[Saquist]

Originally Posted by horatio

First of all, homophobia does literally mean "fear of homosexuals", it is just the conventional term to describe any form of opposition towards homosexuality, just like antisemitism is the conventional term to describe opposition to Judaism.

I don't see it Horatio.
It's very misleading. One has a phobia suffix the other an ism. Those aren't comparable. Fear and system of belief aren't the same.

I'd be okay if you called it..Hetroism but Homophobia is not a proper use of the belief and guidance in the bible.

There are homosexual penguins and plenty of other homosexual animals (which makes the gay gene discussion superfluous, there obviously is one). It is natural and it makes sense to have a small fraction of the population that is not responsible for reproducing and raising children but for other stuff (like raising children whose parents died). Take bees or ants, there you have a similar mechanism (albeit biologically implanted a bit deeper by making the majority of the bee population unable to reproduce).

That's not how science works and behavior isn't automatically genetic. That's just not a scientific statement no matter how you spin it. Is murder genetic? Is Arguing genetic? Is hugging genetic? Is laughter genetic? They all occur within social boundaries, like sexuality specifically homosexuality but does that make them genetic.

In nature we can easily determine a genetic behavior.
Monarch butterflys return to the north that their Grand parents came from and travel south with out ever had been there before.

Chicks automaticly know what too do to get out of egg using their specialized beak.

Baby whales know to swim.
Human baby's know to hold their breath.

These behaviors are so consistent they are predictable down to the individual no matter what individual you look at. Yet in humans there is no sexual predictability and that is a sign of a learned behavior.

You can take Paul's anti-gay stuff in the bible literally or you can do it like Janeway, think about the circumstances and interpret it as a recommendation for early Christians to get back to their long-term relationships and stop screwing young boys.
My Jesus (who just exists in my head) has just one thing to say about love and sex: it belongs together. He would want people of the same sex to live in a long-term relationship just like people of the opposite sex, he would want them to care for each other and not just f**k each other.

Love (from what I've been told of the Greek scriptures) doesn't exist in the bible in this form, the form of passion involved in intimacy. Which I believe is "pathos" The bible talks more about "Agape'" Love and one other form of love...I'll look tonight to make sure.

I have no problem with your homophobia and I don't have a problem with the justification of your opinion via the bible ... just stop calling folks who don't share your homophobia or your particular faith bad Christians.
If you think that your literal view upon everything is the only valid one, feel free to go ahead, it's not like you are forced to believe in religious pluralism. But don't complain when you get called a fundamentalist who see the trees and not the forest.

But that's just it. I don't have a homophobia. That's a projection from you to me..that's the improper use of the word. And I never called you or Janeway bad Christians. I am relating that I'm having a problem with these contradiction and their by understanding her reasoning but as for you, Horatio I know what the bible says on profanity and cleanness of speech and I know you don't exhibit the traits by comparison. I'm no genius but I can see that and I can see undercutting insults too which weren't here until after you arrived...in fact the language and discussion was quite benign even with Enterprise Captain and myself which I've worked hard to keep that way and vise versa. (proverbs 12:18).

You have talked about God forbidding homosexuality, about the scientific value of Genesis and not once about anything that Jesus has said or done, not once about the core of the gospels, his simple to understand yet hard to practice message of love and forgiveness.

It's true, I'm not an emotionally inclined individual. I Want to know what is and what isn't. Is there something wrong with that? Emotion is for enjoying life and dealing with others but not for making choices...at least not for me.

By the way, you can justify ANYTHING with religious texts, e.g. genital mutilation in Africa is justified via an interpretation of the Qu'ran.

*sigh*

[quote=Enterprise Captain;302801]Well it's been fun and enlightening but I can see it's starting to go in circles. Saquist your logic is sound if one starts out from your perspective that the Bible is meant to be translated literally. [quote]

The Creationists logic is also sound if you look at their reasoning.

Is something still sound and logical if it conflicts with scientific reality?
We can see 4 billion lightyears in space...probably further That seems abit beyond that interpretation of the bible to me.

Like I stated before Spock once said "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end." Your inability to see past your own perspective is where you fail in my opinion.

If you really believe that (and you did recognize the logic.) Then where does wisdom lead us. Great quotes are their for a reason, right.

If you're fine with justifying homophobia with scripture that's your choice but I can not. If you can justify laying blame on the entire Catholic Church again that's your choice but I can not. When people make statements like this:

Finding adequate grounds for = justifying. I suppose that is the least of what you could say about the biblical view...Jesus had another saying. "it is written." That phrase showed to satan that it was not his own understanding but that of God.

So ... is it not written?

It implies there is only one "correct" perspective and in my opinion it's statements like this that give religion a bad name.

I know there are multiple perspectives on these things.
I also know your misgivings on the threat of having one perspective is.
Yet if I believe that the bible is inspired (and I do) then Jesus says "there is one Way and One God.)

There are many opinions but I'm searching for the truth and I have to search and prosecute that search to the fullest possible measure. I have to turn over every stone. I have to question and analyze. Thats why EVERYTHING Janeway said on Greek is going into my archive to confirm and record it for later use. Truth doesn't discover itself. And discovery isn't lazy.
-----------------------
I'll...leave you guys to this. Enterprise is Right on the direction.
...and Janeway. I did enjoy learning something something new about Greek. I will build upon it. Thank You and ...sorry for being forward. I meant no harm. It is nice to see knowledge in an other such as yourself.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain

Well it's been fun and enlightening but I can see it's starting to go in circles. Saquist your logic is sound if one starts out from your perspective that the Bible is meant to be translated literally. The Creationists logic is also sound if you look at their reasoning. Like I stated before Spock once said "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end." Your inability to see past your own perspective is where you fail in my opinion. If you're fine with justifying homophobia with scripture that's your choice but I can not. If you can justify laying blame on the entire Catholic Church again that's your choice but I can not. When people make statements like this:

It implies there is only one "correct" perspective and in my opinion it's statements like this that give religion a bad name.

Sad, but true. The original sin has been misused as woman-bashing for centuries. Religion always merges with the culture and sadly sexism and homophobia have been and still are (gladly to a lesser extent than in previous times) part of our culture. But I am optimistic that bigotry will continue to slowly die out.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by Saquist

But that's just it. I don't have a homophobia. That's a projection from you to me..that's the improper use of the word. And I never called you or Janeway bad Christians. I am relating that I'm having a problem with these contradiction and their by understanding her reasoning but as for you, Horatio I know what the bible says on profanity and cleanness of speech and I know you don't exhibit the traits by comparison. I'm no genius but I can see that and I can see undercutting insults too which weren't here until after you arrived...in fact the language and discussion was quite benign even with Enterprise Captain and myself which I've worked hard to keep that way and vise versa. (proverbs 12:18).

So using foul language would make me a bad Christian or a bad Jew or contradict the will of God or what? Seems as if we go there once again and to be blunt, I am not interested in fundamentalistic discussions and I certainly won't stop to use foul language to express myself.
There are plenty of incarnations of Christianity, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and whatever else and they are all valid, even if you think that there is just one truth in matters of faith. Such monoism reminds me of the depiction of evil in the works of a Christian writer of pseudo-mythology: Sauron's one eye in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.

[Enterprise Captain]

Originally Posted by horatio

I am optimistic that bigotry will continue to slowly die out.

So am I and I also think humanity is slowly going in the right direction.

Originally Posted by Saquist

If you really believe that (and you did recognize the logic.) Then where does wisdom lead us. Great quotes are their for a reason, right.

In my opinion Spock was trying to tell Valeris that logic doesn't provide all the answers. Sometimes you have to set logic aside and let your feelings guide you. For example when it comes to matters of love in a previous thread entitled "What is love like?" you stated:

Originally Posted by Saquist

I have asked the same thing and I've been on Earth for two decades.
I'm not sure if I've been in love. But I have felt a considerable amount of discomfort when my expectations are not met in a woman or when I've been dumped. Each time it makes me question...did I love her.

I'm still not sure. I've just broke up with the latest one but I found as usual I am quite capable of moving forward after a certain amount of time. The feelings fade but the disappointment remains and tugs at me as to say...

...Almost.

In my opinion you probably haven't experienced the type of love that horatio has been describing in this thread and I truly hope that one day you do. Love isn't logical and after experiencing it you may change your opinion on homosexuality. After experiencing love myself I wouldn't be able to hinder a homosexual person's quest to find love by telling them what they are doing is wrong.

Originally Posted by Saquist

I know there are multiple perspectives on these things.
I also know your misgivings on the threat of having one perspective is.
Yet if I believe that the bible is inspired (and I do) then Jesus says "there is one Way and One God.)

Well I have a problem believing that 67% of the world population is wrong:

[horatio]

I like to add that romantic love is rare and great but it is not the only from or love. One of the best books I have read in my life is Erich Fromm's Art of Loving in which the author argues that loving God, loving your fellow human beings, loving your parents, loving your husband/wife etc. are similar, that love is a productive way to live in harmony and not something mystical like "falling in love" is often considered to be.
Back to Jesus, there is the cold Golden Rule which describes the not-too-hard-to-understand-and-practice basics of ethics but there is also more than that: warm love for sick strangers which clearly goes beyond the demands of "treat others like you wanna be treated" and forgiving people who mistreated him, be it Peter who denied to know him, Judas who betrayed him or Pilate who executed him. The idea behind this forgiveness, the passivity of turning the other cheek, "don't judge, lest you be judged" and "he that is without sin ..." is that people already judge themselves when they misbehave. But again this is just the the cold-ethical side, Jesus also has faith in the good of every human being and that is a very important part of love.
One could phrase it like this, love as a way to find the good in others, love as a way to stay alive in the relationship with others. How often does a friendship or a romantic relationship end and we say to ourselves that we have slowly began to seperate for quite some time already whereas in reality, we made an image of our friend/partner and thus denied him or her the possibility for natural change, and when he/she did change, we took the exit?

It is not very special to love someone you naturally care for like your children, your parents, your spouse or your friends but it is truely astonishing to love a stranger or even someone who dislikes you or has done you harm. To me, an ex-Christian, this is the greatest thing about Jesus. I find it very hard to behave like this and admire the people who can truely forgive and love.

[Enterprise Captain]

Originally Posted by horatio

I like to add that romantic love is rare and great but it is not the only from or love. One of the best books I have read in my life is Erich Fromm's Art of Loving in which the author argues that loving God, loving your fellow human beings, loving your parents, loving your husband/wife etc. are similar, that love is a productive way to live in harmony and not something mystical like "falling in love" is often considered to be.
Back to Jesus, there is the cold Golden Rule which describes the not-too-hard-to-understand-and-practice basics of ethics but there is also more than that: warm love for sick strangers which clearly goes beyond the demands of "treat others like you wanna be treated" and forgiving people who mistreated him, be it Peter who denied to know him, Judas who betrayed him or Pilate who executed him. The idea behind this forgiveness, the passivity of turning the other cheek, "don't judge, lest you be judged" and "he that is without sin ..." is that people already judge themselves when they misbehave. But again this is just the the cold-ethical side, Jesus also has faith in the good of every human being and that is a very important part of love.
One could phrase it like this, love as a way to find the good in others, love as a way to stay alive in the relationship with others. How often does a friendship or a romantic relationship end and we say to ourselves that we have slowly began to seperate for quite some time already whereas in reality, we made an image of our friend/partner and thus denied him or her the possibility for natural change, and when he/she did change, we took the exit?

It is not very special to love someone you naturally care for like your children, your parents, your spouse or your friends but it is truely astonishing to love a stranger or even someone who dislikes you or has done you harm. To me, an ex-Christian, this is the greatest thing about Jesus. I find it very hard to behave like this and admire the people who can truely forgive and love.

Well said. reminds me of a quote "To err is human; to forgive is divine."

[NCC-73515]

"You're saying that if it is genetic then it must therefore be God's will, that it's justified. But we die because of genetics, people are deformed because of genetics, people are sick because of genetics, we grow old because of genetics and the bible makes clear none of those things are what he intended for Mankind." - Saquist

Every body you know and all their proteins are made because of genetics.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain

In my opinion Spock was trying to tell Valeris that logic doesn't provide all the answers. Sometimes you have to set logic aside and let your feelings guide you. For example when it comes to matters of love in a previous thread entitled "What is love like?" you stated:

Well that was always how I took Spock's words as well.

Adherence to one thing (in his case logic and nothing else) dogmatically does not offer an accurate perspective on all that can be considered. Even Spock understands that you must sometimes come to decisions and not base them on logic, but using other methods.

But hey, others could take a different line.

[janeway72]

Originally Posted by Saquist

Yet if you believe in Jesus and he spoke of them as real having caused man's current condition then where do we start to suppose this is myth and metaphor? Incredulity? That's not measurable, it's not quantifiable. Something evident has to turn reasonable deduction toward doubt what is it? What contradiction have you found to demote the creation account of Genesis?

Jesus was a Jew in the 1st Century. Jews understood creation in relation to their own Scriptures. I don't think 1st Century Israel was the place to start explaining physics. Jesus gave up divine powers to be human and therefore was not omniscient while on earth. He probably did not understand quantum physics. My reason's for believing it to be a myth are a) Where did the wives of Adam's and Eve's sons come from if they were the only humans. b) How could Methuselah live to be nearly 1000 years old? c) There is no such thing as a talking serpent. d) The oldest human remains found are 160,000 years old. Believe me, I am not alone in being a Christian who believes that Adam and Eve are mythological which explains a greater truth.

Originally Posted by Saquist

It depends on what you mean by contextualized.
God told Noah that man may eat of any beast after the flood, only it's blood not to ingest. Later for his people he determined what was clean to eat. Even later God instructs to eat designated unclean meats, saying, "stop calling unclean what I have made clean". That's a very clear principle.

So God tells people different things at different times according to their circumstances. Seems like a sensible thing to do. I don't like to second guess God but I suspect a degree of flexibility is required to the creator of a universe.

Originally Posted by Saquist

And the bible has never back down from it's stance on homosexuality or blood for that matter. Jesus never said a lot of things but it didn't condone the action. He said not to judge but that doesn't mean an endorse of anything. Look at it closely. Jesus knew that Jerusalem would be destroyed and that the Jews would be spread away from their home.

In Israel...THE NATION of Israel the Law empowered those to take action to preserve the nation from outside religious thinking, invasion and corruption. Now withOUT that nation Jews nolonger had any authority over anyone. They had to get rid of the attitude of taking action (judging) on those that commit wrong. Because in Israel Judging meant the ability to punish which belonged to kings or judges or heads (authority). There was no longer any authority because Israel would soon not exist and at the time Israel was under ROMAN rule so really there was no authority to judge but it doesn't mean those things were now right.

I have no idea where you get that reasoning from. Jesus told us to stop inspecting the speck in someone else's eye when there is a log in our own. Again, he was talking about no judging others. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Originally Posted by Saquist

I don't know what you're saying.

Ditto

Originally Posted by Saquist

You've told me you follow Jesus Christ but those that followed his example are wrong in your eyes, and I haven't found out why yet other than you find the teachings homophobic. I'm struggling to find the common thread in that I've only found a common spot but it's floating, it doesn't appear to be based on anything.

If it's says anything against same sex encounters you've have found away to denounce it including God, Jesus' father, which frankly troubles me to hear from any Christian.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." That includes Paul. A lot of Paul's teaching is valid and useful for life today. Some of it is not useful today, nor are some of the Levitical laws. I have never denounced God and never will. I think EC would back me up that I will argue vehemently for belief in God However, many laws are not in use today, only the one about homosexuality seems to cause such problems. Why? Because Paul mentions it?

I spent a year reading and learning the different views in the Church about Homosexuality and came to the conclusions that I have come to.
This is probably the book that gave me the best insight into the topic.

Permanent, Faithful, Stable: Christian Same-Sex Partnerships (Darton, Longman and Todd Ltd, January 1994); ISBN 0232520755

Originally Posted by Saquist

Ah...I see. The Trinity.
According to Jesus, Janeway, he is lesser than God. He actually says that.

Because at the time he was fully human and fully God.

Originally Posted by Saquist

This is the crux of the schism I've detected and I'm sure that you know that. That worries me because you've out right cancelled out about all but the Gospels in Greek Scriptures but here you've adopted a doctrine that is strictly Catholic in origins and according to the Catholic encyclopedia they recognize that this doctrine does not appear anywhere in the scriptures especially the gospel. (I can supply the reference if you wish)

I do not understand what you are getting at here. I suspect you have no real understanding of the Roman Catholic Church. What doctrine are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Saquist

But most confusing is that you've in one hand denounced more than half of the Greek scriptures because of their connection to the chruch yet here supporting a doctrine of church. (I'm not sure if I got this all right and if I haven't then I most certainly apologize but I'm stumped. I can't find your consistency and it's preventing me from understanding your use of reasoning. Certainly the Trinity doctrine explains a lot though. Is there anyway you can clearly and concisely relate your position on all of this?

Are you saying you don't believe in the Trinity? Does this mean that you are a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon?

Originally Posted by Saquist

But Janway( I'm Pleading here..)
The Bible relates well before Leviticus about God's view on homosexuality. It's one of those common threads in the bible from Post Law Code, Israel and Congregational Eras. It's a pattern, it's consistent in all areas. You don't have to look only at the Law Code for that principle.

Love is a much more common theme in the Bible, as is forgiveness and not judging others. I love the way many Christians focus on the sex act of homosexuality. Not being a vestal virgin myself, I understand that being in love and the intimacy involved in a sexual relationship has very little to do with the bumping and grinding of actually having sex (pleasurable though it may be.) Personally I always found it much more intimate waking up next to someone with my hair all mushed up and sleep in my eyes, knowing that i had probably kicked the other person to death through the night. Intimate relationships are about love and commitment and sharing your deepest thoughts and fears with someone and being able to be vulnerable in front of someone. I don't believe God would deny that fundamental part of being a human to 1 in 10 people (I think Horatio's estimate of 5% of the population is conservative)


(Apologies to everyone for the length of this post

[janeway72]

Originally Posted by Saquist

Love (from what I've been told of the Greek scriptures) doesn't exist in the bible in this form, the form of passion involved in intimacy. Which I believe is "pathos" The bible talks more about "Agape'" Love and one other form of love...I'll look tonight to make sure.

There are three kinds of love in Greek. Agape, which is a kind of brotherly love which you would have for fellow Christians and the rest of humanity. The early Church used to have Agape meals which were kind of like the langar meals that Sikhs have.

Philia is the type of love you have for close friends and relatives. A platonic but deep love.

Eros is romantic and sexual love. I think the Bible does not mention it. That does not mean that it was not in the mindset of the Greek speaking world. It just happens not to be mentioned.