Evangelical hypocrisy...now with even more gay sex

Starya

New Member
If a gay man leads a group that is against gay sex, and then engages in gay sex it is no different than a leader of an animal rights group abusing animals. Both would be hypocrisy.
The thread seemed to me to have shifted over to "gay marriage-hypocrisy", which is what my initial post clearly speaks of. Your Peta-comparison came off as a reply to my post, perhaps that was not the case. Now, if we disregard the wedding cake and stick to the sex: If a gay man states to be against gay sex, and yet engages in gay sex regularly, then yes, that is hypocrisy.

So if a person was an animal abuser, but still believes being and animal abuser is a sin (and is tormented by it) and voices these opinions it is not hypocrisy? Just their opinion?
I find it disturbing that you would compare being gay (simply being attracted to persons of ones own gender rather than the opposite one) to being an animal abuser (someone who takes pleasure in bringing pain and terror to a helpless living being).

But by all means, your animal abuser-example is hypocrisy. But in a completely uncomparable scenario.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Sure, people are just attracted to who they are attracted to. It's unavoidable.

Calling it a sin is ridiculous.

The hole here is massive.

Keeping it simple...being attracted to something, anything, is not a sin. Acting on animal impulses without regard, or care, for consequences is sinful (usually illegal too)
 

Starya

New Member
Keeping it simple...being attracted to something, anything, is not a sin. Acting on animal impulses without regard, or care, for consequences is sinful (usually illegal too)
This I can agree with - although keeping in mind that I don't believe in the theological consept of "sin" (acts that violate a moral code given by God). And, if using the term "wrong" to replace "sin", we'd still disagree strongly on what we considered to be "wrong".
 

spike

New Member
The hole here is massive.

Keeping it simple...being attracted to something, anything, is not a sin. Acting on animal impulses without regard, or care, for consequences is sinful (usually illegal too)

The consequences being that two consenting adults get together? Woah, wouldn't want that.
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
and there's one of the rubs. Up until recently, being 'gay' was accepted as a psychosis to be cured. Therefore they wouldn't be "consenting" since they'd be considered "insane".
 

spike

New Member
Good thing they got that one figured out. Wonder if they figured out what really needs cured is the psychosis of homophobia and bigotry yet.
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
Who said it's figured out. It's been 'politically accepted' as not dangerous and as such they can't be institutionalized anymore, but a lot of 'head shrinkers' still are looking for treatments and cures for it. So are many geneticists.


And I'll thank you to tred canny where the terms homophobia and bigotry are concerned. There are lots of people I don't want to associate with, and none of them have to do with phobias.
 

spike

New Member
They figured out that it's not a psychosis. I don't know how many head shrinkers or geneticists are looking for "cures" for it but maybe they'll find a cure bigotry and homophobia while they're at it.

Not sure what "tred canny" means. Haven't heard that one before.
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
and there's one of the rubs. Up until recently, being 'gay' was accepted as a psychosis to be cured. Therefore they wouldn't be "consenting" since they'd be considered "insane".

1973...Yeah, that's recent.
In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled by changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Their decision was ratified in 1974 by a vote of the membership.
Subsequently, a new diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality, was created for the DSM's third edition in 1980. Ego dystonic homosexuality was indicated by: (1) a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal, which the patient experienced as interfering with initiation or maintenance of wanted heterosexual relationships, and (2) persistent distress from a sustained pattern of unwanted homosexual arousal.

The new diagnostic category, however, was criticized professionally on numerous grounds. It was viewed by many as a political compromise to appease those psychiatrists – mainly psychoanalysts – who still considered homosexuality a pathology. Others questioned the appropriateness of having a separate diagnosis that described the content of an individual's dysphoria. They argued that the psychological problems related to ego-dystonic homosexuality could be treated as well by other general diagnostic categories, and that the existence of the diagnosis perpetuated antigay stigma.

Moreover, widespread prejudice against homosexuality in the United States meant that "almost all people who are homosexual first go through a phase in which their homosexuality is ego dystonic," according to the American Psychiatric Association.

In 1986, the diagnosis was removed entirely from the DSM. The only vestige of ego dystonic homosexuality in the revised DSM-III occurred under Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified, which included persistent and marked distress about one's sexual orientation (American Psychiatric Association, 1987; see Bayer, 1987, for an account of the events leading up to the 1973 and 1986 decisions).
APA
 

chcr

Too cute for words
Umm... In 1973 gay meant "happy-go-lucky" as far as I ever knew. "Queer" meant homosexual but you didn't necessarily say it to their face (any more than you said "nigger" to a black person but it was pretty prevalent). Oh, and you treated (blacks and gays) them just like everyone else unless you were an asshole. It wasn't until the eighties that everyone started expecting preferential treatment.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
the weight of empirical data, coupled by changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States,

Perhaps that little bit needs some heavy re-examination.
 

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
The pastor did the right thing when he stepped down. He knew that homosexuality was sinful and he himself has been suffering from same sex attraction. Just because he gave in to his temptations does not mean he secretly advocated same sex marriages. Thus, he is not a hypocrite.

While I concur, The devil's advocate is that pedophiles will use the same excuse.
But what it comes down to is sin is sin and we all sin. If you are right with God then your sin is forgiven.

That is the "faith without works" notion. Live and let live and just keep the faith - all will be well then. The problem with that is the Bible does not coincide with that.

We are all sinners, but the difference is trying not to sin rather than just letting yourself go.

"‘Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven’" (Matt. 7:21).

"‘Why do you call me "Lord, Lord," and not do what I tell you?’" (Luke 6:46).

"For he will render every man according to his works . . ." (Rom. 2:6-8).

"For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified" (Rom. 2:13).

"For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgments . . . (Heb. 10:26-27).

"What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?" (Jas. 2:14).

"So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead" (Jas. 2:17).

"But some one will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. . . .Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? (Jas. 2:18-20).

"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (Jas. 2:24).

The evidence is quite compelling, don't you think?

Hmm...well I sort of agree with you. I say sort of because I have been taught that it is a sin. I have also been taught that lying, cheating, stealing, laziness, gossiping, fornication, gluttony, covetting, disobeying the sabbath and evil thoughts are sins. I have also been taught that all sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord

All sin is not equal. This can be proved biblically...

"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is a sin which is not mortal." (1 John 5:16-17).

". . . he who delivered me to you has the greater sin." (John 19:11)

and if I am to point out anothers sin I had better be sure that my nose is clean...which it isn't and no ones is.
So I guess I mean that we all have our strengths and weaknesses and I won't mind yours if you don't mind mine.

People often mistake that Christianity preaches that people should not judge one another or point out someone's sins. This is a misconception. Jesus said not to judge hypocritically and that the way you judge people will also be how God judges you. "Judge not lest ye be judge" is meant in a hypocritical context.

“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact my be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:15-17)

“Let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” (James 5:20)

Re: Homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1973. The APA succumbed to social and political pressure when they removed Homosexuality as a disorder. There was no real medical backing. See: The A.P.A. Normalization of Homosexuality, and the Research Study of Irving Bieber
 

spike

New Member
If it's a disorder how could it be a sin?

Maybe not surprising considering some of the other ridiculous things considered a sin.

For instance Leviticus:

Priests must not "make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard." 21:5

Handicapped people cannot approach the altar of God. They would "profane" it. 21:16-23

Anyone with a "flat nose, or any thing superfluous" must stay away from the altar of God. 21:18

A man with damaged testicles must not "come nigh to offer the bread of his God." 21:20
 
Top