DiscussMormonism.com

Fundamentalists are even worse that you all think they are. I’m sure that you’ve read them argue for:

1) envy
2) murder
3) strife
4) deceit
5) malice
6) gossip
7) slander
8) God-haters

richardMdBorn wrote:Fundamentalists are even worse that you all think they are. I’m sure that you’ve read them argue for:

1) envy
2) murder
3) strife
4) deceit
5) malice
6) gossip
7) slander
8) God-haters

Me thinks i see a bulge in yer left cheek??? Warm regards, Roger :-)

richardMdBorn wrote:Fundamentalists are even worse that you all think they are. I’m sure that you’ve read them argue for:

1) envy
2) murder
3) strife
4) deceit
5) malice
6) gossip
7) slander
8) God-haters

Well I am confused. Care to explain?

Sorry folks that it's taken me so long to respond.

First hint

25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,

30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,

31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;

32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Rom 1

Second hint: I'm referring to a discussion in the Homosexuals Honor Spong thread. It seems to me that the participants missed a major point in their argument.

Hi Richard, nice to see You back! You said:

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,

30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,

31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;

32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

IMSCO, when one (me) reads the above, recognizing the similar mythology tone as found when reading Roman & Greek mythology, those thoughts from the mind of one--Pual--steeped in Judeo mythology re Creation, Fall, Redemption & "God" seems hard to ignore.

In all mythologies "God" punishes & condemns those who do not obey and please Him/Her, and assigns them "worthy of death". A state that even the best-of-the-best cannot avoid...

Richard, so much of our culture is based on Judeo-Christian mythology, that it is hard for some to let go of the misinformation that mythology seeds. I doubt there are many who still believe Rome began with "Romulus & Remus" yet we have a religion wherein some still believe the Judeo-Christian tale of Creation, Adam, Eve, THE Serpent et al.

To continue viewing homosexuals in today's society by Mytho-Primative standards, as anything less normal in their state, than heteros are in theirs, is most unfortunate and a discredit to modern science, human intelligece and spiritual conscience, IMSCO. Warm regards, Roger

Roger Morrison wrote:Hi Richard, nice to see You back!

IMSCO, when one (me) reads the above, recognizing the similar mythology tone as found when reading Roman & Greek mythology, those thoughts from the mind of one--Pual--steeped in Judeo mythology re Creation, Fall, Redemption & "God" seems hard to ignore.

In all mythologies "God" punishes & condemns those who do not obey and please Him/Her, and assigns them "worthy of death". A state that even the best-of-the-best cannot avoid...

Richard, so much of our culture is based on Judeo-Christian mythology, that it is hard for some to let go of the misinformation that mythology seeds. I doubt there are many who still believe Rome began with "Romulus & Remus" yet we have a religion wherein some still believe the Judeo-Christian tale of Creation, Adam, Eve, THE Serpent et al.

To continue viewing homosexuals in today's society by Mytho-Primative standards, as anything less normal in their state, than heteros are in theirs, is most unfortunate and a discredit to modern science, human intelligece and spiritual conscience, IMSCO. Warm regards, Roger

Hi Roger, Your attitude reminds me of Niebuhr's statement:

Reinhold Niebuhr said, “We want a God without wrath who took man without sin into a kingdom without justice through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.

It's interesting to me that you commented, "To continue viewing homosexuals in today's society by Mytho-Primative standards, as anything less normal in their state, than heteros are in theirs, is most unfortunate and a discredit to modern science".

Are advocates of homosexuality interested in a scientific discussion of the subject? My impression is that they want to shut down any discussion of this.

Richard

Richard, I've never gotten the impression that advocates are trying to shout down scientific discussion on homosexuality. Can the religious community have a completely scientific discussion on the matter without getting their spiritual feelings involved? It's a very touchy subject.

Hi Richard, long-time-no-read...glad to see You back! I'm with GIMR. I'm not aware that members of the sciences do not want to discuss the homosexual state of being. On the contrary i thought the religious-right were the folks with a mind-set that was not prone to discussion?

by the way, i want to say how pleasantly surprised i was, some time ago, when you mentioned having non-hetero friends. Nice to know. Warm regards, Roger

Roger Morrison wrote:Hi Richard, long-time-no-read...glad to see You back! I'm with GIMR. I'm not aware that members of the sciences do not want to discuss the homosexual state of being. On the contrary I thought the religious-right were the folks with a mind-set that was not prone to discussion?

by the way, I want to say how pleasantly surprised I was, some time ago, when you mentioned having non-hetero friends. Nice to know. Warm regards, Roger

Hi Roger, GIMR, sorry it's taken a long time to respond to you. I've been working hard on two articles on the invention of GPS. One, for a US history of space magazine, should be out in the next couple of weeks. The other, co-authored with my dad, will be in a UK magazine in October for the 50th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik.

The APA's change in its classification of homosexuality in 1973 was based on lobbying, not science. A while back, a friend of mine who has prominent radio program had on a senior person from the APA, I think he was president at some point, who discussed the 1973 vote and strongly disagreed with it. The next time I see Milt, I will ask him to refresh my memory about the program.

It’s not that unusual a sight: demonstrators gathered outside a meeting hall, protesting the treatment of homosexuals. The curious thing about the protests at the American Psychiatric Association’s 1994 meeting in Philadelphia, however, is that the demonstrators were a group of ex-gays, demanding that the delegates recognize the right to therapeutic help for those who wish to cease to be homosexuals.

During the early 1970s, gay activists had made a number of disruptive demonstrations at professional meetings, placing considerable pressure on psychiatrists to revise their designation of homosexuality as a disorder treatable by psychiatry. In 1973, the board of the American Psychiatric Association voted to change the classification of homosexuality in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The members of the APA who specialized in treating homosexuals protested the board’s decision, but immediately before a general referendum on the issue, a letter went out in the name of the board, urging APA members not to reverse the board’s decision. It was not known until after the vote that this letter was in fact written and paid for by the National Gay Task Force, and the final tally in the referendum upheld the board’s decision to reclassify homosexuality. The 1973 decision was based not on any advance in scientific or medical knowledge. It occurred instead as a result of successful gay lobbying- and a considerable body of psychological data on homosexuality was dismissed as no longer relevant.

There is a certain irony in the fact that gay activists and their supporters now often claim the authority of the APA for the view that homosexuality is not a psychological problem. Michael Vasey, for instance, in his new work, Strangers and Friends, insists that the reclassification was "not the result of some ’liberal’ conspiracy," but instead "represents the recognition that there is nothing intrinsic to a homosexual orientation that makes it psychologically disordered." On both points he is mistaken. The APA decision was in fact far from unanimous, and it was arrived at largely on sociopolitical grounds.

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3654

Where is the political censorship in the US coming today? It’s largely from the left. Speech codes and hate crimes bills are both designed to stifle dissent against liberal orthodoxy. The response from advocates of hate crimes bills to this charge will be that hate crimes bills punish actions not speech. Ah, yes, but it’s a short step to the latter as we are already seeing in Canada and Scandinavia.

Note what’s happening to the nomination of surgeon general James Holsinger. Does it encourage open discussion of the issues with homosexuality? Will the media be as open to a study saying the homosexuality has negative effects on health as they are to a study saying that it has no deleterious effects? My wife worked a decade ago for a public radio station in Chicago. The local news editor would send out reporters to cover a story. If they came back with a slant that she didn’t like, which didn’t fit her liberal views, she will tell them to go and do further research until they returned with the slant that fit her preconceived notions. That happens all the time with the mainstream media and the coverage of homosexuality is a typical example of the mentality. Criticize homosexuality and you will be attacked. That applies to research as well as political statements. Publish a study saying that homosexuality has no negative effect, or that any negative effects are solely due to its being stigmatized, and you will be praised by the mainstream media. Just like studies about negative effects of day care on children are not welcomed by the mainstream media.

Here's a typical example of how the left tries to silence groups with "wrong" views about homosexuality:

Use anti-discrimination rules to penalize or ban religious groups. These are student groups that oppose homosexuality on doctrinal rounds. Needless to say, Muslims groups are never the target. Intervarsity evangelical groups often are. The groups are deemed in violation of college rules stating that all students must be eligible to become members and officers of all campus organizations. Applying the rules puts the university in the business of telling students of faith what their beliefs should be. But many groups must be allowed to require shared beliefs or they won't be able to function: Hillel cannot be forced to accept members who deny the Holocaust and science groups needn’t have flat-earth members. At Central Michigan University, students who detest the Young Americans for Freedom attempted to join the group in order to destroy it from the inside. This helped open some eyes at CMU. Under pressure from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, administrators backed down and granted an exemption for belief-based groups.

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8000.html