Jump to content
  • entries
    17
  • comments
    245
  • views
    20,550

Several thoughts on thoughts on homosexuality


jerdge

304 views

 Share

In response to Kalasin's "Couple of thoughts on homosexuality".

[...] every human being is ultimately [...] equally loved by God

[...]

everyone is equally filthy in God’s sight

God loves filth then?

Jokes aside, as a former earnest catholic and religion teacher which eventually lost interest in religion, I consider Kalasin's blog entry very respectable in its intent - indeed we need to make distinctions among the very wide spectrum of "anti-homosexuality" groups - and ultimately very silly on a number of points.

Unless one is given the bible from god her/himself I don't know how the text can be considered infallible, if (at the same time) the people that originally told/wrote it and those that later passed it on/translated it are all considered fallible.

Why men and women's partnership would be "best suited" to raise children? Heterosexual couples that can't have/adopt children are in any way less "worth" because of that? Do children need a men and a woman to be raised? Are widows "lesser" parents? Why not have families with a man and several women? In many societies they think that that's good... Why not 2 females and 3 males, for that matter? What sex has to do with raising children, anyway? Unless one thinks that parents should have sex with their sons/daughters I don't see how the sexual orientation of parents has any relevance with their capability to raise children.

Why is this world "fallen"? Where did it fall from?

What is a "distortion in nature"? Who decides what is "natural and rightful" and what is "natural but distorted"? How does s/he decide that, and what do they base their authority upon, anyway?

If "natural" is "good" (it isn't IMO) it has to always be good; if it's good only when it's good for other reasons then it isn't really good; isn't the "natural and rightful" label just an attempt to exploit the (undeserved) positive connotation of "natural" to support one's own convictions?

If an almighty creator intended us to live in some other way, how comes that we're living in this one? Isn't s/he the creator? Isn't s/he almighty? (Sure, our freedom musts be respected to the point that we're free to be bombed, or to be interned in extermination camps, or to be raped as part of ethnic cleansing...)

Sexual diseases did not come about and are not rising because of the "sexual revolution" of the twentieth century. Sexual diseases were much more common in the previous centuries, and AIDS's rise is especially explosive in Africa, anyway, in most of which the very concept of "sexual revolution" is probably not even known (especially in those parts of society - the poor ones - where AIDS's rise is most prominent). The idea that people didn't have promiscuous sex before the "sexual revolution" is of course wrong: what the sex revolution changed is that (some) people started to believe that they shouldn't need to hide their sexual activity. Homosexuality, by the way, "always" existed, it's not a XX century "byproduct".

I have no idea about the rate of sexual diseases among homos compared to heteros. The spread of diseases among a population with a certain condition is anyway certainly not a good criterion to decide over the "morality"/rightfulness of that condition, otherwise we'd have to conclude that being a child, or an elder, is wrong. Countless other examples could be made.

Christians should love sinners, at least for the very good reason that otherwise they couldn't love anybody, but christians (and most other religious people, to be fair) should also stop applying the concept of "sin" to other people. Everybody needs to understand that it's disrespectful to call "sinners" those that disagree with their (often highly minority and narrow) personal beliefs over aspects of life that don't affect/harm the rest of society. "Tolerance" is often just another way - albeit a benevolent one - to look down upon someone.

Kalasin, as a former churchy myself I fully understand your position. I invite you to embrace the revelation that your personal judgment is literally the only compass you have to tell right from wrong - it's the only validation you have for your belief that the bible is infallible, for instance - thus you can live better (more rightfully) and more honestly (nearer to the truth) if you just become transparent about it. Following someone else's beliefs is not only silly, but impossible.

You can be right/wrong much better by your own, and in fact you can't do anything else.

 Share

12 Comments


Recommended Comments

I was in the process of writing some of this in the comments and then realized I should check here first <_<

Bottom line: Kalasin's arguments are based on vague impressions/feelings (rather than data), as well as a conflation of (subjectively) "not optimal" and "morally wrong."

Link to comment

"God loves filth then?"

Yes. That is the Gospel.

It's very easy to reduce Christianity to nothing more than certain passages, virgin conceptions and wild serpents. I do think only idiots do it though, then again that's most people on here these days.

Link to comment

This blog needs some snarky post about Catholics not knowing what's in the Bible but as a former Catholic I probably shouldn't be saying anything on that front. :awesome:

Christians should love sinners, at least for the very good reason that otherwise they couldn't love anybody, but christians (and most other religious people, to be fair) should also stop applying the concept of "sin" to other people. Everybody needs to understand that it's disrespectful to call "sinners" those that disagree with their (often highly minority and narrow) personal beliefs over aspects of life that don't affect/harm the rest of society. "Tolerance" is often just another way - albeit a benevolent one - to look down upon someone.

So jerge, how do you define sinners? Your first sentence there seems to say that everyone is a sinner. But then you go on to say that you shouldn't "apply the concept of 'sin' to other people". So were you wrong in your first sentence? Because that's definitely "applying the concept of 'sin' to other people" - you are applying it to everyone!

Link to comment

Jefferson - I think he means no one is without sin, so no one should be calling anyone a sinner. "Let he who is without sin caste the first stone," "Why remove the speck from your bother's eye when you have a log in yours" etc.

Link to comment

It's very easy to reduce Christianity to nothing more than certain passages, virgin conceptions and wild serpents. I do think only idiots do it though, then again that's most people on here these days.

Christianity is, of course, complex. That being said, the ultimate foundation of the Gospel, or the "Good News", is that despite the total depravity of man, God loves us.

Link to comment

Christianity is, of course, complex. That being said, the ultimate foundation of the Gospel, or the "Good News", is that despite the total depravity of man, God loves us.

I know. I remember being told that even though we're literally made out of dirt and even though we look at ourselves and the more we look at us and people in general we find we're hideous and in many instances act as if though we are lower than animals, but to God we're so beautiful.

Link to comment
So jerge, how do you define sinners? Your first sentence there seems to say that everyone is a sinner. But then you go on to say that you shouldn't "apply the concept of 'sin' to other people". So were you wrong in your first sentence? Because that's definitely "applying the concept of 'sin' to other people" - you are applying it to everyone!

I don't think that the concept of sin, or of "moral guilt" for that matter, has any usefulness whatsoever.

I should have just written "Christians should love whom they think are sinners". My sentences are already convoluted enough, though...

Link to comment

Anybody ever consider that while the bible itself says "Homosexuality is bad" it never qoutes Jesus Christ(Which is the only supposedly solid link to God's will when it comes down to it,everything else is just some guy saying God spoke to or through him) as stating that its wrong/bad/sinful.

Link to comment

I don't think that the concept of sin, or of "moral guilt" for that matter, has any usefulness whatsoever.

I should have just written "Christians should love whom they think are sinners". My sentences are already convoluted enough, though...

Uhhhh, what? Moral guilt has IMMENSE value to it. Namely, we can sanction activities that we don't condone. Like having sex with 5 year olds

Link to comment
Uhhhh, what? Moral guilt has IMMENSE value to it. Namely, we can sanction activities that we don't condone. Like having sex with 5 year olds

If you sanction it it means that it's a legal "guilt". It's entirely different.

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   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.

×
×
  • Create New...