Jump to content

LGBTQ Activists are the worst allies


Dr. C
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Anacybele said:

I've seen your posts and threads before and I couldn't really grasp what you were talking about much of the time then. But this time I totally get it and even agree with you. You don't just shove certain sexual orientation or gender identity or racial stuff where it doesn't belong. That's doing it wrong and forcing it in just for the sake of it. It's like how they decided to make Green Lantern gay all of a sudden or Human Torch black in the most recent Fantastic Four movie when he was always white beforehand (which was awful overall, I heard). And have they made any originally black characters go white instead? Nope. I bet because people would get offended and call it "whitewashing"! Which is technically correct. So why is it okay to make a white guy black, but not a black guy white? It's bull. Elsa from Disney's Frozen needs no love interest, she's meant to be a strong independent woman. The romance side of this should stick to Anna and Kristoff. Elsa doesn't need a girlfriend OR a boyfriend and I wish people would stop asking that she be lesbian when her story isn't meant to touch the subject of romance.

And I'm an asexual high-functioning autistic, so I kinda fall in the LGBT+ community myself. I also didn't even really realize I'm asexual until a few years ago when my friend helped me notice that I had all the characteristics of it. Annoys me how my parents, in particular my stepdad, reacted when I told them my sexual orientation too. They still love me, don't get me wrong. But my stepdad more or less went "you've never had sex, so you don't know if you really don't want it, you just have to give it a chance blah blah blah." No, I just don't want it and for various reasons. My mom seemed to be disappointed that this meant I could never give her a grandchild. She technically does have one though, my stepbrother's kid. Sure, she's not a blood-related grandchild. But it's still family. I will admit it's a bit disappointing that I can't give my mom a biological one, and I do feel bad I can't give my real dad one either (he never had any other children besides me). But this is how it's turned out, I'm afraid.

There's no way kid me would've ever figured out I'm asexual.

I’m sorry for the late reply. I’m very new to multiquoting and I’ll be honest. It’s a lot more complicated than one at a time and I hate it. 

That being said, I totally appreciate you sharing your story and respect your sexual orientation. I actually had a friend who described such aversion to sex and nevertheless stopped to consider himself asexual.

I will say modern technology does afford you some non sexual means of reproduction if that means anything. My only real position on a sexuality is I wish my biology teacher didn’t teach me about mitosis before i learned  about  it because I feel so guilty about not being able to shake the image of asexuals dividing.  I use the word eunuch in my head in the Anxient Greek sense of the word which means no sex with the opposite sex for whatever reason including gay, asexual, castration or a vow of chastity .

8 hours ago, Ashe02 said:

Didn't think I would see such an interesting thread be made today. It hit very close to home for me. 

Yes some "allies" ironically enough end up hurting the people which they claim to want to support. Not all allies are good allies.

Also your story sounds like it would be a good read :]

Thank you for the kind words. Once again sorry for the delay. This website has a steep learning curve for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Dr. C said:

I guarantee you that I am a thousand steps ahead of you and it always ends the same way.

 

cites the phrase in italics: a thousand steps to where, being ahead of someone whose opinion doesn't count for as much? 

You plead for specificity in your case, but when it comes to judging others, you paint in the same broad strokes as your debtors do. Not very logical or, dare I say it, Christian, ain't it now?

You can stick epithets all you want to anyone you think disagrees with you, but at any day of the week (twice on Sunday), employing the same techniques you blast your perceived foes for to any and all comers shoots whatever advocacy you have in the foot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Dr. C said:

Here’s the thing though, whether you are right or wrong is irrelevant (And I feel you on Alan Turing) because if the answer to resenting being called a chink eyed Asian with a small penis and a “strange eccentric white guy” around Koreans was to hate my own respective communities, I’d be an angrier , darker and lonelier person. 

It's not. You made the claim

3 hours ago, Dr. C said:

I guarantee you that the people trying to ruin people’s lves for the cause are very much majority  secular 

To turn around say that it doesn't matter whether or not this is true establishes a false equivalence, specially when one side IS way more guilty of the problem. It's basically saying one side that may be guilty of worse things that they're not as a bad as the side that isn't guilty so they don't need to change, to improve. For example, with this false equivalency, you're telling victims of pedophilia from priests that secular people are just as bad. Do you have evidence of secular people in an organization all over the world fucking kids because their rules demand that they never have sex with women?

The answer as to what to do if it is true that people of your faith have done more to ruin people's lives is up to you. Unless your religion/ideology is centered on the misfortune of others, you can still be a part of that faith. Just don't echo the bad behavior or enable it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Karimlan said:

cites the phrase in italics: a thousand steps to where, being ahead of someone whose opinion doesn't count for as much? 

You plead for specificity in your case, but when it comes to judging others, you paint in the same broad strokes as your debtors do. Not very logical or, dare I say it, Christian, ain't it now?

You can stick epithets all you want to anyone you think disagrees with you, but at any day of the week (twice on Sunday), employing the same techniques you blast your perceived foes for to any and all comers shoots whatever advocacy you have in the foot.

I apologize then. I may have sacrificed more empathy than I intended for efficiency. 

I’m not saying I think you’re a bad person or I think you an enemy. A debate opponent at worst. But think of it as Rocky Balboa and Creed. 

I just find it extremely frustrating that the point I am trying to make is I feel like it’s either “why are you living a sinful lifestyle?” or “why can’t you just accept your imaginary friend inspired war, genocide and discrimination?” And here I am...

I just find the religion is bad for society debate really hollow and a touch religiously intolerant but more than anything BORiNG. I don’t have the same fire as when I’m having discussions with Christians making the “atheism is bad for society” claims that I also disagree with and it it inevitably becomes a historical event checklist at this point which is a stalemate.  

When I say I’m a thousand moves ahead of you I’m not saying it in a I think you’re a mean person way. it’s more at this point  that I am to trying to shake the tree and get a fresher coconut than the one that’s plopped into my basket. 

If you’re going somewhere different then by all means... but I will not change my mind on the fact that having heard both kinds of discussions I just think it’s a character issue not a religious one. 

1 hour ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

It's not. You made the claim

Well, I made the post. I just find it not relevant to the topic at hand in the sense that gay Christian representation is layered and this is too much in one direction.

To turn around say that it doesn't matter whether or not this is true establishes a false equivalence, specially when one side IS way more guilty of the problem. It's basically saying one side that may be guilty of worse things that they're not as a bad as the side that isn't guilty so they don't need to change, to improve. For example, with this false equivalency, you're telling victims of pedophilia from priests that secular people are just as bad. Do you have evidence of secular people in an organization all over the world fucking kids because their rules demand that they never have sex with women?

The answer as to what to do if it is true that people of your faith have done more to ruin people's lives is up to you. Unless your religion/ideology is centered on the misfortune of others, you can still be a part of that faith. Just don't echo the bad behavior or enable it.

Let me clarify by saying that I am going to pretend that Christians haven’t done more. Pre-2012 iI actually would agree with you but I got accused of being sexist, racist, homophobic and transphobic by a feminist with social clout because she got offended because she didn’t like the way I interpreted feminist literature and she was so rude and nasty to me that I snapped her and said sluts get jobs and rapists get jail time so don’t tell me men don’t have it hard.  I will say it wasn’t he wisest thing to say but my friends life’s was being torn about by a glass Rose allegation firm a minor while her friends were having a cheap laugh about getting him disfellowshipped from her church.  

So that was 2 years of being a pariah in my own department. Most of my conversations and socializing was done with professors. 

She weaponized my being white against me, she exploited the assumption I was straight and from there I had to move on only to find Ann entire army of her typing away by 2014 and by 2019 we’ll lets just say I’m very fed up with it. 

No my position is as follows:

Religious  groups may discriminate but now you oh enlightened individuals high above me on your ivory tower afternoon demand higher critical thought... 

If you demand better you have placed a moral burden to act better so when you don’t and actually try and sneakily come up with new ways to undermine the community you claim to champion as well as stripping me of my race,  my sexual agency and also choose willful ignorance of a faith you criticize and yet complain Christians lack critical thought while refusing to actually do your due diligence in understanding the complex social politics in the group itself... 

The end result is yeah, no it’s a package deal. You put those moral claims on yourself so honor them. It’s worse because they claim better so now the expectation is you act better. 

Now that is my opinion but I’m very militant about no man left behind so to speak. You can’t not apologize for friendly fire and earn my trust. 

Again in I don’t accuse anybody here but you cannot drag up ancient history when the present is so scary.

Edited by Dr. C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dr. C said:

I’m sorry for the late reply. I’m very new to multiquoting and I’ll be honest. It’s a lot more complicated than one at a time and I hate it. 

That being said, I totally appreciate you sharing your story and respect your sexual orientation. I actually had a friend who described such aversion to sex and nevertheless stopped to consider himself asexual.

I will say modern technology does afford you some non sexual means of reproduction if that means anything. My only real position on a sexuality is I wish my biology teacher didn’t teach me about mitosis before i learned  about  it because I feel so guilty about not being able to shake the image of asexuals dividing.  I use the word eunuch in my head in the Anxient Greek sense of the word which means no sex with the opposite sex for whatever reason including gay, asexual, castration or a vow of chastity .

It's fine, I was out somewhere earlier anyway.

And thanks, I didn't mind sharing at all for sure.

And you're right, but that could cost a lot and I'm not sure I'd make a great parent anyway. I feel like I have the right ideas about being a good one, I'm just not sure I could actually DO those ideas right. Not to mention there's the possibility of passing down autism (I know that's not the worst thing in the world by far, but I've still had it kind of tough in life due to being autistic) and my sensitive ears would not handle infant crying well at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Anacybele said:

It's fine, I was out somewhere earlier anyway.

And thanks, I didn't mind sharing at all for sure.

And you're right, but that could cost a lot and I'm not sure I'd make a great parent anyway. I feel like I have the right ideas about being a good one, I'm just not sure I could actually DO those ideas right. Not to mention there's the possibility of passing down autism (I know that's not the worst thing in the world by far, but I've still had it kind of tough in life due to being autistic) and my sensitive ears would not handle infant crying well at all.

On the autism front I do sympathize but on the front of guilt m. I meant more don’t hold the trial just yet. Totally respect your right to choose whether or not you want children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take the most extreme of any stance - the hardcore religious and the hardcore anti-religious, and it'll boil down to it's my way or the high way, while ignoring the good that the other side has done.  This isn't because either stance is right.  It's because they're people first, and people can be shitty.

Separate people's actions from their stances, instead of blasting an entire group for the actions of an individual.  I'm sure you're aware of the less-popular figures who claim to be Christian  - they don't define you, do they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Take the most extreme of any stance - the hardcore religious and the hardcore anti-religious, and it'll boil down to it's my way or the high way, while ignoring the good that the other side has done.  This isn't because either stance is right.  It's because they're people first, and people can be shitty.

Separate people's actions from their stances, instead of blasting an entire group for the actions of an individual.  I'm sure you're aware of the less-popular figures who claim to be Christian  - they don't define you, do they?

Of course not.

Of course I disagree

What bothers me is people who go

How can they possibly Oppose gay marriage? Why are they saying it’s a sin.

It’s almost so incredibly disingenuous and I feel like... now hang on, O don’t agree with these people but I also don’t agree with twisting their position.

The average churchgoer values honoring God more than any other human being. This reallocation of value is obvious on a fundamental level.

Now does that mean I condone their actions? No I do not but now your form of representation by asking such a question hasn’t mutated from let gay pier live there lives to why can’t you just accept your imaginary friend doesn’t exist in tone.

There are ways to reach people by appealing to their values and for me I don’t appreciate my gay civil rights being a militant atheist lobby. 

Instead of asking why can’t you accept gay marriage, I simply pose the question hey, did Jesus day for homosexuals or not? 

You can’t claim that such an event as that is powerful if you limit it where a specific demographic. 

A believer who doesn’t believe that the cross is enough is committing blasphemy. The law of love your neighbor as yourself is clear. If you do not love your neighbor you do not love God. 

I mean in Matthew 19 literally days people are born gay! The word eunuch in ancient Greek translates to not heterosexual for any reason including castrations, vow of chastity, homosexuality and asexuality. 

Most incriminating of all however is the theological precursor of the Pharisees pre New Testament were the ones who pushed for Sodom and Gomorrah being all gay cities.... you know the guys that Jesus called snakes, false prophets, hypocrites and said would better contribute to society by tying boulders around people’s ankles and throwing them to the bottom of the sea than teach them about the Bible?

The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah when mentioned never mentions homosexuality and the most damning piece of evidence is actually in the same passage and in Ezekiel which reference an oppressed minority within Sodom. In other words, God nuked two cities for persecuting minorities!!! 

 People also fail to understand that desert tribes NOT JUST ISRAELITES did have a level of fear of homosexuality being too widespread? Why? The desert is dangerous and men not impregnating women means fewer numbers when fending off wild animals and enemy tribes. 

A simple google search nets you a wealth of resources that your average Christian isn’t going to look o. Why? Because they trust their pastor!

You can claim that that’s crazy but the scholarship and devotion to studying the Bible is a massive undertaking. I’m a Pastor’s son so I have direct access most people don’t have. 

In a secular context do you trust your doctor to tell you how to improve your health or do you lose sleep at night wondering if your antibiotics will cure your flu? 

You are not addressing gay marriage when you address a Christian, you are addressing a very special relationship that exists between their Pastor and their deity. 

If you refuse to address this thing that they value the layman Christian won’t listen.

Would you call a bunch of people from Mexico homophobic if you tried to enlighten them in Swahili? 

But blaming Pastors while a bit more justified isn’t fair to their occupation. If a Doctor tends to multiple patients at ice it can take hours. Ever been to an ER? Now imagine a doctor treating 1000 patients. Not that easy now is it? 

This idea that burden do research is on the offender is really ass backwards because we all  fall into that pitfall of trusting our experts without considering their dishonesty or their shortcomings. 

These activists also claim to be experts yet none of them say anything that resembles any literature I’ve read on the topic in very alarming ways. 

So why the double standard? 

If you want to reach church members you have to help progressive pastors look and sons more credible and by engaging in practices that either A. Flagrantly disregard their faith or B. Make progressive pastors ahve to work a million times harder what other result do you expect? 

Now does that mean I think they’re entitled to their prejudices? No. but I think that they are entitled to not having a pro LGBT platform as an atheist lobby and if you’re not willing to consider someone else they won’t consider you no matter pe right or wrong they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's frustrating.  But I doubt that this is the first time such prejudice has popped up, even if it wasn't in this form.  Alas, I'm too lazy to look up the religious arguments against abolishing slavery/interracial marriage/giving women the right to vote back in the day.  Gut tells me that they have a similar tone.

This is a human condition, with homosexuality being the flavor of the era.  Pretty sure it'll branch off to other things once that gets addressed, albeit slowly.

Until then. . .breathe.  I've seen some scary things from the person on the pulpit, but I've also seen good things, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2019 at 10:11 AM, Dr. C said:

Also, calling people out for their straight privilege when someone is speaking hate speech against gay people is problematic to begin with because when you place a moral burden on somebody to come out when they could be living in a toxic home environment and in full on self preservation mode...

FYI:  All it means when you say someone is speaking from a place of privilege is that they are likely to underestimate how bad a problem is by default, because they have lived a life where they have never been personally exposed to it and are approaching the problem under the assumption that their own life experience is the general norm. 

It is not a moral judgment about that person. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

FYI:  All it means when you say someone is speaking from a place of privilege is that they are likely to underestimate how bad a problem is by default, because they have lived a life where they have never been personally exposed to it and are approaching the problem under the assumption that their own life experience is the general norm. 

It is not a moral judgment about that person. 

First of all, heard that before. 

Sounds reasonable on paper but not In practice.

in practice it’s a basis to tell Whitt’s people to StFU. 

I am extremely frustrated with white People I grew up with who as kids could not tell the difference between Korea and China/Japan who commented on how I looked white but something was off, who made it abundantly clear I WAS NOT WHITE TO THEN telling me I. have white privilege based on the color of my skin after years of scrutinizing the shape of my eyes because now theyre. “Educated”.

CONVENIENTLY forget that black slaves would inflict violence on the half black children of slave owners and gang violence between black and Hispanic people was so bad for my coworker faith a black husband literally had to fight black girls assaulting her in school for stealing one of their “few good men” just to even date her high school sweetheart.  So tell me again that black People cant be racist and explain to me again why you’re not being racist towards ghe experience  of mixed rice minorities by saying that. No I’m sorry, mono racial privilege is more like it if anything.

Shared experiences however bad still create solidarity which I am  denied  and half black people are also denied.

As far as I’m concerned as someone who is a mixed minority  privilege is my n word plain and simple. Now I’m not calling you a racist because that is neither the content or your intent but I’ve heard “You will be white after years of us making fun of your eyes and your penis and you will LIKE IT!” 

And as a mixed kid, yeah slavery was a thing and I will not belittle the plight of a black person but I also got to know black people fairly well back home who were African because when you’re trying to avoid being asked about your eyes and being told how not white you are and Hispanics weren’t a presence in your community , who else is there? It should be obvious why I would rather hang  around people who tell me I’m “not black” than people who tell me I’m not white or not a minority when it suits their fancy. 

Straight privilege is even worse because, A. If you’re straight calling out a closeted homosexual then who is exhibiting the privilege and who is just trying to surviv? Academic feminists might, LGBTQ activists don’t. 

And gay people who criticize survivor.s of such situations in an era where victim blaming is supposedly a thing... not even going to touch that. 

So yeah in theory privilege is not a moral judgement in theory but it is in practice, it’s a can of worms I don’t care to open except when talking with other half white kids how we all find it so bizarre that our “white savior” is a neo-Nazi who consider us contaminating the white race. 

I wasn’t exactly given the choice in whether I wanted to be dirt or bleach. I was told by racist white people I am dirt and now by “educated” white people that I am bleach. I would rather be a person thank you. 

Edited by Dr. C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dr. C said:

I mean in Matthew 19 literally days people are born gay! The word eunuch in ancient Greek translates to not heterosexual for any reason including castrations, vow of chastity, homosexuality and asexuality.

Matthew 19:12 doesn't say people are born gay.  This should help explain it.

"In Matthew 19:12, Christ describes three types of people as unfit for marriage, namely those who have been castrated (which all exegetes take as indicating eunuchs); those born incapable (con-genital eunuchs) and those who, by their own free choice and for the glory of God’s Kingdom, abstain from marrying (voluntary celibates)." -ajol

8 hours ago, Dr. C said:

The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah when mentioned never mentions homosexuality and the most damning piece of evidence is actually in the same passage and in Ezekiel which reference an oppressed minority within Sodom.

That's not true.

19 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”

“No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”

But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

“Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

12 The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.” -Genesis 19:1-13

9 hours ago, Dr. C said:

A simple google search nets you a wealth of resources that your average Christian isn’t going to look o. Why? Because they trust their pastor! 

You underestimate the average Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rukina said:

Matthew 19:12 doesn't say people are born gay.  This should help explain it.

"In Matthew 19:12, Christ describes three types of people as unfit for marriage, namely those who have been castrated (which all exegetes take as indicating eunuchs); those born incapable (con-genital eunuchs) and those who, by their own free choice and for the glory of God’s Kingdom, abstain from marrying (voluntary celibates)." -ajol

That's not true.

Respectfully, I’m sorry but it’s basic statistics. No offense to people with mutilated genitals or asexuals but the  statistics fall much heavier in the direction of the gay and the chaste. This isn’t not a perfect interpretation because it’s based in statistically likelihood. However, there are others. I’m already making very long posts  which has to be frustrating for people who don’t believe like yourself. So respectfully, you’re just not my target audience here.

19 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”

“No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”

But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

“Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

12 The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.” -Genesis 19:1-13

Okay...  basic bit of etiquette here. I referenced Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 13 without scripture because it is more concise that way. It’s my courtesy to people who don’t want to be preached at.

if you had quoted ONE verse I would engage this but a passage that long is not only excessive purely from a walking in love with non-believers standpoint but you are literally picking apart the most complex element of pro-gay apologetics of which the details are a thesis that even someone with autism who is notorious for info dumping can see is inappropriate.

However, if you feel so inclined to press the issue I am more than happy to either address your issues in private or if you are willing to risk a bit of pushback from people most ideally in a different thread because I think it is a subject worth talking about. 

Sodom and Gomorrah simply is too much of a tangent from the topic of gay Christian representation for it to be explored in depth here. 

What I am trying to do by presenting a cliff notes version is simply to say to secular people... Come on guys! You don’t have to tear down church walls to reach ignorant people. I don’t want to be represented that way. 

 

1 hour ago, Rukina said:

You underestimate the average Christian.

I will try to be respectful here but Christians drove me to a point of nihilism in my life where my beliefs were literally.

1. The cross was a wasted effort.

2. If God had intended for Satan to lose he should never have handed a loaded gun to him like the church.

3. The only way for a loving God to damn non-believers to hell given the sorry state of affairs I witness is if Christians are going to hell with them. 

4. I’d rather spend an eternity in Hell with my atheist friends and enjoy my life here on Earth than have to spend time with people like that in heaven. 

Oh I can handle criticism from atheists just fine. I don’t feel the need to justify myself and my character to them because I know that God knows that I have nothing but love and respect for them and their convictions. 

The nasty comes out when I have to deal with believers so I’m going to say in the nicest way possible.

if you want to defend Christian youth snorting cocaine in the back of the bus after feeling rejected  by their church being witnessed by someone who worked his ass off to make sure that that never happened to the youth under his watch, I would cautiously advise you to choose your words very carefully because I guarantee you, there’s a reason why I let atheists criticize the church for so long.

Now I’m at a point I feel taken advantage of and it feels like betrayal do the worst kind but that doesn’t change the dark place I went to because of your average Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll actually vouch for the interpretation of the Sodom & Gomorrah story that holds the "sin" for which the cities were punished wasn't homosexuality; thats a modern (mis)interpretation of the story used by haters who want a pretense of religious justification for their hate.

The story mentions in passing that homosexuality was rampant in the cities. But that's not the wickedness for which they were punished--read the parable and take the whole story in context.

-God sends his angels to investigate if the City should be saved or destroyed

-Angels take the guise of common travelers 

-Casual mob of citydwellers tries to gang-rape the angels 

That was the crime for which the Cities were deemed beyond redemption, and deserving of destruction.

The Tale of Sodom and Gommorah can just as easily be interpreted as a warning against casual acceptance of sexual violence and rape culture with no negative aspersions on homosexuality, if you aren't purposefully trying to use it to push an anti-LGBT agenda.
_________

Alternatively, its all bronze age superstition and folklore.

There's no meaningful moral lesson to be gleaned from the passage.

And the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah most likely relates the story of a primitive culture witnessing a meteor impact, having no idea what the fuck they were seeing or how to explain it, and recording the event the only way they could make sense of it--as a religious account of God's fiery wrath raining down upon the wicked.  



 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eclipse said:

. . .um, are you okay?  That list is extremely worrying.

Don’t be.

I am not that person anymore.

But I was and I never want to go back there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dr. C said:

Don’t be.

I am not that person anymore.

But I was and I never want to go back there.

If you ever find yourself going down that path again, either let me know, or find some IRL help (religious or otherwise).  Please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

I'll actually vouch for the interpretation of the Sodom & Gomorrah story that holds the "sin" for which the cities were punished wasn't homosexuality; thats a modern (mis)interpretation of the story used by haters who want a pretense of religious justification for their hate.

The story mentions in passing that homosexuality was rampant in the cities. But that's not the wickedness for which they were punished--read the parable and take the whole story in context.

-God sends his angels to investigate if the City should be saved or destroyed

-Angels take the guise of common travelers 

-Casual mob of citydwellers tries to gang-rape the angels 

That was the crime for which the Cities were deemed beyond redemption, and deserving of destruction.

The Tale of Sodom and Gommorah can just as easily be interpreted as a warning against casual acceptance of sexual violence and rape culture with no negative aspersions on homosexuality, if you aren't purposefully trying to use it to push an anti-LGBT agenda.
_________

Alternatively, its all bronze age superstition and folklore.

There's no meaningful moral lesson to be gleaned from the passage.

And the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah most likely relates the story of a primitive culture witnessing a meteor impact, having no idea what the fuck they were seeing or how to explain it, and recording the event the only way they could make sense of it--as a religious account of God's fiery wrath raining down upon the wicked.  



 

Thank you for your thoughts. Mad respect.

i mean obviously not going to see eye to eye on you on your more secular take but it takes a lot of integrity to vouch for someone you disagree with. 

5 minutes ago, eclipse said:

If you ever find yourself going down that path again, either let me know, or find some IRL help (religious or otherwise).  Please.

Working on it but American health care is gutter trash and I’m in California. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dr. C said:

Working on it but American health care is gutter trash and I’m in California. 

I'm familiar with the American health care system.  I think there might be options for reduced-cost mental health care, but you'll need to do a lot of research on it.  I know how things work in my state, but I suspect it's different in yours.  Regardless, being self-destructive is not the correct answer, ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dr. C said:

Respectfully, I’m sorry but it’s basic statistics. No offense to people with mutilated genitals or asexuals but the  statistics fall much heavier in the direction of the gay and the chaste. This isn’t not a perfect interpretation because it’s based in statistically likelihood. However, there are others

If that’s what you want to believe than so be it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2019 at 2:28 PM, Shoblongoo said:

I think as a general cautionary tale, the old saying "My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy" has to apply her

That. I don't think we should expect a consensus in groups that are so inclusive and broad, and that goes for any movement or ideology, but so long as they keep consistent on the main things they're supposed to advocate for, it's fine to have divergences. If there weren't any, it'd become a stale echo chamber. Expecting people to exactly follow to your standards or "they aren't true X", in cases where their position doesn't directly conflict or contradict what they're supposed to stand for, is cherry picking.

Also, I honestly can't understand what the topic is about, even. The LGBT++(TM) Agenda pushing sexuality into children? What? "I remember the times when people pushed TOYS and not SEX"? I honestly don't understand who exactly you're talking about and it feels like you're hitting a strawman without any sources. If you have someone or something in specific you'd like to point at so we can discuss something actually tangible, feel free to. Otherwise, this seems like a generalized rant and I don't see this discussion getting anywhere productive.

I guarantee you that the people trying to ruin people’s lves for the cause are very much majority  secular so what’s to stop me from flipping the script and pointing at SJWs and saying. Atheism is the problem?

 

Oh man, I miss dondon

 

Edited by Rapier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rapier said:

That. I don't think we should expect a consensus in groups that are so inclusive and broad, and that goes for any movement or ideology, but so long as they keep consistent on the main things they're supposed to advocate for, it's fine to have divergences. If there weren't any, it'd become a stale echo chamber. Expecting people to exactly follow to your standards or "they aren't true X", in cases where their position doesn't directly conflict or contradict what they're supposed to stand for, is cherry picking.

Also, I honestly can't understand what the topic is about, even. The LGBT++(TM) Agenda pushing sexuality into children? What? "I remember the times when people pushed TOYS and not SEX"? I honestly don't understand who exactly you're talking about and it feels like you're hitting a strawman without any sources. If you have someone or something in specific you'd like to point at so we can discuss something actually tangible, feel free to. Otherwise, this seems like a generalized rant and I don't see this discussion getting anywhere productive.

Okay admittedly yes that opener was a rant. Truth is I don’t feel represented by ANYONE most of the time. 

The issue here is gay Christian representation sucks because you either find yourself aligning with people who don’t respect your sexual protestation or people who don’t respect your faith OR your education

I say to these activists that they are going against the fundamentals of the psychology of communication and they tell me I’m being bigoted.

i tell them that hate begets hate and get told that pushing for love and compassion is oppressive and HATEFUL! No I’m not joking. I literally got told forgiveness is apart of the patriarchy by SjWs at one point. 

Respexfully I will say that 1 Corinthians 13 AKA the love chapter sets a certain standard that has to be met for me to think your representation is legitimate.

Now I don’t typically hold people to the standard of my faith but is it really that hard to not dox, threaten, and get people fired? Is it really that hard to rephrase questions in a less condescending way? 

its like you WANT Christians to reject homosexuals so you have someone you can attack.

If you do hateful things in the name of my sexual orientation then you are not an ally PERIOD. Do it in the name of the person you’re actually trying to represent (Thief, accuser, the prince of darkness , you may have heard of him) and I will not acknowledge an ally of someone  who serves someone by the name “ the enemy”. Christian or atheist if you do something hurtful you are serving Satan. It’s not a hard standard to follow. 

As for the toys not sex line that’s not a statement of historical fact it’s a metaphor for children should be allowed to play and imagine not be told what to think and who to be. It’s enough to tell kids that heterosexual romance exists and homosexual romance exists but telling them to explore their sexual orientation is very detrimental to their psychological development because that’s not the stage of development they are in. Now are there early and late bloomers? Absolutely but the literature does not match what these protestors claim. 

It’s like giving marijuana to teenagers to smoke recreationally. Their brain goes through a developmental process called pruning which is the final push into having an adult brain where the intellectual potential of the brain can potentially peak at its optimum level. When teens are looking for a good time with pit they are interfering with hormones and lowering their peak IQ. Marijuana for all of its health benefits for an adult is clearly harmful to adolescents for this reason which is why children being administered medicinal marijuana is heavily controlled as an example. 

Also, complacency breeds contempt.  Don’t pat yourself on the back until you get it 100% right. Consistent does not mean making the same mistakes over and over and refusing to acknowledge them. I believe 100% inclusion is possible and worth aspiring for.  No man or woman left behind. 

You can claim to be an ally but if you’re pushing male abuser narratives and there is a relationship that exists where 100% of the abusers are women (lesbians) by making their abusers angels how exactly are you an ally? 

No one left behind. The expectation for people to improve is not an impossible standard. It’s just one people are too lazy to want to pursue. Are you doing this for personal validation or to help people? Your choice to own mistakes and reform is an indicator of your intentions. 

16 minutes ago, Rukina said:

If that’s what you want to believe than so be it.

 

Don’t be that way.

Yeah I got a LOT of issues with the church but I also am still a Christian.

Extreme good and extreme bad come with the territory of devotion to any cause. I see the good worth aspiring for but... complacently breeds the bad.

Stay sharp. You want to oppose gay marriage? Fine but that means you have to put in the work spiritually speaking to have that position and still represent God’s love.

Before I had come to realize my sexual orientation I actually did oppose gay marriage but moreso because I opposed gay divorce. 

I hated the idea of people thinking marriage was going to get them a happily ever after  and didn’t like  the heartache  when they wake up and find their heart broken.

Im a kid of 5  divorces between two parents. 

Presumptuous? Yes. Hateful? No.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dr. C said:

Okay admittedly yes that opener was a rant.

So is this post.

Go over it yourself, clarify your thoughts, and then open a new discussion topic based on a single, coherent subject. I gave this thread every chance to crystallise into focus, and it did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...