Sergeant Thorne wrote:The Pope is not representative of Christianity, by the way. Adherence to Christian principles set forth in the scripture and communicated individually by God through his spirit (never at odds with the written word) are all one needs to be representative of Christianity.
ahahahahaha
(In other news, the determination of which books wound up in the Bible was originally made by the Catholic Church. So all of the theses-nailing derivatives are pretty much beholden to Catholicism from the start.)
More on-topic, a Christian church that's genuinely welcoming of homosexual individuals seems to be doing a hell of a lot better adhering to Christ's central message than one stuck on the medieval notion that they're all damned.
Top Gun wrote:More on-topic, a Christian church that's genuinely welcoming of homosexual individuals seems to be doing a hell of a lot better adhering to Christ's central message than one stuck on the medieval notion that they're all damned.
The notion is much older than medieval. And up until the point where we are all actually damned (or you actually read the Bible), it may seem that way.
Top Gun wrote:(In other news, the determination of which books wound up in the Bible was originally made by the Catholic Church. So all of the theses-nailing derivatives are pretty much beholden to Catholicism from the start.)
You just pulled down your pants, are you waiting for me to feel foolish?
Hey man, if you want to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that the only denomination with direct apostolic succession is invalid, be my guest. I'd ask where your interpretation of the Bible derives its authority from, but I feel like I already know the answer.
And for the record, I know the notion far older than medieval, but it's equally absurd no matter when it was first promulgated.
Slick, without getting too much into this, I speak with complete authority from what is contained in the Bible. I ascribe to no denomination. Now, if you want to argue the contents of the Bible, I will be glad to.
Sergeant Thorne wrote:That's not what Ferno said. Ferno's post was nothing but a bunch of static, and yours is a fabrication. "all the stats" indeed. What you just did was take the popular excuses and conveniently superimpose them over KNOWN/common issues with homosexuals in order to preset your preferred reality, and under the guise of scientific objectivity. You did it with a lot of confidence, I'll give you that.
in other words, you have no background to make any kind of assertion of anyones' mental state and we can't take you seriously on this subject at all. Thanks for playing!
Sergeant Thorne wrote:That's not what Ferno said. Ferno's post was nothing but a bunch of static, and yours is a fabrication. "all the stats" indeed. What you just did was take the popular excuses and conveniently superimpose them over KNOWN/common issues with homosexuals in order to preset your preferred reality, and under the guise of scientific objectivity. You did it with a lot of confidence, I'll give you that.
in other words, you have no background to make any kind of assertion of anyones' mental state and we can't take you seriously on this subject at all. Thanks for playing!
I imagine this could apply to all of us in any number of threads. I wouldn't trade common sense for a degree on a bet. Who here has a professional background in mental health?
flip wrote:You will never convince a christian that homosexuality is not wrong. It is a dysfunction and against the natural order of things, in our view. Just as anything else that doesn't complete our evolvement from animalistic behaviour, I'm being generous here . The best that can be hoped for is genuine tolerance and patience towards other human beings and realize that we live in an imperfect world. Concessions have to be made.
not sure if this is in response to my post, but I like the answer.
If it *was* in response to my discussion with Thorne: I did not try to convince him that homosexuality is moral (or at least not immoral). I wanted to argue that there is very little *objective* information (i.e. happiness of homosexuals, health, mental health of the children) that would support negative consequences of homosexuality (other than those brought about by stigmatization).
me. I have a PhD in Psychology and teach/research neuroscience. And you would be surprised (or not) how often common sense turns out to be wrong.
Well, you know we are coming from 2 different backgrounds that deal with the human heart. I, like you, had rather encourage and strengthen so I would never say anything to harm someone.
EDIT: I have found that the best course is to encourage people to reason it out for themselves. Would you agree?
ST wrote:Jeff, if you want to demonstrate or judge the merits of something in the most scientific way possible, how many related subjects should you allow to be combined with the subject in question? Should you judge the merits of homosexuality as opposed to heterosexuality, for instance, while allowing otherwise unmet needs to be met through heterosexual means?
Homosexuality doesn't work as well in a vacuum, but that analysis is irrelevant, since it doesn't exist in a vacuum. (Men don't work well in a vacuum either--they need women--but that isn't a problem for men, since in fact there are women.)
If, for instance, there were a lack of children needing adoption or a lack of means for gay couples to biologically have children otherwise, then you would have a point. But neither of these things are true, so your analysis is academic.
Adopting children is a social good. It will take a lot to show how that's really a bad thing.
If, for instance, there were a lack of children needing adoption or a lack of means for gay couples to biologically have children otherwise, then you would have a point. But neither of these things are true, so your analysis is academic.
Adopting children is a social good. It will take a lot to show how that's really a bad thing.
So what your saying is Thorne is behind the times.
I don't like vacuuming any more than the next guy. If we agree that a man needs a woman then what are we arguing about?
I'm at a bit of a loss to figure out how to help you perceive the point that I'm trying to make, and the validity of it. Would it help if I suggest that if not for a number of other social evils/ills there wouldn't be enough children for them to adopt?
Sterility is not a healthy state of humanity, I would say. Adopting children is not a state of humanity.
By the way, Jeff, adopting children is a social solution to a social problem. There are a lot of complications inherent in it, but it is best for the child to be adopted by a loving family (and I'm talking husband and wife) and receive the benefits of a normal upbringing. So to say it's a "social good" is misrepresentative of the whole picture.
What kind of effect would sexual immorality have on humans as they were just beginning. Say you have small pockets of people that all live together. What psychological problems would develop because of unrestrained sexual relations in a small group of say 100?
flip wrote:What kind of effect would sexual immorality have on humans as they were just beginning. Say you have small pockets of people that all live together. What psychological problems would develop because of unrestrained sexual relations in a small group of say 100?
if you could speak to the early Mormon settlers of the 19th century, they'd have the details, as that is sort of how they went about it.
Actually, I would suspect that most early human communities had for less 'restrained' sexual relations, but would leave the actual factual support for that to anthropologists/
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
You know Slick, I've come to the opinion you are full of ★■◆●. i don't need a degree or anthropologist to tell me that dysfunctional sexual relations are bad for a small community. Let me come over to your house and bang your wife, see if it ends up in good or not.
flip wrote:So what your saying is Thorne is behind the times.
Technology can additionally address some of the practical concerns, but the need for adoption is nothing new.
ST wrote:I'm at a bit of a loss to figure out how to help you perceive the point that I'm trying to make, and the validity of it. Would it help if I suggest that if not for a number of other social evils/ills there wouldn't be enough children for them to adopt?
Any moral argument that presupposes that we live in an ideal world will come to absurd conclusions. I don't find a gay couple's capacity to adopt unhealthy for the same reason I don't find someone serving as a police officer or in the armed forces unhealthy. A police officer would be out of a job in a world without crime, but the role that a police officer plays in our world is nevertheless positive, not negative.
. The best that can be hoped for is genuine tolerance and patience towards other human beings and realize that we live in an imperfect world. Concessions have to be made.
