NationStates

The New California Republic wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
LGBT culture being a sin wouldn’t be accurate, as it’s an intangible quantity. Participating in it however would be. Which is the point I’m trying to draw up here.

So reading books by LGBT authors would be a sin? Songs? Plays? Musicals? As that is participating in culture after all...

Tarsonis wrote:Raping children is clearly morally abhorrent. Thus a group like NAMBLA that actively campaigns to normalize and legalize child rape, are engage in licentious action in doing so.

Seriously just stop Tarsonis. It's bad enough that it's the first thing that came into your head when I mentioned LGBT culture.

No. If you can’t have a conversation about this without your jimmies getting rustled then leave. I made it clear multiple times that I wasn’t equating the two. If you can’t engage in the discussion without huffing and puffing, then piss off.

Tarsonis wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:So reading books by LGBT authors would be a sin? Songs? Plays? Musicals? As that is participating in culture after all...


Seriously just stop Tarsonis. It's bad enough that it's the first thing that came into your head when I mentioned LGBT culture.

No. If you can’t have a conversation about this without your jimmies getting rustled then leave. I made it clear multiple times that I wasn’t equating the two. If you can’t engage in the discussion without huffing and puffing, then piss off.

You were the one who mentioned NAMBLA when I asked about LGBT culture. It was the first thing you thought of. You are the one that has sabotaged the discussion by going down the paedophilia route. So don't fucking blame me for the shit that you have caused, telling me to "piss off" when the only one at blame here is you. The fucking cheek of it.

The New California Republic wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
No. If you can’t have a conversation about this without your jimmies getting rustled then leave. I made it clear multiple times that I wasn’t equating the two. If you can’t engage in the discussion without huffing and puffing, then piss off.

You were the one who mentioned NAMBLA when I asked about LGBT culture. It was the first thing you thought of. You are the one that has sabotaged the discussion by going down the paedophilia route. So don't fucking blame me for the shit that you have caused, telling me to "piss off" when the only one at blame here is you. The fucking cheek of it.

I sabotaged nothing. I tried to be delicate you flew off the handle. If you’re not mature enough to check your emotions at the door, that’s not my problem.

Tarsonis wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:You were the one who mentioned NAMBLA when I asked about LGBT culture. It was the first thing you thought of. You are the one that has sabotaged the discussion by going down the paedophilia route. So don't fucking blame me for the shit that you have caused, telling me to "piss off" when the only one at blame here is you. The fucking cheek of it.

I sabotaged nothing. I tried to be delicate you flew off the handle. If you’re not mature enough to check your emotions at the door, that’s not my problem.

Your first response to my question about LGBT culture is mentioning paedophilia, sure it was delicate and wasn't sabotage(!).

And questioning my maturity when I react badly when you shovel paedophilia in my face as your initial response is just fucking pathetic.

The New California Republic wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Honestly, because I’m unsure of what exactly you consider moral and immoral behavior, so I picked a topic I thought you we’re very likely to consider immoral.

We were talking about LGBT culture being a "sin" or not, and you go off on a tangent about paedophilia. I still don't quite know what you are doing...

If it's because you seriously believe that paedophilia is representative of LGBT culture, then I find that deeply troubling, as it's more than a bit weird that it's the first thing you thought of when asked the question about LGBT culture.

There you go again, looking at the finger and missing the moon.
Tarsonis was broadening the discussion over "boundaries of morally acceptable", while it seems you don't care about morality, but just narrowly lgbt topic and nothing else.

Lost Memories wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:We were talking about LGBT culture being a "sin" or not, and you go off on a tangent about paedophilia. I still don't quite know what you are doing...

If it's because you seriously believe that paedophilia is representative of LGBT culture, then I find that deeply troubling, as it's more than a bit weird that it's the first thing you thought of when asked the question about LGBT culture.

There you go again, looking at the finger and missing the moon.
Tarsonis was broadening the discussion over "boundaries of morally acceptable", while it seems you don't care about morality, but just narrowly lgbt topic and nothing else.

I asked a clear-cut question about LGBT culture, with reference to a Wikipedia article. I didn't ask about paedophilia. The first response to my question about LGBT culture was paedophilia. It's just as offensive as a person's first response to an unrelated question about Catholicism being a mention of paedophile priests.

The New California Republic wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:

I sabotaged nothing. I tried to be delicate you flew off the handle. If you’re not mature enough to check your emotions at the door, that’s not my problem.

Your first response to my question about LGBT culture is mentioning paedophilia, sure it was delicate and wasn't sabotage(!).

As I said, in that very post that I wasn’t equating the two. I even tried to explain that it wasn’t the first thing I thought of, but it was one I figured you would definitely consider immoral ( which clearly I was right given the outburst.) honestly through all our interactions I really don’t know what your moral code actually is.

And questioning my maturity when I react badly when you shovel paedophilia in my face as your initial response is just fucking pathetic.

Dude I’m fucking Catholic. Do you know how much I have to deal with people “shoving pedophilia in my face” on a daily basis? Do I get mad? A little, but I don’t fly off the handle.

Except there’s one difference between me and them. They intentionally try to piss me off in doing so. I made it very clear from the beginning that, that was not what I was doing here. But you chose to gnash your teeth and rip your clothes. So no, if you expect me to recant here you’re wasting both our time.

The New California Republic wrote:

Lost Memories wrote:There you go again, looking at the finger and missing the moon.
Tarsonis was broadening the discussion over "boundaries of morally acceptable", while it seems you don't care about morality, but just narrowly lgbt topic and nothing else.

I asked a clear-cut question about LGBT culture, with reference to a Wikipedia article. I didn't ask about paedophilia. The first response to my question about LGBT culture was paedophilia. It's just as offensive as a person's first response to an unrelated question about Catholicism being a mention of paedophile priests.

It’s called drawing an analogy. Are you familiar with the concept?

Tarsonis wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Your first response to my question about LGBT culture is mentioning paedophilia, sure it was delicate and wasn't sabotage(!).

As I said, in that very post that I wasn’t equating the two. I even tried to explain that it wasn’t the first thing I thought of, but it was one I figured you would definitely consider immoral ( which clearly I was right given the outburst.) honestly through all our interactions I really don’t know what your moral code actually is.

And questioning my maturity when I react badly when you shovel paedophilia in my face as your initial response is just fucking pathetic.

Dude I’m fucking Catholic. Do you know how much I have to deal with people “shoving pedophilia in my face” on a daily basis? Do I get mad? A little, but I don’t fly off the handle.

Except there’s one difference between me in them. They intentionally try to piss me off in doing so. I made it very clear from the beginning that, that was not what I was doing here. But you chose to gnash your teeth and rip your clothes. So no, if you expect me to recant here you’re wasting both our time.

If we can drop the paedophilia thing I'd be willing to discuss this.

Tarsonis wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:I asked a clear-cut question about LGBT culture, with reference to a Wikipedia article. I didn't ask about paedophilia. The first response to my question about LGBT culture was paedophilia. It's just as offensive as a person's first response to an unrelated question about Catholicism being a mention of paedophile priests.

It’s called drawing an analogy. Are you familiar with the concept?

A very poorly chosen one that had a clear potential to be inflammatory.

But regardless, if we drop it I'd be willing to discuss the original matter.

The New California Republic wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
As I said, in that very post that I wasn’t equating the two. I even tried to explain that it wasn’t the first thing I thought of, but it was one I figured you would definitely consider immoral ( which clearly I was right given the outburst.) honestly through all our interactions I really don’t know what your moral code actually is.



Dude I’m fucking Catholic. Do you know how much I have to deal with people “shoving pedophilia in my face” on a daily basis? Do I get mad? A little, but I don’t fly off the handle.

Except there’s one difference between me in them. They intentionally try to piss me off in doing so. I made it very clear from the beginning that, that was not what I was doing here. But you chose to gnash your teeth and rip your clothes. So no, if you expect me to recant here you’re wasting both our time.

If we can drop the paedophilia thing I'd be willing to discuss this.

Fine you pick an act that is morally abhorrent, and a group that is actively trying to normalize it in popular culture and moral consensus.

The New California Republic wrote:

Lost Memories wrote:There you go again, looking at the finger and missing the moon.
Tarsonis was broadening the discussion over "boundaries of morally acceptable", while it seems you don't care about morality, but just narrowly lgbt topic and nothing else.

I asked a clear-cut question about LGBT culture, with reference to a Wikipedia article. I didn't ask about paedophilia. The first response to my question about LGBT culture was paedophilia. It's just as offensive as a person's first response to an unrelated question about Catholicism being a mention of paedophile priests.

Weren't you asking Tarsonis what was he meaning for "[...] participating in [...] lgbt culture [...] which would be sinful. " ?
He answered you what was the reasoning he was using: if the act is deemed sinful, same goes for the culture promoting it.

Calling in wikipedia had little meaning to start with, since the question was about the meaning expressed by Tarsonis, and not what was the dictionary definition of "lgbt culture"

Or not?

Tarsonis wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:If we can drop the paedophilia thing I'd be willing to discuss this.

Fine you pick an act that is morally abhorrent, and a group that is actively trying to normalize it in popular culture and moral consensus.

But there is not really a need for an analogy to be used in this case, we can deal with it directly. The question really was why participating in LGBT culture, as it is usually understood, as per the definition found on Wikipedia, is sinful. Why is engaging with works by LGBT artists, which counts as participation, sinful? Why is an awareness of LGBT social movements, and the figures involved in them, sinful? If it is only the act of homosexuality that is a sin, and LGBT culture as such does not involve the act itself, then how is the cultural aspects surrounding it a sin? Where does it say that cultural aspects related to a sinful act, but recognisably separate and distinct from the act itself, are also themselves sinful?

Why would LGBT culture and participating in it being sinful?

Nakena wrote:Why would LGBT culture and participating in it being sinful?

Virtue ethics.

The New California Republic wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Fine you pick an act that is morally abhorrent, and a group that is actively trying to normalize it in popular culture and moral consensus.

But there is not really a need for an analogy to be used in this case, we can deal with it directly. The question really was why participating in LGBT culture, as it is usually understood, as per the definition found on Wikipedia, is sinful. Why is engaging with works by LGBT artists, which counts as participation, sinful? Why is an awareness of LGBT social movements, and the figures involved in them, sinful? If it is only the act of homosexuality that is a sin, and LGBT culture as such does not involve the act itself, then how is the cultural aspects surrounding it a sin? Where does it say that cultural aspects related to a sinful act, but recognisably separate and distinct from the act itself, are also themselves sinful?

Serious question why would there be a problem with LGBT Culture (of which I havent exactly an too high opinion either for my own reasons) if its being sinful? I mean you aren't christian or catholic afaik.

So if they consider it bad and sinful, why should it be bothering you? I don't have a problem with that for my own reason as you can deduce if they declare things i like to be sinful i consider that a badge of honor. Sort of. Not that it really matters.

Why? Because it isn't defining me subjectively since I have my own ways to follow, which are destinctively different from christianity with the exception that they meet here and there.

Nakena wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:But there is not really a need for an analogy to be used in this case, we can deal with it directly. The question really was why participating in LGBT culture, as it is usually understood, as per the definition found on Wikipedia, is sinful. Why is engaging with works by LGBT artists, which counts as participation, sinful? Why is an awareness of LGBT social movements, and the figures involved in them, sinful? If it is only the act of homosexuality that is a sin, and LGBT culture as such does not involve the act itself, then how is the cultural aspects surrounding it a sin? Where does it say that cultural aspects related to a sinful act, but recognisably separate and distinct from the act itself, are also themselves sinful?

Serious question why would there be a problem with LGBT Culture (of which I havent exactly an too high opinion either for my own reasons) if its being sinful? I mean you aren't christian or catholic afaik.

Former Anglican.

Nakena wrote:So if they consider it bad and sinful, why should it be bothering you? I don't have a problem with that for my own reason as you can deduce if they declare things i like to be sinful i consider that a badge of honor. Sort of. Not that it really matters.

I just questioned why LGBT culture (as it is usually defined) is a sin because it wasn't something that I ever really considered to be sinful, and I wasn't aware of anything in the Bible or any other texts that says even the cultural aspects surrounding a sinful act, but separate and distinct from it, are themselves sinful.

The New California Republic wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Fine you pick an act that is morally abhorrent, and a group that is actively trying to normalize it in popular culture and moral consensus.

But there is not really a need for an analogy to be used in this case, we can deal with it directly. The question really was why participating in LGBT culture, as it is usually understood, as per the definition found on Wikipedia, is sinful. Why is engaging with works by LGBT artists, which counts as participation, sinful? Why is an awareness of LGBT social movements, and the figures involved in them, sinful? If it is only the act of homosexuality that is a sin, and LGBT culture as such does not involve the act itself, then how is the cultural aspects surrounding it a sin? Where does it say that cultural aspects related to a sinful act, but recognisably separate and distinct from the act itself, are also themselves sinful?

Technically yes I guess reading counts as participating but that’s not really what I meant. More the aspect of contributing to it, encouraging it, trying to normalize it as moral or amoral contributes to the perpetuation of commission.


In laymen’s terms, if I teach my child that murder is okay, and they go an murder someone, I’m equally culpable in their actions. People who contribute to the culture, either directly through contribution or by active participation, are committing a sin in the same way. They are spinning a narrative that homosexual actions are not sinful, and thus leading others into sin.

The New California Republic wrote:Former Anglican.

Maybe thats why. I could imagine the Anglicans have different views than the catholics.

The New California Republic wrote:I just questioned why LGBT culture (as it is usually defined) is a sin because it wasn't something that I ever really considered to be sinful, and I wasn't aware of anything in the Bible or any other texts that says even the cultural aspects surrounding a sinful act, but separate and distinct from it, are themselves sinful.

Supposedly any intercourse or sexual action that takes place outside a matrimony for non-reproductive purposes is by biblical, christian definition sinful. (at least thats my take away from the debate in the last thread)

I also read somewhere that any of such action is empowering the Dark Goddess Lilith (Adams first wife) which got retconned out (?) from the Bible however.

Nakena wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Former Anglican.

Maybe thats why. I could imagine the Anglicans have different views than the catholics.

Depends on the Anglican really.

The New California Republic wrote:I just questioned why LGBT culture (as it is usually defined) is a sin because it wasn't something that I ever really considered to be sinful, and I wasn't aware of anything in the Bible or any other texts that says even the cultural aspects surrounding a sinful act, but separate and distinct from it, are themselves sinful.

Supposedly any intercourse or sexual action that takes place outside a matrimony for non-reproductive purposes is by biblical, christian definition sinful. (at least thats my take away from the debate in the last thread)

I also read somewhere that any of such action is empowering the Dark Goddess Lilith (Adams first wife) which got retconned out (?) from the Bible however.

That’s a bit more of a vague issue. Sex outside the confines of marriage is sinful in Christian ethics. For only reproductive purposes, not quite. The Church teaches that it we must always be open to procreation, but doesn’t mean we must only have sex for procreative purposes.

And Lilith isn’t real.

The New California Republic wrote:

Nakena wrote:
Serious question why would there be a problem with LGBT Culture (of which I havent exactly an too high opinion either for my own reasons) if its being sinful? I mean you aren't christian or catholic afaik.

Former Anglican.

Nakena wrote:So if they consider it bad and sinful, why should it be bothering you? I don't have a problem with that for my own reason as you can deduce if they declare things i like to be sinful i consider that a badge of honor. Sort of. Not that it really matters.

I just questioned why LGBT culture (as it is usually defined) is a sin because it wasn't something that I ever really considered to be sinful, and I wasn't aware of anything in the Bible or any other texts that says even the cultural aspects surrounding a sinful act, but separate and distinct from it, are themselves sinful.

As biblical reference you could take the cult of the golden calf.

Is a statue of a golden calf by itself sinful? No, it's just a statue.
Is the cult of it sinful? Why? What are the implications of the cult?
Were those implications from the cult sinful?


You know, most of the bible is translated over present matters by analogies, as it's not the literal meaning of a reality of 2000 or more years ago to matter, but the moral concepts expressed in them. Also because the understanding of the interpretation of the moral teachings contained in the bible isn't in the bible itself.
(bit of a sidetrack, but worth mentioning, once again, that taking the bible literally isn't an intelligent endeavour)


About your point, you're making a distinction from the lgbt culture and homosexuality and other sexual deviations.
For who thinks lgbt culture to be sinful, clearly that distinction isn't there.

Tarsonis wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:But there is not really a need for an analogy to be used in this case, we can deal with it directly. The question really was why participating in LGBT culture, as it is usually understood, as per the definition found on Wikipedia, is sinful. Why is engaging with works by LGBT artists, which counts as participation, sinful? Why is an awareness of LGBT social movements, and the figures involved in them, sinful? If it is only the act of homosexuality that is a sin, and LGBT culture as such does not involve the act itself, then how is the cultural aspects surrounding it a sin? Where does it say that cultural aspects related to a sinful act, but recognisably separate and distinct from the act itself, are also themselves sinful?

Technically yes I guess reading counts as participating but that’s not really what I meant. More the aspect of contributing to it, encouraging it, trying to normalize it as moral or amoral contributes to the perpetuation of commission.


In laymen’s terms, if I teach my child that murder is okay, and they go an murder someone, I’m equally culpable in their actions. People who contribute to the culture, either directly through contribution or by active participation, are committing a sin in the same way. They are spinning a narrative that homosexual actions are not sinful, and thus leading others into sin.

So, for example, contributing to a historical page about LGBT people who have been persecuted is "sinful"? Sorry but I don't buy the broad brush approach that is being used.

Tarsonis wrote:People who contribute to the culture, either directly through contribution or by active participation, are committing a sin in the same way. They are spinning a narrative that homosexual actions are not sinful, and thus leading others into sin.

Spinning a narrative that homosexual actions aren't sinful presumes, at the very least, an normative christianity of the spinners in question.

Nakena wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:People who contribute to the culture, either directly through contribution or by active participation, are committing a sin in the same way. They are spinning a narrative that homosexual actions are not sinful, and thus leading others into sin.

Spinning a narrative that homosexual actions aren't sinful presumes, at the very least, an normative christianity of the spinners in question.

Hi, welcome to the Christian Discussion Thread.

The New California Republic wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:

Technically yes I guess reading counts as participating but that’s not really what I meant. More the aspect of contributing to it, encouraging it, trying to normalize it as moral or amoral contributes to the perpetuation of commission.


In laymen’s terms, if I teach my child that murder is okay, and they go an murder someone, I’m equally culpable in their actions. People who contribute to the culture, either directly through contribution or by active participation, are committing a sin in the same way. They are spinning a narrative that homosexual actions are not sinful, and thus leading others into sin.

So, for example, contributing to a historical page about LGBT people who have been persecuted is "sinful"? Sorry but I don't buy the broad brush approach that is being used.

I’m not taking about academia here.