Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
why did god create cancer?
Comments
-
Right. So long as you can find one or two examples of places that are worse for gay people than historically Christian societies, then historically Christian societies are good for gay people. Nonsense, PDN. And it isn't even the case. Try Jamaica and Poland on for size. Uganda is 85% Christian, and it is currently in the early stages of a gay pogrom.
And, of course, there are degrees of homophobia, ranging from outright violence to moral condemnation and deprivation of equal rights. In the context of a non-homophobic society, Christianity almost invariably represents a pull to the latter.
I wonder where you get the 85% Christian figure for Uganda? Is this that game where, when we want to stress a country's bad points, we lump everyone that has ever darkened the door of the Church or been baptised as 'Christian', but, if we want to stress a country's good points, then we define Christian much more narrowly?
Actually, Uganda is one of the few countries where the Church is homophobic (in the word's literal sense). This is because one of the seminal events in the history of Ugandan Christianity involves early converts who were martyred because they refused to allow themselves to be sodomised by a king. That is no excuse in my book, for Christians should forgive those who persecute them and not to be afraid, but it does set their attitudes in a historical context.
Of course you will find Christians who are homophobic, just as you can find Christians who cheat on their VAT, who commit fornication, and share other traits with the wider society. I have met Christians who were most definitely homophobic - but in every case they were homophobic before their conversion to Christianity.
Your reference to Jamaica is interesting. Jamaica also has one of the highest rates of marijuana usage in the world. Is this the fault of Christianity too?
If I remember correctly, Sapien, you once mentioned on another thread that you are a part of Dublin's gay scene. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). Put yourself in the following scenario:
You are in a train carriage with fifty other males. One of these guys is an enemy who wishes you harm. The other 49 are strangers you have never met before. Suddenly your enemy, hoping to provoke a hate crime, points to you and loudly outs you as a homosexual. The key to what happens next, of course, will depend on how homophobic the other 49 guys in that railway carriage prove to be. Which of the following would you prefer in order to protect you from harm?
a) The train is in the stridently non-Christian regime of China and the 49 other passengers are off-duty soldiers in the Red Army?
b) The train is ferrying football supporters home from a football match?
c) The other 49 occupants of the train carriage are solicitors, accountants etc. all on their way home from a stag party?
d) The other 49 passengers are devout Christians on their way home from a Bible Study?0 -
However, no-one accuses them of being fornicatorphobes or idolatorphobes.
I think you find they do. I've long put forward the idea that something like the Christian preoccupation with forbidding sexual relations outside of the strict framework of the religion is down to a mixtures of emotions, such as fear, towards of sex.
And I seem to remember that not going down to well
0 -
Which of the following would you prefer in order to protect you from harm?
a) The train is in the stridently non-Christian regime of China and the 49 other passengers are off-duty soldiers in the Red Army?
b) The train is ferrying football supporters home from a football match?
c) The other 49 occupants of the train carriage are solicitors, accountants etc. all on their way home from a stag party?
d) The other 49 passengers are devout Christians on their way home from a Bible Study?[/B]
Nice word game. Nothing else. Replace d) with:
d) The other 49 passengers are atheists on their way home from a debate.
Feel threatened? 0 -
Wikipedia.I wonder where you get the 85% Christian figure for Uganda?
No, a Christian's a Christian. You didn't define it any more rigorously when claiming that Christian societies are better for gay people than non-Christian ones, so that's what I'm working with.Is this that game where, when we want to stress a country's bad points, we lump everyone that has ever darkened the door of the Church or been baptised as 'Christian', but, if we want to stress a country's good points, then we define Christian much more narrowly?
How convenient. So the homophobia-diminishing property of Christianity is counteracted by this folk tale. It must be negligible to begin with.Actually, Uganda is one of the few countries where the Church is homophobic (in the word's literal sense). This is because one of the seminal events in the history of Ugandan Christianity involves early converts who were martyred because they refused to allow themselves to be sodomised by a king. That is no excuse in my book, for Christians should forgive those who persecute them and not to be afraid, but it does set their attitudes in a historical context.
Try Poland then. Overwhelmingly Christian, deeply and institutionally homophobic. No sodomising pagan kings, as far as I remember from my history. I don't have to try very hard, you see, because your method of demonstrating that Christian societies were less homophobic was to point to two non-Christian, homophobic societies. Poland is hugely Christian, and worse than either of your examples.
Interesting how now, after committing one yourself, you now have become aware of the dangers of cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies.Your reference to Jamaica is interesting. Jamaica also has one of the highest rates of marijuana usage in the world. Is this the fault of Christianity too?
Where, now, is your contention that homophobia is less of a problem in Christian societies? Do you still feel like pursuing that? And will you attempt to argue that Christianity is the cause of this tolerance? As opposed to low levels of marijuana usage.
a) clearly. I have a thing for uniforms.If I remember correctly, Sapien, you once mentioned on another thread that you are a part of Dublin's gay scene. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). Put yourself in the following scenario:
You are in a train carriage with fifty other males. One of these guys is an enemy who wishes you harm. The other 49 are strangers you have never met before. Suddenly your enemy, hoping to provoke a hate crime, points to you and loudly outs you as a homosexual. The key to what happens next, of course, will depend on how homophobic the other 49 guys in that railway carriage prove to be. Which of the following would you prefer in order to protect you from harm?
a) The train is in the stridently non-Christian regime of China and the 49 other passengers are off-duty soldiers in the Red Army?
b) The train is ferrying football supporters home from a football match?
c) The other 49 occupants of the train carriage are solicitors, accountants etc. all on their way home from a stag party?
d) The other 49 passengers are devout Christians on their way home from a Bible Study?
What does it say that you have to invent such a remote and improbable scenario to arrive at an example of Christianity being good for gay people. Bookish scholars may be your experience of Christianity, PDN, but in reality b) and c) are the most likely candidates for a public encounter with a Christian.
You and your Christian pals may be lovely, super-non-violent people, but the religion that merely convinces you that in having sex with my partner I damn myself to hell, convinces the footballers to beat up queers late at night, the solicitors and politicians to resist equality law reform, the accountant to drive his son to suicide. We're not arguing about the effects of your precious, refined and nuanced take on Christianity. We're arguing about the effects of Christianity as it exists in the big, bad world.
You argue that a society that is Christian will be less homophobic. That is rubbish. I assume you mean to imply that Christianity causes these societies to be less homophobic. That is not only wrong, it is quite the wrong way around.
The difference is the existence of homosexuals, PDN.People like Ratzinger et al also say that heterosexual relationships, the worship of idols and other things contrary to Christian morality are intrinsic moral disorder. However, no-one accuses them of being fornicatorphobes or idolatorphobes. Jews see eating bacon as being wrong but no-one accuses them of being pigeaterphobes.
Yes they do. Of course they do. Citing Christian morals, Christians attempt to prevent people from practising homosexuality. They try to prevent the passing of laws that allow people to express their homosexuality. They inculcate youth with the belief that homosexuality is evil, driving many into denial, psychological ill-health, suicide, and doomed lives based on feigned heterosexuality.Yet, because a Christian sees homosexual acts as immoral and therefore incompatible with practising Christianity, they are labelled 'homophobe' - even when they make no attempt to restrict the rights of non-Christians to practice said behaviour.
You don't get to define what homophobia is. We will not accept from you such faux-naif as would require you to argue that fear, qua phobia is necessarily a part of homophobia, or indeed hate, per se. Put simply - yours is a club. Your club says that if you're a practising homosexual, you can't join. That's homophobic. The damage your club does to the lives of gay people in the world at large - this you can disavow all you like - it's quite beside the point.0 -
Nice word game. Nothing else. Replace d) with:
d) The other 49 passengers are atheists on their way home from a debate.
Feel threatened?
Of course not, because I am not fat-headed or bigoted enough to accuse atheists of being homophobic per se. Therefore I agree with you that Sapien would be as safe on the atheist train as he would on the Christian train, and vice versa.0 -
Advertisement
-
Indeed. The important thing about PDN's d) group is not that they are Christians. If it were, he would just have said that: "The other 49 passengers are devout Christians". But, of course, they're not just devout Christians. They're devout Christians who attend a study group. In fact, they're more than that - they're PDN and his friends.Nice word game. Nothing else. Replace d) with:
d) The other 49 passengers are atheists on their way home from a debate.
Feel threatened?
Firstly, a train full of devout Christians could very well be a terrifying prospect, and could certainly place my life in danger in this scenario. Secondly, any group of people coming back from a study group, of whatever kind, would be unlikely to turn suddenly murderous. A physics seminar, a history lecture, a poetry reading. Anything, really, but a public reading of Mein Kampf or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Christianity plus meek intellectual equals PDN - no danger to gays anywhere (except in the ways he is). Christianity plus anyone with a violent temperament equals someone with a violent temperament and a slightly increased tendency to be violent towards queers.0 -
-
-
-
No, a Christian's a Christian. You didn't define it any more rigorously when claiming that Christian societies are better for gay people than non-Christian ones, so that's what I'm working with.
Fair enough. However, I still think that you will find that tolerance towards homosexuals is, on average, much better in countries with a long exposure to Christian values than in those without such exposure. Of course there are exceptions - but the overall pattern is clear. Meanwhile, would you like to point out one officially atheist regime that has not been homophobic?
So, history that doesn't fit in with your worldview becomes a folk-tale? This feels like the time I foolishly tried to have a conversation with some Turks about the Armenian genocide. If you want you can read the names of those who were mutilated, castrated and executed in this 'folk tale' http://www.buganda.com/martyrs.htmHow convenient. So the homophobia-diminishing property of Christianity is counteracted by this folk tale. It must be negligible to begin with.
I was actually naive enough to think that a little historical context might help us to mutual understanding instead of demonising each other. Evidently I was wrong.
Try Poland then. Overwhelmingly Christian, deeply and institutionally homophobic. No sodomising pagan kings, as far as I remember from my history. I don't have to try very hard, you see, because your method of demonstrating that Christian societies were less homophobic was to point to two non-Christian, homophobic societies. Poland is hugely Christian, and worse than either of your examples.
Yes, Poland, a deeply Catholic country. You could also have pointed to Russia, or Romania, or Bulgaria, or Ukraine, or Lithuania, or Latvia, or Belorussia - countries with a strong Orthodox or Catholic tradition. Now, I wonder what those countries have in common? (Hint: Try thinking about a generation of officially atheist and homophobic rule under the Soviet Union).Interesting how now, after committing one yourself, you now have become aware of the dangers of cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies.
Where, now, is your contention that homophobia is less of a problem in Christian societies? Do you still feel like pursuing that? And will you attempt to argue that Christianity is the cause of this tolerance? As opposed to low levels of marijuana usage.
Yes, I think it is perfectly valid to see a general pattern in societies worldwide. If marijuana use can be shown to be generally more prevalent in Christian societies than non-Christian societies then, yes, I think it would be valid to assert a connection. To do so on the basis of one or two exceptions would, of course, be silly. For every Jamaica there is also a Cuba (hardly a bastion of Christianity).
And if there were no Christian churches then football supporters or drunken stag-nighters would no longer be homophobic and would gladly affirm your lifestyle? In your dreams!You and your Christian pals may be lovely, super-non-violent people, but the religion that merely convinces you that in having sex with my partner I damn myself to hell, convinces the footballers to beat up queers late at night, the solicitors and politicians to resist equality law reform, the accountant to drive his son to suicide. We're not arguing about the effects of your precious, refined and nuanced take on Christianity. We're arguing about the effects of Christianity as it exists in the big, bad world.
Actually that is not what I'm arguing. I think a Christian society would be an awful thing, because it causes people who are not really Christians to use Christianity in a nationalistic sense. I, as a Christian and a secularist, think Ireland is a much healthier society than in the days when it was dominated by the Church. What I am arguing is that societies with a long exposure to Christian values tend to be more tolerant in general. This is reflected by the increased tolerance of minorities - be they homosexuals, atheists or Jehovah's Witnesses, and by the earlier dates for abolition of slavery etc. when compared to other societies. Such tolerance is generally more pronounced in those countries where a plurality of churches have developed (Scandinavia, UK, USA etc) rather than where theological monopolies were enforced (Orthodox Serbia or Russia, Catholic Poland etc).You argue that a society that is Christian will be less homophobic. That is rubbish. I assume you mean to imply that Christianity causes these societies to be less homophobic. That is not only wrong, it is quite the wrong way around.
Even if you think the world revolves around you, surely you are aware that all the other people I mentioned also exist. People who commit heterosexual sin exist. Idolators exist. People who eat bacon sandwiches exist.The difference is the existence of homosexuals, PDN.
And you don't get to define what homophobia is either. Of course you can, like Humpty Dumpty, choose to make words mean whatever you like - but for most of us homophobia is about hate and fear (the 'phobia' bit is a little clue). It will be interesting if we allow you to redefine other words in a similar way.You don't get to define what homophobia is. We will not accept from you such faux-naif as would require you to argue that fear, qua phobia is necessarily a part of homophobia, or indeed hate, per se. Put simply - yours is a club. Your club says that if you're a practising homosexual, you can't join. That's homophobic. The damage your club does to the lives of gay people in the world at large - this you can disavow all you like - it's quite beside the point.
Arachnophobe - Someone who doesn't think carrying spiders down his trousers is a good idea, but has no fear whatsoever of spiders.
Claustrophobe - Someone who doesn't want to live in an enclosed space, but has no fear of such enclosed spaces.
There are lots of people who can't join my club. You can't join my club if you believe Mohammed is God's only prophet. You can't join my club if you drink to excess. You can't join my club if you are a racist. You can't join my club if you are sleeping with your girlfriend outside of marriage. You can't join my club if you like praying to statues of Krishna. You can't join my club if you are a Freemason or a member of the Orange Order. I guess that means I'm full of hatred and fear towards those who do all that stuff as well? How mean of me!0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Indeed. The important thing about PDN's d) group is not that they are Christians. If it were, he would just have said that: "The other 49 passengers are devout Christians". But, of course, they're not just devout Christians. They're devout Christians who attend a study group. In fact, they're more than that - they're PDN and his friends.
Firstly, a train full of devout Christians could very well be a terrifying prospect, and could certainly place my life in danger in this scenario. Secondly, any group of people coming back from a study group, of whatever kind, would be unlikely to turn suddenly murderous. A physics seminar, a history lecture, a poetry reading. Anything, really, but a public reading of Mein Kampf or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Christianity plus meek intellectual equals PDN - no danger to gays anywhere (except in the ways he is). Christianity plus anyone with a violent temperament equals someone with a violent temperament and a slightly increased tendency to be violent towards queers.
No, I never said they were me and my friends. (The last time I was on a train I was part of the group of football supporters ).
It could be our youth coming home from a U2 concert, or a bunch of Baptists who have been 10-pin bowling together, or even a Church-based rugby team who have been playing in an iner-church league. The only danger you would be in is that they might try to convert you by telling you how much God loves you, which might be extremely annoying but hardly qualifies as persecution.
iUsevi used to belong to a Christian church, I believe. Maybe he could think back to his pre-atheist and enlighten us as to how many of his fellow-congregants used to go out queer-bashing on the nights that nothing was happening at church? He's got no pro-Christian agenda to push - so I'm sure we can trust him to answer honestly.0 -
"they make no attempt to restrict the rights"? :eek:because a Christian sees homosexual acts as immoral and therefore incompatible with practising Christianity, they are labelled 'homophobe' - even when they make no attempt to restrict the rights of non-Christians to practice said behaviour.
It's one thing to interpret the bible to make it into the book you wish it was. It's quite another to airbrush two millennia of what is politely termed institutionalized prejudice.
Like wolfsbane's recent comments on the EU invading Russia, I really have no idea how to respond to such a bizarre posting.0 -
"they make no attempt to restrict the rights"? :eek:
It's one thing to interpret the bible to make it into the book you wish it was. It's quite another to airbrush two millennia of what is politely termed institutionalized prejudice.
Like wolfsbane's recent comments on the EU invading Russia, I really have no idea how to respond to such a bizarre posting.
Save us the history lesson about two millennia, my quote was in the present tense. http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verb-tenses_present.htm
For example, I would staunchly defend Sapien's right to sleep with whatever consenting adult he chooses. I don't have to agree with his actions in order to defend his rights. Equally, even though Sapien may disagree with my religion, I hope he would defend my right to practice my religion.
So, Robin, convince me why I should accept the term 'homophobe' being applied to me just because I am a Christian and see certain behaviours as incompatible with biblical Christianity.0 -
I think you find they do. I've long put forward the idea that something like the Christian preoccupation with forbidding sexual relations outside of the strict framework of the religion is down to a mixtures of emotions, such as fear, towards of sex.
And I seem to remember that not going down to well
Er, what exactly is the connection between idolatry and sexual relations? 0 -
Not to me, friend. Got any evidence?Fair enough. However, I still think that you will find that tolerance towards homosexuals is, on average, much better in countries with a long exposure to Christian values than in those without such exposure. Of course there are exceptions - but the overall pattern is clear.
Meanwhile indeed. By official atheist regime, I take it you mean communist regimes. You can't possibly expect that hackneyed sleight of history to fly, PDN. Totalitarian regimes have not been known for tolerance. It would be a fascinating stretch of logic that would connect the irreligiousness of communist regimes to their intolerance of sexual diversity. Unlike, say, the aspects these totalitarian regimes share with religion. There might be something to that.Meanwhile, would you like to point out one officially atheist regime that has not been homophobic?So, history that doesn't fit in with your worldview becomes a folk-tale? This feels like the time I foolishly tried to have a conversation with some Turks about the Armenian genocide. If you want you can read the names of those who were mutilated, castrated and executed in this 'folk tale' http://www.buganda.com/martyrs.htm
I was actually naive enough to think that a little historical context might help us to mutual understanding instead of demonising each other. Evidently I was wrong.
So the homophobia-diminishing property of Christianity is counteracted by this [historical event]? How strong can it be then?
The hint wasn't particularly necessary - I could see that coming. Tell me how you imagine the atheism in the Soviet Union might be responsible for homophobia in these countries. When positing a causality between Christianity and homophobia, for example, I can point to the Bible; the fact that for generations religious leaders have condemned homophobia, often inciting religionists to violence; how in the past few years priests have personally lead violent anti-gay demonstrations - things like that. Now - how has Soviet atheism caused homophobia, or is this just another feeble cum hoc, ergo propter hoc blunder?Yes, Poland, a deeply Catholic country. You could also have pointed to Russia, or Romania, or Bulgaria, or Ukraine, or Lithuania, or Latvia, or Belorussia - countries with a strong Orthodox or Catholic tradition. Now, I wonder what those countries have in common? (Hint: Try thinking about a generation of officially atheist and homophobic rule under the Soviet Union).
Are you trying to be funny, or have you forgotten your own point about attributing Jamaican homophobia to marijuana? Or have you failed to understand that it works both ways? There is no evidence that Christian societies are less homophobic. If there were, there would be no reason to believe that Christianity were the cause - because there are, generally, a great many other things that unify these countries aside from Christianity, and because Christianity can be seen very clearly to contribute to homophobia. On the former point, you will see, no doubt, that this societal tolerance of homosexuality is a feature of Western Europe, America, Australia, and so on, while virulently Christian countries in Africa, South America, Asia are hellishly homophobic. Why? Because it's not about Christianity, it's about Western Civilsation and European Enligtenment.Yes, I think it is perfectly valid to see a general pattern in societies worldwide. If marijuana use can be shown to be generally more prevalent in Christian societies than non-Christian societies then, yes, I think it would be valid to assert a connection. To do so on the basis of one or two exceptions would, of course, be silly. For every Jamaica there is also a Cuba (hardly a bastion of Christianity).
Without their hierophants condemning us as sinners and deviants from the pulpits - of course, eventually. Society hasn't had a chance to shrug off the influence of Christianity - there is no reason to believe it is a fundamental characteristic. Indeed, there have been many societies throughout history that have been neutral, even positive about homosexuality. If force A is feeding homophobia in society, and force A is removed, then homophobia in society will decrease. Not rocket science.And if there were no Christian churches then football supporters or drunken stag-nighters would no longer be homophobic and would gladly affirm your lifestyle? In your dreams!
Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc. In fact, even worse. Inferring causality when the reverse effect is evident and measurable.What I am arguing is that societies with a long exposure to Christian values tend to be more tolerant in general. This is reflected by the increased tolerance of minorities - be they homosexuals, atheists or Jehovah's Witnesses, and by the earlier dates for abolition of slavery etc. when compared to other societies. Such tolerance is generally more pronounced in those countries where a plurality of churches have developed (Scandinavia, UK, USA etc) rather than where theological monopolies were enforced (Orthodox Serbia or Russia, Catholic Poland etc).
If you really don't get my point, I have overestimated you, and there is very little purpose in my pursuing this discussion.Even if you think the world revolves around you, surely you are aware that all the other people I mentioned also exist. People who commit heterosexual sin exist. Idolators exist. People who eat bacon sandwiches exist.
Indeed I don't. Happily, though, I use the word properly - as it is used internationally by professional and academic bodies. You can rejig the terminology as much as you like to avoid implication, but the fact is there is a word for people like you - who think practising homosexuality is evil and won't let those who do into your club - and it's homophobe. Sorry.And you don't get to define what homophobia is either.
No. Most of that is perfectly sensible and obvious. Disallowing people into your club because they have sex with others of the same sex, though, isn't sensible, and it's homophobic. If that's an intrinsic part of your club, your club is intrinsically homophobic.There are lots of people who can't join my club. You can't join my club if you believe Mohammed is God's only prophet. You can't join my club if you drink to excess. You can't join my club if you are a racist. You can't join my club if you are sleeping with your girlfriend outside of marriage. You can't join my club if you like praying to statues of Krishna. You can't join my club if you are a Freemason or a member of the Orange Order. I guess that means I'm full of hatred and fear towards those who do all that stuff as well? How mean of me!
Really - just get used to it. I can't see what the problem is. You know what you believe, and it's only a word.
Not really. It would be stupid to say that atheists are homophobic, because the only thing that unifies atheists is that they don't believe in a god. Aside from that, they may have nothing in common - no common beliefs. Christians, however, necessarily have a lot in common, not least reverence of a book that condemns homosexuality as evil, and, once or twice, hints that homosexuals should probably be killed.Yes, as stupid as accusing Christians of being homophobic per se.
I know you didn't. I'm saying it. You don't seem to realise it.No, I never said they were me and my friends.
Once again - not any Christians, but your friends or people just like them. Wake up, PDN.It could be our youth coming home from a U2 concert, or a bunch of Baptists who have been 10-pin bowling together, or even a Church-based rugby team who have been playing in an iner-church league. The only danger you would be in is that they might try to convert you by telling you how much God loves you, which might be extremely annoying but hardly qualifies as persecution.
Because you believe that homosexual sex is wrong. Presumably that people who act on their homosexuality are morally inferior. That's quite enough. Sorry - your religion isn't an excuse. You are to be judged on your beliefs, whatever their provenance, and they show you to be homophobic.So, Robin, convince me why I should accept the term 'homophobe' being applied to me just because I am a Christian and see certain behaviours as incompatible with biblical Christianity.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Could you phrase it in your own words, so that I know what you mean?Fanny Cradock wrote: »Eh, the part I quoted0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Er, what exactly is the connection between idolatry and sexual relations?
Well your parents should really have explained this to you, but when a man and a brazen image of a false god really love each other, and have taken the time to get to know each other, and are in a committed relationship based on love and respect, they have a special hug they do .... :pac:
I was actually referring to the fornication part of your post. Since we had a long discussion about the difference between adultery and idolatry and the joys of my dyslexia only a few months ago I wasn't going to make that mistake twice 0
Advertisement