Spawned from the current hot religion thread, because I didn't want to derail it.
Originally posted by Feanaro
Second I belive that the ACT of homosexuality is wrong.
You are a bigot.
I don't care which way you guys cut it, it's bigoted bullsh*t every damn time.
Gay person: I didn't choose to be gay.
Bigot: Yes, you did.
Gay: ???
What is he/she supposed to say to sh*t like that? It's mindless drivel perpetrated by people who have no real data, experience or thoughts on the matter besides what the Baibal tells them to have. I'm sure you'll all take the last bit as a compliment.
Even if being gay was a choice, that's still no valid cause for discriminating against them. People choose their religion too (or so I heard), and discriminating against religious people (say, muslims) doesn't hold in court either.
Bigot: "Love the sinner, Hate the sin".
Gay: "Love the sin, hate the sinner"? Makes about as much sense
Listen ye bigots - homosexual love is not a sin. The bible defended slavery, treating women as inferior to men and even more skewed world views. I'm about tired of this "love the sinner, hate the sin" horse crap, that I hope a gay person will school you in the arts of loving the next time you say such things to a homosexual's face. I'm sure they'll be real glad that you deep down love them, even if you disapprove of who they are...
Nope, can't even write this with a straight face (hah). I hope you can see the inherent logic in the above sentence, because I sure as hell can't. Y'know, I don't think you'd even say this crap to a gay person - preaching to the despairing, homophobic choir is much nicer and safer, isn't it?
Bigot: "the ACT of homosexuality is wrong, not the love"
Nice to see some real, non-judgmental action here, folks. Yep, them gays can love all they want, but no touchy-feely, no sir. But that's just as well, because they CHOSE to be gay. Put yourself in their shoes (surely an easy task for such devoted Christians) and imagine a world where you could "love" all you want, but not touch those you loved. Humans are social, touching creatures, realize it. And don't give me crap about "Oh, it's not the touching - it's teh sodomy!!!!". You'd be surprised how small a part teh buttseks plays in a gay's life.
And am I right in saying female gays don't practice sodomy? Yet they're still just. as. BAD as male gays, right? Or did the sapphic porn get to you Xians as well?
Bigot: "A black person had the right - if they were white - to be free, 200 hundred years ago."
Incidentally, they weren't white. They're still black. I'm sure you can see where this goes (namely, the marriage issue).
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/samesex.marriage/index.html)
Bigot: "Homosexual marriages threaten traditional marriages, values and straight love."
No, no it doesn't. First of all, marriage was never a religious ceremony at all to begin with. Secondly, nowhere does a gay marriage cause your average, straight marriage any harm. All your straight lives will go on just as well regardless of whether the gay couple across the street throws a wedding party and gets a piece of paper that entitles them to the same rights as you do. This is blatant bigotism and worse.
Bigot: "Oh, but gays can have civil unions."
Possibly, but that will never be the same. For some people, it's the religious significance of a marriage that's important. For others, it's merely the ceremony. For others yet, it's the rights a marriage entail. But the key thing to remember here is that all straight people have the choice of all these things. They can have the whole cake, and eat it too. Some gay people are deeply religious, yet they can't have this spiritual ceremony that cements their love.
Bigot: "Gay people will go to hell."
Assuming a Christian God, you don't know that. Jesus never said that - there's been some vague references in the bigot-testament (The Olde One), and *some* people like to dig that sh*t up and use it to justify the current fortress mentality. The Evul fagboys are out to get you, yes indeed. They will endure the wrath of our bigot-god. It was always this way, it was written in stone. Blablabla.
Here's a clue - Judaism originated (can't say evolved, sorry) from just another cult. Anthropologically, it's nothing special as far as religions go. And not only did Judaism come from a tribal cult, Christianity too was nothing more than yet another cult at the time of its origin. The point is, it is NOT set in stone.
Doesn't it *bother* you Christians in the slightest that you willingly admit you can never follow the Bible completely? That you can love everyone uncompromisingly, even your worst enemies - but never those damned gays? I'm sure Jesus would be really proud of you.
I love you C'Jais.
Expand your Imagi-Nation
Originally posted by Kain
I love you C'Jais.
In that manly, viking, slap-on-the-back-kinda-way, of course ;)
Originally posted by C'jais
.. You'd be surprised how small a part teh buttseks plays in a gay's life.
hey.. i just thought.. some would be surprised how big a part teh buttseks can play in a (some?) straight people's life.. XD
And am I right in saying female gays don't practice sodomy?
uuuhhhmmmmmm.. from a certain point of view i would say.. nope. but i think your point is valid for the majority.
..
let me say it: sex (read: making love between onetwo or more persons) i nothing wrong as long as everybody who is involved is ok with it. i cant think of a sexual practise which is limited to gay or straight sex. the only difference between gay and straight sex is that noone can get pregnant (at least males, i would easily find ways how lesbians could.. err.. do it.)
Originally posted by Kain
I love you C'Jais.
Expand your Imagi-Nation
Omg, you are the gayest Kain! I'm going to tell Selene!
:dozey:
Anyway C'jais, you've pretty much summed up in a single post what I've been trying to say for the past year.
Originally posted by Tyrion
Anyway C'jais, you've pretty much summed up in a single post what I've been trying to say for the past year. change year to life and there ya have it for me. .
Theologically, I think it's difficult to try and convince Christians, Jews or Muslims that homosexuals are equals.
Playing the 'misinterpretation' card is usually safe but Christians, Jews and Muslims all seem to agree pretty strongly that consider homosexuality a sin. I don't know enough Abrahamic theology to really know how far the Torah, Bible and Qu'ran actually condemn homosexuality, but I do know that if all three agree then it'll be pretty hard to 'misinterpret' all three books.
Also, I disagree with your last point.
People that do not follow the Bible should not call themselves Christians. I know that an awful lot of 'Christians' are, well, lazy and don't actually practise Christianity. They're not Christians. They tick the "Christianity" box on forms because they think that's good and popular.
You are a Christian if you live your life as taught by the Bible, you are a Christian is you believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and if you go to church every Sunday (the last one is possibly dubious and somewhat debatable).
But you can't "pick and mix" from the Bible, and say that you like 'bits' and not other 'bits'. Christianity is Christianity is Christianity. The whole point of religion is that it doesn't change and that it perpetuates the same traditional values.
When reading the above, you might get the impression that I say all of this is a "good" thing.
I'm not really. I don't really like to say whether things are "good" or "bad", that's a little too absolutist for me, I just think that this is the way things are.
I do add, though, that society is constantly changing and religion isn't.
Christianity is always promoting values of a society 50 years in the past.
As society has developed, Christianity has tried to change with it. But Christianity is like a plank, in that it'll bend so far but it can't bend too far. In the last 30 or 40 years, that more and more strain has been put on that plank and I think we're coming close to breaking-point.
It isn't surprising that Christianity is declining. Religion simply doesn't cater for the requirements of modern society.
(What is interesting, though, is that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and it is growing at approximately the same rate as Christianity is declining)
But to get back on topic, I think you really have to choose between accepting homosexuals and being a Christian.
You can't do both.
Unless you can show that Christianity doesn't really condemn homosexuality? But I don't think you can...
Originally posted by Mort-Hog
Theologically, I think it's difficult to try and convince Christians, Jews or Muslims that homosexuals are equals.
... I think you really have to choose between accepting homosexuals and being a Christian.
You can't do both.
Unless you can show that Christianity doesn't really condemn homosexuality? But I don't think you can...
If it were simply a matter of the bible's condemnation of homosexuality, then I don't think it would be an issue. There are many sins that religious fundamentalists ignore, or at least fail to apply as much hatred toward as they do homosexuality: adultry, thievery, covetness, idolotry, etc. Indeed, the prisons are full of christians, jews and muslims... enough to make one believe that there is something inherently wrong with their thinking; particularly when you consider that the majority of those imprisoned hold a belief in some theistic superstition or supernatural being.
No, homosexuality is an excuse. Humans have always needed an other to provide unity and create a group cohesion. Homosexuality provides that excuse. Too bad the superstitious majority of our society didn't pick something that truly affects the quality of life, like theft. or materialism (a.k.a. idolotry).
I have to agree with C'Jais: religious reasons for disagreeing with homosexuality are based on superstition and a need for bigotry to create unity within the individual cult groups. Anthropologically speaking, homosexuality provides positive attributes to a society, not negative.
maybe you shouldn't call yourself a christian if you only pick bits from the bible you like...
..but then again, maybe you shouldn't call yourself a christian if you just follow the bible because you were raised a christian and haven't had any religious experiences from god...
...but then again, maybe you shouldn't call yourself a christian if you eat fish on a tuesday or whatever other silly rules there are that are clearly cultural and not religious...
...but then again, maybe you shouldn't call yourself a christian if you can't decide which of the contradictory rules you should obey...
...but then again, maybe you shouldn't call yourself a christian if you can't decide whether the catholics, protestants or one of the many other sects of christainity who all interpret the bible differently have got it right...
...but then again, maybe you should just accept that the bible is a flawed book written by flawed men that has been changed and re-enterpreted many times and realise that religion is a personal thing to do with how YOU interpret the bible and your releationship with god... not how someone else tells you it should be interpreted.
Originally posted by Mort-Hog
People that do not follow the Bible should not call themselves Christians.
[...]
You are a Christian if you live your life as taught by the Bible
Incidentially, a guy called Paulus happens to disagree with you.
The whole point of religion is that it doesn't change and that it perpetuates the same traditional values.
[...]
I do add, though, that society is constantly changing and religion isn't.
Aah, how refreshing... Someone finally admits that the point of religion is being outdated.
Christianity is always promoting values of a society 50 years in the past.
If that was true, then Christianity might not be as bad. Problem is that your figure is off by at least 300% Christianity is closer to 200yrs behind - and that's on a sunny day.
But to get back on topic, I think you really have to choose between accepting homosexuals and being a Christian.
How refreshing... I so do cherish your honesty.
Originally posted by Mort-Hog
As society has developed, Christianity has tried to change with it. But Christianity is like a plank, in that it'll bend so far but it can't bend too far. In the last 30 or 40 years, that more and more strain has been put on that plank and I think we're coming close to breaking-point.
It isn't surprising that Christianity is declining. Religion simply doesn't cater for the requirements of modern society.
(What is interesting, though, is that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and it is growing at approximately the same rate as Christianity is declining)
There seem to be two factors in play here.
1 - In the arab world - The arab world is in approximately the same place that the christian world was a few hundred years ago. They are starting to grow economically and culturally and starting to take their place in the world. In the same way that european clutures did when they started to grow, the middle eastern cultures are looking out onto a world of scary difference, and deciding that what the world really needs is for them to bring their religion to the world and "save" us all. SO we are now getting islamic (and christian for that matter) misionaries wront he middle east and third world bringing their religion to us.
2 - In the west - You might be right about christianity bending or breaking.
As far as i can tell there seem to be 2 types of personality trait amongst humans. Those who like everything nice and simple and black and white, and those who like the freedom and choas created by shades of grey. You see this seperation in the political system, in feelings on the war, or crime and in feelings on religion.
Christianity therefore has the choice of trying to attract either of these groups... but what it is trying to do is attract both, which isn't working.
Personally, as a shades or grey type, i feel that what is important about christianity is the message, god and jesus, not all the associated cultural rubbish it has picked up over the last 4000 years. This doesn't please the other type of person though, as it is too confusing to keep changing things.
They want a religin that sets out its position in black and white and then sticks to it, no matter how the world may change around it. Islam currently has that appeal.
Of course, the risk with not changing is that you can become irrelevant, marginalised and even just plain outdated. (see a number of early christian sects).
It may well be that in a few years islam will become just as splintered as christianity, as it's followers gain western levels of living, entertainment and complexity in their lives.
You just have to look at 2nd and 3rd generation asian kids in the uk (or films like bend it like beckham, tv like goodness gracious me) to see that as people become involved in the complexities of modern life the strictness of religion can just become too difficult and unappealing to stick to.
Ironically, it may be the terrorists who are trying to spread islam that end up causing it to become split and confused like christianity, and maybe therefore loose it's appeal. Already you have islamic scholars arguing over the justification for attacks... some being hardline and literal, others trying to adapt the quran to the modern age...
1 - In the arab world - The arab world is in approximately the same place that the christian world was a few hundred years ago. They are starting to grow economically and culturally and starting to take their place in the world. In the same way that european clutures did when they started to grow, the middle eastern cultures are looking out onto a world of scary difference, and deciding that what the world really needs is for them to bring their religion to the world and "save" us all. SO we are now getting islamic (and christian for that matter) misionaries wront he middle east and third world bringing their religion to us.
Hmmm. That's an interesting point. Yes. Hmm.
2 - In the west - You might be right about christianity bending or breaking.
As far as i can tell there seem to be 2 types of personality trait amongst humans. Those who like everything nice and simple and black and white, and those who like the freedom and choas created by shades of grey. You see this seperation in the political system, in feelings on the war, or crime and in feelings on religion.
Yes.
Christianity therefore has the choice of trying to attract either of these groups... but what it is trying to do is attract both, which isn't working.
Personally, as a shades or grey type, i feel that what is important about christianity is the message, god and jesus, not all the associated cultural rubbish it has picked up over the last 4000 years.
The thing is, as a "shades of grey type" you should reject Christianity totally.
Christianity, and all the Abrahamic religions, is fundementally about "right" and "wrong". Without all the 'cultural rubbish', Christianity is about "right" and "wrong".
It is not about 'why' it is "right" or "wrong", it is "right" because God says it is "right" and it is "wrong" because God says it is "wrong" and god-fearing Christians do not question God.
However you try to bend it, that cannot work with the "shades of grey" type mentality.
You have to choose one or the other.
It may well be that in a few years islam will become just as splintered as christianity, as it's followers gain western levels of living, entertainment and complexity in their lives.
You just have to look at 2nd and 3rd generation asian kids in the uk (or films like bend it like beckham, tv like goodness gracious me) to see that as people become involved in the complexities of modern life the strictness of religion can just become too difficult and unappealing to stick to.
Ironically, it may be the terrorists who are trying to spread islam that end up causing it to become split and confused like christianity, and maybe therefore loose it's appeal. Already you have islamic scholars arguing over the justification for attacks... some being hardline and literal, others trying to adapt the quran to the modern age...
Perhaps, but the problems of Christianity lie much deeper in just conflicts with modern life. The Catholic-Protestant conflict has been central to Christian history, and has resulted in the many different denominations.
Islam has the advantage that religiously they are united. The Sunni-Shia split is political, it is about the heir of Muhammed. Religiously, they agree totally, they both accept Muhammed as the prophet of God and the Qu'ran as His word. Islam has managed 1300 years without being splintered into religious denominations. This will stand it in good chance.
It probably won't pull it through the conflict with modernity, but it probably will postpone it. Islam will survive longer than Christianity.
Ironically, it may be the terrorists who are trying to spread islam that end up causing it to become split and confused like christianity, and maybe therefore loose it's appeal. Already you have islamic scholars arguing over the justification for attacks... some being hardline and literal, others trying to adapt the quran to the modern age...
Al Queda are not trying to "spread Islam". Their attacks are political and they are fighting against the American oppression in the Middle-East and the American support for oppressive regimes, mainly the House of Saud. Al Queda might be religious fundementalists, but they are a lot less religiously motivated than Hezbollah or HAMAS.
But even the local Islamic resistance organisations are usually fighting against Israel. The most extreme call for the destruction of Israel and the unification of Islamic nations into a single Islamic republic such as the Ottoman Empire. None of the organisations call for global Islam. They may wish to strike at America, but "converting" America to Islam is not a target. No, many Christians do call for "converting" Islamic nations into Christianity, but few Muslims call for "converting" America or western Europe to Islam.
But I think you're right, in that Muslim scholars are becoming divided over modern issues. I think this is representative of their political bias more than anything else, though. Even the highest muslim scholars in Egypt do suggest that suicide attacks on soldiers are justified. Attacks on settlers are justified by many, but not all. Attacks on civilians are justified by some, but not many. But they are all united in opposing attacks on Muslims. That's one thing the Qu'ran is very clear on. Muslims are not to kill muslims, that is a grave sin.
Originally posted by toms
They [the Muslim world] are starting to grow economically and culturally and starting to take their place in the world.
Sorry, but nope. The muslim world has been f*cked since they lost the silk route monopoly. They had their time of glory, as did alll the middle eastern cultures, but that time is long gone. Asia, I think, will be the next great power in international politics. They have jump-started their industrialization, their R&D programs, their everything. The US is going down hard and fast. And unless Europe gets its butt together, Europe will follow. And the Muslim world is centuries behind Asia in the race to take the place of the West.
Originally posted by Mort-Hog
The thing is, as a "shades of grey type" you should reject Christianity totally.
Not the type of christianity i was brought up to believe in. I, like much of the UK, was brought up Church of England, and CofE doesn't teach the bible as literal truth, but as parables(?) and lessons.
If i was brought up in a hardline faith i might well reject it, but i wasn't so i have taken the many valuable lessons and integrated them with my own experiences. I'd still call myself christian, but a more modern one.
After all, most peoples beliefs are coloured entirely by their environment while growing up.
Originally posted by Mort-Hog
Perhaps, but the problems of Christianity lie much deeper in just conflicts with modern life. The Catholic-Protestant conflict has been central to Christian history, and has resulted in the many different denominations.
Islam has the advantage that religiously they are united. The Sunni-Shia split is political, it is about the heir of Muhammed. Religiously, they agree totally, they both accept Muhammed as the prophet of God and the Qu'ran as His word. Islam has managed 1300 years without being splintered into religious denominations. This will stand it in good chance.
But many of the splits in christianity were just as, if not more so, political as theological. And even when they were theological there were a lot of politics involved, and visa-versa.
Originally posted by Mort-Hog
Al Queda are not trying to "spread Islam". Their attacks are political and they are fighting against the American oppression in the Middle-East and the American support for oppressive regimes, mainly the House of Saud. Al Queda might be religious fundementalists, but they are a lot less religiously motivated than Hezbollah or HAMAS.
I specifically avoided naming one terrorist group, as not many claim "spreading islam" as their main aim, but most have it in common as a form of secondary aim. The ultimate aim of all muslims should be to spread te word, surely? And many interpret this as spreading the nation of islam until it includeds everyone.
Originally posted by Mort-Hog
They may wish to strike at America, but "converting" America to Islam is not a target.
Not what i have heard a lot of "radical" clerics claim.
Originally posted by Mort-Hog
But I think you're right, in that Muslim scholars are becoming divided over modern issues. I think this is representative of their political bias more than anything else, though. Even the highest muslim scholars in Egypt do suggest that suicide attacks on soldiers are justified. Attacks on settlers are justified by many, but not all. Attacks on civilians are justified by some, but not many. But they are all united in opposing attacks on Muslims. That's one thing the Qu'ran is very clear on. Muslims are not to kill muslims, that is a grave sin.
I heard a debate on it involving mainly moderate clerics (from the uk and middle east) and they were fairly divided on the right or wrong of attacking settlers and civilians. Aparently it all depends on whether you can class them as "attacking" islam or supporting attackers. Even though the qu'ran seems much more specific than the bible in a lot of things, it all still comes down to interpretation in the end.
I'm not sure what my point was now :confused: :D
Originally posted by Mort-Hog
Christianity, and all the Abrahamic religions, is fundementally about "right" and "wrong". Without all the 'cultural rubbish', Christianity is about "right" and "wrong".
It is not about 'why' it is "right" or "wrong", it is "right" because God says it is "right" and it is "wrong" because God says it is "wrong" and god-fearing Christians do not question God.
Hmmm... What do you say to that? You are completely right in your diagnosis of the problem. But you seem unwilling to recognize it as a problem.
However you try to bend it, that cannot work with the "shades of grey" type mentality.
And that is the characteristics of a fascist ideology.
Perhaps, but the problems of Christianity lie much deeper in just conflicts with modern life. The Catholic-Protestant conflict has been central to Christian history, and has resulted in the many different denominations.
Sorry to tell you, but Luther was nothing more than a common heretic. He'd have ended up in the wrong end of a stake if his heresies hadn't coincided with armed rebellion in the Evil Empire's northern provinces.
The Sunni-Shia split is political, it is about the heir of Muhammed. Religiously, they agree totally,
Boy, do you need a touching-up of Islamic theology. The schism between the Shia and the Sunni is at least as serious as the Reformation. Your statement is equivalent to saying that Catholics and Protestants agree totally, because both groups accept the Jesus fairytale and most of NT.
Not the type of christianity i was brought up to believe in. I, like much of the UK, was brought up Church of England, and CofE doesn't teach the bible as literal truth, but as parables(?) and lessons.
If i was brought up in a hardline faith i might well reject it, but i wasn't so i have taken the many valuable lessons and integrated them with my own experiences. I'd still call myself christian, but a more modern one.
After all, most peoples beliefs are coloured entirely by their environment while growing up.
Right.
So, what exactly were you taught?
The point I was making is that you were invariably taught "right" and "wrong".
There's no grey area there.
I specifically avoided naming one terrorist group, as not many claim "spreading islam" as their main aim, but most have it in common as a form of secondary aim. The ultimate aim of all muslims should be to spread te word, surely? And many interpret this as spreading the nation of islam until it includeds everyone.
Yes, the whole "avoiding naming one group" thing is really irritating.
If you claim that "terrorists" are 'spreading Islam', who are you talking about? Who is spreading Islam?
Al Queda are not HAMAS are not Fatah are not the Tamil Tigers are not the Kurdistan Workers Party are not the KKK. These are all "terrorist" organisations but they are all totally different. When you're talking about "terrorists", do tell me who you are talking about. The vast majority of the time, people are talking about Al Queda.
They are the only international Islamic organisations.
Christians have always been taught to spread Christianity wherever they can.
It would be logical for God to scatter a few prophets around the world, some on each continent. But no, God only sent one. It is up to Christians to act as the messengers of God to spread the word of God wherever necessary.
Muslims are taught pretty much the same thing, but the Christians have been a lot more...forceful about it. Millions of Muslims were killed in the Crusades. Islam has never really retaliated. Until now, perhaps.
Originally posted by Mort-Hog
Islam has never really retaliated. Until now, perhaps.
Bull ****. The Saracens were camped outside the gates of Praque once.
So if you dont support someones life decsions you are a bigot? Homosexuality is a sin. Like it or not. Gays want to be celebrated and want us to celbrate their acts. well....no. oh, I guess that means I'm a bigot, huh?
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Bull ****.
Do refrain from using unnecessary curse words and condescending attitude, dear friend.
And let's get this thing back on topic, or I'm pulling the plug.
Originally posted by yaebginn
So if you dont support someones life decsions you are a bigot?
A "life decision"? Hardly, and we've gone over this before. It is not up to you to decide which team you're playing on, to put it this way.
And there's a big, truck-sized difference between "not supporting" and "actively condemning and working against".
Homosexuality is a sin. Like it or not.
That's all fine and dandy except it goes against the numero uno message of the bible - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Tolerance, gentle helping, loving your fellow human being and all that jazz - you're not into that?
Gays want to be celebrated and want us to celbrate their acts.
That's a pretty ignorant stance. Gays just want to be respected - they're not out to shove their homo-vibes down your throat in any way. On the contrary, heterosexuality is celebrated to the point of it seeming like the only viable way to love another person sexually.
oh, I guess that means I'm a bigot, huh?
It would seem so. (
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot)
big·ot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
Any of this seem familiar to you? Why can't you just accept differences in people? Why would God care if someone's buttocks don't read "Exit Only"? Isn't that absurdly irrelevant in the grand scheme of God's plan?
This is indeed "pick and choose" religion at it's finest.
Psychologists back Gay Marriage (
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=7&u=/ap/20040729/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_psychologists)
A case for biologically determined homosexuality (
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/08/1078594273173.html?oneclick=true)
And if science won't cut it, I can go the scripture route, too.
Matthew 5:33-37
33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Marriage is a pretty serious vow, yet Jesus himself says vows are sinful. Jesus' instruction seems very clear-cut here as well, contrary to the multitude of vague definitions we find in the Bible elsewhere. Marriage is blasphemy.
Marriage is not a sacrament, either - that little detour came about from the Catholic church mistranslating the Greek musth>rion (mystery) as the latin Sacramentum (meaning sacrament as well as mystery) instead of Arcanum which is more specific, in the following: Ephesians 5:32 in the Bible. Written in Latin as: “Arcanum hoc magnum est; ego autem dico in Christo et in Ecclesia.” (“This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”)
As for why the church has held on to this definition is obvious. The early church needed control of who could marry who, as a means of controlling secular life. So if King Doodletwattle wanted to marry a foreign ruler's daughter, he had best pay for some church renovations first. And if Joe the farmer wanted to marry the miller's daughter, he had better fork over the cash he owed.
And besides, back in the day, marriage had nothing to do with God, either - what follows is a snippet from an Israeli religious scholar (though I've lost the URL)
By contrast, freewill sexual relationships, commonly referred to as "premarital sex" or "living together out of wedlock," were all but unrebuked in the Mosaic law. Upon detection, the man was required to pay the standard marital dowry to the woman's father. The father then had the option of either declaring them married or precluding any further relationship (Ex. 22:16-17; Deut. 22:28-29). The latter texts demonstrate that it was the bride's family, not the church or the state, which "married" a couple (see also the case of Rebekah, Gen. 24:50-59), and this solely due to custom, not divine command. A gamos was neither a judicial nor an ecclesiastical ritual, but a reception hosted by the bride's father to announce the union (Gen. 29:22; John 2:1). As a result, a couple which has parental permission while lacking a marriage license or church ritual are married in the biblical sense. A couple which bypasses parental permission is violating the fourth commandment, not the sixth. When such permission is not required by the parents, only the mutual consent of man and woman is required by God.
The modern notion of "marriage" is based not on Scripture, but on the "sacrament of matrimony" taught by Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, in which it is alleged that a clergyman's pronouncement establishes the marital union. Protestantism universally retains this practice while avoiding the term "sacrament" in describing it. "Marriage" by a justice of the peace or a ship's captain is simply a secularization of this institution. As a result, most modern Christian statements regarding "marriage" (e.g. "Sex should be reserved for marriage") are called into question.
In conclusion, most modern European marriage customs and priviledges actually derive from Roman law, which in turn predates Christianity.
for starters, I am not a gay basher. I dont support them, but I dont hate them. I simply dont support their actions. I am not untolerant. I just dont support what they are doing. and it says dont swear by anything. not dont swear to anything. I can promise to do something, but cant say, 'I swear on my momthers grave' I forget the exact specifics, but I'll reread that psrt of the bible and get back to you. btw ,ever hear of the edit button? use it, please.
('Jais is a mod, I dont think he needs instruction on use of the edit button.)
Bashing them or not, the fact that you don't believe that the way they choose to live their lives is acceptable makes you a bigot.
( if he doesnt use it, then I think he could use a reminder, mod or not)
according to cjais defintion, I am not a bigot. I am not intolerant, just unsupporting of their beliefs. I do not blindly follow my religion, I research whay my pastor says and what other have said to make sure they are guiding me correctly. I dont think othes are definitely wicked, incorrect, maybe. and if they are proven to be wicked, then I tihnk they are. But if they are differet or oppose my reliogn, I simply think just that. Their beliefs differ than mine. I dont automatically come ot the conclusion that they are wicked.
Originally posted by ET Warrior
Bashing them or not, the fact that you don't believe that the way they choose to live their lives is acceptable makes you a bigot.
Either way, you're either saying that everybody's a bigot, or that bigot isn't nearly as bad as c'jais means.
For instance, your definition of bigot means that if you don't believe the way that someone choose to live thier life by stealing and murdering is acceptable, that it makes you a bigot. If you believe that someone selling drugs to addicts is an unacceptable way to live thier life, you're a bigot.
Personally, I don't believe that
yaebginn is a bigot; although I believe that gays should be free to marry, he doesn't do anything to denounce the people who are gay.
Ahso, but stealing and murdering actually hurts other people, and therefore seeing that as wrong is not biggoted. But viewing someone as in the wrong for doing something that hurts nobody else is biggoted, I believe.
Like if somebody likes to drink their own urine in their free time. I'm not going to say that that is wrong, and they shouldn't do it, because it's only affecting themselves. But if they like to pee on other PEOPLE who don't want them to, then I will say that they are in the wrong, because they're affecting other non-consenting parties
Originally posted by yaebginn
Homosexuality is a sin. Like it or not.
By this statement, you are actively condemning homosexuality and declaring that any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from this statement is "unreasonable." You could have said "I believe that homosexuality is a sin" or something to that extent, thus declaring your own views upon the matter but not being intolerant of the opinions of others. However, I cannot judge you by this one statement alone, and it seems you have clarified your beliefs through your further posts. You may not be a bigot, but you do sound like one.
Anyways, it is important to note that none of the views so far (an assumption, of course) have come from a gay's perspective. I'm not even sure if there are even any homosexual users on this forum, or even if they wanted to reveal that aspect of themselves, but it would interesting to hear from such a perspective on this subject.
*pees on ET*
Originally posted by yaebginn
Homosexuality is a sin. Like it or not.
How can this be ? Why would god create people that are fundamuntally flawed*, isn't he all powerfull, don't you think he wouldn't create homosexuals since homosexuality is a sin, according to your religion ? This doesn't make any sense ! Or perhaps god has a rather debatable sense of humor and like to create beings destined to burn in hell...
*I don't really mean this, but you all new that... just to make sure
I guess god has some deepseeded childhood issues, that cause him to create only so he can bring suffering. Can anyone say sadist/psycho?
It's not that i can say i run through the streets and support gays by carrying their stuff. But i'd like to know what homosexuals are doing or believing, that that is so much different that we can not "support" it. I think they believe the same things as everybody does, some are following a religion and some not. And they do nothing different than others and i dont think they "invented" any new sexual practices. They even have friends, love other people and have long lasting relationships. Only that they have it with people of the same gender. And if "mother nature" would not "like it", she would have made it impossible.
Interesting, pertinent debate.
Its amazing how many times I have read such bigoted remarks, even over at the 'swamp', in what were sometimes originally unrelated threads.
...Unfortunately, I have noticed that following said bigoted remarks, there follows a paraphrasing of holy text(usually The Bible), demonstrating that homosexuality is a sin.... I find this extraordinarily disturbing.... :(
I am aware of the terrible stigma attached to gay people in some islamic communities(even one as 'progressive' as the one I was raised in)....
The main thing I have difficulty accepting are that gay people are sometimes denied the ability to express their faith, and to become leaders in religious circles...
mtfbwya
God doesnt create gays that way. He creates thme, but gives them free will to do as they choose. They just follow the wrong path. jack it isnt impossible, ubt is bad for health. It pops blood vessel and percentage wise, more gays have AIDS then straights.
Originally posted by yaebginn
God doesnt create gays that way. He creates thme, but gives them free will to do as they choose.
And you're willing to refute the scientific evidence that proves homosexuality is much less of a personal choice and is almost completely determined by genetics and upbringing? So if you want to blame anyone, blame the parents :rolleyes:
Originally posted by yaebginn
God doesnt create gays that way. He creates thme, but gives them free will to do as they choose. They just follow the wrong path.
If there was a "correct" or "right" path, why would this God give people free will at all? Why wouldn't this supposedly all-powerful being just force everyone to take the same paths in life? It doesn't add up.
Originally posted by yaebginn
It pops blood vessel and percentage wise, more gays have AIDS then straights.
Where is the evidence and proof?! There is none whatsoever backing this statement, and it's only a misguided fallacy used to denounce gays and their homosexuality.
Originally posted by yaebginn
..... It pops blood vessel and percentage wise, more gays have AIDS then straights.
There was a recent international conference in Thailand on the world AIDS crisis..... I suggest you go look up the latest WHO(World Health Organisation) Data on AIDs before you make such a misguided and judgemental statement of pseudo-fact... :(
mtfbwya
how exactly is it misguided. if you take the precentage of gays that have aids, and the percentage of straights tha thvae aids, the gays number would be larger.
Originally posted by yaebginn
Jack it isnt impossible, ubt is bad for health. It pops blood vessel ...
How and why?
And if you compare the percentages of gay against straight humans from out all humans then those AIDS-percentages relativize.
The following quotes are from AIDS Epidemic Update: December 2003, published by the World Health Organization and found on the web at:
http://www.who.int/entity/hiv/pub/epidemiology/epi2003/en)
In Western European countries that report HIV cases, heterosexual intercourse may now be the most common mode of HIV transmission. (p. 29)
Stigma devalues and discredits people, generating shame and insecurity. In the context of AIDS, it can fuel the urge to scapegoat, blame and punish certain people (or groups) in order to detract from the fact that everyone is at risk. Stigma taps into existing prejudices and patterns of exclusion and further marginalizes people who might already be more vulnerable to HIV/AIDS. It stems from the association of HIV/AIDS with sex, disease and death, and with behaviours that may be illegal, forbidden or taboo, such as pre- and extramarital sex, sex work, sex between men, and injecting drug use. (p. 32)
http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/epidemiology/en/epi2003_7_full.jpg)
Is god just getting a head start wiping out future fags?
Of course not. That's why the whole "a high percentage of HIV/AIDS cases are among the homosexual population" argument is poppycock.
It's an epidemic. Period. Regardless of what the demographic is, people are getting it and they are dying. And there is much that can be done about it.
Anybody who suggests that even some get what they deserve is a bigot. period.
There are also more that just one way to get HIV infected. But only one is "sexual transmission".
Originally posted by Astrotoy7
The main thing I have difficulty accepting are that gay people are sometimes denied the ability to express their faith, and to become leaders in religious circles...
What I have a hard time getting is why gays want to have anything to do with a religion that condemns them. I mean they aren't burned at the stake anymore, so by the Gods why do they seek acknowledgement from such archaic, outdated institutions?
jack it isnt impossible, ubt is bad for health. It pops blood vessel and percentage wise, more gays have AIDS then straights.
The AIDS statistics you refer to apply only to the Western world, and are biased by the travel patterns of gays. Y'see at one point gays would go to exotic holiday locations to find boyfriends/girlfriends, in order to escape the prejudice and bigotry they faced at home. Unfortunately, HIV was much more abundant in those parts of the world. Well, that's the short version, anyway.
Before Christianity(hell, before Judaism), all the big leaders (Alexander the Great, Julius Ceaser, ect ect) were bi-sexual and often took male(or female) concubines on their travels. And since said leaders often oppressed and murdered those of differnt beliefs(Jews and Christians), isn't it ironic that said religions are deftly opposed to homosexuality.
Expand your Imagi-Nation
What happens if two women want to marry? I mean, it's not that only men can be homosexual.
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
What I have a hard time getting is why gays want to have anything to do with a religion that condemns them. I mean they aren't burned at the stake anymore, so by the Gods why do they seek acknowledgement from such archaic, outdated institutions?
[/i]
I too am perplexed by that, but gays should not be denied the right of choice and participation in their own faith...
mtfbwya
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
What I have a hard time getting is why gays want to have anything to do with a religion that condemns them. I mean they aren't burned at the stake anymore, so by the Gods why do they seek acknowledgement from such archaic, outdated institutions?
Because regardless of your sexual preference, it helps some people to have something good to hold onto. Religion is usually the easiest answer.
Expand your Imagi-Nation
Well, since this thread seems to be entirely about opinionated horse****, and the fact that if you use a religion for a reason to not like homosexuality, you are a bigot, let me chime in with my two cents. I don't like homosexuality simply because I think it's gross. Two guys, getting sweaty, and trading fluids and bumping hairy uglys, is to me, gross. Not because God said so. Just because I think so. But I don't have a problem with gay people, or their want/right to marry or whatever. I just don't want to hear people cram down my throat the notion that I'm a Nazi, facist, or bigot, simply because my taste differs. I get so tired of hearing all these wannabe Malcom X's of the gay community tell me what a piece of **** I am if I don't like something they're content with. Here's a whole thread devoted to making people feel stupid, just because they have a different opinion? I guess that's what this section of the forum is for, or something...
I've made this point before in a thread that was just about par for course with this one as far as the level of retardedness in here goes. Not liking something does NOT mean that you are ANTI (insert whatever subject here). I don't like onions. But I'm not "anti onion". I don't form protest lines, march in parades, or start threads, based on my dislike of onions. I don't like the idea of two men having sex. But I'm not anti-gay. I just don't like the idea of two dudes getting nasty. Like most men of my opinion (GASP! I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE!!!), the idea of two women together is just fine, and also a little exiting. A double standard? Sure. Bigoted? Well, I dunno about all that.
If all this makes me a bigot, you can cram it up your ass. Because it seems to me the real bigots are the people that expect me to embrace their ideas, without giving a rats ass why my opinions and ideas are different than theirs. Wow. You don't like the ideas that people of the church have. And they don't like yours. But the only bigots are them? Not you? Get the **** off you high horse.
If all this makes me a bigot, you can cram it up your ass.
Heh.
Sorry, the whole "well it's MY opinion" line just doesn't cut it.
There is no good reason to dislike homosexuals, or find them "gross". Really, the only argument against homosexuality is religious. That's it.
Yes, I'm sure you'll say "I'm not religious, I just find them gross" or something along those lines. Well, you'll have been raised by some religious people, or had some religious influence somewhere along the line.
In fact, it's not really a strictly religious thing. The Romans were all pretty much bisexuals, heterosexual sex was really only done in order to maintain the population. Often, homosexual sex would be had for pleasure afterwards. The Romans had a great system of extremely liberal sex and a system that promoted happiness and love between partners, so rape wasn't a problem.
It was really only the Christians that came along and ruined everything, bringing along and saying that any sort of desire to have sex is 'evil'.
But anyway, saying "well that's just my opinion" is not useful. Yes, if you lived on your own little island with no-one else around, it wouldn't be a problem, but you live in a world where you will meet other people and a fair deal of them will be homosexuals. If you find them "gross", you will treat them differently to how you'd treat heterosexual men. That is a problem. And it almost certainly stems from Christianity (though Islam, and oddly enough Judaism both teach pretty much the same thing about homosexuality).
Unless you have some sort of morbid irrational fear of homosexuals, in the same way that some have fear of spiders or heights. In which case, that is your problem. Perhaps some sort of counselling can help with that.
Cool down you two. CapN, you're replying to a criticism that isn't aimed at you. If I have understood what you say correctly, it is that you find the thought of being part of homoerotic sex repulsive, but don't nessecarily have a problem with other people engaging in it.
If that is the case, then none of the criticism is aimed at you and most straight people probably share your views. What we discuss here is discrimination of homosexuals, which you, if I remember correctly, stated that you were against.
Originally posted by Mort-Hog
Heh.
Sorry, the whole "well it's MY opinion" line just doesn't cut it.
There is no good reason to dislike homosexuals, or find them "gross". Really, the only argument against homosexuality is religious. That's it.
Yes, I'm sure you'll say "I'm not religious, I just find them gross" or something along those lines. Well, you'll have been raised by some religious people, or had some religious influence somewhere along the line.
In fact, it's not really a strictly religious thing. The Romans were all pretty much bisexuals, heterosexual sex was really only done in order to maintain the population. Often, homosexual sex would be had for pleasure afterwards. The Romans had a great system of extremely liberal sex and a system that promoted happiness and love between partners, so rape wasn't a problem.
It was really only the Christians that came along and ruined everything, bringing along and saying that any sort of desire to have sex is 'evil'.
But anyway, saying "well that's just my opinion" is not useful. Yes, if you lived on your own little island with no-one else around, it wouldn't be a problem, but you live in a world where you will meet other people and a fair deal of them will be homosexuals. If you find them "gross", you will treat them differently to how you'd treat heterosexual men. That is a problem. And it almost certainly stems from Christianity (though Islam, and oddly enough Judaism both teach pretty much the same thing about homosexuality).
Unless you have some sort of morbid irrational fear of homosexuals, in the same way that some have fear of spiders or heights. In which case, that is your problem. Perhaps some sort of counselling can help with that.
Saying "it's my opinion" doesn't cut it, aye? Are you trying to tell me that there is something being said in this thread that ISN'T opinion? Like everything is fact, unless it's coming from me...:rolleyes: Oh, and nice attempt to twist my words around. I never said I didn't like homosexuals, or that I find them gross. I said I think homoSEXuality is to me, gross. You see, I don't like a naked guy. I especially don't like two naked guys. I think that's gross. Oh, and nice try at analyzing me and my upbringing there, Mr. Freud. FYI, I was not raised by religious people. I've never seen my parents in a church, saying a prayer before a meal, or even cracking open a bible.
I'm not interested in the Romans, seeing as how they're not really running the world anymore, and I'm not a Roman myself. But thanks for the history lesson anyway.
Also, I don't treat homosexual men differntly than straight men. For one thing, it's not usually brought up. I honestly don't care if someone's gay or not. Nor do I have a fear of gay men. Think about it. Have you ever met a scary gay guy? I just think gay sex is kinda nasty, that's all. Gay people? No, they're fine by me. If saying "well that's just my opinion" isn't useful, I have to wonder who put a nickle in you, because you were certainly quick to share your useless opinion.
"Really, the only argument against homosexuality is religious. That's it. "
Apparantly not.
"In fact, it's not really a strictly religious thing."
Anyone for nice warm cup o' contradiction?
Anyway, ShadowTemplar hit the nail on the head. Without trying to belittle me, or my upbringing, he understood what I'd said perfectly. What part was so hard for you, Mort?