Supporting equal rights for gays

Castiel said:
Not the literal word of God....it is inspired by God or more specifically the authors were inspired by the holy spirit. Therefore the books of the bible are not infallible in any way other than expressing the Christian God's vision.....it is not and is not considered so by mainstream Christianity to be the dictated Word of God.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you've said in the same sentence that something that is inspired by God is not infallible... :confused: I didn't say it was considered to be the "dictated" Word of God, but as far as Catholics and Orthodox are concerned it's considered equally His authorship as well as that of the humans concerned.

Are we just saying the same thing now...?
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
Not the literal word of God....it is inspired by God or more specifically the authors were inspired by the holy spirit. Therefore the books of the bible are not infallible in any way other than expressing the Christian God's vision.....it is not and is not considered so by mainstream Christianity to be the dictated Word of God.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you've said in the same sentence that something that is inspired by God is not infallible... :confused: I didn't say it was considered to be the "dictated" Word of God, but as far as Catholics and Orthodox are concerned it's considered equally His authorship as well as that of the humans concerned.

Are we just saying the same things now...?
 
I can't believe people are having an argument here. You might as well have an argument about what happened in the Night Garden.
 
There a few really rather brilliant people who post in GD and then there are the rest.

When it gets onto this type of discussion - and it frequently does, why don't these posts get moved to SS? - everyone ends up looking a bit simple.

There is nothing - NOTHING - that anyone can say to sway the other person. It's not debate, it's rhetoric.
 
stefk005 said:
Yes, but you've said in the same sentence that something that is inspired by God is not infallible... :confused: I didn't say it was considered to be the "dictated" Word of God, but as far as Catholics and Orthodox are concerned it's considered equally His authorship as well as that of the humans concerned.

Are we just saying the same things now...?
Click to expand...

The Bible itself is not considered to be infallible, I am not refering to Biblical Infallibility which refers specifically to matters of Faith and Christian Practice ....while some Christians believe that the Bible is in fact literally inerrant, as in totally error-free and literally infallible in their entirety.....Conservative Christians like the woman in the video profess that the KJV for example is inerrant and infallible, however that is not the commonly held position in mainstream Christianity which only refers to the original scripture in that way, and not subsequent translations or reproductions thereof.

Mozely wrote that ".....the Bible is inspired because it is the adequate and indispensible vehicle of revelation; but inspiration does not amount to dictation by God.".....

What I am (in my inebriated state) trying to explain is that many people, such as the woman in the video and many people who criticise Christianity on this forum believe that the Bible isn't just the Word of God, but that every single word, inflection and literal meaning is the direct and immediate Word of God.....which is something different to modern mainstream belief whereas it is only in matters of Faith, Morals and the criteria for Salvation that are inerrant and to historical inerrancy whereas the definition was not inextricably linked to infallibility and literalism as modern conservative evangelicals do today......and it is also somewhat different to Biblical Literalism, which is self explanatory.

David Bennett explains:

"The early Fathers held that the Bible was inerrant. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches affirm this as well. However, this is the case only when the Bible is properly understood, interpreted by the Church. This is inerrancy by ancient standards and not modern, fundamentalist standards. The early Fathers did not think that minor contradictions rendered the Bible errant, nor did they insist all stories were meant to be interpreted literally. For instance, the creation stories were often allegorized, interpreted in ways so as to prefigure Christ, or interpreted through the lens of the science of the day (or all three!). Thus St. Augustine could say each day in the Genesis creation story was equal to a thousand years, or that the science of the day should shape our understanding of the creation stories, without ever denying the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. So when a Catholic affirms the inerrancy of Scripture, the idea has far less baggage than the fundamentalist understanding."
Click to expand...

There is some debate within Catholicism between infallibility and inerrancy and Dei Verbum and how it should be interpreted and whether the Catholic Church teaches one or the other.....but I'm a little too tipsy to go into more detail over the merits or demerits of each position.

Basically though, I was pointing out what you and mainstream Christianity such as Catholicism refer to as the Word of God and what many critics and Conservatives call the Word of God do not necessarily share the same definition.
 
Last edited:
stefk005 said:
As above, but again, your point is based on what evidence? I'm not asking for you to do any research - I'm pointing out the lack of research. I don't see how assuming that a child's upbringing has absolutely no bearing on their sexual behaviour is nonsensical. "Nurture" does account for something, as well as "nature." I'm certainly not claiming any expertise in this area- on the contrary, I'm genuinely interested in what the evidence has to show; but you're simply giving me opinions.
Click to expand...

Personally I would have rather had gay parents that didn't abuse and beat me than the ones I was lumbered with tbh.......I highly doubt that having Gay Parents would have made me gay, otherwise by that logic, I would have been a drunken, drug addled, child beating psychopath.....

I like girls because I like girls......it had nothing to do with the various sexual preferences of the people tasked with my upbringing...
 
stefk005 said:
I absolutely didn't say I thought that, so no words in mouth please :)
Click to expand...

The smiley did denote I wasn't being entirely serious...

stefk005 said:
All available evidence isn't much, considering what I've already pointed out. What bearing you think it may have on their sexuality is therefore as valid as mine.
Click to expand...

The studies that have been done have shown no harm. When you place that against the amount of evidence for the contrary (i.e none) then why would you be against it?

I would say that my views on sexuality are indeed more valid than yours because despite the fact that the vast majority of homosexual children had heterosexual upbringings it didn't stop them from being homoexual. I guess it comes down to whether you believe homosexuality is a choice or not. Personally I never conciously choose to fancy women, it just happened, none of the gay people I know choose to fancy men, it just happens.
 
Castiel said:
The Bible itself is not considered to be infallible, I am not refering to Biblical Infallibility which refers specifically to matters of Faith and Christian Practice ....

...[and everything else]...

Basically though, I was pointing out what you and mainstream Christianity such as Catholicism refer to as the Word of God and what many critics and Conservatives call the Word of God do not necessarily share the same definition.
Click to expand...

So yes, we were basically saying the same thing (before you extrapolated so lucidly despite your inebriated state) ;) I only made the comment about divine inspiration and infallibility because it struck me as slightly funny in my tired state... :)

Castiel said:
Personally I would have rather had gay parents that didn't abuse and beat me than the ones I was lumbered with tbh.......I highly doubt that having Gay Parents would have made me gay, otherwise by that logic, I would have been a drunken, drug addled, child beating psychopath.....

I like girls because I like girls......it had nothing to do with the various sexual preferences of the people tasked with my upbringing...
Click to expand...

Fair enough; but equally the fact of parents being drunken and drug-addled is not going to have the same effect on their child's attitude towards those things as will the relational norm that they are presented with. I don't believe that's a valid comparison.

RDM said:
The smiley did denote I wasn't being entirely serious...
Click to expand...

Sorry, I missed it it :eek:

RDM said:
The studies that have been done have shown no harm. When you place that against the amount of evidence for the contrary (i.e none) then why would you be against it?

I would say that my views on sexuality are indeed more valid than yours because despite the fact that the vast majority of homosexual children had heterosexual upbringings it didn't stop them from being homoexual. I guess it comes down to whether you believe homosexuality is a choice or not. Personally I never conciously choose to fancy women, it just happened, none of the gay people I know choose to fancy men, it just happens.
Click to expand...

I probably didn't express myself well. I do completely agree - and know from my own experience - that a lot of people who turn out to have a homosexual orientation are brought up by heterosexual parents, and all the rest of it. I wasn't arguing that. What I was very conscious of, however, was my own experience in schools where amongst certain groups of students (and sometimes encouraged by teachers) highly "camp" cliques have formed, and guys who had in the past demonstrated heterosexual tendencies - and indeed might at some level be still attracted to girls - ended up "coming out" for a homosexual preference. I do not believe that those cases were necessarily their natural orientation at all. I realise that that's a particular case, but it illustrates to me the influence or power of nurture and of that in their own psychological formation.
 
stefk005 said:
Sorry, I missed it it :eek:
Click to expand...

It's OK, I'll let you off.

stefk005 said:
I probably didn't express myself well. I do completely agree - and know from my own experience - that a lot of people who turn out to have a homosexual orientation are brought up by heterosexual parents, and all the rest of it. I wasn't arguing that. What I was very conscious of, however, was my own experience in schools where amongst certain groups of students (and sometimes encouraged by teachers) highly "camp" cliques have formed, and guys who had in the past demonstrated heterosexual tendencies - and indeed might at some level be still attracted to girls - ended up "coming out" for a homosexual preference. I do not believe that those cases were necessarily their natural orientation at all. I realise that that's a particular case, but it illustrates to me the influence or power of nurture and of that in their own psychological formation.
Click to expand...

Alternatively the fact that the person was in a zero pressure environment meant that they now felt able to finally come out? Without knowing them before I couldn't say either way but all I can say is that by knowing and interacting with gay people I have had absolutely zero desires in that direction.

This is still getting away from the point that gay adoption has zero evidence to suggest it is harmful so I would be very wary about making some form of scientific argument against it. By all means be religiously opposed by don't try and back that religious opposition up with spurious claims, just accept your religion is bigoted (this may or may not apply to you as I do not know your religious affliations, if any).

Not to mention that gay adoption is already happening and is not in any way related to the ability of gay people to get married.
 
stefk005 said:
I probably didn't express myself well. I do completely agree - and know from my own experience - that a lot of people who turn out to have a homosexual orientation are brought up by heterosexual parents, and all the rest of it. I wasn't arguing that. What I was very conscious of, however, was my own experience in schools where amongst certain groups of students (and sometimes encouraged by teachers) highly "camp" cliques have formed, and guys who had in the past demonstrated heterosexual tendencies - and indeed might at some level be still attracted to girls - ended up "coming out" for a homosexual preference. I do not believe that those cases were necessarily their natural orientation at all. I realise that that's a particular case, but it illustrates to me the influence or power of nurture and of that in their own psychological formation.
Click to expand...

So if we allow for the sake of argument that these guys of your acquaintance were going against their natural preference (for females) because of their environment then would it not be logical to assume that it is possible that others who are naturally attracted to men will be "persuaded" by their environment that they must find females attractive? If that is the case then do we not owe it to them to present them with a balanced representation of human sexuality so that they can make an informed choice?

I'm not convinced that it is a conscious choice or indeed that it's a binary choice, I would imagine it to be closer to a spectrum with some people strongly attracted to men, some strongly attracted to women and the rest somewhere along the scale* with what gender the person themself is being almost incidental to how attractive they find someone.

*apart from those who are not sexually attracted to men or women, it's rarer but it seems that it does happen.
 
stefk005 said:
As above, but again, your point is based on what evidence? I'm not asking for you to do any research - I'm pointing out the lack of research. I don't see how assuming that a child's upbringing has absolutely no bearing on their sexual behaviour is nonsensical. "Nurture" does account for something, as well as "nature." I'm certainly not claiming any expertise in this area- on the contrary, I'm genuinely interested in what the evidence has to show; but you're simply giving me opinions.
Click to expand...
This page has plenty of references to research in this area; http://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx
Although I have to wonder how interested you really are if you haven't already found them.
 
I am not going to add anything to this discussion, but I am dumbfounded by what that women and her preacher are advocating. She is a Nazi in sheeps clothing.
 
starfighter said:
Gays dont get to have sex normally nor will they have children. Being gay isn't being good. They will be less happy.

I am against it.
Click to expand...

I dunno I'm typically more happy when I'm allowed to have errr "not normal" sex :o

By the limited options available to gays it's no wonder they all seem so happy. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom