It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can Religion cure Homosexuality/Porn addiction?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


Yea. Before I apostatised, I was always afraid what would happen if my friends learnt that i was just a little bit bent, even thought I like girls too. I would be afraid of the pressure put on me from the christian factor of my circle of friends.

Luckily I could still have a strait relationship so it didnt mean I was doomed to never court anyone, but now I dont care so much.




posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Everyone stopped posting. Did I weird everyone out?



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I suppose I can be yet another talking head.

I suppose that these threads are nice and all, but the terms really need definition.

In the Christian tradition, several of these terms have specific meanings:

* Marriage is a union between one man and one woman for the purposes of joining the two into a family unit

* Homosexual is defined as someone who engages in sexual activity with one who is of the same sex

* Fornication is defined as sexual activity with anyone outside of the bonds of marriage

* Pornography is the graphical depiction of sexual activity

* Religion comes from the Latin "religare" meaning to tie/bind together, to reconnect and is the opposite of "relaxare" meaning to untie, to relax, or to open. Thus, the word "religion" means the act of connecting to tying oneself to God.

Now, given these definitions, your question is "can that which ties us to God heal our actions of fornication?" Yes. "Can that which ties us to God heal us from addiction to graphic forms of sexual activity?" Yes.

Furthermore, the question which is not asked... "Can that which ties us to God allow for healthy unions and familes?" Yes. And most of the arguments in this area focus on how far can deviance from healthy families and practiced be pushed and still be "acceptable." From the point of view of a "religious" person, I can't help but just see that these questions are only trying to justify that which is unhealthy and unwholesome. Pornography, homosexuality, divorce, child abuse, drug abuse, lying, cheating, stealing... these things are all bad for society because they destroy the ties that bind people together in love. The relationships that result from such activities are unstable and unhealthy.

Most people will tolerate a lot of deviance if it is personal, i.e. you can live the way you want to because it is none of my business. The problem in our day and age is that people who want me to "mind my own business" now are demanding to get a hold of my children---to indoctrinate them, to sway them, and to control them. This is where I draw the line and there are many like me.

If the element of children is gone from these arguments, then it really becomes moot. But for those who raise these questions (I call them liberals) and push an agenda over others (I call these conservatives or the silent majority), inevitably the issue of children comes up. And this is where the battle is. Because liberals have this incessant need not only to be left alone to live the way they see fit, but also to demand social acceptance that their actions are "normal" and then to move to indoctrinating children into these notions.

This is the root of the contention for most people.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2
That is very interesting.

While celibacy is a valid choice, I would wonder if the program really "worked" since the process is to turn them into functional heterosexuals? I would think that if we say homsexuality is wrong because it doens't produce kids, the same is true for celibacy.


Within "religion" the notion of celibacy is a valid choice because it is an exercise of self-control. Sex addiction can happen in any area, even within a "normal" marriage. So, the urges are accompanied by tempering the urges with the responsibility of child rearing.

Within Orthodox Christianity, the "religious" folk are to exercise restraint in all areas of life. Addictions of all forms are in this sense bad. Fasting as a practice is designed to learn self-control and self-discipline, and includes: eating, drinking, watching movies, sexual activity, playing sports, wasting time on ATS, etc. Sexual activity is a powerful temptation, but from the Orthodox view, to lack discipline in this area is to be sub-human because we were created to be much more than slaves to our passions. The same is true for overeating, watching/reading trashy things, becoming obsessed with sports, and other things which will tend to dominate our minds and hearts. All these things are the essence of idolatry which is the worst sin and has distinguished the Judeo-Christian tradition from the very beginning.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ScienceDada
 


The thing I have an issue with there is that if you "cure" homosexuality, then that person should be able to have a fulfiling relationship with the opposite sex, NOT simply abstain from sex, period.

Technically this person is not gay as s/he is not having homosexual relationships, but s/he is not fully "cured," because s/he is not actin gin her "proper" gender role.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2
reply to post by ScienceDada
 


The thing I have an issue with there is that if you "cure" homosexuality, then that person should be able to have a fulfiling relationship with the opposite sex, NOT simply abstain from sex, period.

Technically this person is not gay as s/he is not having homosexual relationships, but s/he is not fully "cured," because s/he is not acting in her "proper" gender role.


If one fasts from food, the sexual desire is greatly diminished, if not entirely eliminated. Is that a cure if the desire disappears? The root of your argument is that one "cannot help their urges." Of course you can, if you care enough to practice self-discipline.

So, in the philosophical argument, basically "since homosexual urges are 'natural' then they should be acceptable." Yet, the same would not apply to road rage or kleptomania, so why the double-standard with sexuality? Usually then, there is a counter-argument entails something like "well, homosexual actions are between consenting adults and not hurting anybody" which I already argued in another thread. Then point and counter-point, ending in some quote of Bible verses or expounding of a liberal ideology, etc., etc., etc.

The bottom line is that people with homosexual tendencies are a passion of the flesh, just as another may have a temper, another a desire to steal, or still another a desire to murder. None of these are Holy. But while society condemns me for not controlling my anger or urge to steal, somehow it is still crammed down my throat that uncontrolled sexual behavior is somehow ok, heterosexual or homosexual! And of course, to cover the social problems resulting from lack of self-control over heterosexual lust, children must be murdered... so now murder is ok in circumstances where somehow in the warped and twisted liberal psyche, two wrongs make a right. But anger and stealing are still wrong... or are they anymore? What hypocrisy.

So, given the definitions that I stated in the earlier post, yes... homosexual lust can be cured just as heterosexual lust can be, as can anger, gluttony, double-mindedness, and hypocrisy, through "religion." Because all can be combated through the "religious" practice of fasting, which forces humility and quenches the passions of the flesh. I am sure this answers the question, but likely not in the way the OP intended.

[And this is not a dig asmeone2 -- just a rhetorical device to make a point... you are still a dear woman who, like my wife, loves her children and is trying to do the right thing
]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Everyone stopped posting. Did I weird everyone out?

No, this is an exchange of ideas. At least you aren't telling other people that you are Jesus or soliciting butt sex. Those discussions would become weird.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
But the point that I would raise is that celibacy is not natural- I'd even sub-human. The suppression of sexuality, a fundamental biological drive, is not healthy and really should not be done. Hundreds of thousands of years of Natural selection makes sex an important part of the life of all animals on Earth and to deny it is to deny major internal function- and even to deny ones humanity, this kind of thing is pathological. Many can't take the strain of celibacy which is why you get so many paedophile priests court cases.

It's that reason which I would say if they are coming out of these programs celibate, then the programs don't work cos people are coming out worse than they were when they went in.


I watched a movie a while back called 'Stick Men', a wholesome NZ film about a Pool tournament. The main characters were playing pool at one stage and one guy was creeped out by the priests that they were playing.

The priest asked if it was the collar that was creeping him out, to which he replied "Nah, it's the sodomy."
"Well we're trying to phase that out these days."

-Classic.


The other thing is that I would be concerned that the religious would not take on the challenge of "curing homo.." in the appropriate matter. I said earlier that the physical attraction is based on important body chem, to put it simply, and that a fault in said system is the common cause of homosexuality.

Short of self-hypnosis and self-brain washing, I don't think that any church would approach the biology of the fault.

[edit on 9/3/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
But the point that I would raise is that celibacy is not natural- I'd even sub-human. The suppression of sexuality, a fundamental biological drive, is not healthy and really should not be done. Hundreds of thousands of years of Natural selection makes sex an important part of the life of all animals on Earth and to deny it is to deny major internal function- and even to deny ones humanity, this kind of thing is pathological. Many can't take the strain of celibacy which is why you get so many paedophile priests court cases.


Anger is natural as well, and so is mental illness. While arguing the "humanity" of sexuality, you reducing humans to animals to make your point in comparing it as an evolutionary necessity and a characteristic of all animals. In a "religious" view, humans transcend animals, and therefore can transcend animalistic passions. Your argument is thus quite odd that you claim that denying animal passions through fasting makes humans "sub-human."

Also, the arguments regarding Priests apply to the Roman Catholic practices in which sexuality is regarded as inherently sinful. This is not shared by all of Christianity, and therefore is an aberration of the Roman Catholic faith, as is the Papacy. It also does not explain the prevalence of pedophilia/child abuse amongst Protestants and Orthodox (and Mormons, Hindus, Hare Krishnas, Muslims, Buddhists, Scientologists, etc.) who do not practice celibacy of their clergy as a way of life (although some do practice temporary celibacy, granted). So your argument fails on that level as well.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Sorry if this was already said, but I just wanted to toss this out there. I was watching a special on Trangenders the other night that really blew my mind. Yuck, pardon that pun.

Anyway. One guy became a woman, being so unhappy as a man as to be suicidal. When the change was made, was perfectly happy, became a nude model and dancer, and even married. But after something like ten or fifteen years, decided to switch back! The now the person lives as a gay man (without the tools) and is a muscle-head who hangs out at the gym.

Now here's the one that really hits the topic here. A man who became a woman, though the person did not have the money for the full surgery, but was quite happy as a woman, except for a lack of family. The church convinced the person that they were living in sin and the only path to family was to go back to being a man. So he did that. Now he has no friends and is suicidal. His shrink said he should have stayed a woman, and that the church screwed him up.

Now my own opinion on the transgender issue. Don't cut yourself one way or the other! No mutilation! Make do with what you have and live as you see fit otherwise. Dress how you want to dress, see who you want to see, but don't think that having a different toolbox is going to fix anything.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


My point was that sexuality is part of a healthy human, and is natural behaviour of beings that reproduce with two sexes (not asexual), and that no amount of religious beliefs and rituals, meditation or what ever can make man not be what he is, man, that is an animal. The religious will say that man is above animals, why? The only conceivable answer is that man has power over his urges and instincts (arguably). That separates man from beast. BUT man still has children in the same way that animals do so why do the religious try and "animalise" sex? Celibacy? -bad idea.

This is why I don't see celibacy as a positive result. If anything. it's a cop-out.

And yes I get your point, celibacy isn't thee cause of paedophilia....

Its a cause. And after all if everyone went celibate, man would end in one generation, so bottom line is that sex is necessary.

As for homosexuality, it comes down to your beliefs, especially in religious people.

But I'm not religious, so in my opinion homosexuality is not evil. But I do believe that it can be reversed, it's just that if people who go into religious programs for this reversal are coming out celibate, that tells me that the programs are not working.

[edit on 9/3/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
You could probably cure straights of their heterosexuality as well if they really disliked the idea of having sex with the opposite gender or thought it was immoral. If with their own desire and pressure by others, I'd say its possible. There has to be some people out there that would do it.

I don't know what you would say about the question though, "Can it?". You could throw a slice of bologna at peoples' faces and it just might cure them of anything. Whether its effective or not is the question and for the vast majority of straights or gays, it wouldn't be effective.

There seems to be an argument that if one person has success on a conversion, that it means that everyone else can do it also, and its a lame argument and it doesn't even make sense.



[edit on 3-9-2008 by ghaleon12]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2
Hello, I'd like to start a topic discussing the religious-based programs that are supposed to cure homosexuality and, to a lesser degree, pornography addiction.


In the later middle ages, the very rich could buy prayer books with pornographic framings. This is now mass reproducable so we can all do it if we choose. Religion couldn't stop the nobles, and now can't the rest of us. It's progress. For slightly different reasons, with homosexuality, the truth gradually outs through the mass media, and what only the protected few were allowed to do, through reality checks we all have the right to.
All a religious authoritarian state can do is give power to the few, not the many.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by redled]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Good point but I just had a thought.

I'm not sure you can cure homosexuality at all. Let's take for example you point about healing heterosexuality.

What ever the method of introducing the present orientation with the intended orientation is, I don't see the orientation change but rather expand to encompass the new er... material(?)

You know what I'm saying?



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
My point was that sexuality is part of a healthy human, and is natural behaviour of beings that reproduce with two sexes (not asexual), and that no amount of religious beliefs and rituals, meditation or what ever can make man not be what he is, man, that is an animal. The religious will say that man is above animals, why?

Because the religious assert that we are more than animals. Even someone such as yourself admits that we are no longer constrained by evolutionary limitations, as we now have "spermbanks." It is a double-standard to say that sex is no longer necessary for our species, then to say that it should be without constraint. The argument than could be made that we are "social animals" and homosexuality is damaging to our society. But the bottom line is you think homosexuality is a good thing (or at least not evil) and so your arguments will be designed to normalize the practice as it is nothing more than chemistry or "good fun."



This is why I don't see celibacy as a positive result. If anything. it's a cop-out.

Since when is self-discipline a cop out for anything? This is really warped.


Its a cause. And after all if everyone went celibate, man would end in one generation, so bottom line is that sex is necessary.

Not everyone needs to be celibate. That is what marriage is for, between one man and one woman, for the purposes of nurturing healthy families, which is good for use as individuals and for society as a whole.


As for homosexuality, it comes down to your beliefs, especially in religious people.

This is a religious statement, and the faith can be encompassed in this statement: "homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality, as both are arbitrary and very dependent on the individuals desires, but ultimately neither has any significant disadvantages that would label it as 'bad'." But those who do not accept homosexuality as normative see that it is either damaging to the individual, or damaging to society as a whole. It is a leap of faith to say otherwise, because most human societies have rejected homosexual lifestyles, and none (that I am aware of... please correct me if I am wrong) have ever granted marriage status to homosexuals to make it an institution equal to heterosexual marriage.


But I'm not religious, so in my opinion homosexuality is not evil. But I do believe that it can be reversed, it's just that if people who go into religious programs for this reversal are coming out celibate, that tells me that the programs are not working.

That is because your definition of working is that an individual has some form of sexual activity. This is an arbitrary stipulation that need not be fulfilled. Most people believe that homosexuality is damaging in a psychological way, and often measurably damaging in a physical way (be that rectum damage, diseases), physically destabilizes families, as well as "religious" reasons.

Fasting can cure homosexuality in the same way Aspirin can cure a headache, in that it can reduce or eliminate the symptoms. Will religion change body chemistry... probably not in most cases. But to say that celibacy is not a cure is based on hidden assumptions that sexual activity is necessary to be a whole person... which is not true. Some very great people throughout history have been celibate, such as Mother Theresa of Calcutta and Francis of Assisi (to name two who are popularly known).



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by redled
All a religious authoritarian state can do is give power to the few, not the many.


This is so warped on many levels. The worst authoritarian states in the world have been atheistic, namely Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. At least be honest when referring to authoritarianism, especially in our day and age.

But even more, to say that society now must ignore thousands of years of wisdom and now accept homosexual couples with a "married" status equal to that of a traditional marriage makes that society a "religious authoritarian state" is just a bizarre leap of logic.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Without religion, there would be no negative connotation with porn, or homosexuality. So no, religion can't "cure" these things, anymore than police can "cure" crime. All they can do is punish you (by guilt, jail or death).



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


Originally posted by darkelf
Religion can't cure anything.


I agree on that single sentence. And as to also reply the OP, I'd think that the topic should be "Can faith cure...".

Because faith, child of will, can "cure" almost anything. I've seen total drunkards become sober for their life, junkies to become decent citizens. But no, I also would say that religion cannot cure anything. What religion can do, is to introduce one to the faith, nothing else (except perhaps give feeling of belonging into some community).

Besides that, I would disagree that homosexuality is a disease, as the using word cure would suggest. To some extent I agree with Good Wolf, who above said that it is more like disorder.

Respectfully,

-v

[edit on 4-9-2008 by v01i0]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   
One thing i have learned is you should never lie to yourself, to fit in. You just do not feel right.

This is what these things will never be able to cure.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ScienceDada

Originally posted by redled
All a religious authoritarian state can do is give power to the few, not the many.


This is so warped on many levels. The worst authoritarian states in the world have been atheistic, namely Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. At least be honest when referring to authoritarianism, especially in our day and age.

But even more, to say that society now must ignore thousands of years of wisdom and now accept homosexual couples with a "married" status equal to that of a traditional marriage makes that society a "religious authoritarian state" is just a bizarre leap of logic.


Yeah, try Catholicism in the dark ages.

EDIT: And totalitarian states generally are 'a bizarre leap of logic.' You don't get sane genociders you know.....

EDIT 2: Read about the Spanish Inquisition.
[edit on 4-9-2008 by redled]

[edit on 4-9-2008 by redled]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join