# Demonizing people

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Sorcerer, Feb 24, 2014.

1. ### SorcererPut a Spell on youRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
856
That's all he ever does. He's devious and a liar too.

3. ### KittamaruAshes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,938
I said why not in the gorram post!

5. ### Jan ArdenaOM!!!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,419

Marriage isn't only about love. In fact, love isn't a necessary component in marriage. It is first and foremost about biological procreation, and creating families, and in turn societies. That's the important thing about marriage. And it has worked. Do you agree with this?

How does this answer the question?

jan.

7. ### KittamaruAshes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,938
Folks, there are two types of people in this world... those that can extrapolate from incomplete data...

Jan Ardena is apparently NOT from that group.

Messages:
856

9. ### KittamaruAshes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,938
Lets put it to a vote... who here believes Jan cannot possibly be capable of this level of misunderstanding and/or ineptitude, and as a result is simply trolling?

Messages:
856
Trolling.

11. ### RandwolfIgnorance killed the catValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,183
That's a lie Jan. I've watched you repeat it over and over but that doesn't make it less a lie. Can't you at least google something first? Or, maybe visit Wiki if you're not capable of tracking original, secondary or even tertiary sources? Is that too much to ask of a member of an "intelligent" forum? Really?

Although state-recognized same-sex unions are becoming more accepted, there is a long history of same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned, and temporary relationships to highly ritualized unions that have included marriage​

Wiki

More:

A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. [5]​

Further:

After the Middle Ages in Europe, same-sex relationships were increasingly frowned upon and banned in many countries by the Church or the state. Nevertheless, Historian John Boswell argued that Adelphopoiesis, or brother-making, represented an early form of religious same-sex marriage in the Orthodox church. Alan Bray saw the rite of Ordo ad fratres faciendum ("Order for the making of brothers") as serving the same purpose in the medieval Roman Catholic Church. However, the historicity of Boswell's interpretation of the ceremony is contested by the Greek Orthodox Church, and his scholarship critiqued as being of dubious quality by scholars such as Robin Darling Young, Associate Professor of Theology at the Catholic University of America.[42]

In late medieval France, it is possible the practice of entering a legal contract of "enbrotherment" (affrèrement) provided a vehicle for civil unions between unrelated male adults who pledged to live together sharing ‘un pain, un vin, et une bourse’ – one bread, one wine, and one purse. This legal category may represent one of the earliest forms of sanctioned same-sex unions.[43]

While the church father, Augustine of Hippo, presented marriage as an important sacrament of the Christian Church in the 5th century CE,[44] it wasn't until the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard, in the middle of the 12th century, that marriage became a part of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Christian Church.[45][46]

A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.[47]

Emphasis mine.

That's just wiki, Jan. It's so ridiculously easy to debunk your BS claims that I rarely bother. Unless, of course, your version of historically starts in the middle ages. Somehow that wouldn't surprise me, people generally stay where they feel comfortable.

Have a great day...

12. ### SorcererPut a Spell on youRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
856
That's a really great post, Randwolf.

13. ### BalerionBannedBanned

Messages:
8,596
Careful. I don't mean overstep my bounds, but piling on isn't the solution.

I don't know if Jan is trolling, but there's certainly some intellectual dishonesty going on.

14. ### RandwolfIgnorance killed the catValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,183
On who's part J? Yours? Why do I infer that you are defending Jan's behavior? Is that what you are implying? (I actually doubt that - I think you're trying to stir up sheit, personally, kind of like that trolling you so despise)

Are you saying that if someone is so grossly inept at presenting the facts that the rest of us should take it easy upon him or her? Why? Does Sci have some sort of "handicap" rule that I'm not aware of? (Except for Victor Spinoza of course, bless his little heart)

15. ### quinnsongValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,621
That was quite funny, especially about Victor. How can you not like that guy?

16. ### KittamaruAshes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,938
No no, Balerion is right - I shouldn't stoop that level. None the less, Jan, drop the act.

17. ### BalerionBannedBanned

Messages:
8,596
Not at all. I thought your post was perfect. I don't advocate politeness for its own sake, but I don't think the posts I quoted contributed anything but fuel to the fire. And I wouldn't have bothered if I didn't respect them both.

Also, the intellectual dishonesty I refer to is on Jan's behalf. He's clearly being evasive and intentionally igoring points.

18. ### BellsStaff Member

Messages:
23,390
If we take the Bible as the definitive word on the matter, she did was she was supposed to do. After all, you are cherry picking using the Bible to deem homosexuality to be deviant or perverted behaviour. If you are going to use the Bible to prove your point, you don't get to cherry pick. The Bible advocates killing gays. She killed her son because she thought he was gay.

19. ### RandwolfIgnorance killed the catValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,183
Hey Jan, I think Bells may be referring to this piece of Bible Babble:

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.​

In fact, let's reproduce a few more verses from this fun chapter:

20:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

20:3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.

20:4 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:

20:5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.

20:6 And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.

20:7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God.

20:8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.

20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

20:16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

20:17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.

20:18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

20:19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.

20:20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.

20:21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.

20:22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.

20:23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

20:24 But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people.

20:25 Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.

20:26 And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.

20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.​

You do, in fact, take all that literally, right? If not, I would dearly love for you to explain why. By the way, if you need help with definitions, here is the link to dictionary.com. Just in case there are words in there that you don't understand, ya' know?

Now, tell us all again why it was right that the woman in Bell's post be convicted and sentenced for killing that abomination of a son? After all, she was only doing the Lord's work, right Jan?

Isn't the Bible your authority for declaring homosexuality to be a sin? If so, why, again, doesn't the Bible make Bell's point? I can't wait...

Such hypocrisy, at least be a consistent [&()@!*] (sanctioned for Sci's new mod)

20. ### SyneSine qua nonValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,515
Bit of a straw man, as I did not say that reductionism necessarily implies that "you are your actions".

Some strong reductionists believe that the behavioral sciences should become "genuine" scientific disciplines based on genetic biology, and on the systematic study of culture (see Richard Dawkins's concept of memes). In his book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins introduced the term "hierarchical reductionism" to describe the view that complex systems can be described with a hierarchy of organizations, each of which is only described in terms of objects one level down in the hierarchy. He provides the example of a computer, which under hierarchical reductionism is explained in terms of the operation of hard drives, processors, and memory, but not on the level of AND OR gates, or on the even lower level of electrons in a semiconductor medium. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism#Reductionism_and_science

People are arguing that behavior is equivalent to identity, because they equate a criticism of action as a criticism of who someone is. But, benefit of the doubt here, how exactly are these equivalent without both action and identity being reducible to, at least, that same origin?

Sex is an intrinsic part of biological nature. It is only through the exact same "hierarchical reductionism" above that you can claim that:
• Sex is intrinsic to who some one is (at best, biology determining both)
• Behavior is equivalent to identity (as otherwise arguing about criticism of one is necessarily criticism of the other is just a red herring)

But bringing up other behaviors... do you think that condemnation of any other behavior is equally devoid of the variety of condemnation that you think adheres to gays in this case? Quite to the contrary, as more and more "wrong" behavior is considered "mental illness" or "disease". Neither of which typically condemn the individual, at least as anything much more than a victim of genetics, upbringing, trauma, etc.. And just as with any other behavior, condemnation that may adhere to the individual will vary quite a bit. Even if someone believes that a person has a choice in the behavior, they could still consider it compulsive, thus alleviating some degree of intent or willfulness that typically weighs heavier on moral culpability.

Who said dualism necessitates no interconnection? Dualism is about the mental and physical not being identical in nature. It says nothing about how or to what degree these separate natures interact or influence each other. Again, if you knew anything about the Christianity you supposedly claim, you would know that all of the examples you have given are generally considered to be the separate nature of the mind taking precedence over that of the body.

Seems you have a very naive notion of both dualism specifically and tenets of Christianity in general.

Wait, are you saying rape is biological? I thought the general consensus was that rape was wholly due to mental disorder. Just because a behavior does not define the person does not mean that the person is not responsible for their behavior. Quite the contrary. It is because the behavior is not considered intrinsic to the individual that the person can be held responsible for it. If the behavior were considered equivalent to the identity, then your straw man about condemning behavior is demonizing the person would hold water.

Again, you seem incapable of understanding a context derived from the same religion you claim.

And internalizing an external label is the definition of extrinsic. If the source is external then it is not natively intrinsic to who the real person is.

Thank you for illustrating my point.

21. ### KittamaruAshes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,938
Once again Syne, you have managed, in spectacular fashion, to dodge the point despite it being made clear enough that a CHILD could understand it...

Let me see if I can simplify it any further:

You call someone stupid long enough and often enough, treat them as though they are stupid, and limit their activities as you would to one who is stupid... they will eventually BELIEVE they are stupid, no matter how smart they are.
or, as a very wise man once said - if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its entire life believing that it is stupid.

In other words - all this labeling by others, stereotyping, and other such negative interaction against a person does, in the end, impact said persons view of self. it is a simple fact of psychology. If you are incapable of understanding that... wait, who am I kidding... you know it full well, you simply IGNORE IT to further your own arguments.

your intellectual dishonesty, bigotry, and misrepresentation is, in essence a pillar of EVERYTHING the moderation team is here to PREVENT. Congratulations Syne... you have become SciForums first Anti-Moderator.

22. ### BalerionBannedBanned

Messages:
8,596
That's exactly what you did:

:shrug:

No one is saying that gay sex is their identity. They are saying that homosexuality is a part of their identity. By condemning the action--gay sex--you're saying that the expression of that identity is condemnable, and therefore, that the identity itself is condemnable.

And you're not fooling anyone. We know this "blame the behavior" bullshit is just your "in" to demonize homosexuals by implying their natural actions are responsible for mental illness and the transmission of HIV/AIDS. It's standard homophobic rote with a thin veneer of deniability. You do this for the same reason you won't outright state your religious beliefs; you think that by pretending you aren't a bigot, you'll get away with saying bigoted things.

LOL at you using a Dawkins term. At least you're putting quotes around it this time.

Again, it isn't reductionism to say that we are our nature. We can also view ourselves as transcendent beings who draw inspiration from the numinous, while also recognizing our nature as being part of who we are. Maybe if you dedicated more than a few minutes skimming a wiki page, you wouldn't keep misusing these concepts.

This is ridiculous, and it's also wrong. We condemn people all the time for their nature. Consider rapists, pedophiles, psychopaths and sociopaths, mothers who drown their children in bathtubs while suffering from postpartum depression...Mental illness has never been considered a justifiable defense of character. In the case of addicts (gambling, drugs, whatever) they most certainly are considered moral reprobates, and the "drugs made me do it" defense, while valid, doesn't excuse the drug use itself. Nor does addiction as a disease, since help is always available.

Of course, homosexuality is not a mental illness, nor a compulsion or a vice, so your argument is moot. There is no way to alleviate some degree of intent or willfulness.

23. ### Jan ArdenaOM!!!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,419

Of course there were same sex unions, no one is denying that. But ''marriage'' has always been understood to mean the union of a man and woman(en), male and female. Whenever we were heard of people getting married, the majority of the world, from time immemorial, it was taken for granted that the people involved were male and female. I, nor you, need to consult wiki for that.

jan.