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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   
If this can't cure homosexuality, nothing can. The problem is, it promotes porn addiction. So, it's a wash.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by cbass]




posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by redled
Yeah, try Catholicism in the dark ages.


That's right. And the Roman Catholic Church *is* warped, which is why she is separate from the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestants. What is your point? Now because you can point at Europe, that somehow the Soviets and the Nazis are now not bad?



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


Any addiction is unhealthy by very nature of the definition of the word but religion has not really been able to cure alcoholism, drug-addiction or compulsive behaviors of any kind so I'm not sure it will be able to fix porn addiction either. There are groups for almost any addiction. As far as the homosexuality thing, I don't believe there is anything wrong with gay people. They simply like something different than the majority but the world would be a boring place if we all did the same things and liked the same things. We should cherish differences in people. If you look at all the gay people throughout history who have done so much good and brought so much creativity to the world you would start to realize that if we were all the same, the world would not be anywhere near as interesting or evolved. With that line of thinking we should all get uniforms and regulation haircuts; where does it end? How would it be if everyone looked, talked, acted and thought exactly the same? Where would we go from there? We would all be better off if we took the time to befriend someone completely different from ourselves and allow ourselves to see the world from a different point of view. Enlightenment is power. Learn about things you do not understand, don't hate them!



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Well, to answer the question, no, because it is not a disease. A good example of the hypocrisy surrounding the churchs' methods of "curing" our diseased gay brethren is seen on a skit from HBO's Mr. Show in which the diseased David Cross is "cured" by the religious Bob Odenkirk - only to have to repeat the coming to Jesus process over and over until they promote the next program which discusses David's 2009 planned fall from grace at a party in Mexico. Good stuff, good stuff. Oh, and gay people are for the most part born that way imo.

ColordoJens



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


What makes you say "for the most part, they're born like that."



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


What makes you say "for the most part, they're born like that."


Because he changes the meaning of words depending on the context, and because it sounds like a logical argument that gets people "off the hook" for their behavior to claim that the behavior is somehow inherent or hereditary.

The statement, given the definitions I provided, literally means, "from the day a baby male human is born, he has been copulating with other males" and a similar statement for females. As usual, the terms "gay" and "homosexual" are changed to either mean the temptation/inclination or the physical act of copulation itself. And these definitions are flip-flopped depending on which will cause more sympathy for the people in question.

Then, someone like myself will state that it is a ludicrous statement. Then there is an exchange of insults and "narrow-mindedness" vs. "liberalism" and nobody is convinced. Yada yada yada.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 07:30 AM
link   
You're awful condemning about both homosexuality, homo rights and people arguing for such.

And to clarify an earlier statement, if gay people go into those programs with the hope to be "fixed" (cured what ever word you want) and are coming out celibate, that in itself is not a result.

You could say that successful celibacy is a victory. But at the end of the day, if the once-gay person does not have the potential of having a heterosexual relationship including sex then it's not a success.

I've stated that I don't think celibacy is good for a person, but that's irrelevant. It's just people who can't seem to get a result so they default to eliminating sexuality, at least that's how it appears (which is not an unreasonable conclusion).

If these programs intend to take gay men and women and make them able to make families with the prospect of children, then celibacy is not good enough.

If someone decides to become celibate then their sexual orientation shouldn't have a thing to do it- homosexuality is not a reasonable basis for celibacy.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
You're awful condemning about both homosexuality, homo rights and people arguing for such.


I condemn the action, yes. I do not condemn the people. However, I am condemned for not acknowledging it as "normal" so this goes both ways.


If someone decides to become celibate then their sexual orientation shouldn't have a thing to do it- homosexuality is not a reasonable basis for celibacy.

I disagree. Homosexual practice is a perfectly reasonable basis for celibacy. And it can be done, through fasting and practicing self-control.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ScienceDada

Originally posted by Good Wolf
You're awful condemning about both homosexuality, homo rights and people arguing for such.


I condemn the action, yes. I do not condemn the people. However, I am condemned for not acknowledging it as "normal" so this goes both ways.


Fair do's.



If someone decides to become celibate then their sexual orientation shouldn't have a thing to do it- homosexuality is not a reasonable basis for celibacy.


I disagree. Homosexual practice is a perfectly reasonable basis for celibacy. And it can be done, through fasting and practicing self-control.


But that is not a fix! It's a cop-out. Plain and simple.
Ether the practice can be fixed; in which case celibacy is a step shy of success, or It can't; in which case celibacy is completely irrelevant.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   
And why the hell would anyone wanna be celibate in the first place?

"Oh, look at me, I'm above human urges and desire, aren't I just the cat's pyjamas. Never mind ever having a family unit"


Celibacy and chastity

Priests (and nuns) throughout the world take oaths for the renunciation of marriage and to uphold vows of chastity. Where did the Christian priests get this dangerous idea to sacrifice their sexual life? They got it straight from the words of the alleged Jesus (and St. Paul) from the New Testament (see the Catholic Encyclopedia):


For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

-Mathew 19:12

Priests throughout the history of Christendom have also interpreted Luke 20:34-36 as an insurance to get into heaven, where sexual marriage doesn't exist (celibacy insures that they will arrive resurrected in an unmarried state).

Consider that if a Jesus did exist, he would have had to live as a virgin, either as a born eunuch, a forced castrated eunuch, a self-castrated eunuch, or from self imposed celibacy. Many health workers have observed that suppression of the sex drive goes against human nature and eventually produces an unnatural outlet at some point in their life. This appears most clearly in the thousands of child molestation cases that occurs within the Christian hierarchy and in millions of religious followers who consider sex a sin.

Who knows how many children throughout history have lived damaged lives or died as a result of this insane practice? As an example, many ancient Christian European cathedrals contain dark secrets within their foundation which consist of the concealment of buried infant bones born from nuns impregnated by the clergy. Many cathedrals, to this day, offer a view of the burial sites to the curious tourist. And who knows the extent of the damage that has occurred because millions of the faithful in the past and present believe that sex represents a sin.

No doubt some of you might wonder about the nuns who marry Jesus. Of course this kind of marriage doesn't involve sex at all (at least not admitted). One can only wonder about the psyche of a sister who's main image of Jesus consists of a tortured naked male nailed to a cross. How can it not produce hidden desires that would embarrass the most jaded sadomasochist? Marrying Jesus also brings up a question about Jesus with all of his sex-suppressed wives. Would it not make him the most notorious polygamist of all time? In spite of this hilarious revelation, the real-world consequences of a sex-starved human being do not appear so hilarious.

In what manner should we admire the unnatural notion of sexual sacrifice when it does absolutely nothing for the clergy or their congregations except produce pedophilic tendencies? Consider the harm it has created from the thousands-of-years practice of raping male and female children (and adults). In what admirable light should we view Jesus' chastity? Does this resulting sexual damage resemble the will of a divine being of good or does it better match the actions of an evil agent, or more likely, the wrongful ideas born from faith and ignorance? You decide.


From here.


Personally I can't imagine why God would want it's people to become celibate. It's illogical to think that it's about purity, as God would want us to gain purity in a group context and being accountable to one another (like in a family).



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2


Can you be cured of baldness?



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
And why the hell would anyone wanna be celibate in the first place?

Because homosexuality is bad for the individual and bad for society.

Your entire diatribe on Celibacy and chastity is Roman Catholic practice. It does not describe the Orthodox view on these issues, and stems from Augustine of Hippo and his false theological views. As such, it has very little, if any, relevance to this discussion.


Personally I can't imagine why God would want it's people to become celibate. It's illogical to think that it's about purity, as God would want us to gain purity in a group context and being accountable to one another (like in a family).


Because you do not understand something does not make it false. I question whether or not you even wish to understand such a thing... it seems like you have already made up your mind.

With respect to "the virgins" (as they are referred to throughout Christian history) it is almost entirely within the group context of a monastery. Very few live the life of a hermit, and both the Orthodox and Protestants reject the idea that clergy must (or even should be) celibate, unless they are chosen from monastic communities. And this is due to the seriousness of the monastic commitment to serving God, not for some fraudulent notion that sexual relationships inherently taint a person. Orthodox monastic women do not "marry" Christ, as the language used to describe the whole Church is as "the bride." But about these things, I will not discuss because it is not appropriate here.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   
All right, fine. The nature of celibacy is a divergence on this topic (on which we will have to agree to disagree).

The point is that people going in gay and coming out celibate is not a fix or cure of any degree.

Treating homosexuality with celibacy is purely treating symptoms of the problem, rather than the cause of the problem.

Successful treatment of the cause would mean that a once-gay person was now attracted to the opposite sex and could have intercourse.

If after that turn around they become celibate then "woopdido", I don't really care. But otherwise, if celibacy comes before that point then they are still as gay as they were before ie. bottom line, NOT CURED!


That being the case, if everyone coming out of these places are now celibate then I can't help but think that It's not really working at all.

[edit on 9/5/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
If after that turn around they become celibate then "woopdido", I don't really care. But otherwise, if celibacy comes before that point then they are still as gay as they were before ie. bottom line, NOT CURED!


This is exactly what I was referring to in the previous post when I said that with respect to homosexuality, the definitions are often changed mid-argument. Gay/homosexual, as I have provided a definition for my statements, is engaging in sexual activity with a member of the same sex. So, then by definition, ceasing to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex is precisely the cure (be definition).

Your argument is based on homosexuality being an attraction or a temptation. However, if this definition is used, then engaging in sexual activity is not mandatory, and you are only referring to a cure for a temptation.

This is not trivial, because arguments for homosexual marriage are often based on the definition of the "sexual orientation" argument, but then no responsibility is taken for the individuals' choices in engaging in sexual activities. Rather, it is a demand by various individuals who wish to change social norms for no reason which is beneficial to society or to the individuals justifying such destruction to the institution of marriage. So, the definition totally matters, and having it switched mid-argument is only a rhetorical device used to justify a behavior which is not acceptable nor equivalent to heterosexual relationship within the bounds of marriage for the purposes of society supporting healthy families, which are the basis of society.

Thus, I am only pointing out the inconsistency.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Well we could use 2 terms with 2 definitions. If the definition of homosexuality is having sex with someone the same gender, by definition a virgin is a heterosexual. You could also take it further and say that gay people are only gay when they are actually having sex.

The way I see it is that consensual sex requires mutual attraction. So If someone is sexually attracted to someone of the same gender then they are gay. That is my definition, and I believe it is far more pragmatic than a definition reliant on sex.

That being the case, simply ceasing to have sex is no cure.

[edit on 9/6/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
The way I see it is that consensual sex requires mutual attraction. So If someone is sexually attracted to someone of the same gender then they are gay. That is my definition, and I believe it is far more pragmatic than a definition reliant on sex.

That being the case, simply ceasing to have sex is no cure.


I concur.

Now, the debate on whether gay people should be celibate... this is for another thread. Eh? In any case, I don't think it becomes any of us to be the morality police. But in other threads, the idea of families and marriage are related to this subject, and do come up. I will attempt to stay on topic



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScienceDada

Originally posted by Good Wolf
The way I see it is that consensual sex requires mutual attraction. So If someone is sexually attracted to someone of the same gender then they are gay. That is my definition, and I believe it is far more pragmatic than a definition reliant on sex.

That being the case, simply ceasing to have sex is no cure.


I concur.

Now, the debate on whether gay people should be celibate... this is for another thread. Eh? In any case, I don't think it becomes any of us to be the morality police. But in other threads, the idea of families and marriage are related to this subject, and do come up. I will attempt to stay on topic


likewise



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


Originally posted by justamomma
As far as porn, that too is a personal matter btw those who were involved in the making of the film and those who are sitting at home viewing it.

This caught my attention, and since it's not been addressed, I thought I'd be the one to address it.

What you are saying is not really logical, because 'those who are involved in the making of the film' and 'those who are at home viewing it' can't really be involved in this 'personal matter'.

A lot of porn (especially from places where it is unregulated) involves taken advantage of women, and abusing them (drugs, money, etc).
Even excluding that, it's hardly harmless...it objectifies women and gives people unreal expectations of reality (and thus making it more difficult to function in the real world), and as an addiction it can be very destructive to the family unit (much like any addiction). Not saying there is anything wrong with a little something something involving nice pictures between a couple, though....



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Isn`t it religion which is highly addivtive and therefor dangerous?
Never heard that about homosexualitiy or wachting porns.

Why always judge something/body?
Is that what it`s about religion?

Hopefully not.....



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Of course homosexuality cannot be "cured"! That's ridiculous!

Porn... I guess it could be if it was such a problem that it needed "curing".

You know what we should be really focusing of curing though? Religion.
I think this is a very obtainable goal and we should all strive towards it.

Homosexuality has been shown to be neurological as of late, as in, something you're born with. Religion on the other hand you are born without knowing and then your parents indoctrinate you with it, quite a bit like a disease or illness, much more so than homosexuality.

If we could begin by exposing those afflicted with religion to science, educate them in the reality of our universe, we could start seeing a positive difference.




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join