quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

I don't honestly believe that the "roots" of homophobia are in christianity at all.

As you have clearly stated, it existed long before christianity.
When christianity was 'invented', along with many other existing religions and newer ones (Islam etc), they deliberately emphasized, propagated and enshrined the general acceptance of the practice in order to encourage more followers into the fold.
During the following centuries, it was even more galvanized into the roots of the religion to the point where those 'not of the faith' were persecuted and slaughtered just for not following the faith or it's miopic teachings. Islam is still in these dark ages depite what some 'enlightened' clerics are telling us - as evidenced in recent tortuous killings of the gay community within those cultures.

As Kirata said, it is still rigidly enforced in some well-known "Atheist" states like Russia and China.

You can bang your drum all you like and espouse passages from the bible, but in reality the christians (and Islamics and other similar religions) just magnified the original roots which go waay beyond the origins of the religions. Ergo: The religions are not the roots of homophobia; just exascerbated and amplified tangents of the original general doctrine.



ETA: Simple logic should tell you that if homophobia was in evidence before the religion, then the religion cannot be its roots

I didn't say the roots of it were in Christianity... <snip>

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
The reality of non Christian homophobia is that its roots are in Christianity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Here's the thing the deniers can try to sweep this problem under the rug by calling us anti religious and making stuff up about our positions and motivations, but it's not going away. Unless they plan on calling 80% of young Christians anti religious they're going to need to come up with a better obfuscation in the not too distant future to deny this problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

Of course the unnecessary and misplaced English lesson does nothing to refute anything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

What Kirata and the others, who obviously are practicing Christians, are upset about is...

You really are a piece of work. I'm not a "practicing Christian," and I'm not defending Christianity. I'm shooting down your shit-for-brains claims because in my opinion that's what they are, and this notion that only a "practicing Christian" would attack your views is just another confirmation of the bias that gives rise to them.

K.

quote:

Are you denying you said this -

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
The reality of non Christian homophobia is that its roots are in Christianity.

In post #118 which Kirate called bullshit on in post #222????

quote:

The reality of non Christian homophobia is that its roots are in Christianity. Just because John Q homophobe doesn't go to church, claims not to be religious and so forth doesn't mean that Christianity is not at the root of his homophobia. Even if his family was not religious, chances are he grew up around people who were Christian and influenced by their churches, and in his own family odds are that in prior generations everyone was Christian. Given that churches have only come around in the last 30 years, and changed their stance, this means that a lot of people grew up in the era when 95% of Christian churches were homophobic, instead of the 60% of so that are today, and that stretched back over hundreds of years, creating a common culture and that culture was heavily influenced by Christian teaching, which for most of that time was extremely homophobic. Wanna see something? Read what the esteemed Cardinal Cooke in NYC said at the tme of the Stonewall Riots, then come back and talk to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

It's a complete sentence ending in a Period, so it stands as a statement on it's own.

It is further qualified by the immediately following example: "Just because John Q homophobe doesn't go to church, claims not to be religious and so forth doesn't mean that Christianity is not at the root of his homophobia." which is empgasising the underlined bit.
That makes it pretty clear to me (and Kirata) that is precisely what they meant.

So, even in context, nj is actually saying exactly that and backing up the assertion by example.
By denying it in the respose to my post makes them look foolish.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

It's a complete sentence ending in a Period, so it stands as a statement on it's own.

It is further qualified by the immediately following example: "Just because John Q homophobe doesn't go to church, claims not to be religious and so forth doesn't mean that Christianity is not at the root of his homophobia." which is empgasising the underlined bit.
That makes it pretty clear to me (and Kirata) that is precisely what they meant.

So, even in context, nj is actually saying exactly that and backing up the assertion by example.
By denying it in the respose to my post makes them look foolish.

Nah. It doesn't make sense to divorce a sentence from the rest of its paragraph, FD. (If it did, about two thousand A level students would be in serious trouble - because I'm marking their frigging scripts. Grr.)

ETA: Wow. Just think what we all do with the Bible, the Koran or the American Constitution if we routinely divorced sentences from their paragraphs?

quote:

Your example doesn't illustrate the point you're trying to make. The question is still whether your sentence is literal or figurative, and the paragraph doesn't clarify that, but only lists your reasons, psychopathic though they be.

quote:


Further, if your students have sentences that don't measure up, you absolutely should call them on it, or you're doing them a disservice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun
Of course the unnecessary and misplaced English lesson does nothing to refute anything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
Are you denying you said this -

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
The reality of non Christian homophobia is that its roots are in Christianity.

In post #118 which Kirate called bullshit on in post #222????

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Why have we come over all strict-grammarian here, MM?

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
It's a complete sentence ending in a Period, so it stands as a statement on it's own.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context
The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1] Contextomies are stereotypically intentional, but may also occur accidentally if someone misinterprets the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it non-essential.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
It's a complete sentence ending in a Period, so it stands as a statement on it's own.

Nope:

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context
The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1] Contextomies are stereotypically intentional, but may also occur accidentally if someone misinterprets the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it non-essential.