility.

Look, you have every right to insist that every member of your Church undergo a "safe person" check and a "criminal record" check. You should have the forms at your church for people to sign as they become members of your congregation. The authorities will let you know if members of the congregation pass the check or not.

If you don't follow the regulations, you will never find out who is safe and who is not safe. If there are any indications of paedophilia in your Church, you have a legal obligations to notify the Department of Community Services or the Police. You do not have the right to keep confidentiality on this matter.

Relying on prejudice rather than criminal records of "safe persons" records that are kept by DOCs, is negligent on the part of your Church. You could even be regarded an accessory to a crime if you fail to follow the protocols correctly and get your facts wrong.

No wonder so many predators hide in the Church when Churches refuse to follow the law and notify all abuse. I am amazed that you admit that the Church has a serious problem.

No more secrets! No more exclusions from legal protocols. Support the system that supports you and I can tell you now, once those forms are passed around your group, those paedophiles will run a mile and you will probably never see them again. They don't want you to know their reputation.

This is what I am talking about. We can all be safer if we open up, talk, tell the truth, use the system to confirm the information and stop scapegoating other minority groups like gays and lesbians for problems that you have within your own institution. Your church needs to get its act together and protect children properly.
Posted by saintfletcher, Monday, 17 July 2006 2:15:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Coach thanks for the compliment re: "superior intellect" and "impeccable ethics". All that and I am pretty too. Mind you that is a little over the top. Intellect wasn't mentioned in my post and if you think my ethics are impeccable I’ll add that to my CV. Thanks.

You say: "I am sure that science could find a way to reverse this irregularity in the brain or in the genetic mesh itself. God and even the pope will agree to this."

Where is your evidence that it is indeed an irregularity? That is like saying Rancitas' jovial disposition is "irregular" because it doesn't fit your schema - your cloistered world view.

Why would the pope agree with altering peoples' natural brain make up when the pope thinks vasectomy and , for popes and preists, having a good root, is wrong and unnatural? Next you will be telling me the pope wants angry gays to undergo a lobotomy (it would be immoral in your eye to violate a "normal" hetro).

A large corpus colossum is also developed in folk who tend to think in degrees and dissect things rather than lumping things into categories, black and white. Hitler was a black and white thinker, Bush is an either for or against us thinker. So, for instance, a heterosexual with a big one (cc that is) will see that a gay person is above all a valued human and that a gay's sexuality is only a part of their make up.
Maybe God created some folk with a big corpus colossum to test all you people who think that love between two hetrosexual's is superior to love between two homosexuals. Those who bellow out oxymorons like "sub-human love" are exposed for what really is in their heart -hatred of difference.

Coach you say that this natural condition needs to be corrected. The evidence that this is "natural" is inconclusive. I didn't offer an opinion on the "paper". Use your brain Coach and ask if the Aids had affected the size of the hypothalamus instead of carrying on like zealous fanatic.
Posted by rancitas, Monday, 17 July 2006 2:21:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Coach asks: "Would that be acceptable to you or would society wipe away a whole cultural colour with their superior intellect, subhuman love, and impeccable ethics?". You're being unreasonable and silly. I don't want gay culture wiped out or homophobic genetic tampering. Homophobic people who want to deny couples their choices in relation to their expression of their sexuality are unreasonable.
Keep in mind here that Catholics regard nature to be an expression of God's divine wisdom. Thus Catholics idea of nature is a capital N, reason is a capital R. So if you are not natural or reasonable in their eyes you are evil or in need of help.
In my mind, the anus is not designed for sex. Scientific fact. In Brazil the Catholics are supposedly buggering their wives so as not to break the church's contraception rule and because, in the prevailing Catholic culture, condoms are scarce. Most porn sites have anal sex between heterosexual male and female. All these, to me, are unnatural but they are less damaging (and more fun) than some of the other things that the pope and the do-gooders accept. Catholicism is a business. If Rome accept gays, they will lose customers. Economic rationalism -simple as that.

It is unnatural to smoke cigarettes; drink alcohol, drive cars; wear make up or a condom; cook food; wear shoes; watch TV; use computers; money, medicines; nuclear weapons, electricity; pollute our rivers and atmosphere,; medicines; etc. These are all products of civilisation. It could be argued that certain barbaric behaviours are natural. Raping girls or killing gays would have been natural to cave man. So one has to ask why the focus on consenting gays? Religion has played a positive part in civilising our behaviours in some aspects, in others it returns zealots to violence and irrational thinking and behaviour.
If people choose to engage in homosexual acts then it is not helpful for supposed heterosexual moralisers to carry on with homophobic nonsense or use religion and God to give authority to what in the end is nothing more than an individuals' opinion
Posted by rancitas, Monday, 17 July 2006 3:19:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The most sinful of acts is the 'taking of life' - physically or psychologically, yet, the Church spends no discernable time critiscising the war in Iraq.

Typically church leaders choose to focus their holier than though attention on vulnerable, minority groups rather than face up to the wrong doings of their seemingly all powerful political leaders - allowing them to get away with the biggest 'sins' of all. No wonder congregations are diminishing and voter turn out is disappearing in western countries right around the world.
Posted by K£vin, Monday, 17 July 2006 8:35:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rancitas, I appreciate where you’re coming from, but don’t infer design from science. If you don’t like anal sex, or if you want to point out health risks associated with the practice, fine. But don’t present personal feelings as “scientific fact”. It’s pretty hard to argue against so-called “intelligent design” or other religiously based corruptions of science if you do.

Philo says,

“The Church for decades has been plagued by homosexuals abusing boys”

The issue isn’t homosexuals, it’s paedophiles and others who have difficulty refraining from abusive sexual practices against vulnerable people.

While attacking the Catholic Church on their practices around avoiding sexual exploitation is like shooting fish in a bucket, it’s worth asking why they exclude people with a normal adult sexual life (homosexual or heterosexual) from their clergy. Has it not occurred to them that this is a selection criterion that is guaranteed to deliver them more than their fair share of people with serious psychosexual problems? Couple that with a highly authoritarian structure that seriously lacks accountability to the usual checks and balances that regulate society, and you have an obvious recipe for disaster.

The latest statement from the Vatican about homosexual unions causing “violence” to children is yet one more example of an organization hell bent on doing as much damage to their own credibility as seems humanly possible. I have enormous sympathy for people inculcated with Catholic doctrine from childhood who are struggling to relate to the real world with intelligence and integrity. But we don’t help them by getting involved in arguments about whether language is nice enough or too “judgmental” when what is being said, rather than the language it’s being said in, is seriously corrupt
Posted by Snout, Monday, 17 July 2006 9:41:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
saintfletcher,
Your last post was totally irrelavent. We have DOCS employees and School teachers involved in teaching and caring for the children in our Church. All with the approved accreditation.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 17 July 2006 11:04:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lol@ Philo, you have no idea what you are talking about do you?

"Real teachers with real accreditation": oh whoopee! And DOCs employees who are also employees of your church: Stiff cheddar mate! What section of DOCs do they work for? Child protection and abuse investigations? I bet they don't. Your attempted diversion is irrelevant, and making excuses for your slack church is most suspicious after what you disclosed in your previous post.

With all this so called "approved accreditation"? Accredited for what?

State Schools have better networks of recourses and actually have better trained teachers. The State School system doesn't have the scale of problems that you speak of in the Church private system.

Make up your mind Philo, does your Church have a problem, or doesn't it?

Now look at your outcomes. You are the one that said you had serious problems in your Church. I simply suggested a solution. I didn't miss the point at all, I just informed you of the set protocol accepted in the State of NSW. Your Church has a problem? Take responsibility for your failure.

Why are you now back peddling and contradicting yourself, by making excuses for your church? Behavior like yours is what perpetuates paedophilia as you help them hide in your Church in the firstplace. Are you serious about resolving the problem, or are you going to fiddle fart around whinging in one post, then denying the same issue in the next post, totally contradicting yourself?

Please be consistent and factual before you accuse gays and lesbians, in disrepute, by accusing them of a crime that they are innocent of. If you are hiding something, you are the criminal.

Now that you retreat diverting the problem by declaring it "irrelevant": just after obsessing over the same thing, I wonder, mate, what exactly are you hiding? Hate, fear or something more sinister?
Posted by saintfletcher, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 12:57:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bennie, I apologise, after reading your post again, I see where you are coming from. However I must reiterate, tolerance is not in the religious dictionary. The only words expressed in the monotheistic dictionaries, are god, lie, cheat, deceive, invade, conquer, destroy, blame others.

Philo, I have many years of experience dealing with DOCS in NSW. It's full of psychopathic control freaks, brain dead dykes and fat useless emotionally crippled women. The number of wrongful vindictive mistakes and failure to act, made by this department runs to thousands of incidents a year.

Again you provide an example exemplifying the despotic approach of your belief. The only accreditation most DOCS workers have is an arts degree and a desire to hurt as many people as they can with their infantile belief in their god like superiority

Just to give you some more info Philo, during my time within the church, it was common practise for catholic and high church priests to castigate those who didn't provide in their weekly donations to the church, at least 15% of their income, even if they were destitute. In all church factions I had involvement with, a concerted effort was always made to bury sexual problems or blame the victim.

The number of sexual attacks upon parishioners reported yearly ran into the thousands, all who reported them were subjected to ridicule, denial and denunciation by the church. I found this with all the different churches, most loving and caring.
Posted by The alchemist, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 7:24:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Homosexual activists have largely persuaded the courts and the mainstream
media that their sexual practices are quite innocuous and therefore pose
no threat to society. But the authors of a new study recently published
in Psychological Reports reach a very different conclusion, uncovering
disturbing evidence that homosexuality entails serious malign
consequences, at least as serious as prostitution or illegal drug use.

Parsing national survey data collected in 1996 by the National Centers for
Disease Control, the authors of the new study adduce strong evidence that
in the "disturbances of public health and social order" for which they
were responsible, "those who engaged in homosexuality were similar to
those who used illegal drugs, participated in prostitution, or regularly
smoked." In other words, the researchers limned "similar patterns" for
these groups (homosexuals, prostitutes, illegal drug users, and regular
smokers) in "criminality, dangerousness, use of illegal substances,
problems with substance abuse, mental health, and health costs."

More specifically, just as criminality, drunk driving, poor psychological
well-being, and reliance upon health care or addiction treatments were
more common among prostitutes, drug users, and heavy smokers than among
abstinent peers, even so all of these threats to public order and solvency
showed up much more among homosexuals than among heterosexuals. More
specifically, homosexuals were significantly more likely than
heterosexuals to have been booked for a crime (p<0.01), more likely to
have driven under the influence of alcohol or drugs during the previous
year (p<0.05), more likely to report a mental health problem (p<0.05),
more likely to have visited the emergency room for an illness or accident
during the previous year (p<0.10), and more likely to have received
treatment or counseling for drugs or alcohol during the previous year
(p<0.05).
Posted by Reality Check, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 12:25:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...and dont' forget that homosexuals are also more likely to be the victim of gay-bashing than heterosexuals (100%).
Posted by Celivia, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 1:41:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia, I doubt that it is actually 100%. One of the difficulties for the gay bashers is that not all gays walk around in tight pink shorts so sometimes they have to take a guess and it takes a fairly big act of faith to believe that they would always get that right.

No stats to back up that claim, just a strong belief that predjudice often hits individuals outside it's target group.

Your point is well made though.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 2:41:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where do I start, “reality” check?

First, this discussion is not about homosexuals’ health issues. It’s about their lack of acceptance in mainstream religions. If homosexuals did indeed suffer disproportionately from the problems listed here, that would be yet another reason to bring them into mainstream communities of belief for some help and support.

Second, lifting words from another website and posting them here without acknowledgement is theft. At the bottom of the page you copied them from (http://www.worldcongress.org/wcfupdate/Archive07/wcf_update_723.htm) you'll find a copyright statement, indicating that the authors do not allow the kind of fraudulent misappropriation you have committed here. One can only wonder about the ethical standards that allow you to malign a group of law-abiding people while behaving illegally yourself.

Third, the article your post refers to was written by a team headed by Paul Cameron, whose anti-gay “research” has been widely discredited. Try this http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Paul_Cameron, this http://www.bewareofthegod.com/wp-images/BOTG_news_1.pdf or just pick any of these: http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Paul+Cameron%22+discredited

Cameron’s lies, and your shonky practices in spreading them, are just a small part of the daily spite that homosexual people in this country have to deal with. Don’t bother with your campaign against gay people (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=1767&show=history). If you want to make the world a better place, start working on your own behaviour.
Posted by w, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 2:41:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear W,

sorry about not being able to finish my earlier post so that the attribution you so desire would have been made. (Had gone over the 5 per 24h limit.)

If my reading of all the earlier posts requesting some data on issues was misdirected than I apologise. I am also (as no doubt others are) happy to be enlightened by your obviously accredited & unbiased assessment of the source of the data. As such, I will not dare finish the extract nor venture to read any further articles from this widely syndicated individual.

Regarding the obvious illegitimacy of my contributions, perhaps you should correct yourself and note that "my campaign against gay people" is more accurately described as "campaign against gay muslim people who are against open government and support electoral fraud." That would better summarise the 102 contributions your have no doubt read all of...

Given your comments that "“The religious element,” being a subset of society, has no mandate to speak for the greater whole" ignores the fact that the majority of people are part of the religious element - see ABS re % claiming to be Christian - your respect of majority opinion is noted.
Posted by Reality Check, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 3:21:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Robert,
I should have explained what I meant exactly- I didn’t actually mean that 100% of homosexual people are being gay-bashed but that in 100% of the (verbal and) physical violence directed at homosexuals, the victim is gay.

Perhaps I should have said 99% roughly, to allow some space for the few heterosexual males who get bashed for wearing pink pants.
Also, in cases of gay-bashings, heterosexuals are almost always the perpetrators since gays normally don’t go around bashing other gays for being gay.

I just wanted to make a point to show Reality Check the reality about the validity and prejudice of this research
Posted by Celivia, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 3:35:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reality Check, dear oh dear, check your facts, how offensive!

As Adolf Hitler said in Mein Kampf, the truth has nothing to do with it. The purification will be done as people believe what they want. Is that what you did rather than check for credibility?

This theory linking Gays and Lesbians with drugs and crime that you upholds as being credible, is in reality: fiction. Why are you so fast to believe this rubbish?

Who is "Dr Cameron": the publisher of this so-called research? What is the National CDC? It is actually condemned by genuine US Government CDCs in America for mimicing their authority.

The World Family Congress and The Howard Centre in the US is a well known extremist anti-abortion right wing lobby group. They disclosed in in their anti-gay "Manifesto" that they are only two men.

http://www.youaredumb.net/archive/2006/06/08

"Parsing national survey data collected...Paul Cameron's "Psychological Reports". This study was co-authored by one "Kirk Cameron", the former star of Growing Pains."

lol@ Reality check. Hollywood reasearch? What a space cadet!

Who is Paul Cameron? Is Kirk Cameron: actor From sitcom "Growing Pains" an accredited researcher in his study?

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/Crime&Hosx.htm

"Dr. James Cameron of the Family Research Institute led and penned the
report, which is based upon data gathered in 1996 by the CDC.
[NOTE: I believe his name is Paul, not James. E. Fox]".

Didn't James Cameron write "The X Files"?

Yet Paul, James and Kirk Cameron are the publishers of these fake research documents and they were published 8 years after they were written.

It is not just fraudulent information, it is a fabrication from the Church. Hitler would be proud.

---
You have a legal obligation to deal with your problems of child abuse in your churches. Blame no one else but yourselves in shame.

Crimes of Child abuse are hiding in Churches. They know it too and refuse to take responsibility.

Violent anti-gay messages from the Vatican are causing an alliance with violent ultra right Catholics and neo Nazis, as demonstrated in Poland, Russia, and even France. Is your Church on the side of the law?
Posted by saintfletcher, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 4:37:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
saintfletcher and Alchemist,
For your benifit I made no such claim that the Church I attend has pedophile problems. We have two males who are Court leason officers for DOCS and another a Principal of a Public Primary school. The three women are teachers in the Public school system. Two junior teachers who are preschool supervisors and another a trainee teacher.

So all your vitriol about me protecting pedophiles demonstrates your bias by jumping to conclusions. My original statement was a general statement of all cases taken to court against child abusers in the Church. The majority of them referred to homosexual acts.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 6:04:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“reality,” your plagiarised post was 284 words long, plenty of room for a citation, and even some comment about the text, had you understood (a) the ethics of naming sources and (b) the meaning of concepts like “parsing” and “(p<0.10)”.

Your excuse for your plagiarism is just another lazy lie, like the original post.

As for your comments on majorities, a more relevant statistic is the number of people participating in religious activities: “In 2002, almost one-quarter (23%) reported participating in church or religious activities over a three month period.” ABS: http://snipurl.com/tewr Doesn’t sound like a pious majority to me.

In any event, democracies don’t grant majorities the right to ride roughshod over minorities. While your religious beliefs are protected in this country, they don’t afford believers any special rights over others.

And yes, “reality,” I’m aware that there’s more than one target of your ill will.

Fletch, you’re doing it again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
Posted by w, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 6:06:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sympathies go out to Fr Richard in his very difficult pastoral position. Men and women who give up the great good of having a family to serve our spiritual needs are the salt of the earth.

Fr Richard's Archbishop - Cardinal Francis would probably have been the better man to source an article from on this topic. Fr Richard's piece highlights the tensions priests face in ministering to us the weak and fallen children of God, and at the same time presenting a masculine spirituality that urges us towards holiness and admonishes sin.

The teaching arm of the Church is patient and understanding of the difficulties of its diocesan shepherds.

A genuinely enlightening article would have expanded on the sentence "The gay and lesbian community needs to admit that two millennia of church experience and wisdom do have something to offer the discussion."

I won't forget the young gay man on John Saffran vs God saying (in a tone that seemed as if he was sick of being patronized) "I fall in love with men [so? so what?] in response to this fact I listen to Augustine, the Tradition of the Catholic Church, the Pope and the Good News of Jesus Christ, not the gay lobby."

The Church simply must affirm the call to holiness, it must remind us of the sinfulness in following our disordered desires.

"I thought I should be too miserable, unless folded in female arms; and of the medicine of Thy mercy to cure that infirmity I thought not, not having tried it. As for continency, I supposed it to be in our own power (though in myself I did not find that power), being so foolish as not to know what is written, None can be continent unless Thou give it; and that Thou wouldest give it, if with inward groanings I did knock at Thine ears, and with a settled faith did cast my care on Thee." Augustine

We can't excise the hard sayings of Jesus. He made some stern judgments. He knew we could take it. He made us.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 6:18:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is nothing more disordered or violent than the starting of wars, manufacture of weaponary and the endless desires to create even more vile machines of mass destruction in this neverending chase to be the overwhelmingly dominant power on the planet. Cock of the yard.

Still, bless, it is so much easier for clerics to turn their poisonous, cowardly attention on minority groups who go out of their way to get on with everyone - people who generally bring a little bit of sunshine into peoples' lives - than it is for them to stand up to the real human aggressors in society. I mean, a poof aint anything to be scared of so lets pretend the rest isn't happening and to show that we are still holy and gods advocates on earth - we'll have a go at pansies instead ... and the vile ones will love us. Thus, we'll be safe from harm. Thus we will be allowed to be. Still you makes your choice and you pays the price...

Christ refused the sword - but clerics don't bring this to our attention. Christ stood up to and confronted the political and religious leaders of his day - he understood they deliberately created disharmony in order to maintain and project their own sense of power - simultaneously undermining the lives of ordinary decent people. Christ stood up for the oppressed - he didn't participate in their oppression.

Christ was not hung up about sex - but he was deeply disturbed by the cruelty of politicians and clerics - the ones who made final judgement on his life. History repeats itself. Power corrupts - whatever the organisation. Todays clerics (of all religions) fan the flames of their political leaders wars. Freedom by the barrel of a gun aint no freedom - the correct word is oppression. Christ's unity will never be achieved in a climate of "with us or against us" - probably the most evil phrase that it is possible to utter.
Posted by K£vin, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 8:43:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But Kevin, Political Correctness is on the gay lobby's side. The Church doesn't get applause for re iterating a five thousand year old unbroken tradition regarding human sexual relations.

Jesus' Church's stance on sexuality is always counter cultural given the selfishness of human nature.

The Christian Church has also never pretended to be pure, built as she is on St Paul and St Peter, a murderer of Christians and a deserter of Christ.

It is the Church and faithful Christians who assume the role of Christ when slandered by accusations of obsessions with sex and power.

You'll find the gay lobby often viciously attacks religious belief, labelling fundamentalist anyone who disagrees. Which is the power political ploy of the Marxist, who, not believing in any transcendent morality, believes the political ends justify the means. Completely opposed to Christ's example – emptying himself of power by being born of a woman like us – born in a stable and placed in an animal trough – born to peasants – born within a 7th rate mountain people – allowing himself to be humiliated and tortured because as God, as pure relatedness, he held nothing of himself back from us.

Now who do you think understands better about mere human power? Who is more likely today to be corrupted - Christ's Church or the powerful gay lobby?

If only they knew how the Church is much more interested in homosexual people's welfare. The real advocate is Christ and those prepared to take on the role of bad guy rather than pamper people's weaknesses.

Joy is the promise. We shouldn't take His promises lightly, we must trust Him.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 9:39:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Martin - Christianity is not 5,000 years old - but if you mean to refer to old testament thinking on sexuality (Freudian slip?) then you have not yet discovered the New Testament of Christ.

The gay lobby does not attack religious belief - only when it is misused as techniques for oppression. "It is not the collar that maketh the priest".

I know many gay christians and I experience them to be loving, generous, open hearted, friendly people, who look to build good, solid, warm relationships with others. I will always trust in my own experience of each and every individual I meet, rather than follow blindly the generalised false witness of others - predjudice is never attractive and always leaves a feeling of distate.

I repeat, there are much bigger issues (more obvious causes of oppression) to concern those who believe they represent Christ and would profess to do as he he would have done. Name calling vulnerable, harmless people was never on his agenda.
Posted by K£vin, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 10:08:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kevin,
I suggest you read again what Martin has written; "The Church doesn't get applause for re iterating a five thousand year old unbroken tradition regarding human sexual relations." This is not a statement that the Christian Church has 5,000 years of tradition. It is a statement that a creational principle that has at least 5,000 years of written history of being upheld is reiterated now by the Christian Church.

During my years of work with breeding and pollinating plants never once did we try to reproduce a species by pollinating male gamates with male gamates. Beside the fact that spermotoza if deposited in the waste canal will not reach the spermotoza of the host but is wasted. This practise is a denial of the design of creation and a snub in to the purpose of the designer. How can a person who practise such claim to represent the designer of humanity. They are an affromt to humanity and to the design and purpose of the very nature of the act. We do not put such deluded and disoriented people in charge of teaching the truth about creation or the Creator.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 19 July 2006 9:26:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Philo, I'm glad that you you don't have paedophiles in your own church, the problem is in other churches. I'm sure they would say they have no problems either. They always do. Its always some else's fault.

@W, you cannot deny what happened in Poland and Russia and the violent words from the Vatican coincidentally the released the "violence" message, just before the build up of Catholic driven neo Nazi pogroms. There is no other word but "neo-Nazi" to use. This is how they identify themselves, so your political correctness is from a failed Texan Lawyer. I looked at your reference. The theory is flawed: Texan dribble. Stick to the facts.

Why is there a hate campaign from the Vatican that caused violent pogroms and bashings of queers in Catholic Poland and Russia?

One powerful gay lobby: Marxist? That is a conspiracy theory and it is stupid. There is a "Gay Liberal" group of the Liberal Party, A Gay Business Association, very few are Marxists. None of them agree with each other, just like any Australians.

Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic Church has sided with the conservative communist party in Russia and Poland to enforce the pogroms bash the crap out of the Queers.

Not one Christian in this room has shown any concern about the violence that the church caused in Poland and Russia. You really don't care, not one of you! All you do is write fake conspiracy theories, shove your stupid political correct references: now owned by the Church, and rationalise that you have a long tradition of hating poofs, so why spoil a good tradition?

Hate, fear, violence,corruption, abuse, spite, lies, fraud, greed, sloth, and communist and neo-Nazi collaboration are all in order in YOUR powerful lobby, YOUR campaign of hate.

This topic is about abuse. The Vatican used violent anti-gay language and this abuse caused pogroms of anti-gay riots in Poland and Russia. There is no indication of an apology or any concern for this travesty. There is child abuse in Churches, and the only excuse I get is semantics and technicalities. No apology, just gay-hate
Posted by saintfletcher, Wednesday, 19 July 2006 12:30:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
W,

The material of my original post, cited above by you, was some 450+ words, so I selected a break in the text short of the 350 word limit. The issues of public order, health being one that had been raised in other posts, also added some relevance to the selected text.

Between word & posting limits, your (and others) vitriol removed the punch line about whether any stat’s, and the highly contentious ones that I had chosen, would add light to the dilemma faced by a lesbian couple who had decided to artificially create a family and whether their faith community would even be aware or make judgements. I am not aware of any detailed research that has been undertaken or concluded to say that such a family is safe or dangerous, nor am I aware of any restrictions applied to the sacramental participation of such couples, unless wearing a rainbow sash.

The use of parsing, as you have observed, also adds to my intended point of academic research being of limited use in pastoral decision making. (Despite the author selected being scrutinised beyond normal academic limits and still getting published according to saintfletchers self defeating link.) Research is about as reliable as your reference to church participation, which is like saying that because people are not in political parties and do not attend party functions that they are not political. Just like we are forced to vote, we are forced to make decisions and judgements based on our worldview. A mere 70% of us seek to align ourselves with religion. That doesn’t mean that we are correct.

Now of course you may just pass this all off as another ignoble lie, (more “ill will” to use your parlance) but who am I to judge – it seems you clearly have the moral high ground in that regard! (see title of discussion point…)

Finally, I am also in your debt for the revelation of Godwin’s Law. I may quote it, with proper attributions of course, on my new website: University Research Studies that Ulcerate Peoples Identified Dispositions at www.urstupid.con.allof
Posted by Reality Check, Wednesday, 19 July 2006 12:35:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
philo, interesting points raised in

"During my years of work with breeding and pollinating plants never once did we try to reproduce a species by pollinating male gamates with male gamates. Beside the fact that spermotoza if deposited in the waste canal will not reach the spermotoza of the host but is wasted. This practise is a denial of the design of creation and a snub in to the purpose of the designer. How can a person who practise such claim to represent the designer of humanity. They are an affromt to humanity and to the design and purpose of the very nature of the act. We do not put such deluded and disoriented people in charge of teaching the truth about creation or the Creator. "

A few observations
- Normally only the catholic church pushes the line that sperm must have a fighting chance. Most of the rest of the church accepts contraception which clearly wastes sperm whenever it is successfull. Catholics have "celebate" teachers - it seems fair to assume that most of their sperm is wasted.
- Most christains believe that Jesus remained single and likewise most believe that he had no children - again it would appear that all his sperm was wasted (if he was fully man then he should have been producing something like the normal amounts).
- Male humans produce a lot of sperm over a lifetime, very few produce more than a dozen or so children so by design the process is wasteful of sperm.
- The christain emphasis on monogamy and one man/one woman sexual relationships means that most of the time 100% of a mans sperm will be wasted - once his partner is pregnant then no more conception until thats finished and no one else he can use it more productively with.

So if male homosexual wastage of sperm is such an issue then you might like to take it up with the founder of your faith and his dad (the claimed designer of the human body). If not then stop clutching at straws.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 19 July 2006 12:59:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert, impressive points you’re making, and hilarious too (in a good way). I wouldn’t expect a strong come-back or even a logical reply from philo though.

Neither is there a response to my post when I said to Fdixit (17th July post):
“Australian families have an average of 2.1 children. In many families one of the partners have been sterilized when they have finished their families; others are using contraception; some couples are infertile; some have gone through menopause; some decide not to have children at all; some are homosexual couples. Sexual activity for all these people is condemned?
People ought to stop having sex as soon as their families are complete?”

This is as far as Philo and Fdixit can/will take it. Beyond the whole clichéd, standard lecture about reproduction and wasting sperm, they’re either lost for words or they might go into more detail about reproduction.
*yawns in anticipation*
Posted by Celivia, Wednesday, 19 July 2006 3:12:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia, the statistical difference between gay and hetero sperm wastage are kind of staggering.

http://www.sirinet.net/~jgjohnso/reproduction.html suggests that 300 to 400 million sperm are involved per ejaculation which puts the total number produced during a lifetime into a figure of many billions (lets say 1000 billion for simplicity but that is probably a massive understatement).

I've fathered one child and don't expect to father any more so I will conceivably waste 999,999,999,999 sperm and productively use 1 one during my life time. Compare that to the lifetime gay who wastes that one sperm. What a terrible crime on their part - if Philo did not appear to be serious it would be very funny.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 19 July 2006 4:02:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Philo,

My experience has been similar to yours - in that I have never conceived child while engaging in hot anal love-play with a plant or shrub.

But we certainly both enjoyed it, and fortunately I have plenty more "spermotoza" should I ever need it for other projects.

Incidentally, it is egregiously offensive to me and my people that you publicly corrupt the spelling of our sacred, God-given, spermatozoa.
Posted by Dewi, Wednesday, 19 July 2006 4:17:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Also, Philo, gametes - not gamates.

God intended for you to go out and use them, not sit around spelling their names randomly on web forums.
Posted by Dewi, Wednesday, 19 July 2006 4:23:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SAINTFLETCHER

you pose what is to be known as the "John Howard Conundrum" - saying sorry for something you didn't do.

The neo-nazi's and and anti-gay protestors should be charged with assault. End of discussion. People who bash other people should be charged. I am sorry this has occurred. It is like those who choose to kill abortionists using a proportion argument. Sorry, that mentality doesn't cut it. If you are truly a believer, then leave that level of justice to someone else.

Your bigger issue, that this violence is Church & State sanctioned, also falls under the "John Howard Conundrum" because laws have unintended outcomes that, whilst forseeable, are set aside in the hope that civilised means will be used to reach the 'agree to disagree' status of something like this forum.

No one deserves acts of violence to be set against them. Nor do the sensibilities of the large majority need this to be (repeatedly) thrown in their face. The protests you speak of need to be viewed in the context that we in the West have exercised a level of tolerance, albeit limited and more along the lines of 'not my cup of tea' that has seen parlimentarians, without reference to the electorate, decriminalise and attempt to normalise certain behaviours (prostitution, gay sex, drug harm minimisation etc).

These other nations are not prepared to accept minority views or western decadence. Their politicians are not prepared to compromise their beliefs or those of the majority of their society. that's fine, but, we would need proof that they are actually soliciting party members or citizens to take vigilante action. In the absence of charges, one could, erroneously perhaps, say these actions are state sponsored.

The fact that the Electoral Commissioner doesn't investigate fraudulent enrolments of candidates doesn't mean that the State supports fraud, but, more likely, it reflects a personal indifference to the few involved.

I would be happy to lobby the Polish twins to ensure that charges be laid, but, collateral damage - ie. gay persons in the violence - may also be charged.
Posted by Reality Check, Wednesday, 19 July 2006 4:28:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dewi, Spermotoza wasn't wasted. He just had to sit the World Cup finals out because of a hamstring injury.
Posted by Sancho, Wednesday, 19 July 2006 7:15:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
w,
thank you for the enlightening link to Godwin's law, with its discussion of the "reductio ad Hitlerum". It clarifies much. I'd suggest that a similar law regarding the "reductio ad coitum analem" could also be considered. However, the recent discussion around sperm wastage probably defies any any sensible effort at regulating rhetorical output. Many thanks to all who have contributed to this thread.
Proboscoid regards,
Posted by Snout, Wednesday, 19 July 2006 8:54:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert,
All your examples are spurious claims as the loss of sperm was not the point of my argument. The point was that no amount of anal sex will fulfil the purpose and design of humanity. It will actually result in disease, injury and disorder to a balanced society. How can a gay or lesbian teacher counsel normal hetrosexual relationships; that is what is involved in holding a teaching or example position in the Church. From what I have witnessed of gay persons they are sad, obsessive and spiritually unfulfilled.

Currently we have 25,000 queers wanting to meet in Jerusalem for a parade. They are obviouslly obsessive about their sexuality they have to flaunt it before the world. Perhaps Hamas or Hizb'Allah will see the decadence of this event and demonstrate their anger with a rain on the parade.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 19 July 2006 10:18:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No worries, snout.

“reality” will probably have something (gasp) sarcastic to say about me continuing this off-topic thread, but hey, live dangerously, I say ...

The queer corollary of Godwin's Law, as proposed by a blogger called Jody Wheeler (http://www.nakedwriting.com/archives/2002/05/well_thats_one.html) goes, "In any debate on the subject of homosexuality, the probability that discrimination against homosexuals will be justified by invoking a comparison to pedophilia will reach one is directly related to the degree to which the invoker is religiously or socially conservative."

I think in this discussion the dishonour goes to Philo.

The point about Godwin's Law, and Wheeler's corollary, is that the tactic of comparing the subject with the most extreme evil you can conjure up fouls rather than furthers a discussion. It shows that you hold the other participants in the discussion in complete contempt.

After that, there's really no space in which genuine dialogue can occur.
Posted by w, Wednesday, 19 July 2006 10:21:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo, I repeat, the New Testament of Christ begins with and can only be discovered in the lived life of the man himself. Christ's New Testament (please note the word "New" - indicative of new beginnings) marks the schism between Judaism and Christianity - the latter: rather than vengeful "eye for an eye", offers peace, love, forgiveness, neigbourliness - in short, a fresh and alternative view of the world.

There are two pivotal moments in the story of Christ's life - his refusal to take-up the sword when offered to him by Barabas (the leader of the insurgents) and the subsequent irony of the Jewish people choosing to free Barabas, rather than Jesus. The Jewish people, unable to realise the power of fogiveness and love continue to fight the rest of the world to this day.

Sadly, thus far, no Western country has fully realised the path of Christianity (though there have been periods of love and peaceful cohabitation). Jesus, by the giving of his own life without retaliation (better to die oneself (sacrifice) in the furtherance of peace than it is to take another's life "fighting" for peace (no room for suicide bombers - or bombers of any kind Mr Bush and Mr Blair - in Christianity). This is the revelation of " the life, the truth and the way".

So Martin, the path to joy is not through persecution (very old testament thinking and logically impossible), but through ones own endeavours to live peacefully and harmoniously with others. We have no choice if someone wishes to kill us - but we do have choice about whether we kill or persercute others. When everyone is capable of realising this, the unity of Christ is realised and humanity, in our huge and wonderful variety of manifestations can finally live together in peace (heavenly - don't you think?)

PS - God loves variety (also heavenly) - just take a good look around you - not just one type of flower, tree, bird, fish, planet, galaxy etc... but a multitude of each - and thus with humans too
Posted by K£vin, Thursday, 20 July 2006 12:28:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo

Am I to understand that every single time you have had sex it was for procreation only?

How many children do you have?

And does their total equal the number of times you have had sex?

If I remember correctly, Philo, you are now in your 60's - past healthy procreation (incidence of congenital abnormalities increase in aging males as it does in females), therefore I trust you are now celibate.

Just thought of something else, when men masturbate they waste sperm, right? When women masturbate we don't waste anything. Does this mean that only women are allowed to masturbate in accordance with christian lore? As our orgasms have nothing to do with procreation - they're just for fun. Continuing this train of thought, this must mean that lesbian sex is OK as well - no eggs wasted after orgasm. That does seem a bit unfair on gay males however. Is it possible for men to orgasm without ejaculating sperm?

So much to learn, so little time.

Many thanks to R0bert for making me laugh out loud. I think his single sperm has a great dad.
Posted by Scout, Thursday, 20 July 2006 9:31:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kevin,
Your appeal to the attitudes of Christ of love and forgivenessis is admirable; however Christ never condoned continuing in sinful practises to live in relationship with God. He condemned the arrogant sinful ways of the Pharisees. He made judgments about those that rejected the principles of God by addressing them as Satan [opponent of God], and this even of his followers with an opposing agenda.

The Zealot's leader believed he was dong God’s will by overthrowing the Romans from the holy city, Peter his disciple upon suggesting Jesus resist going to the cross, Jesus rebukes by calling him satan. Judas while scheming to expose Jesus to the Temple officials in the hope he would fight, Jesus says of his scheme it is satanic [opposed to God].

Forgiveness is only effective as the sin is abandoned. One can hardly be free of the guilt of sin if they choose in it to remain. Remaining in the practise of homosexual acts is a deliberate snub at the Creator and his design. If the Church is to remain true to principles of design they can never accept others agenda to teach same sex intercourse as normal truth. Christ loves the sinner and can change lives and he does. I've several friends former homosexuals whose lives have been changed by Christ.

Kevin said, “ God loves variety - just take a good look around you - not just one type of flower, tree, bird, fish, planet, galaxy etc... but a multitude of each - and thus with humans too.”

In every case of living species; flowers, trees, birds, fish,humans not one exist from fertilization of the same sex gene as the receiving host. There is design, there is diversity, there is a continuance of life because the principles of mating with the opposite sex gene. Being gay or lesbian is death to the species, and you wish to teach children being gay is normal design. It's the way of death to the species. The % incidence of gay or lesbian relationships increase as areas are overpopulated and emotional insecurities in relationships increase.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 20 July 2006 10:39:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout thanks but the credit should really go to Philo for introducing such a comic spin to the discussion in the first place. I merely played with the solid foundation he laid.

Now we have a post from Philo pointing out that the problem with that wasted genetic material is that the species will die out at the same time as he tells us that homosexuality gets more prevalent during times of overpopulation. If Philo taking maximus's approach and putting forward rediculous propositions to see who takes the bait, if so he got me. If his closing statement is true then that would seem to suggest that homosexuality is a natural mechanism used to limit overpopulation.

If Philo's concern is that homosexuality may lead to the species dying out is of real concern then we must assume that Philo is throwing his support behind causes such as
- Homosexual couples access to IVF, adoption etc.
- Homosexual access to adoption (I wonder if he can touch that one without invoking Wheeler's law again)
- Surragacy
- Homosexual marriage - to provide a more stable home for raising kids from the above items

Going back to the botanical illustration which Philo started with I've been wondering what terrible punishments Philo's god has in store for those bees and insects who dare to put pollen in the wrong place. Philo might have taken special care on that front but I doubt that bees and insects have that as a major priority.
It is my understanding that they spread it around in their travels without a lot of care about getting it on the right bits.

Does this mean that we all have to turn "bi" to please Philo's god? Will we see gangs of fundy christains wondering around bashing bees, picketing bee hives and the like because of the offense that their careless polination habits causes the christian god?

Cheers
R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 20 July 2006 1:05:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert

So that's why sex is referred to as 'the birds and the bees'.

What about those dastardly cuckoos which lay their eggs in the nests of other birds?

Hhhmmm, the thick plottens.

Ciao
Posted by Scout, Thursday, 20 July 2006 1:56:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kevin where did you get this idea of Barabas offering Jesus a sword? Is that Scriptural or just something you find historically credible?

Your theology is pretty thin, the Old and New Testament dichotomy is the first mistake in New Testament theology. Jesus said.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them". Mat 5:7

Fulfill them with his person, pure self giving, love is the law. - The Church's mission to make sure human relationships are ordered so that they lead to our flourishing. We who fall down, who aren't able to be chaste can look to Jesus and His Church for forgiveness.

It still must stress the existence of the biblical standard and remind us of those who lives bear witness to this truth and how they asked for help in achieving it.

Rephrasing the argument about the moral authority of the Church to not give its blessing to gay genital sexuality as one of persecution won't do. You're begging the question of whether homosexual desire is disordered. The adolescent desire to watch pornography, or an inclination to pederasty/child sexual abuse could be a kind of variety Our Lord loves by your reckoning.

Insofar as the Jews are fighting the rest of the world [sic] it would be only because there are many who in a disordered way are repelled by revealed religion. Jewish claims to election by God get in the way of their scramble for power. How can I be the best if the Jews claim to be? How can my desire to be a god unto myself (with the illusion of freedom)be satisfied if this Creator God exists? Must get rid of Judeo-Christianity first.

Human genital sexuality is designed for marriage between a man and a woman it is the most vital institution in our society and should be open to the birth of children (and we see in birth rates in the Western World how our civilization is dying - children seen as a burden instead of joy)
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Thursday, 20 July 2006 2:38:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wheeler's Law is yet to surface, so aren't we all so sophisticated!

Philo's point - design/ nature - can be ridiculed but it reflects the human condition. We are mighty clever and passionate, but no matter what discoveries we make, society quickly debases things.

The purist position of sex being manifest only in loving procreative monogamous relationships is a fairly high benchmark, so why not take the easy road and adopt sex on demand with no consequences… except perhaps HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis etc.

It seems a bit ludicrous that ART/IVF co-exists with abortion and contraceptives as means of liberation from the natural demands of married life. Such are the advances of female liberation & science

Anyway, as w suggests, I am applying my sarcasm and flying OS tonight for another big bash / outing, so to speak…

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/gay-parade-banned-in-latvia/2006/07/20/1153166465394.html
Posted by Reality Check, Thursday, 20 July 2006 2:50:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think and learn.

I understand that Reality Check has a point. I can see that asking for "sorry" or an "apology" is, as you say is "Howard's conundrum".

I thank you for being the first to at least be willing to show compasion and justice over these inhuman violent travesties. I agree that they should bear the full brunt of justice. So should any gay demonstrator that damaged any collatoral, yes: that is fair, if justice is fair and good.

This is a good arguement that Government and Church must be seperate, as in times, a Church will be blamed for a Government: seen as dominated by their Church, and the Government will blamed for allowing such dominance.

I doubt Philo would give a toss about anyone but himself and his stupid flowers and their sexual organs. OK, each to himself. Flower-man gets more comical by the milli-second.

What is a postrate Philo? Why is this a "G" spot? God works in mysterious ways, fancy putting it in the bowl! What was God thinking?

Apparently it works, I never tried it myself.

At W, after some thought, I can see you have a point in word use. I didn't intend to muddy the water, but I was compelled to show information about Poland and Russia that you didn't know and needed to learn about.

Hey, I am not perfect, I make mistakes in my choice of words, we all have, even in our postings. No matter how over-the-top I might go, you know that I only show compassion for justice.

Maybe the Vatican made a mistake too in using the wrong word "violence". The whole thing might have been an unintentional accident. Is that the lesson we are learning?

I am optomistic that there is a willingness for compassion out there, its just that so far, only Reality Check has shown this, along with, of course, the gay activists who have solid interests. The other Christians are yet to show Christian willingness for compassion, or even kind sentiments. Christians are using rhetorical statements that fail to show sincere compassion.
Posted by saintfletcher, Thursday, 20 July 2006 3:08:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
saint to the best of my knowledge neither Scout or I would classify as gay or activists and I think we both have compassion for homosexuals who consistantly cop abuse for who they are. I have several motivations for my stance on this (and other subjects)
- a passion for justice and fair play
- if the fundies sort out the "gay menace" they might renew their efforts against those of us who have sex outside of marriage or do other stuff that they don't like. There is benefit in standing with your neighbour against a common enemy of freedom.
- maybe like a former smoker a former christian is the most intollerant of the logic distortions and misrepresentations used by christians to push their beliefs on others. I don't think I was ever as bad as some of our resident christain posters and the kind of tragic stuff coming from some of these posters is similar to stuff that led to my change of views about that faith.

RC if Philo's views reflect the human condition he is using a novelty mirror. He takes elements of truth and distorts them to support his existing prejudices. Yes procreation is based on male/female sex (or the transfer of genetic material) but Philo then attempts to take that one aspect of the human sex act and treat it as though it represented the whole. He does not want us to think about sex for pleasures sake or as a part of the bond that exists between people because if we do so we might realise that his argument is based on just one small part of the wonder that is human sexuality.

He tries to lead us to believe that the intervention he took to polinate plants represents the sum of nature whereas in reality that genetic material ends up in all sorts of places where no new flowers are born. The unnatural (but pragmatic) thing is that Philo only put the material where he thought it would lead to polination. His god spreads it much more widely than that.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 20 July 2006 6:33:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert,

The idea you had better align yourself with causes ordinarily considered neutral or dubious to present a united front against the forces of theocracy reveals just how out of touch you really are.

There is not the faintest chance of that worst of all governments - a theocracy forming in any Western Nation. Irrational fears like the ones you say Christians have of a 'gay menace' clearly haunt your thinking.

"I don't think I was ever as bad as some of our resident Christian posters and the kind of tragic stuff coming from some of these posters is similar to stuff that led to my change of views about that faith."

Not an argument in it. Just a foul smear of time tested beliefs you deserted and replaced with a strained defense of indecency, and the destruction of a cherished cultural understanding of marriage for future generations ( and for a tiny minority of gays who actually desire it). And in your muddle headed way believe this amounts to a defence of freedom!

"logic distortions and misrepresentations used by christians to push their beliefs on others".

This kind of bigotry is particularly bad because it is implicit. It implies Christian belief is a priori unreasonable and survives only in the minds of manipulators. It seeks to remove the space available to traditional Christian beliefs in an open public square where they can be debated. How? By pushing your arbitrary belief about what is legitimate discourse onto others. Perhaps your passion for justice and fair play ought to begin here.

You pick a part of the argument Philo makes and present it as the whole Catholic position regarding the sanctity of marriage. You give no indication of any understanding of the Church's stance. Like those posting before you your preference seems to in demolishing straw men rather than honest dialogue.

If your fear of Christian belief is this great perhaps you should go back to where your rejection began and make your peace with Him.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Thursday, 20 July 2006 8:30:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin
How sad. No understanding you say? Robert displays far more than yourself. & wehat a mixed bag of prejudice & dogma yours is.

let'sa examine it shall we. You apply the idea of the flourishing of life - otherwise known as Natural Law. Instead of reading that sadly obsessional philosopher Augustine try the original teachers of Natural Law. Try Seneca or Epictetus. If you did you'd quickly see there are thousands of ways of flourishing. Some financial, some physical, some emotional. You've chosen one narrow way [ie. sexually] & apply it only to homosexuals. But if flourishing is only somethiong that can be done sexually then celibacy should be abandoned shouldn't it Martin? No of course it shouldn't because that would mean the Catholic church was advocating a lifestyle against natural law.

2nd. Jesus, whom you quoted before, said NOTHING, ZERO, ZIP about homosexuality. If homosexuality is deserving of the obsession that we see in both traditionalist Catholicism & fundamentalist protestantism why didn't He? Could it be, just possibly because Jesus didn't share your obsession?

3rd. The vast majority of versus that do speak of homosexuality have been misinterpreted. Sometimes quite deliberately. Why you ask? Simple. The church, no matter what it claims, is controlled by human beings with prejudices & many of them HATE certain groups & that comes out in their doctrinal statements. Would you like me to quote popes, cardinals & bishops who displayed out & out prejudice & hatred Martin? Are you so deluded as to think that wouldn't come out when they spoke of the beliefs of the church?
Posted by Bosk, Thursday, 20 July 2006 9:08:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Who says that God exists anyway?

As I am an atheist, I believe that humans evolved, and were not ‘created’.
There was no design.

Humans evolved as they have turned out to be- different skin colours, different IQ’s, different personalities, different preferences including sexual preferences. We are all equal in the eyes of evolution
Posted by Celivia, Thursday, 20 July 2006 10:40:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perfection is never expected, fletch, least of all in the weird bi-polar world of OLO. This environment actually encourages us to be adversarial, when most of us only learn from others when they show that they have some understanding of how we see the world.

I’m certain that the Vatican’s use of the term violence was calculated to enrage every kind of unconventional parent, while appealing to those who hold more conservative values.

Fortunately, the catholic church, following its name, is home to a very broad range of views, and I know many practising catholics who were as appalled by the Vatican’s position as we are.

It’s worth noting that Australian catholics are the least intolerant towards homosexuality of any religious group in this country, as found by an Australia Institute study last year: http://www.tai.org.au/Publications_Files/Papers&Sub_Files/Homophobia%20webpaper%20Final.pdf

If for no other reason, comparisons with extremist groups in other countries are thus quite unfair.

Interestingly (and we are seeing this here on OLO as well), the study found that men are hugely more intolerant of homosexuality than women.

Anyway, for all its weirdness OLO is still a good place to share and calibrate our views. Thanks for yours.
Posted by w, Friday, 21 July 2006 9:44:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bosk,

I don't think that Jesus, coming from the Jewish tradition, would have needed to say anything about sexual impropriety or homosexuality as the tale of Sodom & Gomorrah leaves little room for doubt as to how those behaviours were considered. (and perhaps give a dietry warning about salt!)

But, seeing Jesus is just another evolved group of chemicals, why would it matter what any of us say or think...

Back to the Bonobos of Seneca again...
Posted by Reality Check, Friday, 21 July 2006 9:59:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought this subject was a challenge to the Church to accept as God ordained the gay and lesbian lifestyle. From the above posts we have atheists and perverted behaviour that is expected to be accepted as normal evolution and God ordained. Can you imagine what is the witness of such a Church if these are accepted. Just look at Churches that have Gay clergy they are intellectually dead to the God of Creation with distorted views of family life. Families are leaving them in droves as it places their young males under threat from such influence. Homosexuals are naturally obsessed with attention to young males - recognise the abuse of Church leaders upon boys in their care.

The Church now comes under constant criticism for abnormal sexual acts that by Christian truth must be eradicated. To merely accept them now as normal behaviour, then where are the moral standards that preserve society.

We can see from atheists that they do not believe design exists that we have male and female is all an accident of evolution and so any sexual expression as long as desire is there is natural evolution. As such they have no right to condemn pedophiles because to them it is natural. They have no moral compass no boundaries of behaviour as all behaviour is natural evolution.

My position:
Principle 1. All living forms have their existence from cross fertilisation of male and female genes.
Principle 2. This is the God ordained design for the procreation of all living forms.

Merely experiencing personal pleasure is not a criterion for acceptable action. Sex itself is not evil, but with whom one engages with can be. Pleasure itself is not the boundary God places on action. Some aboriginal societies use infants to satisfy their pleasure. In our society influenced by the boundaries of Christian morality such action is outlawed as evil and criminal. Islam sanctions the marriage of infants and sexual acts upon them. Perhaps Gays try ministry in their congreations.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 21 July 2006 10:03:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo

How do you ever manage to walk around when you repeatedly keep sticking both feet in your mouth?

You stated: Principle 1. All living forms have their existence from cross fertilisation of male and female genes.

WRONG. Single celled life forms simply divide - no duality pf sexes required, many invertebrates such as slugs, snails and worms carry dual sex organs, a species of mole is all female and reproduce themselves, in a species of fish a female turns into a male. Also what about human babies born with both sets of genitalia?

These are just a few examples off the top of my head.

Which completely negates Philo's "Principle 2 :This is the God ordained design for the procreation of all living forms."

Seems to me Philo that god has done a few things s/he hasn't told you about. Oh that's right its not in the bible and therefore can't be true.

Why do the religious say anything (even if it makes them look like complete idiots) in order to bolster their own beliefs and prejudices? The seriously religious are so scared of anything that doesn't fit their tiny little world view.

Homosexual behaviour occurs naturally throughout the animal kingdom - it has not and will not result in the extinction of a species.

Fortunately many christians and other religious are not as narrow minded, humourless and sexually challenged as the likes of Philo et al.
Posted by Scout, Friday, 21 July 2006 10:25:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RC
Actually the story of Sodom & Gomorrah says NOTHING about homosexuality. If you understood the culture of the middle east you'd know that the great crime of those two cities was supposed to be the violation of the rite of hospitality.

Allow me to explain. In the middle east anyone accepted as a guest was sacrosanct. The host had to protect them with his life if need be [hence Lot offering his daughters to keep his guests safe]. By attempting to rape the "angels" the citizens of those cities violated what was considered the MOST sacred law. This is what they were punished for. Or are you so deluded as to believe that if the angels had appeared as females & the guys still wanted to rape them God's attitude would have been "oh well boys will be boys?"

2nd point. If it had been a group of heteroseuxuals trying to rape some girls that caused the cities to be destroyed we wouldn't interpret the meaning of the story as condemning all heterosexual activity would we? Perhaps the reason why we interpret the story as condemning all homosexual activity is because we are biased.
Next time try doing some homework before trying to interpret the bible through your prejudices RC.

Philo your reply is sick. I will not lower myself arguing against it.
Posted by Bosk, Friday, 21 July 2006 10:26:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout, “Why do the religious say anything (even if it makes them look like complete idiots) in order to bolster their own beliefs and prejudices? The seriously religious are so scared of anything that doesn't fit their tiny little world view. “

Try the definition for, paranoid pathological psychopath, for your answer. You'll be amazed at the similarities, it's very prevalent in the homophobic psychotic. It must be frightening to be so scared of such a little difference, to have to desire the demise of others. Still that's monotheism at its best, isn't it.

http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

http://www.swin.edu.au/victims/resources/assessment/personality/psychopathy_checklist.html

These sites will give all the evolved a true insight into the mental standing of those too inadequate to co exist with reality, monotheists.
Posted by The alchemist, Friday, 21 July 2006 10:50:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo, you don't appear to understand the difference between "know to be true" and [in the absence of any reliable verification] "believe to be true".

You don't know if there is a god [or gods], you simply believe it. In the event that your belief turns out to be true, then you still don't know what he/she/it thinks about anything, you simply believe that you do.

That's fine by me. As you probably already realise, I don't criticise anyone's spiritual beliefs, but neither do I appreciate them being presented to me as definite facts. And I'm absolutely horrified if anyone is unfairly discriminated against on the basis of someone's unsubstantiated beliefs.

You selectively quote the Bible and expect us all to accept that as proof. No, Philo, after thousands of years of word-of-mouth around a camp fire, translations, re-translations, opinions, revised opinions and the expression of various people's prejudices and political/racial/religious bias, there are an assortment of interesting stories, but no proof.

"Are, but it's the word of God,so it must be true", you may say. But who says it's the word of God? I don't want to appear hard on you, but those with vested interests say so and they have no proof.

You obviously believe that you have THE ANSWER and probably become frustrated with those who don't agree with you. But just try to understand that, just as you do not have to agree with others, those same others do not have to agree with you.

I accept human homosexuality as occuring naturally and, as long as its physical expression is between consenting adults, then that's fine by me. You may think differently, Philo, but you have no proof, just unsubstantiated belief.
Posted by Rex, Friday, 21 July 2006 2:36:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snout says: "Rancitas, ... don’t infer design from science. If you don’t like anal sex, or if you want to point out health risks associated with the practice, fine. But don’t present personal feelings as “scientific fact”. It’s pretty hard to argue against so-called “intelligent design” or other religiously based corruptions of science if you do."

Snout I base this particular "personnal feeling[s]" on scientific fact. The anus is part of the digestive tract. All biology books indicate this. A women's vagina is designed for penetration and pleasure. It becomes moist on arousal and so on. The anus is a convenient receptor that is not designed for penetration but expulsion of undigested food. My point is that I don't make my assessment on religious, politiccal or any other subjective or influenced grounds. It is a dispassionate scientific-based opinion.

I never mentioned health risks. The quote I presented, re: homosexual males having some characteristics found in the female brains, noted that the discoveries were made on homosexuals who had succumbed to Aids. I pointed out to Coach that this may have affected the autopsy results in relation to female-sized hypothalmus in homosexual males.

FYI . Gay men have more frontal lob activity that is much like females too.

Tell me something. Is there any "repressed" hetreosexuals in the homosexual population?

My opinion on homosexuals was formed long ago. It has a bit to do to do with science, gay victimhood, religion, nothing to do with politics and a lot to do with my belief that the value of the individaul human and their right to choice is mostly higher than all else. It so happens that this is a Christian concept.

If you, Snout, don't like vaginal penetration, don't infer from your particular preferences that others views aren't based on dispassionate opinion. It’s hard to argue for evolution or science-based opinion if you do. In my opinion the butthole has evolved to allow humans to take a dump. But good luck and God bless those who choose to use it to give pleasure to their partner.
Posted by rancitas, Friday, 21 July 2006 2:44:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo, I do have respect for theists- I don’t have problems with religious people generally. I accept that people have different convictions and beliefs, religions and principles.
People should have mutual respect for each other’s choices as long as the things they choose are not harming others.
What I mainly do have problems with is the fact that some groups/churches use offensive or insulting language towards another group of people. That’s why I do like, as I mentioned, the fact that Father Pendergast is bringing this issue to the surface.
You, however, place everybody who does not agree with your church in a box: the atheists, the gays and lesbians, etc are all bad. Can’t you just open your mind a little and accept that not all people can agree on the same principles and that people are individuals with different needs?

You have placed pedophilia and homosexuality in the same box a few times now. I think it is highly insulting to homosexuals to be crammed in the same box as criminals/child abusers.
Homosexual relationships are between mature adults and are always consensual. Pedophilia is child sexual abuse- under aged and non consensual.
Pedophilia is NEVER OK, Philo, whether people are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, whether they live in aboriginal communities, other communities or are authorities or clergymen hidden away in churches where they are protected.
BTW does the catholic church still offer sanctuary for child abusers? They would still go to heaven (if there was one) as long as they confess their sins, right?

Bosk, “Philo your reply is sick. I will not lower myself arguing against it.”
You are very wise. I, however, couldn’t resist ;) - one more last time!

Thanks for those interesting links, w and Alchemist.
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 21 July 2006 2:46:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
philo, if the christain churches recognised that they are social clubs with a common interest in a specific mythology then I would have no problems with what internal membership rules you have.

The continued choice by christains and churches to act as though they were more than that places your internal policies in the public domain.

: deliberate attempts to convince people that your faith matters and that punishment awaits those who don't share that faith. Most groups would be shutdown and arrested if they use the kind of threats the churches use to seek and keep members - an eternity of burning in hell must be pretty scary for those who believe the threat.
: massive use of public funds to promote your religion through christain schools - these funds are used in a discriminatory manner. The following statement from a couple of local schools might give the idea

"As Iona is a Catholic College owned and conducted by the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, boys are given preference into the College in the following order:

1. Boys who have been baptised into the Catholic Faith and are
attending a Catholic School
2. Boys who have been baptised into the Catholic Faith and are
attending a State School
3. Siblings of Current/Past families (non-Catholic)
4. Sons of Old Boys (non-Catholic)
5. All other applicants " http://www.iona.qld.edu.au/deliver/content.asp?orgid=1&suborgid=1&ssid=27&pid=796&ppid=0

and

"Our mission is to foster a Christ-centred school community which, through the co-operation of staff, students and their families, provides for students from across the community spectrum, a quality education which values respect for the individual, a commitment to excellence in all endeavours and the desire to develop one's God-given abilities." http://www.redlands.qld.edu.au/ & "All teaching staff are practising Christians" http://www.redlands.qld.edu.au/Admin/enrolment.htm

: ongoing christain advocacy to force "christain" morality on those who don't share your faith, any OLO reader will be familiar with that one.

While christains fail to keep your intollerance inhouse amongst consenting adults then your actions and choices are a matter of public concern and open to public discussion.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 21 July 2006 2:56:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOSK,

you are correct to observe that hospitality was (and remains?) an important element and perhaps a graver sin in Mid-east culture - what did Jesus say – “Most certainly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city” - but, Lot’s duty was hampered not by people ignoring God’s message (pretty high in the order of things), or wanting to rob the Angels, or spit on them or give them a flogging, but to gay rape them. No wonder even the Lord was hearing the cries! That’s some pretty severe inhospitality andwas treated as such. I doubt that even ClubMed provides such a friendly welcome & ‘service’ in these ‘enlightened’ times. http://www.thisistravel.co.uk/travel/news/-Pink-pound-prospersinUK-article.html?in_article_id=46060

Was the Sodom situation (complete abandonment of sexual mores) the absolute base level of civilization and did it deserve the punishment on that basis of rejecting God’s message or was it because it didn’t win the Tidy Town Friendliness Award?

alchemist

Fantastic list of OLO participant characteristics: my favourites

- displays a compulsive need to criticise whilst simultaneously refusing to value, praise and acknowledge others, their achievements, or their existence

- is self-opinionated and displays arrogance, audacity, a superior sense of entitlement and sense of invulnerability and untouchabilit

I now OUT myself as Charles James Philip, By the Grace of God, King England and France, Naples, Jerusalem, Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Prince of Spain, Sicily, Archduke of Austria, Duke of Milan, Burgundy and Brabant, Count of Hapsburg, Flanders and Tyroll

did I mention another favourite

- often fraudulently claims qualifications, experience, titles, entitlements or affiliations which are ambiguous, misleading, or bogus

Celivia,

You say Pedophilia is NEVER OK, -true - but, until recently the law said homosexuality wasn’t OK, illegitimate children were to be avoided, divorce was prohibited or difficult to obtain etc.. Slippery slope? I not equating any of these activities, merely that the public perception can change, but, is it for the better, particularly for children?

RObert

keep members – compulsory unionism ?

public funds– election payments per vote?
Posted by Reality Check, Friday, 21 July 2006 3:38:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout you are so smart! You have rather supported my argument. So I trust your brain is now smarting with embarrasment.

You stated: Principle 1. All living forms have their existence from cross fertilisation of male and female genes.

"WRONG. Single celled life forms simply divide - no duality pf sexes required, many invertebrates such as slugs, snails and worms carry dual sex organs, a species of mole is all female and reproduce themselves, in a species of fish a female turns into a male. Also what about human babies born with both sets of genitalia?"

WRONG CONCLUSION! In every case without exception there are male and female genes combining to form the new cell. Never just male genes combining with male genes. It rather shows your ignorance so I suggest you read up on how these species are reproduced.

Even in plants they have both male and female genes and it is only as they cross fertilise are new fertile seeds or plants formed. There are exceptions that one plant has both genes, as some plants need the presence of other plants with the opposite gene. Some plants have totally seperate parts like corn, others are found within the flower. I've been involved with DR Gothel in the 1960's develpoing female vegetables so we could introduce selective male genes for special purposes; included beans, soy beans, cabbage, tomatoes, capsicum and watermelons. Today we have seedless watermelons, and grapes as examples, they will not reproduce, they have been breed from fertile parents. However most Gay and lesbians are capable of having children.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 21 July 2006 5:14:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bosk?

We were talking about human sexual relations the whole point was that properly rather than improperly ordered sexual relations leads to human flourishing. Pagan natural law doesn't subtract it adds to the Christian form.

Your second paragraph is simply an argument from silence. The Bible is unanimous on the issue.

In your third you claim an authority to interpret scripture, I think it best you trust the experts. Your last sentence doesn't surprise me, another shameful smear. Throw enough mud?

Rex you want to establish your opinions as law and do away completely with online opinion because others won't substatiate YOUR beliefs. Among questions that have sustained the life of European philosophy for two and half millennia not one has been solved to our general satisfaction, until now apparently.

What you say is very enlightening in a way you don't expect. It sums up a lot of what passes for critical thought when religion is discussed in here. Too many have completely absorbed the spirit of the age,caught wacky metaphysical beliefs (an area of constant disputation and will always be)like a bad cold and get shocked when others don't complain of your symptoms.

Robert, rather than Judeo-Christianity, the most potent force for good the world has seen, doing the inculturating (the culture that ppl from all over the world flock to) you would have our children inculturated into some kind of experimental secular atheocracy. I shudder at the consequences.

As evangelists for this brave new world, some of you have no idea how extreme your views are. Beliefs that have been normative for thousands of years make you foam at the mouth.

Throughout its history Christianity in its attempts to follow Our Lord's example has been the best advocate we've had for the poor and powerless By trying to darken the entire history of Christianity you make yourselves look ridiculous in your self righteousness.

The itching scratching hatred of Him who shows up the thinness of the absoluteness you claim for yourselves pours out over those who seem not to have lost their way as completely as you.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Friday, 21 July 2006 5:19:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rancitas, I had intended leaving this string, but I feel it would be disrespectful to do so without replying to your last post. I have no objection to your views about the design or appropriate use of the rectum, merely your characterisation of those views as "scientific". Science is the study of testable hypotheses. My point was that questions of design or purpose don't fit that paradigm, and are more appropriately dealt with in philosophy or religion. Possibly my view of what is, and isn't scientific might seem narrow to some.

As to my views on anal sex, as a disembodied facial appendage I have no personal preference, beyond observing that it is capable of generating such a powerful visceral reation in many that discussion of it on a string like this is likely to derail the original argument into flaming and other such unproductive discourse (a la Godwin's law).
Posted by Snout, Friday, 21 July 2006 6:36:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin, to repeat what I said to Philo,

"Philo, you don't appear to understand the difference between "know to be true" and [in the absence of any reliable verification] "believe to be true".

You don't know if there is a god [or gods], you simply believe it. In the event that your belief turns out to be true, then you still don't know what he/she/it thinks about anything, you simply believe that you do."

[For Philo, read Martin.]

Martin, you have little or no idea what I believe, want or expect, you just believe that you know. And herein lies the problem with people with your mindset. Without any sound evidence, you set yourself up as judge and jury on the conduct of others. I'm not saying that the following applies to you personally [because I don't know], but some people with your kind of mindset also literally set themselves up as executioners.

One thing you may have worked out correctly is that I am a 'freedom of choice' person on many things [where the conduct is by or between consenting adults where appropriate and no-one and/or nothing else is adversely affected]. The bit in brackets shouldn't really be necessary, but I put that in to avoid pointless discussion on unrelated concepts.

One thing which comes from this attitude is that I absolutely support your right to believe whatever you want and I will not criticise your spiritual beliefs. But your spiritual beliefs are simply that, they are not proven truths and neither is the Bible proven truth.

What I strongly object to is someone else's unsubstantiated beliefs used to vilify me or anyone else. And wouldn't you say exactly the same if anyone attempted to force onto you beliefs which you did not share?
Posted by Rex, Friday, 21 July 2006 8:18:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When it really comes down to it, I am sure God, in all His/Her (not either/or but both - ying and yang) wisdom is far more aggreived at watching grown men hurl bombs at each other, killing each others' children by the dozen into the bargain (and believe me, they're not just spermatoza either), than he/she is watching two grown adults coming together in loving embrace - exploring their sexuality and having a good time. Much rather the parade in Jerusalem - a celebration of life and community - than what is occuring in the Middle East with religious fundamentlism on all sides (Western, Christian Fundamentalism included) fueling the flames.

When the Church is far more vocal and condemnatory about this very real display of disorderliness and violence (for God's sake, get your priorities right) than it is about human sexual relationships, then it and its advocates may be (just) worth listening to.

This is my final post on this matter - I wish you all the ability to find peaceful and loving relationships in your lives (they really do make life, not only worth living, but truely, the most wonderful experience) in every possible form. We are not just mechanical baby making machines - this view could, just, be leading to over-population and planetary exhaustion.

So, BE respectful of others and respect all of ours' HOME - There isn't another HEAVEN around for miles (if there is at all). Most of all, BE happy (cos one day, you may just wake up and realise you missed the boat). God bless.
Posted by K£vin, Friday, 21 July 2006 8:44:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reality Check I agree with what I take as concern regarding both the items you mentioned. The lists could be expanded significantly. Good point.

Martin

“Judeo-Christianity, the most potent force for good the world has seen” – I’ll concede a personal preference for western civilization which judeo-christainity has played a significant part in the development of. Your claim ignores all the other influences which have gone into shaping our culture and the painful price which has been paid by so many to overthrow the burdensome yoke of church control of peoples likes.

“Beliefs that have been normative for thousands of years make you foam at the mouth” – I’ve not noticed a lot of foam around the moth lately. On the actual point for thousands of years much of the world believed that the world is flat, so what. That argument sounds a bit like what I perceive the Amish approach to advancement to be, you just happen to be fighting growth and change on different fronts. Just as I would resist someone who insisted that I not use an electric light in my home because throughout most of history people have not used them. I might also mention that those beliefs you hold have not been normative on this continent (or for most of humanity) through most of history.

“Throughout its history Christianity in its attempts to follow Our Lord's example has been the best advocate we've had for the poor and powerless” – some Christians have been at the forefront of great works. I think that there are a number of reasons for this. Some see it as an outworking of their understanding of their faith. Often the church has been the only game in town, competition has been suppressed and if your society is militantly christian you’d better be christian. You might also consider the times that the church has taken side with the oppressors and kept the poor downtrodden as it’s leaders surround themselves with the trappings of wealth.

Reaching the word limit – I’ll be back

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 21 July 2006 9:16:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RC & Martin
Here's what I was saying straight from a theologian. Notice Martin THEOLOGIAN [ie here's your expert].

"The inhabitants of Sodom displayed the most despicable form of sexual immorality. Nevertheless, this passage CANNOT be construed as condemning loving, committed, monogamous homosexual relationships. The sin displayed in this story is the sin of homosexual (gang) rape, possessive lust, and sexual abuse. Homosexuality itself is NOT the focus of these cities' later notoriety within the biblical tradition--at least not in all cases. This is aptly demonstrated in Ezekiel 16:49: "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy." And in v. 51, Ezekiel says that in comparison with sinful Judah, Sodom and Gomorra were righteous. Some Jewish writings indicate that the sinful desire behind the Sodomites' lust for Lot's guests was because they were angels, NOT because they were men (see Testament of Naphtali 3:4-5). This story reflects the sacred value placed in Middle Eastern culture on HOSPITALITY. It is a responsibility so sacred that Lot would rather offer his virgin daughters to his ravenous neighbors than the strangers he feels obligated to protect. That sodomite has become synonymous with certain homosexual acts does not pertain to the ethical issue of the propriety of loving, committed homosexual relationships. "Sodomites" are condemned in several Old Testament texts not because the male prostitutes were having sex with other males, but because they were serving alien gods as part of the Canaanite fertility cult.
To use Genesis 19 as a means to condemn homosexuality makes as little sense as using 2 Sam. 13 as a means to condemn heterosexuality."

Another point to consider. If homosexuality were the real cause of the supposed divine destruction of the city then that would mean that if a group of women tried to gang rape the angels that would have been Ok? Obviously that's stupid. It was the rape & the violation of the rite of hospitality NOT who did the raping that made the difference.
Posted by Bosk, Friday, 21 July 2006 10:54:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What an extraordinary response to the article! So many points of view, so much energy, so many fragments of wisdom.
Thirty five years ago I came across a song of Sydney Carter with words that have hovered about my religious journey ever since.

Catch the bird of Heaven
Put him in a cage of gold
Look again tomorrow
And he will be gone

For the Bird of Heaven
Keeps on travelling on

The ideas behind these words have not turned me from my Christian faith , but they have seasoned it with an openness to the fact that I can never claim to have arrived or to have a total grasp of what God thinks about every thing.
In this sexuality debate, I think that the Uniting Church in Australia , through much pain and uncertainty, is beginning to discover a way of living with difference, even passionate disagreement, while still respecting the Other,
Even Jesus, according to the Gospels, changed his mind at times, as in the story of the Syro Phoenician woman
Posted by ledingham, Saturday, 22 July 2006 6:00:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo

You continue to place footsies in rather large mouth. The most basic form of life on earth (and the most prolific) requires no sex what-so-ever.

All single celled life forms such as amoebas require no sex at all they simply divide into identical units. IDENTICAL, Philo.

WHile the constraints of OLO limit Biology 101 I shall attempt to put it succintly:

As a fundy you christian you conveniently ignore the results of eons of evolution.

Sex developed over years of evolution as a result of genetic diversity, thus two separate organisms were able to combine their differing DNA to create a completely unique organism. That is why your offspring aren't exactly the same as you Philo, but it is why one amoeba is exactly the same as another.

The advantage of genetic diversity is that the new unique organisms can adapt to changing conditions such as climate, whereas the advantage of genetic stability as in the all female underground moles I previouly mentioned works very well in a stable environment.

But don't take my word for it. Check out the evolution of sex at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex

and asexual reproduction at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction

which elegantly states; "Because it does not require male and female participation, asexual reproduction occurs faster than sexual reproduction and requires less energy."

Time to go back to school Philo, they say no one is too old to learn, however, in your case I am prepared to make an exception.

BTW your absurd attempts to justify your beliefs are simply proving the point that Richard Prendergast makes with his article and that is judgemental language alienates people from the church. That your judgemental language is as intolerant as it is ignorant is a failing on your part, Philo. You should not only be ashamed at your unchristian lack of empathy for others but hang you head in your complete ignorance of the natural world.
Posted by Scout, Saturday, 22 July 2006 9:37:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout, all the points you make are great, but have you noticed that they don’t affect Philo’s views one bit?

The point about religious beliefs is that they are not logical, nor are they amenable to logical discussion. The best we can hope for from believers is that they will learn to live and let live.

It’s not such a vain hope. Indeed ledingham and others believe that their christianity requires them to do just this. There are other hopeful signs, too. The piece of research I mentioned above shows that catholics are leading the way in their acceptance of homosexuality, and recent research reported in The Age http://snipurl.com/sc8b shows that the younger you are the more supportive you are of same-sex unions.

The bigots are dying out. For some, not fast enough, but the indications are that this argument here will be incomprehensible to future generations of Australians.

The Philos of this world are incapable of seeing how dangerous their views are, let alone changing them. I think we need to sort them into the bad stuff pile, with cyclones, taxes and Eddie Maguire, and then simply avoid them as much as (humanly and legally) possible.

Meanwhile, the huge amount of talent and energy you are putting into fighting Philo could be directed at your federal MP, who in the near future will be considering Warren Entsch’s same-sex unions bill, Nicola Roxon’s sexuality discrimination bill, and the report from the HREOC inquiry into same-sex unions.
Posted by w, Saturday, 22 July 2006 12:25:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
W

I hear you and I do my share of activism on many fronts including equal rights for ALL sentient beings.

As for Philo, I couldn't resist. I just love it when Philo (all pompous and condescending) leaves himself looking just plain daft. And it is like shooting fish in a barrel - its not that hard for me as I have a very good knowledge of natural science and it is entertaining. OK maybe it IS a little childish, but oh so much fun.

Philo and his ilk are indeed a dying breed (natural selection at work), however I don't see why I can't play a little. Some levity is much needed on this forum and I am one of those people who can't remain serious for too long.

Isn't there a religion based around laughter somewhere?
Posted by Scout, Saturday, 22 July 2006 12:37:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout, I had a lot of fun, too! Thanks, Philo!

Reality Check, it can indeed be worrying to think that because public perception and the law about certain issues such as divorce have changed over time, they could change on other issues such as pedophilia as well.

But I think it is very unlikely that the child protection law would change in favour of pedophiles, because the ‘public’ are mainly made up of parents, grandparents, and non-pedophiles. Only 1% of the population is classed as pedophiles, and from this 1% a small number have offended.
There would not be enough public to support a law that favours pedophilia.

I have followed news articles a few months ago about a pedophile party (NVD) in the Netherlands. This party launched by pedophiles claiming that they were advocating for ‘more rights’ for children, such as the right to have sex at a younger age.
This party was opposed to so much by the general public that soon they no longer existed.
This all happened in the most tolerant country in where laws are very relaxed on several issues.
But there was no tolerance for this pedo-party. People are not about to put their children in danger!

One thing: There is a difference between pedophiles (who have the desire to have sex with children or an interest in child porn) and pedosexuals (who are the actual child sex offenders). We can’t criminalise pedophilia, while pedosexuality and being in possession of child porn is illegal. There are many pedophiles who will never become pedosexuals, and there was even opposition from a number of pedophiles against this NVD pedo-party.

Anyway, what is so bad about changing some language which still abuses and discriminates against a minority group; people who obviously just want to live their lives like any other person in this country, including for some, going to church without being offended or insulted?
In my eyes, changing offensive language aimed at same sex couples into non-offensive language has nothing to do with pedophilia.
Posted by Celivia, Saturday, 22 July 2006 4:35:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said W, Scout, Celivia, it appears we're in the midst of an evolutionary change. When removing the old and being open to the new, there's always pain and suffering. It appears one of the immutable laws of this dimension, revolves around a static populace of all life and an evolving populace of all life.

Religion is static, with all static things, they never evolve. I believe this is throughout each species, having both components within their number. Humans have stepped out of the static and into intellectual evolution, but there's still those who refuse to take the evolutionary step out of the past.

So they resort to static techniques trying to stop evolution. Their inability to understand why it's so exciting not knowing what may lay ahead instead of clinging desperately to the past, means they lash out looking to blame. Religion's the last static hold on our evolution, once it's removed, we can have an ethics based future giving us all responsible freedom. ( good theory)

I spent many years within the church, as well as worked within a number of correctional facilities in the country. I've met many good homosexuals outside the church and many bad ones within it. I've never met a homosexual outside the church who's a paedophile, or one in jail. But within the church, many homosexual and heterosexual paedophiles, most practising. In jail, many paedophiles who follow god. Most paedophiles don't care which sex it is they defile, this is evidenced within all churches. So really these people have nothing to stand on but lies and indignation, with all the facts pointing away from them.

Choosing who I'd trust with my children between a member of the church and a homosexual, not the former. Not because of abuse, but because of elicit programming.
Posted by The alchemist, Saturday, 22 July 2006 6:47:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To all - some really interesting posts here. Scout if you start that religion let me know I might be interested. I probably treat responding to Philo's comments with some importance because I've seen first hand how easily that kind of logic can be accepted by some. Alchemist has probably seen his share of it too.

Part 2 of a response to Martin

“By trying to darken the entire history of Christianity” – not what I’m trying to do, rather have it seen in the appropriate light which includes some significant good and some significant wrong. I’d see it more as scrubbing that whitewash off that some of you insist on painting over the rot.

“out over those who seem not to have lost their way as completely as you.” – clearly not my perspective and the example of the more obvious Christian’s on this site is one which constantly reminds me how glad I am to have found my way.

Now about your earlier point regarding my interpretation of Philo’s comment on wasting genetic material. I don’t understand the Catholic position on that issue, I commented on the proposition Philo put forward which was in my view completely flawed. Perhaps you would care to put that proposition in a manner which actually holds up when examined.

R0ber
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 22 July 2006 7:01:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ledingham, your last post gives me some hope that religious experience can inspire generosity, wisdom, and delight in the richness of the world we live in. It's a pity that so much of the self-avowedly religious dialogue in the public sphere seems to run counter to this spirit. I look forward to your future posts.
Posted by Snout, Saturday, 22 July 2006 8:04:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well at last we have Scout demonstrating that homosexuals are a regressive gene - a throw back to the most primitive form of life an amoeba which can reproduce itself. Well perhaps homosexuals are a lower genetic form but I never thought Scout would go that low to prove it.

Scout when I see homosexuals actually reproducing themselves naturally then I must bow to the superior design of the Creator. Note however that amoeba clone themselves naturally without engaging with a partner. If a gay male could give birth to a copy of himself it would be much more facinating than virgin conception.

An amoeba reproduces itself as two basic substances are activated to form the new cell. Even at this level two differing genetic substances are reacting to form a new cell. The original amoeba or the new cell is not made up of a single gene.

Homosexual males of the sensitive type are very capable of normal reproduction their problem lies in attitudes developed from infancy about the opposite gender and dioriented affectionate attractions. Boys exhibiting sensitive emotions are immediately branded homosexual and are subconsciously programmed into that role, often by a dominant parent. However the majority of actual homosexual acts are committed by rather brazen bisexual males from what I have observed of all male workplaces.
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 23 July 2006 1:16:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert

Do you think that Philo is ‘doing-a-Maximus’ here?

For those who don’t know, Maximus posts some very extreme comments from time to time and it turns out that he was conducting a major leg-pull (see link below).

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4657#48239

If the latest absurdity from Philo is simply his version of irony I doff my cap, if not, then all I can say is that Philo has done more for the cause of atheism than anyone I have ever encountered.

Cheers to all for having a gay old time!
Posted by Scout, Sunday, 23 July 2006 10:18:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout I've not demonstrated proficiency at spotting leg pullers on these threads. Philo might be but I doubt it. Whilst I'll give Philo credit for inciting some good chuckles and occasional belly laughs I suspect that he needs some "coaching" in his promotion of athiest/agnostic thinking.

I expect that we will see Martin giving Philo a blast for his straw man rebuttal of your comments.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

Cheers
R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 23 July 2006 11:50:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most of the supporters here of anal sex try to aviod the mention of this unclean practice as they try to identify a small group of sensitive males that have been programmed /brainwashed from infancy and shooldays because they have a close affinity to their brothers that they are therefore homosexual. This is a conditioning now taught and identified by adult teachers that these boys ought to accept homosexuality [anal sex] as normal lifestyle. This is a social conditioning emphasided by adults and peers.

That I have deep affection for my brothers in infancy however does not make me homosexual. These boys are very capable of fatherhood and are denied it by peer conditioning. Their lives remain unfulfilled as parents, hense the current push for adoption. They will never produce offspring from such a relationship so must violate the monogamous relationship to fulfil their dream.

However most males are bisexual and will poke their penis into any orifice just for gratification. The problem of AIDS is an example that these males are not monogamous but bisexual as AIDS would never [except for blood transfusions] have entered the female population if homosexuality were merely between monogamous male partners. AIDS is a way evolution [design] deals with infidelity, unfortunately many innocent suffer.

Homosexuality is not a genetic modifaction it is an attitude conditioned by society as are bisexuals indulgence in anal sex.

It is the act of indulgence in anal sex that breeds disease, social disorder and is condemned by the pure standards of design and God. THIS THE CHURCH MUST UPHOLD AS RIGHT. It is the act and not the person who must be rejected. The person is to seek forgivness for sin as we all must do for our sins of impurity. Unless the person desires to leave the sin and changes they have not been forgiven and their condemnation remains [this applies to all social sin]. This is the case with pedophiles also we cannot accept persons in the fellowship of the Church who are practising such acts.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 24 July 2006 7:03:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear philo, I believe most posters support peoples right to be, as long as they aren't hurting others, nothing else. As for social conditioning causing homosexuality, you just display your complete contempt for truth.

If it's a social conditioning, consider the amount of attempted sexual/homosexual conditioning I and most others put up with during our childhood by members of the church. It didn't happen at school, footy or on the street, just in church and associated groups. Add the many practising homo paedophiles, I met during my time within the church factions I dealt with. Intelligent mature people may say the evidence shows, obnoxious social conditioning, comes from followers of god.

Again you show your ilk's psychopathic tendencies by demanding “THIS THE CHURCH MUST UPHOLD AS RIGHT”. What right do you have to be right in detriment to all others. There is no purity within monotheism, it's the gathering ground for the most despicable misfits the world has every dredged up.

“This is the case with paedophiles also we cannot accept persons in the fellowship of the Church who are practising such acts. “

Your churches are bursting at the seams with persons practising these acts. Why doesn't your god clean up its own houses, instead of promoting the festering debauchery inflicting monotheism in the form of protection for abusers, constant war and psychopathic outburst like, I'm right and your way should be destroyed. I 'm sure you see your approach as the pinnacle of maturity.

Once you fools stop interfering in peoples lives, things may become tolerable. However being the gentle soul I am, may the love of god be with you and may you receive its blessing, in its most observable, expressed way. I can see why they always say, you must suffer for god and submit completely to its will.

Fighting to be right, only has one outcome philo, eminently displayed throughout the world by monothiestic comment and expression
Posted by The alchemist, Monday, 24 July 2006 9:11:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Only two comments worth speaking to:

“Homosexuality is not a genetic modifaction [sic] it is an attitude conditioned by society as are bisexuals indulgence in anal sex.”

This is simply an opinion – which is OK because this site is Online Opinion.

“However most males are bisexual and will poke their penis into any orifice just for gratification. The problem of AIDS is an example that these males are not monogamous but bisexual as AIDS would never [except for blood transfusions] have entered the female population…”

Ummm.. hhhmmm… OK… I’m bisexual? Really? Thanks!.. I think… wait.. no… no thanks!.... what the… are you for real?!.... perhaps you have some latent homosexuality but I am not that way inclined. And not because I think it’s wrong or dirty. It just isn’t my thing. And you can ask any of my gay friends. They accept and understand that.

Seriously though…
“AIDS would never [except for blood transfusions] have entered the female population”

What about drug use and needle exchange? OK, it’s a minor point but it leads one to suggest that less than full thought gone into this little post.

Other than these comments, which appear to be a waste of keystrokes... much like the rest of the posting… rave on Philo…
Posted by Reason, Monday, 24 July 2006 11:43:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo... Coach.

Umm... took a look through the bible, and could you show me a specific quote from Jesus saying that homosexuals are evil?

I don't mean a passage, as I'm sure you can draw out something specifically archaic referring to sodomites or something like that. I'm after a quote from Jesus.

Whilst I'd consider myself spiritual, organised religion doesn't look attractive at all largely because everybody interprets it their own way, whether it was the people who wrote the bible, or the people reading it.

Besides, I'm quite convinced Jesus wasn't in favour of this whole huge church institution. I reckon he'd be horrified to see that priests elevate themselves above the common man and are presumptuous enough to assume they know god any better.

That being said, it's just my interpretation.... see what I mean?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 24 July 2006 11:55:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia

Evolution the scientific theory is blind to ethical judgment, only reason (aided by Divine Light) is able to establish the moral equality of humans qua human. Without God there is no reason why Reason itself should be considered trustworthy if it too is just a product of random processes.

Read CS Lewis' 'Mere Christianity' – I wish you well on your journey.

Kevin you've said a dangerous thing about God and about truth.
Of course murderous conquest is bad, but there are just wars. You said yourself how important sexuality is, why then are sins against it not important? Isn't our God given sexuality an essential element of our nature? Don't we then sin grievously when we injure it? Giving up such strategic ground to our enemy enables him to launch previously impossible assaults. Can't you see around us terrible crimes of a sexual nature? Topically families – the bedrock of society destroyed by infidelities, because we follow erotic fantasies and our imaginations get stained? Actions follow from thoughts. These little sins over time, unnoticeable singly, eventually affect our whole being. Soon sanctity seems like an impossible and irrational goal and our behaviour reflects our diminished being. When combined with thousands of others who think they're private sins are only that, we get a society warped by members who, in a group think kind of way, support each other's lies. The true meaning and joy of sex is forgotten and 'exploring one's sexuality' uttered to those who don't know the real territory could just mean exploring oneself off a cliff. Its mindless like much of what passes for culture today.

Making pronouncements about the mind of God before spending years trying to learn about him is foolish.

Please respect MY home, marriage is a big part of it. It should be left alone. The West is in spiritual crisis unwilling as we are to bring the next generation into existence.

A fool will skip HAPPILY down into hell and enjoin others to follow him. First learn what is true before deciding to be happy.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Monday, 24 July 2006 1:59:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wishing you a loving chaste relationship too Kevin. Godbless.

Bosk .This is well worn theological ground. Greek pederasty pretty clear in Plato Alcabiades eg. in the Phaedra I think. Sniggering and tittering about the dirty old man, even in this culture homosexuality merely tolerated never thought of as morally right. How much more in Judaism hater of paganism. If you can't see that there is nothing I can do to gainsay you. Any theologian worth his salt will CONCLUDE that, from more than one disputed exegesis.

Rex

I was politely commenting on the article and responding to Kevin when Robert insulted me as a Christian. Why ought you be afforded the right to quote sources you think are authoritative but not Philo? Ah it’s the word of Rex so it must be true.

It’s a PC prejudice to demand Christians use all your presuppositions about what is true or remain silent. You selectively agree with skeptics about the bible, about Jesus Christ and then say that people with my mindset set myself up as judge and executioner? I was arguing about what right conduct is, you seem to assume it is all settled. This is the point of online opinion. Where have you been vilified?

On the one had you spew platitudes about how tolerant you are but refuse any ground to Christians to argue, this is a devious prejudice and is characteristic of our age. It leads many astray.

Robert
I understand what other institutions were vital to Europe's success but I didn't denigrate any of them.

The Church knows much better than you its shadows and has been public about them. Do you know yours? I'd ask you to reflect on the first three centuries of Christianity, on all the sacrifices made in the name of Christ in the centuries that followed. Put your prejudices aside and allow Christians to comment in here in peace without insulting them.

You actually have an argument in your post. Good. Leave me be to argue too.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Monday, 24 July 2006 2:00:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saintfletcher warned us about this kind of c-rap!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19878988-1702,00.html

Celivia

“There would not be enough public to support a law that favours paedophilia.”

You missed the point of my argument. All these changes were done by pollies and Judges with no reference to the public. That the public didn’t rise up & overturn them is also lamentable.

Re the ever increasing incline on the slippery slope…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5187010.stm
http://news.scotsman.com/latest_international.cfm?id=1040442006

W

“There are other hopeful signs, too. The piece of ‘research’ I mentioned above shows that catholics are leading the way in their acceptance of homosexuality, …that the younger you are the more supportive you are of same-sex unions. The bigots are dying out. For some, not fast enough, but the indications are that this argument here will be incomprehensible to future generations of Australians.”

All this ‘research’ shows is that Catholic Education is failing these young people and I would be surprised if they maintain the Faith. They certainly won’t be able to get married in the Church!

Bosk

Your quote, as amended my CAPS

"The inhabitants of Sodom displayed the most despicable form of sexual immorality. Nevertheless, this passage cannot be construed as EVEN CONTEMPLATING YET ALONE condemning loving, committed, monogamous homosexual relationships. The sin displayed in this story is the sin of homosexual (gang) rape, possessive lust, and sexual abuse.”

TurnRightThenLeft

Jesus didn’t mention much about abortion, illicit drugs, the pill, euthanasia or WMD’s, but he did mention a lot about the role of St Peter, mind you, you probably don’t like the sources for same.

Sorry about Bolshi replies, but lost the more reasoned text by OLO technical fault…
Posted by Reality Check, Monday, 24 July 2006 3:59:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RC
You first said Quote "I don't think that Jesus, coming from the Jewish tradition, would have needed to say anything about sexual impropriety or homosexuality as the tale of Sodom & Gomorrah leaves little room for doubt as to how those behaviours were considered."

Now you say Quote "this passage cannot be construed as EVEN CONTEMPLATING YET ALONE condemning loving, committed, monogamous homosexual relationships" Glad to see you've contradicted yourself & are now changing your mind.

Matin
You said Quote "only reason (aided by Divine Light) is able to establish the moral equality of humans qua human." Rubbish!
Ever heard of Deontology? Utilitarianism? Stoicism? Unaided reason not able to support morality? Only in your ego Martin.

Now as to your crack about one disputed verse. I can direct you to a site that dispiutes them all! Every single one.
Face it Martin - you and RC are choosing the interpretation of texts based on your prejudice not on which is the more reasonable interpretation. In other words you don't have a leg to stand on.

Next point. You accuse me of "Sniggering and tittering about the dirty old man," Where exactly did I do this? Quote me Martin or apologise this instant
Posted by Bosk, Monday, 24 July 2006 5:28:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some of Richard Prendergast’s comments are meritorious that the Christian church should be more welcoming of homosexuals. Though why anyone would want to join a church that still hasn’t admitted its errors 500 years after the Reformation I cannot fathom. Prendergast is correct that we should love one another, as Jesus Christ asked us to do. Now, it is true that Jesus Christ never mentioned homosexuality, but in the Old Testament, Leviticus sets down all the laws that God imparted to Moses. One was that “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination…” (Lev 18:22). Since Jesus claimed that he was God, then he in theory should share this view. But faith in Jesus Christ makes the old Jewish law void. It doesn’t mean you deliberately disobey it; it means that when you have true faith and the Spirit resides in you, you’re much less likely to do the things that God hates. Even so people should be strongly mindful of Christ’s commandments re: love, and think carefully about his teaching, “whoever is without sin, let him/her cast the first stone” before chastising homosexuals.
Posted by Robg, Monday, 24 July 2006 5:47:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bosk

Did anyone, even Jesus, ever think "loving, committed, monogamous homosexual relationships" and Sodom should be put in the same sentence? Don't think so, so no contradiction there... sorry to disappoint.

re: "you and RC are choosing the interpretation of texts based on your prejudice not on which is the more reasonable interpretation. In other words you don't have a leg to stand on."

Did you really say that?

Of course, you & your 'theologian' wouldn't be doing that at all...

I am going home to have a "loving, committed, monogamous sexual relationship" with my puppy 'Sodom.' I knew we were just misunderstood...
Posted by Reality Check, Monday, 24 July 2006 6:00:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin, you are very welcome to argue your case. I hope I've never done or said anything to the contrary and if I have my apologies. Having said that I reserve the right to put my views forward and to respond posts such as Philo's built on very unsound logic.

I gather you really don't like what I have to say regarding the christian church and its ultimate head. Fair enough but if you consider that inappropriate why don't I see you rebuking your fellow christians when they denigrate the beliefs and lifestyles of people outside the christian church. Have I misunderstood your point?

As I've said previously if christains would stop trying to tell the rest of us how to live then I'd be more than happy to keep my views about the christian church and god to myself.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 24 July 2006 6:47:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I also thank rObert and Scout and as being non-gay posters willing to who show human compassion along with Reality Check. It would be appropriate to see more Christians with compassion join the enlightened.

Sodom and Gomorrah is a good example of how God's angels the were abused and even raped. Angels have no need for genitals to reproduce: neither male nor female as they are not human.

This is too serious to be tight-cast as homosexual rape. It is a warning for us all. Rape is not hostpitality, and there are no excuses.

A society full of and abuse with no sense of the sacred: materialistic, lust, greed, violence and corruption is a society beyond redemption.

Homosexuality is not specific noted in the bible. "Sodomy", however, can be done by anyone. "Sodomy" includes forced oral sex too: not just buggery. Everyone else's fault? The Bible does not discriminate.

We can also learn from the context of Romans. The quote that a man shall not lie next to a man as he would a woman as it is an abomination...

In this part of history, there was a period of peace between the Jews and the Gentiles, therefore, complacency.

The message in context is about the corruption of complacency in the Church when they literally "sleep with the enemy" in contempt and spite.

If your church in Poland and Russia are "sleeping with the enemy" for the sake of anti-gay hate for your own people, then you literally sleep with "strange bedfellows" and betrayed your own temples of God. You actually sleep with your enemies: the communists and the neo-Nazis in Poland, in Israel, fundamentalist Muslims, just to hatefully oppose a gay celebration in Juruselem this year.

Enemies united by hate? Romans and Sodom indeed! Hospitality? What is abuse? What are you doing? Fools!

Christians, Do not listen to Saintfletcher!

Sleep with the enemy and they will pull the rug from under your establishment! Praise Jesus!

I will just play my violin while Rome and your churches burn. Don't listen to me, please! You don't deserve my wisdom.
Posted by saintfletcher, Monday, 24 July 2006 7:01:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RC & Martin
try this site: http://www.ambs.edu/LJohns/Homosexuality.htm

Now let's look at The bible & the pope's pronouncements on it

According to the pope the bible taught geocentrism. Galileo was convicted for going against the plain teaching of scripture like these.

"The sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again." (Eccles. 1:5, NASB)

He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter, forever and ever.
- Psalm 104:5

The world is firmly established, it will NOT BE MOVED.
- Psalm 93:1 & 1 Chronicles 16:30

Despite the fact declaring that the bible clearly taught this God didn't make the Sun revolve around the Earth did He RC? The pope & the bible were WRONG weren't they?

Maybe they are wrong about homosexuality as well?

Now to your weird reply.

Quote "Did anyone, even Jesus, ever think "loving, committed, monogamous homosexual relationships" and Sodom should be put in the same sentence?"

Since it's my contention [one you have NEVER refuted merely sneered at] that the story of sodom has NOTHING to do with homosexuality why would Jesus mention them both? Only a fundy like yourself would think that a reasonable argument :) lol

My contention is that the story of sodom has been misinterpreted by bigots. NOT that the people of sodom were blameless - after all they broke the sacrosanct law of hospitality.

Now have you finished trying to twist my words into something I never said RC?

Next my contention is where a verse or verses are disputed then the interpretation should be chosen which promotes tolerance. What a prejudiced view I have.

While in your view homosexuals are morally disordered & treating them like human beings is an example of western degeneracy. Not prejudiced bigotry at all is it?

Saint fletch
Sorry if I've come across as opposing Homosexuals or homosexuality. I do NOT. & I take your point that anal rape does NOT a homosexual make. I agree totally.
Posted by Bosk, Monday, 24 July 2006 8:08:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TurnRightThenLeft,
You misrepresent the position of Christian teaching. Note it is the act of buggery that is evil and must be shunned, it is not the person, unless they intend to pervert the mind of the innocent. It is their behaviour that needs to change and their mind know cleansing. The person is always to be shown compassion dispite the evil of his / her actions. That is why we have prison Chaplins who show compassion to vile criminals. The person needs salvation - not his evil deeds to be retained or normalised.

Jesus showed compassion to prostitutes and adulterers but he warned them to step out of their former life and adopt purity. Jesus was and is about bringing change and purity into a persons life. This is demonstrated by the testimony of lives of former prostitutes, homosexuals, and adulterers that I know locally in Churches I attend.

They attest to the purity and forgivness they find now in Christ and how their lives have flourished by their acceptance of the purity of Christ. Unfortunately too late for several homosexuals I knew who contracted AIDS before accepting Christ as their saviour whose lives have been lost to the scourge, but they died knowing cleansing of heart and mind.

Quote, "Umm... took a look through the bible, and could you show me a specific quote from Jesus saying that homosexuals are evil?"

Rather identify the act as evil; as the person can change to become a saint. Only in the case of gay lesbian exhibitionists could we call them as persons evil, because they flaunt their perversions before others. Their intent is evil and defiant.

From the several sensitive boys I have known who have fallen into homosexuality it was their peers who teased them and Public School teachers who influenced them that they ought to consider being gay.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 24 July 2006 9:24:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin, “Without God there is no reason why Reason itself should be considered trustworthy if it too is just a product of random processes.”

Ae you saying that theists are, as a rule, more trustworthy than atheists?
This could be true in some cases but in other cases it can be vice versa. People who do not believe that there is a God can still be trustworthy people. And some people who do believe in God can be untrustworthy. For example, do we need to trust George Bush merely because he is a God lover?
Call me ignorant, but I think I’ll skip the book at this stage.\

Reality check, “All these changes were done by pollies and Judges with no reference to the public. That the public didn’t rise up & overturn them is also lamentable.”
Oh ok I get your point now. But there might be a reason that the public didn’t rise up about these changes- for instance they might have agreed with the changes made such as divorce. Wouldn’t it be a disaster if , let’s say, divorce still wasn’t possible? Even in Ireland they changed the law on divorce not that long ago.
Yes it seems the pedo-party PNVD changed their name and are back again after having been in hiding. Although the idea that such party can even exists is disgusting, that’s democracy for you. It’s not prohibited to try to change a law through democratic means.
Ideas cannot be treated as illegal or criminalised; there’s freedom of speech to respect.
That’s why, for example, extreme right Christian parties can also exist. Any group of psychopaths seems to be able to launge a party- but who is going to vote for the PNVD? A handful of pedophiles?
And can you imagine a PNVD stall close to election time where they promote and hand out their material? They’ll be killed!
Posted by Celivia, Tuesday, 25 July 2006 12:01:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luckily, the mere existence of a minority party does not mean anything- lots of silly little parties are being launched and you never hear of these again. They come and go. It’s just that this one is so controversial that it gets in all the papers so people talk about it.

OK Let’s give them exposure- at least it will be out in the open, people will roughly know how many pedophiles there are around; let’s count the PNVD votes of each area and publish them; at least people will know how many pedophiles there are around, roughly.
Hiding pedophiles away (in churches, bushes, around corners) and silencing them won’t make them go away.
Openly discussing the issue and the party may open pandora’s box, but that will settle down and through discussions there will be raised awareness and safety.
For example, when people found out that the founder of this party lived in a caravan at a recreational park, all recreational parks were made aware and better safety standards were introduced. So a lot of exposure and the speaking out of such party does not always have to be negative.

One more thing about this for now: I am amazed that they found an internet provider that wants their business- the last one they had threw them off air because they didn’t want to be associated with that party.
Posted by Celivia, Tuesday, 25 July 2006 12:03:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia

“But there might be a reason that the public didn’t rise up about these changes- for instance they might have agreed with the changes made such as divorce. Wouldn’t it be a disaster if, let’s say, divorce still wasn’t possible?”

It’s a disaster with it, so I am not sure we are all that much better off, will have to ask the kids, but, research says it’s not so good.

Anyway, the reasons pollies get away with anything would be:

APATHY – Australian People Allow Things However You-beaut!

Followed by:

STUPID – Simply Too(many) Uninterested People Ignoring Democracy.

“that’s democracy for you. It’s not prohibited to try to change a law through democratic means.”

”Ideas cannot be treated as illegal or criminalised; there’s freedom of speech to respect.”

Here is the problem. What are the higher order priorities that society should value and that should, by virtue of their nature, be immutable and promoted?

Right to life – only when it doesn’t consider abortion, euthanasia, destruction of embryos associated with ART/IVF and stem cell research on ‘surplus’ ones?

Divorce & marriage – seeing it merely as a law to change with fashion or pressure? Etc

If we apply the principles of tolerance & free speech as 'a priori' absolutes to matters, then we end up with the mess we have. This becomes a new dictatorship as bad as any of the past and makes Church doctrine comparatively liberating…
Posted by Reality Check, Tuesday, 25 July 2006 4:52:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia,

My argument wasn't about an individual's reasonableness, it was about where our ability to match our thoughts with reality comes from.

How do we know whether what we think is an accurate map of reality, ie what we call true, unless we believe Reason capital 'r' is trustworthy.

But if Reason is the product of blind random evolutionary processes, why should we consider our thoughts any less random? If this follows why then should we consider the reasoning of philosophical materialists about the non-existence of God and their alternative explanation of the universe? All it could offer would be the product of brain chemicals randomly colliding.

Of course there are atheists who are more like Jesus than professing Christians. But all things being equal e.g. heredity, environment, and loving exercise of free will it logically follows if Jesus was who he said he was a believer will do much more good than a non-believer, simply because they have a more accurate map of reality.

If they were your only reasons for not reading works you currently disagree with perhaps you "should" afterall, read CS Lewis? Who was, like you, an atheist (until he was 30)

Bosk,

if I was unclear it was because I was reaching my work limit so I had to abbreviate. Plato's interlocutors in the Phaedra, not you, tittered about pederasty even while it was socially tolerated. Which implies an acquiescence to, rather than an endorsement of, homosexuality. How much more then did Biblical Israel condemn it given God's command for separation from paganism. The Jews are still here all others are gone.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Tuesday, 25 July 2006 8:02:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Martin, Coach, Philo and others that are not aware that there other people on earth, other than you.

We are queer, we are here and we have no fear.

We are your next door neighbours, we are the two blokes or two women, we are just us.

We are happy, how can you not be happy also, its dead easy. Communicate and interact, thats what make a happy cohesive community.

We love you all

Baz and bazza xx
Posted by Kipp, Tuesday, 25 July 2006 10:39:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
News from Israel;
"Organizers of the Gay Pride events in Jerusalem have pre-empted what was likely to be a police cancellation of their parade, calling it off. The week-long WorldPride event, however, including the conferences, film festival, exhibitions, and "Youth Day" outside the Knesset, are still scheduled to take place during the week of August 6-12 in Jerusalem.

Rabbi Yehuda Levin, of the Jews for Morality organization has come to Israel for weeks at a time on several different trips specifically to fight the Gay Pride events, Rabbi Levin calls upon Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupoliansky not to allow the organizers to use city facilities such as Binyanei HaUmah (the Jerusalem Convention Center) or the Cinematek for what he calls their "moral terrorism."

Levin told Arutz-7 he has been working with a group of doctors who sent the Health Ministry statistical proof that previous gatherings of homosexuals around the world have led to an increase in AIDS in those locations.

The police had been under great pressure from political, religious and grassroots leaders to refuse to approve the march. Many assume that this is the explanation for the announcement issued yesterday (Sunday) by the Jerusalem Open House:
"As a result of the current hostilities in the region, the Jerusalem
WorldPride march will be postponed. [It] requires extensive security,
including police reinforcements from other parts of the country, which the police are unable to provide for at these volatile times. Therefore, Jerusalem Open House will hold the march at a later date, as soon as the circumstances in the region allow for the march to take place."
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 25 July 2006 11:39:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Medical Statistics:
Dr. Daisy Stern of Kiryat Arba, the initiator of the medical statistical study presented to the Health Ministry, quotes European researcher Francois Hamers. Hamers is an advocate of surveillance of sexually transmitted infections at a continental level, because of their sharp increase in many European countries.

The 22% increase of HIV diagnoses in 2002, for instance, was "largely driven by the UK," Hamers writes, but "increasing trends were also noted recently in most other countries.Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and especially Ireland, where the rise has been even more striking than in the UK." Except for Belgium, these countries were the sites of large international gay pride events.

Similarly, Stern writes, a study in Rome found that new HIV infections increased between 2000-2003 - right after "half a million gays and lesbians reveled there in a week-long homo-lesbian extravaganza."

Furthermore: In German, new HIV diagnoses among men who engaged in homosexual activity almost doubled from 2001 TO 2004 - more than twice the increase of previous years.

"If one correlates the figures of new incidence of HIV in the various years and localities where EuroPride, WorldPride, and such eevents occurred," Dr. Stern writes in her six-page study, "there is no doubt that the correlation with new cases of positive HIV... is striking. Add to that the dramatic rise in associated sexually transmitted diseases, the increase in high risk behavior, the use of recreational drugs, the mobility from country to country, and the fact that Israel, of all 'European' countries, has the largest relative rise in new HIV cases, and the recipe for an absolute disaster [is clear]."
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 25 July 2006 11:42:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Considering homosexuality only affects those indulging, are they worried they may catch it within their church from the number of deviants filing the pews. Wouldn't they be glad their god has sent aids to wipe out all people they believe evil, or will it finally empty the pews.

Martin, in your arrogance you assume those disagreeing with you are ignorant of the book. Yet they display more understanding of the fallacy than you ever do. Your revolving drivel, like Philo,Coach the bizarre BD and the other clones shows ignorance on all subjects, particularly history and intellectual understanding. If you weren't so dangerous to the sanity of the world, we could all just enjoy the laugh.

Aids is a lifestyle disease, its transferred by body fluids. Sex can play a part in its transmission, note its out of control in countries taken over by monotheists. Sensible people may ask, did god bring this upon the people. It would fit in with his other sick jokes, like follow me and I will give you heaven, after we've had a few more wars and decimated everything. This Barren bomb crated desert I give you to fight over, its my land and will be your heaven. Typical godly expression.

The biggest problem faced by the world is the constant violent interference in peoples lives by monotheists and the massive problems they cause life.

Any sensible homosexual, would realise the despotic world the followers of god create and steer well clear, but then again, fools are fools, no matter what their belief.

Martin of course many atheists are like your mythical jesus, they leave people alone and get on with life and learning just as he did. Its the followers of the books who are the lost sheep, not the theory.

Philo, I googled aids statistics and your sources, I think it may be wise for you to provide links to verify some of your statements, is this selective evidence again, or does it come direct from god.
Posted by The alchemist, Wednesday, 26 July 2006 6:13:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin - you missed a significant part of the equation.

But all things being equal e.g. heredity, environment, and loving exercise of free will it logically follows if Jesus was not who christains say he was a believer will do much more harm than a non-believer, simply because they use their distorted map of reality to justify actions that cannot be justified.

Our maps are probably distorted but those who care try and allow for that fact, we don't have the commands of a god to hide behind to allow us to ignore other considerations. We try and cut some slack for those who make different choices to the ones we make.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 26 July 2006 7:45:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reality check,
“Here is the problem. What are the higher order priorities that society should value and that should, by virtue of their nature, be immutable and promoted?”

1+1=2 is an immutable concept. Outside the physical laws and sciences, nothing is immutable. We can like it or not, everything is open to change. You can’t hold back changes. People have free will and many options in life.
The church can hold on to their standard and discuss their point of view about higher order priorities. Or people can indeed be apathic and stupid, or have different views and clashing opinions, or believe the opposite of what the church believes.
I am not denying that the church opinion doesn’t or shouldn’t count- but it is not (and should not be) the only voice. It’s good to discuss things from all angles.
People can all argue their case, express their view about right of life, divorce and marriage etc- that’s probably all we can do; after that things either stay the same or change. We all have to accept that.

“If we apply the principles of tolerance & free speech as 'a priori' absolutes to matters, then we end up with the mess we have.”

Things were always a mess. And I am very happy and grateful about some changes that were made despite the church’s opinion.
For example, before abortion was legalised women died because of dangerous backyard abortion operations.
The church was against contraception too- who in their right mind these days wants supersised families? Even if they did want them, who could afford them? Imagine if this hadn’t changed- I’d have about ten kids instead of just the two I opted for. I’d be slaving away in a kitchen, scrubbing and cleaning all day every day. I’m grateful for contraception!
Many people and little kids have died because of religious wars.
It might be a mess now, but it has always been a mess.
Posted by Celivia, Wednesday, 26 July 2006 3:18:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin,
thanks, I might still give that CS Lewis book a try after I‘ve read the pile of books still waiting to be read;) It might be fun and interesting to see what Lewis has to say.

I agree that divorce can be disasterous, but staying in a marriage when one is unhappy with her/his partner is not very healthy. Some people feel very trapped and sad in their marriage. In some families, children can suffer more when their parents are always fighting than they would if the parents got a divorce and got on with their lives. So divorce is in some cases the better option IMHO. I'm grateful it is possible for people who need it.

Yes, good question where reality comes from and what it really means. Perhaps there are different realities and different places in where it originates, who knows?
If alcoholics think that reality is an illusion caused by a lack of alcohol, then perhaps the religious think that reality is an illusion caused by lack of faith. LOL.
Posted by Celivia, Wednesday, 26 July 2006 3:49:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOSK

“While in your view homosexuals are morally disordered & treating them like human beings is an example of western degeneracy. Not prejudiced bigotry at all is it?”

As has been pointed out by others; “love the sinner, not the sin.” I would be happy to be enlightened to discover any other organisation or agency that does more to relieve the suffering of HIV/AIDS patients from the gay community than those of the Church. But we are such prejudiced, uncaring & narrow minded bigots…

For further analysis http://catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=34972 and
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/jhitchcock_enslavement_july06.asp

‘We should teach acceptance and respect, not tolerance, of those who are different from us wherever appropriate.’ (as if … see http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_13537.shtml for some mighty fine PC Pro-gay duplicity)

For a laugh…

Tokyo (AsiaNews) http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=1555 – More than 40 per cent of Japanese kids think that the sun revolves around the earth… 30 per cent did not know in which direction the sun set, a proportion that rose to 73 per cent for city kids.
Posted by Reality Check, Thursday, 27 July 2006 3:05:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celevia

"Things were always a mess."

But shouldn't they be getting better?

Even with abortion legalised, some women still die, but, legal or not, babies die everytime.

"The church was against contraception too- who in their right mind these days wants supersised families?"

As a father of six, I would suggest perhaps me & my non-Catholic wife would find your negative 'self-centred opinion' about homelife a case of things being a bigger mess. Don't worry, they will only provide labour & taxes for large Catholic families in the future and work to keep out Shari'a law perhaps?

"Many people and little kids have died because of religious wars."

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatchooooooooooooo! All the (bull) dust off this chestnut caused me to sneeze. How many died in WWI cf. how many have died in religious wars in the last 2 millenia?

# The 20th Century war with the most military fatalities (battlefield deaths only) was World War II (1939-45). 15,843,000 primarily men lost their lives.

# There have been almost 30 million military fatalities resulting from 20th-century conflicts, as well as innumerable civilians who were injured and killed.

#randomly selected from http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/war.html#humantoll

Religious wars are generally combat for territory & resources. The current mid-east problems can be painted as religious, but, ultimately,shoving a nation into land occupied by another nation and then arming both to the teeth is more about commerce than sovereignty. 1 gun + 1 gun = 1 war (and lots of profits!)

When the Shari'a State of Ausbekistan is declared, will there be battles about property or about ideas and ways of life?

If you are not having children, then your (non-existant) votes wont count. Assimilation by the majority will see western nations either convert many to Christ,or see Islam demographically & democratically take over. (Secularists won't survive as they do not reproduce...)

I hope you will not have to familiarise yourself with terms like 'dimmitude' and 'kafir'

PBUH Please bury u' head! (or for the ladies, is that burqa u' head?)
Posted by Reality Check, Thursday, 27 July 2006 4:34:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reality check.
AH not only a homophobe but you sound like a racist as well!
This topic of ‘the language used in churches’ is getting a good run-around!
You must have been brainwashed not only by the church but also by that anti-abortionist PM- (was it Danna Vale?), who claimed that Australia is going to be a muslim country if people (she talks about white Australians I suppose) keep having abortions.
It surprises me that she hasn’t gone so far as suggesting that abortion should only be legalised for muslims- tsk.
Anyway, why is Christianity a better religion than the moslim religion?
Can’t you just accept that there are people who believe in different Gods and that there are people who don’t believe in any God at all?
I think that Kipp had good advice in his short and lovely post: be happy!

Truly, how can one expect that everybody should have the same religion, same ideas, when there is no proof at all that one God is more true than another.?

C’me on, RC, everybody knows that a much higher percentage of women die when they have backyard abortions than when they have proper abortions at a clinic. And anyway, women die giving birth as well, so perhaps that equals it up. You’re probably going to find a link that proofs I’m wrong, that’s OK because I’m too lazy to look for links.
Would child abuse increase if abortion was illegal?

It’s nice for you and your wife that you have six children, RC, and I mean that (I hope you share the work load)- but people have the right to choose the amount of kids they have, and six kid’s is not everybody’s thing. For me, two is plenty, even though I love children. Why is everybody who decides on having less than six children selfish?

Have to go now… to cook diner for my small family.
Posted by Celivia, Thursday, 27 July 2006 5:59:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Rob I didn't miss it, I know it only too well, why do think I inserted that qualification? I'm praying that my actions follow my beliefs and as far as I know you’re the better person in God's eyes. But I can only go by what you say in here. If I say the universe is square and you say triangular we must argue. We may argue for respectfully and for great mutual benefit but we must argue.

Jesus was obedient to God the Father unto death. His weren't the deeds of someone hiding behind anything. On the contrary he held nothing back and revealed that he and his Father were one, even though he knew it would cost him his life. Jesus tells us to pick up our cross and follow him, not enclose ourselves in selfishness. That billions have and will continue to follow his commands isn't as you say some kind of intellectual suicide, rather the opposite Jesus-Paul-Augustine-Aquinas-Erasmus-Pascal-Galileo-Newton-Spinoza-Kierkegaard-Newman-Faraday-Mendel-and today 4 out 10 professional scientists believe in God
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1034872,00.html and speaking for myself with a degree in science and one in humanities I'd disagree that I was hiding.

Jesus cut the most slack of anyone who made choices he'd rather they didn't make.

Celivia,

Not everyone starts at the same place on our journey. Earth only planet with life, humans only rational creatures, women alone give birth, hereditary intelligence, health, beauty, fortune of living in supportive family/society, God choosing Jews and a teenage Jewish girl to give birth to him etc etc. But those to whom much has been given much is expected. Jews as a priestly people have suffered greatly, a mother breast feeds, carries child to term and sacrifices for her child. So privilege equals responsibility. Same with Christians.

The closer you look at Christianity and Islam the more I think you'll see why one ought to consider Christianity superior and Islam – Qur'an is terrifyingly violent, hadiths provide a gruesome biography of Mohammed and the lived experience of Islam in the world has been - well it speaks for itself.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Thursday, 27 July 2006 8:19:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Martin, I agree that the Koran is violent, but isn’t there violence, like murder, rape, incest, lust, sexism, prostitution, torture as well?

I have to admit though, that I am not familiar with the bible or the Koran- I have never read it in real detail, but just parts and passages, so I might be wrong and the bible might be all about love and be violence-free.

But my general, personal feeling was that both the Koran and the Bible are violent.

It is something that I would never read to young children though. We have M and R rated movies to protect our children but parents are happily reading all these violent stories from the Bible and Koran to their children.
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 28 July 2006 9:52:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia, you don't need to read the violent version to kids. They publish special childrens versions which take out the uncomfortable bits.

I suspect that is more about cementing a "loving god" image in kids minds rather than to protect them from the harm of reading about how the christain god is really reported to treat people.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 28 July 2006 10:48:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Correction from my last post: the first sentence should be: “Yes Martin, I agree that the Koran is violent, but isn’t there violence like murder, rape, incest, lust, sexism, prostitution, torture in the Bible as well?”

Robert, I believe your suspicion makes sense.
I have actually never looked at a children’s bible- and in my ignorance, I’ve always vaguely assumed that the children’s versions of the biblical ‘stories’ would be simplified and funned-up a little with colourful illustrations.
But I do know that some parents read the 'adult' version of the Bible with their children. I also think that the Koran is read by children at a young age. Both contain a lot of cruelty and violence.

Can you imagine what the Bible would look like if it was to be published, including the ‘uncomfortable bits’, as a comic? I think that certain parts might be classed as ‘filth’ or at least as ‘politically incorrect’.
I dare say that this goes for any other religious books as well.
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 28 July 2006 9:21:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Bible reports the behaviour of many over a history of thousands of years. It does not sanction the behaviour it does give us a glimpse of how human behaviour affects society and relationships. If you recorded what happened in the World today that affects society and relationships much of it would not be suitable for children. However it happens and has consequences that indicates who we as human look to for guidance of our values.

That is why Jesus coming into the world offered a new perspective. "Love your enemies."
Posted by Philo, Friday, 28 July 2006 9:51:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“reality,” back already? Last week you told us you were heading off to Latvia for a gay parade http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4664#48488

Apparently you did the same thing there as you do here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19878988-1702,00.html

Yes, there are lots of compassionate catholics http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4664#49294 but you’ve really lost your grip on reality if you think you’re one of them.

Fortunately, among catholics, the compassionate ones are even in the majority – only 35% of Australian catholics think that homosexuality is immoral http://www.tai.org.au/Publications_Files/Papers&Sub_Files/Homophobia%20webpaper%20Final.pdf

You mentioned your kids. It probably doesn’t matter what rot you try to pound into their poor heads – expect at least four out of the six to realise that their dad’s got it completely wrong with the morality stuff. Indeed, there’s a one in three chance that one of your children will be gay. Think about that one, before you throw any more excrement.
Posted by w, Friday, 28 July 2006 11:52:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“If you recorded what happened in the World today...much of it would not be suitable for children.”
Philo, that's true.

One thing I would be concerned about though is that God seemed to be quite violent himself.
I read somewhere that because God was angry he drowned many people and animals. I’m sure I could find some more examples of God being violent. God could have done with some anger management. Still, God is adored by millions.

Before I read those bible bits I assumed that God was supposed to be always good and have super power, but now I understand that that's not the case. I don’t understand why people glorify him.

You also said: ‘That is why Jesus coming into the world offered a new perspective. "Love your enemies."
That would be nice- it would be peace everywhere.

To follow this advice from Jesus, the church should start by changing its offensive language directed at homosexual people. Why don't you agree?
Before one can ‘love’ one’s enemies, one probably first has to be able to accept them for what they are.
It's easy for Jesus to give advice, it's harder to follow it up.

Reality Check, I forgot to reply to your religious war comment.
You are quite right that there were many more victims in non-religious wars then there were in religious wars.
Still, this doesn’t negate the fact that there were also innocent victims in religious wars.
That fact doesn’t make it right that people died during religious wars. So it is quite irrelevant how many people died in other wars. My point was that if it wasn't for religions, these people would not have died in these wars.

Thanks, w for your links- so catholics are the least homophobic among the Christian religions. Let’s hope that homophobia will gradually keep declining.

It’s a shame that from all the people who don’t think that homosexuality is immoral, almost half still discriminate because the research says: “Among those who believe homosexuality is immoral, 56% are of the opinion that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children."
Posted by Celivia, Saturday, 29 July 2006 10:20:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To remind Philo yet again, the biggest and largest growing HIV + population are women from 18-30 in Southern Africa. You forgot this in your selective statistics.

The statistics you give from Europe have nothing to do with gay pride parades. It is impossible to predict the time of acquiring HIV as the "window period" during seroconversion can be up to 12 months. It can take time for HIV to show up in a test, and the problem is that many falsely believe that they are HIV - only to find they seroconverter a few months later. This is a nasty trap from the virus.

It is not a "lifestyle" virus either, it also is caught by body fluids, sharps and accidents. Many in Africa caught HIV thanks to the Red Cross using dirty needles and infected blood in vaccination programs. How is this a "lifestyle"?

Your quote:

"several sensitive boys I have known who have fallen into homosexuality it was their peers who teased them and Public School teachers who influenced them that they ought to consider being gay".
This is utter rubbish. No one can turn or influence a person into being gay, just like no one can turn or influence a gay child into being straight. Psychologists simply cannot do it and neither can Jesus. No teacher tells kids to "consider" being gay. If this is true, sue the Christ out of them. Of course, this is just gossip: no credibility.

Excusing Israel for banning their Gay Pride parade, rendering their regime heroic in their oppressive ways is so typical of Philo. I think this is the point Reality Check was making about religion.

Religions are shoving their violence down the world's neck, and after Lebanon, the world is losing patience.

People in the crossfire just want to be left alone and will stay away from your temples of hate.

Philo's "Sahra Lee" layer upon hateful layer is nothing but flake that leaves a mess on the carpet. What a nutter!

Still no compassion Philo: the flower-man that jackboots his pansies.
Posted by saintfletcher, Saturday, 29 July 2006 6:18:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bother! I had to wait 11 hours to correct a mistake in the quote in the last sentence of my previous post.

It should read: “Among those who DO NOT believe homosexuality is immoral, 56% are of the opinion that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children."
Posted by Celivia, Saturday, 29 July 2006 10:26:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh my God! I know I said my last post was going to be my last on this matter, but I’ve changed my mind. Thanks for giving me the space to do this Ledingham, (nice post by the way!)

…but Philo, you are so nearly there. I just want to throw my arms around you and give you a great big hug. Focusing on “Love thine enemies” is just a couple of steps away. The way we experience the world is down to the language we choose to use – both to ourselves and to others. If in your quotation you had said “Love thy neighbours” consider the difference – how it sounds – why it is just as ‘true’. But why ultimately, it is a better use of God’s given language.
Posted by K£vin, Sunday, 30 July 2006 12:34:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia here is an intro
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA10Ak01.html to the difference between Quranic and Biblical Revelation. The author is an excellent geo-political journalist. His articles are well worth reading http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/spengler.html

You can have a wander around this site too. This particular link is about source material used in determining what being a Muslim actually means.
http://prophetofdoom.net/chapter.aspx?g=401&i=41041

You won't see this reported in mainstream media, not PC. Massive damage will ensue if the gay lobby is allowed to tear down marriage.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0506/public.html

“Atheist psychiatrist argues that gays can change.” That’s the subhead of a Christianity Today interview with Robert Spitzer, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University. It is no criticism of Christianity Today to note that his being an atheist is viewed as a plus. It is to say, “Hey, it’s not just we Christians who think this way.” The Spitzer story is indeed interesting. Back in 1973 he was instrumental in having the American Psychiatric Association declare that homosexuality is not a clinical disorder. Thirty years later, after extensive research with homosexuals who had undergone reparative therapy (the preferred term now is “reorientation therapy”), he concluded that it was about as effective as most therapies. A storm ensued when he published his findings in the October 2003 issue of Archives of Sexual Behavior. Spitzer thinks his position is less controversial today. Asked if he is planning a follow-up study, he said, “No. I feel a little battle fatigue. But also I’m not sure what the study would be. Some people have said, ‘Follow these people, interview them five years later, see how many of them have switched back,’ since it’s well known that some ex-gays give it up. But suppose you found that 5 percent or 10 percent did switch back. I mean, so what? You’d find the same thing if you followed people who had treatment for drug addiction. Some are going to relapse.” That sounds about right.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Sunday, 30 July 2006 3:56:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am currently mixing with a group of Christian stage actors. One a former gay converted to Christ a couple of years ago; who was just six months ago married to his bride and is just loving his married life. He was introduced to the gay life by the teenage college peers he mixed with. Today he attests to the liberation and fulfilment he has found in following a pure life as designed by God and is now anticipating children in his life.
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 30 July 2006 11:51:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Still no compassion from Philo for the violence to homosexuals by the church in Eastern Europe.

The highest incidence of HIV growth in Europe BTW, is in Russia and Poland. Countries that ban gay pride parades. It is not being spread by sex. These countries are addicted to what Marx called "the opiate of the masses": Church dominated regimes. People either flock to the church for this opiate, or they take real opium. With real opium, or heroin, there is such a problem with dirty needles, Poland and Russia have the most serious rise of HIV in Europe. Philo's arguement was another dud.

I see the next organised spin from the Christian lobby: they can cure homosexuals. The other hateful spins in their flow chart were all duds, so the list goes on.

The cases Philo present us are not quantitive data. They are case studies of individuals. They are their own subjective stories. There are many possibilities in the mix to be considered. For example, was the person legitimately gay in the first place? Was the person craving affection, or seeking other intimacy that was never really loving or sexual the fireplace? It gets complicated here.

What works for an anomaly will not work for an entire population. They tried that with 300 people in aversion therapy imported from Auwswitzch, and this was in the 1960s-70s to Dr Mc Connachy at UNSW School of Psychiatry to convert 300 homosexuals to heterosexuals, using this strange Nazi device. Most referrals were from the churches, of course.

The result was that the men ended up with major post traumatic stress syndrome, most were unable to use their genitals at all, and had horrible nightmares for years. This was one of the greatest tragedies in gay history. When it doesn't work, people get hurt.

If you think you can give false promises? The law will hold you responsible for abusing them with such experimental pychological games, and they can sue every penny you have for this illegal abuse.
Posted by saintfletcher, Monday, 31 July 2006 2:38:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
saint, the bit that scared me with Philo's example is the possibility that his friend is living a lie to fit with peer pressure as part of his new faith.

There does not seem to be a way for any of us to tell from Philo's example but if that is the case then the consequences could be very harmful to all concerned. I hope that is not the case, too many inocents can get hurt to satisfy somebody elses view of how things should be.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 31 July 2006 7:45:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia,

whilst I would see parenting as a selfless profession (or slavery as depicted by your comments!) I apologise for the personalisation of my de facto passing of judgement on your circumstance.

However, the demographic and social reality of choosing not to have children, whilst on the individual level seen as exercising legitimate choice, can, more widely, also be seen as a social abrogation of duty.

Therefore, my concern is about a society that values children less that personal comfort, casual & detached sexual pleasure or other consumer options. It is my intention to lament the perceived (and actual) deficiencies in our society that prevent people from wanting more children, or delaying their consideration.

PS: I would probably like to be in Dana Vale's electorate, because the Seat of Banks is no bastion of Anglosurbia like Sutherland Shire

w,

one of my children might be a drug pusher or prostitute too, but, irrespective of any 'pounding into heads' (cf love filled nurturing) I don't think that would be a desirable outcome on happiness / health / holiness / or moral grounds.

Anyway, just who is 'living the lie' in these things boils down to most of us just wanting an easy - guilt free - life...and on that basis, why would I worry about what you think and vice versa?

Well, neither of us can be right all of the time? Anthropologically, I think I am basing my decisions on a better body of evidence, but with ART, IVF etc, the planet of Lesbokistan - burqa clad lesbians without the need for man - may triump and soon!
Posted by Reality Check, Monday, 31 July 2006 1:38:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RC says:
* “Parenting is a selfless profession…”
RC, this is true, it is probably the most selfless and responsible profession there is, but not every woman is the motherly type and not every woman can handle the responsibility.

* “…can be seen as social abrogation of duty…”
So what? Do you suggest women who are not interested in having children (and I am not speaking for myself as I do have children) should have kids out of duty? What are women…breeding machines or persons?
The fact that women are able to have children doesn’t guarantee that they want to be a mother.
Newsflash:
These days, many women can do exactly as they choose, RC.
They might prefer to have a career without having to constantly worry about duties and children and childcare, or don’t want the financial pressure.

No one should be judging others for the family planning choices they make. You have six kids, a family in my cul d’sac have 8 children and the ninth on the way- well if that’s what they want that’s wonderful. But accept that there are married couples that don’t want kids, too.
I lament something too: a society crammed with people who constantly judge others.
I believe that if everyone is happy as an individual, the society will take care of itself.

I am hopeful that the future will look brighter for homosexuals now that the European parliament has declared that 2007 is to be Year of tolerance and anti-discrimination, and that the Dalai Lama urged respect, tolerance and the full recognition of human rights for all.

The pope however, still maintains his stand on the issue and is perfectly content when the churches offend homoseexuals; he even suggested that homosexual love is not as strong as heterosexual love. Oh please, honestly, what would he know about the love one can feel for a partner?
Posted by Celivia, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 12:14:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia,

sorry, all the excitement of Peter Costello telling us the facts - that an aging population is bad news - combined with the fact that your family down the street & mine are statistical anomolies hiding the depth of the real problem...

You are correct to observe that we cannot force people to procreate, or even temper their sexual behaviour, however, this is one of the reasons why the State should value & promote the institution of marriage over & above any mere consumerist or lifestyle choice.

Similarly, 'happy' rapists and murderers, 'happy' animal torturers and speeding drivers etc all have their 'happiness' curtailed. Us "people who constantly judge others" are law abiding people who are making decisions based on an anthropological tradition that sees little merit in entertaining modern fashions as contributing to human development.

Of course, others like you who espouse "tolerance & anti-discrimination principles" ignore those when berating us 'bigots.'

In regard to the Pope's thoughts on love, I suggest you read his Encyclical Deus et caritus (God is love) to get the context of his thoughts. Human sexuality and love find culmination in married life and particularly children.

The point the Pope is trying to make is that the love of homosexuals is really like that of siblings or friends - one than cannot adopt the sexual element as being essential or ordered.
Posted by Reality Check, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 10:15:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RC

"Similarly, 'happy' rapists and murderers, 'happy' animal torturers and speeding drivers etc all have their 'happiness' curtailed. Us "people who constantly judge others" are law abiding people who are making decisions based on an anthropological tradition that sees little merit in entertaining modern fashions as contributing to human development.

Of course, others like you who espouse "tolerance & anti-discrimination principles" ignore those when berating us 'bigots.'"

There is a very simple part of this that you appear to be unwilling to take account of. The idea of informed consent. Your happy rapists and murderers are harming others without that persons consent. Your happy animal torturers are harming creatures unable to consent to the harm. Your happy speeding drivers are placing the lives and health of others at unreasonable risk. Your happy bigots are seeking to harm others by attempting to unreasonably reduce their freedon to live their lives.

The basic concept is a fairly simple line in the sand. Sometimes it gets a bit hard to see where the line runs out on the extremities(those rare cases which get used as an excuse to ignore the basic principle) but most of the time the idea is really quite simple.

If it is between consenting adults and others are not unreasonably harmed by it then it really is none of yours or my business.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 1:06:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin,

Your use of Spitzer’s 2003 study carries the implication that so-called “reorientation therapy” is accepted as valid by a substantial proportion of the medical and psychological professions. There is virtually zilch evidence that this is the case and a lot against, and just about the only groups claiming otherwise are evangelical Christians (who have ideological, rather than scientific reasons for their claims) and an American group called NARTH, who despite their claims of being an organization for research do not appear to have generated any peer review studies supporting their position in all their years of existence. There are many damning critiques of Spitzer’s study. A good start if you’re interested can be found on http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_spit.htm , which takes a more balanced religious point of view than many. Spitzer himself has expressed disquiet about the ways his findings have been misrepresented.

Any examination of the issue has to separate the phenomena of intrinsic orientation, sexual behavior, and sexual identity, which do not have a one on one on one relationship. The assumption that sexual orientation is fixed for all people throughout their lives may well be true for many, but is by no means universal. This does not imply that it’s malleable by “therapy”.

Philo,

I wish your friend (and his bride) all the best. It is not at all uncommon for people with a primarily homosexual orientation to marry and function as best they can heterosexually (in fact it used to be the norm here and still is in many societies). No doubt his acting skills will be very useful. We all make compromises in our life’s journey. The question is, just because some people make those choices, why should pressure be put on others to follow suit?

RC,

“Happy rapists, murderers, (etc)” are curtailed because they harm others. This is morality basic to every functioning society. Homosexual don’t (at least any more than heterosexuals). “Anthropological tradition”, whatever that might be, is not the be all and end all of how we should live our lives. Which of your ancestors subscribed to internet chat forums?
Posted by Snout, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 1:09:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert,
“There is a very simple part of this that you appear to be unwilling to take account of. The idea of informed consent.”

The hard bit here is what is ‘informed’ and how does one measure / compare such?

“harming others without that persons consent.”

Consent to murder? Are we talking assisted euthanasia? Consenting to harm might be valid for soldiers or terrorists perhaps? Suicide as a form of informed consent?

“harming creatures unable to consent to the harm.”

Are we talking embryos and the unborn here too or just ‘lower order’ beasties?

“placing the lives and health of others at unreasonable risk.”

Need we comment on the widespread scientific evidence about hepatitis, HIV/AIDS.

“harm others by attempting to unreasonably reduce their freedon to live their lives.”
“If it is between consenting adults and others are not unreasonably harmed by it then it really is none of yours or my business.”

It looks like ‘unreasonably reduce/ harmed” is also a wide beach with plenty of sand – protecting marriage or heterosexual behaviour from becoming merely a form of behaviour, rather than the norm, is pretty important, to me, the State and the species.

Freedom, like truth, is one of those biggies, but, even if you have the freedom to ignore societal norms, does that mean that we who discriminate about what we feel is or should be acceptable, should be forced to accept a minority view?

Snout,

“are curtailed because they harm others. This is morality basic to every functioning society."

What is the harm restricted to? Physical harm, or more widely to include concepts such as the mores of a society etc? Liberated sexual behaviours, with homosexuality at the vanguard, could be seen as harmful in comparison to traditional marriage.

Anthropological tradition, which includes basic concepts such as communication, social interaction, development of behaviours and law etc influences how we should live our lives. Internet chat forums are merely a means in furthering the end – a civilised society. Just imagine if we had to engage our arguments by undemocratic means of ‘whose muscle is greater.’
Posted by Reality Check, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 2:09:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RC said: “Similarly, 'happy' rapists and murderers, 'happy' animal torturers…”
Good points, Robert and Snout, you saved me a few words;)
I just would like to add that ‘happy’ people are usually well-adapted. (Look up ‘happy’ in the dictionary and you’ll find: Being especially well-adapted; felicitous). I wouldn’t class a murderer or rapist or animal torturer a well-adapted or happy person; they usually have major psychological problems.

“Consent to murder? Are we talking assisted euthanasia?”
Euthanasia is not murder, it’s mercy. The only alternative to euthanasia for all patients involved is prolonged pain and suffering, or suicide. Only death can stop the incurably ill person suffering unbearably. There is no doubt in the physician’s mind that the patient cannot be cured. At the end of all the suffering the patient will die.
Euthanasia is only used when there are no drugs strong enough to end the suffering of unbearable pain.

“Consenting to harm might be valid for soldiers or terrorists perhaps?"
Terrorists harm people. Suicide bombers do not ask the victims whether they want to be around when the bomb explodes, do they?

“Suicide as a form of informed consent?”
People who commit suicide have mental problems or act in despair.

“… protecting marriage or heterosexual behaviour from becoming merely a form of behaviour, rather than the norm, is pretty important, to me, the State and the species. “

Oh please..the species debate is back. Wasting sperm, huh, RC? Read a few posts back. Especially Robert’s calculation on how much sperm he will be wasting during his lifetime will lighten you up a bit.

HIV? Answer: condoms.

The list goes on, I won’t even bother to make you see how illogical your arguments are.

But I have to admit that the point of abortion is a reasonable one and debatable- even though probably not as many homosexual people as heterosexual people will have to worry about abortion.
In fact, they might lovingly offer to adopt a baby if you and the State will let them.
Posted by Celivia, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 3:31:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RC,

“What is the harm restricted to? Physical harm, or more widely to include concepts such as the mores of a society etc?”

Some people believe that values spring from some kind of revealed outside source, while others such as myself believe that the “mores of society” have evolved from the input of all of us. The “mores of society” are not immutable: they are a collective response to who we are and the world we live in. There’s not a lot of point debating the two points of view. Either you believe in revealed religion, or you don’t.

I don’t.

What I do believe, though, is that the “mores of society” should reflect the principle of not harming individuals so far as is possible. Our concept of this is changing. One of the major changes has been to include women as valid individuals. Another has been a change in the type of economy we live in: forming heterosexual families and having lots of children no longer has the economic imperative it used to. We live longer. We are not a tiny Semitic tribe trying to survive in a hostile first millennium BCE Middle East. The idea that our values should be exactly the same as theirs is absurd to me. For all its faults, the principle of the primacy of individual rights that sprang from the Western Enlightenment is not something I would surrender willingly.

“…does that mean that we who discriminate about what we feel is or should be acceptable, should be forced to accept a minority view?”

It depends on what form that discrimination takes. You can take whatever view you like in your own heart. But if your discrimination harms people – and I believe that promoting hatred and intolerance does just that – then I don’t believe you can excuse that by citing tradition.

This string has been about the Church’s claim that gay parenting harms (“does violence”) to children. The empirical evidence says it doesn’t. It may harm “traditional mores”. This is not necessarily a bad thing, if those “mores” harm real people, today.
Posted by Snout, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 4:01:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You make an important point Snout. The Church simply says homosexual behaviour is immoral, and that constitutionally homosexual people (and constantly condemns discrimination against them) are part of God's plan just as much as heterosexual people.

My purpose was to counter gay propaganda about percentages of homosexual people in the community and illustrate that sexuality is more fluid than the gay lobby wishes to admit.

In 1973 homosexuality was removed from the register of mental illness pending more research - research that to date has not been done. No one knows. And the article you linked to confirms that. In it there's talk of individuals who are married and leave to enter homosexual relationships - homosexual people who later in life get married. How many who indentify as homosexuals are bisexuals? What is bisexuality? Must it manifest for x number of years? Why are people who no longer have homosexual sex and are Christian not valid members of a study? Could they not know things about sex other don't know, and are particularly good witnesses to the full dimensions of human sexuality?

Why then, given the uncertainty, should we overturn a culturally stable and successful definition of marriage for the tiny majority of those who are truly homosexual and who desire to be married? We owe it to children to allow for human fallibility - leave the institution as is. We must adapt to it, not the other way around.

Those with the particular gift of homosexuality need to use it to protect what enabled them existence in the first place. Witness to other aspects of sexuality i.e the sexual celibate kind http://www.pureintimacy.org/

"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about." GK Chesterton

We have a responsibility to prevent the destruction of marriage.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 10:38:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin I liked some of the questions you raised in that last post.

I am fairly confident that the real threat to marriage is not "gay marriage" but rather a fundamental shift in the heterosexual community. Marriage (and de-facto) relationships have become a legal nightmare if they fail which can do massive damage to all involved. Mostly well intentioned changes which try and address one part of a problem without adequately considering the implications of the "cure". People (male and female) can find themselves isolated from family, financially crippled, falsely acussed of all sorts of nasty without anymore failing than being human.

We need a the ability for people to agree up front what they are signing up for and for breach of those agreements to have some consequences for those who breach the agreement. Society used to work with one predominate model "till death do us part, for better for worse etc", now we see to have "till you get bored or something better comes along" regardless of what is said before family and friends (or God if you are that way inclined). There lies your problem, not that seemingly very small number of gays who might want to formalise their union.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 11:20:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I totally agree Martin. Those outside the Church are attempting to force the Christian church to accept a position not compatable to our understanding of reality. They only see their reality as relavent. It is not a position based upon scientific fact but upon sentimentality. We respect the individual we abhor his unclean act; this equally applies to everyone engaged in anal sex.

As I have said before many men engage in same sex acts while being married. There is no fact of science to suggest genetic factors make them bi-sexual. It is merely self gratification, opportunism and lust. These acts the Church cannot condone as evolved genetics as some seem to suggest, neither can it condone adultery or prostitution.

Those that engage in such behaviour might be happy but they are not moral. What is the point of the purity of life that the Christ teaches if any behaviour is viewed as OK. These people are not supporters of the position of the Church they are merely agnostic antagonists.

The Christian Church has a right to their point of view since we believe in design by a Divine mind. The NT identifies homosexuals as those that followed the god Juno who turned away from such impurity to follow the purity of Christ. There were converted homosexuals in the early Christian Church, even as there were adulterers and prostitutes they abandoned their impurities to follow Christ.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 11:45:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin: “We have a responsibility to prevent the destruction of marriage.”
Why? Depends how yo look at it. I don’t see that changing the definition of marriage, so that same sex couples are able to get married, will mean destruction of marriage- it can be seen as an enrichment. Changes can be positive and refreshing. The world won’t end if a few homosexuals are going to get married. It works perfectly in other counties.

And, I’d have to agree with Robert, heterosexual couples are doing a good job at destroying marriages. How many marriages end in divorce, was it 1 in 4?
I was discussing with someone that perhaps in the future marriages might be 2, 5, or 10-year contracts- much like driver’s licences- people will have to renew them if they want to stay together longer. If not renewed in time, it will be nullified. That will save many couples having to go through expensive and stressful divorce procedures. It will also be a solution for people being trapped in a marriage they can’t get out of.

Philo: “They only see their reality as relavent. It is not a position based upon scientific fact but upon sentimentality.”
Are you saying that the reality of the church is all based upon scientific fact? Don’t Christians just interpret reality differently than non-Christians do? Perhaps the church’s position is based upon spiritual beliefs. Beliefs do not necessarily have to be true.

“Those that engage in such behaviour might be happy but they are not moral”
I wouldn’t rely on Christianity’s interpretation of morality.
Posted by Celivia, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 3:08:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Look, the position of the Church is quite clear:

The understanding of the human person, man and woman, and the union of the same which receives a juridical form is no longer univocal. This is deducible once again from the interventions of Pope Benedict XVI in Spain. Gnoseological and moral relativism has undermined even philosophical and theological anthropology and new emerging opinions are leading to a dissolution of the image of the human person, and extremely serious consequences, which indeed we already see as debate on unmarried couples slides down the slippery slope to artificial fertilisation, to same sex ‘marriages’ with the possibility of adoption of children.

Assessing these erroneous opinions Catholic doctrine first of all reaffirms human dignity and rights which cannot be conditioned and are values which precede any sort of state jurisdiction. In this sense it is important to analyse the relationship between human freedom and human nature as John Paul II did: “At this point the true meaning of the natural law can be understood: it refers to man's proper and primordial nature, the "nature of the human person", which is the person himself in the unity of soul and body, in the unity of his spiritual and biological inclinations and of all the other specific characteristics necessary for the pursuit of his end”.

Secondly, since, in a sense, faith in Revelation has changed because relativism leads to non perception of the natural order as the source of rationality, paradoxically today the Church is called to defend reason before faith; then the connection between reason and faith in order to heal the lethal separation of thought and ethics; and also to highlight the rational aspect of human nature as John Paul II did in his comment on the Humanae vitae Encyclical.

... are we keeping up and following this people! cont.
Posted by Reality Check, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 4:01:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In this regard it would suffice to bring those who support the ‘naturalness’ of homosexuality to ask themselves: why are there men and women in the world, and not only men or only women? Faced with this evidence, homosexuality appears as an impossible attempt at the homologation of human nature to one or the other sex cancelling that evident difference, but ready to reinstate it when they want to claim the ‘right to be different’ in order to obtain juridical recognition ( ).
At this point it is would be good to affirm the significance of the term “right”: whether it is personal, or if it is a civic right, or the right of an active minority, and to show one is a group of pressure does not necessarily implicate recognition of the right. Reflection here is in the field of the right, the philosophy of the right. With regard to the ‘gay’ claim to homosexual marriage, it is useful to know that this is a minority which in no way represents the majority of homosexual persons, but which claims to represent them finding for its views political support. Therefore gay leaders and whatever, absurdly, end up without realising by reaffirming the difference the moment they postulate for a ‘marriage’, union or pact between them. Therefore, in contradiction with what they presuppose, that is that the State and society are incompetent with regard to their union considered part of the private sphere of affective interpersonal relations, - as it was stated by a party candidate for presidency in a region of Italy - they end up by petitioning the same for that public juridical recognition, also for the known reasons of economic convenience. If it is a question which concerns the “private sphere” it should never regard the State. The same is true for unmarried couples. But we will stop at our first reflection.

source: (AgenziaFides 20/7/2006 - righe 44parole 612)

Now I am glad we sorted this out. If you fail to understand this, then just take a "condom" - the universal solver of all these problems - apparently...
Posted by Reality Check, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 4:04:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For those who were baffled by this piece, or intimidated by RC’s condescension, a rough translation is:

“People are starting to think for themselves about what it means to be human rather than listening to us, the people who really know, because we alone understand “natural law”, which was revealed to us by God. This is scary, and can only end in tears. Look what’s happened already.

Because people don’t believe in Revelation any more, how can they know right from wrong unless we tell them? God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve: therefore homosexuality is yucky, and gays don’t even recognize men and women as different.

Just because someone says they have rights doesn’t mean they do. And not all gays want to get married anyway, and some of them reckon what they do in bed is no business of the state, so why should we listen to them?”

Writing clear, coherent English is obviously not the Church’s strong suit.

Philo,

No one’s trying to force anything on the Church. However, the Church is trying to force its views on us. The letter in question is very explicit about this, to the extent of trying to dictate how our (Catholic) democratically elected legislators must vote on these issues (see section IV) http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html . It’s not just your business, its mine too. You have a perfect right to believe what you like, but if you try to mess with my life you have to expect to be attacked when you talk garbage.

Celivia,

Good on you.

RObert,

Clear, sensible and compassionate as usual.

Martin,

Catch up with you next post
Posted by Snout, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 6:35:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Snout. I hope you had as much fun translating RC’s piece as I had reading your translation ;)

Thanks to all participants for sharing your views, especially to the ones who were thinking for themselves, LOL
Posted by Celivia, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 10:10:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia , since you do not accept the established moral principles as taught by Christ; What body of doctrine do you hold as the basis of your values, character and morals?

Quote: “I wouldn’t rely on Christianity’s interpretation of morality.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 10:25:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin,

Thanks for the link to the Focus on the Family site. I’m a bit disappointed, though. I’d hoped from the context of your link that it might be about the experiences of celibacy of real people. You know, how they came to their choices, what’s difficult, what’s rewarding, what they love, what they regret. If you know any such sites, please let me know.

I’m interested in your characterization of homosexual orientation as a “gift” (presumably one that you’re not supposed to open). Didn’t Paul describe it as a punishment from God for not worshipping properly? Personally, I don’t see it as either: it just is, in the same way heterosexuality just is. I’d love you to expand, if you wish.

I don’t think we have an immutable obligation to adapt to tradition, no matter what. Tradition is a human construct. (I’d include all religious traditions in that, but I’m aware some people will disagree). Some traditions are obviously harmful (see the string on female genital mutilation for example), while others simply outlive their usefulness. They no longer work. I agree with you and RObert that moving on and creating new ways of living is often painful, and mistakes are made. I also agree that humans have a propensity to dismantle traditional structures without fully understanding how they’re put together, or exactly what they’re for. But I agree with RObert, blaming gays for the problems in families and in heterosexual relationships just doesn’t make sense. It’s a panic response.

Homosexuality was removed from DSM for a number of reasons, in part to do with questions of what constitutes a clinical disorder. Most clinicians agree that a disorder necessarily causes distress and dysfunction to the individual, and by 1973 it was clear that did not apply to homosexuals per se. I can expand on this if you like, but I’d just note that the Church’s use of the term “disorder” could easily be confused with the accepted clinical meaning.

Your point about percentages – agreed, but I don’t think anyone’s raised it on this string.
Posted by Snout, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 10:46:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo, I do not hold a body of doctrine.
I simply never, throughout my life, believed in a God- it seemed all so far-fetched to me. I neither saw the logic nor the light. A doctrine is just a teaching or theory or principle that some people need or want in their lives, but a doctrine is not ‘proof’ that some theory is true.
For me ‘atheism’ is not a conscious choice, I just don’t believe there’s a God, so I can’t believe in a bible, in a religion or their doctrines.

Holding a body of doctrine for me means that I’d have to follow someone else’s teachings or principles.
I do not deny that I like some principles in some religions, and I like some things that some people say. But if I like some ideas or principles of a religion, that doesn’t guarantee that I’d automatically have to like ALL of their ideas.
I like theories that can quite easily be updated or replaced as soon as a better idea comes along and outdates the original theory or principle. Religions are too dogmatic.

Most religious people agree to and defend everything that their chosen religion stands for, because they ‘belong’ to that religion and decide think the same thoughts.
That’s why I could never fit into a certain religion, or could not hold a body of doctrine. Not because it’s my principle not to hold a doctrine, but because it naturally doesn’t agree with me.
I’d like to decide on every issue for myself. And I am not saying that I always make the right decisions- but neither do people who do hold a doctrine.
Posted by Celivia, Thursday, 3 August 2006 3:49:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A tough issue addressed by this article, no doubt.

As a sinner who needs Christ as much as anyone may I tread lightly on this one.

Firstly, note the RCC regards the words of the church as equal with scripture. I am not a RCatholic so I cannot speak from this perspective re: the article.

Homosexuality is fairly clearly outlined within scripture as sin (leviticus, romans). If one reads the sermon on the mount(Matt) so is lying, looking lustfully etc. Rather than discuss the sinfulness of homosexuality comparatively..draw to the fore that we are ALL sinners and fall short of the glory of God. We need Jesus!

The church faces some huge issues here, and it will always be a fine line to walk. (Ain't the narrow road for nothing!) Prayerfully, we must be discerning about each person's case. May I remember that I am a sinner who hopes to one day be a parent.

But we can't dilute gospel either.

God help us to walk the fine line of love, without compromising His word, but to not shun those that need our help either. I pray that we can love all those who come, seeking, to the church whatever their history, and let God minister to their hearts... rather than supplying our condemnation and self-righteousness instead.

Jars of clay indeed. We have a gospel of grace to share!

Perhaps it comes down to loving honesty rather than a hard line either way?

PS. To the person who leaves the church because it has offended them... God is a personal God who seeks a relationship with us.. and desires that we have fulfilling relationships with others. Churches are full of people, and people are flawed. We learn by dealing with people. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. God loves you!

PPS. As for the RCC & the establishment of the Lord's day over the Jewish Sabbath.. there is more to it theologically and historically. We are not under the law to keep either, we have a new covenant in Christ.
Posted by Grace Like Rain, Thursday, 3 August 2006 4:14:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Living in community means we observe and resprect boundaries of behaviour. These boundaries of behaviour can be formulated in a body of doctrine we call community standards, laws and principles of good neighbourliness. A community where everyone does what he feels right in his / her own own feeling is a conflicting society. People get hurt because of offending behaviour by inconsiderate anarchists. Western society is mostly built upon a morality based in the Judeau-Christian social world view.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 4 August 2006 1:21:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"laws and principles of good neighbourliness" - and central to that is to keep your nose out of your neighbours bedroom {or if you must look at least don't intefere ;) }.

Philo we have moved on a long way from Jerusalem AD27 (or thereabouts), social mores are in constant change so continuing to focus on the historical context as though it were some kind of ideal set in stone really does not cut it. There are a lot of things we have moved on from of our historical and cultural past, most have been resisted by some at the time but few would return to them willingly once they are gone.

Despite your desperate worries about sperm wastage (have you talked to an RC priest about that topic?) and your apparent concerns that the world may be underpopulated homosexuals do not do you harm. The harm comes from the other direction with you trying hard to have their freedoms and opportunities to live full lives limited and forced to a pattern which you are more comfortable with.

Time to move on, the world and people don't have to be a certain way just because you think they should.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 4 August 2006 8:14:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo, you said: “People get hurt because of offending behaviour by inconsiderate anarchists.”

You have a good sense of humour. What was this article and the comments about again? Offending language in churches? Inconsiderable religious groups? Bad behaviour by church leaders? So let’s restate this and say that people get hurt because of offending behaviour by inconsiderate PEOPLE. Not just anarchists.
Or do you deny that people/children never got hurt by religion/religious people?

Anarchist are not necessarily the enemy. They generally just don’t agree with common standard principles that were decided upon and set up by a certain group. There is no reason to think that anarchists have second-rate or no morals. Anarchism is not a synonym for immorality.
Anarchists can be either immoral, just as moral, or have stronger morals than non-anarchists (and vice versa).
Community standards can be different in different communities and different cultures and that does not mean that one community is superior to another, just different. If groups can be different and equal in morality, then so can individuals.

If God, for the theist, means ‘all love’, then why do theists hate so much out of love for their God? (I use ‘hate’ in the larger sense of the meaning including dislike, disrespect, rejection). If the theists’ reason why they hate atheism and anarchism is ‘because atheists do not love and respect God like theists do’, then doesn’t that mean that the believe in God actually causes them to hate, reject, disrespect etc?

And does that mean that atheists and anarchists can have a just as strong love, or even stronger love, respect. tolerance and acceptance for humankind than theists? Atheists have no God or religious group to blindly protect, and anarchists usually don’t think it’s their business what other people believe, as long as these others do not hurt people.
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 4 August 2006 2:44:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia,

Some cultures ARE superior to others.

The Aztecs were wrong to sacrifice virgins and prisoners of neighbouring Nations – and will always be even if they thought they were placating a fertility god.

Hindus were wrong when they practiced Sati - the immolation of the wife when the husband died. And will always be. Even if there were allusions to it in the Mahabharata.

Nazi's were wrong when they equated Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, etc with vermin and exterminated them. And will always be. Even if they thought Aryans and Europe would be better off without them.

Southern US Democrats were wrong when they argued that the institution of slavery was justified in their states and fought to maintain it. Even if Southerners would have benefited with a slave empire that stretched down to Brazil.

How can we make sense of female suffrage, universal human rights, abolition of slavery etc as an attempt to reach a standard unless an objective standard exists, independent of when or where someone was born?

I'll admit a cultures ability to perceive the moral law can vary, and there can be extenuating circumstances, but most certainly cultures and individuals are not equally good irrespective of their actions.

The moral relativism you espouse is particularly dangerous, it seems to contain the tolerance that is so highly valued today but in actual fact is a particularly nasty lie, that is effective as a lie because it seems on the surface so good.

Why has it gained so much currency in this age?

Read Charles Taylor "The Malaise of Modernity" (on the net?)

Briefly – No one ought to be a mere conformist, authenticity should be strived for, therefore no one has a right to tell an individual exactly how to go about living the good life. This principle has metastasized into " therefore no one is able to talk about what CONSTITUTES the good life". So ppl have come to the mistaken conclusion that eating chips and watching Oprah is as good as any other pursuit and saying otherwise is being 'judgmental' and intolerant.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Friday, 4 August 2006 6:17:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
martin
You missed out a few superior attitudes. The catholic church was wrong when it proclaimed that the slaughter of muslims was the only killing of which God approved.

The Catholic church was wrong when it brought about the inquisition to persecute all those who disagreed with the churches teachings.

Luther was wrong when he taught hatred of the Jews. A hatred by the way which several catholic church theologians & popes approved of.

You condemn [& in my opinion rightly] the human sacrifice of the Aztecs. Yet when mention is made of the genocide of the Canaanites ordered by God in the book of judges all of a sudden you argue that certain things other than the wrongness of genocide MUST be taken into account. Strange that isn't it martin?
Posted by Bosk, Friday, 4 August 2006 7:33:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For the current Jewish people the issue is: "Do we allow Hizballah to continue to threaten the security of our nation?" Do the Jews initiate action to eradicate an armed people and their sympathizers with an agenda to drive them into the sea? How fare do they go?
Posted by Philo, Friday, 4 August 2006 8:03:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin,
I do agree that the morals of non-violent cultures, communities or persons are superior to violent ones.
But, throughout this thread of comments we have already discussed the importance of ‘not hurting others’. I assumed that we established this already.

It is therefore irrelevant to list violent events to attack my point ‘that communities with different moralities can be equal’, because I assumed that violent issues were excluded in comparing communities'/cultures' morals. Perhaps I should have emphasised this. OF COURSE all this violence is wrong, no matter by who's morals it happened.
Bosk has picked up on that and understood what I meant though, so I don’t need to say much more.

Let’s compare non-violent, harmless cultures with non-violent, harmless cultures. All violence in whatever culture or community is wrong, I agree with that. Otherwise we could talk forever about burning ‘witches’ at the stake, killing people who claimed that the earth was round etc. Actually, I cannot really think of any established religion that never has harmed anyone. Let me know if you know of any. Even in Buddhism there are some exceptions to the non-violence norm.

Can we perhaps agree that a non-violent anarchist's morals can be different, yet equal to a non-violent non-anarchist's morals, seeing that neither harms others?
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 4 August 2006 10:34:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin,

I’m sure that just about every culture that’s ever existed would agree with your statement that some cultures are superior to others. And just about every culture will put their own at the top of the pile. In reality, the best we can say is, “we hold these truths to be self evident…” But one thing that we in the west in 2006 have is a breadth of access to so many different ways of thinking and living: what is “self evident” is no longer as simple as it used to be. This gives us the responsibility to be open to far more than our ancestors ever had to deal with – not uncritically, mind you, but with an openness of heart and mind.

I don’t have any background in philosophy or theology (my education was in an applied science) but I reckon you and Philo are both reducing the debate to two poles:

Either true moral values come from outside humans (i.e. from God) and are immutable, or we have the anarchy of an extreme form of moral relativism where no moral system is any better than any other and, as Philo says, “anything goes”. (I’m sure he must have said it somewhere)

Perhaps there is a third possibility: perhaps there are “universal” values, but they don’t come down from on high: they are a product of human searching and effort, are derived from human experience and wisdom, and whose worth can only be measured in their effect on human lives. And furthermore, our understanding of those values is always, more or less, through a glass darkly. Which means that they are always going to be a work in progress, but no less valuable for that.

Continued below:
Posted by Snout, Friday, 4 August 2006 11:19:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin, my problem with revealed religion is that it seems to deny what is “self evident” to me: that all morality is ultimately a human enterprise. Ascribing the source of that morality to God and making a fetish of “revealed” texts is a way of avoiding our ultimate responsibility to ourselves, others and to the world. The other problem is that revealed religion tends to ossify: particularly when it comes to written texts we can end up stuck with a worldview that might have made sense when it was written, but no longer works. Human societies have always been in a state of flux, but ours is arguably one that has undergone more fundamental change (economic, social, technological) in the last 300 years than any other in a comparable time. That people would seek to anchor themselves in the old verities is understandable, but decoupled from their original human context they can end up making less and less sense.

I feel for the Christian churches as they try to reconcile their heritage with modernity. I’m pissed off that so many of them have chosen homosexuality as their fault lines, but it’s interesting for me to watch. (Actually, I think that Christian conservatives have made a serious tactical error in their choice of this battle line: not as bad as choosing Darwinian evolution as the protestant fundamentalists have, but an unwinnable fight, nonetheless).

What’s going to be really scary, though, is when Islam comes head on with modernity, as is inevitable given the large minorities growing up in western humanist societies. (It would probably be inevitable, anyway, given globalization, and a younger westernized generation might just be its saving grace). My guess is that sooner or later someone’s going to fly a jet airliner into a skyscraper.

I’d still love to hear your thoughts on homosexuality as a “gift”.
Posted by Snout, Friday, 4 August 2006 11:22:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bosk

Of course Luther was wrong in his hatred of the Jews.

You'd need to show me where the Church issued such a statement about killing the Mohammedans.

But of course the moral law applies to the Church too, it knows this better than anyone.

Regarding the Inquisition I know you have a desire to learn. Hope this helps.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/02/inquisition-its-purpose-and-rationale.html

and this one on the Canaanites
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.html

Celivia

The only temporal non-violent communities that exist are those in the delusions of Marxists utopians. Your wish to exclude violent ones would mean excluding all past present and future communities.

100,000 and 1000000 abortions in Aus, and US respectively is wholesale violence against unborn life. Scroll down from this link http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0504/public.html to
"Everybody who has been involved in one way or another in arguments over abortion policy . . . "

I get the feeling you wish to use Witch burning and flat earthers to discredit moral realism because I'm Catholic. This link about a flat earth http://tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html and the link above about the Inquisition ought to help with that mistaken line of reasoning. The secular authorities who did this are wrong also. The Church was always a moderating influence over secular mania.

So my argument still stands - moral principles are true independent of what a person wishes, wills or dreams to be true and independent of when or where a person is born. Every culture has a role in the proclamation of these and the denouncing of those who do not abide by them.

Snout,
Re: moral principles
"they are a product of human searching and effort, are derived from human experience and wisdom, and whose worth can only be measured in their effect on human lives."
I agree completely, though you beg the question regarding these principle's ultimate
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Saturday, 5 August 2006 8:40:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An effortful search for something implies an objective existence. An effortful creation is something else. No one can ever create a value. They are as objective as the laws of physics.

Throughout history many have predicted the destruction of Christianity. The rise of religion around the world is clear evidence of the ossification of the Enlightenment project Snout.

Interpreting Scripture requires putting the events in historical and social context of course, The world changes and we should do the work of interpreting it for each generation. Its the most widely read and loved book in history. Maybe the fetish is yours Snout.

Our responsibility as people with free will is to take seriously the question of the identity of Jesus. To not do this is the true escapism.

I feel for those who don't know Jesus, who haven't experienced his loving presence in their lives and the joy of coming home (atheist previously). I feel too for the world when it dabbles in attempts to divorce itself from its Creator, and to reconcile nihilism with a meaningful human life.

My prediction regarding Islam and the West is the same as Spengler's http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/spengler.html

Cont'd
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Saturday, 5 August 2006 8:43:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snout,
Principles of best human behaviour that best builds lives and communities has always been present. Humanity discovering and applying them has not always been evident. We happen to believe these best principles are universal and their wisdom inherit in the design of man in best community. We as believers in design and a Designer of man to live in community place best practise of attitudes, character, and actions as the intention of the designer. That humans choose deliberately to violate these principles are not the intention of the designer.

If you come up with a better principle than love, forgive and give yourself out of care for even your enemies then please let me know. This we believe is demonstrated in living the character of God.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 5 August 2006 8:59:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I’ve held off answering because I wasn’t sure if you had more to say from the end of your second post.

The link to the article about the Inquisition was interesting. Of course it needs to be interpreted in terms of a “mediaeval mindset and worldview”, not to mention the social and political context of the times. But isn’t that a relativist way of looking at things? At the same time, nowadays we would take the view that torturing and burning people for their beliefs is universally wrong – and correctly, too, I believe.

We clearly have a number of points of agreement. I feel there is a fundamental basket of values that can be said to be universally, or almost universally true. The Golden Rule is one of these, and figures prominently in all major religions and systems of ethics. Where we differ is in the ground each would cede to moral relativism, and that has as its base our differing beliefs about the origins of our moral sense.

I am a strong believer in science. However science cannot in itself deliver us a moral sense: only provide some Windex for that dark glass we look through. Sometimes we only end up smearing. Some types of science – psychology and medicine for example – can shed light on the distortions inherent in the glass itself. This is particularly the case when we think about sexuality and sexual morality.

cont.
Posted by Snout, Monday, 7 August 2006 7:06:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin, I don’t personally feel the need to postulate a God for a universal moral law to work, any more than for the laws of physics to work. To me, debating which competing moral claims have genuinely emanated from God is a fruitless task. At the same time I respect those who ground their sense of universal values in their religious faith and experience, when those values result in good for people – which is the measure of a true universal value.

Thank you for the link to Spengler. He makes many important points, but overall my view of Islam’s ability to respond to modernity is less pessimistic. I can only hope I’m right.

I don’t predict the death of Christianity. Like monotheistic belief in general, it has proven to respond to changes in the world by reinventing itself time and time again, in myriad forms, some inspired, some catastrophic. I also agree that the science and the Enlightenment project can ossify: but the scientist has a tremendous strength: the inner voice constantly asking: am I really right about this, and how do I really know?

Philo,

Your principle is indeed a sound one, though I hope I don’t have too many enemies. Perhaps I haven’t been on OLO long enough.
Posted by Snout, Monday, 7 August 2006 7:09:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin
How do I respond to the wierd links which you posted?

As regards the arguments found at the site concerning the caananites. It is based on the FALSE assumption that the basis of morality is god & that without God's guidance we cannot know right from wrong we can only make assumptions. You yourself argued against this when you argued that a sense of right & wrong was built into the natural world. Yet when people use that instinctual sense of right & wrong to judge your God you contradict yourself & proclaim they are working on assumptions. So which is it Martin? Do we have a reliable sense of right & wrong? Or is it only relaiable when it agrees with you?

Secondly the author of that site proclaims that any condemnation of genocide per se is based solely on assumption. Hardly! Ever heard of logic Martin? Deontology? Even natural law? Both of these condemn genocide in all its form & for ANY reason Martin. ANY REASON!

Now as to your site concerning the persecution of the Cathars.
What a load of rubbish, twisted facts & outright distortions that site contained.
A) It listed Will Durant as a secular historian [fact: Durant was an evangelical christian]. The work was also printed in 1935. Antique opinion indeed.

b) The Cathars are alleged to have stolen from the wealthy & this was why the church persecuted them. Rubbish. If this was so why did those very same rich christians protect the Cathars? To quote from Lea "They [the Cathars] were liked & respected both by the upper classes and by their Catholic neighbors to such an extent that, when the Abigensian crusade commensed many Catholics chose to die rather than turn over their Catharan neighbors to the Church." But wait perhaps this author is biased Martin. Let's see what a determined foe of heresy like Bernard of Clairvoux said about them shall we?
Posted by Bosk, Monday, 7 August 2006 9:34:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you interrogate them [the Cathars], nothing could be more Christian; as to their conversation, nothing could be less reprehensible, and what they speak they prove by deeds. As to the morals of the heretic, he cheats no one, he opresses no one, he strikes no one, his cheeks are pale with fasting, he eats not the bread of idleness, his hands labour for his livelihood."

Ooh what a danger to society they must have been Martin. But wait if they weren't a danger to society (& they obviously weren't) then why did the pope tell all those tall tales about them? Why was the Albigensian crusade (not the inquisition by the way) fought? One reason only. Power. The Popes [Alexander III & Innocent III] saw the Cathars as a threat to their power. How do we know that the tales spread by the Popes of Catharan atrocities were just tall tales? Two reasons. 1) People like Bernard gave a report totally at odds with the Churches pronouncements. He was ignored. 2) The people in the region sided with the Cathars. They obviously did NOT believe the tall tales. And they had every reason to believe them [if they were true]. After all they rubbed shoulders with the Cathars every day. Surely they would have been the first to hear about these atrocities if they existed.

As to the Pope's pronouncements on the crusade - try reading Urban III's address at the synod of Clermont. He desribes the Saracens as "an accursed race, a godless race" & then adds that Killing them "is the only slaughter which is righteous"
Posted by Bosk, Monday, 7 August 2006 9:48:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, Martin you’re right about non-existence of non-violent communities, no matter what kind of body of doctrine they hold or not hold.

BTW I do have nothing against you personally, or your catholic religion specially; I just do not see the logic in any religion. I was Christened a Catholic myself by parents who didn’t really believe, in fact my dad was an atheist at heart, and my mother believes in God but doesn’t practice her religion- but they just Christened us for my grandparents’ sake. My youngest brother wasn’t christened as my grandparents had given up their religion by then, as well.

How would you rate communities though, to say that one can be superior to another? Is it the level of violence that is counted?
The amount of homosexual couples that live there? The amount of women who had an abortion? What is the standard you would judge a community by? Isn’t that hard or impossible to decide?
The things that seem immoral in one community (or person) can seem moral in another.
In the light of this article: Is a community that judges and uses judgmental language towards homosexual couples in their community more moral than a community that is accepting homosexuals?

Who decides that? And why would the group that decides this ‘know it all better’ than the non-deciding group?
Are they superior too?
And why, who decides that? This group, themselves? And why would they be right? Because they say so?

To be continued...
Posted by Celivia, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 3:27:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Because God said so: to so-called prophets, who heard voices in their head said it was the word of God? Why would you believe that? Anyone could say things like that.

If anybody hears voices in their head today and acts upon these voices it’s called mental illness and they’d be taken care of in a psychiatric hospital or medicated.

Why is it so believable that the voice that the prophets heard was ‘the real’ voice of God?
And why do you not hear the real voices of homosexuals?

And why would you believe, for example, that Mary was a virgin and had been holding hands only with Joseph till Jesus was born; that Eve was made out of Adam's rib(someone with uterus envy wrote that one); that God gives people the freedom of will but along with that a list with do’s and don’ts such as the commandments? That God doesn’t judge but you go to hell if you’re a sinner? God is Love? Well, if anyone tries to nail MY son to a cross, if I had this almighty power NO ONE would crucify my kids.

Why would a group that believes the illogical things that seem to come with religions be superior to a group of people who don’t believe it?

Why believe all this and not believe that homosexuals, like anyone else, just want and need to be accepted without being constantly judged by people with morals that tell them that this is all wrong?

One more thing about that emotional link about abortion- emotive language can do much, but I could also write a very emotional story about all the women who are forced to have babies, can't feed them and watch them die in their arms. Or women who just can't cope either mentally, emotionally, or financially, especially women without partners.

In another thread I said something about contraception- that it should be freely available- that would prevent a lot of abortions.
I bet the bible has something negative to say about or oppose contraception as well and nothing will ever change- not ever.
Posted by Celivia, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 3:47:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't think homosexuals are forcing their beliefs on the church. Even in the Anglican case, the Priests are still vowed to celibacy.

Still, I don't think they are in a safe place, they are kidding themselves.

The Church and Christian zealots force their views on everyone else. The church has the power to dominate our Government. It stands over Government and business and makes sure we pay tax for their expensive private schools. Religious schools which refuse to follow the NSW Government Anti Discrimination Act. So they have representation, no taxation, and domination over government.

The Church is a an easy perk. An oasis for paedophiles and con-men to hide. Don't worry, the Church will cover it all over for you. It is all about power in an interest group with an agenda.

It is basic for modern democracy that the church and state must be separate in civilized fairness.

To force Christianity on unwilling Australians is abuse.

Who cares what the church says about gay people? Their violent sentiments would be illegal in another other organisation.

Lets make this clean, cut, clear and easy.

Let the church be independent do what it wants. Under this freedom, let them have the freedom to pay tax. Let them have the freedom to have no more funding from any Governments, state or Federal, for any of their private schools.

Why should tax money from "evil" gay taxpayers fall in the clutches of so many greedy homophobic church organisations? Is that fair?

I mean, they are supposed to be independent, and insist on going by their own rules. Fine. Do so. But don't expect our taxpayers money.

Start paying taxes.

Pay your own bills, don't expect gay taxpayers to pay them for you.
Posted by saintfletcher, Friday, 11 August 2006 1:30:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saintfletcher,

as Big Kim would suggest - take those pills!

I can't see the Genesis for your last post, but, if we are talking about a minority group (ie gays) forcing their opinion upon society, then, why should the majority not be allowed to protect their position?

Regarding Church tax exemptions, then provided the poor & destitute that fall upon 'Church' resources are prepared to pay user cost fees, then bring the taxes on!

And about the chestnut of State funding of schools, show me where all the students going to these schools can enrol and the infrastructure costs saved by the State being part of the new tax regime and again all is sweet.

Because the Church has been undertaking the role of the State for millenia, it's not its fault that it (and the State) know it can do it better & cheaper in the area of human services. Now when the Australian Defence Forces get contracted out, I hope you aren't to upset when they refer to them as Crusaders!
Posted by Reality Check, Friday, 11 August 2006 12:11:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps it is time for a new beginning.

I think that it should not be the schools’ task to teach religion at all. What parents want to teach their kids is up to them.
But schools should be banned from indoctrinating children.

Schools ought to teach skills and offer information as unbiased as possible. The teaching of one religion is not being biased.

If there must be religious education then let all schools participate and let religious education be unprejudiced. Either ALL schools should stop teaching religion, or they ALL should teach ABOUT religion. No school should teach a specific religion.

Let this subject be about knowledge and history of the different main world religions. Teach the different views of different religions; don’t teach them that one religion is right and the others are wrong.

Children will gain much more understanding of religion as a whole.

Teaching children to accept, uncritically, the one religion chosen by their parents’ narrow minds is not really teaching them about religion; it’s more like brainwashing them.
It is narrowing their view, not opening their mind.

We want people with open minds in the future, people who can be more accepting of one another.
We want children to grow up as people who can make a difference to the future of all communities, who can be understanding, tolerant, peaceful and compassionate.
Teaching kids to be prejudiced from an early age is not going to achieve that.

I will have to agree with Saintfletcher that I’d rather not pay my taxes to schools that are in fact, educating children in narrowing their minds. I’d rather pay for the open minds of the next generation.

Not possible from funding? Well they got to change that too, then.
I’m sure there are some experts who can work out how to pay all education for children out of our taxes without the need for parents to pay extra for some ‘privileged’ schools.
All schools should be treated as being privileged. If people are equal, then their children are equal and so their education opportunities should be equal as well.
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 11 August 2006 2:39:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bosk: The implications of the Cathar heresy. If you can't see what this would have meant for Europe what can we say to each other?
http://www.languedoc-france.info/120102_implications.htm

Abraham Lincoln – anti abolitionist, was responsible for the war that killed more American soldiers than all others combined. The way you read history Bosk, to be consistent you'll have to gather all the shadows and conclude 'This grim handed killer . . ." http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FB10Aa03.html

Persist in this superficial literacy and all you'll have to offer is a shadow play.

Your accusing tone every post is getting tiresome too.

Celivia,

We rate cultures the same way we have always, how do they act? How do we know what is right/wrong? Collective human experience, authority of Revelation and Reason, prayer, conscience, saints/holy men and women, wisdom recorded that has stood the test of time. Would our culture stack up well? I'm sure future generations will see much of what we did as unbelievably stupid. But they will have the benefit of hindsight and their own lights. They will be just a chronologically snobbish as we are today. We believe the current generation has finally reached the height from which all other generations can be judged, forgetting that every generation ends up the same distance from God. Does this mean we stop striving because its hard work to see through the characteristic lies of the Age? The individuals who have transcended it have saved their souls. Its easy to give the spirit of the age its head, just as it is easy to be a snob.

Your baptism is a huge event. You have no idea. Its like a seal Celivia, it wasn't an accident. His people are suffering and you can help.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Sunday, 13 August 2006 1:01:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your questions about Christian doctrine are all legitimate and necessary.Faith arises from doubt.

Your question about prophets being locked up today is spot on, and this goes to much of what is wrong in our world, our romantic sentimentality about science and what answers it provides, logic it appears to me resides firmly with Christianity. Jesus would be medicated and locked up today. And God is the one with the case to answer?!!

Hume's induction and radical empiricism. A good start in the philosophy of miracles. How could Mary miraculously conceive? Why do we worry so much about truth and justice, why are our consciences so inflamed over them? If everything is random how to explain it? How can meat (our brains) think? A liver can't love, attach meaning, dream, believe etc. Why is there a universe anyway? Why does love demand the infinite 'for ever' and 'only this particular person'? Why should the only valid knowledge be of the scientific kind? The statement itself can't be proved in any scientific way, its adoption as a worldview is purely arbitrary. Besides no one lives their life this according to this principle (used though to explain away miracles)

Homosexuals are loved like all sinners, just as I musn't fornicate a person should not indulge their homosexual tendencies.

The answers to all your questions are at your fingertips if you are willing. "Ask and you shall receive, knock and the door will be opened to you".

You wouldn't allow your son to be nailed to a tree, but you would sacrifice your life to save his life. God didn't hold anything back, he was who he was and we didn't like it and killed him. Trying to hold back a little bit of who he was keeping it private is not what infinite love does. It gives and gives, and Jesus being fully human went to the source of this infinite love time and again in prayer so that he could keep giving.

We should too.

Cont'd
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Sunday, 13 August 2006 1:06:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin in your last post you talked about the atonement of Christ. Let’s examine it shall we?
The atonement of Christ may be defined as “The sacrificial death of Christ as some kind of payment for the sins of mankind.” The only problem is people die every day so why does the death of one person take away anyone’s sins?

The Christian churches have taught several theories:
1) Ransom Theory (Early Church Fathers) The idea that the atonement was some kind of ransom to the devil. But since Christ has been raised from the dead the devil has been cheated of his ransom. Now cheating ANYONE [even someone evil] is itself an evil act then this theory would imply that God performs evil deeds. So let’s look elsewhere.
2) The Satisfaction Theory (Anselm) The theory that the atonement restores God’s honour, insulted by sin. But why should a death restore God’s honour? Especially since the insult goes on. This idea is obviously illogical.
3) The Acceptance Theory (Duns Scotus) God freely decided to accept the death of Christ as a repayment of our dues to Him. But then why not freely accept something less bloody – like the sacrifice of a flower? So if this theory is true God could have picked the sacrifice of a flower but chose the death of Christ as repayment. Implication – God is a bloodthirsty maniac.
4) Substitution theory – Jesus suffers as a substitute or scapegoat for us. But punishing a scapegoat for another’s crimes is immoral & unjust. Since God arranged this then it implies that He must be immoral & unjust.

As you can see Martin either the doctrine of the atonement is illogical or immoral. There’s no getting around it. So how does the atonement imply God’s love for us? Especially since God was saving us from Himself & according to this doctrine he required blood to do this [His son’s or someone else’s He wasn’t fussy]. Does that sound like love to you?

To be continued.
Posted by Bosk, Sunday, 13 August 2006 5:57:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin
Now let’s look at your last argument shall we?
You compare the American civil war with genocide & conclude they are both the same. Ludicrous. War may be defined as an amed struggle between nations or states. Once one side surrenders the war is over. Is that what we find Lincoln doing? Lincoln told Sherman & Grant in 1844 “If the confederate armies lay down their arms they shall be welcome back into the union.” .

Genocide on the other hand is the systematic slaughter of men women & children whether they are armed or not. Not exactly the same is it?

Let me put it this way. Let us say Allah had declared that all the citizens who opposed the Islamic faith were to be butchered. Men, women, children & infants. They were all to be put to the sword. “Leave alive nothing that breathes, neither man nor woman nor child nor ox nor ass” Would you condemn this genocide? Of course you would!

Let us consider another story. If when an Islamic army was about to break into a city & a Muslim general turned to Muhammad & asked “the city contains both Muslims & Christians. How will we know one from the other?” & Muhammad replied “Kill them all. God will know His own” Would you condemn such an act of genocide? Of course you would!

If Muslims persecuted & killed any who deviated from the teachings of Muhammad would you condemn such religios bigotry? Of course you would!

But the Catholic Church, & God as portrayed in the Hebrew testament, have said & done all these things. Will you condemn them as well? Will you be consistent? Well, will you Martin?
Posted by Bosk, Sunday, 13 August 2006 8:25:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bosk,
Christians turn negative events into positive outcomes. What seemed like a waste of a good life at the hands of evil men, demonstrated forgivness for sinners that he prayed for while they crucified him. In that his death atoned for the most evil of sinners. For evil to be overcome forgivness must be offered rather than revenge.

The death of Jesus demonstrated the nature and evil intent of men whose actions and attitudes actually demonstrated they did not love God. That is they rejected Jesus as demonstrating the very heart of God. As Peter the apostle said this same Jesus whom you have crucified [speaking to those that rejected Jesus] God has exhalted as Lord.

They were putting him to death for breaking their laws and views of morality and being the person in character and attitudes that they believed did not reflect the very nature and image of God. Christians believe he is the very character that God intended for each one of us. Sin is the violation of ideal character, of purity and right attitudes and behaviour.

From above posts we recognise the ignorance some have of Church schools. I can tell you, parents are leaving the Public school system in droves because they reject the indoctrination they are receiving at the hands of the PC left wing of the Education Department. They want their chidren brought up with an open mind to good values rather than the immoral behaviour practised and espused by a godless society.

The parents of the Children in Church schools pay the same level of taxes as everyone else; beside they pay school fees to develop the school. Currently my daughter pays $4,000.00 per term for each child. So do not raise the fact that Church schools get a free load from tax payers. It is a non argument.

That Churches should pay taxes because they are charatable organisations is also a non argument. All ministers and staff pay taxes. That they run services for the benifit of the community is as relavent as expecting hospitals or welfare agencies to pay taxes.
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 13 August 2006 10:42:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bosk, witty questions! I didn’t know about the 4 theories; interesting also to see that your view on God matches mine quite closely, even though you have a lot of knowledge about God/religion and I know next to nothing about the contents of the bible.

Martin, thanks for being patient. Hope you take no offense but I am afraid that your effort of passing on your knowledge is wasted on me- I really do not believe that there is a God; I am too skeptical and and have no faith, just as you probably do not believe in and have no faith in someone else’s God. So we’re not all that different- just a matter of one God.
It’s nice to say that my baptism is important, but it doesn’t mean anything to me- anyone can help anyone in life, do we become better at it if we’ve been baptised? I doubt that.
I came across a quote once and was able to track it down. This quote says very much what I mean:
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
-- Stephen Roberts

“I'm sure future generations will see much of what we did as unbelievably stupid. But they will have the benefit of hindsight and their own lights.”
True; history is just the total of all the stupid things humankind could have avoided.
The greater our history becomes, the more past mistakes we could prevent- but do we, as humans, really act as if we’ve learnt from it? Wars and violence always seem to be happening, for instance.
Posted by Celivia, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 1:33:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo, you say: “Sin is the violation of ideal character, of purity and right attitudes and behaviour.” In that regard one would think that nobody has an ideal character, nobody is pure, so we are all sinners.
The odd person who claims to be sinless might not have found the sin yet that is right for him/her, LOL.

And relating that to this topic of judgemental language used in churches toward homosexuals, does that mean that one sinner judges and verbally abuses the other sinner for a sin? Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?
Posted by Celivia, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 1:35:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia,

Well you might consider anal sex as ideal and pure behaviour. However it is both unnatural and unclean, and that is a well documented opinion. Biology and medical statistics verify it so.

You claim to not believe in God. The Christian view of God is not a distant being up in some cellestial heaven. That is an old world view held by those that do not understand the message of Jesus. God lives in his sons. God is spirit revealed in human character, attitudes, behaviour and wisdom by such the Christian accepts he ought to live.

You might deny you believe in character, attitudes, actions and wisdom. All of these from your opinion will differ from what Christ revealed by his life and words - so your god is not God as Christ Jesus lived. It is this glorious standard that all men will be accessed, and it this standard that Christians accept [believe in] that atones for their shortcomings. Recognition of Christ as lord [Master] of life places one as a believer who is repentant of his own shortcomings and accepts Jesus Christ as Lord.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 8:45:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear, I can't help myself, really sorry everyone, I just can't resist. Philo, have you never heard of douching?
Posted by K£vin, Thursday, 17 August 2006 9:09:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
K£vin,

You've noticed too?

We all tried to explain to Philo posts ago that anal sex isn't restricted to gay males - he is a bit obssessed, isn't he?

And we all know about those who protest the loudest...........
Posted by Scout, Thursday, 17 August 2006 1:17:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,
Does it really matter to you what someone does in their own bedroom? It is not important whether anal sex is natural or unnatural- I won’t even bother to discuss the unnaturalness of anal sex. Total and lifelong abstinence for priests is natural?

What is important is consensual sex and love between partners (and douching, LOL). Homosexuals do not harm you. Anticipating what you’re going to say something new about uncleanliness: condoms to prevent STD. Having unprotected heterosexual sex can also spread STD.

“You might deny you believe in character, attitudes, actions and wisdom.”
Atheists or people who believe in another God than the Christian God can still have just as many virtues as a Christian. And vice versa- being a Christian doesn’t guarantee s/he possesses these virtues. We all have seen Christians behaving badly, haven’t we?

Face it, Philo, we are all sinners. Some people might be good at covering them up, or decide to categorise sins into little sins or big sins, or natural sins and unnatural sins. But still, I imagine we all have sins in the eyes of God (if there was one). You can fool your neighbours but not God.

I do not need to recognise a God or to belong to a religion to know that what I do or say sucks sometimes. I have a conscious. I know and feel what’s right or wrong. I try to be good, but sometimes I am bad. I do not need some outdated book and commandments to tell me what I ‘should’ do or approve of, or how I should judge others.
It’s fine to believe in God or go to church or read the bible if that’s what makes you feel happy- but please, all you religious people, do not impose it on anyone else.
It’s ridiculous to tell people they go to hell if they do not live to your religious standards.

Scout and K£vin!
Thy should not indulge in these temptations! Control thyself and resist, resist, resist! Go and douche thou filthy souls.
Posted by Celivia, Thursday, 17 August 2006 2:00:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I confess, I be impure...........must cleanse myself of improper thoughts...... now where did I leave that douche?.

Sorry, but I just can't seem to stop myself - in arguments that go on too long I usually end up laughing (this has often caused problems for me) and I guess K£vin provided the catalyst for me this time round.

Celivia I do admire your patience with Philo - but he wants to disapprove, it makes him feel better about himself if he can sit in judgement of others and believe himself to be superior.
Posted by Scout, Thursday, 17 August 2006 2:18:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Scout. Hi Celivia. I really do enjoy reading both your posts. Its good to know there are sane people in the world like you two.

Scout, I can't help giggling (histerically) too. I really had made up my mind to stay off this thread, but I suppose sometimes, you just gotta do what you gotta do.

I realised quite early on that there really is no possibility of having a logical discussion with some people. I agree with you Scout, Celivia displays incredible stoicism and patience with Philo.

She is so brilliant (and I know she is more than capable of looking after herself) that a bit of moral support now and again has to be good thing.

Any way, as they say in France.. time to go douche again.
Posted by K£vin, Friday, 18 August 2006 4:01:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout and K£vin- thank you; it is very nice of you to say that I am sane and patient, but you should see the state of my cushion after I finish talking to the religious clan.
But seriously, thanks, it’s a real compliment to be called sane by such impure souls. I thoroughly enjoy reading your sensible posts/opinions as well, of course!

I agree that there are too many people who have quite rigid minds and it can be hard to have a conversation with them, but I always hope that they can allow themselves to explore different views as well.
I always hope that they will show something of themselves, give their own opinion and not always the brainwashed version, the version of what they are expected to say or think.

I do not believe for one minute that even stict Christians (or any other religion) agree 100% with the church, the bible, or their God.
Surely they must question SOME of the things or even disagree to a certain extend. Why are they so afraid to just admit that? Why is the truth so scary that they have to cover it up so much?
I suppose it is a very safe feeling to belong to a (religious) group that is ‘always right’, and the more people have the same beliefs as they do, the safer they feel.

Either that’s my reason for being patient, or I was merely born to annoy, lol.
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 18 August 2006 3:16:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Celivia

I have wondered about the same questions. I certainly encounter religious people in my everyday life who do hold a more lateral view to their religion than some of the posters here. In fact, in my day to day life I consider myself to be more of an agnostic, but when I get on OLO I become firmly atheist. I think this is in response to the rigidity and judgemental nature of the extreme religious.

Maybe, they in turn, become more inflexible when they get on OLO - who knows?

I have been posting on OLO for 2 years now and have had many a tussle with the usual religious suspects - so I usually only respond to them now if I feel I have a real point to make, or to have a bit of fun. I have a quick temper, but I can't stay angry and usually end up just seeing the funny side of things. However, this doesn't lessen my passion for equal rights for all people and I maintain my rage against dogma.

In a society like Australia, it is disheartening to see people who would impose their lifestyles on others purely because of religion. We are seeing too much of that - denial of gay marriage, use of abortion drugs, limiting scientific research and so on.

I do enjoy knowing that there are people out there like you and K£vin - broad minded and free-thinking.

Have a wonderful weekend.
Posted by Scout, Friday, 18 August 2006 4:16:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snout, I've been sick and busy so sorry for the delay. Re: celibacy – this article in Rolling Stone was a good one. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7418688/the_young__the_sexless

Maurice Shinnick a Catholic priest wrote a book called 'This Remarkable Gift' about homosexuality, he has since repudiated conclusions that contradict Catholic teaching. Without writing a long treatise on it, it can be summed up in the paragraph from "First Things" http://www.firstthings.com/ scroll down to "Many gays nowadays talk about their sexual identity as a “gift from God.”

The rationale behind celibacy, the theology and the philosophy of love is all there. An interesting Catholic take on love is "The Theology of the Body".

Bosk, Christian doctrine has developed since the Resurrection, perhaps one day you will find new threads of meaning in Christ's Redemption – one of the many mysteries of Creation. Pope Benedict XVI in his 'Introduction to Christianity' (have a read) writes about Christ's crucifixion "many texts actually force one to think that Christian faith in the Cross imagines a God whose unrelenting righteousness demanded a human sacrifice, the sacrifice of His own Son, one turns away in horror from a righteousness whose sinister wrath makes the message of love incredible. This picture is as false as it is widespread"

Jesus need not have been crucified, but he willingly, out of love, allowed himself to be taken because of his pure self giving, he was open about who he was, knew it would put him at odds with the authorities and in his sacrifice showed us how much God actually loves us. Love is a verb a doing word. And God has now been as low as anyone, ie no matter how far we fall, or how much we suffer in life God can meet us eye to eye. He's been there before us. St. Thoma
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Monday, 21 August 2006 8:34:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thomas Aquinas writes beautifully too on Christ's crucifixion.

You missed the point I was making about your superficial understanding of history. Like any bigot, you start with a conclusion and then spin the facts to support them. If there's a negative achievement in western history - a slaughter, a pillage, a theft - you give 100% of the credit to Christianity, relying on the logic that since the west was nominally Christian, anything it did "belonged" to Christianity as a whole. But if there's a positive achievement in western history, somehow Christianity gets zero credit for it. Why can I not say that Christianity presided over the rise of the west, an secularism is overseeing its fall?

Under your logic, democracy is as a whole responsible for the US invasion of Iraq. A democracy, after all, committed this act, and did so in the name of democracy. So why can I not lay the blame for all the deaths involved at the feet of democracy?

That stuff may work with first year girls at uni, but not with me.

If you really want an institution to damn, one much larger and gorier than Christianity then the Government or the State will oblige. Yet it is possibly the thing you would make stronger than it has ever been, in your extreme secularism – you would appeal to the great sinner to save you from the lesser.

The real question is "Why are all human things so bad when they claim to be so good?" This it calls Sin, or the Fall of Man. And this is where Christianity begins and has her theory and her remedy for the world's evils. But what are yours?

If you must be an atheist at least be a smart one, we need you to be more thoughtful. World famous Harvard historian Niall Ferguson
". . if I were pressed, would have to admit to being a kind of incurable atheist"

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s1603430.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/31/do3102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/07/31/ixopinion.html
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Monday, 21 August 2006 8:40:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In all the excited mutual masturbation between Celivia, Scout & K (goodness me, no Sterling, only the Euro symbol on this keyboard!) anyway, you know who I mean, comes the wonderful quote:

"In a society like Australia, it is disheartening to see people who would impose their lifestyles on others purely because of religion. We are seeing too much of that - denial of gay marriage, use of abortion drugs, limiting scientific research and so on.

I do enjoy knowing that there are people out there like you and K£vin - broad minded and free-thinking."

Oh dear!

The religion of secularism that you people adhere to (and yet do not confess or understand?) is as bigoted as any religion adopted by deity based fundamentalists or zealots. The imposition of the scientific / gay / insert other lobby group here... agendas/lifestyles manifests the duplicity/irony/hypocracy of you LOLin' OLOers.

A case of "Praise the Board" perhaps? Anyway, I am happy for you to challenge 2000 years of tradition, but, level playing fields please.

As I read today in the paper: "The new problem, as Francis Fukuyama explains in his book, The Great Disruption, is 'liberal democracy has always been dependent upon certain shared values to work properly' and that agreement on those shared values is now contested. The culture of intense individualism is fraying the bonds that hold family, community and nations together."

Douche!
Posted by Reality Check, Wednesday, 23 August 2006 5:54:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin,

Thanks for getting back to me and for those links. I’m sorry to hear you’ve been unwell, and I hope you’re feeling better.

I particularly enjoyed the Rolling Stone article. I have to admit that a subculture that provides sanctuary to young people from the relentless commoditization of their sexuality is probably not all bad. A culture that doesn’t provide space for kids to grow into their own sexuality on their own terms is, I think, exploitive. And I loved the idea of the “masturbands” – elevating not-wanking to a competitive (team?) sport in which winners can wear their achievement on their sleeves. I thought of the Seinfeld episode “Master of his Domain”.

But there is also something a bit creepy about it too.
“This is what she finds romantic: a father who gives his teenage daughter a "purity" ring, which will be returned on her wedding day and handed to his daughter's new husband, her virginity passed from man to man like a baton.”
Try that with the genders reversed and the sexual politics becomes even more overt.
I was less impressed with Charlotte Allen’s piece,
“Aelred showed the way for making proper use of that gift: turning the heightened sensitivity and artistic sensibility that often accompanies it into ecstatic, prayerful prose that burned with love for Christ and his mother.”
Ambiguity about whose mother aside, I found this piece imbued with a phobic sense of sexuality, as if homosexuals’ only acceptable social role is as “sensitive, artistic” aesthetes – kind of like desexed pets. This is not a grown up way of approaching sexuality, and carries false stereotypes about the supposed traits of gays. I have no problem with people choosing to make whatever sense they wish of their own sexuality (within the limits of not harming others of course), but to propose the above as a normative or ideal use of the “gift” says more about the anxieties of the writer than about the realities of how most people experience their sexuality.

cont.
Posted by Snout, Thursday, 24 August 2006 5:25:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Young people’s sexuality has always been a source of anxiety to their elders (for a variety of reasons), and in many religions it is seen as both an enemy to faith and a battleground for control. I’m not sure this is a healthy thing, as young Origen was reputed to have discovered too late. Of course pleasure deferred is not the same as pleasure denied, but the commoditization of virginity is simply the other side of the coin of the commoditization of sexuality. Good Christians, it is true, are promised only one virgin rather than 70 (albeit one who is apparently 600% more “hot”), but I reckon we see here a similar, although less extreme, form of an unhealthy obsession with “purity” presented as a means to a supposed higher sexuality, when in reality it’s a form of social control.

Recent events should make us suspicious of those who would seek such control. It ain’t always benign.

What we should be asking is for whose benefit. The promotion of “chastity” is not as effective at protecting young people from the negatives of sex as its proponents assume:

http://www.jahonline.org/article/PIIS1054139X05000558/fulltext?browse_volume=36&issue_key=TOC%40%40JOURNALS%40JAH%400036%400004&issue_preview=no&select1=no&select1=no&vol=

An alternative, and I think healthier, approach is to skill young people to treat their sexuality as something to be valued rather than feared or as a source of continual internal conflict. And that their sexuality both belongs to them and is ultimately their own responsibility. This means equipping them with the knowledge to make sensible choices (for example about contraception and STI prevention), and also requires both the validation of the individual’s desire and also the space to be non-sexual, the space to have ones sexuality to oneself without it becoming a public commodity. This is not something we always do well.

As an aside, many young people today reject the designation “gay” because it has become so entwined with a commercially oriented gay scene that there is little to separate the term from a marketing category. For many younger “queers” the older labels no longer work.
Posted by Snout, Thursday, 24 August 2006 5:31:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snout thank you for such a thoughtful, well written reply, and your civility is contagious.

Nothing you've said contradicts Catholic teaching.

The Incarnation more than any other doctrine emphasises the beauty of sex. God himself entered our world through the vagina. Matter and the body are good - afterall God deigned to become one of us.

"For God so loved the world He gave His only Son" John 3:16.

A full picture of reality aswell as the above includes the doctrine of the Fall - something good has been corrupted and hence the natural state of human nature is civil war among its elements. Strong prohibitions and a culture of shame when breaking them are necessary to protect us from ourselves.

The Catholic Church is strongly FOR sex, it is a precious gift from God and hence the Church is rightly concerned with its propriety.

"Nowadays Christianity of the past is often criticized as having been opposed to the body; and it is quite true that tendencies of this sort have always existed. Yet the contemporary way of exalting the body is deceptive. Eros, reduced to pure “sex”, has become a commodity, a mere “thing” to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself becomes a commodity. This is hardly man's great “yes” to the body. On the contrary, he now considers his body and his sexuality as the purely material part of himself, to be used and exploited at will. Nor does he see it as an arena for the exercise of his freedom, but as a mere object that he attempts, as he pleases, to make both enjoyable and harmless. Here we are actually dealing with a debasement of the human body: no longer is it integrated into our overall existential freedom; no longer is it a vital expression of our whole being, but it is more or less relegated to the purely biological sphere. The apparent exaltation of the body can quickly turn into a hatred of bodiliness. Christian faith, on the other hand, has always considered man a unity in duality, a reality in which spirit
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Thursday, 24 August 2006 8:26:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
and matter compenetrate, and in which each is brought to a new nobility. True, eros tends to rise “in ecstasy” towards the Divine, to lead us beyond ourselves; yet for this very reason it calls for a path of ascent, renunciation, purification and healing." Deus Caritas Est (PopeB XVI)

Among Jesus' harshest criticism:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may become clean." Matt 23:25

You're right to believe emphasis on outward purity to the neglect of the chastity of the heart is just creepy. It is a 'humble sanctity that reveals things that would otherwise remain hidden' CS Lewis – not prideful conceit at the defeat of sexual desire.

To us the spiritual life often seems thin compared with our sensual life and many conclude then that spiritual life is a substitute for unattainable earthly delights. But introspection alone cannot tell which is the reality and which is the substitute. Eg. we can ruin our good taste

- to the pervert, normal love, when it does not appear simply repulsive, appears at best a mere milk and water substitute for that ghastly world of impossible fantasies which have become to him the 'real thing'.

The authority of many wise men and women in many different times and places forbids me to regard the spiritual world as an illusion. We can believe restrictions on sex to be social control when we cannot imagine the reality it is attempting to reveal - the presence of God.

"Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God"

God forbids us to enjoy sex outside marriage not because there is anything wrong with sexual pleasure, but because we must not isolate that pleasure and try to get it by itself, any more than we ought to try to get the pleasures of taste without swallowing and digesting, by chewing things and spitting them out again.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Thursday, 24 August 2006 8:28:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin Ibn Warriq,
I have enjoyed reading your intelligent posts.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 24 August 2006 9:46:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...As I have, despite (or perhaps because of) our differing points of view.

Kind regards,
Posted by Snout, Friday, 25 August 2006 7:18:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin and Snout, I’ve benefited hugely from your thoughtful posts. Together you’re a great lesson in the effectiveness of measured and considerate dialogue. Naturally, I find more in Martin’s to dispute, and if I may ...

Essentially, my support for Prendergast’s claim that churches need to be more accommodating towards same-sex attracted people is based on the view that all human beings are equal, and all human beings have natural and normal needs which others should accept. Among these needs are sexual and spiritual fulfilment.

Homosexuals drawn by their spiritual needs to the catholic church are arbitrarily told that while the church accepts that the sexual needs of most of the community are worthy, theirs are not. The recommendation that homosexuals remain celibate is merely a re-direction of this discrimination. The claim that homosexuality can be “cured” (dealt with above by Snout), is likewise an insistence on selective accommodation of basic human needs within the catholic church.

It’s also possible to re-train left-handers as right-handers, but out of respect for left-handed people, catholics no longer do this. Sexuality is the one human attribute which the church has chosen as an arbitrary ground for exclusion.

Celivia mentioned a new beginning, and Snout a third way - I think science may lead us there. Cognitive science is demonstrating that belief is a fundamental human trait, as deserving as every other. Early days yet, but I suspect that science may enable us to position belief in relation to all other human attributes, in a way that honours them all. Conversely, it may give believers the logical tools to accommodate human attributes that apparently contradict their deeply held values.

Then we won’t need to have gatherings of christian parliamentarians http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4768#51317 claiming that christianity is under consistent attack. Science having drawn boundaries which we can all understand, consistent respect for all human values is achievable. I recommend this discussion http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2006/1717032.htm as a taste of where this debate is going.

Once again, thanks for the thoughtful contributions.
Posted by w, Saturday, 26 August 2006 10:00:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 40
  7. 41
  8. 42
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy