Jump to content

The Problem with Gay Christian Representation


Dr. C
 Share

Recommended Posts

Be careful of feminism in college.  According to what I learned, having a baby out of wedlock is "just a mistake", and some children are fine with having sexual things done to them.  I wish I was making this up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 hours ago, eclipse said:

Be careful of feminism in college.  According to what I learned, having a baby out of wedlock is "just a mistake", and some children are fine with having sexual things done to them.  I wish I was making this up.

I've grown wary of dealing with feminists because they either assumed I was cis Male scum or they don't think trans women are real women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoting @eclipse

STOP!

As in, if you can't figure out a non-hostile reason as to why someone would ask that, then it's up to you to ask THEM why they need to know.  Too much assumption is harmful.  So is convincing yourself that you're so very right that no one else can talk you out of it.

I did not see this post or I wouldn’t have responded it to it a long time ago. 

It’s a fair point to not assume other people’s motives. 

I’m not perfect and I’ll own my mistakes. 

The point I was trying to make is not malice but negligently not considering the other person’s perspective and being okay with it.

I am a proponent of St. Augustinian doctrine of good and evil which essentially states that evil is the absence of good and that not doing good when it is most apparent to do so is evil. 

I don’t necessarily assume malicious intent on the part of the person, but rather complacency. Complacency sows the seeds of contempt. The severity of my time is more along the line of “Hey! You’re putting poison in the water!” The effect of poison is independent of your intentions. 

I will admit being a bit strong in presenting my viewpoint. I am passionate to a fault and have the bad habit online of debating like one boxer. What I hear you say and see you do in the ring so to speak will infuriate me in the heat of a fight but when the night’s over my reaction is...

@Armchair General @Shoblongoo  @Dragoncat? Etc. if people who disagree with me? Cool people. Hope they don’t think I’m an a-hole. It’s nothing personal. 

@Rezzy

yeah... things got confusing and I can’t multiquote without double posting at the moment. 

I wanted to address what you said and yeah I should clarify for the same reason you shouldn’t call people out for straight privilege you shouldn’t call them out for cis privilege either. You don’t know .

Whether or not they consider you s real woman, I think you’re a real person. I’m going to do my best to make you feel comfortable in your own skin. I’m rather fond of androgyny feminism because it takes the idea of gender and says, aggression but also ambition and strength are associated with males, nurturing and compassion are associated with femininity but also seductive guile and manipulation. 

So take the best of what it means to be male and what it means to be a female and form your own supergender. (That’s a paraphrase. That’s not in Jaggar’s work.) 

Again, people will spin that as transphobic. I look in the mirror I I see a male body but I’ve got my fair share of feminine personality traits and interests. I’ve experienced gender dysphoria and racial dysmorphia. I personally feel like  when it comes to sex vs. gender,  I say be neither man nor woman but be the best of both worlds and let the rest sort itself out.

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

57 minutes ago, Dr. C said:

I don’t necessarily assume malicious intent on the part of the person, but rather complacency.

What a crock of shit. 

Remember the "bold strokes" statement I made in one of your other threads? You're still doing it, after apologizing, no less. People who don't even hold a view consonant with the case you are pleading are put WAY OFF by that cavalier attitude of yours.

Edited by Karimlan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rezzy said:

I've grown wary of dealing with feminists because they either assumed I was cis Male scum or they don't think trans women are real women.

TERFs don't deserve to call themselves feminists. 

10 hours ago, eclipse said:

Be careful of feminism in college.  According to what I learned, having a baby out of wedlock is "just a mistake", and some children are fine with having sexual things done to them.  I wish I was making this up.

Can't see how any sane person would put those ideas under the umbrella of feminism either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Karimlan said:

What a crock of shit. 

Remember the "bold strokes" statement I made in one of your other threads? You're still doing it, after apologizing, no less. People who don't even hold a view consonant with the case you are pleading are put WAY OFF by that cavalier attitude of yours.

Okay well I did try and make an adjustment. 

If my efforts are not good enough then I want to know why. 

Social blind spots and all that. I’m not trying to yank your chain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like most LGBT people are distant from Christianity just from years of being ostracized or even just dealing with micro-aggressions from Christians that think they're accepting ("hate the sin, love the sinner," "I don't personally agree with it, but I accept you," etc.).  That being said, I know a lot of LGBT Christians choose to practice on their own and don't go to church. If you're able to practice your religion in a way that is good for you (or choose not to), that's awesome, whatever makes you happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Logjam said:

I feel like most LGBT people are distant from Christianity just from years of being ostracized or even just dealing with micro-aggressions from Christians that think they're accepting ("hate the sin, love the sinner," "I don't personally agree with it, but I accept you," etc.).  That being said, I know a lot of LGBT Christians choose to practice on their own and don't go to church. If you're able to practice your religion in a way that is good for you (or choose not to), that's awesome, whatever makes you happy.

I’m very sympathetic to that for obvious reasons.

i have a church that I feel my sexuality is accepted at so the independent route is not one I took.

As for the whole “accept the sin and not the sinner” thing. It’s a complex and debunk able issue. Now I can appreciate other LGBTQ Christians not wanting the burden of that kind of work and I respect that.

But for me, the conviction of my faith is simply, with man it is impossible but with God all things are possible. (Matthew 10)

I don’t agree with the rhetoric of lost causes and I definitely don’t agree with vilifying them.

I came out to a friend who is very vocal about his not supporting homosexuality. We don’t talk a lot about it because it’s awkward for him but he’s been there for me through thick and thin and if he can’t be there in one single facet of my life then I can either disown someone who is a true friend in all other respects or choose to just accept them where they are at.

Some people are gossips, some drink too much and some have unpopular prejudices but flawed they all are. Hating the sin and not the sinner is how I live in al other aspects of my faith. I don’t love when an alcoholic ruins their life but I love the alcoholic. Now to reiterate it’s a gross misapplication with homosexuality, but like I said, complex issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... let me say this, I follow Christ, and

being Gay (I.e. being sexually attracted to ones own sex) is NOT a sin... but, sex between man and man

or woman and woman IS, that's off limits according to the Bible.

But... HATING ANYONE in the LGBT is NOT, in accordance with the scriptures,

anyone who does that wasn't taught right, (I guess some people just do what they want, and couldn't.
care less about what man thinks much less God

Where do people get all these varying opinions when it's all in the good book?

These differing opinions are what's making the churches weaker, not stronger through confusion or selfishness, not strange at all the latter happens more times then the former.)

Edited by Fates-Blade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Fates-Blade said:

Well... let me say this, I follow Christ, and

being Gay (I.e. being sexually attracted to ones own sex) isn't a sin... but, sex between man and man

or woman and woman is, that's off limits according to the Bible.

But... HATING ANYONE in the LGBT is NOT, in accordance with the scriptures,

anyone who does that wasn't taught right, (I guess some people just do what they want, and couldn't.
care less about what man thinks much less God

Where do people get all these varying opinions when it's all in the good book?

These differing opinions is what's making the churches weaker not stronger through confusion.)

Having same sex sexual intercourse is not forbidden by the Bible.

In ancient times, straight men having sex with straight men in the throngs of orgies to pagan gods and goddesses. 

Male Castrates wood dress as women in these ceremonies and serve as vessels by which male practitioners to “worship with”.

In this context of lustful loveless and polyamorous sex, gay and lesbian sex is a sin. However, it’s  not like straight people are permitted promiscuity  in these temples with their heterosexual counterpart either .

There is a lot of heavy scripture citations to prove this and I understand if you don’t want to take my word for it but the Christian marriage contract is tied to sexually pleasing your partner so if LGBTQ people can’t have sex then Christians would be justified in opposing gay marriage in churches quite literally.

No the answer is simply that sex in lust or refusing your sex spouse are the two foundations of sexual sin in the Bible. So having sex with a loving partner you’re married with.

Already sexually actively with someone? Then the answer is  the act of sex is the implicit marriage so as long as you’re only having sex with the one person and you get this sexual activity blessed by a man of the cloth as holy, you need not stress yourself over the tradition of ceremony pomp and circumstance. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dr. C said:

if LGBTQ people can’t have sex then Christians would be justified in opposing gay marriage in churches quite literally.

Well, yes, and I don't have a problem with that, and let me ask you this,

do you know any scriptures that talks about gays?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Fates-Blade said:

Where do people get all these varying opinions when it's all in the good book?

Given how there are many revisions and translations of a book that old, is it really all that surprising that people (especially the authorities on the matter) choose to interpret it in a way that fits their agenda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Fates-Blade said:

Well, yes, and I don't have a problem with that, and let me ask you this,

do you know any scriptures that talks about gays?

Pm me.

That’s an essay not a forum response.

The short answer is that scriptures in homosexuality fall into 4  categories

1. Not About Honosexuality-The most infamous of which is Sodom and Gomorrah but that’s an essay.

2. Mistranslated Greek-In the case of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, there are two Greek words mistranslated into homosexuality in passages listing things treatable to the Lord. This may or may not be malicious as the words in question have to do with men being sexually loose and morally weak which if one has a preconceived notion of homosexuals would jump to a conclusion.

3. Pagan Worship Scriptures-Homosexuality and same sex intercourse is a sin here but again, lust and pagan worship are two universally agreed upon sins that cloud the issue at hand. These are found in both Leviticus and Romans.

4. Scriptures with Pro gay implications-as it implies but they’re so varied citing one would not summarize them all.

The context for a committed same-sex  relationship with sexual fulfillment is not a stretch once you study these scriptures in depth.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rezzy said:

The Catholic Church says gay sex is sinful, because it cannot result in procreation. 

Yeah I’m well familiar with the old sex for pleasure is sin doctrine.

Lets just say that that particular belief is rooted in the upper echelons of the clergy who were educated making a calculated decision to guilt people from having pleasure during intercourse so they would be easily manipulated and controlled.

Remember that many bishops were usually wealthy agnostic nobles who were educated enough in biology to know what they were doing and it was most diabolical.

I don’t dislike Catholics just to be clear. Otherwise I would have to hate my grandparents who are two of the most spiritual people of character I know.

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

On 10/22/2019 at 9:33 PM, Dr. C said:

Okay well I did try and make an adjustment. 

If my efforts are not good enough then I want to know why. 

 Social blind spots and all that. I’m not trying to yank your chain.

What adjustment; where?

Cards-on-the-table time: I'm an atheist, and while I believe that organized religion has done more harm than good and has practically held man back as a species in numerous fronts, I don't go around being militant and shove that belief up people's chins. I don't go around and quote Carlin's "Religion is Bullshit" routine from 1999 every chance I could; I adopt a more moderate stance and quote his "Religious Lift" routine from 1975 ("...religion is a lift in your shoe, man. If you need it, cool. Just don't let me wear your shoes if I don't want 'em...") whenever I'm asked about my belief system, or lack thereof.

Which brings me to your stance, which is definitely hardline in comparison to mine. You brought up Stalin being an atheist in one thread (obviously referring to his Five-Year Plan), blithely dismissing the fact that he was a deacon and simply played the religious game the way he played von Ribbentrop and the Nazis. You go around thinking that run-of-the-mill atheists find it a little more than curious that you can profess your faith and keep your orientation, and that they always stress the mutual exclusivity of both views, much to your chagrin. If you think those factors come into play for what I think about you and your case, I reply with the title of a classic Judas Priest tune.

I got no beef with your sexuality. I do take umbrage to, no, let me scratch that: I have a major psychological fucking hatred of your cavalier approach towards atheists and secular humanists, thinking that they'll always take the same approach towards you and what you stand for.

Edited by Karimlan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Karimlan said:

What adjustment; where?

Cards-on-the-table time: I'm an atheist, and while I believe that organized religion has done more harm than good and has practically held man back as a species in numerous fronts, I don't go around being militant and shove that belief up people's chins. I don't go around and quote Carlin's "Religion is Bullshit" routine from 1999 every chance I could; I adopt a more moderate stance and quote his "Religious Lift" routine from 1975 ("...religion is a lift in your shoe, man. If you need it, cool. Just don't let me wear your shoes if I don't want 'em...") whenever I'm asked about my belief system, or lack thereof.

Which brings me to your stance, which is definitely hardline in comparison to mine. You brought up Stalin being an atheist in one thread (obviously referring to his Five-Year Plan), blithely dismissing the fact that he was a deacon and simply played the religious game the way he played von Ribbentrop and the Nazis. You go around thinking that run-of-the-mill atheists find it a little more than curious that you can profess your faith and keep your orientation, and that they always stress the mutual exclusivity of both views, much to your chagrin. If you think those factors come into play for what I think about you and your case, I reply with the title of a classic Judas Priest tune.

I got no beef with your sexuality. I do take umbrage to, no, let me scratch that: I have a major psychological fucking hatred of your cavalier approach towards atheists and secular humanists, thinking that they'll always take the same approach towards you and what you stand for.

Well on the piece of Stalin formerly being a deacon, didn’t know. It was ignorance not intellectual dishonesty.

As for the second piece, I will tell you that Christians and atheists BOTH recycle the same talking points. There is certainly room for insight and individual differences but when it comes  to the foundations of people’s value system there is going to be some understandable and justifiable overlap.

Generalizations error in the side of efficiency but it is by no means a perfect approach and I get that. It was never my intention to pass judgement on you or anyone else.. I have a lot of respect for secular humanists and the questions they bring to the table. It doesn’t sit well with me to have the foundation of my faith be an echo chamber. 

But just because secular humanists don’t have Jesus as a stirrup to get on a High horse does not mean they don’t have their own means of mounting. Groupthink lends itself to collectives making the same mistakes over and over again.

In conversations about x belief system being bad for society arguments, nothing productive is gained. People get mad and irritated and defensive. 

My frustration is I will generally avoid quoting bible verses to atheists unless it’s explaining I hold a certain belief. I try to talk to an atheist as though I too am an atheist  and I simply wish secular humanists would consider a similar approach where gay rights are concerned.

You have to be willing to speak the language of the other person sometimes, 

I would trade away all the freedoms I have to express my sexuality if cancel culture ended tomorrow. I feel exploited by predatory activists who claim they have my best interests at heart.

Im not interested in destruction and to me that dialogue about religion being bad is a destructive conversation. Let’s talk about how to improve things.

 

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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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