Why do Homosexuals even care about Christian discrimination?
- Thread starter Guitarmasterx7
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, to be honest, the homosexuals are kind of being a bunch of assholes in this area.
Far as I know, most Christian groups of America hate homosexuality, and their Bible interpretations explicitly state that gay people are forbidden from marrying in their churches.
So the gays, instead of joining one of the branches that actually condone homosexuality, they try to force all the other ones to conform to them. That's not equality - that's stupid. Of course, they might not be stupid. They might just be acting like such assholes to weigh up for the oppression they faced before. On second thought that's incredibly stupid as well.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that homosexuals (the ones working towards this goal, mind) and feminists are a bunch of irrational fuckheads.
Far as I know, most Christian groups of America hate homosexuality, and their Bible interpretations explicitly state that gay people are forbidden from marrying in their churches.
So the gays, instead of joining one of the branches that actually condone homosexuality, they try to force all the other ones to conform to them. That's not equality - that's stupid. Of course, they might not be stupid. They might just be acting like such assholes to weigh up for the oppression they faced before. On second thought that's incredibly stupid as well.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that homosexuals (the ones working towards this goal, mind) and feminists are a bunch of irrational fuckheads.
Sheebus... certainly seems like this thread has brought out the assholes of the forum to show up and say, "Fuck the fags and their quest for trying to get less repressed!"
Don't get me wrong, I agree that some people are taking it too far, and that until this whole marriage being outlawed by the state (well, most of them) bit came up it wasn't really a big deal except for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell bullshit that is better, but still far from perfect when compared to the original army contract.
Gay rights, by the state, should be equal. Religion? Who the hell cares? I said it before, here, and I'll say it again: it shouldn't matter what some old farts who have been scrutinizing an age old book for direction in life think about us. We are just as human as they are and that's just how it is. Marriage is a legal standpoint, not a religious one. You get a marriage license and you're married, the reception etc, is nothing but big flashy show that you can do even if you don't have a big church and a priest.
bjornschirmer seems to have things right, at least to a point (in my opinion, of course). If we're so damned convinced that we believe in this religion and the only point of contention is retarded bigotry and oppression that's been lasting since the beginning of civilized time, then why don't you just make like Martin Luther and split from the mainstream church and create some soft of sect that just accepts people how they are? It's their freedom to hate people, retarded as it sounds. Until it comes down to hate crimes, laws that are attacking freedom of minorities, and an eventual witch-hunt to exterminate the world of gays, I think we should just let the silly idiots harbor their hate.
But before I close this, seriously, people, you don't have to be so harsh. Yes, some gay rights groups are taking it a step too far, and there are plenty of times when people just need to sit back, shut up, and drink their coffee instead of bitching incessantly about how the world is a shitty place. But bitching about how they're bitching is just going to lead to further idiocy.
To end, a quote from Ghandi: "I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
Don't get me wrong, I agree that some people are taking it too far, and that until this whole marriage being outlawed by the state (well, most of them) bit came up it wasn't really a big deal except for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell bullshit that is better, but still far from perfect when compared to the original army contract.
Gay rights, by the state, should be equal. Religion? Who the hell cares? I said it before, here, and I'll say it again: it shouldn't matter what some old farts who have been scrutinizing an age old book for direction in life think about us. We are just as human as they are and that's just how it is. Marriage is a legal standpoint, not a religious one. You get a marriage license and you're married, the reception etc, is nothing but big flashy show that you can do even if you don't have a big church and a priest.
bjornschirmer seems to have things right, at least to a point (in my opinion, of course). If we're so damned convinced that we believe in this religion and the only point of contention is retarded bigotry and oppression that's been lasting since the beginning of civilized time, then why don't you just make like Martin Luther and split from the mainstream church and create some soft of sect that just accepts people how they are? It's their freedom to hate people, retarded as it sounds. Until it comes down to hate crimes, laws that are attacking freedom of minorities, and an eventual witch-hunt to exterminate the world of gays, I think we should just let the silly idiots harbor their hate.
But before I close this, seriously, people, you don't have to be so harsh. Yes, some gay rights groups are taking it a step too far, and there are plenty of times when people just need to sit back, shut up, and drink their coffee instead of bitching incessantly about how the world is a shitty place. But bitching about how they're bitching is just going to lead to further idiocy.
To end, a quote from Ghandi: "I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
My two cents, so to speak:
Now I am not at all Religious as my personal opinion is that its all worthless anyway but I can understand that the church still does have a lot of clout within the government these days "separation of church and state" my ass.
The trouble is that if you put aside the legality crap they are pulling as it really isn't the issue here at all then all you're left with is the fact that we have a group of people who want to join the club but write their own rules, this is NOT how religion works folks, sorry.
Christianity is a flawed religion, the bible has more contradictions in it than one can count and everyone seems to have a different opinion on it but one thing they all seem to agree on is that by the tenets of christianity Homosexuality is a sin, and by extension any church/minister that allows such a marriage is committing a sin also, and if you don't agree with that too bad it's their religion not your's, they gain nothing special from it, nothing legal, nothing monetary, you just aren't part of the club that's all.
In trying to find a truly appropriate analogy for how ridiculous it is for gay people to expect to be accepted by a community who's rules/beliefs state that they are sinners who refuse to repent or reform it occured to me how silly it all is, the ONLY valid reason a homosexual has to want to cozy up to christianity is the aforementioned legal matter, and if thats the real problem here then aren't we going about this the wrong way? Would it not be more useful to tackle the root of the problem (the government in bed with the church) rather than just saying "well if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"? they clearly have the manpower to get stuff done, so why aren't they putting those considerable resources into fixing that little issue? Or even just establishing government recognition as a group, or even as their own religion, that way they can have a club where everyone accepts them.
Sorry for the wall-o-text but in short, it's stupid to expect to be accepted by a group that by their very rules they are founded on, sees your existance as something to be abhorred.
It's childish, akin to a kid stamping his foot and yelling because he didn't get invited to the other kid's birthday party.
Now I am not at all Religious as my personal opinion is that its all worthless anyway but I can understand that the church still does have a lot of clout within the government these days "separation of church and state" my ass.
The trouble is that if you put aside the legality crap they are pulling as it really isn't the issue here at all then all you're left with is the fact that we have a group of people who want to join the club but write their own rules, this is NOT how religion works folks, sorry.
Christianity is a flawed religion, the bible has more contradictions in it than one can count and everyone seems to have a different opinion on it but one thing they all seem to agree on is that by the tenets of christianity Homosexuality is a sin, and by extension any church/minister that allows such a marriage is committing a sin also, and if you don't agree with that too bad it's their religion not your's, they gain nothing special from it, nothing legal, nothing monetary, you just aren't part of the club that's all.
In trying to find a truly appropriate analogy for how ridiculous it is for gay people to expect to be accepted by a community who's rules/beliefs state that they are sinners who refuse to repent or reform it occured to me how silly it all is, the ONLY valid reason a homosexual has to want to cozy up to christianity is the aforementioned legal matter, and if thats the real problem here then aren't we going about this the wrong way? Would it not be more useful to tackle the root of the problem (the government in bed with the church) rather than just saying "well if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"? they clearly have the manpower to get stuff done, so why aren't they putting those considerable resources into fixing that little issue? Or even just establishing government recognition as a group, or even as their own religion, that way they can have a club where everyone accepts them.
Sorry for the wall-o-text but in short, it's stupid to expect to be accepted by a group that by their very rules they are founded on, sees your existance as something to be abhorred.
It's childish, akin to a kid stamping his foot and yelling because he didn't get invited to the other kid's birthday party.
wow, that thread derailed so fast... ok, so i'm gay and catholic for the record.
Why we care about the church discrimination ? Well, when you are very young your parents show you what value you must have, what moral is acceptable, what beliefs you should have. we call that education. As parent, you give to your child the education you feel you must give to them. And is 99% of the case, you assume your child will be heterosexual.
So let take the exemple of a little girl. when she was young, her parents raise her in the catholic beliefs, she even went to church sometimes. What the church told her seems good to her. She was playing with dolls too sometimes. And what do you do when you play with barbie dolls, you play to be a grown up. barbie was married with ken, they had a house, a car (actually a shoe box my parents werent that rich
) And in her, the dream of being married develloped. Because her parent told her that one day, she would meet the guy that was right for her, and that she would marry him and start a family. She also watched disney cartoon, with a whole bunch of princess that always end up to have a huge wedding with the handsome prince.
that girl grew up. he faith went a bit stronger. in high school all the other girl talked to her about having a boyfriend, and cool it was. and everywhere she was looking, she seen happy couple living married, and she was thinking : hey, how cool it would be to be married, and have a house, and kids...
as time pass, she realised that when her friends was showing her a good looking guy, she didnt really had interrest in them. she even dated some of them, but she didnt seems to get interrested in them. but she had a cute friend that she liked to hang out with. that friend was another girl. When her friend wasnt there, the girl was feeling sad and lonely. her friend was the first thing in her head when she woke up in the morning, and the last thing she was thinking of at night. sometimes, she even pictured her naked in her dream, and she had that warm feeling inside her she was looking at her. She realised that she was in love with her.
i was 15 by then, when i finally realised it. And it only because it was so obvious than someone else pointed it out to me. at that point i was going to church twice per month, which was more than my parents ever did.
all that is to point two things. i was raised in catholic faith. discorering that i was gay was a shock, and the only stable thing that could have help me was faith. because all my life, i was told : god can always help you, and will always love you. But tourns out that it was not the case for that. i think that if homosexuals have a higher suicide rate, it's partly because without church support for people that were religious before they realised they were homosexual, they have to cope with a double shock.
it also explain why marriage have a signification for homosexual. because it was meaning something for them before they discover their homosexuality. atheists get married in courthouse everyday. it's called a marriage, but god is not involved. And nobody complain that they called their union marriage. so why no for homosexual ? (and nobody asked to force the churches to marry homosexual. i wouldnt support it if it would be the case. that said, i dont have to complain on that, i live in canada and i got married a few years ago already...)
i also want to point out how cruel is the church motto : hate the sin, dont hate the sinner. do you realise what it mean ? it mean this : God love you. he sent you a very hard thing, he gave you the sexual desire for the same sex, but he want you to be strong. and he will love you, but you must never do the homosexual act, because he will hate what you do. So you must either fake a haoppy heterosexual life, or live alone for the rest of your life, and be gratefull to god for that.
sorry for the long post
Why we care about the church discrimination ? Well, when you are very young your parents show you what value you must have, what moral is acceptable, what beliefs you should have. we call that education. As parent, you give to your child the education you feel you must give to them. And is 99% of the case, you assume your child will be heterosexual.
So let take the exemple of a little girl. when she was young, her parents raise her in the catholic beliefs, she even went to church sometimes. What the church told her seems good to her. She was playing with dolls too sometimes. And what do you do when you play with barbie dolls, you play to be a grown up. barbie was married with ken, they had a house, a car (actually a shoe box my parents werent that rich
) And in her, the dream of being married develloped. Because her parent told her that one day, she would meet the guy that was right for her, and that she would marry him and start a family. She also watched disney cartoon, with a whole bunch of princess that always end up to have a huge wedding with the handsome prince.that girl grew up. he faith went a bit stronger. in high school all the other girl talked to her about having a boyfriend, and cool it was. and everywhere she was looking, she seen happy couple living married, and she was thinking : hey, how cool it would be to be married, and have a house, and kids...
as time pass, she realised that when her friends was showing her a good looking guy, she didnt really had interrest in them. she even dated some of them, but she didnt seems to get interrested in them. but she had a cute friend that she liked to hang out with. that friend was another girl. When her friend wasnt there, the girl was feeling sad and lonely. her friend was the first thing in her head when she woke up in the morning, and the last thing she was thinking of at night. sometimes, she even pictured her naked in her dream, and she had that warm feeling inside her she was looking at her. She realised that she was in love with her.
i was 15 by then, when i finally realised it. And it only because it was so obvious than someone else pointed it out to me. at that point i was going to church twice per month, which was more than my parents ever did.
all that is to point two things. i was raised in catholic faith. discorering that i was gay was a shock, and the only stable thing that could have help me was faith. because all my life, i was told : god can always help you, and will always love you. But tourns out that it was not the case for that. i think that if homosexuals have a higher suicide rate, it's partly because without church support for people that were religious before they realised they were homosexual, they have to cope with a double shock.
it also explain why marriage have a signification for homosexual. because it was meaning something for them before they discover their homosexuality. atheists get married in courthouse everyday. it's called a marriage, but god is not involved. And nobody complain that they called their union marriage. so why no for homosexual ? (and nobody asked to force the churches to marry homosexual. i wouldnt support it if it would be the case. that said, i dont have to complain on that, i live in canada and i got married a few years ago already...)
i also want to point out how cruel is the church motto : hate the sin, dont hate the sinner. do you realise what it mean ? it mean this : God love you. he sent you a very hard thing, he gave you the sexual desire for the same sex, but he want you to be strong. and he will love you, but you must never do the homosexual act, because he will hate what you do. So you must either fake a haoppy heterosexual life, or live alone for the rest of your life, and be gratefull to god for that.
sorry for the long post
Since when was "marriage" inherently religious?
Marriage has existed in virtually every culture that has ever existed. Many of these had absolutely no contact with others - Aztecs, Romans, Zulus, Japanese. The only religions that could feasibly be older than the institution of marriage would be animist ones still existing in places like Africa: marriage predates every major religion extant today. How on earth can Christians claim that marriage is theirs to decide, when Christianity came into being around 0AD, yet marriage existed worldwide thousands of years beforehand? To what extent can any one religious person have a right to decide a marriage under another religion may not be valid because it was overseen by a different faith or culture? Marriage is a basic act of human society, and religion is nothing more than window dressing that can be put on it.
Secondly, marriage is governed by law, and that means the secular authorities. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and so on. You can get married in a secular way with no mention at all of any deities, supernatural power, or spiritual mumbo-jumbo. This being the fact, it is already established in law that marriage is not religious - otherwise it would be impossible to have a non-religious wedding.
These are simple realities. The pressure by the religious to bar homosexuals from having their partnerships called "marriage" is nothing but an ignorant and petty act of revenge against homosexuals for gaining a fair right for union. Ultimately, not calling it marriage is a small price to pay to ease the political side of things, but let's not pretend it's any act of high morality or defence of faith from the religious.
Marriage has existed in virtually every culture that has ever existed. Many of these had absolutely no contact with others - Aztecs, Romans, Zulus, Japanese. The only religions that could feasibly be older than the institution of marriage would be animist ones still existing in places like Africa: marriage predates every major religion extant today. How on earth can Christians claim that marriage is theirs to decide, when Christianity came into being around 0AD, yet marriage existed worldwide thousands of years beforehand? To what extent can any one religious person have a right to decide a marriage under another religion may not be valid because it was overseen by a different faith or culture? Marriage is a basic act of human society, and religion is nothing more than window dressing that can be put on it.
Secondly, marriage is governed by law, and that means the secular authorities. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and so on. You can get married in a secular way with no mention at all of any deities, supernatural power, or spiritual mumbo-jumbo. This being the fact, it is already established in law that marriage is not religious - otherwise it would be impossible to have a non-religious wedding.
These are simple realities. The pressure by the religious to bar homosexuals from having their partnerships called "marriage" is nothing but an ignorant and petty act of revenge against homosexuals for gaining a fair right for union. Ultimately, not calling it marriage is a small price to pay to ease the political side of things, but let's not pretend it's any act of high morality or defence of faith from the religious.
then how come atheists can call their union marriage ? why same sex marriage is allowed in the whole canada for 5 years now, and nothing happened, no church was forced to marry homosexuals, and everybody is happy ? and the same thing apply to many countries tooAgema said:
Yes, actually, I can blame this perception on people like you who read the book, but either don't understand Christianity's relation to it or simply try their hardest to use it against Christians. But this is another common mistake, so allow me to explain how this all works according to Christian doctrine.Seanchaidh said:
In the Old Testament, God's rules were pretty intense. The idea was that sin was disobedience toward God, and thus to sin was to mess up one's entire purpose in life. Sin was worthy of death. Thus, the concept of animal sacrifice: killing an animal, spilling the blood of a pure lamb, to essentially take your place. The price had to be paid, and God allowed you to use an animal rather than dying yourself. But yeah, the requirement for heaven was basically perfection: thus the harsh rules.
Then, Jesus. The entire reason Christians believe he came to earth as God incarnate was to pay this price for our sins. Jesus' death, the death of a perfect human, pays the price for all human sin. He's essentially offering a hand to humanity, and those who take it will be saved from the penalty of sin. Levitical law still serves as a guideline for what sin is, but no longer as a blueprint to follow when sin has been committed. This is basic, basic Christian theology, but it doesn't stop people from using Old Testament quotes against Christianity. So for the record, the Old Testament is not directly applicable to Christianity. Read the New Testament.
Now I will admit that I didn't know about homosexuality's past consideration as a mental disorder. So yeah... my bad. But I think you may not understand my comment. You asked later if "not having your left leg" would affect your behavior. Notice my use of the word "strictly." Meaning that it's my impression that mental disorders are the only things that affect only behavior and nothing else. I'm pretty sure losing a leg affects more than just behavior. But as you showed, I am not a psychiatrist, so by all means correct me if I'm wrong on this.
I do understand that things like lust are natural reactions, but I also believe that humans have the unique ability to resist their "instinct," if you will. Lust is a natural reaction, but resisting it or giving in to it is a choice. So it may be a natural thing for someone to feel attracted toward the same sex, but it does not mean they have no choice but to be gay. And besides, on the topic of how this relates to Christianity, doctrine states that man has a sin nature: our desire is toward sin because of the events in the Garden of Eden. God's calling is to rise above that and fulfill his true purpose for humanity. It makes sense from the Christian worldview, which is much different from the post-modern worldview from which you seem to be looking at it.
Got to apologize for this. My experience with The Escapist forums has been that most people can't mention religion without flaming it like there's no tomorrow: I may have jumped on your statement a little. Like I said, I didn't mean to insult you, but I can see how my tone and choice of words may have been inappropriate. I get pretty intense sometimes when people ignorantly or maliciously attack my beliefs, and sometimes I react that way to statements that are not so hostile: like yours. Sorry about that, Guitarmaster.Guitarmasterx7 said:
not all christians hate gay people.
i completly agree that they should have all the rights and priveliges as heterosexual couples. as a matter of fact i have more problems, as a christian, with the people who are intolerant of the beliefs and choices of others. christians who spend all their time going around telling others that they're going to hell are helping no one, and hurting public perception of the faith, and by realtion God. but people who condemn all christians because of a few bigoted assholes are no more right. do we condemn all germans for hitler? do we condemn all muslims for the terrorists?
no.
there are bad people within every possible grouping of people, you can't condemn everyone because they happen to have a few outspoken bastards. will all gay people go to hell? no.
will all those who claim to be christian go to heaven? no.
i completly agree that they should have all the rights and priveliges as heterosexual couples. as a matter of fact i have more problems, as a christian, with the people who are intolerant of the beliefs and choices of others. christians who spend all their time going around telling others that they're going to hell are helping no one, and hurting public perception of the faith, and by realtion God. but people who condemn all christians because of a few bigoted assholes are no more right. do we condemn all germans for hitler? do we condemn all muslims for the terrorists?
no.
there are bad people within every possible grouping of people, you can't condemn everyone because they happen to have a few outspoken bastards. will all gay people go to hell? no.
will all those who claim to be christian go to heaven? no.
Let me clarify. Assuming that being gay is genetic, it doesn't mean you have to act on it. You can choose not to act on it. It's like a sweet tooth choosing to go on a diet; you may love sweets naturally, but you can choose to forgo them. Not a fantastic illustration, but I hope you get what I trying to say. Or we could agree to disagreerobolint said:
Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not sure what you're getting at eitherCheeze_Pavilion said:
Seanchaidh actually answers that a few posts back.Rolling Thunder said:
Now, as I quote this I know someone's gonna scream bloody murder and point fingers at Christians for being haters. Some use this verse as an argument that all Christians are taught to hate and accuse Christians of not reading the whole Bible. Unfortunately, they're partly right; most Christians are guilty of not reading the Bible. Fortunately, they're also partly wrong; Christians aren't taught to hate.Seanchaidh said:
I too am guilty of not having read through the whole bible yet (about halfway through). But from what I've read so far, the old testament highlights the severity of sin; all sins were punishable by death. Yes, even the 'minor' sin of lying. The Book of Leviticus happens to cover the laws on dealing with sin, from sacrificing animals to stoning people to death.
However, come the New Testament, and you'll find that with Jesus' death, he abolished the old laws on dealing with sin. We no longer have to sacrifice animals and stone people to death. Instead he called for sinners to repent and they would receive forgiveness. He also commanded us to love sinners.
It's unfortunate that it's so easy to read the bible out of context, especially when most of us don't bother to read the whole bible.
Matthew 23Thaius said:
1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
This is a clear endorsement of the Old Testament. No?
Or how about this: Matthew 5:17-19
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Now I could bear your interpretation if my quote from Leviticus just said that homosexual behavior was wrong, or said that gays need to slaughter an extra goat every month in order to account for their sinful behavior. But it doesn't do that. It says how one should react to homosexual behavior. That is, it says not that God will punish the homosexual, but that God demands that you punish the homosexual. The passage is about the actions of everyone. So how on earth can you expect anyone to believe that a sacrifice (however large) somehow negates the practice? To kill gays is the command: to not observe that command is the sin. Leviticus 20:13 says that homosexuals should be put to death. It takes some absurd mental gymnastics for your 'basic' Christian theology to get around that.
And let me remind you of 2 Peter 1:20-21
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
But let is ignore the Bible for a moment and look at your interpretation. You say the requirement for heaven was perfection, so rules were harsh. 'Perfection' includes slaughtering homosexuals, adulterers, shellfish-eaters, etc. Even if you don't think Christianity requires this of us now, you are still required to believe that it was proper behavior for the thousands of years before Christianity. Is that not just as disgusting? And how weird is the apparent solution...
We need a person to be ritually sacrificed in order for the insanity of the Old Testament no longer to be required. Instead of just, you know, not requiring it in the first place (or subsequently), we need to get the Romans to torture and kill yet another person. For an all-powerful entity, this was necessary. To sate His bloodlust? It's, supposedly, Him! It doesn't make sense. You believe that an all-powerful, all-loving God had to engage in the ritual sacrifice of Himself/His son (whatever) in order to fix the Universe from the absolutely evil ideas He gave us the first time around. It is celestial incompetence of the highest order, plain and simple. If nothing else, your God is an idiot, as made plain by His own word. This is 'mystery'? I regret to inform you that Agatha Christie and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle both do a better job of that.
Without my charitable interpretation of 'strictly,' your point carried no impact whatsoever. So I guess your point just carried no impact whatsoever. Yes, genes can affect more than just behavior. They also affect behavior. Being gay (or at least lusting for men as a man, which is what people usually mean by "being gay") can be genetic, or perhaps epigenetic, or it may even be a product more of circumstance than biology, but whatever the case, at least some of it is due to genes. It could be that we all have a gay gene that just needs a certain condition in child development to cause its expression. Or it could be that only some of us have a gay gene and it is more directly caused by genetics. We don't know, and 'we' includes you. And since we don't know exactly how it occurs, we also can't say that the lust itself is ever a choice... as you don't. And you shouldn't. For the record, I don't think anyone ever claimed that choosing to sleep with men was caused purely by genes. It has always been about the sexual orientation itself, not the behavior it can cause.
Yes, I have this thing called my own judgment which I like to use sometimes. I don't believe that our wants and desires are part of a 'sin nature.' In fact, I think the broad patterns of our instincts and predilections are better explained by evolutionary theory (you might call it 'animal nature') rather than fairy tales involving two naked people, a magical tree, and a talking snake. And I think they are better thought of as things which we might satisfy, not things which, merely because they are desires, we must fight against. And I certainly don't think that giving in to a barbaric lust for community-endorsed murder is (or was) the proper reaction to people indulging their instinctive desires. Stoning women to death for not bleeding into the sheets on wedding night? Our animal nature is quite clear.
So this 'post-modern' worldview does entail that if a man is so constituted that he wishes to be in committed relationships with and have sex with other men of the same disposition, that behavior, though contrary to your religion, is quite natural and moral. Denying the satisfaction of that urge to others is therefore immoral. That includes infecting people with terrible falsehoods about an afterlife and its relation to their behavior now.
It also leads me to amend your statement: "In the Old Testament, God's rules were pretty intense." It should be this: In the Old Testament, God's rules were pretty insane.
Oh, look, the New Testament is kind of awful too:
1 Timothy 2:11-12
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Matthew 15:1-6
Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
a sweet tooth choosing to go on a diet will still eat. Basically your idea is, homosexuals should remain alone, forbid themself to intimate contact with someone else for the rest of their life. welcome depression...Schizzy said:Let me clarify. Assuming that being gay is genetic, it doesn't mean you have to act on it. You can choose not to act on it. It's like a sweet tooth choosing to go on a diet; you may love sweets naturally, but you can choose to forgo them. Not a fantastic illustration, but I hope you get what I trying to say. Or we could agree to disagreerobolint said:
but like i said in my eirlier post, most homosexual that considere to be christian were religious before they discovers their homosexuality. So they should abandon all what they believe on in an instant ?Schizzy said:
I'll bring up my question again, here: why do you have to he Christian/Catholic/Jewish/Muslim/etc? Can't we just say "Here is my set of beliefs," without having to conform to some archetype that is thousands of years old, possibly more?cathou said:
Organized religion (warning: generalization) tends to lead to hate, bigotry, and people perverting "holy" texts to justify their own goals and what would otherwise be sinful ways. No, it's not always the case, but it doesn't take a psychiatrist to see that it happens all over the world simply because people like the idea of being able to get away with something that would otherwise be frowned upon by arguing that they are commanded by God or whatnot.
But, then again, this is just some heretic talking. But to add some random quote from Drawn Together of all places, (paraphrased because Google isn't nice) "Religion should be about the individual and their personal relationship with whatever God they believe in, not some set of concrete rules set up by some ancient text."
Secede, Reform, Renew.
No, actually. You must understand Jesus' conflict with the Pharisees. He was not saying anything about the old law: rather, he was saying to respect authority. This is why he mentioned that they "sit in Moses' seat." This was not a statement of the old law, it was a statement of authority: you can find similar messages all throughout Jesus' ministry, to respect authority but make sure that, in doing so, you still respect God.Seanchaidh said:
Note the word "fulfill." If he was coming to change nothing at all, he would have simply said so. The fact that he has come to fulfill the law says something completely different: this is in no way a statement that we should still be following Levitical law. Rather, Jesus' ministry and death was a fulfillment of the law: as I said before, the concepts from the Old Testament are still relevant, but Jesus' actions fulfilled the requirements so that we no longer need to abide directly by their commands.
See, now you're just mixing it all up. I guess some of our minds aren't flexible enough to do the gymnastics needed to see things as they are.
This is not the command. The command was given earlier. Remember the 10 commandments? Those are the commands. The passages after that are simply clarification, details, and true enough, how to react to them. But you're getting the law and the consequence mixed up. The law, the command, is not to commit sexual sin: including homosexuality. Killing those who disobey this is the consequence, not the command. Similar to how our society says "don't steal," not "don't go to jail." Jail is the consequence, and a reason not to steal, but it's not the command, it's simply the result of going against it.
As for why God tells us how to do it rather than doing it himself, it is simply a logical extension of a basic principle: free will. God gave it to Adam and Eve in the garden, thus allowing them to disobey him. Why? Because forced love is not love at all. God wants us to love him, and there's no point to this if we have no choice but to comply. Love is not love unless we choose to love: thus, free will is required to fulfill our purpose. If God just immediately, severely, and blatantly punished those who disobeyed him, it would effectively negate our free will. Thus, in order to preserve our choice, he left it up to us to actually put in effect the consequences for disobeying him. Otherwise, we're just ants trying not to get burned by God's giant magnifying glass.
Prophecy. I assume you read the surrounding passages as well, to understand the context? This passage is in no way referring to Levitical law: the author is talking about how they have seen Old Testament prophecy (the word "prophecy" being defined as "knowledge of the future") come true in Jesus. The particular verse that you quoted is saying that the prophets were divinely inspired by God: they weren't just people who decided to write some random crap about the future. This verse, to quote one of your comments toward me, "carries no impact whatsoever" for the point you're trying to make.
Actually, as I said, perfection involved not sinning. The consequences were not a part of perfection, but rather the consequences for not achieving it. Thus, also, the animal sacrifice to pardon said sin.
Due to Jesus' sacrifice, it is no longer necessary to apply the consequences outlined in Levitical law. I agree that Levitical law is quite extreme, but you must understand the differences. God gave commands, and the penalty for breaking them was death. But in order to preserve free will, he told us to carry out these consequences rather than doing it himself. Would you say it was better if God simply smote all who disobeyed? That would be just as horrible: even worse, considering there's no hiding from an omni-present God.
As for the solution, you're looking at it in the most disgusting way possible (which I know is what you're looking for, so it makes sense). God is all-powerful, yes, so he could have simply said that we now had the option of accepting his forgiveness. But this is not how he works: when God makes rules that he expects us to live by, he sticks to them. For example, after Levitical law was set, but before Jesus, the only way to communicate directly with God was for a priest to do it in a particular place in the temple. This was incredibly ritualistic and strict, but God had told them that he would communicate in this way, so he stuck to it. Angels appeared to people, but not God himself. Could he have appeared to people? Of course: he's God. He can do whatever the heck he wants. But he made a rule that he expected humanity to live by, so he lived by it as well.
In the same way, he tells us that "the wages of sin is death." That is his rule. He could break it, if he wanted to, but he keeps his promises and sticks to his rules. Thus, the sacrifice (which was far from a ritual sacrifice, by the way) of a perfect human who could take on the sins of the world. So no, it wasn't to fulfill some sort of sick bloodlust, especially considering Jesus is a part of God anyway: and nothing but biased and fallacious (or simply ignorant) reasoning could come up with the conclusion you came to.
I cede that I have no proof of the existence or non-existence of the "gay gene." But I do still think that one can choose whether or not to be gay.
The presence of lust is not a choice, no, but acting upon it is. Sure, I have lust, but since I am trying to resist sexual activity until my wedding night, I try to resist lustful thoughts. It's not easy, but it's more than possible. So it seems that our only real disagreement here is what constitutes a gay person. I think that just because one is tempted or has feelings for something doesn't mean that defines their position. Just because I think a meal looks good doesn't necessarily mean I like it, just that I thought it looked good. It's not until I eat it that it can be said whether or not I am a fan. Just because I get angry and am tempted to kill someone doesn't make me a murderer. Desires don't define someone so much as their reactions to those desires: and the reactions can be controlled.
I'm tired of people thinking that Christians don't use their own judgement. Look at it from our perspective for a second: we believe in things like sin and such. So believing in sin nature for us is no less "thinking for ourselves" than believing in the laptop I'm typing on right now. Just because you don't believe in the same things we do doesn't mean we're not thinking for ourselves: we are. We're just thinking for ourselves in the context of our beliefs, just like you are: the only difference is what the beliefs are. So stop acting like you're somehow intellectually superior to people of faith just because we believe differently. That's not how it works.
For one, the term "post-modern" doesn't need quotes in your context: that's what this worldview is referred to in philosophy.
But anyway, this is the view according to your worldview. This is when we get to the point where we cannot make any statements without eventually needing to just point at out beliefs and say "according to this, I'm right." All arguments like this eventually reach this point.
Though I have to ask: how do you define morality? Because that plays a huge part in this situation.
As for Timothy, you must understand the Christians do not simply take everything in the entire New Testament blindly as unquestionable truth. Timothy was a Christian living after Jesus' time: he was a disciple of Paul. He was theologically sound, but culture also affected the way that anyone from Paul's era wrote. His instructions were how a woman should act within the context of the culture. His instructions are perfectly reasonable for a woman living in the culture they lived in. However, this is Timothy, not God: we do not simply take every word as a command. And Jesus actually showed a lot of respect to women. Timothy wrote from the culture of his time, just as you are writing from yours.
However, I do find this somewhat interesting: I'll have to ask my theology professor about this in class on Friday.
As for Jesus's statement about honoring your parents, you're taking the wrong part of his statement. I can see why though, since you're using the King James translation: accurate, but hard to understand by those of us not raised with that dialect (I recommend the ESV). I looked at a few different translations, and it is clear the Jesus was not saying that kids who talk back to their parents should die: that was simply part of the verse that he quoted, but his point was in the beginning. He was talking to the Pharisees about their incorrect treatment of the law, and his point in this statement was to point out that the Pharisees were saying to honor God instead of honoring your parents (especially if it would benefit the Pharisees in some way: Jesus did not hide the fact that he disapproved of their hypocritical, if not heretical, behavior). So emphasize the latter part of the quote if you want, but you're taking it very much out of context and twisting it to your ends.
Look, I know I can't convince you I'm right: I've been in too many debates like this to expect that. But the Christian mindset does make sense in context: you're just looking at it from your position, and it looks strange. So I don't expect you to become a Christian or anything, but maybe at least acknowledging that things look different from here than where you are: agree to disagree, as it were. The world (and especially this website) has enough people who hate Christians for no good reason.