Are there vile homophobic views on this forum

[Nearly Sane]

Rarely, if ever, have I seen something as bizarre as this idea that because someone is just expressing the beliefs of a god they follow, and believe is an omni god, then that makes saying that trentvoyager needs to be treated by a doctor because he's homosexual Ok, because it's not their opinion, it's what they think their god thinks.

[Sassy]

I believe it was removed at the same time as Hope's suspension - which is understandable in one way but in another highly unfortunate, since it gives him the perfect excuse to weasel out of ever having suggested that trentvoyager should see a doctor, not for illness but for his sexuality (which of course Hope regards as a 'disorder').

The prunings and purges of this forum are highly unfortunate in that regard. I've been known to take screen caps of this kind of contemptible material so that the offender can't claim it was never said even after removal, but I missed this one

What about Christians?  Haven't they been called 'deluded', mentally ill and psychologically disturbed for the things they have seen and said. Even had thread... Was Jesus Gay.


http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11350.0

Wasn't that poking the stick/Rod.
Why if the atheistic agnostic thought homosexuality to be right and normal did they ask a question like that?

Was Jesus gay?
« on: December 18, 2015, 12:15:52 PM »
Quote
The gospel of John specifically mentions that there was a disciple whom Jesus loved, presumably male. As Jesus never condemned homosexuality, it is possible he was gay and enjoying a gay relationship with this particular disciple.

There is nothing wrong with being gay, it is NORMAL! If it could be proved Jesus was gay it would be a slap in the face to all the unpleasant bigots who use the Bible as an excuse for their nasty bigotry where homosexuality is concerned.

A question for the Christians on the forum, just supposing it could be established beyond all doubt that Jesus was a homosexual, would it make any difference to your faith?

Why is there a need to ask if it would make any difference to their faith? If the person really thought being homosexual normal then why ask this question. It belies any truth in them thinking it normal.
Maybe there is more hidden in the atheist and agnostic sections of the forum posters than actual Christians.
You see the poster claiming it normal then using it as a rod against believers.

So if Normal and they believe it... why ask such a question?

Nah! it is true people use homosexuality as a rod against Christians. Which belittles their own claim in believing it to be natural and normal.

If you truly believe it is natural and normal why ask Christians such questions?

Loving someone is about loving them for themselves not their sexuality.

But we see you do not have to be a homosexual to find bias and prejudice.

Being  a Christian you will find a worst type of bias and prejudice against you and the people with the bias will use anything as a rod against you. Even the things they claim to accept as normal but do not show any belief in such as they use it as a rod.

[Nearly Sane]

And while we are covering this, I would point out that I think there are similarly vile things touted about Christians which don't get the same attention. The  frequent references to people being deluded or indoctrinating children, or on rarer but still noted occasions that someone who brings up their children as religious, as being guilty of child abuse, seem to equivalent of some of the comments on homosexuality made on here.

[Sassy]

And while we are covering this, I would point out that I think there are similarly vile things touted about Christians which don't get the same attention. The f request references to people being deluded or indoctrinating children, or on rarer but still noted occasions that someone who brings up their children as religious, as being guilty of child abuse, seem to equivalent of some of the comments on homosexuality made on here.

Worried NS.

Worried that the atheist and agnostic are the worst perpetrators on this forum when it comes to vile views about others especially the  Christians?

Doing a 180 degrees turn now is not going to score you any brownie points. There is always reason for a Stephen Taylor on forums. But the people here are not stupid enough to walk into his traps. If you dine with the devil use 6ft chop sticks.
I have already proved he is here to cause trouble...

[floo]

Regarding what I said: How is describing homosexuality as a disorder (of sexual orientation), vile and homophobic?

Because describing something perfectly normal and natural as a disorder is VILE! Being left handed was regarded as a disorder once; kids were punished for writing with their left hands, as were my mother and her brother. 

[Hope]

Because describing something perfectly normal and natural as a disorder is VILE! Being left handed was regarded as a disorder once; kids were punished for writing with their left hands, as were my mother and her brother. 

Cancer is perfectly normal, Floo - yet it is regularly referred to as a disorder.  Are you suggesting that regarding it as a 'disorder' or 'medical condition' (or some other equally appropriate term) is VILE?

Regarding left-handedness, I'm not sure that it was ever deemed to be 'VILE'.

[Shaker]

Cancer is perfectly normal, Floo - yet it is regularly referred to as a disorder.  Are you suggesting that regarding it as a 'disorder' or 'medical condition' (or some other equally appropriate term) is VILE?

Do you really need to have it explained to you what's wrong with this mess?

[Hope]

And while we are covering this, I would point out that I think there are similarly vile things touted about Christians which don't get the same attention. The  frequent references to people being deluded or indoctrinating children, or on rarer but still noted occasions that someone who brings up their children as religious, as being guilty of child abuse, seem to equivalent of some of the comments on homosexuality made on here.

Whilst I would agree to a degree, I also believe that any philosophy/world view/lifestyle should be open to challenge.  I'm disappointed when people use these discriptions of religion - but not that surprised, since the language suggests that they haven't got any substantive argument to offer.  To suggest that attitudes on homosexual relationships should be exempt from challenge is - in my view - ridiculous.  As ridiculous as saying that  heterosexual relationships should be exempt from challenge - after all, in my view, there are some forms of the latter than are open to challenge.

[Hope]

... but I missed this one

Suggesting that you either didn't see it, so are working on hearsay; or saw it and saw nothing wrong with it.

[Shaker]

Suggesting that you either didn't see it, so are working on hearsay; or saw it and saw nothing wrong with it.

I did see it; that's why I was able to quote the most obnoxious part - the bit that led to your suspension, I'm sure - the best of my recollection in #42. I have a pretty good memory so I think that it's tolerably close in terms of exact words used.

[Rhiannon]

And while we are covering this, I would point out that I think there are similarly vile things touted about Christians which don't get the same attention. The  frequent references to people being deluded or indoctrinating children, or on rarer but still noted occasions that someone who brings up their children as religious, as being guilty of child abuse, seem to equivalent of some of the comments on homosexuality made on here.

I disagree, NS. I don't think you can call someone delusional simply for having faith but you can when they start arguing that God made the pretty flowers solely for people to look at. And we get accused of all kinds of delusional beliefs and ideas around politics, football clubs, the meaning of life - it's a turn of phrase as much as anything else. And teaching children Christian doctrine is, well, indoctrination.

Bear in mind what Christians believe sin to be - something that separates us from all that is good, and to many, something so evil it requires redemption through the Cross. And then add Hope's view - not unique to him - that all sins are equal in that. Sorry NS, there's no comparison.

[Nearly Sane]

Whilst I would agree to a degree, I also believe that any philosophy/world view/lifestyle should be open to challenge.  I'm disappointed when people use these discriptions of religion - but not that surprised, since the language suggests that they haven't got any substantive argument to offer.  To suggest that attitudes on homosexual relationships should be exempt from challenge is - in my view - ridiculous.  As ridiculous as saying that  heterosexual relationships should be exempt from challenge - after all, in my view, there are some forms of the latter than are open to challenge.

And nothing I wrote stated that things shouldn't be open to challenge - I'm talking about tone - we have rules on the forum and I think saying to people that they need treatment or are delusional or are abusing children, in general, breaks those.

[Hope]

Some parts of 'old Christianity' have just tried to explain that black people are inferior, it find that vile, how about you?

I suppose it depends on what you define as 'Old Christianity'?  Are we talking about Christianity in the Middle Ages/Dark Ages/the 1st-4th centuries AD/...   Remember that later periods often turned early church thinking and practice on its head - for instance, celibacy and women's roles in ministry.

[Nearly Sane]

I disagree, NS. I don't think you can call someone delusional simply for having faith but you can when they start arguing that God made the pretty flowers solely for people to look at. And we get accused of all kinds of delusional beliefs and ideas around politics, football clubs, the meaning of life - it's a turn of phrase as much as anything else. And teaching children Christian doctrine is, well, indoctrination.

Bear in mind what Christians believe sin to be - something that separates us from all that is good, and to many, something so evil it requires redemption through the Cross. And then add Hope's view - not unique to him - that all sins are equal in that. Sorry NS, there's no comparison.

Then teaching children any form of morality is inoctrination so it's a pointless argument. And the point I was making is that if you ban someone for suggesting that a member needs medical treatment then that has to be applied across the board, else the charges that some have made that the mods are biased would be correct

[Hope]

Do you really need to have it explained to you what's wrong with this mess?

No, I think it is you (or Floo) who needs to explain why you are so keen to foster this mess.

[Shaker]

No, I think it is you (or Floo) who needs to explain why you are so keen to foster this mess.

'This mess' is the creation of people like you and your fellow travellers. Floo and I don't regard homosexuality as a disorder - you do - and neither of us have suggested that another member here should perhaps see a doctor, not because they're ill but because they are gay. You have.

[Hope]

He thinks that homosexual activity is as wrong as murder. It's his statement. That means he considers the couple that I just went on holiday with as wrong as murderers.


I find that vile

I find the cherry picking of my statements more than VILE, NS.

[Owlswing]

If a successful reversal  treatment was discovered, I bet many homosexuals will queue up for it....and rightly so IMO. 

 

Rubbish! Total and complete rubbish!

You wanna bet? I'll take your money!

If that is your opinion then your opinion ain't worth shit! I know, and have known, many homosexuals and the only ones who have wanted to change are thoise who have been targeted for the unpleasant bigotry of and abuse by people like you and Spud. 

[Nearly Sane]

I suppose it depends on what you define as 'Old Christianity'?  Are we talking about Christianity in the Middle Ages/Dark Ages/the 1st-4th centuries AD/...   Remember that later periods often turned early church thinking and practice on its head - for instance, celibacy and women's roles in ministry.

I was quoting Rose in the term of Old Christinaity, I was using it in the sense of 'good old' with a tinture of irony. The point isn't that Christianity is necessarly good or bad but that saying simply that it's your belief because of Christianity doesn't give any free pass in it being challenged.

[floo]

Cancer is perfectly normal, Floo - yet it is regularly referred to as a disorder.  Are you suggesting that regarding it as a 'disorder' or 'medical condition' (or some other equally appropriate term) is VILE?

Regarding left-handedness, I'm not sure that it was ever deemed to be 'VILE'.

Well it was when my parents were young. Even in the 50s when I was a child, an old man told me my parents should beat me for using my left hand.

[Nearly Sane]

I find the cherry picking of my statements more than VILE, NS.

And since I haven't done that, so what? Stop lying

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=9431.200

[Hope]

So someone who regards being gay as a disorder tells another poster, in the context of homosexuality not illness, that they should perhaps see a doctor, and they're being misinterpreted? Really?

And you have the evidence that anyone here made this comment, or are you dealing in hearsay?

[Shaker]

And you have the evidence that anyone here made this comment, or are you dealing in hearsay?

I'm dealing in memory of a post made a matter of a few days ago. It was apparently removed at the point of your suspension, unfortunately - I wish that Gordon would replace it so that you can't continue to suggest that it never existed.

[Nearly Sane]

And you have the evidence that anyone here made this comment, or are you dealing in hearsay?

Why are you lying about suggesting trent should seek medical treatment?

[Shaker]

Why are you lying about suggesting trent should seek medical treatment?

Because until and unless the removed post is reinstated, he can continue to get away with feigning innocence and pretending that it was never said by him.