Interesting talk btw Athiest Prof & Christian Student
-
Thanks for your reply.....Originally posted by HENG@:Sat down with a Xtian friend last nite and went thru Romans, 1 Cor and Matthew and John. It seems the only real clear passage saying that homosexuality is a sin comes from 1 Cor, who is written by Paul. My friend pointed out 2 important things to me.
1) 1 Cor was written by Paul, and it expresses HIS views and his thoughts, not sayings from anyone else. Paul was human when he wrote this, and who is to say he didn't have his own prejudices like any other human? So the only ptatement in the Bible declaring homosexuality a sin comes from the words of a human, a sinner, who like any other human, had his own biasedness and prejudices.
2) MORE IMPORTANTLY, we looked thru Matthew and John, which covers the actual words of Jesus himself, and nowhere did I find Jesus saying that homosexuality is a sin.
Paul was a pious man, no doubt, and devoted to God, but even the mosy Godly of men have their faults, and ONLY Paul has ever said that homosexuality is a sin and that made it into the Bible. And then men mistake that as GOD or Jesus as saying homosexuality is a sin. But neither God nor Jesus ever said that, only Paul did.
As for the old testament, he told me we should no longer consider it the law because Jesus the messiah has come already and that only Jews consider it the law since they do not believe Jesus was the messiah. For Christians, only the new testament need apply.
Hence it is my personal belief that Christianity wrongly sees homosexuality as a sin because Paul who was human nontheless, wrote down his personal views, and that at no any time did God or Jesus say that it is a sin. And hence it is also justifable for many Christians who upon realising this fallacy of Christianity, to accept homosexuality as NOT a sin, and still be faithful to their religion.
That, Chin Eng, answers you.
A couple of things emerged from your explanation....
Firstly the understanding that the OT is no longer the law because Jesus the messiah has come etc etc... - this is exactly what I have been telling to tell you, plus the fact almost the entire OT is addressed to the Jews. I am glad we can finally agree on this point. Are you now able to draw any conclusion on whether the Ecclesiastes verse is a reference to homosexuality or not?
Secondly, true, that Paul is a human.... if that being true, the entire NT is irrelevant and all writings are written by humans, be it Paul, Peter, James or John. This being the case, we should throw it out of the window, because each individual is or can be prejudiced and we can now PICK AND CHOOSE what to believe at our convenience.
However, it will be hard to imagine any true Christian going on this line because the Bible is believed to be the word of God, beyond any human prejudices. If this is the case, the writers of all gospels, the epistles and the prophetic words are inspired by God and no prejudices were put in place.
I have no wish to argue on whether the Bible is the word of God or not as this has been discussed in other threads. The issue is whether an individual - you - believe the Bible is the word of God. The understanding on whether any individual has written prejudiced opinions is important - if there are prejudiced opinions then the Bible is NOT the word of God and we (both you and I) should not quote from it and throw everything out of the window; if the Bible is THE word of God, we need to examine the books and context of each book. Books are written in many forms eg the Gospels give the account of the life of Jesus, while Acts gives the account of the Christian in the early church. The epistles are lessons for good Christian behaviour, be it on marriage, moral, responsibilities or lifestyle. If you subscribe to the notion of personal prejudices, than we might as well say that bigamy is fine and adultery is fine. -
The concept of Christian Marriage according to Jesus:
Matthew 19
1When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
The concept of Christian marriage is always heterosexual. No where in the Bible is recorded of any homosexual union.
The purpose of this posting is NOT against homosexuals, but to people who quotes non-existent Biblical scripture for support of homosexuality. There is none! -
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
very simply, in reply to all u've said, i only wish to point out that, certain bits of Matthew and John have recorded the actual words of Jesus, like a secetary would write down what her boss dictates to her, so I find that believable as divine word of the law. Anything else, especially such a touch and grey topic like sexuality, what Paul has said, is simply not impartial enuf to be taken 100% for sure as the law. And in such a case, where something is so unclear that if not clarified, it can be debated either way, since neither Jesus nor God themselves have choosen to clarify that homosexuality is a sin, I rest my case that not only is it justified for me, but for millions of Christians in general, to believe homosexuality is not a sin as well.
Thanks for your reply.....
A couple of things emerged from your explanation....
Firstly the understanding that the OT is no longer the law because Jesus the messiah has come etc etc... - this is exactly what I have been telling to tell you, plus the fact almost the entire OT is addressed to the Jews. I am glad we can finally agree on this point. Are you now able to draw any conclusion on whether the Ecclesiastes verse is a reference to homosexuality or not?
Secondly, true, that Paul is a human.... [b]if that being true, the entire NT is irrelevant and all writings are written by humans, be it Paul, Peter, James or John. This being the case, we should throw it out of the window, because each individual is or can be prejudiced and we can now PICK AND CHOOSE what to believe at our convenience.
However, it will be hard to imagine any true Christian going on this line because the Bible is believed to be the word of God, beyond any human prejudices. If this is the case, the writers of all gospels, the epistles and the prophetic words are inspired by God and no prejudices were put in place.
I have no wish to argue on whether the Bible is the word of God or not as this has been discussed in other threads. The issue is whether an individual - you - believe the Bible is the word of God. The understanding on whether any individual has written prejudiced opinions is important - if there are prejudiced opinions then the Bible is NOT the word of God and we (both you and I) should not quote from it and throw everything out of the window; if the Bible is THE word of God, we need to examine the books and context of each book. Books are written in many forms eg the Gospels give the account of the life of Jesus, while Acts gives the account of the Christian in the early church. The epistles are lessons for good Christian behaviour, be it on marriage, moral, responsibilities or lifestyle. If you subscribe to the notion of personal prejudices, than we might as well say that bigamy is fine and adultery is fine.
[/b] -
I haven't read this booklet yet but I think it may help answer some of your questions:
When Passions Are Confused: Understanding Homosexuality :
http://www.rbc.org/ds/cb962/cb962.html -
a few points.Originally posted by jnwk:I haven't read this booklet yet but I think it may help answer some of your questions:
When Passions Are Confused: Understanding Homosexuality :
http://www.rbc.org/ds/cb962/cb962.html
1) the information in the book about how homosexuality develops is out of date with regards to the latest psychological understanding of the topic. It seems to be using what Freud has said, which is now understood to be incorrect.
2) Whats a friend to do? Well a true friend I believe, should accept a friend for who he or she is, and a true friend would let their friend make mistakes on their own if that is what will happen. A straight person at heart trying to be gay will not suceed anymore than a gay person at heart trying to be straight. A friend who is judgemental just because they think they know whats best for u on a topic as uncertain as sexuality, is not a true friend. Besides, I personally have learnt the hard way on other matters about being let to make mistakes on your own, rather than following the advice of others because they think they know whats best for you, and I've only come to realise true friends don't judge nor nag. They let u fall, and are around to pick u up and set u off on your way again.
to concur, its scary when u have books like these out there sspreading disinformation using outdated psychological knowledge. -
Oh, is it? Thank you for informing. I shall read the booklet one day to test how true it is.Originally posted by HENG@:a few points.
1) the information in the book about how homosexuality develops is out of date with regards to the latest psychological understanding of the topic. It seems to be using what Freud has said, which is now understood to be incorrect.
2) Whats a friend to do? Well a true friend I believe, should accept a friend for who he or she is, and a true friend would let their friend make mistakes on their own if that is what will happen. A straight person at heart trying to be gay will not suceed anymore than a gay person at heart trying to be straight. A friend who is judgemental just because they think they know whats best for u on a topic as uncertain as sexuality, is not a true friend. Besides, I personally have learnt the hard way on other matters about being let to make mistakes on your own, rather than following the advice of others because they think they know whats best for you, and I've only come to realise true friends don't judge nor nag. They let u fall, and are around to pick u up and set u off on your way again.
to concur, its scary when u have books like these out there sspreading disinformation using outdated psychological knowledge.
Regards -
hey heng, have u seen the new GLBT forum?
-
Hihi, you said that Fred theory is out-dated. Yes, it might be true. I really excited to find out which theory is the most updated now.Originally posted by HENG@:a few points.
1) the information in the book about how homosexuality develops is out of date with regards to the latest psychological understanding of the topic. It seems to be using what Freud has said, which is now understood to be incorrect.
2) Whats a friend to do? Well a true friend I believe, should accept a friend for who he or she is, and a true friend would let their friend make mistakes on their own if that is what will happen. A straight person at heart trying to be gay will not suceed anymore than a gay person at heart trying to be straight. A friend who is judgemental just because they think they know whats best for u on a topic as uncertain as sexuality, is not a true friend. Besides, I personally have learnt the hard way on other matters about being let to make mistakes on your own, rather than following the advice of others because they think they know whats best for you, and I've only come to realise true friends don't judge nor nag. They let u fall, and are around to pick u up and set u off on your way again.
to concur, its scary when u have books like these out there sspreading disinformation using outdated psychological knowledge. -
freudian theories have lost its significance in psychology. its used more often on sociology these daysOriginally posted by jnwk:Hihi, you said that Fred theory is out-dated. Yes, it might be true. I really excited to find out which theory is the most updated now. -
I understand fredian theories have set a framework for the subsequent theories in psychology. But I would love to know what thoeries is the most updated and significance in psychology now?Originally posted by ben1xy:freudian theories have lost its significance in psychology. its used more often on sociology these days
Oh, thanks Ben. At least now I know that Freud theory holds some position in sociology.
-
well i would believe that Freud's theories holds some position in sociology in that it showed what we used to believe was true and how our understanding has changed. U have to 1st have a theory to prove or disprove to gain a deeper understanding of knowledge, which is what i believe Freud's theories have been most essential with regards to sociology.Originally posted by jnwk:I understand fredian theories have set a framework for the subsequent theories in psychology. But I would love to know what thoeries is the most updated and significance in psychology now?
Oh, thanks Ben. At least now I know that Freud theory holds some position in sociology. -
the fallacy of a lot of freudian theories is it's lack of empirical measurements.Originally posted by jnwk:I understand fredian theories have set a framework for the subsequent theories in psychology. But I would love to know what thoeries is the most updated and significance in psychology now?
Oh, thanks Ben. At least now I know that Freud theory holds some position in sociology.
Psychology has moved from more theory based (using introspection , etc which was really popular in the past) and towards an empirical approach.. where alpha levels and sig levels hold great importance. -
Is it? OMG.. But why do sociologists wanna cling on something the psychologists had discarded decades ago?Originally posted by ben1xy:freudian theories have lost its significance in psychology. its used more often on sociology these days
btw, if you understand Freudian correctly. One of the main tenets in his argument is that personality forms by the age of 5.. It's just strange that when Religious group borrowed the framework from Freud did not even mention this point at all.. -
yea i have.Originally posted by laurence82:hey heng, have u seen the new GLBT forum?
-
Freud still has to be studied by psychology students, and they are also taught to disseminate his theories and to understand why they are incorrect. This i know for a fact because most my friends at uni are psycho students!
-
Heng@,Originally posted by HENG@:well i would believe that Freud's theories holds some position in sociology in that it showed what we used to believe was true and how our understanding has changed. U have to 1st have a theory to prove or disprove to gain a deeper understanding of knowledge, which is what i believe Freud's theories have been most essential with regards to sociology.
Could we say that homosexuality is both a psychological and sociological problems? -
yah ... have to study it under social psychologyOriginally posted by HENG@:Freud still has to be studied by psychology students, and they are also taught to disseminate his theories and to understand why they are incorrect. This i know for a fact because most my friends at uni are psycho students! -
although sociology is a social science... their emphasis havent been on the emprical side. so they arent restricted by sig levels like psychology isOriginally posted by earthlings73:Is it? OMG.. But why do sociologists wanna cling on something the psychologists had discarded decades ago?
btw, if you understand Freudian correctly. One of the main tenets in his argument is that personality forms by the age of 5.. It's just strange that when Religious group borrowed the framework from Freud did not even mention this point at all.. -
hahaa ... we had a debate on this under the politics sectionOriginally posted by jnwk:Heng@,
Could we say that homosexuality is both a psychological and sociological problems?
lol -
So there is no new significant theories in Psychology yet? Or is it now all based on empirical studies?
-
no i believe u can't quite do that. The only sociological problem arising from homosexuality is homophobia and heterosexism, and the only psychological problem arising from homosexuality is an inability to face or accept it as fact. Being gay in itself is neither a psychological problem nor a sociological one, as evidenced by its removal from the DSMV IV.Originally posted by jnwk:Heng@,
Could we say that homosexuality is both a psychological and sociological problems? -
You mean the politics forum? Or there is a politics section in EH?Originally posted by ben1xy:hahaa ... we had a debate on this under the politics section
lol
No debate regarding this pls. Juz wanna know your opinion. -
Freud's theory cannot be proven or disproven.. It's based on the "unconscious", which by definition, is unmeasurable..Originally posted by HENG@:Freud still has to be studied by psychology students, and they are also taught to disseminate his theories and to understand why they are incorrect. This i know for a fact because most my friends at uni are psycho students! 
But Freud did contribute a great deal in 2 areas, IMHO:
1) The divide of consciousness in 3 parts: Id (impulse), Ego (Reality) and Superego (Standards).. It's this constant struggle between these 3 factors that create tensions in all of us.. (can be tested? nope)..
2) Defense mechanisms.. When one's ego was challenged, he/she might engage in defense mechanisms to protect one's ego.. Terms such as denial, displacement, etc etc are all borned out from the Freudian tradition.. (can be tested? nope again)..
Hence, the constant antagonism between Psychologist and Freud.. If something cannot be tested, it is not science.. We study out of interest, but we cannot further the field..
Btw, Freud believe there are 2 things that drives all human beings: Sex and Death.. Do go read into his theories.. Very very sexual in nature..
-
What is DSMV IV? It seems familiar to me.Originally posted by HENG@:no i believe u can't quite do that. The only sociological problem arising from homosexuality is homophobia and heterosexism, and the only psychological problem arising from homosexuality is an inability to face or accept it as fact. Being gay in itself is neither a psychological problem nor a sociological one, as evidenced by its removal from the DSMV IV. -
politics sectionOriginally posted by jnwk:You mean the politics forum? Or there is a politics section in EH?
No debate regarding this pls. Juz wanna know your opinion.
nah ... this is EH... i'll be guai