Sexuality; What Are Your Views?

[jaq 0]

My usage of true Christian was just to distinguish between a Christian and a non Christian, anything else is just your interpretation. If you have heard Christians making distinctions between different levels of Christians, then I would argue that they are not really a Christian, or certainly not acting like a Christian.

Probably in the same way that if you heard somebody talking about being a Lawyer, who wasn't actually a Lawyer, you would pick up on it straight away. The things you said show a complete lack of understanding of being a Christian, whatever denomination.

With all due respect, I disagree. You were talking about the Christian way of life and of that you don't seem to have any basis in fact to talk about. Sure, you can have your opinions of the Bible, philosophies, etc, but you can't truly know about being a Christian unless you have been one. All you can do is have an opinion based on your perception of what it's like.

What is it like to be christian? Is there a special feeling one has? Would you say that every priest has the same philosophies concerning the bible? Do all priests interpret the bible the same way or do they preach their opinion of what they believe the bible says? I'm wondering, do the priests who are sexually abusing children interpret from the bible that it's right? Do they believe homosexuality is wrong while they do what they do to young children? I know my last 2 questions do not have anything to do with what you said, and I'm not trying to be aguementitive with your thought so please understand these questions are what came to mind while reading your post. Thanks

[pabloh20 1]

What is it like to be christian? Is there a special feeling one has? Would you say that every priest has the same philosophies concerning the bible? Do all priests interpret the bible the same way or do they preach their opinion of what they believe the bible says? I'm wondering, do the priests who are sexually abusing children interpret from the bible that it's right? Do they believe homosexuality is wrong while they do what they do to young children? I know my last 2 questions do not have anything to do with what you said, and I'm not trying to be aguementitive with your thought so please understand these questions are what came to mind while reading your post. Thanks

It's impossible to explain. Yes. I would guess not. Ask them. No they don't, they can't possibly get that it's right from the Bible. That has nothing to do with homosexuality. With respect to your last 2 questions, if you think they are the actions of a Christian, you're very much mistaken, however, it is a common misconception.

As ever, Jag, as I keep saying, it's only my take on it.

[funkejay 0]

My usage of true Christian was just to distinguish between a Christian and a non Christian, anything else is just your interpretation. If you have heard Christians making distinctions between different levels of Christians, then I would argue that they are not really a Christian, or certainly not acting like a Christian.

Probably in the same way that if you heard somebody talking about being a Lawyer, who wasn't actually a Lawyer, you would pick up on it straight away. The things you said show a complete lack of understanding of being a Christian, whatever denomination.

With all due respect, I disagree. You were talking about the Christian way of life and of that you don't seem to have any basis in fact to talk about. Sure, you can have your opinions of the Bible, philosophies, etc, but you can't truly know about being a Christian unless you have been one. All you can do is have an opinion based on your perception of what it's like.

Sorry, but do you not see the logical inconsistency in your own argument?!?!?!?!

All you're doing is substituting the world "real" for "true". You argue that "real" Christians would not make a distinction between "Christians" and "true Christians", but then you immediately proceed to make that very distinction yourself!!!! Were I to accept your definition, I would have no choice but to conclude that you are not really a Christian.

Perhaps it is best to agree that all one needs to do in order to qualify as a Christian is believe in Christ? You may disagree with their perspective, their specific beliefs, and their religious philosophy, but it is impossible to qualify who is "really" a Christian and who is not. In the end, all you are doing is judging their beliefs from the perspective of your own religious views.

But more to the point - it is ridiculous to say that one must be a Christian to intellectually understand the rationale for their beliefs or to appreciate the inconsistencies between different denominations. Nor is it necessary to be a lawyer to understand what life as a lawyer is like. Furthermore, being a Christian, or being a lawyer for that matter, is not a universally consistent experience, so it does not follow that simply having had that experience will automatically impart an understanding of another Christian's viewpoints and perspective (which can vary widely - as I've already demonstrated!!!).

And BTW - not only was I raised in an extremely devout environment, I was very involved in the Church until my early adulthood, and insofar as my personal life is concerned, for the most part I remain surrounded by people who are Christians. In fact, 90% of the people I know would describe themselves as Christian. It would not be an exageration to say that in most North American communities, one is immersed in Christianity at almost all times.

Not that this in any way validates your original point. Christianity is not so rare and foreign a concept that one must personally experience to appreciate, nevertheless I have experienced it first hand.

I'm pointing this out only to demonstrate that as with most assumptions, yours is also incorrect.

[pumpdoc 2]

Dead horse

[pabloh20 1]

Sorry, but do you not see the logical inconsistency in your own argument?!?!?!?!

All you're doing is substituting the world "real" for "true". You argue that "real" Christians would not make a distinction between "Christians" and "true Christians", but then you immediately proceed to make that very distinction yourself!!!! Were I to accept your definition, I would have no choice but to conclude that you are not really a Christian.

Perhaps it is best to agree that all one needs to do in order to qualify as a Christian is believe in Christ? You may disagree with their perspective, their specific beliefs, and their religious philosophy, but it is impossible to qualify who is "really" a Christian and who is not. In the end, all you are doing is judging their beliefs from the perspective of your own religious views.

But more to the point - it is ridiculous to say that one must be a Christian to intellectually understand the rationale for their beliefs or to appreciate the inconsistencies between different denominations. Nor is it necessary to be a lawyer to understand what life as a lawyer is like. Furthermore, being a Christian, or being a lawyer for that matter, is not a universally consistent experience, so it does not follow that simply having had that experience will automatically impart an understanding of another Christian's viewpoints and perspective (which can vary widely - as I've already demonstrated!!!).

And BTW - not only was I raised in an extremely devout environment, I was very involved in the Church until my early adulthood, and insofar as my personal life is concerned, for the most part I remain surrounded by people who are Christians. In fact, 90% of the people I know would describe themselves as Christian. It would not be an exageration to say that in most North American communities, one is immersed in Christianity at almost all times.

Not that this in any way validates your original point. Christianity is not so rare and foreign a concept that one must personally experience to appreciate, nevertheless I have experienced it first hand.

I'm pointing this out only to demonstrate that as with most assumptions, yours is also incorrect.

No, I am making the distinction between a Christian and a non-Christian, between acting like a christian and not acting like a Christian, you are making a distinction between different levels of Christians. I said 'not really a Christian', that's a big difference to saying not a real or true Christian. I suppose I could have even left out 'really' altogether, however it's a grammatical issue, not a judgemental issue. And yes you can make the conclusion that I am not a Christian anymore, though it's no secret, I have already said it several times within this very thread.

A belief in Christ is a good start, but it doesn't make you a Christian.

I didn't say that you had to be a Christian to undersand other Christian denomination viewpoints, I said you have to be or have been a Christian to understand what it is to be a Christian. Yes, I am sure if I started waxing lyrical on what a Lawyer's life is like, you would never correct me or point out that I don't know anything about it - nice try, Jay!!

As I keep pointing out, merely being involved in the Church does not make you a Christian. Nor does being surrounded by Christians.

No, your opinion is that you don't have to experience the Christian life, however, I disagree, I believe you have to experience it to understand it.

As usual, Jay, we will probably end up agreeing to disagree!!

[Autumnpuma 0]

Whats are you saying Mike??????

Now you really have me interested..... The rapture is detailed in Revelations....

I'll answer this in a PM.

I agree with you on this Mike, but where you and I disagree is whether there can ever be a 'correct' interpretation of the bible. The best you can do is take a very educated guess at the meaning intended by each particular author, and where there is confusion, attempt to reach a consensus of opion. Even were you able to discern an absolutely precise translation from an original text of any given book of the bible (if such a thing ever existed) you would still have to 'interpret' much of what was written, if for no other reason than much of the bible is intended as a metaphor, and not as a literal truth.

There's just no getting away from it Mike, the bible is a metaphorical document, not a literal one, and understanding it is therefore an exercise in interpretation, as much as you may not want to admit it.

It's actually called the United Church (the Canada part only dilleneates that it is the Canadian branch of that particular denomination) - and for the record, I do not, nor have I ever, belonged to it. I merely used it as a high profile example of one Christian denomination that accepts homosexuality without qualification.

Unless I am mistaken Mike, the UCofC does not consider homosexuality to be a sin any more than heterosexuality. As for the correctness or incorrectness of this view, you are certainly entitled to your opinion (based on your interpretation of the bible), but it is still only your opinion......

Sorry, Jay, but the Bible is quite clear, no matter what translation you use, that homosexuality is a sin. To teach something else is an omission, not an interpretation. Opinion doesn't come into it. It's not my 'opinion' that the Bible says it's a sin, it's 'fact'. If you would have said that the Church teaches it as a sin, but accepts homosexuals as fellow sinners (as we all are) I would say it had the correct view (correct meaning that it can be directly proven by the texts).

The Bible contains many metaphors, but it's also a literal document. Just as in any language or ancient text, a word means what it means. Research will draw out what the original word means. Speaking of which, the Massorah is a series of footnotes in the hebrew text of the OT that is used to ensure each successive translation matches what it's being copied from. There really isn't any translational error as you paint it in the OT (there are some, but those are easily corrected).

I'm all for continuing this discussion, but it seems to be getting a bit of an uncomfortable edge on it. As Bruce has pointed out, there's becoming a bit of a 'beat the dead horse' quality about this thread. I've stated my points and others have stated theirs. I think I'm done with my side of it. Good debate, Jay! I hope you'll expand your interest in the forum to more race-related topics!

Cheers!

[pabloh20 1]

I'll answer this in a PM.

Sorry, Jay, but the Bible is quite clear, no matter what translation you use, that homosexuality is a sin. To teach something else is an omission, not an interpretation. Opinion doesn't come into it. It's not my 'opinion' that the Bible says it's a sin, it's 'fact'. If you would have said that the Church teaches it as a sin, but accepts homosexuals as fellow sinners (as we all are) I would say it had the correct view (correct meaning that it can be directly proven by the texts).

The Bible contains many metaphors, but it's also a literal document. Just as in any language or ancient text, a word means what it means. Research will draw out what the original word means. Speaking of which, the Massorah is a series of footnotes in the hebrew text of the OT that is used to ensure each successive translation matches what it's being copied from. There really isn't any translational error as you paint it in the OT (there are some, but those are easily corrected).

I'm all for continuing this discussion, but it seems to be getting a bit of an uncomfortable edge on it. As Bruce has pointed out, there's becoming a bit of a 'beat the dead horse' quality about this thread. I've stated my points and others have stated theirs. I think I'm done with my side of it. Good debate, Jay! I hope you'll expand your interest in the forum to more race-related topics!

Cheers!

When I read that, I thought you were asking for trouble! Then I realised what you meant!!

Anyway, I always enjoy a debate with Jay, but this is probably becoming a dead horse, so I think I will join you, good Sir!

[Autumnpuma 0]

But more to the point - it is ridiculous to say that one must be a Christian to intellectually understand the rationale for their beliefs or to appreciate the inconsistencies between different denominations. Nor is it necessary to be a lawyer to understand what life as a lawyer is like. Furthermore, being a Christian, or being a lawyer for that matter, is not a universally consistent experience, so it does not follow that simply having had that experience will automatically impart an understanding of another Christian's viewpoints and perspective (which can vary widely - as I've already demonstrated!!!).

It isn't impossible to determine. The Christian religion is based directly on the Bible. There are books that weren't included in the current Bible, but they don't add anything significant to what we already have. Every belief must be substantiated to that text. There's no getting around that. If you want to believe something different from the Bible, you are free to do so, but that doesn't make your belief correct, in the Christian context. I'm bowing out of this debate, as I stated above, but I missed this and would have addressed it in my post had I seen it....

[Max Mosley 2]

So Jay, I was also raised in a xian environment. In my case it was a very moderate one and it was a very good experience, not that one can't get that in an atheistic environment of course. I'm not anti-religious and xians of all persuasions still teach me a lot, I feel, including here at uni where most of my friends are rather extreme in their relgious beliefs. Anyway, I'm curious, what changed your mind? You say it was in early adulthood? Personally I never really believed - although I recognised from an early age that it was an important question so I went to Church every week with my family to "keep an open mind". When I got to uni I felt that there's really no excuse for not coming to some provisional view on the matter so I looked into the logical arguments, which are all I have in the absence of any personal religious experience, and I came to the opinion that the facts don't support a religious world-view.

[Max Mosley 2]

Regarding the Bible, it seems to me that you have to decide first of all how much weight to place on it itself. It's not clear to me that drawing all one's moral beliefs from the Bible in some way, whether metaphorical or literal, is even necessary to be a Xian. Of course it depends on what precisely you mean by the term Xian, but one can believe Christ was the Son of God/Man or whatever it was, and that he was resurrected etc etc while still believing that the Bible is purely the work of man and contains many many imperfections - so many in fact that it should not be trusted over our own God-given common sense!

[funkejay 0]

So Jay, I was also raised in a xian environment. In my case it was a very moderate one and it was a very good experience, not that one can't get that in an atheistic environment of course. I'm not anti-religious and xians of all persuasions still teach me a lot, I feel, including here at uni where most of my friends are rather extreme in their relgious beliefs. Anyway, I'm curious, what changed your mind? You say it was in early adulthood? Personally I never really believed - although I recognised from an early age that it was an important question so I went to Church every week with my family to "keep an open mind". When I got to uni I felt that there's really no excuse for not coming to some provisional view on the matter so I looked into the logical arguments, which are all I have in the absence of any personal religious experience, and I came to the opinion that the facts don't support a religious world-view.

My experience was quite similar. I never really "bought" into the whole Christian mythos at all, it just seemed so contrived, an obvious attempt to regulate behaviour based on fear of social recriminations. I've always been a bit of non-conformist, but I lived in a very conservative community where virtually everyone adhered to a similar world view. I was 17 when I moved away from home, and I found for the first time in my life the freedom to think these things through for myself.

I ended up not going to university directly after high-school, instead I took a number of years to myself to sort some things out and get my bearings. When I did eventually go back to school, I took a few courses on philosophy (so I'm no authority, believe me) but it did help to clarify some of the ideas I was already developing. It's just kind of gone from there.

In the end, my perspective on all of this is that being "open-minded" is logically inconsistent with a belief structure that presupposes the existence of a supreme being who (either directly or indirectly) authored a text that provides an infallible guide to moral knowledge. Although that world view does not, in my opinion, necessarily engender intolerance on any particular social issue, it often serves to reinforce prejudices and biases that do not originate within any particular belief system, but rather reflect predominant social attitudes which operate independently of any particular faith.

As a result, organized religions tend to promote the adoption of a insular mindset that closes one off from self-examination (insofar as they reinforce the collectively held views that define it), thereby limiting our ability to make progress on very important social issues.

So there you have it. I've said my piece, and I intend to move on.

[funkejay 0]

Regarding the Bible, it seems to me that you have to decide first of all how much weight to place on it itself. It's not clear to me that drawing all one's moral beliefs from the Bible in some way, whether metaphorical or literal, is even necessary to be a Xian. Of course it depends on what precisely you mean by the term Xian, but one can believe Christ was the Son of God/Man or whatever it was, and that he was resurrected etc etc while still believing that the Bible is purely the work of man and contains many many imperfections - so many in fact that it should not be trusted over our own God-given common sense!

That was also my point, Murray, but it appears that we are/were wrong. Either you are a Christian on their terms, or you're no Christian at all!!!!

(PS - I know I said that I'd spoken my piece, but I posted that before seeing Murray's excellent post, and simply wanted to acknowledge it.......)

[GT 849 0]

Just a question to all straight people here. Would you be disturbed if a near & dear one reveals that s/he's gay? I'd be.

I had a good friend recently come out of the closet and tell us he was gay. I always thought he was so it did not bother me you should look at the person not their sexual preference. On the same token I dont think that gays should adopt children yet, the world is full of bigots that would never let the child have peace. Maybe in time when people lose their prejudices it will be ok.

Not to hijack the post but who is Girls Aloud?

[monza gorilla 1]

Not to hijack the post but who is Girls Aloud?

Best that you don't know. Hint: look under "crimes against music". They're probably in there.

[Quiet One 15]

Best that you don't know. Hint: look under "crimes against music". They're probably in there.

Back on christianity: my experience was the other way around. I was raised in an atheistic enviroment. When I said one day that it seemed to me that Jesus really existed I was almost trhown out of my home! I still think there was an "historical" Jesus. To me, he was just a common, though very charismatic man. I happen to have read lots about the bible in historical (non-religious) terms. Pretty interesting, and many scholarships do agree that his story is different from the others you find in the bible that are obviously fictional on the most part (Samson and Job come to mind). On the other side, I find it hard to believe that the savior of the humanity was not mentioned even once in any contemporary records even when other so-called messiah were (except for one paragraph in a history of the jews, which is most probably an addition or at least a modification made in middle-ages). I know that's totally off topic...just came to mind. As for your beliefs, i don't give a Sh#t on and if you believe in god, if you are a good person that's enough for me so bring a seat and start enjoying the good things of life!

[pumpdoc 2]

This thread brings out the true meaning of 'bloviation'

[dribbler 6]

Best that you don't know. Hint: look under "crimes against music". They're probably in there.

[Jocasta 0]

Ewwwww.... sex? Gross.

[Shane2 0]

Yes on the first 2, I think they should be allowed rights, but I don't really think they should be allowed to adopt. IMO that will set the wrong example to children, and maybe give them the wrong ideas about love and so on. It would IMO maybe set the idea in their minds that gay/lesbian is the normal way to go, and I think they should discover about it at a later time in life really, when theyre better placed to make a decision

[Jenson_Rules 0]

just because their parents are same sex doesnt mean the kid will turn out gay! Did you know that if you have 3 brothers and a mum and dad then at least on average one of those brothers will be gay! The fact you have 2 gay parents has nothing to do with it I dont think. I think your born gay!

[Shane2 0]

It depends really some people's minds are weaker than others. It is a contentious issue this, and no 2 people are ever gonna agree, there are just too many variables to consider.

[LabradoRacer 2]

I voted No,Yes,No. The first question seems a bit confusing. I mean I actually don't know for sure whether our sexuality is inbuilt or trained or thought out. No idea. I voted thinking of myself. About the second question,even though I'm a harmless homophobic, they are still human beings & deserve equal rights. Third question, a kid has full rights to ask for a mum & a dad. Don't ask me why . I just feel it's right that way.

By the way,not all 'omos are bad! For example, Leonardo Da Vinci was a 'omo,but what a bloody brilliant brain!

I just want to ask a question to the straight people who are "unhomophobic". When you first came across the concept of homosexuality,what was your first reaction? How long did it take you to accept that homosexuality is here to stay on this planet? Was the acceptance a self-thought process or was it acquired through peer pressure or via the various media?

In my case,I first came across the concept of homosexuality in 1987,if my memory serves me right. I was all of 9 years then. I vaguely remember seeing Martina Navratilova cry on her split from Judy Nelson. I was so confused at that time about how a woman had a woman for a partner. It all made sense gradually over the years. Until a few months back,I was fiercely homophobic,wanting them to be eliminated from the face of the earth. Now,I've mellowed down. I mean ,I haven't put any thought process in place to reduce homophobia,but the fact that I've other pressing matters to attend to don't leave my any energy to be fiercely homophobic.

[Shane2 0]

I don't have any problem with people being gay, or lesbian, in fact one of my best mates is bisexual, but I prefer not to see them kissing in public

[pumpdoc 2]

Who's the yahoo that brought this thread back from the dead???

[Max Mosley 2]

Oooh I never knew yahoo was a real word.