Are there vile homophobic views on this forum

[Brownie]

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.

Yes that is very true.  I am just saying that we sometimes fail miserably.

[Rhiannon]

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.

Which Christianity? The Episcopalians are far removed from, say, the HTB Alpha crowd, yet both are Anglican. The problem is at least here in the UK is that the liberal churches are dying fastest, so all that's left are the hardliners.

[Shaker]

Why?   If we have no ideals...

Who prior to you said anything about having no ideals?

[Gordon]

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'.

Then he could have said 'see a priest/vicar/minister': he didn't.

[Shaker]

Then he could have said 'see a priest/vicar/minister': he didn't.

Quite so, Don Gordione. When people talk about seeing a doctor it's usually construed quite literally - seeing a doctor.

[Brownie]

I don't believe there was any 'vile' intent in what Hope said.  There wouldn't be much point in telling a non-believer to see a priest or minister.  I'm sure Hope won't use the word 'doctor' so liberally again.

[Shaker]

I don't believe there was any 'vile' intent in what Hope said. There wouldn't be much point in telling a non-believer to see a priest or minister.

Or Jesus, who according to Hope now also functions as a spiritual doctor. So what Hope actually meant in his comment to Trent will remain unclarified, given his manifest refusal or inability to explain himself.

[wigginhall]

If you look at it historically, gays had been severely pathologized in British society (and of course, in others) - by the law, by medicine, psychiatry, religion, and so on.  However, there has been a counter-movement, so that homosexuality was decriminalized in the UK, and then marriage was equalized, medical attempts to 'convert' gays were banned and so on.

This counter-movement has made great progress in different areas, so that for example, few doctors today would see gays as pathological, or in fact, psychiatrists also.   Religion seems to be a backwater, for various reasons.  So anyone who supports the acceptance of gays will tend to criticize the C of E and Catholic Churches for their official homophobia. 

And of course, there are Christians who do criticize the churches and any homophobic Christians.

[Gordon]

I don't believe there was any 'vile' intent in what Hope said.  There wouldn't be much point in telling a non-believer to see a priest or minister.  I'm sure Hope won't use the word 'doctor' so liberally again.

No point at all, as you say, which of course suggests he really did mean a medical doctor - since in his thousands of posts during the lifetime of this Forum I can't recall Hope advancing the idea of a 'spiritual doctor'.

[Shaker]

No point at all, as you say, which of course suggests he really did mean a medical doctor - since in his thousands of posts during the lifetime of this Forum I can't recall Hope advancing the idea of a 'spiritual doctor'.

Plenty to choose from: I can't for some no doubt technical reason link to it directly but having just searched 'doctor' in posts by Hope there are two pages of results and they all seem to refer pretty unambiguously to medical practitioners.

[Brownie]

Well I doubt he'll use the word again unless he definitely means a medical doctor.  He was suspended for a while but if everyone thought he was that bad, he wouldn't have been allowed back.

Wigginhall, the CofE and the Catholic Church come in for a lot of criticism, from within, for their official attitude.   I really wish the powers that be would take more note of what their members think and say.  As someone else said, there are many 'wings' of the Anglican church and within the Catholic Church there are some individual parishes that are more traditional than others.

I agree many Christians take issue with the traditional stance on homosexuality, other issues too.  We meet some of them on here!  It can take time to change attitudes though.

Anyway I am having some technical difficulties with this computer, hoping my husband can sort it when he gets home.  He did last time even though he wasn't sure how he did it!  I hope it can be fixed in the next couple of days because I want to use it for other things.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I said from the beginning what you were. I am not afraid to face those who come as a wolf in sheep's clothing to stir up UNREST.
To bring divide and separation in hope of bringing the forum down.
The others may not see your motive or your heart. In all the years we have been posting together we have a good understanding.

That's very interesting. According to you I am here to bring the forum down.

Wasn't it you who said

May Almighty God, close this forum if someone does not do something about the moderators abusing their powers and being prejudice towards Christians.,..To Gods Glory and in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen,.

The mod team has not changed to my knowledge.

Have you considered that I am here as an answer to your prayers!!!!

Maybe your prayers have been answered and I have been sent by God!

Hallelujah

[Sriram]

I think Christianity is more consistent than many of you, with regard to sexual practices. 

Christianity regards anything except a legitimate marital heterosexual relationship, as wrong and sinful.  This includes premarital sex, extramarital sex, homosexuality, incest, bestiality etc.  Most of you are very supportive of homosexuality but have varied ideas about the other practices. Why?

[Brownie]

Sririam:   
Christianity regards anything except a legitimate marital heterosexual relationship, as wrong and sinful.

I think you will find Christianity (by which I mean 'Christians') are divided on this issue Sririam.  I don't have any data to hand but when I last looked at the result of a survey, opinion was 50/50.

Extra-marital sex, bestiality, incest etc all cause hurt and some frequently involve non-consensual sex.  What two consenting adults, neither of whom have a commitment to anyone else, do is a different matter.

[floo]

I think Christianity is more consistent than many of you, with regard to sexual practices. 

Christianity regards anything except a legitimate marital heterosexual relationship, as wrong and sinful.  This includes premarital sex, extramarital sex, homosexuality, incest, bestiality etc.  Most of you are very supportive of homosexuality but have varied ideas about the other practices. Why?

The OT obviously condoned incest.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

Out of interest which one was the 'damaged' one according to Hope? It doesn't fit in with his theology if only one of them is 'damaged'.

A person who is deaf is physically damaged - their hearing is damaged - and they are also spiritually damaged if we are all miserable sinners - the deaf person has presumably committed sins of some kind. The gay person is not physically damaged, but according to some intrepetations of Christianity they are spiritually damaged because we're all miserable sinners e.g. they are practising (thanks for the correction Brownie).

So which one was the 'damaged' one. And why is the word damaged in scare quote marks?

[Bubbles]

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

Anything on any subject, can appear offensive to some people.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Sririam:   
Christianity regards anything except a legitimate marital heterosexual relationship, as wrong and sinful.



Extra-marital sex, bestiality, incest etc all cause hurt and some frequently involve non-consensual sex.  What two consenting adults, neither of whom have a commitment to anyone else, do is a different matter.

Well said

[wigginhall]

It's also about not conflating things, isn't it?  Instead of saying that A, B, and C are all sins, it seems better to take each on its own terms.   If paedophilia is wrong, that doesn't mean that masturbation is.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

Yes I usually get here in time to see him being called a liar but can't be bothered to go back and read previous posts to find out why. I have seen evasion though, where he doesn't respond to questions.

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.

Ok - I stand corrected - that sounds more like what I remember reading.

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.

What did Hope mean in his post by saying Trent was entitled to his opinion - what was Trent's opinion? If Hope had already mentioned the Jesus quote in that thread about the sick needing a doctor and Jesus coming to save the sinners then it gives me reasonable doubt about Hope meaning a medical doctor. Though it's possible the word "doctor" was chosen in this thread because of the double meaning - only Hope knows for sure if he meant to try to wind Trent and a few other posters up or not.

[Rhiannon]

Out of interest which one was the 'damaged' one according to Hope? It doesn't fit in with his theology if only one of them is 'damaged'.

A person who is deaf is physically damaged - their hearing is damaged - and they are also spiritually damaged if we are all miserable sinners - the deaf person has presumably committed sins of some kind. The gay person is not physically damaged, but according to some intrepetations of Christianity they are spiritually damaged because we're all miserable sinners e.g. they are practising (thanks for the correction Brownie).

So which one was the 'damaged' one. And why is the word damaged in scare quote marks?

According to Hope both are 'damaged' - not spiritually but medically - but society only regards the deaf person as such. A few posters pointed out that most people regard neither as damaged.

I used quote marks because I was quoting Hope.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

According to Hope both are 'damaged' - not spiritually but medically - but society only regards the deaf person as such. A few posters pointed out that most people regard neither as damaged.

I used quote marks because I was quoting Hope.

That is correct.

I pointed out that a gay relative lived a happy and fulfilled life. He said that he had a deaf relative who also lived a happy life. However, he stated that only one was regarded as damaged by society and wondered why that was.

It was clear that he thought gay people were also damaged.

Of course most people don't regard either as damaged, but it was a clear example of him medicalising homosexuality.

I'm sure Gordon could reinstate the post if this was challenged.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That is correct.

I pointed out that a gay relative lived a happy and fulfilled life. He said that he had a deaf relative who also lived a happy life. However, he stated that only one was regarded as damaged by society and wondered why that was.

It was clear that he thought gay people were also damaged.

Of course most people don't regard either as damaged, but it was a clear example of him medicalising homosexuality.

I'm sure Gordon could reinstate the post if this was challenged.

Ok - well that sounds like he didn't mean spiritually damaged if he was comparing homosexual practice to being unable to hear.

And he has subsequently acknowledged he doesn't agree with therapy to change someone's sexual identity. So if that is true, it sounds like it was a personal insult.

Which takes us back to Nearly Sane's thread about whether people who do things different from the norm can be described as abnormal or damaged on this forum. Such as saying Muslim women have Stockholm syndrome - I've seen that posted on here by posters who think a particular interpretation of Islam is mysogynistic.

[Aruntraveller]

only Hope knows for sure if he meant to try to wind Trent

I remain, however, resolutely unwound.

[Shaker]

I think Christianity is more consistent than many of you, with regard to sexual practices. 

Christianity regards anything except a legitimate marital heterosexual relationship, as wrong and sinful.  This includes premarital sex, extramarital sex, homosexuality, incest, bestiality etc.  Most of you are very supportive of homosexuality but have varied ideas about the other practices. Why?

Mental competence and informed consent between equal parties.

What you call consistency more often comes across as a one-size-fits-all approach devoid of nuance.