Gay is wrong, but not this other stuff?

[MystyGlyttyr]

This may be as good a place to ask this, as it's something I've been pondering for a few days, since this issue has come up in California and all the radio people are talking about it. It's honestly something I just can't make myself understand in any kind of logical way so maybe someone can explain it to me, so, here goes...

So many people say gay marriage is wrong because of what it says in the Bible and that's against their religion. Okay, cool, I can go with that. But the Bible also says working on the Sabbath is wrong, and eating shellfish, if I'm understanding Leviticus right (no reason to assume I am, heh), and taking the Lord's name in vain, etc. I mean, some parts of the Bible even seem to condone human slavery if it's people from somewhere else. Not to mention various other little odds and ends. So how do they justify accepting those things but not gay people? (Well, not necessarily taking the Lord's name in vain, cuz even I always apologize to Him whenever I drop that bomb, even though I don't practice much else religiously anymore :o )

Despite how it sounds, and I know it does sound...this is not a smartass question. I really don't understand how one thing can be bad because of the Bible and not another. Am I not catching some kind of subtext in the whole gay marriage/Bible argument? :confused:

[Sylvia727]

The short answer is because they believe that homosexuality is unnatural. Everything else you mentioned has become unnecessary by the passing of time. If you want the long answer, maybe someone else can help you, because all of the answers I've ever gotten have boiled down to "homosexuality is a perversion of the natural order".

[tropicsgoddess]

The short answer is because they believe that homosexuality is unnatural. Everything else you mentioned has become unnecessary by the passing of time. If you want the long answer, maybe someone else can help you, because all of the answers I've ever gotten have boiled down to "homosexuality is a perversion of the natural order".
I agree with your post, Sylvia. In the bible they say that god created man, then created woman as his helper and companion. To reverse that order to them is a sin.

[guywithashovel]

This may be as good a place to ask this, as it's something I've been pondering for a few days, since this issue has come up in California and all the radio people are talking about it. It's honestly something I just can't make myself understand in any kind of logical way so maybe someone can explain it to me, so, here goes...

So many people say gay marriage is wrong because of what it says in the Bible and that's against their religion. Okay, cool, I can go with that. But the Bible also says working on the Sabbath is wrong, and eating shellfish, if I'm understanding Leviticus right (no reason to assume I am, heh), and taking the Lord's name in vain, etc. I mean, some parts of the Bible even seem to condone human slavery if it's people from somewhere else. Not to mention various other little odds and ends. So how do they justify accepting those things but not gay people? (Well, not necessarily taking the Lord's name in vain, cuz even I always apologize to Him whenever I drop that bomb, even though I don't practice much else religiously anymore :o )


This has come up on some other message boards I frequent. The people who defend the notion that homosexuality is a sin usually point to the fact that other books in the Bible indicate that homosexuality is a in, and that's why it's wrong while all those other things are now okay. Honestly, I don't see why that makes a difference, because Leviticus STILL says that eating shellfish and working on the Sabbath are sins.

Also, the people who say that homosexuality is a sin because it is "unnatural" have a really weak argument. If things are wrong because they are unnatural, then we all need to get rid of our central heating, air conditioning, eyeglasses, computers, iPods, iPhones, and Blackberries (the electronic device, not the fruit). Heck, if nature had its way, we would all be living in little hunter-gatherer groups with barely enough to eat, hardly any clothes, and we would be living about 20-30 years. Is that what these people want? However, this analogy goes right over the heads of the people it is intended for, because many of them are creationists who think hunter-gatherer groups never existed, despite the fact that people have been found living that way in modern times.

[Rapscallion]

Most of the leaders of said groups aren't really that bothered by homosexuality, not nearly as much as their followers.

Why?

A small (ergo harder to fight back) group that is markedly different in one way gets demonised and thus the herd instinct is to round on them as a cohesive unit under the leaders' control.

The leaders of the anti-gay crowds are happy that there are gays. Gives them a good way to control people.

Rapscallion

[Seshat]

Being gay is wrong, because they don't like homosexuality

Eating shellfish is fine because they like shellfish.

Working on Sundays is fine because that means there's somewhere to go out to lunch after church.

Etc, etc.

Short answer: hypocrisy.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Religion is a numbers game. In other words, he who dies with the most 'toys' wins.

How do you jack up your numbers to get that statistical advantage? Well, there's always converts, but those can be difficult to come by and they're not as malleable if they're 'outsiders', since they've been exposed to the world and already come with their own sets of opinions/beliefs. A few devouts will cling to it, but for a lot of them the 'shininess' eventually wears off and they fall back into pre-religious-conversion lives.

Ergo, it's a helluva lot easier to start from scratch and literally breed your own bunch. How many of us when we were kids grew up believing everything our parents told us (only to find out later that they were sometimes wrong - sometimes *very* wrong? Kinda makes you feel like you were lied to, doesn't it) was the gospel truth?

But, if you were a child who was purposely kept isolated from the world at large, and never exposed to any sort of media or information other than what your select group decided was appropriate, odds are that you'd stay pretty solid in whatever you were taught. Not for nothing does that Biblical verse "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it" exist. Some kids do rebel, but the rest of them retain that training for life and will instinctively lean towards it in a pinch, even if they don't always actively practice it.

This is why the Catholic Church opposes birth control (The NFP is a total joke - there's a reason why doctors have a saying that goes "What do you call someone who uses NFP? Daddy/Mommy."). This is why dominionists from extremist Christian sects oppose birth control. Or any other sect around the world that's been entrenched in the belief that "more is better." Aside from the inherent misogyny of not wanting women to be in control of their own lives, they want as many 'armies' as possible, because then they'll outnumber what they see as "the enemy." (Which can be any group - take your pick: childfree, homosexuals, different racial groups, etc.)

Homosexuality doesn't produce children - unless, of course, the couple adopts or goes in vitro. And being that the parts don't exactly fit together the way a penis and vagina do, and that there's a huge taboo about incorporating the anus into sex, the religious side sees homosexuality as perversion and therefore wrong.

Misogyny also has something to do with it. In most if not all cultures, men are still seen as the dominant, but in America it can be especially insidious. Think of how little boys who cry are relentlessly picked on, or girls who want to climb trees instead of play with dolls are ostracized. For all our advances, we still have pretty firm ideas of what gender roles should encompass, and female is universally seen as the default for weakness and inferiority, while men are not allowed to show any emotion other than anger (and women who show anger are seen as 'hysterical' and 'rude' even when their anger and behavioral displays of it are exactly the same as a man's!).

Ergo, because in a male homosexual relationship one partner is usually the "penetrator" and the other is the "penetrated," this is viewed by the religions as men - who are supposed to be in their eyes the rightful power and act like it - these are men who are *willingly* giving up that power. Submission in the religion's view is to be the woman's responsibility, not the man's. With lesbians, this is seen as women rejecting their god-ordained role as submittors to men and therefore rebellion, which = sin.

Guaranteed, the rest of that stuff about not eating shellfish (mmm, sinful shrimp scampi! Me wants!) or wearing mixed polyester blends and so forth, none of that matters to the religious side. Most of them pretty much accept that these rules were applicable specifically for the Jewish peoples in old times for particular reasons (e.g., the shellfish thing and the pork thing (in Islam) is because food sanitation practices weren't exactly lemon-fresh back in those desert society days).

But the homosexual bit? All about the numbers and "winning the 'game'", baby.

[AdminAssistant]

Working on Sundays is fine because that means there's somewhere to go out to lunch after church.

I had a friend who would throw a HISSY if he had a Sunday rehearsal. One day I called him on the fact that he went out to eat and went shopping on Sundays. He said that was different. Hmmmm.

I think a major problem is a lack of understanding and experience. My parents were iffy on gay rights, until they met my gay friends. Dad's still uncomfortable, and Mom's not exactly on the pride bandwagon, but they do agree that everyone deserves the same rights. It helps when they have that face to put with the issue. It's a hearts and minds battle...

[Slytovhand]

I'll just ditto Seshat - hypocrisy.

I know, doesn't add 1 iota to the debate, but hey, at least it's accurate :p

In all truth, Leviticus and anything else Old Testament 'law-wise' was supposed to get shown the door when JC made the new covenant - end of story. But that gets conveniently forgotten. I suppose the easy way to view it would be, "What would Jesus do?". Tends not to work that way, though. :(

[Seshat]

I suppose the easy way to view it would be, "What would Jesus do?"

Make friends with the prostitutes, undesirables, and chronically ill. Heal the chronically ill, help the undesirables and prostitutes look after themselves better, and teach love and understanding and compassion.


.... oh yeah, I forgot. That's hard work.

[Boozy]

Being gay is wrong, because they don't like homosexuality

Eating shellfish is fine because they like shellfish.


Bingo.

And to go a step further: A straight homophobic man doesn't like gay sex, and in all likelihood will not be persuaded to try it. But a straight homophobic man who doesn't like shellfish might try it out once or twice. For this person to see themselves as a righteous person, the "Homosexuality is wrong" law must be held in greater esteem than the "Eating shellfsh is wrong" law. And people will go to any lengths to justify to themselves that that are good people.

[Evandril]

Just as a side example... A while back (before bush's term as President), had some xtain officer who worked in a missle silo, where they'd have to pull shifts with just one other officer, isolated for a good amount of time. He raised a stink, and refused to work with a female officer, because that would be 'leading him into temptation'. Of course, his job was to *launch* a NUCLEAR missle, but I guess the 'thou shalt not kill' part wasn't as important to him. (bush was one of the ones defending him, btw...and backed a movement to get 'pagans' out of the military as well)

As you said, they pick and choose what parts of their religion they want to listen to.

[smileyeagle1021]

Other than hypocracy I think the big thing is that people don't truly understand their religion. People don't understand that EVERYONE is a sinner... sinning is part of everyday life. What they don't understand is that their religion teaches that they can be forgiven of those sins, that God loves us despite the sin, much as parents love their children no matter what the child does. They just don't understand that part of the teachings that say that everyone is a child of God and will recieve his love. Whether this is willful ignorance on the individuals part or that they've been mislead by a leader trying to gain more control depends on the person, but it basically boils down to ignorance.

[Flyndaran]

Other than hypocracy I think the big thing is that people don't truly understand their religion. ....

I'm sorry but I have to call foul on that one.
Relgion is like language. You can't say everyone is speaking it wrong. By definition, the majority dicates what the modern languages and religions are.
You may adhere to a minority belief, but that does not make you any more correct than any other minority belief of a larger organization.

[Boozy]

I would tend to agree.

Arguments about what is "true" Christianity, or "true" Islam, or "true" any religion are a bit pointless, no? There's no black-and-white truth involved. It's all faith based. It's whatever people believe it is.

[Slytovhand]

Except... there are those things called 'books' which actually outline what makes one a 'true X' person. That is 'black and white truth'. (which, of course, means someone has to write a new book :p)

At least with the natural religions - which specifically don't have said books - such truths don't really exist... there's my experiences and beliefs, and then there's yours, and so on and so forth... course, there's still egos involved

[Sylvia727]

Except... there are those things called 'books' which actually outline what makes one a 'true X' person. That is 'black and white truth'. (which, of course, means someone has to write a new book :p)


"I believe that believing in the book isn't necessary to be a 'true X'." That's a valid religious position. So is "I believe that the book is an absolute standard of religiousness" and "I believe that the book is an alegorical guideline". I know plenty of Christians who do throw out Leviticus wholesale and/or understand that all of it was meant to help the culture of the time, not just the bits they don't approve of. They aren't any "less Christian" than the ones who chant "God Hates Fags!". Understanding the holy books of your religion doesn't always mean accepting them. It's possible to understand them in their historical context without believing in their application to modern society.

I've always felt that a key problem with a certain segment of Christianity is that they are trying to apply the solutions from two or three thousand years ago to the problems of today. "Anal intercourse is a health risk" is a perfectly valid conclusion for an ancient prophet to draw, with his limited understanding of health and hygiene and the obvious dirtiness of feces and the orifice associated with it. The same for the bans on menstrual blood-- after all, blood is supposed to stay inside the body, and menstrual blood looks less "clean" than regular blood. Not all of the edicts have to be perfect. If they banned five foods, four of which we now know to be a health risk of the time and one of which they only thought was a health risk, does that invalidate their attempts at understanding? Of course not. But with our new techniques and knowledge, we can enjoy all five foods whenever we want.

The same for a lot of the other prohibitions in the Bible, homosexuality being the obvious example. They thought it was unhealthy, and there are certain risks associated with it. But in modern times, the prohibition need no longer apply. Updating the religion to adapt to the advances in science and human understanding is the only sensible thing to do, in my opinion. Otherwise you end up with an institution that refuses to grant its followers liberties for the sole reason that their ancestors had no opportunity for them. I can't buy a television simply because televisions weren't sold in stores when my grandparents were my age. This is the theory of Catholicism's Pope, that he and his adjutants are continuously updating the institution's religion to match the pace of social and scientific progress. The practice is flawed, but the theory is good.

[Rapscallion]

The same for a lot of the other prohibitions in the Bible, homosexuality being the obvious example. They thought it was unhealthy, and there are certain risks associated with it. But in modern times, the prohibition need no longer apply. Updating the religion to adapt to the advances in science and human understanding is the only sensible thing to do, in my opinion.

It's the sensible thing to do, but it won't happen. The problem with religion is that a book (or preacher) claims that a certain thing has been decreed as wrong by an unresponsive entity, invisible and untouchable by anyone seeking guidance.

I like the way you think, but I doubt it will ever happen.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

Updating the religion to adapt to the advances in science and human understanding is the only sensible thing to do, in my opinion.


To play devil's advocate (not that I believe in such a being :p), that argument is flawed fundamentally. Those proscriptions weren't done by 'God' because of the level of science and technology at the time, there were instituted because God said so, and if God is omniscient, and omnipotent, then the reasons for said proscriptions become irrelevant other than that - God said so. And, for followers of that religion, it's that God they're trying to appease. So, end of story. (this does, naturally, presume that those proscriptions and 'laws' were actually handed down by God, in whatever form that happened to take, rather than one person just making them up...)

(using the example of Christianity, Leviticus shouldn't matter anyway, because JC came down and handed out a new set of laws - love everyone, God above all... that's it).

[AFPheonix]

(using the example of Christianity, Leviticus shouldn't matter anyway, because JC came down and handed out a new set of laws - love everyone, God above all... that's it).

Christ did not say to ignore old testament law. He said that he came to fulfill it, not do away with it. The passage "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, and all your strength, and love thy neighbor as thyself" didn't do away with the 10 commandments, it simply summed them up and elaborated on the spirit of the law. It didn't override them.

[Slytovhand]

Ah, the interpretation I've been given was that there was a new covenant made (which I interpret to mean 'way to live in order to get into heaven'), rather than an ammendment to the original.

But, if that is the case, then all of Leviticus stands, and rather than homosexuality being made ok, all those other things should be made to be bad (again, presuming Leviticus holds any weight). Besides which, even if Leviticus doesn't hold weight, there are quite distinctly 15 Commandments given to Moses, not just 10. Which brings us back to the OP - some things are now ok, when before they weren't...why?

[Sylvia727]

To play devil's advocate (not that I believe in such a being :p), ...

You don't believe in lawyers? !!!

... that argument is flawed fundamentally. Those proscriptions weren't done by 'God' because of the level of science and technology at the time, there were instituted because God said so, and if God is omniscient, and omnipotent, then the reasons for said proscriptions become irrelevant other than that - God said so.

Probably why more religions don't update their holy scriptures. But again, let me point you towards Catholicism's Pope (Christianity being the religion American me has the most experience with). He is the successor of Peter and has a direct line to God. "What you bind on earth I will bind in heaven, and what you loose on earth I will loose in heaven," is the quote that Peter and all of the Popes derive their power from. Popes have also overturned rulings from other Popes-- Limbo springs to mind. One Pope said that dead unbaptized babies went to a nothing afterlife. Decades later, another Pope said they went to heaven. In theory, the Pope could write an official church document and say, "Hey, by the way, women are equal to men, and there's nothing shameful or inferior about being female. Oh yeah, and we're cool with gays, too." And that would become official doctrine. Not gonna happen, but if it did it would be official church doctrine simply by virtue of the fact that the Pope has divine infaliability.

I suppose it's also dependent on one's personal "errors" doctrine. Some Christians say the Bible is infaliable, because its writing was directly inspired by God. Other Christians say the Bible is faliable, because it is God's inspiration filtered through limited human understanding. A follower of an "errors" doctrine would be more likely to accept updates, as they would feel that as human understanding expands and passes previous limits, so humans are better able to understand God's divine inspiration.

(using the example of Christianity, Leviticus shouldn't matter anyway, because JC came down and handed out a new set of laws - love everyone, God above all... that's it).

There was a New Covenant, which overturned and replaced the Old. The Old Covenant and the Old Testament are merely good advice, not strictly necessary. That's the only variation of the dogma I've ever heard. Apparently, some denominations have a different take on it.

[Evandril]

Those proscriptions weren't done by 'God' because of the level of science and technology at the time, there were instituted because God said so, and if God is omniscient, and omnipotent, then the reasons for said proscriptions become irrelevant other than that - God said so. And, for followers of that religion, it's that God they're trying to appease.

Well, with the brief amount of information given...I think even a diety would have fun trying to say 'Well, right now, you don't want to eat this, but in about 1000 years, it'll be safe to eat, so just restrict yourself until then.' Offering unchanging rules into a changing world...*shrugs* Could be why things get confused ;)

[Slytovhand]

Well, with the brief amount of information given...I think even a diety would have fun trying to say 'Well, right now, you don't want to eat this, but in about 1000 years, it'll be safe to eat, so just restrict yourself until then.' Offering unchanging rules into a changing world...*shrugs* Could be why things get confused ;)

that'd be funny.."In 1000 years from now, being aware that between now and then, they'll change the calender anyway... oh, and since my creation bit you're going to have to take time as being at least slightly metaphysical in some places of this book anyway... you may begin eating these things ... again... (unless they were caught using dolphin unfriendly fishing means)..."


Sylvia... while what you say is true, that's the whole point of the thread.. some things get interpreted some ways, others differently, and then you have a little dummy spit, have a few wars because people disagree with you, (and keep them going to the point that a nation or 2 gets split apart) and no-one's allowed to live in peace and harmony... which is what the original was actually about.... (ummm, no, I'm not a monotheist- why do you ask?? :p ok, I know, most religions have actually done that - just not on as broad a scale)

also dependent on one's personal "errors" doctrine. We are all individuals! I find it slightly interesting that while religion is for the masses, it's still a very personal thing...

(btw, if I were a follower of such, I'd have to be an 'errors' person - as Evandril said - changing world with unchanging doctrine is confusing (unless kept real basic).

There was a New Covenant, which overturned and replaced the Old. The Old Covenant and the Old Testament are merely good advice, not strictly necessary. That's the only variation of the dogma I've ever heard. Apparently, some denominations have a different take on it. yeah, they'd be the ones fighting certain laws or ammendments over in the US...

You know, one thing I've noticed about Fratching over my time here, for the most part, people are open-minded enough to be able to actually think about the topics that come up... Occasionally, someone on here will announce that they've switched 'sides' in a debate due to the obvious use of logic and reasoning - which is vastly different to the rest of the world. Sure, we're nutjobs, but sane nutjobs :p

[AFPheonix]

Ah, the interpretation I've been given was that there was a new covenant made (which I interpret to mean 'way to live in order to get into heaven'), rather than an ammendment to the original.

But, if that is the case, then all of Leviticus stands, and rather than homosexuality being made ok, all those other things should be made to be bad (again, presuming Leviticus holds any weight). Besides which, even if Leviticus doesn't hold weight, there are quite distinctly 15 Commandments given to Moses, not just 10. Which brings us back to the OP - some things are now ok, when before they weren't...why?

There was a new covenant through Jesus (or at least the people who brought about Christianity) so that sacrifice was no longer needed since Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice that could be made. Keep in mind though that at the time, the Law was still very much relevant to the people and Jesus didn't come to remove that relevancy. He simply made people think about WHY those laws existed and why they were following them.
See the multiple examples where he helped people on the Sabbath. While he broke the letter of the law, he held true to the spirit of it. He was really a peddler of common sense and humanism if you pick apart his stories.
These days Christians would do well to still have to think about the reasons the laws were made and consider the spirit behind them. Is it to excoriate homosexuals and make women 2nd rate citizens, or was it a way to deal with social norms at the time?

[Boozy]

He was really a peddler of common sense and humanism if you pick apart his stories.

Many Buddhists believe that Jesus was a man who had the same "awakening" that the Buddha and many others had, but because he had no knowledge of Eastern religions, and was brought up in the Jewish faith, he didn't have the right context in which to frame what happened to him.

So Christianity emerged from Judaism the way Buddhism emerged from Hinduism...but at its core, what Jesus and Buddha said are very similar. It's an interesting thought for anyone interested in comparative religion.

[Seshat]

"Be excellent to each other"

- Bill & Ted
- Jesus of Nazareth
- Buddha
- Mohammad
... etc, etc, etc.

[Slytovhand]

"Be excellent to each other"

- Bill & Ted
- Jesus of Nazareth
- Buddha
- Mohammad
... etc, etc, etc.

Duuuuuddddeeee.

[Arcade Man D]

Well, with the brief amount of information given...I think even a diety would have fun trying to say 'Well, right now, you don't want to eat this, but in about 1000 years, it'll be safe to eat, so just restrict yourself until then.' Offering unchanging rules into a changing world...*shrugs* Could be why things get confused ;)

On that topic, I read an interesting article by (I believe) a Rabbi that explains (his view on) the Kosher and clean/unclean food restrictions as God ensuring they did not eat things that would make them sick. Pigs, for example, had Trichinosis, and cooking technology back then could not ensure it was cooked fully enough to kill them off. Shellfish have a rather high occurrence of lethal allergies. Similar to the origin of not mixing meat and dairy was that a popular Canaanite dish was "lamb cooked in the milk of its mother". In this case, it was to ensure that the message that the bond between mother and child should not be made a mockery of in this manner. I wish I could find it again, because it was a really good read.

Essentially, clean/unclean and Kosher restrictions (as were much of Leviticus) were more to ensure that God's chosen people would be fruitful and prosper, and be able to live in (for the most part) civil harmony.

[joe hx]

there are quite distinctly 15 Commandments given to Moses, not just 10.

per Mel Brooks?

from what i remember from reading the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the bible) many many commandments were given, most of the time in groups of ten.

[anriana]

New Testament verse on homosexuality:

Romans 1:26-27 (New International Version)

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.


So, in the Biblical view, it's no longer an abomination! Instead it's an unnatural perversion.

Other than hypocracy I think the big thing is that people don't truly understand their religion. People don't understand that EVERYONE is a sinner... sinning is part of everyday life. What they don't understand is that their religion teaches that they can be forgiven of those sins, that God loves us despite the sin, much as parents love their children no matter what the child does.

My understanding has always been: adultery (just as an example) is a sin. Someone who commits adultery then repents of it and returns to fidelity is a sinner, but is someone who recognizes that their sinful actions are wrong and tries to overcome them. In this viewpoint, engaging in homosexual acts is a sin as well. Someone who engages in them, repents, and embraces heterosexuality is trying to do the right thing and avoid sin as well. Someone who doesn't repent and continually engages in same sex acts is deliberately sinning over and over. God might still love repeat offenders (good luck every getting one of them to say that though) but he certainly hates their repeated sinning.


I would tend to agree.

Arguments about what is "true" Christianity, or "true" Islam, or "true" any religion are a bit pointless, no? There's no black-and-white truth involved. It's all faith based. It's whatever people believe it is.

Really that depends on how you define "true." I'll always consider "true" Christianity to be that which is laid forth in the Bible, true Islam what is laid forth in the Koran, etc. That doesn't mean people who worship Jesus on toast aren't Christians persay, they just aren't "true" Christians.


Similar to the origin of not mixing meat and dairy was that a popular Canaanite dish was "lamb cooked in the milk of its mother". In this case, it was to ensure that the message that the bond between mother and child should not be made a mockery of in this manner.

I don't get that. It's not okay to "mock the bond" between mother and child but it's okay to rip the child away from the mother before it is weaned and kill it and eat it?

[Pedersen]

Really that depends on how you define "true." I'll always consider "true" Christianity to be that which is laid forth in the Bible, true Islam what is laid forth in the Koran, etc. That doesn't mean people who worship Jesus on toast aren't Christians persay, they just aren't "true" Christians.

By that definition, I would posit that no such thing as a "true" Christian exists today, since God approves of slavery (http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/god13.htm) (as does Jesus, the same page shows it), is a misogynist (http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/god15.htm) (and, again, so was Jesus), demands animal sacrifice (http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/god14.htm) (and, if you think about it, God goes beyond this to demanding a human sacrifice in the form of Jesus to allow any of the creations that He made into heaven), and is a baby killer (http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/god16.htm) (by the millions, in fact).

Since no current Christian agrees with (and follows) all of these tenets, I'm going to have to state that there are no "true" Christians today.

[Slytovhand]

per Mel Brooks?

from what i remember from reading the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the bible) many many commandments were given, most of the time in groups of ten.


Well - that too :p

But, from Exodus 20:1-... further along. The 10 Commandments stop at :13, but the actual passage of rules and laws laid down continues on.. no graven images, no worked stone temples, always wear a head covering, etc etc....

In my search to find this, I found 613 Commandments has been mentioned.. but scattered throughout the Pentateuch.. Exodus, Deuteronomy, etc. (makes the OP more relevant!) How come we now have all these images around, yet God has expressly forbid them??? Someone's going to hell! :p

[AFPheonix]

By that definition, I would posit that no such thing as a "true" Christian exists today, since God approves of slavery (http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/god13.htm) (as does Jesus, the same page shows it), is a misogynist (http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/god15.htm) (and, again, so was Jesus), demands animal sacrifice (http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/god14.htm) (and, if you think about it, God goes beyond this to demanding a human sacrifice in the form of Jesus to allow any of the creations that He made into heaven), and is a baby killer (http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/god16.htm) (by the millions, in fact).

Since no current Christian agrees with (and follows) all of these tenets, I'm going to have to state that there are no "true" Christians today.

Further, many Christian books have a claim on the "true christianity" label since they follow some section of the bible to the letter. For example, the denomination I grew up in, the Plymouth Brethren, follow the example of the Acts church exactly. They have the same number of elders, they have the same type of services, women have to be quiet and cover their heads while in service, blah blah blah.
However,7th Day Adventists consider all other denominations to be heretics because they don't honor the "true" sabbath, Saturday.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Being a "True" christian seems to be the root of all contention between the factions. Everyone thinks that they are perfect and everyone else is doomed to burn in hell and blah blah blah.

There really isn't any such thing as a "True" anything. There are very few situations in which you can truly indulge in your world view and nothing else.

If we accept that the work of man (that's humans by the way, but man has just the one syllables) as natural, we must also accept that which has occurred on any significant scale as natural as well. If it's wrong or not is a different issue. It's totally natural to have thoughts of violence, but it's not wrong unless you act upon them. To me, nothing should be criminal unless you harm someone else. Homosexuality hasn't hurt anyone except for those who handles themselves poorly or who were hurt by the people who hated them.

And I really am not in the mood to hear the "But it's a sin so they're hurting themselves" spiel. Since the definition of sin in any form is as varied as the people who make it.

I'm going to go listen to Mann Gegen Mann now and think about how many times I'd like to visit bodily harm on that Westboro nut.

Ich bin der Alptraum aller Vater

[Rapscallion]

True.

Enlightened.

Justified.

All the above and more simply mean 'agrees with me'.

Not just about the thread in hand, but about anything.

Rapscallion

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I got nothing for you, Mysty, I frequently wonder the same thing myself.

I think it's because it's human nature to have at least one group you can view as "other", or less than human, so they can feel superior to someone. Hating gays is sort of the last bastion of the bigot who doens't want to admit he's a bigot.

Unless I'm wrong, Jesus was interestingly silent on the subject. He hung out with everyone and didn't seem to have any groups that it was okay to dehumanize.

But then, as my friend and priest Father Edwards likes to say, "It's much easier to worship Christ as a God than it is to actually follow his teachings."

Father Edwards is a very, very wise and beautiful man.

[Pedersen]

Unless I'm wrong, Jesus was interestingly silent on the subject. He hung out with everyone and didn't seem to have any groups that it was okay to dehumanize.

Actually, RK, this time you are wrong. At the barest minimum, he was okay with slavery. He could also easily be accused of being a misogynist, okay with human sacrifice (since he allowed himself to be sacrificed so that God would allow humans into heaven), and (if you agree that Jesus is God, one and the same) is even a pretty prolific baby killer. See my post from above that I quoted below. It's got links to back up all of that.

By that definition, I would posit that no such thing as a "true" Christian exists today, since God approves of slavery (http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/god13.htm) (as does Jesus, the same page shows it), is a misogynist (http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/god15.htm) (and, again, so was Jesus), demands animal sacrifice (http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/god14.htm) (and, if you think about it, God goes beyond this to demanding a human sacrifice in the form of Jesus to allow any of the creations that He made into heaven), and is a baby killer (http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/god16.htm) (by the millions, in fact).

Since no current Christian agrees with (and follows) all of these tenets, I'm going to have to state that there are no "true" Christians today.

Ya know... Maybe it's time to start a thread about this...

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Well, I'm not really feeling your points, here, Pedersen, but that's fine. I don't want to turn this thread into a theology debate about the divinity of Christ or whatever. I see what you are saying, though.

I'm just saying I don't recall any biblical stories of Jesus himself saying or doing anything anti-gay. I'm not speaking about what the various other writers of the New Testament wrote, or even the apparent opinions of various apostles.

But then, I'm Episcopalean and do not believe in the literalism of the Bible. I'll just leave it at that, at least for this thread.

[fireheart17]

as far as the whole view on whether gay is wrong or not, I keep jumping forward to "Red hot Catholic Love" from South Park.

For the unfamiliar, people are getting tired of the sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church and become atheists. father Maxi tries to settle this by heading to the Vatican and changing the Holy Document of Vatican Law but not only is it nowhere to be found, but when he DOES find it, the Queen Spider (??) says it can't be changed. The line at the end pretty much sums up my views.

This... book[The Bible]. You see, these are just stories. Stories that are meant to help people in the right direction. Love your neighbor. Be a good person. That's it! And when you start turning the stories into literal translations of hierarchies and power, well... Well, you end up with this. People are losing faith because they don't see how what you've turned the religion into applies to them! They've lost touch with any idea of any kind of religion, and when they have no mythology to try and live their lives by, well, they just start spewing a bunch of crap out of their mouths!

Too many people literally take them as rules, rather than ideas.

[radiocerk]

I'm infamous for asking people "which set?" when they mention the 10 commandments. There were two of them: the smashed set, and the new set. The smashed set are the ones most people are familiar.

Many things that are at least heavily hinted at in the Bible have been accepted by almost every modern priest to be silly and wrong: the sun revolving the earth, the earth being a flat disk, the earth being 6000 years old, bats are birds, etc.

I've met extremely religious (Christian) people with tattoos, who have been divorced, and remarried, who have shaved their heads, and I'm sure there are even those who have had sex with, or as, a menstruating woman. These are all no-nos according to Leviticus. No one believes that the disabled shouldn't be allowed into church anymore. Why? Because everyone knows these things are stupid.

I don't know why everyone nuts up about gay people. I've never known a man to lie with man as if with woman. I don't think it's possible. Is it also an abomination for a woman to lie with a man as if she were a man (anal sex with a female)? I just wonder.

And let's not even get started on what Jeremiah 10 says about "Christmas" trees. Let's let us pagans keep our own damned symbols, hmm? I'll be coming for those Easter eggs and bunnies later. ;)

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I know, I feel the same way. Why is "gay" the big deal breaker?

Guess what? I'm a Christian and I love to eat....shellfish! And I'm pretty sure I have some mixed fiber blouses hanging in the closet.

Oh, I have, on occasion, eaten bacon.

I've eaten bacon at church. Hell, I've drunk booze at church. And no, I'm not talking communion wine. I'm talking about sucking down a good cold longneck while the oysters roasted.

Yeah. I'm pretty sure we had a pork roll that day, too. Cooked by a gay guy.

I guess I'm Damned for sure. :rolleyes:

[guywithashovel]

This may have been mentioned earlier in this thread, but there is a verse somewhere in the New Testament that many Christians say exempts them from some of the laws in the Old Testament. That is why most Christians today have no objections to the consumption of shellfish and the other things that are forbidden in the OT.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Yes, that is true. My belief is that Christ represents the new law, and that every single rule in the Old Testament is trumped by the law to Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself.

Most Christians don't manage following this dictate even close to 100%, including myself. (In fact, I would be as bold as to say it's probably far more of a challenge to follow this rule than, say, the laws in Leviticus or the 10 Commandments. But it's at least the goal. )

I consider the Old Testament historical backdrop.

Therefore, as for the gay thing, I am admonished to treat them as I would want to be treated myself. Nothing else matters.

Hard core fundies say homosexuality is a sin. I don't know or care if it is or not, that's not my concern. If it is, there are far worse ones out there, so I'm not sure why that one is such a deal breaker. And anyways, they are as God made them. So I rather think it's not. My concern is how I treat them.

[guywithashovel]

Hard core fundies say homosexuality is a sin. I don't know or care if it is or not, that's not my concern. If it is, there are far worse ones out there, so I'm not sure why that one is such a deal breaker. And anyways, they are as God made them. So I rather think it's not. My concern is how I treat them.

I'll freely admit that there are people who know the Bible better than I do, but there are passages in the New Testament that talk about homosexuality. It's talked about in 1st Corinthians, Romans, Jude, and I think 1st Timothy as well. How do you view those passages.

I'm asking out of curiosity more than anything else.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Let me go give them a read and I'll get back to you on that. I don't want you to think I'm ignoring the question, I just don't know how to answer off the top of my head.

LATER: Okay, I'm sitting here with a Good News New Testament in my hands.

Corinthians: I found nothing specific on homosexuality, but Paul seems extremely aghast about hearing about a guy getting it on with his stepmother. He goes on a little tirade against general sexual immorality, but if he mentions homosexuality specifically, I can't find it. He also, at one point, admits that he has no "word from God" about any of this, but he considers his opinion one we can trust and says as much.

Keep in mind Paul was a bit uptight and had to be reigned in more than once. One of the great frustrations in Jesus's life, it would seem, was the failure of his apostles to "get it." Am I suggesting that his word is no good? Absolutely not. I AM suggesting that he was a man, just like any man, and he is subject to his own opionions and ideas.

Timothy: I dunno, I see the name "Timothy" and I kind of cringe a little. First Timothy is littered with the phrase "I would prefer" (that women remain silent in church, that young widows marry, that married men stay married and that single ones stay single, etc. ) This really isn't about what Timothy prefers. Not only that, but the cat is seriously judgemental. I take this chapter with a grain of salt.

Romans: Paul again. He DOES mention homosexuality, but doesn't rail on is specifically. He goes on to say "woman perverting their sex, men having passion for one another, etc. is bad." I would read that to say he is not happy with any form of sexual deviance at all, and lumps it in with thievery, lying, ethical corruption, etc. We know that someone who likes to give BJs is not automatically a theif. He says immoral people will get punished by God.

He then goes on in the VERY NEXT SECTION to say that judgment against such people is wrong, and since we all are sinners, to do so brings judgement down on the head of the person doing the judging. I didn't actually spot the word "hypocrisy" but I believe that that is what he was getting at.

It boils down to Jesus saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Paul might be a tad misogynistic and uptight but it would appear from this passage that he, at least, "gets it."

I didn't get to Jude yet.

I will say this: Even if Paul said "Burn gays at the stake!" it would still be overridden by Jesus saying "Love thy neighbor as thyself." and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

If it's wrong, let God judge. If I'm wrong, God will judge me, too. And I hope he will consider, if he does, that my "sin" (according to some of these fundies) is my refusal to judge and hate.

[guywithashovel]

Let me go give them a read and I'll get back to you on that. I don't want you to think I'm ignoring the question, I just don't know how to answer off the top of my head.

LATER: Okay, I'm sitting here with a Good News New Testament in my hands.


Thank you for your perspective, and I'm sorry I didn't acknowledge you earlier. I saw your post shortly after you posted it, but I didn't say anything because I didn't know if you'd be adding to it or not. Just didn't want you to think that your thoughts went unnoticed.

Just for fun, here is the verse in Jude. It's Jude 7 (only one chapter in that book)

"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

Someone once told me that this was the "conversation ender" for homosexuality being a sin in Christianity. I'm not sure how, seeing as how it doesn't even mention homosexuality. Even the King James Version doesn't use the word "homosexuality" in that verse. It uses "fornication," but not homosexuality.

[Hyena Dandy]

Someone once told me that this was the "conversation ender" for homosexuality being a sin in Christianity. I'm not sure how, seeing as how it doesn't even mention homosexuality. Even the King James Version doesn't use the word "homosexuality" in that verse. It uses "fornication," but not homosexuality.


Additionally, if I recall Sodom and Gomorrah were punished not for gayness but for raping angels. Angels which are sexless. Not male. They have male names, but they're not male.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Ah, this rthread, I lost track of it.

Yes, thanks for thst, I had to put the splint back on my hand, and I cnat type like thsi.

Take it off, pain, put it on, gagged.

I'll respond to this when I can type al little ibt better. :)

[joe hx]

Keep in mind Paul was a bit uptight and had to be reigned in more than once. One of the great frustrations in Jesus's life, it would seem, was the failure of his apostles to "get it." Am I suggesting that his word is no good? Absolutely not. I AM suggesting that he was a man, just like any man, and he is subject to his own opinions and ideas.

I'm pretty sure Paul never met Jesus during Jesus' lifetime. We are talking about Saul, who had a vision on the road to Damascus, and thus was renamed Paul?

[Fashion Lad!]

People hate what they don't understand. They're not going to try and understand it because to them being gay is unnatural. I really do believe that people just use religion as an excuse to hate. If they truly did follow the actual teachings of Jesus, when someone picked up the phone to call tech support they wouldn't start off screaming at the rep on the phone. Jesus wouldn't do that nor would he condone that. They'll use religion as an excuse to hate because learning something isn't convenient.


(Sorry, I'm talking in circles more than ever. FOOTBALL!)

[RecoveringKinkoid]

joe hx: yeah, we are. Sorry, I"m getting my stories mixed up. :o

guywith a shovel: Yeah, see? It would seem to me that a lot of these "religious right" people are equating "sexual peversion" with "homosexuality" and I"m saying I am not seeing too terribly much basis for that. What constitutres peversion? Is some kink okay and some isn't? Fetishes? I suppose you could make a case that the directive was to "stop fucking, period!" if you want to be literal abouit it.

Real confusing gray area, at least for me.

Yeah, I got the idea that the Sodom and Gomorrah people were busted for crossing the line into forcible rape, not for playing around with one another. But you know, staunch anti gay people loooove to trot that story out. :rolleyes: And I think they are missing the point of it.

But again, the one thing is NOT a gray area is Christ's teaching to "Be excellent to one another." But it's a lot easier to do just about anything than do that sometimes. And I say that with no irony or sarcasm. It's true.

The priest at my church says it's a lot easier to worship Jesus as a God than it is to follow his teachings. How true that is.

[gremcint]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw&feature=player_profilepage

[BroomJockey]

Nice, very funny while informative.