I told him exactly which other people, members of " the vulnerable group in question". That means going and asking actual gay people how they understand homophobia. If that’s too difficult, then go here.
This is what you’ve made clear.
My red flag was nothing to do with questions I don’t like. You’ve also made very clear your position on the issue under discussion.
So would it work the other way round to? if someone went overboard in showing their disgust for people who think Sex between people of the same sex is a sin… such as calling them homophobes and bigots?
The reason i am asking is because if that is not the case, then the standards of conduct required will be strictly based on whoever is in charge of the AHA and their moral code. The shoe could drop the other way if an extreme right wing person came to be in charge.
Seems to be a bad precedent to me.
My point is that moral world views change from person to person. That’s a fact.
Imposing moral standpoints through punitive action (by human Governments/Government bodies) should be kept to the bare minimum.
That’s why its not advisable to legislate morality except for crimes that destroy the ability of a community to live together- such as murder, theft etc.
This is why basic freedoms such as teh freedom of speech, expression, religion etc are important.
A good number of people taking action against “Homophobes” or writing articles against the same are Heterosexuals.
In this case, i wouldn’t be surprised if the article in the Op was written by a heterosexual and the group of people who decided to take action against the Doctor comprised mostly of Heterosexuals.
Do you think your position indicates a double standard? You refuse to define what homophobia is because you are heterosexual. Yet you are waiting for people at peaceful science, most of whom are hetero Sexual to take a stand on the issue.
Why are you exempt from your own demands. Why dont you define what homophobia is and take a stand on it.
I have a friend who has experienced same sex attraction from very young age. He came to Christ and claims to no longer experience the same.He recently married a girl. As a male, he views having sex with other males as sin. Can he be called a Homophobe in your opinion?
Doesn’t he have the freedom to come to his own conclusions on moral issues and speak about them openly?
Are you talking about the word “homophobia” or the thing which some people call “homophobia”?
I’m talking about the word. Why should a homosexual person, who may never have studied Greek word roots, have the power to dictate how other people in society use words with Greek roots? If the homosexual person thinks that the Greek roots mean “hatred of homosexuals”, the homosexual person is in error. “Phobia” means “fear”, not “hatred”. (And yes, I know that one can sometimes lead to the other, but it’s sloppy and incorrect to equate them.) I don’t see why the mere fact that a person is homosexual gives that person social authority to enforce his/her ignorance of Greek and make people use words in his/her prescribed way. People, homosexuals included, should make more use of sources such as etymological dictionaries before they mechanically repeat current usage, which may well be erroneous.
If all you are saying is that homosexuals have the right to protest that they don’t like being hated, and that people are wrong to hate them, then I agree with you. Of course they have to right to say what they feel. But it doesn’t follow that their usage of words has to be accepted by the general public, and still less that their usage of words should be mandated by law. (Which I know you weren’t suggesting, but if laws anywhere in the world currently employ the term with the current incorrect meaning, then they are indirectly mandating a philological error, and laws shouldn’t do that.)
In any case, nothing is stopping you from stating what you understand by the term, without referring others to an internet link. You could do it in one sentence of probably less than 10 words. How did people converse in the old days, before they could give other people internet links? They defined their terms when asked. That was a good practice then, and it’s still a good practice now. It’s also more human and personal. When I converse, I want to converse with a human being, not a walking pile of internet links.
I am also talking about the word. I even gave a direct link to a detailed definition of the word.
Because the meaning of the word as it is used today isn’t derived simply from the Greek roots. It may astonish you to know that this is how English works.
It may come as a shock to you to realise that when people define the word (and especially what they mean by the word), they typically do not do so by making claims about what the Greek roots originally meant. Again, I already gave you a link. Have you read it?
I have already made it clear what I understand by the term. I understand it to mean what it has been defined to mean by other people. I also gave a direct link to how it has been defined by other people. Did you read it?
No I don’t see any double standard. It is not up to me to define what homophobia is; instead I have provided a definition from other people, a definition to which I submit. I have already taken a stand on homophobia. I am against homophobia.
I had a look at the definition you shared with @Eddie. The definition makes a basic claim. As a christian, i would like to know your thoughts on this claim-
Claim - An active homosexual lifestyle is not morally or in any other way inferior to a heterosexual lifestyle. It is not Sinful in any way.
What’s the moral basis of making such a claim?
Do you view all instances of consensual Sex between Adults as not sinful?
I could easily make a case for why homosexuals should be treated the same way as Heterosexual Citizens in a country. They should have the same rights as any other citizen. There is no need to go into the moral/intellectual /physical quality of the groups. The only thing that matters is legal issues (i.e whether they are law abiding citizens).
However, if someone is making a moral claim that homosexual Sex is morally ok, and anyone who calls it a sin is acting immorally. I would want to know the basis of this claim. According to you, what moral code is being applied?.. and what other things does this code apply to?
Edit: I find it interesting that you submit to a moral code imposed on you by a someone else. Why do you Submit? Do they have some special Spiritual authority you recognize?
Nope, and I won’t. Tell me what you mean by the word. I asked you, not some other person on the internet. It’s easy. You write: “By ‘homophobic’, I mean…” Were you never made to give definitions in school?
Right, because “typically”, modern people are (a) lazy and sloppy about language and (b) trained very badly in school, so that they no longer have the basic philological information that used to be standard. There’s an excuse for a truck driver or florist not to make the effort to use words with precision, but there’s no excuse for educated social activists (typically housed at universities, or at least trained at them) to just BS their way through life, repeating poor usage by monkey-hear, monkey-say transmission. Educated people are supposed to be more conscious about word choice than that.
Whenever I hear a “big word” (a polysyllabic word composed of Classical word roots) that I don’t know, or one that seems to be being used unclearly and possibly incorrectly, I check it to see if the person is in fact using it correctly. If the first people to hear the word “homophobic” said to the first activist who used the word, “Why do you say a word that means ‘fear of homosexuals’ when you really mean ‘hatred of homosexuals’? Why don’t you choose a different word, or make up a new word that is appropriate to your meaning?,” the current confusing and inaccurate use would never have got off the ground.
Analogous remarks could be made about other terms. For example, in the 1960s, the term “fascist” became used so frequently, sloppily, and imprecisely, that it ceased to have any meaningful political-theory meaning, and because just a general term of abuse for any police or state action (however justifiable) that some lawbreaker or radical didn’t personally like. But I never once heard a journalist on a major US news network ask a fist-shaking radical, “What exactly do you mean when you say the police officer who arrested you for damaging private property was a ‘fascist’?” They all just gave the usage a free pass.
And already, many people say “global warming” when they actually mean “anthropogenic global warming” – the latter phrase implying a more extensive claim than the first. And usually, they get away with the sloppy language.
The German philosopher Heidegger (who was not wrong on everything) wrote that “language is the house of Being”; we are not very good housekeepers these days.
You will need to ask them. I don’t know their moral basis.
No.
Why are you asking me what other people base their moral code on? I have no idea.
You shouldn’t, it’s part of being a Christian.
Because the person who imposes a moral code on me is God.
I am asking you because you are “submitting” to their definition and endorsing their stand against homophobes.
Why dont you view all instances of consensual sex between adults as not sinful? If you are not in an adulterous situation, what right do you have to speak of the struggles of those who are? Why don’t your submit to their moral code too?
Because you are “Submitting to” and endorsing their views. So, you share in whatever moral code they are adhering to.
Thats strange. You just admitted to submitting to the definition of “homophobes” presented by practising homosexuals. This definition is based on a clear moral worldview/stand.
Are you claiming these guys are God? or that you submit to both moral codes? That imposed by God as well as the unknown moral code based on which “Homophobia” is defined?
You stand is morally ambiguous to say the least.
Then you are not treating this discussion with good faith. I’ve already shown you what I mean by the word. It’s easy; read it.
Frequently.
No, it’s because the English language doesn’t work the way you think it works. Neologisms in particular frequently depart from their roots in the process of being coined. For example, the prefix “homo” in “homophobia” isn’t either the Greek ὁμοῦ or ὅμως, or the Latin homō. It’s an English contraction of an English word. It certainly doesn’t mean “fear of men” or “fear of people”, or “fear of things which are the same”.
But when you say “incorrectly” all you really mean is “Different to the way I would have used it”. This is irrelevant. When people use the term “homophobia” to speak of fear of or hatred towards homosexual people, they are using the word correctly, not incorrectly. When an English word is coined, the person coining it typically defines its meaning. Over time that meaning may expand or contract, but meaning is determined by usage.
Why do you use the word “submitting”? Are you “submitting” to their definition of “homosexual”? Your usage doesn’t make sense. I have already explained that you are asking me something I don’t know. You are asking me on what moral basis they make their claim. I have no idea. I know on what moral basis I oppose homophobia; Christianity.
Because I am a Christian, and consequently I believe certain instances of consensual sex between adults are sinful.
Because (wait for it), I am a Christian. Why do I need to submit to their moral code? I submit to God’s moral code.
No. You are confusing two separate issues. I agree with them that homophobia is wrong. This is not 'submitting to their moral code" or sharing in “moral code they are adhering to”. Your argument simply isn’t rational. I agree with them that homophobia is wrong, but on a very different moral ground to theirs.
Now you’ve added the inaccurately used pejorative “admitted” to your equally pejorative and inaccurate use of the word “submitting”.
I know previously that you have admitted to submitting to the definition of “abortion” used by people who believe abortion should be legalized. Why do you submit to their moral code? Do you believe they are God? Is that what you are saying? Or are you admitting to being a secret baby murderer? Is that what you are saying, that you murder babies? You hate babies so much that you murder them? If not, why have you admitted to submitting to the moral code of baby murder? Your stand is morally ambiguous to say the least.
No. that is patently stupid.
No, my moral stand is explicitly Christian.
You used it… so i am using it too to characterize your stand. I am quoting your reason for accepting the definition of “Homophobe” as given by the site you linked/the homosexual community below to refresh your memory.
You don’t know on what moral basis “homophobia” is defined. But you oppose it based on christianity?
As far as i can see. Christianity has always categorized homosexual sex as sin.
I would love to hear your “moral” basis.
I see. Why the exception for Homosexual Sin. Do you believe Christianity does not teach its a Sin?
Even if you do, you must realise its a view held by a very narrow portion of the church. To be specific the liberal part of “white western Christianity”.
Yet, you submit to the definition of “homophobe” and the declaration that homosexual sex is not sin based on the moral code of those who defined the word.
Fair enough. Why dont you share your definition of the word and the moral grounds for claiming it is wrong?
To be specific, do you categorize calling sexual intercourse between people of the same sex as a sin to be immoral.
If so, why? (based on your moral grounds)
But you’re saying something I didn’t, you said I am submitting to their moral code.
I don’t know on what moral basis those people oppose homophobia.
Yes.
I agree. I believe homosexual sex is a sin, for those who are enlightened.
I don’t make an exception for homosexual sin.
Yes.
No.
No. I don’t make any of my decisions based on their moral code. I make my decisions based on the moral code of God, revealed through Scripture.
I have already done this. I gave you a link to a definition of homophobia with which I agree, and I gave you my moral grounds for believing homophobia is wrong. Why have you refused to acknowledge this?
I note that you didn’t answer my questions. Why did you not answer my questions?
The grammar of this sentence is mangled almost beyond recognition, so I will try to reconstruct it. Are you saying this?
If so, my answer is that I do not categorize “calling sexual intercourse between people of the same sex a sin” to be immoral, where it is referring to the actions of those who are enlightened. For those who are enlightened, sexual intercourse between people of the same sex is a sin. For those who are unenlightened, sin has no meaning and is not imputed (John 9:41, Acts 17:30, Romans 3:20; 4:15; 5:13, 1 Corinthians 5:12-13; 1 John 3:4).
Because I believe this is what God teaches in the Bible. I have told you this several times.
Their definition is based on their moral code. So ultimately you are submitting to their moral code. The flow of the idea is as below -
Homosexual Sex is not Sinful or morally inferior → Calling it Sinful is wrong and a kind of persecution–> Hence its homophobia.
I don’t see you how you can “submit” to the definition without “submitting” to the moral claim its based on.
Can you clarify who you classify as “enlightened”?
If i get you correctly, you are a “homophobic bigot” with respect to the enlightened and against “homophobia” towards the unenlightened. There are Bishops in some churches who are practicing homosexuals… are these among the enlightened or unenlightened?
What about stuff like adultery, pedophilia, necrophilia,murder etc… Are these also kosher as long as one is “unenlightened”?
You must admit this is a weird view of morality.
This is completely irrational. I already exposed this. I know previously that you have admitted to submitting to the definition of “abortion” used by people who believe abortion should be legalized. Why do you submit to their moral code ? Do you believe they are God? Is that what you are saying? Or are you admitting to being a secret baby murderer? Is that what you are saying, that you murder babies? You hate babies so much that you murder them? If not, why have you admitted to submitting to the moral code of baby murder? Your stand is morally ambiguous to say the least.
But I don’t agree with this. I have already told you.
That’s because you are not thinking logically. You think that if person X believes Y, and you also believe Y, then you must have the same moral code as person X. So if you believe the earth orbits the sun, and they believe the earth orbits the sun, and they think murder is ok then you obviously think murder is ok. This is logically flawed.
Those who believe in God, who understand His commandments, and agree that they are right.
No. The enlightened agree that homosexual sin is wrong. If someone says “I believe X is wrong”, and I agree with them, then I am not being a bigot towards them. Additionally, I am against homophobia towards the enlightened.
Yes I am against homophobia towards the enlightened. The fact that you keep putting homophobia in those quotations makes it clear you think it’s entirely legitimate to abuse gay people.
Utterly unenlightened.
No they are never kosher. You really seem to have difficulty understanding what sin is. That’s a serious concern.
Why are you calling those Bible verses weird? Have you read any of them? This is a view found in scholarly commentaries, and of course in Jewish exposition. Paul in particular expresses the same view found in Philo of Alexandria, another first century Jewish exegete.
So according to you something is sin only if people agree it is?
If someone does not agree about Homosexual Sin, then its not a Sin for them and they are not accountable for their actions?
Their actions are not immoral in any way?
Didn’t you just claim the enlightened view Homsexual acts as Sin. So the “enlightened” people who practice homosexuality would be indulging in “personal Homophobia”. They themselves would be “homophobes” according to the article you shared. Have you read that article?
And of course, since you also believe they are indulging in sin, you would also be a “homophobe” according to the definition shared by you.
How can you be both a “homophobe” and against homophobia at the same time?
I am sorry, based on the definition shard by you, you are a homophobe as far as the “enlightened” are concerned.
I find your interpretation of those verses weird.
If you look at the book of Romans, Paul makes the following claims -
The final Judgement of all people for their deeds is a basic Christian Doctrine. Its also a basic Doctrine that all have Sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.
Some commentaries misinterpret Paul to teach that Sin is not imputed to those who don’t have the law, while paul already has established clearly that ALL people have fallen short of the Glory of God and will face judgement for their actions. Jews who have the law will be judged based on the law and Gentiles who do not have the law will be judged based on their conscience and their response to the natural revelation of God. (This teaching about Sin not being imputed is one that developed in and became exclusive to western christianity by the way. Started with Augustine i think). Yet, even these commentators do not go to the extent that you do.
I don’t condone abusing anyone. Being clear about what both you and i believe to be Sin is not Abuse.
They are adults and they can accept of discard what we say as they wish.
I use quotations because i dont agree with the definition of Homophobia you have shared.
I believe that dignity and freedom for practicing homosexuals is a political right based on democratic principles and also christian principles of how Christians should behave among those who don’t hold to their views. It has nothing to do with the moral legitimacy of their actions. And stating that Homosexuality is a Sin according to the Bible is not an act of abuse/hatred or bigotry.
No. What you wrote is gibberish. Please read what I wrote, and the Bible verses.
No. This is more gibberish. Homophobia is, by definition, not something you do to yourself. Additionally, enlightened people would not practice homosexual acts (there is no such thing as practicing “homosexuality”; I am not sure if you know what the word means).
Yes.
No.
I have no idea, this is something you have made up.
That does not surprise me. You are a fundamentalist with anti-science views, and you have no familiarity with the scholarly commentaries expressing the view that I explained. Remember this is a view which scholarly commentaries agree that Paul had, and point out that it was a standard view of Jews both before and during his time.
Nonsense. Paul explicitly says that those who are without the law will not be judged as if they have known, acknowledged, and broken the law.
So you are aware that this isn’t a view I have invented, it’s a view found in standard scholarly commentaries, but which you disagree with. Go write a paper, get it published, and see how it’s received in peer review.
No. This is wildly wrong. Standard scholarly commentaries will tell you (and show you), that it was a pre-Christian view found commonly among the Jews, and that Paul himself held to this view along with other first century Jewish exegetes, such as Philo. It had nothing to do with Augustine.
But you think there’s no such thing as homophobia.
Have you even read the definition you have shared? Let me point you to the relevant portion in the article shared by you .
@Eddie, you were right in not reading the link @Jonathan_Burke shared sinc it seems he hasn’t read it himself.Its either that or he thinks the definition he has shared is total gibberish.
Personal (internalised) homophobia
This is the individual’s belief that lesbian, gay and bisexual people are sinful, immoral or inferior to heterosexuals, or incomplete as women or men. Such views are always learnt, and they may be shared by lesbian, gay and bisexual people themselves. In this case the homophobia is internalised. When a lesbian, gay or bisexual person has internalised the belief that they are sinful, immoral or inferior they may hide their sexuality, try to make it mean less to them, decrease their expectations of life, or engage in behaviours which are harmful to themselves and others.
Yes, they will be judged on other criteria such as their conscience.
And Paul explicitly says that ALL have Sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. and that ALL people (both Jews and Gentiles) will be judged for their deeds.
If people are being judged for their Sins, why do you think their sins are not imputed to them?
I do think there is something called homophobia. However, i don’t think holding a moral view that Homosexual acts are Sins amounts to homophobia.
Show me these Scholarly commentaries that say unbelievers are not accountable for their Sinful actions such as adultery, murder etc and will not be judged for them.
What do make of bible verse like isaiah 13:11, Proverbs 11:21, Ezekiel 3:18, 2Thess 1:8,9; etc?
I leave you Jesus words -
John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.
If the Sins of unbelievers is not imputed to them, what is Jesus talking about?