It's going to be interesting to see how Western religions react to their new Third World pastors when the supply of locally-born clergy runs out. Personally I doubt whether the growing churches in developing countries can reliably produce doctrine or personnel acceptable to the more enlightened West. It may simply drive more people away.

But Mark is quite right in general: as any ideology declines in popularity the ones who remain tend to be the more extreme. Given what we know about of religion I suspect they will also be the less well-educated and the more inflammable. No doubt they will do their best to seriously damage our society: so we must be prepared to keep them in check.

What I would like to know is why a clearly dwindling demographic gets so much input into government policy?
It seems whenever fundamentalist Christians on the fringes (just like cyclists on the fringes) want something, the government swings into action it would never normally do to pander to their (often outright unreasonable) demands.

When the Catholic Church nominated Sydney for World Youth Day, what did each of the three levels of our government do?
Bend over and rolled out the welcome mat AND a temporary army for good measure.

An interesting article but I find it a little hypocritical. At first the author is saying that Christians are trying to take away the rights of others and then in the same breath says that Christians right ot free speech should be taken away. We live in community, and that means accepting all those within it - weather we accept thier veiws or not. If you do not like what someone is saying then don't listen, if you believe that someone is getting to much poitical power then do something about it like put your own hat in the ring. But don't just complain and point fingers.

How dishonest can an author be. He writes
'Christians and other religious groupings regularly describe Gay people as depraved, deviates, intrinsically and objectively disordered. ;

No they describe their behaviour as depraved and deviant. Just like adultery, fornication and other sexual sin.

The truth is that the loud militant homosexual lobby backed by a media full of deviance wants acceptance of the unacceptable. Not happy to sexualise young girls and boys and promote immorality among teenagers the media want to back the screams of god defying arrogrance of those wanting to promote deviant lifestyles.

Stop trying to promote a deviant lifestyle on the rest of the population and you will hear a lot less.

This article is nothing but a Christian bashing (particularly Catholic) exercise. Why no mention of Islams response to those practicing homosexuality? Usually because the gutless media won't go their. It seems universities won't either. What hypocrisy.

Fancy the learned Dr teaching a Christianity and its impact. What a distorted view one will have to take to get a pass mark.

I had a laugh at Mark Johnson's claim that "the language of Human Rights" is being used to "deny human rights".

Well, ya see John, Human Rights deal in moral absolutes, and those absolutes are contradictory. You can not claim a "right to religion" and then claim that a religion has no right to condemn behaviour which its own God has very pointedly proscribed.

Personally, I think it is rather poetic that the Catholics are using the contradictions in Human Rights declarations to attack those (so called) Human Rights which it opposes. It seems that the disciples of God are a lot smarter than the modern disciples of Human Rights who think that their own particular dogma is infallable.

Sorry, Runner, but experience shows that giving way to fanatics -- be they religious, Green, Nazis or Communists -- simply encourages them to press their claims further and further. Your attempts to intimidate people who oppose your bigotry and hatred need to be exposed for what they are, and ordinary theists need to realise that by sitting back and allowing extremists like you to dictate policy to them will simply bring them into disgrace and disrepute.

If your God wants gays persecuted, then let him do it himself, without our help, or yours. After all, he's powerful enough -- isn't he?

Jon J

'Sorry, Runner, but experience shows that giving way to fanatics -- be they religious, Green, Nazis or Communists -- simply encourages them to press their claims further and further.'

drr you left out atheist and god haters. Maybe it never occured to you.

Sadly, the author comes across as a bigot and hater.

It is ironical that he teaches in the Department of Studies in Religion at the University of Sydney.

runner

Probably a wasted post but here goes. There is no such thing as a God-hater. Likening atheism to hatred is wholly dishonest and it is ironic that your own contributions are usually the most vitriolic, accusatory and least tempered by thoughtful and understanding analysis. I don't think you really undersand atheism as your comments bear out.

One cannot hate something that does not, in their worldview, exist. Your responses appear to be some form of emotional self-preservation and while understandable on one front, is hardly helpful or honest in these sorts of discussion.

You keep throwing up statements about denying God and denying the evidence but are yet to offer any evidence only statements filled with hatred against anyone with a different view including atheists, environmentalists or those who disagree with you about climate change.

There is much more evidence that man is polluting this planet than evidence for God, yet you continue to demean those who care about the wellbeing of humans and the environments they inhabit. Your tool of demonisation, ironically, is to use negative religious analogies as though this itself will pose a negative light on those opinions. An odd approach for a religionist.

pelican,
In your view of theists you hate the idea of accountability to the moral excellence - God. God is spirit expressed in the perfection and purity of human character. Does that exist? That is the aspiriation of a godly kingdom where the Godly spirit rules. However humans certainly are not perfect but those that accept the perfection of God ought to repent and aspire to live by it, because it is godlike to forgive the guilty.

Pelican, good luck to you with your lessons on atheism :)
I too fear you are wasting your time with people like Runner and Philo.

A few quotes that amused me when I looked up atheism (and no, I don't class myself as an atheist yet, merely a skeptic) are:

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.- Susan B. Anthony"

"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"

"A belief which leaves no place for doubt is not a belief; it is a superstition.
José Bergamín"

And my personal favourite:

"It will yet be the proud boast of women that they never contributed a line to the Bible. – George W. Foote" :)

Hi Runner, you wrote,
"Why no mention of Islam's response to those practicing homosexuality? Usually because the gutless media won't go there. It seems universities won't either. What hypocrisy."

In his book 'Rethinking Islamism: The Ideology of the New Terror,' Meghnad Desai stated, "... While the attitude of many Western liberals towards Christian fundamentalism is one of horror and dismissive contempt, they find themselves helpless against Muslim fundamentalism. The possibility that they may face an accusation of racism cripples their critical facilities." (pg. 20)

QED

Maybe we can't do much about Islamic Fundamentalism but we certainly can do something about our own home-grown Christian Fundamentalism.

It should also be noted that the words "pagan" and "heretic" are strictly Judeo-Christian terms. The word "heretic" come from the Greek word for "choice" and the word was created at the time that non-believers were summarily put to death by the Christian rulers of the day.

The film "Agora" offers an accurate portrayal of those early years.

They were certainly more militant then and many are probably hoping for a return.

Philo (Friday, 1 April 2011 6:18:08pm)

Proposing God is "the idea of accountability to the moral excellence" and "God is spirit expressed in the perfection and purity of human character" is dishonest, given the lack of verification and the problem that God seems to also be the source of evil. Thus your proposals are immoral.

Jon J,
But if God does will you ascribe it to God?

God put into place natural principles of maaintaining health, if faeces is found in the uretha then infection, viruses and diseases can arise like HIV and AIDS. I recently attended a funeral for a 42 year old once healthy man and an active homosexual. He died a slow and detoriating disease over many months from AIDS. His parents nursed him for months with many tears because of the lifestyle he had chosen. They did not blame God, but the consequence of his choices resulted in his own death from the boundaries God has placed in human behaviour.

But Philo,

Wouldn't it be so much simpler not to make anyone homosexual in the first place? God can do that, right? Why does he -- in your view -- condemn some (small number of) homosexuals to lingering painful deaths when he could 'cure' them all with a wave of his magic omnipotence?

It's almost as if he LIKES to see people suffering, isn't it?

Jon J writes

'It's almost as if he LIKES to see people suffering, isn't it?'

I would say it is the likes of you and me that loves the forbidden rotton fruit that leads to sufferering. No more clearer example than aids. Men and women who keep life long commitments suffer few if any std's. If God loved sufferering so much He would not of warned us what causes it. Our stubborn denial of the obvious shows who is at fault and it ain't God.

Hi Arthur,

interesting point you raise, except that I'm not speaking out against Christian speech, I'm pointing at how some Christians and others use the intent of 'free speech' so to legitimate their own cause for discrimination.That some see no problem in using the cover of 'free speech' so to legitimate a type of speech which in fact is prejudice (and then reinforced by discriminatory employment practices).

Raycom,

you're being a bit defensive arent you? Jon J's initial post has the argument correct. Its not about all Christians, or any other religious person, as I made clear in the article (before you breathlessly rushed in to ignore it). Its about the structures being used by those few who are left within now cavernous spaces. So many of good will, thought and compassion have left — or been forced out — leaving structures in the hands of the zealous and ideological few.

I'm afraid this is another nasty article by a protagonist for the homosexual community

Jon J,
The choice of behaviour is ours to make. God does not make homosexuals anymore than he makes peadophiles. Both are decisions of choice. Studies show that most homosexual men are aroused equally as hetrosexual in the presence of a naked woman and can equally father children. That is the design principle. Their actions are a matter of their own will.

Philo
"In your view of theists you hate the idea of accountability to the moral excellence - God."

My belief in accountabiity is stronger than any propensity to believe in the supernatural. Too long the Church has bee accountable to no-one including God. Like all of us, my personal experiences have shaped my beliefs about what it means to be human including a strong belief in accountability.

Moral excellence - who gets to decide? It certainly isn't any perfect God, but men who uses the veil of faith to dicate to others what they believe is a moral code which usually reinforces a particular power balance within and without the Church.

I don't find anything excelling in the reinforcing of discrimination towards women or homosexuals in the Church, or in some more extreme Churches where white man is thought to be superior to any other which continues to spurn organisations like the Klu-Klux Clan. Or where women were burnt at the stake as witches for being nothing more than overtly expressive in many cases.

These are not moral codes I would wish to aspire to or teach to my children. I do not find it 'excellent' to bring children up to believe they are inherently evil and must continually atone to some imaginary figurehead that does not exist, while having huge impact on their developing psyche and self esteem.

If indeed some Christians define God as not of the supernatural but a way of expressing the "...spirit expressed in the perfection and purity of human character" as you put it, it still does not provide 'evidence' for God as mainstream religion would define him.

I agree with you that humans certainly are not perfect but I don't believe it is only those who "accept the perfection of God ought to repent and aspire to live by it" are the only ones aspiring to live a moral life.

" as any ideology declines in popularity the ones who remain tend to be the more extreme. "
That applies perfectly in the case of those who still believe in the man-made global warming ideology/ 'religion'.

Hi Philo -- so people are allowed to choose to follow the forbidden desires that God has given them, but they aren't allowed to choose to live long and healthy lives? Sounds a bit unfair, doesn't it? I thought God liked freedom of choice.

Jon J,
Conditioned emotional attachments or attractions are not genetic [God given], but envirinmental.

Jon J,
Freedom of choice does not extend to every extremity of the immagination. That you desire in your immagination to have sex with your mates wife does not make it a desire given by God. To the contrary - "thou shalt not commit adultry", "Thou shalt not covet your neighbours wife".

But Philo -- isn't God all-powerful? Doesn't that mean that EVERYTHING is God's responsibility? Surely if there was anything he didn't like or want about the planet or the people on it he could change it in a jiffy, couldn't he? So why does an all-powerful deity allow people to go around doing things he doesn't like when he could easily stop them doing it, make it clear to them that it's not on? Does he WANT to catch them out and punish them? You or I can't stop people doing things we don't want them to do -- thank goodness! -- because we're not all-powerful. But why can't God?

Philo < "Conditioned emotional attachments or attractions are not genetic [God given], but envirinmental (sic)."

Really? Where is your' proof that Homosexuality is caused by environment Philo?
How can a child turn out to be gay when he is born into a very strict Christian family, educated at strict Christian colleges, with a homophobic father?

I know at least three families personally where this has happened.
None of these kids ever knew anyone who was gay!

Why does only one child in any family turn out to be gay, when all the other children in that family don't, and they were all brought up in the same environment, to the same parents?

Logic would tell any bright person that there would have to be genetics involved.

suzeonline,
I was reading a medical journal last week on male sexuality, which included both hetrosexual and homosexual men. The journal unfortunately was not mine so I do not have the author.

The experiment had men connected to a lie detecter and their genitals monotered for blood flow on sexual arousal. They had to state if they were sexually aroused alone in the presence of nude males and females brought into their presence. Though homosexual men said they were not aroused by the presence of nude females their body functions did not support their statements. So the presence of a nude female body alone with them aroused all men equally. This demonstrated that the decisions these Gay men made was purely of their mind and not of their genetics.

Philo mate, you cannot make statements like that without evidence. It just makes you out to be easily led, which is very sad to see a person so anti towards other persons, for no reason other than maybe the fear; that maybe I might be that way.

Kipp,
I have nothing against you as a person. I have friends who once practised homosexual acts and they still prefer to be in the company of men. However they no longer engage in same sex acts - it is the sexual act that defines the meaning of the term homo sexual.

The men I know brought up with strict parents it was the overbearing mother they had that gave them choice to prefer the company of other men.

Philo, I have no doubt that some men are aroused by both naked men and naked women... some men also get aroused when watching animals having sex with other animals, but that doesn't mean they want to have sex with animals!

That wasn't what I asked about anyway... please read my questions again above.

You have absolutely no proof about any of your statements, other than what your religious friends/beliefs told you.

Why don't you think for yourself instead?
Or are you too frightened by what you might find?

JonJ, if that were the situation/case, how on earth would people learn, grow, love and have compassion for any other person in order for their souls to evolve spiritually?

For instance, if God had intervened stopping my first cousin from drowning, or my first cousin from dying at 7 years of age (17 years ago) from a neurological condition, how would any of our extended families, friends and the community have felt love in their heart, deep compassion or posed questions as to why these two beautiful kids died so early and unfairly compared to us as adults?

At the time and over the years I have prayed each year for my deceased young cousins 'siblings and parents/immediate family. One cousin's family being non-believers and the strong urge was there for me to pray, asking that their hearts lighten and heal quickly, in order for them to live their lives with positive strength and determination.

Example: if people did not die, how would any person feel the depth of love and compassion for other people, attempt to change legislation on issues, attempt to improve or implement humanitarian rights or conditions, and all of the other positive kind good works emanated from compassion or love felt in people's hearts and minds?

I know one thing JonJ. There has to be a higher reason for children dying young when we as adults are still around enjoying the opportunity to live. When its our turn, the answers undoubtedly,will be glaringly obvious - white bright lights I hope!

No religion followed.

Choices are made in situations, victims of circumstances in others, yet in my experience of my own life, too many de-jevu incidents occur and far too 'co-incidental'.

In a nutshell, my personal belief is that our souls/subconscious/minds 'choose' major life events whichever way one cares to look at the issue of the 'surface negatives and horrors' that befall peoples families, friends, work colleagues and acquaintances.

"JonJ, if that were the situation/case, how on earth would people learn, grow, love and have compassion for any other person in order for their souls to evolve spiritually?"

Easy -- God would make it happen. God can do anything, remember? If he wanted souls to evolve then it would happen, right?

Or are you saying God is NOT all-powerful?

" if God had intervened ... how would any of our extended families, friends and the community have felt love in their heart, deep compassion"

@ weareunique, Sunday, 3 April 2011 11:38:51 PM

One would hope there as love and compassion before children die.

...........

"There has to be a higher reason for children dying young when we as adults are still around enjoying the opportunity to live"

No there doesn't. Otherwise you are blaming the higher reason.

suzeonline,
I find your comment offensive - to say I do not think for myself. The research was done by professors in a sexual clinic in the USA and the article was written up in a journal on "Body Health" which my Dr has. Next time I visit I will ask the receptionist to photocopy the article.

Homosexual men are equally aroused by the presence of nude females and their sexual immagination is as equally active.

"This demonstrated that the decisions these Gay men made was purely of their mind and not of their genetics."
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 3 April 2011 8:30:17 PM

No it doesn't mean anything about decisions or imaginations.

Stop being in a fluster and sophistry about homosexuality.

No there doesn't. Otherwise you are blaming the higher reason.
Posted by McReal, Monday, 4 April 2011 7:16:46 AM

No McReal, that is your (with respect)assumption not mine.

There is no black and white alternative as you preside.

When a young person's life is taken early and tragically, I was forced to 'think outside the square' pondering questions and asking for reasons (while a teenager myself) from God as to why certain families lose their children early and tragically. Later as a woman in her twenties, I lost another two close people in my life tragically and suddenly.

The same answers from God were delivered in a couple of different ways during those years.

Unless you have 'experienced' a relationship with God, McReal, you would have no concept at all in comprehending my viewpoint.

Do you believe in God McReal?

If you honestly believe that children die young and tragically with no reason whatsoever, there is no point at all in debating Christianity and Spirituality with you, or interacting regarding this issue, whereby you believe there is no other reason for children passing away tragically.

Another aspect to people (including myself) losing loved ones, is that other people meet and interact forming friendships (many special and deeply loving) through their losses and grief. There are reasons for every one of us losing loved ones, in which God is fully aware and known previously; although He/She in His/Her love, not the cause.

No, Philo.
My comments pale into insignificance against your many offensive remarks about gay people.
You still haven't addressed my questions about your assertions about environmental reasons for 'causing' homosexuality?

That's an interesting throwaway line, Philo.

>>Homosexual men are equally aroused by the presence of nude females<<

According to scientific research, the opposite is true.

The British Journal of Psychiatry vol 123: pp579-585 has a good discussion on the topic, including a controlled experiment to determine their reactions that concluded, inter alia:

"...homosexuals showed significantly greater galvanic skin responses to the preferred than to the non-preferred sex"

Another study was done by the School of Psychiatry, UNSW, published in Behaviour Research and Therapy Volume 5, Issue 1, pp43-48:

"The sexual orientation indicated by the test was heterosexual for all the completely heterosexual subjects and homosexual for fourteen [64%] of the subjects conscious of homosexual feeling"

The American Psychological Society also published on the subject, in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol 70(3) pp165-168.:

"The pupil response of each individual in a group of heterosexual males was greater when looking at pictures of women than when looking at pictures of men. Homosexual male subjects responded in the opposite direction. Measurement of changes in pupil size permitted clear-cut discrimination between the 2 groups"

Commercial market research for pheremone-based "sprays lotions and gels" support these findings.

"...when confronted by a chemical from testosterone, the male hormone, portions of the brains active in sexual activity were activated in straight women and in gay men, but not in straight men... The response in gay men and straight women was concentrated in the hypothalamus with a maximum in the preoptic area that is active in hormonal and sensory responses necessary for sexual behavior"

And

"...when estrogen, the female hormone was used, there was only a response in the olfactory portion of the brains of straight women. Homosexual men had their primary response also in the olfactory area, with a very small reaction in the hypothalamus, while heterosexual men responded strongly in the reproductive region of the brain."

http://www.pheromone-sprays.net/gaymen-pheromones.html

These folk have no gender bias. To them, the instinctive reaction of the subconscious is strictly business.

Which sources did you use in your research, Philo?

Philco you have made some very negative comments towards your fellow beings, and now you have the opportunity to prove your point.
Should you not respond with factual evidence, your comments are a sad reflection on yourself.

Kipp,
If you had read my previous posts you would note the report I quoted was from an article in my Drs Surgery on male sexuality that I had read. I have indicated I will seek to copy the article so I can post the research done and by whom. It dealt with the responses from heightened visual stimuli on men. Just be patient. I visit my Dr again on the 29th.

Pericles,
I note the atricle in the URL posted dealt with smell, which would be already pleasantly familiar stimuli to practising homosexual men.

On several occasions researchers studying male sexuality have used prisoners in past studies, and as you might realise hetrosexual men in prison engage in homosexual practises.

My nephew returning from Iraq quoted the view of many Iraqi men as saying, "Sex with Wemon are for babies, but sex with men is for pleasure". Homosexuality is a choice of behaviour, that if engaged in increases the risk of perferated bowel and diseases like Aids HIV etc

Philo, I found a good Australian website that explains homosexuality in an unemotional, scientific, non-religious way.

It would do you good to read the truth about homosexuality.
Are you game to read it?

http://www.psychology.org.au/publications/tip_sheets/orientation/

You're way off track there Philo.

>>Pericles, I note the atricle in the URL posted dealt with smell, which would be already pleasantly familiar stimuli to practising homosexual men.<<

The article "dealt with" the parts of the brain that were activated by pheremones.

The test results differentiated clearly between the olfactory response - which would be closer to the "already pleasantly familiar stimuli to practising homosexual men" that you seem to know something about - and the response in the "hypothalamus... that is active in hormonal and sensory responses necessary for sexual behavior".

If you cannot - or refuse to - understand the difference between the two, then it is clear that you have no standing when it comes to drawing conclusions from the statistics.

Your answer to my question "Which sources did you use in your research, Philo?" boils down to anecdotes from your nephew in Iraq.

Since his qualifications as a scientist, or even as an observer and reporter, are unclear, you will have to accept that I remain more convinced by properly conducted research.

What really interests me though, is why does it concern you so much?

Pericles,
The subject of homosexuality was raised before I entered the discussion; I have entered it.

To discover if boys are born with a natural genetic attraction to men then newborn infants could be tested to see if they are more attracted to the smell of male or female bodies. Though I know of many "mummies boys" controlled by dominant mothers who have turned out to be involved in homosexual acts.

Pericles,
Male pheremones are largely excreated underarms which is attractive to females. It is a healthy bodies natural smell

Exactly, Philo.

>>Male pheremones are largely excreated underarms which is attractive to females<<

And, according to the research, homosexual males.

"...when confronted by a chemical from testosterone, the male hormone, portions of the brains active in sexual activity were activated in straight women and in gay men, but not in straight men... The response in gay men and straight women was concentrated in the hypothalamus with a maximum in the preoptic area that is active in hormonal and sensory responses necessary for sexual behavior"

Why does this upset you so much?

This is actually quite an interesting question, though.

>>To discover if boys are born with a natural genetic attraction to men then newborn infants could be tested to see if they are more attracted to the smell of male or female bodies<<

I'm only guessing, but there may be some element of maturity required to establish this as a reliable test. Puberty springs to mind.

Philo, Why are you so interested in homosexuality ? Your obession brings into question your own being, as homosexaulity will have absolutly no bearing on yourself, other than you feel you have latent tendencies; which research as shown is most often the reason for homophobia.