A serious question for the religious types about gay and trans people

[Acim]

17 is pretty young for screwing, yes. And you're picking extreme examples to support the notion that adults banging children isn't a bad thing.

I went with minors. You're the one that wants to make it about children, I presume for the emotional appeal.

OP just went with "get freaky with" and now here that is banging. To me, your rebuttals to this are all demonstrative of why anti-homosexual types have a legitimate case. It's all about manipulating the narrative, and not realizing how that really only impacts own self. So the projection part is key, as in you saying I'm picking extreme examples. Heck, everything you've said changed how I originally worded my point.

And you still haven't shown how the point I raised would actually impact your life. You've made a claim that it would, but that is just as easy to do with anything including homosexuality. Just claim it is very immoral, inherently dangerous activity, and makes us all unsafe if we allow that in our community. Or how the projection part of the equation has to work to maintain the appeal to emotion inherent in what OP is getting at, but that apparently author of OP hasn't clearly thought through.

To perhaps help with what OP is getting at, it is (a lot) like saying that the way I (hypothetical anti-homosexual) imagine homosexual sex to be, it is inherently dangerous, and undoubtedly perverted, thus very immoral for anyone to allow that. If anyone is allowing this sort of immoral behavior, then all immoral behavior is being allowed. Therefore to make sure our community/society doesn't go to hell, it is in our best interest to not promote this as okay activity and if anyone is caught doing it, they ought to be socially condemned at the least, and prosecuted under obscenity / sexual predator type laws to prevent all people from going in this direction, or as much as we can possibly prevent it.

 

[Wirey]

I went with minors. You're the one that wants to make it about children, I presume for the emotional appeal.

OP just went with "get freaky with" and now here that is banging. To me, your rebuttals to this are all demonstrative of why anti-homosexual types have a legitimate case. It's all about manipulating the narrative, and not realizing how that really only impacts own self. So the projection part is key, as in you saying I'm picking extreme examples. Heck, everything you've said changed how I originally worded my point.

And you still haven't shown how the point I raised would actually impact your life. You've made a claim that it would, but that is just as easy to do with anything including homosexuality. Just claim it is very immoral, inherently dangerous activity, and makes us all unsafe if we allow that in our community. Or how the projection part of the equation has to work to maintain the appeal to emotion inherent in what OP is getting at, but that apparently author of OP hasn't clearly thought through.

To perhaps help with what OP is getting at, it is (a lot) like saying that the way I (hypothetical anti-homosexual) imagine homosexual sex to be, it is inherently dangerous, and undoubtedly perverted, thus very immoral for anyone to allow that. If anyone is allowing this sort of immoral behavior, then all immoral behavior is being allowed. Therefore to make sure our community/society doesn't go to hell, it is in our best interest to not promote this as okay activity and if anyone is caught doing it, they ought to be socially condemned at the least, and prosecuted under obscenity / sexual predator type laws to prevent all people from going in this direction, or as much as we can possibly prevent it.

I am hardly manipulating the narrative. You asked me why I thought a descending moral code that allowed pedophilia harmed me, and I replied. You then tried the extreme example to state your position. Of course everything has grey areas. But not Christian condemnation of homosexuality. Now, if you can drop the false analogy briefly, why does what two gay men or women do affect you personally?

 

[Acim]

I am hardly manipulating the narrative.

You certainly are. It is equivalent of saying when homosexual perverts who are automatically predators do thus and so, it's a problem. That is EXACTLY how you are manipulating the narrative.

You asked me why I thought a descending moral code that allowed pedophilia harmed me, and I replied.

Nope, not what I asked. You perhaps inferred that, but is not the wording I came close to. Like me inferring that you were asking about homosexual predators and asking why anyone would have an issue with that. You ask me to back that up, and I could play dumb on the manipulation like you are, but guess what, I'd rather not cause I see it as manipulation.

Of course everything has grey areas. But not Christian condemnation of homosexuality. Now, if you can drop the false analogy briefly, why does what two gay men or women do affect you personally?

I already addressed this in my first post on this thread. But given that we are dealing with your manipulation and denial thereof, it makes sense to respond to your question about two gay sexual predators who are hell bent on destroying society as we know it, and you want to ask me, or anyone, how that affects us? That is literally the manipulation I'm having to deal with. When you're perhaps done with the denial aspect, you may come down from your high horse on the inquiry I asked and finally explain precisely how it would impact you, your life?

 

[SomeRandom]

To perhaps help with what OP is getting at, it is (a lot) like saying that the way I (hypothetical anti-homosexual) imagine homosexual sex to be, it is inherently dangerous, and undoubtedly perverted, thus very immoral for anyone to allow that. If anyone is allowing this sort of immoral behavior, then all immoral behavior is being allowed. Therefore to make sure our community/society doesn't go to hell, it is in our best interest to not promote this as okay activity and if anyone is caught doing it, they ought to be socially condemned at the least, and prosecuted under obscenity / sexual predator type laws to prevent all people from going in this direction, or as much as we can possibly prevent it.

How about this? Everything we do is in essence to protect productivity in society. If you have an unproductive society, then you're essentially ****ed.
Children are our literal future. In the sense that they will grow up and take over positions of power when our time is over. When a child is "damaged" it can potentially harm their productivity later in life. This damage most notably comes in the form of abuse. Physical, sexual and even emotional. The repercussions can be more criminal activity, increased antipathy towards society as a whole or dysfunctional adults not contributing at all to society. Therefore it is in society's best interests to try to foster stable loving backgrounds for children at large. This is achieved through measures like social welfare in an attempt to keep a child from starving due to poverty, intervention through an independent child protection agency when abuse or domestic violence occurs, encouraging maternal and paternal leave in order for people to bond with their infant/s (thereby both encouraging progeny in society and not actively discouraging contributions made to the economy by workers) or by initiating programs in school to "fill in" meals for children under the poverty line. Whether or not these measures actually work is obviously contentious, but they are implemented in an attempt to help regardless.
So if a child is being sexually abused it affects me in the sense that later productivity in which we'd all be relying on is damaged. After all even after you leave the work force, you still need a functioning society to live in. This functioning society can become threatened by "damaged" kids due to the correlation between abuse and risky illegal behaviors. It is therefore in my future's interest to try to curb this as much as possible. I can achieve this by reporting abuse of a minor to the relevant authorities in order for intervention and hopefully prevent future criminal behavior from angry disturbed youths.

Now as to sexuality, a man can bonk 20 women a night and it probably wouldn't affect me. A man can bonk 20 men a night and it probably wouldn't affect me. Sexual release is a good stress reliever and can boost productivity in people. Thus it is in my best interest to leave them to it. Unprotected sex, whether gay or straight or alien, would affect society far more. Due to the spread of STIs. It is therefore more productive to reduce unsafe sex in the community than it is to reduce sexual activity, whatever that may be. Then you factor in adultery, for both heterosexual and homosexual couples the affects are the same. Trauma and a decrease in productivity due to pesky things like emotions. It is therefore a good ideal to strive towards either monogamy or consensual adultery (ie swingers.) That way at least you can say you were pragmatic. Discouraging homosexuality can decrease productivity. In the sense that you have depressed/repressed people and a lack of sexual release. Which obviously creates sexual tension and can affect the adult's productivity.
Things like "immoral" and "perverted" ehhh. They are not very solid concepts. They are more or less cultural constructs right?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

saying "going to hell" is not treating anyone poorly.

It's not exactly being friendly.

 

[Acim]

How about this? Everything we do is in essence to protect productivity in society. If you have an unproductive society, then you're essentially ****ed.
Children are our literal future. In the sense that they will grow up and take over positions of power when our time is over. When a child is "damaged" it can potentially harm their productivity later in life. This damage most notably comes in the form of abuse. Physical, sexual and even emotional. The repercussions can be more criminal activity, increased antipathy towards society as a whole or dysfunctional adults not contributing at all to society. Therefore it is in society's best interests to try to foster stable loving backgrounds for children at large. This is achieved through measures like social welfare in an attempt to keep a child from starving due to poverty, intervention through an independent child protection agency when abuse or domestic violence occurs, encouraging maternal and paternal leave in order for people to bond with their infant/s (thereby both encouraging progeny in society and not actively discouraging contributions made to the economy by workers) or by initiating programs in school to "fill in" meals for children under the poverty line. Whether or not these measures actually work is obviously contentious, but they are implemented in an attempt to help regardless.
So if a child is being sexually abused it affects me in the sense that later productivity in which we'd all be relying on is damaged. After all even after you leave the work force, you still need a functioning society to live in. This functioning society can become threatened by "damaged" kids due to the correlation between abuse and risky illegal behaviors. It is therefore in my future's interest to try to curb this as much as possible. I can achieve this by reporting abuse of a minor to the relevant authorities in order for intervention and hopefully prevent future criminal behavior from angry disturbed youths.

Now as to sexuality, a man can bonk 20 women a night and it probably wouldn't affect me. A man can bonk 20 men a night and it probably wouldn't affect me. Sexual release is a good stress reliever and can boost productivity in people. Thus it is in my best interest to leave them to it. Unprotected sex, whether gay or straight or alien, would affect society far more. Due to the spread of STIs. It is therefore more productive to reduce unsafe sex in the community than it is to reduce sexual activity, whatever that may be. Then you factor in adultery, for both heterosexual and homosexual couples the affects are the same. Trauma and a decrease in productivity due to pesky things like emotions. It is therefore a good ideal to strive towards either monogamy or consensual adultery (ie swingers.) That way at least you can say you were pragmatic. Discouraging homosexuality can decrease productivity. In the sense that you have depressed/repressed people and a lack of sexual release. Which obviously creates sexual tension and can affect the adult's productivity.
Things like "immoral" and "perverted" ehhh. They are not very solid concepts. They are more or less cultural constructs right?

Again, this assumes that really any time a minor/child engages in sexual activity, it is (automatic) abuse. I don't see how that assertion is unique to children. Such that: if an adult male (or female) is being sexually abused it affects me in the sense that later productivity in which we'd all be relying on is damaged.

And then following from the logic being used (though not explained), we may rightfully assume that all homosexuals who engage in sex, are inherently damaged.

I'd also just add that arguably anytime a child/minor does (literally) anything that an adult may wish for them to do, but they'd perhaps rather not, then plausible to assert there is no way they consented to that, and are therefore damaged by the adult. So if adult wants child to go to school, or do chores, or what have you and the child says no (or arguably any response the minor gives), but is made to do the action anyway, we can plausibly assume this child is damaged (beyond repair) due to the abuse they received from the adult taking advantage of the child's inherent disability to reasonably consent.

I honestly do not see the previous paragraph as a stretch IF one is arguing that in all possible scenarios where a minor is engaging in sexual activity it is a) impossible for them to reasonably consent and b) always abuse, especially if an adult is involved. Also, wish to be clear that when I say minor, I mean minor and that does include people under 18, and say over 15. It includes more than this, but arguably in OP homosexuals does include minors as that is not specified. And if for some reason all that is resting on idea of consent whereby it is argued a child / minor cannot, then I really think all things children do (especially from adult perspective, i.e. good they go to school) would be something they cannot reasonably consent to. If they are going to such schools where adults are in charge and make all the rules, we can safely assume these children are being taken advantage of, and are damaged for the rest of their life. 100% certain there is no way the minor could reasonably consent to that.

 

[randomvim]

It's not exactly being friendly.

depends on how it is said. if you just tell me in a blunt manner. "Your going go to hell, beast!" well yeah I can see that.

I tend to proved benefit of doubt for many situations though. I you tell me. " hey, that behavior is real negative and more over, what you are doing is actually bearing false witness. to say your coworker is stealing when they are not is a sin and over time that can get you so far from God, you'll reject Him and go to hell. "

Or. " that's a quick way to hell."

always more to a story. the last sentence can mirror the second or even first depending on how it is said.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

My spelling isn't the subject, and yes, Christians are COMMANDED TO JUDGE, if you knew what the bible said. I never said I hate them, as that couldn't be farther from the truth, as I'm concerned for their soul.

You cannot adequately "judge" anything if you lack knowledge that supports your judgement. On the subject of homosexuality, then entire medical community denies your viewpoint, the laws and courts -- up to and including SCOTUS -- deny your position. Governments from developed countries around the world deny your position. Many Christian denominations emphatically deny your position. But yes, you've got a couple of bozos writing 2000 years ago, brimming over with medical, psychological and scientific knowledge. And that makes you right in spite of all.

And yet, you still do not know anything at all about the subject whatsoever. How bizarre. How silly. How unlikeably Christian.

 

[shava]

You cannot adequately "judge" anything if you lack knowledge that supports your judgement. On the subject of homosexuality, then entire medical community denies your viewpoint, the laws and courts -- up to and including SCOTUS -- deny your position. Governments from developed countries around the world deny your position. Many Christian denominations emphatically deny your position. But yes, you've got a couple of bozos writing 2000 years ago, brimming over with medical, psychological and scientific knowledge. And that makes you right in spite of all.

And yet, you still do not know anything at all about the subject whatsoever. How bizarre. How silly. How unlikeably Christian.

So you don't believe the bible to be the inerrant, innate, inspired word of God, well I do, and so do many others.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So you don't believe the bible to be the inerrant, innate, inspired word of God, well I do, and so do many others.

No, of course I do not. I've read the Bible, and it is truly filled with the most egregious nonsense and contradictions that convince me that it is exactly what it appears to be -- a human construct, containing all the usual errors and omissions that humans are wont to make.

And I suspect (although you don't know it) neither do you. Many believers really do think that they believe, but in their deepest hearts, they do not. Certainly, every "true believer" must cope with an immense amount of cognitive dissonance, which they need to constantly suppress.

Let me give you an example: I believe that when the burner on my kitchen stove is red, if I put my hand on it I will be badly (and painfully) burned. Nothing you can say can convince me to willingly test that belief. I will not put my hand there -- even though I know that the burn, while painful, would eventually heal, and even the pain can be dealt with medically. Still I would not do so. How many Christians have I met -- all claiming to believe in the inevitability and eternity of punishment in hell -- have in any case "tested" that belief. It's why Catholics have confession and absolution! What that tells me is that they think they believe it, but that they do not, in fact, BELIEVE it.

At least, not in the way that I believe in my hot stove burner.

 

[columbus]

So you don't believe the bible to be the inerrant, innate, inspired word of God, well I do, and so do many others.

Not only do a small minority think that, the number who would agree with you about what the Bible actually says is a small minority of that.
Tom

 

[randomvim]

No, of course I do not. I've read the Bible, and it is truly filled with the most egregious nonsense and contradictions that convince me that it is exactly what it appears to be -- a human construct, containing all the usual errors and omissions that humans are wont to make.

And I suspect (although you don't know it) neither do you. Many believers really do think that they believe, but in their deepest hearts, they do not. Certainly, every "true believer" must cope with an immense amount of cognitive dissonance, which they need to constantly suppress.

Let me give you an example: I believe that when the burner on my kitchen stove is red, if I put my hand on it I will be badly (and painfully) burned. Nothing you can say can convince me to willingly test that belief. I will not put my hand there -- even though I know that the burn, while painful, would eventually heal, and even the pain can be dealt with medically. Still I would not do so. How many Christians have I met -- all claiming to believe in the inevitability and eternity of punishment in hell -- have in any case "tested" that belief. It's why Catholics have confession and absolution! What that tells me is that they think they believe it, but that they do not, in fact, BELIEVE it.

At least, not in the way that I believe in my hot stove burner.

Sounds like you never met Mother Theresa or Padre Pio. Look, uncertainty or misunderstanding is okay - that doesn't mean a person does not believe.

The idea of having someone "test" their belief is concerning. Hopefully you do not suggest ill activities that may cause self harm.

Now, confession is for repenting - a way to break a habit or activity that causes self harm. A means that Catholics view is a tool for wellness and holiness.

 

[shava]

No, of course I do not. I've read the Bible, and it is truly filled with the most egregious nonsense and contradictions that convince me that it is exactly what it appears to be -- a human construct, containing all the usual errors and omissions that humans are wont to make.

And I suspect (although you don't know it) neither do you. Many believers really do think that they believe, but in their deepest hearts, they do not. Certainly, every "true believer" must cope with an immense amount of cognitive dissonance, which they need to constantly suppress.

Let me give you an example: I believe that when the burner on my kitchen stove is red, if I put my hand on it I will be badly (and painfully) burned. Nothing you can say can convince me to willingly test that belief. I will not put my hand there -- even though I know that the burn, while painful, would eventually heal, and even the pain can be dealt with medically. Still I would not do so. How many Christians have I met -- all claiming to believe in the inevitability and eternity of punishment in hell -- have in any case "tested" that belief. It's why Catholics have confession and absolution! What that tells me is that they think they believe it, but that they do not, in fact, BELIEVE it.

At least, not in the way that I believe in my hot stove burner.

There is only one church, that being the church of Christ, non instrumental, no other church on this entire planet will do, none. The reason for the church of Christ being the only church is the fact that we worship the way the New Testament says to.

 

[shava]

Not only do a small minority think that, the number who would agree with you about what the Bible actually says is a small minority of that.
Tom

only 8 people were saved in the past, and remember the path is narrow that leads to everlasting life, that's why such a small minority knows the truth, because they studied, whereas others don't..

 

[columbus]

only 8 people were saved in the past, and remember the path is narrow that leads to everlasting life, that's why such a small minority knows the truth, because they studied, whereas others don't..

I cannot imagine that The Creator would be so bad at creating and stuff.
The God I sorta believe in is not that incompetent.
Tom

 

[shava]

I cannot imagine that The Creator would be so bad at creating and stuff.
The God I sorta believe in is not that incompetent.
Tom

What?

 

[columbus]

What?

You said that only 8 people had been saved in the past. There are currently 7,000,000,000 and there have been billions more in the past.
That is a miserable track record for an omnimax benevolent god.
Tom

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sounds like you never met Mother Theresa or Padre Pio. Look, uncertainty or misunderstanding is okay - that doesn't mean a person does not believe.

You might read Christopher Hitchens "Missionary Position" on Mother Teresa. I have my sincerest doubts as to the content of her beliefs, and in fact her understanding of Jesus. And Padre Pio was -- around the time he lived -- highly controversial. He was only canonized much later by a JPII. Various evidences (purchases of carbolic acid, for example, which could easily produce "stigmata") were summarily dismissed, with no explanation as to why.

The idea of having someone "test" their belief is concerning. Hopefully you do not suggest ill activities that may cause self harm.

Now, confession is for repenting - a way to break a habit or activity that causes self harm. A means that Catholics view is a tool for wellness and holiness.

Not at all. By "testing," I mean exactly what I meant with the stove burner. I BELIEVE it will burn me -- therefore I do not test it. So if you do something that merits eternal pain without remit, (whether you repent or not later, as I certainly would with the stove burner!), then I suggest that you don't really believe it in the way I believe in the burner. You only think you believe it. And, of course, later you get to "take it back" by thinking you believe in a way out. And not only that, you do that repeatedly throughout your life. Think of me doing that with the burner every couple of months for 50 years. You'd conclude I was a demented idiot.

How many of the Catholic priests who molested little boys (and girls) did exactly that? Go to confession, get the last sodomized kid off your chest, then go out and find another victim? Now pay attention here, because this is important: if you really believed you did wrong the first time, confessed I order to repent and move towards holiness, and then go do it again (in full expectation that you can repeat the cycle endlessly, so long as the final act was confession rather than riding a boy), then you are guilty of believing that God is some kind of dopey dupe -- easily fooled. So much for "omniscient."

See? Cognitive dissonance.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There is only one church, that being the church of Christ, non instrumental, no other church on this entire planet will do, none. The reason for the church of Christ being the only church is the fact that we worship the way the New Testament says to.

And that is your belief, we all accept that. Now, the only question is, in a fair fight, how would you prove beyond doubt that yours is the one true church, and all the others are false?

Please keep your essay to under 500 million words.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So you don't believe the bible to be the inerrant, innate, inspired word of God, well I do, and so do many others.

So what? You have your beliefs, I have mine. We don't have the right to expect each other to live in accordance to our own beliefs.