Are there vile homophobic views on this forum

[Hope]

Claiming to know the mind of God, Hope - such impertinence.

Actually no, Rhiannon.  One of ther things Christians are encouraged to do, by Christ himself, is to become more like him - in other words, to align ones thinking and understanding with his.  Its not impertinence, its obedience.

[floo]

Actually no, Rhiannon.  One of ther things Christians are encouraged to do, by Christ himself, is to become more like him - in other words, to align ones thinking and understanding with his.  Its not impertinence, its obedience.

OMG! Well if Jesus was a decent guy, you are failing miserably with each post!

[Rhiannon]

Oddly enough, Shakes, those 5 references both explain why your interpretation (and I would suggest the mods' interpretation) is wrong, and explain that the context as I recall the immediate discussion, of which this particular post was one exchange, was not about sexuality of any sort, but was related to the passage that I've quoted from Matthew, mark and Luke's Gospels.

That's not true, Hope.

[Bubbles]

I would like to add that I think it regrettable in the extreme that so much of this discussion has to revolve around a specific poster and in my view a highly valued poster at that. Trent might well be wishing for all this to have blown over and blown away by now, and who would blame him.

However, this latter part of the discussion has only come about precisely because it was made personal and specific in the first place, which Hope is now trying to deny.

I respect Trent as a poster and can understand why he would get upset.

It's his personal life that is being criticised, even if unintentionally.


Unfortunately any criticism of homosexuality can come across as a personal criticism.


If we want to discuss it at all with a variety of views we need to accept there are those who will never agree with it.

I want to see
Leonard and Trent continue to post here.

I just think we need to find a respectful balance, where people can disagree without it being considered offensive.

[Rhiannon]

I know, how about not making personally offensive posts for a start?

[Shaker]

Only if my views on homosexual relationships are at odds with God's and I have no reason to believe that they are.

"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." - Anne Lamott.

[Hope]

So provide what you reckon is the correct one, then.   

I've done so already and don't intend to repet it all within a handful of posts.  Look back for yourself, rather than trying to score points.

Why was that addressed specifically to Trent (a gay member of Religion & Ethics), identified and addressed by name, on a thread which had started about NHS chaplaincy but which by that time has become dominated by homosexuality?

Again, that one's been answered today, earlier in the thread.

Why didn't the scare quotes around the word doctor which appear in the quoted portion above appear in the post in which you suggested that perhaps Trent needs to see a doctor. Did you suggest that he needs to see a real, actual doctor - his GP, or some kind of specialist, for instance - or imaginary 'doctor' Jesus?

Probably because, in the immediate context of the discussion I'd been having with him, the meaning (as found in the Matthew, Mark and Luke passges) was clear and therefore not needed. It is only when something is taken out of context - as the post you are referencing has been - that quotation marks (where does the phrase 'scare marks' come from) begin to be required.

[Hope]

"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." - Anne Lamott.

That assumes, of course, that I (or God) hate anyone.

[Rhiannon]

Not true, Hope. That wasn't what the discussion was about.

[Hope]

I know, how about not making personally offensive posts for a start?

I didn't, despite what peoiple here are determined to make out.

[floo]

I respect Trent as a poster and can understand why he would get upset.

It's his personal life that is being criticised, even if unintentionally.


Unfortunately any criticism of homosexuality can come across as a personal criticism.


If we want to discuss it at all with a variety of views we need to accept there are those who will never agree with it.

I want to see
Leonard and Trent continue to post here.

I just think we need to find a respectful balance, where people can disagree without it being considered offensive.

Being anti-gay is as WRONG as being racist.

[Shaker]

I've done so already

No, you have not. All we've seen from you is some meaningless guff from the New Testament and a very great deal of ducking, diving, dodging, evasion and bluster - even more than is customary for you, and that's saying something.

Look back for yourself, rather than trying to score points.

I've looked and nowhere can I see the explanation/clarification of your remark to Trentvoyager that you claim to have provided.

Probably because, in the immediate context of the discussion I'd been having with him ...

Ah - so apparently you know the context now, but didn't an hour or more ago when you said that you would need Gordon to repost all 41.5 hours' worth of posts in order to provide said context? I.e.

Do you have any contextual evidence that the post of mine that Trent was clearly responding to had anything to do with his being gay?  I accept that the wider context of the posts that have been cut was on homosexual relationships, but as we know from other threads, posters will often switch from specific to generalised references to 'sin' within that wider context.  Perhaps you can reproduce those 41.5 hours-worth of posts so as to show that I hadn't switched from specific to generalised.

(Today: 12:13:14pm).

I think you will find that, if the missing 41.5 hours-worth of poists ever come to light again, it will become clear that I never suggested that homosexuals are 'ill, disordered, diseased' - I wonder whether Gordon will ever be able to resurrect them so that we can check.

(Today: 12:21:54pm).

[Rhiannon]

I didn't, despite what peoiple here are determined to make out.

You did. Out of every poster you could have named you chose Trent.

Do you want me to remind you of context? Ive given you enough opportunity to have a rethink. You were discussing how you have both gay and deaf friends but one is regarded as 'damaged' and the other isn't. We weren't discussing Bible passages at all.

Do you want to call me a liar?

[Brownie]

Claiming to know the mind of God, Hope - such impertinence.

Well if Hope does make that claim he is not the only poster on here to believe they have a hotline to God :-).

However, Hope said:
''.... since I don't subscribe to the concept of corrective therapy (in this context) - the interpretation that Shakes and others are determined to put on a single post taken out of context is wrong.  However, I do believe that, as Jesus suggests in Matthew, Mark and Luke's Gospels, Trent and others here are in need of a 'doctor'.  In fact, we are all in need of such a doctor.''

That is what I thought Hope meant and I believe him.  In view of the furore it has caused, it appears he was unwise to say such a thing to that poster on that thread but no harm was intended.  So, whilst I disagree with his stance, in my opinion he hasn't said anything 'vile'.

[floo]

Why? What's so special about homosexuality? If according to someone's beliefs we're all spiritually sick sinners, what's the problem?

A BIG PROBLEM, a pity you can't see it!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

A BIG PROBLEM, a pity you can't see it!

ok - I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Shaker]

According to some posters Hope apparently lies - I have no proof of whether he does or not so can't comment  - I'm away a lot.

That would certainly explain why you're unaware of his status as the master of bald assertion (and logical fallacy) and the emperor of evasion.

He has said people have posted evidence of God but never produces any - that much I have witnessed.

I don't know about that. He himself has certainly claimed that in more than one place elsewhere online he has provided a methodology for evaluating supernatural claims (adding that it has "flummoxed" people), but can't present it here and can't provide a link to these alleged other places.

So as far as I can gather from all these back and forth posts - he claims he meant Trent needs to see a spiritual doctor not a medical one because he thinks Christianity teaches that homosexuality is a spiritual sickness as opposed to a medical one.

This is a post hoc construction placed upon it by Hope in the full knowledge that that was not what his original comment aimed at Trentvoyager meant. When someone says "Perhaps you need to see a doctor" it's not generally thought of that it's Dr. Jesus being referred to here.

[Sriram]

A BIG PROBLEM, a pity you can't see it!

Speaking purely from a Christian perspective....if premarital sex and extramarital sex can be considered a sin....why not homosexuality? 

[Brownie]

Homosexuals can now marry, Sririam!  In any case, no Christian says homosexuality is wrong, they say the practice of it wrong which would be in line with pre-marital sex being wrong.
A heck of a lot of us have done things wrong by that reckoning  .

[wigginhall]

Speaking purely from a Christian perspective....if premarital sex and extramarital sex can be considered a sin....why not homosexuality?

Nobody is saying that they can't, if they want.  I think most of society is moving on though from such antiquated positions, as with usury.

[floo]

Speaking purely from a Christian perspective....if premarital sex and extramarital sex can be considered a sin....why not homosexuality?

Nothing wrong with premarital sex if you are in a consenting adult relationship. Cheating on your partner, gay or straight, is wrong.

[Gordon]

Moderator:

On the wider issue of conduct/post content and acceptability Nearly Sane has started this thread on Mod & Admin.

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11890.0#new

So I'm going to move those posts from here, to there, that are more about what does go on here in general from the point of view of what is and isn't acceptable.   

[Sriram]

Homosexuals can now marry, Sririam!  In any case, no Christian says homosexuality is wrong, they say the practice of it wrong which would be in line with pre-marital sex being wrong.
A heck of a lot of us have done things wrong by that reckoning  .

The fact that lots of people have done wrong does not mean something cannot  still be considered as wrong (sin) from an idealistic religious perspective.  Religion is about ideals and about trying  to be more disciplined than we now are.

[Shaker]

Nobody is saying that they can't, if they want.  I think most of society is moving on though from such antiquated positions, as with usury.

Not wishing to get all heavy duty technical on anybody's, er, bottom but I think the problem here is that Christianity is a deontological moral framework that sees actions as inherently wrong in and of themselves regardless of specific circumstances, whereas most people are what is known in the trade as consequentialists and evaluate actions according to their consequences - something could be deemed to be right in situation/circumstances A but wrong in a different situation/circumstances B.

For example: an absolute pacifist might say that all killing of any kind is wrong, no ifs, buts and exceptions, whereas most people regard murder as wrong but draw the lines differently in the cases of self-defence, abortion, capital punishment and euthanasia.

[Sriram]

Nothing wrong with premarital sex if you are in a consenting adult relationship. Cheating on your partner, gay or straight, is wrong.

Why?   If we have no ideals...even 'cheating is wrong' is just your personal position. Why should everyone accept your view?