Possible. Doesn’t matter much to me, honestly. I just went with Evangelical sensibilities. I put this question, together with the question of the nature of the Bible, to bed years ago.
A lot of it comes down to how a people present themselves. The doctor’s email was quite vitriolic which really didn’t help him out. If the doctor had used kinder language and politely explained why he can’t support institutions that present homosexuality in a flattering light there may not have been this type of reaction.
Let’s look at this from the other direction. Imagine if the AHA made a statement describing how they couldn’t have neanderthal fascist right wingers in their midst, nor could they support doctors who aligned themselves with gay bashing Judeo-Christian hate mongerers. That would be a bit over the top, wouldn’t it?
But hopefully not. If he had “kindly and politely explained” why he was offended by seeing an ad in which an African American was positively depicted, because he does not like to be subjected to that kind of thing, how do you think that would have gone over?
What is the difference?
1 Like
We’ve been mostly been talking about this bigot’s vile letter to the ballet company. But what about his abusing his position as editor to use the journal as a platform to propagandize for his religious faith? If there was any doubts left re: his unsuitability for the position, that should have erased them?
Not very well, but sexuality and race are viewed differently in our culture. They are not necessarily the same in all situations.
The onus is on you. The history of usage of the term (which according to your own source only goes back to 1972, so it didn’t even exist when I was a child) shows that it originated in particular cultural quarters, and that its embryonic development, so to speak, was within a certain cultural womb. The majority of everyday folks I talk to (clerks in grocery stores, people in churches, etc.) never use the term.
Again, by “current usage” you mean usage by a certain group, i.e., journalists in the mainstream legacy media, academics (who, surveys show, are far to the left of the general population on every issue), members of special interest groups, etc. Convince me that the man on the street uses the term.
So already he departs from empiricism and is led by a hypothetical theoretical model. The usage would be empirical if he simply gave a name to an existing antagonism (in which case “phobia” would not be the right word); it would also be empirical if he simply described an existing fear (i.e., if he had noted that a number of people have admitted to fear of homosexuals, in which case “phobia” would be the right word); but to note the antagonism, and then attribute that antagonism to “fear” as the cause, is to make a theoretical leap. Where are the research papers, where are the original notes, establishing that people with antagonism are motivated by fear? But of course, social science is filled with such unwarranted leaps, which is why a good deal of academic social science is crap, as I said before.
Which is itself formed directly from Greek and Latin roots. I don’t think much of your degree in “Classics” if this is the level of philological analysis they taught you in your program. You even went so far as to deny that the “homo” prefix came from the Greek root for “same”. A simple check with the OED would have told you otherwise.
A word does not have to contain a complete pathway to the meaning, but what indicators it gives have to be accurate. The “phobia” in “homophobia” is simply inaccurate, given the actual meaning of the word in usage, which is about hate and persecution, not fear.
I never “expose myself” in public. That would be in bad taste. Also, in many jurisdictions, there are laws against it.
I agree with you that presentation is important. I haven’t actually commented on what the doctor wrote, since (as frequently happens in these discussions) the discussion has become broader, and the doctor’s statement seems to have dropped out of the picture. But in general, I agree with your approach:
So I don’t think I disagree with you.
I was trying to point out the way the word “homophobic” has slid into our language, without any clear philological rationale for its current usage, and has become a heavily politicized term, despite its formal “look” as a mere name for one phobia among others. I find that modern people are very rarely on the alert regarding these linguistic novelties, rarely examine them at the very point of their birth for soundness, and rarely interrogate the early purveyors of them, but tend to pick them up “by ear” and repeat them; thus, they spread, and quickly morph in meaning, acquiring connotations which travel with them. It used to be that philosophers, literary critics, journalists and others would pounce on such novelties and give them a critical scrutiny, but now they all seem to be too busy crusading for this or that left-liberal cause to do any detached, critical analysis of the language we use. But I’ve said enough on this point.
If I had been in charge of the terminology at the moment of its birth, I would have coined the term “homoerotophobia” to specify the precise object of the fear; but nobody asked me.
And if I intended the term to refer to hatred of homosexuals, I would not have employed the “phobia” part at all, but would have used a Greek or Latin root that referred to hatred. And if I intended the term to refer to persecution of homosexuals, I again would have used a different Greek or Latin root, such as the one I suggested above (dioko). In other words, I would have chosen my term on the basis of its accuracy in description. But again, no one asked me. So all I can do is point out the latent ambiguities and confusions in currently politically and socially charged terms, and warn others of their rhetorical uses.
It’s standard Christian doctrine that all people will be ressurrected for judgement. There is no limitation them being believers at any time. This is what Paul taught too. (Romans 2:5,6), (Romans 1:18,19).
I doubt many scholars would agree with your interpretation of the judgement.
It’s a good question about babies
The bible doesn’t say specifically, any answer would be speculative.
Yes, if the Pharisees had admitted they were blind, they would have need of repentance and would be able to accept Christ’s message.
But since they consider themselves righteous, their Sin will remain on them.
This is obvious from Jesus teaching in that he forgave the Sin of people before they became believers. Take for example, the paralysed man whom Jesus healed in Mathew 9-
Mathew 9: 2 All at once some people brought him a paralyzed man lying on a stretcher. When Jesus saw their faith, he told the paralyzed man, “Be courageous, son! Your sins are forgiven.”
It’s very clear that Jesus saw unbelievers are people burdened with Sin and needing forgiveness.
Your doctrine needs to be clearer. What would have made the Pharisees without sin according to you? Their self identification as “blind”? That’s nonsense, many people who follow other religions or are athiests are very confident that they are not “blind”… are they also with Sin?
The Pharisees claiming that they were not blind would not make any difference to their knowledge of the law and hence their Sins. The problem is not that the Pharisees are blind, the problem is that they claim to see.The point Jesus is making is about their attitude of self righteousness which is preventing them from repenting and recieving forgiveness.
Jesus has already mentioned this with regard to the judgement over Israel which hindered many from seeing who he was -
Mathew 13: 14 “With them the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says: ‘You will listen and listen but never understand. You will look and look but never comprehend,
15 for this people’s heart has become dull, and their ears are hard of hearing.They have shut their eyes so that they might not see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’
If the Pharisees had been aware of their spiritual blindness, it would have lead to repentance and their sins would have been forgiven.
Depends on how you define compelling. For Christians, the fact that the bible teaches it’s a sin is compelling enough. And the only people Christians would expect to follow such a standard would be fellow Christians. Same concept applies to things like adultery. A non Christian sleeping around outside marriage is expected and no one can compel others to follow any particular religions standards. A pastor doing something of this sort would be a scandal and hypocrisy. Because he has committed to follow Christian standards of living.
Yes, there is definitely a personal cost involved.
As to being an unavoidable charecteristic, no one is without Sin. It’s an unavoidable charecteristic for human beings. Sanctification is a biblical process by which people are transformed by the power of God to be able to follow his will. I have a friend with same sex attraction who claims this has happened to him. How do you know it’s not possible?
You missed my point! I said myself in the same paragraph the reason is based in scripture.
Why should I care? I don’t see any reason to be making the request on moral grounds.
1 Like
I am not asking you to care. I am just sharing my perspective on the subject. Whether you care or not, agree or disagree, it a valid perspective that happens to be different from your viewpoint.
It has nothing to do with what I was saying. I’m not disputing that Christians have this perspective.
Then what is the point?
Christians do not compel homosexuals or anyone else for that matter to follow their moral codes.
Though it seems that some liberals want christians to adopt their (the liberal’s) moral code and drop the christian perspective. The means of enforcing this seems to be extreme social pressure applied by blindly calling all people who differ o the morality of homosexual acts as homophobes, and perhaps the risk of losing one’s job/standing in the work place.
I have already experienced this phenomenon in this forum and been called a homophobe and a bigot.
I was addressing @cdods’s point that the situation of (for example) black people and gay people was not equivalent. I was saying that they are equivalent in important ways.
C’mon, politics is a two-way street.
What do you expect? if you’re saying people are immoral, you better have a good reason or you’re creating ill-will.
1 Like
Wasn’t “limbo” invented for these unbaptized babies? In the 1960’s the nuns talked a lot about limbo. And purgatory.
That is not true. Christians expect homosexual people not to rape or murder or steal. And that is entirely reasonable.
Unless you are saying that Christians do not consider those things to be immoral? I doubt you believe that.
So yet another argument about semantics instead of the actual issues at hand.
6 Likes
Yes. This etymological discussion is interesting at all. But I doubt it matters to the victims of homophobia whether one gives a different name to the hatred motivating the harm they suffer.
2 Likes
The argument about semantics is important, because a word is being used loosely in order to achieve political ends. I’m not talking about the case of the doctor in the medical journal. I’ve already made it clear that I’m talking about the broader situation. The word “homophobic” is being used in a way that could, in countries that have “hate speech” laws (laws which Jonathan Burke recommends, but which Faizal Ali and I think are a bad idea), potentially land Christians, Jews, and others in jail for saying in public what their faith tells them is true. If “homophobic” means only what it literally says according to its roots, i.e., that someone is afraid of homosexuals, or even (by stretching) that someone personally hates homosexuals, then no one could be put in jail for expressing homophobia. But if the term “homophobic” is read by judges and juries to automatically include preaching violence against homosexuals, or advocating taking away their civil rights, then someone (under hate speech laws) could indeed be put in jail for being “homophobic.” So the use of words does matter. Charges of “homophobia” should not be thrown around casually. The term has, almost since its inception, been fuzzy, a moving target in its meaning, and its use in a courtroom situation could result in unjust consequences for some people.
What you mean by “victims of homophobia” is “victims of illegal violence coming from people who hate homosexuals so much they would break the law in order to harm them.” And I agree that this sort of action should be severely punished. I have made it clear from the beginning that the law has the right to punish people for actions against other people. But if a clergyman posts a comment on a website saying that according to the Bible, homosexual relations are sinful (without ever calling for violence against homosexuals themselves), he is certainly going to be called “homophobic” by a large number of journalists, academics, lobbyists, etc., and he shouldn’t ever have to go to jail, or face legal prosecution, for stating what he believes. Yet, in countries which have instituted hate speech laws, such a clergyman would be in serious danger of facing jail time. So the word “homophobic,” given the rhetorical climate in which it is often uttered, is potentially threatening to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.
Contra Jonathan Burke, America is wise not to institute “hate speech” laws, because once introduced, they will certainly invite attempts by many to suppress speech they don’t like through the use of the courts, even where that speech does not involve recommending violence; it will be enough that the speech indicates “hate.” It will potentially be illegal to hate anyone, or at least, to ever say that one hates anyone. That’s an extremely dangerous road to travel on, for someone committed to the traditional understanding of American liberties.
I think I’ve now made my position clear. I condemn physical violence against homosexuals, and I oppose actions that would deny homosexuals jobs, housing, etc. But the state should not try to control what people think or say about homosexuality (as long as speech about it does not incite to violence or to suppression of civil rights). The word “homophobia”, combined with the existence of “hate speech” laws, is for citizens of traditional religious and moral views a ticking time bomb, and that’s why the “loaded” nature of the word needs to be in the minds of anyone contemplating the adoption of “hate speech” laws. And “homophobia” isn’t the only word which poses dangers in this regard. The policing of thought and expression is very, very dangerous to the kind of freedoms that
Americans haven taken for granted.
I don’t want to spend any more time on this.