Atlanta Fire Chief - fired for being Christian.

[Starlight]

So you're saying that these "sincere" Christians ignore passages like this:
Leviticus 18:22, "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

Most sincere Christians do not consider Levitical laws binding today. They would typically be no more worried about ignoring that law than they would be about ignore the law not to wear clothing made of two kinds of fabric.

And what about:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Most sincere Christians today would be extremely reluctant to claim that drunkards are going to hell or that greedy people are. A lot of sincere Christians on the religious right even seem utterly convinced that greed is a virtue and that it is essential in capitalism - which they perceive to be virtually a god-given system of economics.

Or is their reading of scripture conveniently inconsistent? On what basis do they pluck a single offense out of long lists of sins in the Old and New Testaments and decide, "Oh, I'm sure God really didn't mean that one." Or is the process entirely arbitrary?

People who don't hold to inerrancy don't believe that the bible is 100% consistent on ever single issue. Therefore they know that for the sake of consistency they do have to occasionally ignore small bits of the bible, in order to iron out the inconsistencies. The process is usually done through them focusing on what the primary and main ideas of the bible are and then reading other verses in a way that is consistent with the primary teachings of the bible.

Sorry, but there is no cultural component such as for commands that a woman cover her head that will allow you to claim that homosexually is only prohibited in a certain cultural context.

Homosexuality has been practiced in very different ways in different cultures. Your assertion that there's nothing cultural about it seems wrong.

An obvious example would be that the type of homosexuality dominant in Roman culture was pederasty. Today that's illegal, and the form of homosexuality allowed in our culture is between consenting adults only. So a lot of Christians approach the topic by saying "of course Paul objected to the pederasty of his time! Pederasty's wrong! But Paul didn't have in mind the idea of monogamous relationships between consenting adults like we have in our culture because they weren't much of a thing in his time, so his condemnation of homosexuality was cultural."

[RumTumTugger]

So have promiscuity and adultery, but no one is amending State Constitutions in order to make such things illegal.

no one is trying to normalize them either are they.

[Starlight]

lilpixieofterror,

Either produce even the least shred of evidence that ex-gay "relapse" is at all in any way a thing, or shut up.

And I agree that if treatments don't work we should not use them. I personally suffer from depression and have never bothered to seek treatment for it because I know there's no decent treatment for it. I am also regularly amazed when people take organisations like Alcoholics Anonymous seriously when it is so well-documented that their methods don't work.

[RumTumTugger]

Any attempts to actually make homosexuality illegal would be futile because of Lawrence v. Texas, but I do see what you're saying.

yeah unfortunetly boxing Pythagoris has listened to those who are misrepresenting what it going on with the protection of marriage acts We aren't trying to make same sex unions illegal just not wanting them to be called what they aren't.

[lilpixieofterror]

lilpixieofterror,

Either produce even the least shred of evidence that ex-gay "relapse" is at all in any way a thing, or shut up.

Awww, poor and frustrated, fundy atheist. So unable to refute a word I said, that he needs to keep screaming that I produce evidence for things, that he wants to hear, because he's too stupid to refute anything I said. Now, he's reached a new step, just say, "WAAA!!! I DON'T LIKE THAT TERM!" and hope that your argument stick, eh? Sorry, NotStarBright, but how else would you define somebody who claims to be ex gay, but ends up going right back into it? Do you even know what relapse means? Enjoy digging your own grave, I'm more than happy to throw the dirt right on top of you.

And I agree that if treatments don't work we should not use them. I personally suffer from depression and have never bothered to seek treatment for it because I know there's no decent treatment for it. I am also regularly amazed when people take organisations like Alcoholics Anonymous seriously when it is so well-documented that their methods don't work.

Therefore, we should stop trying to seek treatments and cures for depression, alcoholism, or drug abuse because we have failed to find any real effective treatment, for any of these conditions (note I said treatment, not cure, I do know the difference between treatment and cure, you might want to learn the difference yourself). Thanks for admitting it. So how long will it be, until you denounce the entire mental health industry as being useless?

[Starlight]

how else would you define somebody who claims to be ex gay, but ends up going right back into it?

It depends if they were telling the truth or not when they claimed to be ex-gay. If they were, then they've relapsed. If they weren't, then they're a liar.

In 100% of the cases I've ever heard of this happening in, the person later admitted that they lied. I have heard of zero cases where a person has ever claimed that the ex-gay therapy initially worked and initially did indeed successfully make them attracted solely to people of the opposite sex but that some years later they relapsed. I am not aware of that ever ever happening. I have never ever seen it mentioned except by you.

Enjoy digging your own grave, I'm more than happy to throw the dirt right on top of you.

Has anyone ever pointed out to you that you say a lot of nasty things?

So how long will it be, until you denounce the entire mental health industry as being useless?

I would say "not great" rather than "useless". A small number of conditions are very treatable.

[lilpixieofterror]

It depends if they were telling the truth or not when they claimed to be ex-gay. If they were, then they've relapsed. If they weren't, then they're a liar.

You're the one that said we could trust what people usually say, don't you remember your own words where you said we could trust what people said? You should have just said that we can only trust what people say, when they agree with you, but they are all liars, when they disagree with what you say. So when I can trust what people say and can't trust when they say? Do I just need to check with you, when they say things to be sure how much you agree with their claims or not?

In 100% of the cases I'm ever heard of this happening in, the person later admitted that they lied. I have heard of zero cases where a person has ever claimed that the ex-gay therapy initially worked and initially did indeed successfully make them attracted solely to people of the opposite sex but that some years later they relapsed. I am not aware of that ever ever happening. I have never ever seen it mentioned except by you.

Reread your underlined phrase, that you've ever heard, key term. You don't have any evidence, at all, that 100% of every last person, who ever claimed 'not to be gay' were lying. Do you have any evidence that all of them are lying or do I only need to trust people, as long as they agree with what you say they should, but I should automatically not trust them, when they disagree with you? Shall I send you what other people claim, so they can get the Starlight Stamp of Approval^TM before I should believe a word they said?

Has anyone ever pointed out to you that you say a lot of nasty things?

Nastiness, gets returned with nastiness. You're the one that accused a brave man, of basically lying about his story about being pushed to depression and even the brink of suicide, by people bullying Christians. If you're going to be nasty to others, don't be surprised when they are nasty to you, in return. I don't take kindly to people acting the way you did there, so I am returning your nasty attitude right back to you. When you give him an apology, for your insensitive and hateful remarks, I will consider returning the favor back to you.

I would say "not great" rather than "useless". A small number of conditions are very treatable.

You said, several times, things like:

"The vast majority of participants outright admit on the completion of such programs that they are not cured."

Do you really think that I don't know the difference between a treatable and curable condition? I do know the difference, between the two and I do know that 'results will vary' is common among the 'treatable' conditions category. I'm not stupid, so you should really stop thinking I am, for daring to disagree with you. I know my terminology, treatable is not the same as curable, so stop trying to use 'curable' for something that should be instead 'treatable'.

[Christianbookworm]

I'm thinking starlight is a fundy atheist troll. Proove me right or prove me wrong.

[Mountain Man]

Most sincere Christians do not consider Levitical laws binding today. They would typically be no more worried about ignoring that law than they would be about ignore the law not to wear clothing made of two kinds of fabric.

Most sincere Christians today would be extremely reluctant to claim that drunkards are going to hell or that greedy people are. A lot of sincere Christians on the religious right even seem utterly convinced that greed is a virtue and that it is essential in capitalism - which they perceive to be virtually a god-given system of economics.

People who don't hold to inerrancy don't believe that the bible is 100% consistent on ever single issue. Therefore they know that for the sake of consistency they do have to occasionally ignore small bits of the bible, in order to iron out the inconsistencies. The process is usually done through them focusing on what the primary and main ideas of the bible are and then reading other verses in a way that is consistent with the primary teachings of the bible.

Homosexuality has been practiced in very different ways in different cultures. Your assertion that there's nothing cultural about it seems wrong.

An obvious example would be that the type of homosexuality dominant in Roman culture was pederasty. Today that's illegal, and the form of homosexuality allowed in our culture is between consenting adults only. So a lot of Christians approach the topic by saying "of course Paul objected to the pederasty of his time! Pederasty's wrong! But Paul didn't have in mind the idea of monogamous relationships between consenting adults like we have in our culture because they weren't much of a thing in his time, so his condemnation of homosexuality was cultural."

As I explained earlier, prohibitions against homosexuality are moral laws, not levitical laws. Moral laws are still binding today.

Now you're telling me that supposedly "sincere" Christians don't trust their own Bible when it says that drunkards and the greedy will not inherit the Kingdom of God? What about adulterers, swindlers, and idolaters? Do these "sincere" Christians call God a liar and give those sinners a free pass as well? Why not? As long as they're handing out free passes to the pearly gates may as well include everybody, even satan himself.

Nowhere does scripture nuance its prohibitions against homosexuality. Leviticus 18 and 1 Corinthians 6 both use the same language, respectively, "Do not have sex with a man like you would a woman; that is detestable" and "men who have sex with men [...] will not inherit the kingdom of God". There's no reasonable way those passages can be read that would make homosexuality acceptable in any context.

You say that those who don't hold to inerrancy "have to occasionally ignore small bits of the bible, in order to iron out the inconsistencies", but on this issue there is no inconsistency! The Old and New Testaments are in 100%, unwavering, unequivocal agreement: homosexuality is a sin and detestable to God. This isn't about "ironing out inconsistencies" but flat-out ignoring clear Biblical commands.

(Besides, this isn't about inerrancy, a topic I doubt you have even a rudimentary grasp of. What you're really saying is that these supposedly "sincere" Christians don't even believe the Bible was divinely inspired. In which case, why do they even claim to be Christians?)

[Mountain Man]

I'm thinking starlight is a fundy atheist troll. Proove me right or prove me wrong.

I think you're right. He hasn't advanced any new arguments, he just keeps repeating the same refuted arguments. If he's not a fundy atheist troll then he is, at least, ignorant, uninformed, naive, insincere, and a dumbass. Which is to say that he's no better than a fundy atheist troll.

[Starlight]

You're the one that said we could trust what people usually say, don't you remember your own words where you said we could trust what people said?

What I said was that scientists have found that when doing anonymous surveys on large numbers of people they can trust what those people, on average, say about their levels of happiness. It turns out most people don't seem to lie about their levels of happiness in anonymous scientific surveys, even if they do lie to their friends or family. And as long as the survey contains a sufficiently large sample size it makes no significant difference to the collective results even if some of the people do lie.

I absolutely did not say that you should always trust what everyone says about everything! Or that you should naively believe what people say at face value. I would never ever say that, nor anything like that because I value critical thinking and skeptical analysis of evidence.

You don't have any evidence, at all, that 100% of every last person, who ever claimed 'not to be gay' were lying.

The observable evidence is that there are three kinds of results from people who have undergone ex-gay therapy:
1. People who afterwards say it didn't work for them, who constitute the vast majority.
2. People who afterwards say it did work for them, but then later admit that they lied, who appear to constitute the majority of the of the remainder.
3. People who afterwards say it did work for them, and have continued to make this claim to the present day, who constitute the tiniest, tiniest, fraction of a percent, if indeed they exist at all.

As I mentioned, of all the people who claim they fall into category 3 that I've heard or seen interviewed, 100% of them appeared to be clearly bisexual and simply misunderstood what 'bisexual' meant and belonged in category 1 with the never-cured group. However, a lot of other people think that people in category 3 actually belong in category 2 because they believe they are lying and have simply not yet admitted to the fact that they are lying. I am, however, open to the possibility that they are not lying and am quite happy to admit that in one case in 10,000 the person might have actually changed sexuality. Since there are serious detrimental side-effects associated with such treatments, it is obviously not reasonable to recommend treatments with such low success rates and such serious side-effects.

You are alleging that a fourth category exists:
4. People who afterwards say it did work for them, and later relapse, and continued to the present day to claim that it initially successfully changed their sexual desires but then their sexual desires subsequently changed back.

As I said, I have seen no mention of, nor any evidence of such people, and I have read a lot of material from studies on this subject. You're also apparently alleging not simply that one person in a million might fall into this category, you're implying that a huge proportion of people of people who go through ex-gay therapy fall into this category. You appear to think that the treatments are usually initially successful but then people commonly relapse. That idea has no basis in reality whatsoever, and the empirical data directly contradicts it - as I've said repeatedly, all the studies on the subject I've seen do not indicate anyone ever successfully treated and then relapsing nevermind your wild imaginings of it being a particularly common outcome!

Shall I send you what other people claim, so they can get the Starlight Stamp of Approval^TM before I should believe a word they said?

By all means, if you can find any people who claim to have had their sexual desires successfully altered followed by a subsequent relapse, I would be extremely interested to read such accounts.

You're the one that accused a brave man, of basically lying about his story about being pushed to depression and even the brink of suicide, by people bullying Christians.

Your imagination is an interesting place. I do feel a bit bad for not responding to him, as I am obviously deeply sympathetic for anyone who struggles with depression whoever they may be, but after pondering the issue for a while I decided that any amount of drawing him into a discussion or directly interacting with him might do more harm than good. His testimony was that online discussions with atheists was what had caused his issues in the first place, so I felt extremely reluctant as an atheist to have an online discussion with him.

I find your approach extremely disingenuous though. When a Christian makes a claim about atheists bullying them, then they are "brave" and it is absolutely unthinkable to question their claims in any way. Whereas any claims coming the other way and the troll-brigade here comes out in force to say how gay people ought to harden up, and how if gay people are hurt by bullying then it's really the gay people's fault, etc.

When you give him an apology, for your insensitive and hateful remarks,

I don't believe I made any. I believe they only exist in your imagination. I said not a single word to him, and was quite careful in how I phrased my comments about what he had said. I believe you, however, are manufacturing fake outrage, and I am fast getting sick of it.

However, if any of the remarks I have made have caused hurt to anyone, I do sincerely apologize. That was never my intention.

[phank]

As I explained earlier, prohibitions against homosexuality are moral laws, not levitical laws. Moral laws are still binding today.

Are you a lawyer, by any chance?

Now you're telling me that supposedly "sincere" Christians don't trust their own Bible when it says that drunkards and the greedy will not inherit the Kingdom of God? What about adulterers, swindlers, and idolaters? Do these "sincere" Christians call God a liar and give those sinners a free pass as well? Why not? As long as they're handing out free passes to the pearly gates may as well include everybody, even satan himself.

Nowhere does scripture nuance its prohibitions against homosexuality. Leviticus 18 and 1 Corinthians 6 both use the same language, respectively, "Do not have sex with a man like you would a woman; that is detestable" and "men who have sex with men [...] will not inherit the kingdom of God". There's no reasonable way those passages can be read that would make homosexuality acceptable in any context.

You mean, acceptable within a given biblical context. Not ANY context.

You say that those who don't hold to inerrancy "have to occasionally ignore small bits of the bible, in order to iron out the inconsistencies", but on this issue there is no inconsistency!

The inconsistency is between the bible and reality. It's not persuasive to everyone to say "the bible is inerrant because it says so in the bible!"

The Old and New Testaments are in 100%, unwavering, unequivocal agreement: homosexuality is a sin and detestable to God. This isn't about "ironing out inconsistencies" but flat-out ignoring clear Biblical commands.

And there's a problem with this? Where?

(Besides, this isn't about inerrancy, a topic I doubt you have even a rudimentary grasp of. What you're really saying is that these supposedly "sincere" Christians don't even believe the Bible was divinely inspired. In which case, why do they even claim to be Christians?)

I thought Christians accepted Christ as their savior, and believed in the resurrection. Not that Christians believed every interpretation anyone has ever made of every part of the bible. If the bible was divinely inspired, that the divine is an addle-minded schizo.

[Starlight]

No wonder you have such a hard time understanding scripture. You seem to read something and then see whatever you want to see whether it actually says that or not.

The link says quite clearly that the intent is to "further define the line between an atypical sexual interest and disorder" and that in order for something to be considered a disorder, it has to have the following symptoms:

persons unable to give legal consent.

So if someone is sexually attracted to children but doesn't find this personally distressing and doesn't hurt anybody else or break the law then the DSM is quite clear that this person, according to the APA, does not have a disorder but merely an "atypical sexual interest". Pedophiles are following the trail blazed by the homosexual community.

This post continues to crack me up. It's golden. It needs to be archived for the ages or something.

"No wonder you have such a hard time understanding scripture."

Irony mastered.

Any volunteers for messaging him to explain in words of one syllable why he's 100% wrong about something so basic as what an extremely clear 1.5 page document says?

[Starlight]

Originally Posted by Dimlight

Originally Posted by NotStarBright

I'm thinking starlight is a fundy atheist troll.

he is, at least, ignorant, uninformed, naive, insincere, and a dumbass.

this isn't about inerrancy, a topic I doubt you have even a rudimentary grasp of.

Okay I'm done with this thread. The level of trolling and nastiness is getting too high for me to tolerate. Those examples are just from this last page alone and could be multiplied by 50 if I went back further in the thread. I've also said my piece, so people with ears to hear can hear.

[Christianbookworm]

Have a good night starlight!