A serious question for the religious types about gay and trans people

[shava]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10154141385540350

Praise be to God almighty.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I appreciate that. It was nearly thirty years ago in a world far more dominated by "Christians" like @shava.
I was lucky. My family was relatively supportive and didn't keep guns in the house.
My best friend Kenny was not so lucky. He committed suicide with his dad's .38 when we were sophomores in high school.
Tom

I think it helps when people share their experiences in the way you have, even though I'm sure it's very difficult for you to re-live such anguish. At least you can put a human face to it and make people think about the consequences of their beliefs and actions in the real world.

I'm very happy that you've stayed with us and that you had the support to help you go on.
Looking forward to the day when attitudes like those seen here are a thing of the far distant past.

 

[shava]

I don't understand your question.

God is the author of the bible.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The word gay has more than one meaning and more than one slang, do you not realize that many people use the word gay as being a ***, queer, queer is a word that the gay community has bought. Do you not realize LGBTQT, will soon be changed to include pedophiliaes and beastiality which will be LGBTQPB. They to want there so called rights to be happy like the lesbians, homosexuals and transsexuals demanded and got, so when will the spiral of moral decay end?

Anybody care to disagree with me that this kind of "Christian" (quotes, because I don't believe he is) is among the uglier things going these days?

I keep wondering when the endless judgmentalism, by those very people who loudly claim Jesus who said "JUDGE NOT," will finally **** God off enough that he brings another plague. Heck, if He can target only those who are first-born, surely he can target bigots.

 

[Aštra’el]

The Bible is a homophobic old relic. It was written by scientifically and ethically primitive people many centuries ago.
That is the category it should be put in.

Nothing to do with God.
Tom

No, of course I do not. I've read the Bible, and it is truly filled with the most egregious nonsense and contradictions that convince me that it is exactly what it appears to be -- a human construct, containing all the usual errors and omissions that humans are wont to make.

The whole Bible is people claiming to speak for God while often saying things that are demonstrably wrong.
Tom

The thing is, I don't buy into this whole sin, guilt, and shame thing. We're human. If god can't get over that fact, I want nothing to do with god.

As pathetic as an all-powerful God who can't make people correctly

I'm aware of the existence of textual criticism. I'm also aware that the Bible has been copied, re-copied, translated and re-translated many times over. That the Bible was written during a time period that is far removed from our own, and it shows. To me, it's obvious that humans wrote the Bible. I cannot see how it could be the infallible word of God.

God is the author of the bible.

The way I see it... the "truth" within a holy book, a religion, or an entire pantheon of gods has nothing to do with the literal, historical accuracy of its lore and mythology... but it's ability to grant strength, power, wisdom or beauty to those whose Weltanschauung resonates with it. These things come in many forms- some of them rather malicious and violent- but human Nature includes an entire spectrum of thought and behavioral patterns... some of which include benevolence and peace as well.

I prefer to experience a balance myself, however, but to each their own.

 

[shava]

Billions of people have. And billions of people do not come to the same conclusions that you have. So now what?

Are you aware that only 8 souls were saved in the days of Noah?

Matthew 7:14King James Version (KJV)

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. We have a choice to look into our hope of eternal happiness or not, but it will not be God's fault for those who end up lost, as the bible has been everywhere and there are many modes for it to be used for every situation.

Let me give you an example of someone who never knew God or Jesus ever existed on how that person will be judged. This person will be judged by his merits, his good deeds he has shown to himself and his fellowman. We that have heard of Jesus will be judged by him. The New Testament is the key to coming to know what to do to be saved, and what church one must be added to in order to be saved and to worship in spirit and in truth, Acts 2:38-47, Romans 16:16, Mark 16:16.

 

[shava]

What on earth are you basing that on??

Just like the coming out of the gays, these two will eventually be no different. In England pedophilias are already petitioning the court for there rights to be happy, just like the gays demanded and got there right to be "happy" and the psychiatric handbook, which psychiatrists and all mental health providers use states that if it doesn't bother you socially or vocationally and causes no harm to the child, then you are a ok in there book, 302.2 is the reference # in the psychiatric handbook.

 

[columbus]

I'm very happy that you've stayed with us and that you had the support to help you go on.

I do appreciate the good wishes of many RF members.
But it really is more complicated than that. I was a big volunteer for AIDS organizations back in the 80s. It was a death sentence and lots of patients picked a different kind of death than the ugly one from AIDS. I couldn't count how many funerals I have been to for somebody under 40 y/o. Gunshot, OD, car wreck, really almost anything was better than dying from AIDS. You sort of get used to it after awhile.

Sometimes the catharsis of posting to "Christians" on the internet causes me to get more honest than polite.
Tom

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are you aware that only 8 souls were saved in the days of Noah?

Matthew 7:14King James Version (KJV)

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. We have a choice to look into our hope of eternal happiness or not, but it will not be God's fault for those who end up lost, as the bible has been everywhere and there are many modes for it to be used for every situation.

Let me give you an example of someone who never knew God or Jesus ever existed on how that person will be judged. This person will be judged by his merits, his good deeds he has shown to himself and his fellowman. We that have heard of Jesus will be judged by him. The New Testament is the key to coming to know what to do to be saved, and what church one must be added to in order to be saved and to worship in spirit and in truth, Acts 2:38-47, Romans 16:16, Mark 16:16.

Yes, I've read the story. I'm not sure how it relates to my point or answers my question.

You'll note that I also asked why the Bible should be regarded as an authoritative source of knowledge on the subject under discussion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

but it's ability to grant strength, power, wisdom or beauty to those whose Weltanschauung resonates with it.

Then what of people who are inspired by Mein Kampf?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just like the coming out of the gays, these two will eventually be no different. In England pedophilias are already petitioning the court for there rights to be happy, just like the gays demanded and got there right to be "happy" and the psychiatric handbook, which psychiatrists and all mental health providers use states that if it doesn't bother you socially or vocationally and causes no harm to the child, then you are a ok in there book, 302.2 is the reference # in the psychiatric handbook.

I know that I have discussed pedophilic disorder with you before, as have some others on the forum. The criterion that a mental disorder should cause some level of distress to the person experiencing it or to those around them, is true for diagnosis of all mental disorders. All mental disorders have specific criteria in which some minimum number of them must be present in the individual in order for a diagnosis to be made. This is one of them.

Here is a statement from the APA that I think clarifies the error in your claim.
http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Paraphilic Disorders Fact Sheet.pdf
Take note that the only thing that is being changed from the DSM-IV-TR is that the name "pedophilia" is being replaced with "pedophilic disorder."

I don't know what you mean when you say it "causes no harm to the child." There is no criterion that says a person diagnosed with pedophilic disorder is allowed to have sexual relations with children as long as it doesn't cause harm to the child.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do appreciate the good wishes of many RF members.
But it really is more complicated than that. I was a big volunteer for AIDS organizations back in the 80s. It was a death sentence and lots of patients picked a different kind of death than the ugly one from AIDS. I couldn't count how many funerals I have been to for somebody under 40 y/o. Gunshot, OD, car wreck, really almost anything was better than dying from AIDS. You sort of get used to it after awhile.

Sometimes the catharsis of posting to "Christians" on the internet causes me to get more honest than polite.
Tom

That really elucidates things. You have a knack for that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The criterion that a mental disorder should cause some level of distress to the person experiencing it or to those around them

The "to those around them" isn't a part of it. If that were the case, the approach to most mental disorders would be different, and instead of sensitivity training we might still be whacking kids with a ruler for writing with their left hand.

I don't know what you mean when you say it "causes no harm to the child."

As controversial as it is to say it, we tend to lump the effects of such interactions into one big severe lump. One such example would be when Richard Dawkins mentioned he was molested by a gym coach as a child, and it didn't scar him emotionally the way people assume such a thing does. There is even some research (text book source) that suggests overall most children who had some sort of sexual contact with an adult do not develop long-term issues (The author of this book even stated that because of that, rather than pedophilia it should be called "adult-child relations")

 

[shava]

I know that I have discussed pedophilic disorder with you before, as have some others on the forum. The criterion that a mental disorder should cause some level of distress to the person experiencing it or to those around them, is true for diagnosis of all mental disorders. All mental disorders have specific criteria in which some minimum number of them must be present in the individual in order for a diagnosis to be made. This is one of them.

Here is a statement from the APA that I think clarifies the error in your claim.
http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Paraphilic Disorders Fact Sheet.pdf
Take note that the only thing that is being changed from the DSM-IV-TR is that the name "pedophilia" is being replaced with "pedophilic disorder."

I don't know what you mean when you say it "causes no harm to the child." There is no criterion that says a person diagnosed with pedophilic disorder is allowed to have sexual relations with children as long as it doesn't cause harm to the child.

It's saying that the individual has no mental and or emotional disorder is what I'm saying. Which is the reason why eventually just like gay people back in the 60's were considered to have a mental and or emotional problem, which was required to be treated, but that was changed when a bunch of psychiatrist who walked out of the convention if the diagnosis about being gay wasn't changed to imply there's no mental and or emotional problem, that's what I'm saying.

This will be the start of this, meaning the pedophilias group of people wanting there rights to be " happy " because the psychiatric book declares it not to be a mental and or emotional problem needing treatment, just like it was when the gays were finally able to overturn the psychiatric reference to consider gays to be a normal behavior. Watch this and he will explain it in more detail. I don't know exactly when the part I'm referring to about the gays starts, so just try scrolling the time to find it.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5gunwY-I-Ls" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Try 36.54 time on this video.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's saying that the individual has no mental and or emotional disorder is what I'm saying.

I think pretty much every psychology teacher I've ever had asked the question of what is a mental disorder, and if everyone were to have the same mental disorder, would we still consider at a disorder?
The reason homosexuality was dropped as a mental disorder was because there were three things realized; 1) homosexuals really don't inherently have an increased risk for disorders but rather that these issues are due to the expectation they "not be gay" and they way others treated them if they knew they were gay; 2) the "treatments" just were not working to "correct" homosexual tendencies, and 3) they aren't harming anyone by being gay.

 

[shava]

I think pretty much every psychology teacher I've ever had asked the question of what is a mental disorder, and if everyone were to have the same mental disorder, would we still consider at a disorder?
The reason homosexuality was dropped as a mental disorder was because there were three things realized; 1) homosexuals really don't inherently have an increased risk for disorders but rather that these issues are due to the expectation they "not be gay" and they way others treated them if they knew they were gay; 2) the "treatments" just were not working to "correct" homosexual tendencies, and 3) they aren't harming anyone by being gay.

Thanks for your OPINION.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The "to those around them" isn't a part of it. If that were the case, the approach to most mental disorders would be different, and instead of sensitivity training we might still be whacking kids with a ruler for writing with their left hand.

Yes, that is true, I meant to take that out. Thank you for pointing it out. It is apparently only applied to pedophilic disorder.

As controversial as it is to say it, we tend to lump the effects of such interactions into one big severe lump. One such example would be when Richard Dawkins mentioned he was molested by a gym coach as a child, and it didn't scar him emotionally the way people assume such a thing does. There is even some research (text book source) that suggests overall most children who had some sort of sexual contact with an adult do not develop long-term issues (The author of this book even stated that because of that, rather than pedophilia it should be called "adult-child relations")

Psychological distress is a difficult thing to measure, for sure. Much more than say, physical distress.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's saying that the individual has no mental and or emotional disorder is what I'm saying.

Where does it say that?

Which is the reason why eventually just like gay people back in the 60's were considered to have a mental and or emotional problem, which was required to be treated, but that was changed when a bunch of psychiatrist who walked out of the convention if the diagnosis about being gay wasn't changed to imply there's no mental and or emotional problem, that's what I'm saying.

Homosexuality is no longer a mental disorder because the evidence indicates that it isn't. It has nothing to do with psychiatrists walking out of a convention and everything to do with evidence.

This will be the start of this, meaning the pedophilias group of people wanting there rights to be " happy " because the psychiatric book declares it not to be a mental and or emotional problem needing treatment, just like it was when the gays were finally able to overturn the psychiatric reference to consider gays to be a normal behavior. Watch this and he will explain it in more detail. I don't know exactly when the part I'm referring to about the gays starts, so just try scrolling the time to find it.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5gunwY-I-Ls" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Try 36.54 time on this video.

Why are you repeating this when I already replied to it? I'd rather you respond to that.

I zoned out after 30 seconds. Could you point out to me at what point you think I should start paying attention?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thanks for your OPINION.

It's more informed that your opinion, that's for sure. I'm pretty sure all of those criteria are actually demonstrable. Can you say the same?

 

[Aštra’el]

The way I see it... the "truth" within a holy book, a religion, or an entire pantheon of gods has nothing to do with the literal, historical accuracy of its lore and mythology... but it's ability to grant strength, power, wisdom or beauty to those whose Weltanschauung resonates with it. These things come in many forms- some of them rather malicious and violent- but human Nature includes an entire spectrum of thought and behavioral patterns... some of which include benevolence and peace as well.

I prefer to experience a balance myself, however, but to each their own.

Then what of people who are inspired by Mein Kampf?

I feel it would be foolish and ignorant to presume to have some grand understanding of these individuals and their Weltanschauung based solely on their ability to find some measure of strength, power, wisdom, or beauty from one particular book.