Yeesh, some people really do live in the dark ages. This is abuse.

[mrstickball]

dtewi said:

mrstickball said:

dtewi said:

mrstickball said:
dtwei -

It's their religion. It's their choice. If that person believes that homosexuality is wrong, and feels that he needs to go through an exorcism to make himself better, then that is his prerogative. Even if you believe it's wrong, I don't think arguing violence against those people really should be tolerated in the forum.

If this person was not coerced into this activity, and did it of his own volition, why should you, or anyone else, attack this person's choice to involve themselves in the activity?

There's a point when religious beliefs turn into extremist crap. Exorcisms are just cruel and unusual.

It is more likely that he was coerced into taking the exorcism than letting him of his own accord. Their ideas are archaic and morally unjustified. I think I am allowed think that is a horrible act due to my idea that no one should be punished for something they did not decide.

He never would have thought that homosexuality was unnatural by himself. Someone told him that it was morally evil. He was influenced into this or basically manipulated.

I was making a point with the violence. Them being beaten for their hair color is just as outrageous as beating someone for their sexual orientation. I do have a major problem with bigotry and I'm not all that fond of exorcism either.

1) How are exorcisms cruel?

2) I think your making a weak argument concerning coercion. The church has a moral code of conduct, and the person is free to accept or reject that code of conduct if he so chooses to. If you want to argue the church's moral code is unjustified, that's your choice, but there are many people that believe their code of morality is correct, since it's based on the Bible (and the Bible is certainly not homosexual-friendly in it's morality).

And who are you to say that homosexuality may be deemed by a person to be unnatural? We've had many conversations on these forums concerning the issue, and there are many that take a stance against it. You may argue against it, which is certainfly fine, but some people do hold it to be unnatural and/or wrong. 

3) Again, we don't know why the boy decided to accept an exorcism. You can rage all you want to say his parents forced him into it, but I do not see any indication of that. Exorcisms are highly personal matters and the process can only be initiated by someone that wants to have that done to them. I find it very unlikely that he was forced into that situation, other than his own belief system.

4) If we are going to make the correlation that influence = manipulation, then I think we could establish that every person's belief system is manipulated.

1) Well besides the fact that they beat the people, scream at them for hours, and make them mentally and physically ill, nothing at all.

2) Maybe coercion wasn't the right word. But you seem to be missing the point of what I said. This boy if he was not told anything about sexual orientation would have never though to be a demon controlling him and that he was evil. He would just suddenly decide "I'm evil". He was told by the family or the church that his feelings were evil and that a demon possessed him. The mental stress that it must have placed on him made him accept an exorcism. I wasn't saying that people aren't capable of thinking it is wrong, I'm saying that if no one talked about sexual orientation in the first place, no one would hold it to be an unnatural thing.

3) He didn't want to have it! Who would agree to that torture? He got it because he thought he needed it when in actuality he didn't.

4) Again, another bad point on my part.

1. Prove to me where exorcisms incite physical violence at the person.

Lets take a look at Exorcisms Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorcism

The Catholic Church revised the Rite of Exorcism in January 1999, though the traditional Rite of Exorcism in Latin is allowed as an option. The act of exorcism is considered to be an incredibly dangerous spiritual task. The ritual assumes that possessed persons retain their free will, though the demon may hold control over their physical body, and involves prayers, blessings, and invocations with the use of the document Of Exorcisms and Certain Supplications. Other formulas may have been used in the past, such as the Benedictine Vade retro satana. In the modern era, Catholic bishops rarely authorize exorcisms, approaching would-be cases with the presumption that mental or physical illness is more likely. In mild cases the Chaplet of Saint Michael could be used

No where does it mention any sort of physical attack against the person involved in the exorcism. Furthermore, the video offers no proof whatsoever that physical violence was used in the exorcism. The only thing done was laying hands on the minor to pray for him - hardly physical abuse or use.

2. Couldn't the same argument be used for literally any code of conduct? Who knows that lying is wrong, unless someone tells him that it's wrong? Maybe the boy thought that homosexuality was wrong when he kissed another man, or had anal intercourse for the first time? As per the video, there's no backstory as to why this youth sought this kind of help.

3. Where in the video does it state that this person did not want an exorcism? To have an exorcism performed on you, you must agree to it. That is the only way an exorcism works according to the tennants of Christianity! Have you ever studied anything concerning exorcisms to understand the process at all? I've been involved in churches that practice exorcisms, and other spritual-healing practices. The first tenant of the practice is for the person to accept what is going on, otherwise the practice is entirely useless.

The bible is all based on your interpretations of what is going on in it. There are some churches who are for homosexuality. There are people who can use the bibles sayings to prove homosexuals are wrong for being the way they are, as can murderers use the bible for reasons why they kill people.

My personal belief isn't that religion is wrong. It's the interpretations and the influences of those interpretations that are whats wrong. But then again, what's to say that my personal beliefs are right?

The Bible itself states that it's not a matter of private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). Although we may understand it differently, it's very difficult to justify homosexuality as being compatable with Christianity, given the many times it's mentioned in the Bible as being sinful and wrong. Some churches do attempt to justify the practice, but it's a very small minority that believe this (under 5% if that).

And I agree with you that the interpretations and influences of the interpretations are whats wrong. However, the Bible is fairly certain about sexual deviancy. It makes pronounced judgements on divorce, homosexuality, and other such issues. So I fail to see how it's difficult to argue that homosexuality is wrong from a Biblical standpoint.