PDA

View Full Version : Why is homosexuality such a big deal to some Christians?



Pages : [1] 2

Iris
June 4th, 2008, 10:26 AM
I don’t get it. Why do such a large number of Christians (note: I am deliberately not saying ALL Christians) seem to be so bothered by something that actually has nothing to do with them, and doesn’t affect their lives in the slightest?

Using the bible to justify gay prejudice

People bang on about the verse in Leviticus that is most often translated as “Do not lie with a man as with a woman; it is a detestable sin” (or something along those lines.) Yet weirdly they mostly ignore most of the rest of the old testament, giving the argument that “When Jesus came, he abolished the values espoused in the Old Testament” (including the old ‘eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’ stuff). So Christians feel free to eat shellfish, despite this verse:


Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

www.godhatesshrimp.com

Christians also feel free to cut their hair and beards (forbidden in Leviticus) eat pork (forbidden as an ‘abomination’ in Leviticus) plant their field with two kinds of seed, or wear cloth woven with two types of material (yup, forbidden.) Confront a fundie Christian with this logic and they will laugh, and doubtless point out that “Oh, that old stuff about weaving cloth, it’s hardly relevant today, now is it?” THEN WHY IS THE SUPPOSED “HOMOSEXUAL VERSE” RELEVANT, WHEN EVERYTHING AROUND ABOUT HAS LONG BEEN OBLITERATED BY COMMON SENSE?

http://www.fallwell.com/selective%20quotation.html

There’s also the fact that the verse, while often translated as condemning gay sex, may in fact mean any number of things. Some Biblical scholars say that the Greek might as easily be translated as “Do not lie with another man IN the lyings of a woman”, ie, do not have sex with another man in a woman’s bed. Which puts a bit of a different spin on things.

As for the ‘sin of Sodom’ nonsense – apparently it says in Ezekiel that the sins of Sodom included: pride, greed, and an unwillingness to “help the needy.” But there’s nothing in there about homosexual sex!

http://www.iwgonline.org/docs/sodom.html


What are you so afraid of…your own sexuality?

Fundie Christians seem OBSESSED by gay sex! Of course we’re all familiar with Pastor Phelps and his message that ‘God hates Fags’. For someone who claims to be completely straight, Fred Phelps has certainly got a bee in his bonnet about homosexuality. I have seen documentaries where Shirley Phelps claims that their message is about ‘Hierarchies of sin’ and that homosexuality is the worst sin it is possible to commit. Um. Does it say that in the bible? Cause I’ve never heard of that verse.

I recently watched a documentary on fundie Christians here in Britain where one man was getting very worked up about society telling children that it is ‘ok to be gay’. His central concern was eloquently expressed thus:

“I don’t want my son being told it’s ok to get s*** on his d***!”

:wtf:

I thought that was a particularly immature statement…when the guy has sex with his wife, is he afraid of getting blood on his ****? Or is THAT ok? Also, to reduce the joy and pleasure of sex to some crude epithet like that just shows he is incapable of understanding love that is different to his way of loving. Which is pretty sad. And lastly…that’s what enemas are for!

I also recently watched an award-winning documentary called Jesus Camp, about the evangelical movement in the USA and how some churches are targeting kids to “take back America for Christ.” One of the preachers there was called Ted Haggard. While on camera he enjoined the cameraman to ‘repent’ and told the assembled crowds “We don’t even need to debate about homosexual behaviour; what we need to think about it is written in the bible.” Bare months after the documentary finished filming, Ted Haggard was deposed as the leader of the New Life church after admitting to patronising male prostitutes. So I suppose there is some truth in the theory that those who violently oppose homosexual relationships may have something to hide!

The sanctity of marriage…not.

The other thing that really bothers Christians is the possibility that gay and lesbian couples may be allowed to marry. Oh noes! This will mean the end of life as we know it! Ignorant and prejudiced people make statements along the lines of “one11one!! If the gays get married, then wut is to stop pplz marrying thur dogs n shit?” Totally insulting and facile.

Also, we breeders demand the SANCTITY of abusing our kids! The SANCTITY of domestic violence! The SANCTITY of bringing drugs, alcohol and weapons around our kids!

Of course not all heterosexual marriage is bad. But a great many are. I don’t understand how people can defend the institution of hetero marriage when frankly, we’ve made a right balls-up of it over the years. LGBT couples can’t possibly mess it up worse than we already have. So what’s the big deal?

And as for the concept that children of gay/lesbian couples will be bullied…sure they will. As were kids of single mothers in times past. As were mixed race kids in times past. But you know what? Society adjusted, grew up and moved on. In time the same-sex couple with kids will be just another type of family, and then it won’t be worth commenting on anymore, because it will be so commonplace. Interracial couples didn’t stop having kids. Single mums didn’t stop raising their babies themselves. Society has moved on now, and it will do so again.

Xander67
June 4th, 2008, 10:36 AM
I think it is because it is defined as a sin in the bible.

Primary reason.

I was raised christian and what I have experienced was that anytime I had a question it was always answered with a "well let's see what the bible says about this"

LostSheep
June 4th, 2008, 10:56 AM
And don't forget Paul. A lot of the stuff in the New Testament that people decided was so influential was added by him (and, much later, by St Augustine, who had just as many hang ups).

Actually, this has some interesting stuff to say about that --> http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm




Leviticus 11:10 seems to be saying "don't eat dolphins or other sea mammals", basically, it seems. Maybe that was added by Greenpeace.
:-/

Iris
June 4th, 2008, 11:04 AM
I think it is because it is defined as a sin in the bible.

Primary reason.

In ONE translation (the one that has become generally accepted) it is defined as an 'abomination'. But so are pork chops. How many Christians kick up as much of a fuss about pork chops?

aranarose
June 4th, 2008, 11:04 AM
Honestly, I think it has little to do with their being Christian, and more to do with cultural taboos that still persist, fear of the unknown, and perhaps being uncomfortable with their own sexuality. They're being Christian and having verses that condemn it pounded into their heads so that they can spew it forth themselves is simply a matter of convenience.

I've known Christians, pagans, Muslims, Jews, and atheists who were uncomfortable with homosexuality. The arguments range from it being non-Biblical to it being unnatural because evolution "designed" us to reproduce and homosexuals cannot biological reproduce with one another. This all ignores the fact that the Bible can be used to justify murder, and that there are evolutionary arguments for homosexuality as a form of population control to insure that a given group does not get too large, therefore stripping resources and ultimately destroying the whole...

aranarose
June 4th, 2008, 11:05 AM
In ONE translation (the one that has become generally accepted) it is defined as an 'abomination'. But so are pork chops. How many Christians kick up as much of a fuss about pork chops?

Personally, I think pork chops ARE an abomination, and I'm not a Christian.

Iris
June 4th, 2008, 11:12 AM
Personally, I think pork chops ARE an abomination, and I'm not a Christian.

:lol: What have you got against pork chops?

Theyre not so bad with a bit of apple sauce.

*considers changing title to 'Iris has the right to eat chocolate AND PORK CHOPS'* :lol:

LadyWinter
June 4th, 2008, 12:46 PM
You gave a lot of reasons in your original post why Christians dont like homosexuality.....what about all the people who dont like homosexuality that arent christians? We all have our own opinions and everyone has a right to them.....Disagreement in opinion is not necessarily a sign of ignorance...just difference.

FOr the record....I dont like chocolate or pork chops.

Winter

aranarose
June 4th, 2008, 12:50 PM
:lol: What have you got against pork chops?

Theyre not so bad with a bit of apple sauce.

*considers changing title to 'Iris has the right to eat chocolate AND PORK CHOPS'* :lol:


I think it's one of those things where I ate pork chops and then threw them up as a kid. I had the flu, so it wasn't the pork chops that made me sick, but my mind forever associated them with that, and I can't stand to eat them now.

My sister has the same issue with cinnamon schnaps, and my husband has that problem with Sparks beer.

It's funny, because I have no problem with other pork products. In fact, I love ham!

Infinite Grey
June 4th, 2008, 01:17 PM
Christians have this double mindedness about them, and it's usually impossible to make them see it as a fallacy.

For example, they will condemn Homosexuality as sinful and an abomination due predominately to Leviticus and Deuteronomy - "God hates fags". But ask them why they do not stone disobedient children and suddenly they go on about the New Covenant.

The books dealing with what Jesus supposedly said never even mentions homosexuality directly, and the instances in which it could be contrived as such are dubious at best. (Matthew 5:22 Matthew 15 Mark 7: 2.3 Matthew 8 Luke 7) - the condemnation of same sex interactions mostly come from Paul (big surprise there) - Romans 1 is more of a pot shot at how lowly he viewed women. 1 Corinthians 6 talks about effeminate or sissy men.

1 Timothy 1 talks about defiling one's body.

Given the ambiguous nature of the bible, it is possible to justify pretty much anything... so long as you're not to fussy about remaining consistent or holding double standards.

Xander67
June 4th, 2008, 01:34 PM
In ONE translation (the one that has become generally accepted) it is defined as an 'abomination'. But so are pork chops. How many Christians kick up as much of a fuss about pork chops?

yeah, but I have always maintained that the Bible has been tampered with, Christianity was stripped of a lot of it's elements back in the middle ages and then those elements were then called "pagan" by the Pope..

But I am not worried, one day soon Christianity will be restored to its original intended true nature.. and a whole lot of heads will be rolling from rome to washington and then back to the Middle East!

aluokaloo
June 4th, 2008, 01:36 PM
well I asked a friend of mine the very same question, he's a bit of a fundy, and he started off on his usual rant and spiel about how it's a sin, it's not natural blah blah blah, and how would I like it if they started allowing incestuous relationships? That question right there was where HE stopped me dead in MY tracks. All my life, I've been taught that to think about family members that way is wrong, as a child there was no reason or rhyme to it, we just don't view other family members that way. I was taught that it was wrong, sick, perverted, disgusting, and I simply NEVER QUESTIONED OTHERWISE, and I still hold such views on incest. Many of them were probably raised the same way, and never questioned it either.

Think about it, we were all raised with one belief or another without questioning it for a while, whether it's don't litter, or killing is wrong, or we should always try to help others when we can, or whatever.

The hardest chains in the world to break aren't forged out of metal, they're forged from ideas and beliefs.

My friend handed me a piece of the puzzle to understanding how people think. Thanks BI!

David19
June 4th, 2008, 03:20 PM
Honestly, I think it has little to do with their being Christian, and more to do with cultural taboos that still persist, fear of the unknown, and perhaps being uncomfortable with their own sexuality. They're being Christian and having verses that condemn it pounded into their heads so that they can spew it forth themselves is simply a matter of convenience.

I've known Christians, pagans, Muslims, Jews, and atheists who were uncomfortable with homosexuality. The arguments range from it being non-Biblical to it being unnatural because evolution "designed" us to reproduce and homosexuals cannot biological reproduce with one another. This all ignores the fact that the Bible can be used to justify murder, and that there are evolutionary arguments for homosexuality as a form of population control to insure that a given group does not get too large, therefore stripping resources and ultimately destroying the whole...

I agree with you, I think it's less to do with Christianity, and more to do cultural issues, 'cause there are many Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, Agnostics, and loads of others, etc who hate homosexuality and LGBT people and issues. Some people will just use religion, or whatever, as an excuse to hate LGBT people and want us dead. Some hate us 'cause they see us as "going against" God (or Gods), being "unnatural/against nature", being "too different", "going against the dominant culture", "going against society norms", that male/female polarity are "sacred" and anything that destroys that (e.g. being LGBT, etc) is "wrong" or "evil" (it's funny, that people who hold that view, never realise that "male" and "female" are social constructs, what makes something "feminine" and something "masculine" is a social construct), etc.

Luckily, there are many other Christians, and other religious groups, and more, etc who are fighting against the bigots, homophobia and LGBT discrimination and oppression (and other forms of discrimination and oppression).

_Mo_
June 4th, 2008, 05:14 PM
Excellent post, and great points. I'll print this out and conveniently leave it lying somewhere around the house, maybe my dad will start getting it through his thick skull...he hasn't even read the Bible, but he uses it to oppose homosexuality.

Green Mantle
June 4th, 2008, 05:23 PM
well I asked a friend of mine the very same question, he's a bit of a fundy, and he started off on his usual rant and spiel about how it's a sin, it's not natural blah blah blah, and how would I like it if they started allowing incestuous relationships? That question right there was where HE stopped me dead in MY tracks. All my life, I've been taught that to think about family members that way is wrong, as a child there was no reason or rhyme to it, we just don't view other family members that way. I was taught that it was wrong, sick, perverted, disgusting, and I simply NEVER QUESTIONED OTHERWISE, and I still hold such views on incest. Many of them were probably raised the same way, and never questioned it either.

Think about it, we were all raised with one belief or another without questioning it for a while, whether it's don't litter, or killing is wrong, or we should always try to help others when we can, or whatever.

The hardest chains in the world to break aren't forged out of metal, they're forged from ideas and beliefs.

My friend handed me a piece of the puzzle to understanding how people think. Thanks BI!

There is a reason why incest is considered wrong and it has nothing to do with the Bible. The fact that children conceived of such relationships are predisposed to having severe birth defects is a primary factor.

LeftToWonder
June 4th, 2008, 05:30 PM
I must clarify, I'm not a christian...





Romans 1:26-32
26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
28: And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29: Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30: Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31: Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.This is the most often quoted passage I see in regards to homosexuality. And the reason that christians are so "dead set" against homosexuality is because it is an abomination by THEIR moral code. Are you anymore more right to demand that they accept homosexuals, as they are to demand that the homosexuals repent? I don't personally have a problem with homo-sexuals(I would hope not, I'm bi), but at the same time I understand that certain things make people uncomfortable, and I consciously avoid such things around those people. Its a matter of mutual respect. The key to life is not understanding why someone believes something, its coming to a mutual con census to agree to disagree, and work around it, that is the key to social interaction.

aluokaloo
June 4th, 2008, 05:37 PM
There is a reason why incest is considered wrong and it has nothing to do with the Bible. The fact that children conceived of such relationships are predisposed to having severe birth defects is a primary factor.


:wtf: You missed my point completely. please read this part again;


Think about it, we were all raised with one belief or another without questioning it for a while, whether it's don't litter, or killing is wrong, or we should always try to help others when we can, or whatever.The hardest chains in the world to break aren't forged out of metal, they're forged from ideas and beliefs.

earthtide
June 4th, 2008, 05:40 PM
Leviticus 11:10 seems to be saying "don't eat dolphins or other sea mammals", basically, it seems. Maybe that was added by Greenpeace.
:-/

:rotfl:

David19
June 4th, 2008, 07:03 PM
In ONE translation (the one that has become generally accepted) it is defined as an 'abomination'. But so are pork chops. How many Christians kick up as much of a fuss about pork chops?


Personally, I think pork chops ARE an abomination, and I'm not a Christian.

I personally hate pork chops, and I'm not Christian either, if they just focused their enegies on pork chops, I'd really agree with them!.

For me, I hate them 'cause the way a child minder that I went to when I was little made them, they were all slimy and just disgusting, IMO.

David19
June 4th, 2008, 07:05 PM
You gave a lot of reasons in your original post why Christians dont like homosexuality.....what about all the people who dont like homosexuality that arent christians? We all have our own opinions and everyone has a right to them.....Disagreement in opinion is not necessarily a sign of ignorance...just difference

Goog post :).


FOr the record....I dont like chocolate or pork chops.

Winter

I agree about the pork chops, but how can you not like chocolate, now, that's just plain wrong, I think you need some chocolate evangelicals to teach you about the wonders of chocolate ;)!!.

David19
June 4th, 2008, 07:10 PM
Excellent post, and great points. I'll print this out and conveniently leave it lying somewhere around the house, maybe my dad will start getting it through his thick skull...he hasn't even read the Bible, but he uses it to oppose homosexuality.

Hope that does happen, but, unfortunely, sometimes, it doesn't get through everyones mind, that being LGBT is natural, and isn't "wrong", "sinful", "disgusting", "evil", etc. Even if you give them good evidence, they'll ignore it and continue thinking it's "wrong", "sinful" and disgusting", etc (and, that doesn't just apply to Christians, but everyone, religious or not).

Glowy
June 4th, 2008, 07:14 PM
I may be way off base, but I remember learning that for the ancient Greeks, homosexuality was not an issue at all.

I am weakly trying to make a connection between early Xtians and ancient Greeks- like anything that was common place before would be considered "wrong"

Cassie
June 4th, 2008, 07:45 PM
I donít get it. Why do such a large number of Christians (note: I am deliberately not saying ALL Christians) seem to be so bothered by something that actually has nothing to do with them, and doesnít affect their lives in the slightest?

.
I know you make it clear that you are not talking about ALL Christians, but I do think you are inferring a few generalistions and assumptions about Christians.
I'm not quite sure why you say that they seem to be bothered by something that has nothing to do with them and doesn't affect their lives in the slightest.
Even the most homophobic Christians live in the same world as everyone else and are confronted with lifestyles and beliefs different to their own regularly, so even in that minimalist sense it does affect them. Then the nature of Christianity, especially fundamentalist Christianity, is evangelical. It is part of their belief system that they should spread what they consider to be the word of God.

Of course there are a significant number of gay Christians in many denominations who are trying to change things from inside. The fact is that homosexuality is a challenge to the doctrines held by most conventional and fundamentalist Christians and they have to grapple with it. It does force them to re-evaluate how they interpret their most sacred scriptures and doctrines;-which is no small thing. But,as has been said by others, Christians are by no means the only people who have a problem with homosexuality.

Gay people have suffered much and have had to fight hard for the rights they have won in the western world which is dominated by Christian culture, but I think the hardest and most painfull fight for equality so far, is going on in the Islamic world right now.

Philosophia
June 4th, 2008, 08:54 PM
I think this article shines a little light on this touchy subject.


The Bible

In our Judeo-Christian society, the documents collectively known as the Bible serve as the primary guide on most issues. It is interesting that many Christians take literally the references to homosexual acts, while interpreting other text with great flexibility. One person reported listening to a nationally-known woman speak in her campaign against homosexuality. She spent quite a bit of time quoting impressively from Leviticus. The listener accepted much of what the speaker said until he realized that, by Levitical standards, the crusader herself had broken many biblical laws Ė she spoke in church (1 Corinthians 14:34), she taught men (1 Timothy 2:12), she was wearing a dress made of cotton and polyester (Deuteronomy 22:11), and others of which he was probably unaware.

What does the Bible really say about homosexuality? Actually, very little. Most significantly, Jesus said nothing at all. Considering the relatively small amount of attention the Bible pays to the subject, we must ask ourselves why this is such a volatile issue. Other subjects about which the scriptures say a great deal (e.g. judgment, pride, hypocrisy) receive much less passionate attention. Before looking at specific passages, it is important to note that everyone understands the scriptures based on, and through, the light of what they have been taught. The Bible was not written in a cultural void, and many of its instructions and laws are simply classified as less relevant today (e.g. prohibition against eating pork).

Nowhere does the Bible actually address the idea of persons being lesbian or gay. The statements are, without exception, directed to certain homosexual acts. Early writers had no understanding of homosexuality as a psychosexual orientation. That truth is a relatively recent discovery. The biblical authors were referring to homosexual acts performed by persons they assumed were heterosexuals.

From here (http://www.cathedralofhope.com/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?&pid=225&srcid=305)

aranarose
June 4th, 2008, 09:06 PM
I may be way off base, but I remember learning that for the ancient Greeks, homosexuality was not an issue at all.

I am weakly trying to make a connection between early Xtians and ancient Greeks- like anything that was common place before would be considered "wrong"

From what I understand, male-female relationships were purely for convenience, the reproductive kind. The closely bonded relatioships were between men, and men and women were NOT considered equals. Homosexuality was common becasue of that.

As for the whole issue, there are people that you will never be able to convince. Their aversion to homosexuality is so deeply ingrained that they will use any argument they can think of against it.

Argument for: "It's completely natural."
Arguments against: "Yes, but as humans we are supposed to rise above our animalistic nature and suppress these urges. Addiction to cocaine is natural, but we don't encourage that."
"Yes, but as followers of Christ, we are to rise above our sin nature. Murder is natural but we don't encourage that."

Iris
June 4th, 2008, 09:28 PM
You gave a lot of reasons in your original post why Christians dont like homosexuality.....what about all the people who dont like homosexuality that arent christians? We all have our own opinions and everyone has a right to them.....Disagreement in opinion is not necessarily a sign of ignorance...just difference.

FOr the record....I dont like chocolate or pork chops.

Winter

Well, I gave the reasons that they posit, which largely make no sense.

Yes, I am aware that there must be people out there that just object to homosexuality for the hell of it. But what interests me is the level of hypocrisy displayed by Christians who aggressively oppose LGBT lifestyles while at the same time eating pork and lobster. It just seems a direct contradition to hold up one OT verse as 'the truth' while completely discounting all the verses round about.

And I think it depends on the opinion. What about the opinion that certain races are inferior? Is that not a sign of ignorance? In my view, yes it is.

Sequoia
June 4th, 2008, 09:34 PM
The attitudes against homosexuality are largely cultural - this is why most ignore the other "forbidden"s in the Bible and center on things such as homosexuality.

If eating pork was half as interesting as the kind of sex people have and who they have it with, we'd be all up in arms about that, too.

David19
June 4th, 2008, 09:43 PM
I may be way off base, but I remember learning that for the ancient Greeks, homosexuality was not an issue at all.

I am weakly trying to make a connection between early Xtians and ancient Greeks- like anything that was common place before would be considered "wrong"

I might be wrong, but I think it depended on the act and the definition. Like, the ancient Greeks and Romans (and some other ancient, and modern cultures) are famous for male/male sex, but I think it was mainly about the sex, not loving relationships. You were still expected to have a wife and kids, like if I lived then, I wouldn't be able to go out with my boyfriend, live with him and only him, just have sex with him, kiss him in public and the streets, hold hands with him, etc. Also, I've heard the active partner was respected, but the passive partner was seen as "feminine" and made fun of and it was seen as "negative". If anyone else knows more, please add it or feel free to correct me (I'm quite interested in homosexuality and other LGBT issues in the ancient world).

David19
June 4th, 2008, 09:45 PM
I know you make it clear that you are not talking about ALL Christians, but I do think you are inferring a few generalistions and assumptions about Christians.
I'm not quite sure why you say that they seem to be bothered by something that has nothing to do with them and doesn't affect their lives in the slightest.
Even the most homophobic Christians live in the same world as everyone else and are confronted with lifestyles and beliefs different to their own regularly, so even in that minimalist sense it does affect them. Then the nature of Christianity, especially fundamentalist Christianity, is evangelical. It is part of their belief system that they should spread what they consider to be the word of God.

Of course there are a significant number of gay Christians in many denominations who are trying to change things from inside. The fact is that homosexuality is a challenge to the doctrines held by most conventional and fundamentalist Christians and they have to grapple with it. It does force them to re-evaluate how they interpret their most sacred scriptures and doctrines;-which is no small thing. But,as has been said by others, Christians are by no means the only people who have a problem with homosexuality.

Gay people have suffered much and have had to fight hard for the rights they have won in the western world which is dominated by Christian culture, but I think the hardest and most painfull fight for equality so far, is going on in the Islamic world right now.

Good post :).

David19
June 4th, 2008, 09:47 PM
I think this article shines a little light on this touchy subject.



From here (http://www.cathedralofhope.com/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?&pid=225&srcid=305)

That article sounds interesting, but it won't work, for me anyway.

David19
June 4th, 2008, 09:50 PM
the Attitudes Against Homosexuality Are Largely Cultural - This Is Why Most Ignore The Other "forbidden"s In The Bible And Center On Things Such As Homosexuality.

If Eating Pork Was Half As Interesting As The Kind Of Sex People Have And Who They Have It With, We'd Be All Up In Arms About That, Too.

QFT, I agree with you.

Stormbeard
June 4th, 2008, 09:51 PM
Because it was Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve, Fags!

Caitlin.ann
June 4th, 2008, 09:52 PM
No it was Adam and Lilith. So there...we should all be screwing demon spawn.

Philosophia
June 4th, 2008, 10:13 PM
That article sounds interesting, but it won't work, for me anyway.

Strange, it won't for me now.

http://www.cathedralofhope.com/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?&pid=225&srcid=305

or

http://www.cathedralofhope.com/homosexuality/index.php

These are some good essays:

A Defense Theory: An Analysis of Six Critical Texts Used To Condemn Homosexuality (http://www.whosoever.org/v2i5/defense.html)

The Bible Should Not Be Used to Condemn Homosexuality (http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/bible.htm)

Homosexuality and Christianity (http://www.jeramyt.org/gay.html)

Romans 1:18-32: Paul, the Goddess Religions and Homosexuality (http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/paulcybl.html)

Problematics of the Pro-Gay-Marriage Amendment Arguments (regarding Indiana SJR07) (http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/gay_marriage_arguments.htm) (his website has a few essays on GLBT in Christianity http://www.jeramyt.org/ )

I agree with people who stated that this is a cultural issue.

earthtide
June 5th, 2008, 12:56 AM
Because it was Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve, Fags!

This now belongs in my siggy, so I can laugh forever. :crylaugh:

David19
June 5th, 2008, 08:38 AM
Because it was Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve, Fags!

That's what they want you to believe, but everyone knows, Eve was actually Steve in drag, so male/male sex was established at the beginning of time and is sacred to YHWH! (actually, something interesting I've read, is that in the Greco-Egyptian Magical Papyri (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Greco-Egyptian+magical+papyri&meta=), there are some spells that call upon YHWH/IAO (another name for the Jewish/Christian/Islamic God) in same-sex spells, like spells for a guy to get a guy, girls to get girls, etc, so I don't think YHWH has such an issue with it as some like to believe).

David19
June 5th, 2008, 08:50 AM
No it was Adam and Lilith. So there...we should all be screwing demon spawn.

Very true, and that is actually something I'd love to see, now, could you imagine how fun delivering babies would be with demons coming out!, apparantly, Lilith spawns thousands of demons in short time periods (http://kheph777.tripod.com/lilith.html) (the article I linked too by Aaron Leitch (http://kheph777.tripod.com/indexaol.html) is very good, and has a lot of cool info on Lilith's Mythos, from ancient times to modern times, and he has a lot of other great articles, IMO), so imagine giving birth to thousands of demonic children each time (and you women, say pregnancy is tough now!).

Now, I'm depressed, I want to give birth to demon children and have an army of demons, it'd be so cool ;)! (you know, you'd love it too!).

David19
June 5th, 2008, 08:53 AM
Strange, it won't for me now.

http://www.cathedralofhope.com/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?&pid=225&srcid=305

or

http://www.cathedralofhope.com/homosexuality/index.php

These are some good essays:

A Defense Theory: An Analysis of Six Critical Texts Used To Condemn Homosexuality (http://www.whosoever.org/v2i5/defense.html)

The Bible Should Not Be Used to Condemn Homosexuality (http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/bible.htm)

Homosexuality and Christianity (http://www.jeramyt.org/gay.html)

Romans 1:18-32: Paul, the Goddess Religions and Homosexuality (http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/paulcybl.html)

Problematics of the Pro-Gay-Marriage Amendment Arguments (regarding Indiana SJR07) (http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/gay_marriage_arguments.htm) (his website has a few essays on GLBT in Christianity http://www.jeramyt.org/ )

I agree with people who stated that this is a cultural issue.

Thanks for linking the article again, it's working now, and those other articles are very interesting and very cool, IMO (I also like Jeramy's homepage). I'm glad some organisations and people are countering the homophobic BS some religious people like using, and other LGBT discrimination and oppression.

David19
June 5th, 2008, 08:54 AM
This now belongs in my siggy, so I can laugh forever. :crylaugh:

Very true.

Nox_Mortus
June 5th, 2008, 09:04 AM
dunno if this thread has gone wildly OT or not, but IMO, the reason this is a big target for Christian nutcases is that homosexuality still isn't really widely accepted, it's a whole let better than it was, but by coming down on this they can have something to bitch about without losing popularity with many people who would otherhwise support them. The thing is these types of people/organizations always need something to fight against, that's how they control people and how they make money.

kotu
June 16th, 2008, 07:55 PM
The Answer Is The Bible Is Full Of Crap

edit.. i hope that doesn't offend anyone- obviously its just a belief i hold

Wertdagf
June 24th, 2008, 07:26 PM
mating is supposed to produce children.. that is what its for. sex isnt your personal way to turn 500-1000 calories into chemicals to feed that addiction your growing. in your luxury you waste food that could be givin to the hungry and energy that could be used to heal the sick or comfort the lonley. instead people are off sacraficing their entire lives for sex because society and GREED has giving people the spare time and separation to belive that they should be happy while the world suffers, sometimes at their own hands.

Philosophia
June 24th, 2008, 09:36 PM
mating is supposed to produce children.. that is what its for. sex isnt your personal way to turn 500-1000 calories into chemicals to feed that addiction your growing. in your luxury you waste food that could be givin to the hungry and energy that could be used to heal the sick or comfort the lonley. instead people are off sacraficing their entire lives for sex because society and GREED has giving people the spare time and separation to belive that they should be happy while the world suffers, sometimes at their own hands.

If every single act of mating was meant to produce offspring, the planet would be screwed (literally). There is absolutely nothing wrong with having sex for pleasure. By using your logic, we can't do anything pleasurable because other people supposedly can't.

kotu
June 24th, 2008, 09:50 PM
another thing... i don't think 'sacrificing your life for sex' makes you happy, at all

*edit*
maybe it does! i dont know! :ugh:

Zephyrstorm
June 24th, 2008, 09:53 PM
Meet St. Sergius and St. Bacchus (http://www.gentleshepherdrichmond.com/Saints.htm#Saints%20Sergius%20&%20Bacchus) - Early Christian martyrs and lovers. ;)

Obviously, homosexuality hasn't always been looked down on.

Sequoia
June 24th, 2008, 09:56 PM
mating is supposed to produce children.. that is what its for. sex isnt your personal way to turn 500-1000 calories into chemicals to feed that addiction your growing. in your luxury you waste food that could be givin to the hungry and energy that could be used to heal the sick or comfort the lonley. instead people are off sacraficing their entire lives for sex because society and GREED has giving people the spare time and separation to belive that they should be happy while the world suffers, sometimes at their own hands.

:eyebrow:

So people who are infertile, or those using birth control, should not have sex?

Brightshores
June 24th, 2008, 10:57 PM
I agree - I think it's a cultural thing. For some reason, the idea that men can love men and women can love women are terribly threatening to some people. I don't think it's specific to Christianity either - Islam and several other world religions are hardly welcoming to LGBT people.


And don't forget Paul. A lot of the stuff in the New Testament that people decided was so influential was added by him (and, much later, by St Augustine, who had just as many hang ups).

True that. I have to say that Sts. Paul and Augustine, and their legacy, are a very big part of the reason that I'm no longer Christian.

Tanya
June 25th, 2008, 12:43 AM
i'm thinking for the same reason they are so anti-Witchcraft....

they are deeply sexually frustrated

and deeply afraid.. somewhere someone is having SEX and it might get out, that it's DARNED FUN!

Clair de la Lune
June 25th, 2008, 01:16 AM
:eyebrow:

So people who are infertile, or those using birth control, should not have sex?


I believe that our society is a little overly sexualized right now (there is SUCH AN EMPHASIS ON IT IN OUR CULTURE EVERYWHERE), however if we ONLY did this to procreate we would be celebate for YEARS UPON YEARS or men would literally have multiple wives (like fundamental mormons) AND HUNDREDS OF KIDS THEMSELVES TO SUPPORT AND WOULD HAVE TO HAVE CHURCH-AID TO DO SO, AND WOMEN WOULD HAVE A DOZEN OR SO EACH.

NO FRICKEN' THANK-YOU! I'M NOT INTO ANY OF THE ABOVE SCENARIOS!! I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, HOWEVER...(?)

HOWEVER... :smile:

HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT THE SOCIETY THAT IS IN AFRICA (AND SHRINKING) THAT IS LIVING IN A REMOTE MOUNTAINOUS AREA (I forgot where and what the people call themselves):

THE WOMEN MARRY ONE MAN AND HAVE THE BROTHERS AS HUSBANDS TOO TO HELP HER WITH THE HOUSEWORK, CHILDREARING, ETC. SHE TAKES TURNS DIVIDING HER 'ATTENTION' WITH HER WIFELY AFFECTIONS EQUALLY WITH THEM AND THEY DON'T FIGHT, AND ARE ALL GRATEFUL TO HAVE HER, AND TREAT HER AS A DOMESTIC GODDESS.:crown: The men also go out and do the field work.

HMMMM....THIS ALSO KEEPS THEIR POPULATION IN CHECK. (Resources for all!)

NOT BAD!!!

WHY CAN'T IT BE KINDA LIKE THAT HERE??:thumbsup:

Sequoia
June 25th, 2008, 01:25 AM
I believe that our society is a little overly sexualized right now (there is SUCH AN EMPHASIS ON IT IN OUR CULTURE EVERYWHERE), however if we ONLY did this to procreate we would be celebate for YEARS UPON YEARS or men would literally have multiple wives (like fundamental mormons) AND HUNDREDS OF KIDS THEMSELVES TO SUPPORT AND WOULD HAVE TO HAVE CHURCH-AID TO DO SO, AND WOMEN WOULD HAVE A DOZEN OR SO EACH.

NO FRICKEN' THANK-YOU! I'M NOT INTO ANY OF THE ABOVE SCENARIOS!! I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, HOWEVER...(?)

HOWEVER... :smile:

HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT THE SOCIETY THAT IS IN AFRICA (AND SHRINKING) THAT IS LIVING IN A REMOTE MOUNTAINOUS AREA (I forgot where and what the people call themselves):

THE WOMEN MARRY ONE MAN AND HAVE THE BROTHERS AS HUSBANDS TOO TO HELP HER WITH THE HOUSEWORK, CHILDREARING, ETC. SHE TAKES TURNS DIVIDING HER 'ATTENTION' WITH HER WIFELY AFFECTIONS EQUALLY WITH THEM AND THEY DON'T FIGHT, AND ARE ALL GRATEFUL TO HAVE HER, AND TREAT HER AS A DOMESTIC GODDESS.:crown: The men also go out and do the field work.

HMMMM....THIS ALSO KEEPS THEIR POPULATION IN CHECK. (Resources for all!)

NOT BAD!!!

WHY CAN'T IT BE KINDA LIKE THAT HERE??:thumbsup:

Um... can you please not type all in capitals? Maybe you don't know, but on the internet, that's considered "yelling"...

And, I've never heard of the male harems. Do you have any kind of link to any sort of information about that?

Protagonist
June 25th, 2008, 02:55 AM
And, I've never heard of the male harems. Do you have any kind of link to any sort of information about that?
How can you not have heard? I totally saw a male harem once... but it wasn't in Africa, it was down the hall from my dorm room!

Protagonist
June 25th, 2008, 03:04 AM
HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT THE SOCIETY THAT IS IN AFRICA (AND SHRINKING) THAT IS LIVING IN A REMOTE MOUNTAINOUS AREA (I forgot where and what the people call themselves):

THE WOMEN MARRY ONE MAN AND HAVE THE BROTHERS AS HUSBANDS TOO TO HELP HER WITH THE HOUSEWORK, CHILDREARING, ETC. SHE TAKES TURNS DIVIDING HER 'ATTENTION' WITH HER WIFELY AFFECTIONS EQUALLY WITH THEM AND THEY DON'T FIGHT, AND ARE ALL GRATEFUL TO HAVE HER, AND TREAT HER AS A DOMESTIC GODDESS.:crown: The men also go out and do the field work.

HMMMM....THIS ALSO KEEPS THEIR POPULATION IN CHECK. (Resources for all!)

NOT BAD!!!

WHY CAN'T IT BE KINDA LIKE THAT HERE??:thumbsup:
I think I'm missing the part where you explain exactly why we should assume male harems are somehow happy and healthy, whereas female harems are deplorable.

You claim that there's an idyllic society in Africa wherein everyone lives in complete harmony via the male harem. I find it difficult to believe that a simple switch of genders transforms harem life from depressing and disturbing into a complete overcoming of basic human emotions like greed, jealousy, and many others.

It is very possible that you watched a program or documentary which presented this society (of which I have no heard) as an utterly idyllic, gentle matriarchy; however, its also very likely that this is a skewed representation. It is impossible to tell whether we will find utopia in the future; however, it is clear that it cannot be found in the past or present. Many researchers have tried to present premodern societies as utopian, but this is always a distortion of the facts.

In short, while male harems have likely existed, I highly doubt that a society resembling your description ever existed, anywhere.

David19
June 25th, 2008, 07:55 AM
If every single act of mating was meant to produce offspring, the planet would be screwed (literally). There is absolutely nothing wrong with having sex for pleasure. By using your logic, we can't do anything pleasurable because other people supposedly can't.

QFT, I agree, and well said. Sex isn't, and shouldn't, just be about reproduction, it should also be about fun, sometimes about love, etc. If everything has to be, or is, centred around reproduction, I guess, condoms and other contraceptive methods shouldn't be created or used, I guess loads of young people who have sex, shouldn't have sex, old people shouldn't have sex, infertile people shouldn't have sex, etc.

Also, I guess that means masturbation is "bad", that is self-sex (or sometimes, it can involve 2 people, if a partner or other person does it for you), and it doesn't lead to reproduction, I guess that means every teenage boy (and girl) in the world is "bad" and shouldn't do it anymore (and trust me, although I can't speak for girls, you could take a boys penis away and he'd still try and masturbate, have sex, etc). If that were true, the world is quite screwed (like you said), and, it would probably be a lot worse (I mean, at least, for some time, sex, masturbation, etc are fun, if people didn't have that, we'd probably have a lot more pissed off, frustrated, angry people, which would really make the world worse). Also, if sex is just for reproduction, that would mean, a kid or kids would have to be produced every time someone had sex, which would just add to the overpopulation of the world.

Sex is fun, people should just understand that, and enjoy it, and understand that sex isn't just about reproduction, people do have sex for fun, love, etc (either with others or themselves), why do people have to be against LGBT people, just 'cause it isn't about reproduction, it's still fun, some of us have it for love, etc.

David19
June 25th, 2008, 08:13 AM
Meet St. Sergius and St. Bacchus (http://www.gentleshepherdrichmond.com/Saints.htm#Saints%20Sergius%20&%20Bacchus) - Early Christian martyrs and lovers. ;)

Obviously, homosexuality hasn't always been looked down on.

Thanks for that site, that's very interesting, and it reminds me of a post I made in the History forum, called 'Early Christians performed gay marriage' (http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=120453)

Here's the site I linked too in the thread that:

Ancient gay marriage of 2 male Saints (http://www.lezbeout.com/ancientgaymarriageoftwomalesaints.htm).

Here's the book that the article talks about too:

'Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe' by John Boswell (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679751645)

I definitely want to get that book, and more, as I find this very interesting. It's funny the early Christian's didn't have a problem, or much of a problem anyway, with performing marriages, and probably with other LGBT people, so I wonder why fundamentalist's do now?. I bet this would make Fred Phelps, and all other Christian fundamentalists, homophobes, etc angry, upset and just make their head explodes!.

There's also evidence in the Greco-Egyptian Magical Papyri (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Greco-Egyptian+Magical+Papyri&meta=), that YHWH/IAO (as he was called in Greco-Egypt, and probably other areas) was called upon in spells for same-sex lovers, so I don't think YHWH has a problem with it either. I'm sure Christian fundamentalists, homophobes, etc will get a big surprise when they meet YHWH.

Then there's The Secret Gospel of Mark (http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Secret/secmark_home.html) (and here (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=The+Secret+Gospel+of+Mark&meta=) for more articles, books, documentaries, etc on it), where, I think, it's suggested Jesus had a very homoerotic relationship with a young guy he was initiating into his Mysteries. I think there's also 'Jesus and the Shamanic Tradition of Same-Sex Love' by Will Roscoe (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Shamanic-Tradition-Same-Sex-Love/dp/0974638838), which sounds very cool, IMO, anyway, and is another book I want to get.

Then there's 'Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives from the New Testament' by Theodore W., Jr. Jennings (http://www.amazon.com/Man-Jesus-Loved-Homoerotic-Narratives/dp/082981535X/ref=pd_sim_b_3) which, again, IMO, sounds quite interesting and very cool, is something I want to get.

There's also 'Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective by Martti Nissinen & Kirsi Stjerna (http://www.amazon.com/Homoeroticism-Biblical-World-Historical-Perspective/dp/0800636457/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b), which sounds like something I'd definitely be interested in, as it looks into homosexuality, homoeroticism, etc in Mesopotamia, Israel, Greece, Rome, early Christianity, etc.

Sorry for getting OT, but this is a topic I'm really interested in. To get back to the OP, I don't think YHWH, Jesus, or any other Jewish, Christian, Islamic, etc will be against LGBT people, in fact, I think Christian fundamentalists, homophobes, etc are in for a big surprise, when they meet YHWH, Jesus, etc ;)!.

David19
June 25th, 2008, 08:15 AM
:eyebrow:

So people who are infertile, or those using birth control, should not have sex?

Yes, they should just remain miserable, you know, sex is not, and should not be, fun, if it's not for reproduction, then you have to be miserable, angry, frustrated, etc.

David19
June 25th, 2008, 08:19 AM
I agree - I think it's a cultural thing. For some reason, the idea that men can love men and women can love women are terribly threatening to some people. I don't think it's specific to Christianity either - Islam and several other world religions are hardly welcoming to LGBT people.


True that. I have to say that Sts. Paul and Augustine, and their legacy, are a very big part of the reason that I'm no longer Christian.

QFT, good posts, although for your last statement, I've actually heard that Paul was more Gnostic, here are some sites on Paul and him being a Gnostic (I'm not sure if he was or not):

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Styx/8676/files/paulgno.htm

'The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters' by Elaine H. Pagels (http://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Paul-Exegesis-Pauline-Letters/dp/1563380390) (and you can read a bit of it on Google Books (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gYaHsWX_UpIC&dq=the+gnostic+paul&pg=PP1&ots=J5eQUjxHWr&sig=WKnssnaxkwazoLRPI4DgkqCsgE0&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.co.uk/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3DThe%2BGnostic%2BPaul&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail))

Also here (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=The+Gnostic+Paul&meta=) for more articles, sites, etc on Paul and Gnosticism.

I know that's quite OT, and I don't know much about Paul, but maybe his teachings were perverted or something?.

David19
June 25th, 2008, 08:20 AM
i'm thinking for the same reason they are so anti-Witchcraft....

they are deeply sexually frustrated

and deeply afraid.. somewhere someone is having SEX and it might get out, that it's DARNED FUN!

QFT, although, why would sexual frustration lead to being anti-witchcraft, witchcraft is just about having, and developing magical powers, while sex can be used in it, it's not just about sex.

David19
June 25th, 2008, 08:21 AM
And, I've never heard of the male harems. Do you have any kind of link to any sort of information about that?

I don't have any info on that, but I think I'd love to find one ;)!.

David19
June 25th, 2008, 08:21 AM
How can you not have heard? I totally saw a male harem once... but it wasn't in Africa, it was down the hall from my dorm room!

What uni was that?, I might have to check it out ;)!.

David19
June 25th, 2008, 08:23 AM
I think I'm missing the part where you explain exactly why we should assume male harems are somehow happy and healthy, whereas female harems are deplorable.

You claim that there's an idyllic society in Africa wherein everyone lives in complete harmony via the male harem. I find it difficult to believe that a simple switch of genders transforms harem life from depressing and disturbing into a complete overcoming of basic human emotions like greed, jealousy, and many others.

It is very possible that you watched a program or documentary which presented this society (of which I have no heard) as an utterly idyllic, gentle matriarchy; however, its also very likely that this is a skewed representation. It is impossible to tell whether we will find utopia in the future; however, it is clear that it cannot be found in the past or present. Many researchers have tried to present premodern societies as utopian, but this is always a distortion of the facts.

In short, while male harems have likely existed, I highly doubt that a society resembling your description ever existed, anywhere.

QFT, great points and I agree with every one of them :).

Zephyrstorm
June 25th, 2008, 10:24 AM
And, I've never heard of the male harems. Do you have any kind of link to any sort of information about that?

Not to keep the OT track going, but polyandry seems most common in the Tibet/Nepal region.

http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/fraternal.html

And generally speaking, its not about population control - its about land and property. All of one's husbands are brothers.



So, back to your regularly scheduled discussion about homosexuality.

bellamandu
June 25th, 2008, 10:39 AM
honestly i think the homosexuality part is so strongly opposed because christians generally take listed sins more seriously when god or jesus forces some sort of wrath or punishment on someone in the bible (such as when jesus overturns the gambling tables on the sabbath, or the story of sodom and gommora more specifically for homosexuality)

i suppose that makes it seem to be something that has more of an impact and it seems to be one of the worse sins.

i mean seriously, there seems to be almost a type of sin-meter when it comes to these things, some sins are just worse than others and have had more horrific stories and thus christians feel more strongly opposed to them.

David19
June 25th, 2008, 12:08 PM
Not to keep the OT track going, but polyandry seems most common in the Tibet/Nepal region.

http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/fraternal.html

And generally speaking, its not about population control - its about land and property. All of one's husbands are brothers.



So, back to your regularly scheduled discussion about homosexuality.

Interesting, although I'm not sure I could be in a relationship with my brother, well, if I had a brother.

David19
June 25th, 2008, 12:11 PM
honestly i think the homosexuality part is so strongly opposed because christians generally take listed sins more seriously when god or jesus forces some sort of wrath or punishment on someone in the bible (such as when jesus overturns the gambling tables on the sabbath, or the story of sodom and gommora more specifically for homosexuality)

i suppose that makes it seem to be something that has more of an impact and it seems to be one of the worse sins.

i mean seriously, there seems to be almost a type of sin-meter when it comes to these things, some sins are just worse than others and have had more horrific stories and thus christians feel more strongly opposed to them.

The Sodom and Gommora story doesn't acually relate to homosexuality or anything to do with LGBT people, the 2 cities were destroyed 'cause they violated the Laws of Hospitality, which is very important in the ancient Middle East (and the modern Middle East too, I think). It's only fundamentalists who don't want to admit it, so they can keep being bigoted towards LGBT people, and keep oppressing, discriminating, etc against us.

bellamandu
June 25th, 2008, 12:14 PM
The Sodom and Gommora story doesn't acually relate to homosexuality or anything to do with LGBT people, the 2 cities were destroyed 'cause they violated the Laws of Hospitality, which is very important in the ancient Middle East (and the modern Middle East too, I think). It's only fundamentalists who don't want to admit it, so they can keep being bigoted towards LGBT people, and keep oppressing, discriminating, etc against us.

im just going by what i was taught in church when i was younger. the general belief, at least among the charismatic nondenominationals in the south (the holy rollers and bible belts for those of you who didnt understand that) is that one of the main practices in that story that was condemed was homosexuality.

again, im not sure how accurate these teachings are, but its a general belief and a common teaching around here.

Wertdagf
June 25th, 2008, 06:38 PM
ignorance has lead some to believe and to convince others that those lacking in sex are lacking in love. this is the most horrible things that human beings have ever done is to bind sex with the feeling of acceptance and love. the two have nothing to do with one another.

its the same thing that makes people think that pain or abuse is love. one may be binding love to bad feelings and one may be binding love to pleasurable feeling... but nomatter what this action is removing from that individual the ability to experiance it without those socialy accepted acts. of abuse or of orgasm.

these smiles all of these imitatable acts of giving flowers or candy... these wastes that are now spread to your children and blind you to the actuality of love. you cater to the flesh and you leave their soul more bound and broken than it was before.

LadyDancer1181
July 4th, 2008, 02:38 AM
I believe the main motivator behind an active, conservative Christian outcry against homosexuality is that it seems to be the issue of the day. Back in the early 1970's it was abortion and the whole Roe vs. Wade case. In the 1960's it was the hippie era - free love, feminism and psychedelic drug use. In the 1950's and 60's it was civil rights for African-Americans. In the early 1900's it was the women's suffrage movement.

There will always be one or more hot-button issues that will quickly divide America into three categories - for, against and indifferent. These are usually issues that one side asserts that without radical change, society will fail. Then you have the backlash. The vocal opposition that asserts that these changes will cause society to crumble. In the majority of cases, fundamentalist religious views will be the deciding factor in how a person will view these changes in society. The fundamentalist Christians who reject the racist viewpoints of yesterday adamantly stand against the homosexual rights issues of today.

Give it another decade and there will be a new issue. It will be mandatory RFID chip implantation, legalized polygamy or the first gay atheist presidential candidate.

David19
July 4th, 2008, 02:03 PM
I believe the main motivator behind an active, conservative Christian outcry against homosexuality is that it seems to be the issue of the day. Back in the early 1970's it was abortion and the whole Roe vs. Wade case. In the 1960's it was the hippie era - free love, feminism and psychedelic drug use. In the 1950's and 60's it was civil rights for African-Americans. In the early 1900's it was the women's suffrage movement.

There will always be one or more hot-button issues that will quickly divide America into three categories - for, against and indifferent. These are usually issues that one side asserts that without radical change, society will fail. Then you have the backlash. The vocal opposition that asserts that these changes will cause society to crumble. In the majority of cases, fundamentalist religious views will be the deciding factor in how a person will view these changes in society. The fundamentalist Christians who reject the racist viewpoints of yesterday adamantly stand against the homosexual rights issues of today.

Give it another decade and there will be a new issue. It will be mandatory RFID chip implantation, legalized polygamy or the first gay atheist presidential candidate.

I hope your right, although, for some groups, I'm not sure if it will come true, unfortunely.

Rannoch
July 14th, 2008, 03:04 PM
I think many people have a psychological* need to have their beliefs validated, and the increasing acceptance of homosexuality threatens their worldview in a sense. The problem with fundamentalism is that there's always an innate struggle against certain types of change, which can be perceived as threatening. It's all very fear-based.

*I'm not an expert. This is my completely pop-psych explanation. :cutie:

Stormbeard
July 16th, 2008, 03:31 AM
The bible says that if a man lay with another man he should be stoned.







Well it certainly helps

Cloaked Raven
July 17th, 2008, 12:07 PM
OK, I read everything posted here. I may be a Christian but I am NOT against homosexuality like some people in this world are. I have several friends who are homosexual... they're wonderful people and their sexuality doesn't bother me one iota. One of my best friends is a gay male and he's even asked me to give him advice on his love life. He thought I'd get a little upset with some of the more graphic descriptions of his relationship at the time, but to me, the way he described things was so beautiful...and it didn't bother me in the slightest. Now if it had been abusive in any sort, I probably would have been upset, but I'm get like that when ANY relationship is abusive in any respect!

To me, so long as both parties are happy, and there is no abuse happening within the relationship (long or short term), so what if it's between a man and a woman, two men or two women? Personally, it's what a person is like inside that matters--I look for the good in people, not caring what color, race, ethnic group, religion, sexuality, etc., is.


Because it was Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve, Fags!

You know, my sister said the exact same thing when she told me she was leaving the Anglican church because they were going to allow homosexual marriages. I did remind her that one of a guy she used to be very close to IS homosexual and she shouldn't say such mean things about him. He has the right to love and have the same benefits by law that any other person has, so why be so dead set against him? Of course, being my narrow-minded and "know everything better than Cloaky even though she's a lot older, smarter and open than I am" sister, she argued that it was against the Bible for someone to be homosexual. I asked her to show me the exact passages in the Bible where it was, and she couldn't. She just stood there and said, "Well, what do you know anyway? You gave up the church years ago and you have no idea what you're talking about to begin with so why bother explaining this to you? You're too dumb to get my reasoning anyway!" :goodgrief . (Now that is so typical of her--I try to explain stuff on any topic and she calls me stupid, which I am not...long, long story for another time and another thread!) Just goes to show how some people aren't as open minded as others are, I guess. Sorry about the OT.

I hope I didn't offend anyone with my statements. I consider myself to be very open minded (one should be on a board like MW!) and I just believe in equal rights for everyone. Read my siggy and you'll see what I mean! :lol:

P.S. For the record, I am a heterosexual female. Just so all of you know. :toofless:

LostSheep
July 17th, 2008, 12:20 PM
Regarding what it says in the bible, one thing I think to bear in mind is that you have to look at the Old Testament references on the subject, as you do for most of the OT, in the context of the time: at the time of Exodus and Leviticus, the tribes of Israel were roaming the desert, under threat from all around, and the only thing that was important was the survival of the tribe. And so, any kind of extraneous sexual activity, including between couples even, was frowned upon as a waste of effort and not contributing to the struggle for survival. I think that accounts for a lot of the attitudes towards sex in general throughout the OT. When you come to the New Testament, of course, you have to remember that most of what Paul wrote was his own personal opinion; and (as did St Augustine, another one who was tremendously influential in developing Christian dogma) he had a lot of personal issues which he tried to work through in his writings, I think.

David19
July 19th, 2008, 09:40 PM
The bible says that if a man lay with another man he should be stoned.







Well it certainly helps

You just got that from Mock the Week (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Mock+the+Week&search_type=&aq=f), didn't you? ;), I think it was Frankie Boyle (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Frankie%20Boyle&search=Search&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&spell=1) who said it.

David19
July 19th, 2008, 09:42 PM
Regarding what it says in the bible, one thing I think to bear in mind is that you have to look at the Old Testament references on the subject, as you do for most of the OT, in the context of the time: at the time of Exodus and Leviticus, the tribes of Israel were roaming the desert, under threat from all around, and the only thing that was important was the survival of the tribe. And so, any kind of extraneous sexual activity, including between couples even, was frowned upon as a waste of effort and not contributing to the struggle for survival. I think that accounts for a lot of the attitudes towards sex in general throughout the OT. When you come to the New Testament, of course, you have to remember that most of what Paul wrote was his own personal opinion; and (as did St Augustine, another one who was tremendously influential in developing Christian dogma) he had a lot of personal issues which he tried to work through in his writings, I think.

QFT, and great post :).

Terra Mater
July 19th, 2008, 10:09 PM
For the same reason it is such a big deal to some Pagans.

Though not as widespread among the Pagan community, we are no freer of homophobia than other paths which I find extremely odd.

As for cultural taboos, there are many cultures, both ancient and modern, that tolerated homosexuality as open as that which we witness around us. How is it that as we learn more we accept less between one another. How is it that as we learn more, we find more ways to ignore what we don't want to agree with?

My honest belief, who you are having sex with is only important in my world if I am going to have sex with you. Otherwise, its none of my affair.

coeur
July 24th, 2008, 10:12 PM
I support the argument that this is mostly such a big deal because of our current 'culture.' Ugh, I really hate that word, 'culture,' because it's so undefinable and it's thrown around all the time these days as a means to justify just about everything. But yes I'm going to make the culture argument.

Let's take a good look at the Christian church before Protestantism, the capitalistic impulse, and all that good stuff: sex, in general, was a sin and God hated all sex equally regardless of who or what the participants were--if they weren't doing it to make babies, then they were doing it for the Devil. Similarly, it's important to note that there was no such thing as homosexuality in terms of a personal identity. There were homosexual acts but there were no 'homosexuals.' Sex was a type of behavior and it was a sin as an act. Back then, it didn't mean you were homosexual just because you were a guy who put on a dress and raunched around with two naked guys named Fabio1 and Fabio2. Back then, you would have been a guy who did those things and had sex for reasons other than procreation and thus a sinner. Which is to say, God was fine with heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals, transsexuals, etc...so long as they didn't have sex for reasons other than procreation. Sounds like a pretty fair policy in terms of non-discrimination, right?

But thanks to modernization and hence individualization, sexuality has become a pillar of identity. I mean, quick example, male contestants go on television shows like Project Runway to declare they are not gay as their introductory sentences all the time--like that means something in the grand scheme of things! Like we expect his sexual preferences to radically change the person he is--and just for the record, Kevin looked like he could have been gay either way...it's just the tight shirt and pants and vest...

Okay so my boyfriend wears vests but that's not the point.

Coming out of the closet has become something similar to graduating high school. It's important to gays. It's a memorable moment. It defines who they are in this era. Being gay comes with an image in this day and age; I say gay and you think: guy who can't hold his wrists up, possibly speaks with a lisp, fabulous dancer and dresser, drinks Cosmos instead of beer, reads Cosmo instead of Newsweek, flamboyant, and probably your girlfriend's choice of companion.

Obviously something has changed between the Middle Ages and now and it wasn't the Old Testament. (Although the Catholic Church still maintains that homosexuals can still be saved by God so long as they don't engage in homosexual sex and parents and friends should not discriminate against homosexuals for their preference because they will be ultimately judged by their actions.)

But for those who aren't quite so...Catholic... [especially Fundamentalists who believe that a personal connection with God through the Bible is key]... They interpret those passages to mean homosexuality as an identity and not as a specific set of actions. In this era homosexuality doesn't mean 'homosexual acts' it means an identity. This is the other effect of individualization: screw what everyone else says, you have to come to your personal conclusion. And some people don't have degrees in religious studies so their personal conclusions can be significantly less informed than others.

Invidosa
August 1st, 2008, 03:31 PM
In reading through all the posts in this thread I felt compelled to throw in my two cents. In my experience it boils down to what some others have already said, it’s how people are taught, and many, many people don’t ever see a need to question what they are taught. (the fact that in my opinion this leads us to become a nation of drones is another topic entirely) I base most of my reasoning from a conversation I had with a co-worker of mine.

At one time I found myself employed by a fundamentalist born again Christian (who had many questions about the pentacle I wear). I got to be friendly with his son, who also worked for the company, and one evening we went out for a drink. He started the conversation by saying “so, you live in Ann Arbor huh? Lots of fags there I hear” I decided this was an opportunity to ask a question that has been plaguing my mind for years, namely the question to which this entire thread is dedicated. So I asked him, what’s the deal? Why is it that you hate homosexuals so much? I’ve been dying to actually have this conversation with someone for years! He proceeded to give me the predictable argument that has been so thoroughly hashed and re-hashed hundreds of times, the bible etc.

I said, “no, that’s just not going to fly for two reasons. First, I’m not Christian, so trying to convince me using the bible is an exercise in futility. Second, and far more important is you are not answering my question, why does it matter so much to you, specifically. If this is a ‘sin’ as you claim it to be, and you, personally, are not committing it, what does it have to do with your life? Other peoples sexual preferences have nothing to do with whether or not you are going to end up in heaven or pay higher taxes before you do, so what’s the deal?”

He looked at me quizzically, and I said “look at it this way, I am a pagan, and my interpretation of my beliefs states that I should not eat meat because all living things are sacred in my view. Now, I couldn’t give a flying diddly if you do or do not choose to eat meat, but spiritually I feel it is wrong for me. I don’t look down on you for munching on cow, even though in my world that’s about as close as you can come to the idea of ‘sin’, that’s your choice to make. So, why is it that you are so interested and offended by other peoples choices?”

He stopped, and said “you know, I’ve never thought of it that way before”

My point being that I think the whole “God Hates Fags” phenomenon is more a product of people refusing to take a moment and think about the logic of a situation than (in my opinion) the result of any particular religion. They choose instead to be blindly dedicated to something they were told as a child. If I operated that way, I’d still be kneeling in a catholic church and hating every moment of it.

Aoibheal
August 1st, 2008, 03:42 PM
Who you have sex with is your own private business and really religion needs to stay out of it. Let your God of choice dole out the punishments where he sees fit, since that's his job anyway. Judge lest ye be judge right? Or maybe he who is without sin may cast the first stone.

**To be perfectly clear I am in no way against homosexuals. If you've found love awesome, if it happens to be with someone with the same naughty bits whatever :lol: One of my best friends is gay, the man that taught me how to read as a child and now he is dying of multiple diseases (Cancer and AIDS, namely). I'll miss you Greg.

Invidosa
August 1st, 2008, 04:48 PM
Who you have sex with is your own private business and really religion needs to stay out of it. Let your God of choice dole out the punishments where he sees fit, since that's his job anyway. Judge lest ye be judge right? Or maybe he who is without sin may cast the first stone.



rock on, exactly my point.

David19
August 1st, 2008, 09:42 PM
Who you have sex with is your own private business and really religion needs to stay out of it. Let your God of choice dole out the punishments where he sees fit, since that's his job anyway. Judge lest ye be judge right? Or maybe he who is without sin may cast the first stone.

**To be perfectly clear I am in no way against homosexuals. If you've found love awesome, if it happens to be with someone with the same naughty bits whatever :lol: One of my best friends is gay, the man that taught me how to read as a child and now he is dying of multiple diseases (Cancer and AIDS, namely). I'll miss you Greg.

QFT, and, sorry about your friend :hugz:.

Faol-chu
August 9th, 2008, 11:14 AM
I haven't read all the posts, but I think I can answer that question fairy easily...-
-
Besides the mention of homosexuality in the Old Testament, a reinforcement was mentioned by Paul in Romans in the New Testament.-
-
FYI, Romans is taken, at least in Protestant circles (and probably largely in Catholic circles) as the book of the Bible which contains 'The Laws'. It is closely studied for this reason, and probably taken a little more seriously as far as prohibitions, admonishments, and directives than other books of the Bible, particularly in the New Testament.-
-
Here is an article that briefly discusses this-
-
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc.htm
--
That said, I think it is probably true that the admonishment seems to stem from a specific example where men were shunning women, in general, to have short term encounters with other men.-
-
Keep in mind, also, that early Christians were sort of first 'pacifists'. This was in the middle of a culture that promoted warrior aristocracy ideals. In historical 'warrior-oriented' cultures, it was not uncommon for men to focus far more on each other than women. Sex between men was likely the norm. It served all sorts of purposes, from simple fulfilling of a physical need, to maintaining a 'pecking order' (no pun intended) to forging bonds between warriors.-
-
Keep in mind, too, that even the government of Rome had laws at one point against warriors being married.-
-
What we are seeing here is simply a tradition being followed, without a real understanding of why it became part of the body of religion to begin with.

David19
August 9th, 2008, 08:06 PM
I haven't read all the posts, but I think I can answer that question fairy easily...-
-
Besides the mention of homosexuality in the Old Testament, a reinforcement was mentioned by Paul in Romans in the New Testament.-
-
FYI, Romans is taken, at least in Protestant circles (and probably largely in Catholic circles) as the book of the Bible which contains 'The Laws'. It is closely studied for this reason, and probably taken a little more seriously as far as prohibitions, admonishments, and directives than other books of the Bible, particularly in the New Testament.-
-
Here is an article that briefly discusses this-
-
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc.htm
--
That said, I think it is probably true that the admonishment seems to stem from a specific example where men were shunning women, in general, to have short term encounters with other men.-
-
Keep in mind, also, that early Christians were sort of first 'pacifists'. This was in the middle of a culture that promoted warrior aristocracy ideals. In historical 'warrior-oriented' cultures, it was not uncommon for men to focus far more on each other than women. Sex between men was likely the norm. It served all sorts of purposes, from simple fulfilling of a physical need, to maintaining a 'pecking order' (no pun intended) to forging bonds between warriors.-
-
Keep in mind, too, that even the government of Rome had laws at one point against warriors being married.-
-
What we are seeing here is simply a tradition being followed, without a real understanding of why it became part of the body of religion to begin with.

Thanks for the link and the information, I'd agree with you, maybe, Paul was against it, 'cause, he wanted to distance Christianity, and Christians, from the other Romans, and other groups, etc, to keep their identity, etc.

dr_zeus440
August 16th, 2008, 03:24 AM
I donít get it. Why do such a large number of Christians (note: I am deliberately not saying ALL Christians) seem to be so bothered by something that actually has nothing to do with them, and doesnít affect their lives in the slightest?

I hope you don't interpret this as a dig at you Iris, because it is not intended that way, but could it be related to the reasons why you felt compelled to write this post?

Why do I get so worked up when looking at the Metropolitan Opera's roster each season, only to find that Anna Netrebko is still considered a good singer?

Moral outrage is a powerful motivator. Has little effect on cats though.

Additionally, I think the "large number of Christians" of whom you speak would go so far as to say that it does affect their lives, being that the gradual acceptance of homosexuality is changing Western social and cultural values.

But I agree with the many people in this thread who have pointed out that, simply, many people are uncomfortable with homosexuality, whether as an idea or a practice. The fact that many of these people happen to be Christian, and use their Christianity to justify this discomfort, is just a failing of some members of the human race to grow, accept change, break from the past, be wrong, and attempt to better themselves. Being human is not an easy gig.

David19
August 16th, 2008, 02:54 PM
I hope you don't interpret this as a dig at you Iris, because it is not intended that way, but could it be related to the reasons why you felt compelled to write this post?

Why do I get so worked up when looking at the Metropolitan Opera's roster each season, only to find that Anna Netrebko is still considered a good singer?

Moral outrage is a powerful motivator. Has little effect on cats though.

Additionally, I think the "large number of Christians" of whom you speak would go so far as to say that it does affect their lives, being that the gradual acceptance of homosexuality is changing Western social and cultural values.

But I agree with the many people in this thread who have pointed out that, simply, many people are uncomfortable with homosexuality, whether as an idea or a practice. The fact that many of these people happen to be Christian, and use their Christianity to justify this discomfort, is just a failing of some members of the human race to grow, accept change, break from the past, be wrong, and attempt to better themselves. Being human is not an easy gig.

I agree, some humans, Christian, or whatever, can't admit they're wrong, face change, etc.

Tytania Faerie
January 16th, 2009, 03:26 PM
Well it sais it in the old testament and Jesus said he did not come to take a even a small amount away from the law (which means if it sais do not lye with man if you are a man then jesus also believed this do to the fact he came to givenew terstament but not change the jewish laws ), so perhaps it is just that it is in the bible and depends on the individuals translation and how they relate to it . Plus there are several different types of christians out there .

Kaliel
January 16th, 2009, 03:42 PM
Holy wow, can't we all just get along? I actually get along better with people who are gay or bi, they're so much more open minded!

cydira
January 17th, 2009, 11:14 AM
Holy wow, can't we all just get along? I actually get along better with people who are gay or bi, they're so much more open minded!

Wow.

...

*blinks a few times*

I believe that is one of the most offensive statements I've seen in a long time.

Your sexuality doesn't determine how open minded you are. I know homosexual and bisexual people who are horribly bigoted. One woman I know who is homosexual believes that men are the cause of all the world's ills and that they should be wiped off the earth now that we have cloning technology. I know a bisexual man who believes that homosexual and heterosexual people are crimes against nature and god.

I think that what you posted here is equally offensive as these slurs or the slurs directed at homosexual people, in my opinion.

*shakes head and walks out of the thread for a little while*

Cunae
January 17th, 2009, 01:08 PM
As long as people, gay or straight, aren't humping OR eating pork chops on my lawn... to each their own.

LacyRoze
January 17th, 2009, 01:20 PM
What kind of relationships a person has is none of my business. Whether a person is gay, bi or straight has no affect on my life.

David19
January 17th, 2009, 03:17 PM
Wow.

...

*blinks a few times*

I believe that is one of the most offensive statements I've seen in a long time.

Your sexuality doesn't determine how open minded you are. I know homosexual and bisexual people who are horribly bigoted. One woman I know who is homosexual believes that men are the cause of all the world's ills and that they should be wiped off the earth now that we have cloning technology. I know a bisexual man who believes that homosexual and heterosexual people are crimes against nature and god.

I think that what you posted here is equally offensive as these slurs or the slurs directed at homosexual people, in my opinion.

*shakes head and walks out of the thread for a little while*

You're right that being LGBT doesn't make you a "nice" or "good" person, I'd say the people you know are a very extreme minority.

Modesty
January 17th, 2009, 03:19 PM
i don't have a problem with gay people as long as they don't hit on me. I'm as straight as straight gets.

Glowingsun
January 17th, 2009, 03:24 PM
I have no clue why christians can't made their own business sometimes. Like what's it to them what another person does.


Unfortunatly I have come across alot of christians or christian claiming people who have a problem with gays.

Stormbeard
January 17th, 2009, 03:27 PM
You can pretty much remove the word 'Christians' from this thread title and replace it with 'people'

Last time I checked, Traditional Islam, Orthadox Judaism and Sikhism weren't that big on buggery.

Modesty
January 17th, 2009, 03:30 PM
I agree with you. My dad's side of the family are pentecostal and they definitely are against gay people. They are even against dating outside of their race. My cousin who is 32 is a pentecostal woman and recently started dating a black man and boy did my aunt and uncle have a cow. He's not allowed over there, he can't come to the church that they attend. And that is what gets me the most. Church should be for everyone regardless of their skin color. But they make it an issue when one of their own takes a liking outside of their scope of things. I don't know. I live in a little racist town to begin with. I have a Punjabi friend and he was going to come visit me from Texas once but decided against it because he found out how bad this town was and he wears a turbin and thought that they might hang him or something. It's kinda of crazy here. But I have no control over what other people think. I just know I am not that way.

Cunae
January 17th, 2009, 07:45 PM
Wow.

...

*blinks a few times*

I believe that is one of the most offensive statements I've seen in a long time.

<snip>

I think that what you posted here is equally offensive as these slurs or the slurs directed at homosexual people, in my opinion.

*shakes head and walks out of the thread for a little while*

Really? Wow. I've seen A LOT worse on MW, and not one that was a "slur"... maybe a little slam here and there.

I don't think this statement was meant to be offensive at all and I certainly didn't find it even remotely so. :achillpil

But then I am one of those crazy open-minded bi chicks.

Rainsong
January 17th, 2009, 07:56 PM
Really? Wow. I've seen A LOT worse on MW, and not one that was a "slur"... maybe a little slam here and there.

I don't think this statement was meant to be offensive at all and I certainly didn't find it even remotely so. :achillpil

But then I am one of those crazy open-minded bi chicks.
:fpraiseyo:thumbsup:

princeether
January 17th, 2009, 08:30 PM
I think anyone who actually takes the Bible seriously must be mental,
Therefore their opinion is worthless to me. Christians use their religion to justify their disgustingly judgemental nature.
I also think this religion is reponsible for a lot of the pain and suffering in the world today.
Live and let live I say.

Darth Brooks
January 17th, 2009, 08:33 PM
This is frightening to a great many people, not just because of the idea of men sleeping with men and women sleeping with women - that's nothing, IMO, compared to the real fear. The real fear is much deeper, much more instinctual. I think the thing that really frightens them is that reality is changing, and the human race is changing with it.

Just because gay and lesbian culture is a relatively new thing doesn't mean it is unnatural or that it doesn't mean anything. To me, it simply means that we are engaging upon a new stage of evolution. Previously we depended almost entirely on heterosexuality because that is how we as a species have been able to reproduce. But now, there's way too many people in the world, competing over resources, and we don't exactly have to breed like rabbits like we once did. Perhaps the recent growth in homosexuality is one of Nature's ingenious responses to this; now that mass reproduction is not quite as necessary, and perhaps even detrimental to our survival in some ways, these other sexual orientations are now becoming more pronounced, as a way of buffering overpopulation. Perhaps when a species such as ours becomes too big for its own britches, the Gods start saying, "Okay, some people need to start being born gay here!" Maybe it is just one more way of adapting to our circumstances, our environment, and ourselves.

Either way, it is evident that reality has changed, and is continuing to change, and that is the worst part, I think, for those who are truly homophobic. It's not so much that the Bible smacks down on certain homosexual acts. I think it's the fact that homosexuality is becoming more and more necessary to the natural balance of things. I mean, think about it. Although there are exceptions, many of the people who are intensely homophobic also have a real big problem with evolution. Many of them don't want to think that human beings are the descendants of apes, or of any other animal - and they also don't want to think that there might eventually be a new species that is descended from us. For some people it is just too disturbing to think that we might be a completely different kind of creature thousands upon thousands of years from now, or that the universe does not revolve around our own anthropocentric notions of "reality." The only way some of them can compute any of this is by saying that it's all a "lie" made up by the devil, and those of us who support gay and lesbian rights are just "Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG!" A coping mechanism to help them deal with the inevitable.

But what I find really funny about that is that religions are subject to evolution just as much as live, flesh-and-blood organisms...Consider how, prior to the 1960's, some Christian denominations viewed black people as literally being inferior to white people. But nowadays, the vast majority of denominations agree that black people and white people are equally the children of God. Now that it is commonly accepted that people are not inferior to other people just because of their race, religions can't afford to discriminate in such a way like they used to - otherwise, they will not do so well in the marketplace of ideas. Who knows? Perhaps a century from now, the vast majority of denominations will be saying the same thing about gays and lesbians, for the same reasons. I certainly hope so.

And whenever I get hit on by a gay man, I thank him, because although I am straight, I will always take a compliment whenever I can get one. ;)

Glowingsun
January 17th, 2009, 08:34 PM
I think anyone who actually takes the Bible seriously must be mental,
Therefore their opinion is worthless to me. Christians use their religion to justify their disgustingly judgemental nature.
I also think this religion is reponsible for a lot of the pain and suffering in the world today.
Live and let live I say.


I think the bible is a collection of folklore stories.

Philosophia
January 17th, 2009, 08:37 PM
The bible is whatever you want it to be since it mostly relies upon one's interpretation of the symbolism contained within it.

If a person is going to hate heterosexuality, they're going to do it with or without religion. In my opinion, religion is merely a tool that some people use to reinforce that hatred, fear, etc..

Cunae
January 17th, 2009, 08:38 PM
I think anyone who actually takes the Bible seriously must be mental,
Therefore their opinion is worthless to me. Christians use their religion to justify their disgustingly judgemental nature.
I also think this religion is reponsible for a lot of the pain and suffering in the world today.
Live and let live I say.

"Live and let live" doesn't mean slamming my religion. Your remarks are rude and offensive.

princeether
January 17th, 2009, 08:40 PM
Glowingsun, I do too, a lot of them base probably on facts, but it really is a load of old rubbish now.

princeether
January 17th, 2009, 08:40 PM
Well Mystic Christian (?) I find your religion offensive, so get over it.

Philosophia
January 17th, 2009, 08:42 PM
If there is anything rude and offensive, use the report button.

Cassie
January 17th, 2009, 08:56 PM
I think anyone who actually takes the Bible seriously must be mental,
I'm not Christian, but I take the bible seriously in many ways. That does not mean I believe it. The Holy Books of many religions have a lot of wisdom in them if you look for it, the Bible is no exception.

Therefore their opinion is worthless to me. Christians use their religion to justify their disgustingly judgemental nature.
So what is your excuse for being judgemental then?

I also think this religion is reponsible for a lot of the pain and suffering in the world today.
I dare say a lot of Christians do too.

Live and let live I say.
Practice what you preach I say.

LacyRoze
January 17th, 2009, 09:00 PM
I think now might be a good time to leave a reminder from "Read Before Posting In Paths"...

'These threads are not for debate. We have a theology forum. These threads are to provide information and share information. I suggest if you are questioning another Path's principles then you do it in a more proper environment, such as the theology forum. We will not tolerate any abuse of any religion nor will we let this forum turn into a flame fest of people disagreeing with principles.'

Vampiel
January 17th, 2009, 09:01 PM
But what I find really funny about that is that religions are subject to evolution just as much as live, flesh-and-blood organisms...Consider how, prior to the 1960's, some Christian denominations viewed black people as literally being inferior to white people. But nowadays, the vast majority of denominations agree that black people and white people are equally the children of God. Now that it is commonly accepted that people are not inferior to other people just because of their race, religions can't afford to discriminate in such a way like they used to - otherwise, they will not do so well in the marketplace of ideas. Who knows? Perhaps a century from now, the vast majority of denominations will be saying the same thing about gays and lesbians, for the same reasons.

This is the main issue I have with some people that call themselves Christians.

While I understand there are many different translations of the bible and that people can use it for guidence as opposed to literal there is just to many things in it that no matter how you translate is just flat out wrong or crazy by todays standards and ignored by many Christians today. I mean if your going to accept that book then you can't conviently ignore some parts of it just because we have evolved past that?


I don't get it.

Cunae
January 17th, 2009, 09:06 PM
No matter what the forum, MW is known for not allowing path-bashing. And no matter what the comment, we practice common courtesy. Even I learned to behave here!

princeether
January 17th, 2009, 09:07 PM
I'm not Christian, but I take the bible seriously in many ways. That does not mean I believe it. The Holy Books of many religions have a lot of wisdom in them if you look for it, the Bible is no exception.

So what is your excuse for being judgemental then?

I dare say a lot of Christians do too.

Practice what you preach I say.


Umm, I'm a gay man, so according to the wonderful religion that is Christianity, I should be put to death. That is my excuse for being Judgemental.

and So your saying that a lot of Christians actually believe their own religion is responsible for a lot of the pain and suffering in the world?
I think your a little naive love...

and P.S, don't presume to know me or what I preach from two posts OK? btw, I am entitled to my opinion whether you like it or not :uhhuhuh:

princeether
January 17th, 2009, 09:10 PM
No matter what the forum, MW is known for not allowing path-bashing. And no matter what the comment, we practice common courtesy. Even I learned to behave here!

Don't try to make my personal opinion seem like path-bashing, that is really low.

Glowingsun
January 17th, 2009, 09:11 PM
OKAY OKAY. PEACE PEOPLE PEACE!:fpeace:

Cunae
January 17th, 2009, 09:13 PM
Sometimes it's best to ignore someone who cannot express an honest(?) opinion without being rude about it. They're all about causing trouble and getting attention.

Now, where were we before this silly distraction?

princeether
January 17th, 2009, 09:19 PM
Sometimes it's best to ignore someone who cannot express an honest(?) opinion without being rude about it. They're all about causing trouble and getting attention.

Now, where were we before this silly distraction?

No, what you want to do is ignore something that you can't explain away.

And how dare you brush me off like a child, just because you don't agree with what I'm saying?

and btw, I don't want to cause any trouble, and judging from your Avatar, it's you that's after the attention dear...not me ;)

Clair de la Lune
January 17th, 2009, 09:27 PM
Quite honestly, I don't know what all the fuss is about. I have never understood why some people fuss over gender issues or race issues. I don't think it matters (if someone is LGBT or straight, or of a different race for that matter) as long as someone is a nice person, I think that is all that should count. I know that more and more people believe the way I do and call themselves some form of Christian too. Just as their are some Pagans that believe the way I do. I don't care what religion someone is either. To me, it is all about how we are toward one another and if we are a good person or not.

Cassie
January 17th, 2009, 09:27 PM
Umm, I'm a gay man, so according to the wonderful religion that is Christianity, I should be put to death. That is my excuse for being Judgemental.
Ok. I know people who are gay christians. I don't think most Christians believe that homosexuals should be put to death even if they don't agree with the lifestyle. I guess you have had some unfortunate experiences. As it happens I am Bi, and sure some Christians disapprove, so do some members of other faiths, but generally my experience has not been as negative as yours seems to have been.


and So your saying that a lot of Christians actually believe their own religion is responsible for a lot of the pain and suffering in the world?
That's not what I meant but I conceed it might have read that way. I simply meant that some Christians might agree that 'Religion' has caused many problems in the world.



and P.S, don't presume to know me or what I preach from two posts OK?
I certainly don't presume to know you.
I did find what you said rather judgemental though and thought that it was ironic that you were accusing Christians in general of being judgemental.

btw, I am entitled to my opinion whether you like it or not :uhhuhuh:
I would never dispute that.

I am curious to know how you reconcile the opinions of Christians who have given their opinions in this thread with your own views of what Christians believe about homosexuality. The two things don't seem to match up.

ignescentphoenix
January 17th, 2009, 09:28 PM
No, what you want to do is ignore something that you can't explain away.

And how dare you brush me off like a child, just because you don't agree with what I'm saying?

and btw, I don't want to cause any trouble, and judging from your Avatar, it's you that's after the attention dear...not me ;)


Wow, I suggest that you stop, because you are dangerously close to path bashing. It doesn't matter how you feel about the bible or christians, we have rules here. That being said...

I also have a problem with the bible, and about 3/4 of christians who take it as dogma. Like Vampiel said, I don't like how many christians(Not you Mystic christian, or anyone else here) only follow some verses of the bible and not others. They don't even give a good reason why they don't follow the less popular verses.

Although, my bias against the majority of monotheists does stem from my homosexuality. They are our biggest opposers. I love how they act like im supposed to give a crap about thier rights, none of which are being threatened. Yet, somehow they are justified in taking away my rights, which we are STILL fighting for.

So, while I try to be respectful to monotheists, it irritates me when they act like I should relax when I know a good percentage of them would like to see me either imprisoned, killed, or lobotomized.

Philosophia
January 17th, 2009, 09:30 PM
Guys, cool it. Please, if you have a problem with a post, don't go on about it. Simply report it and move on.

Vampiel
January 17th, 2009, 09:32 PM
Lev.18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Lev.20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

http://theoldbill.typepad.com/thebackroom/2006/11/letter_to_paul.html






Out of the entire OT then we have two verses which seem to condemn some aspect of homosexual behaviour, though the specific referent act may be a little ambiguous. Moreover, at least on face value, Scripture is clear. Capital punishment is required. I know few Christians, even among Christian extremists, who believe this to be true.


To me it looks like the Bible tells us that gay men should be put to death. I suppose thats just my interpretation and not ignoring parts of the Bible that I dont like. :whatmewor

Doesn't look like it says anything about lesbians though. Im not a bible scholar maybe there is..

princeether
January 17th, 2009, 09:32 PM
Ok. I know people who are gay christians. I don't think most Christians believe that homosexuals should be put to death even if they don't agree with the lifestyle. I guess you have had some unfortunate experiences. As it happens I am Bi, and sure some Christians disapprove, so do some members of other faiths, but generally my experience has not been as negative as yours seems to have been.


That's not what I meant but I conceed it might have read that way. I simply meant that some Christians might agree that 'Religion' has caused many problems in the world.


I certainly don't presume to know you.
I did find what you said rather judgemental though and thought that it was ironic that you were accusing Christians in general of being judgemental.

I would never dispute that.

I am curious to know how you reconcile the opinions of Christians who have given their opinions in this thread with your own views of what Christians believe about homosexuality. The two things don't seem to match up.

I am in no way slating individual Christians, of whom I have many friends and family. I was talking about the Christian faith and it beliefs, at the core.

If someone disclosed a negative opinion regarding my faith, I would never attack them or accuse them of path beating. I would accept that as their opinion.

princeether
January 17th, 2009, 09:35 PM
Wow, I suggest that you stop, because you are dangerously close to path bashing. It doesn't matter how you feel about the bible or christians, we have rules here.

I am in no way path bashing at all, and I am aware of the rules thanks.

ignescentphoenix
January 17th, 2009, 09:36 PM
Doesn't look like it says anything about lesbians though. Im not a bible scholar maybe there is..


The bible was written by a whole bunch of guys. Of course lesbianism isn't a sin.:bigredgri

Cunae
January 17th, 2009, 09:38 PM
Guys, cool it. Please, if you have a problem with a post, don't go on about it. Simply report it and move on.

Moving!

I am sorry so many Christians give a terrible example of what it means to exemplify our faith. Like a few pit bulls give the entire breed a bad rap!

At the same time, I claim my faith proudly. I'll never apologize for being Christian, but I don't hate anyone and I claim no right to be judgmental. I love Christ with all of my heart and I know He doesn't want humans to treat one another as badly as we do. I take His command to "love thy neighbor as thyself" very seriously. That's what matters more than anything else He taught us.

ignescentphoenix
January 17th, 2009, 09:43 PM
I am in no way path bashing at all, and I am aware of the rules thanks.

Well, lets take gander at what you wrote. Maybe I can point out where it turned from opinion to path bashing.

Blue will be your opinion, red will be path bashing and gross generalizations.



I think anyone who actually takes the Bible seriously must be mental,
Therefore their opinion is worthless to me. Christians use their religion to justify their disgustingly judgemental nature.
I also think this religion is reponsible for a lot of the pain and suffering in the world today.
Live and let live I say.

Do you see where you lumped every single christian into one group?

Philosophia
January 17th, 2009, 09:43 PM
Lev.18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Lev.20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

http://theoldbill.typepad.com/thebackroom/2006/11/letter_to_paul.html

The problem with this is the same issue other religions have and that is translation of the text.


Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 appears to condemn male homosexual behavior, but in fact only refers to temple prostitution. Even if it did refer to lesbian and gay relationships, it would not be applicable to Christians today, any more than are the other 613 laws which make up the Jewish Holiness Code. It is less than genuine for a Christian teleminister or theologian to imply that these verses are still valid for the beliefs and conduct of Christians, while stating that the remaining laws of the Holiness Code are not applicable.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chri.htm

Vampiel
January 17th, 2009, 09:43 PM
The bible was written by a whole bunch of guys. Of course lesbianism isn't a sin.:bigredgri

http://www.easysmileys.com/img/smile_hilarious.gif

good one, and your right!! no wonder!! Eureka!!!

Vampiel
January 17th, 2009, 09:45 PM
The problem with this is the same issue other religions have and that is translation of the text.


Oh yes I know it always comes down to the translation that the eye of the beholder likes better.

In other words, it comes from within not the book no matter who you are.

Cassie
January 17th, 2009, 09:46 PM
Lev.18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Lev.20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

http://theoldbill.typepad.com/thebackroom/2006/11/letter_to_paul.html






To me it looks like the Bible tells us that gay men should be put to death. I suppose thats just my interpretation and not ignoring parts of the Bible that I dont like. :whatmewor

Doesn't look like it says anything about lesbians though. Im not a bible scholar maybe there is..
The problem is that not all Christians look at the bible the same way. Those texts do seem to indicate that gay men should be killed, but I doubt if the majority of Jews or Christaians believe that is what should happen. There are certainly openly homosexual men in both religions.
Some Christians take all parts of the bible as literally as possible, some put more faith in the New Testament only and there are others who don't atke any of it literally.
It is a mistake to imagine that all christians believe the same things. Christaianity seems to me to be as diverse as Paganism; and I have met a few of those who don't like homosexuals.
I think there are people who are frightened by the idea of homosexuality for reasons that have been stated earlier in this thread and they will cling to anything including their religion to justify their fears and prejudices. We see it more in Christianity because that is the religion we most often rub up against, but I am sure there are just as many homphobes in Isalam, Hinduism and Buddhism. For example, I was rather saddened to read some of the Dali Llama's rather negetive views on homosexuality.

princeether
January 17th, 2009, 09:46 PM
Moving!

I am sorry so many Christians give a terrible example of what it means to exemplify our faith. Like a few pit bulls give the entire breed a bad rap!

At the same time, I claim my faith proudly. I'll never apologize for being Christian, but I don't hate anyone and I claim no right to be judgmental. I love Christ with all of my heart and I know He doesn't want humans to treat one another as badly as we do. I take His command to "love thy neighbor as thyself" very seriously. That's what matters more than anything else He taught us.

I too believe Jesus was a wonderful man and a wonderful prophet, but I also believe that Christianity does have some fundamentally unsound ideas and beliefs...you must understand that that is not a personal insult to you, as I am sure you are a lovely person...

princeether
January 17th, 2009, 09:49 PM
Well, lets take gander at what you wrote. Maybe I can point out where it turned from opinion to path bashing.

Blue will be your opinion, red will be path bashing and gross generalizations.




Do you see where you lumped every single christian into one group?

You are right, that comment was silly.

Philosophia
January 17th, 2009, 09:53 PM
Oh yes I know it always comes down to the translation that the eye of the beholder likes better.

In other words, it comes from within not the book no matter who you are.

:qft:

ignescentphoenix
January 17th, 2009, 09:55 PM
Oh, I found an interesting article about homosexuality.

http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html

Im interested in what you guys think of it.

ignescentphoenix
January 17th, 2009, 09:59 PM
You are right, that comment was silly.


Meh, it is a sensitive subject. Offensive things will be said from both sides.
:)

AJwins
January 17th, 2009, 09:59 PM
Well, phoenix, measure your fingers. Is it true?

princeether
January 17th, 2009, 10:00 PM
Oh yes I know it always comes down to the translation that the eye of the beholder likes better.

In other words, it comes from within not the book no matter who you are.

Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)


13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.'


Please tell me how else to interpret this verse, other than with disgust?


Is there a pleasant translation that I am missing??

ignescentphoenix
January 17th, 2009, 10:05 PM
Well, phoenix, measure your fingers. Is it true?


I've got lesbian fingers.:hairred:

But, I could just be an exception.

What about you?

Glowy
January 17th, 2009, 10:07 PM
Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)


13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.'


Please tell me how else to interpret this verse, other than with disgust?


Is there a pleasant translation that I am missing??


I think.. ( this is never good) that phrases such as your quote were made for a smaller world, and as a dig to the Romans. People of that time and culture did openly engage in same sex practices ( bath houses anyone?)
Go forth and multiply actualy meant something back then. I think those that contributed to what we know as the bible ( all those lost texts..) had certain opinion as well.

AJwins
January 17th, 2009, 10:08 PM
I've got lesbian fingers.:hairred:

But, I could just be an exception.

What about you?

Well I'm holding up my end, my ring finger is actually surprisingly longer than my index.

AJwins
January 17th, 2009, 10:09 PM
I think.. ( this is never good) that phrases such as your quote were made for a smaller world, and as a dig to the Romans. People of that time and culture did openly engage in same sex practices ( bath houses anyone?)
Go forth and multiply actualy meant something back then. I think those that contributed to what we know as the bible ( all those lost texts..) had certain opinion as well.

These were written a LOOONG time before the Romans.

Vampiel
January 17th, 2009, 10:10 PM
The problem is that not all Christians look at the bible the same way. Those texts do seem to indicate that gay men should be killed, but I doubt if the majority of Jews or Christaians believe that is what should happen. There are certainly openly homosexual men in both religions.
Some Christians take all parts of the bible as literally as possible, some put more faith in the New Testament only and there are others who don't atke any of it literally.
It is a mistake to imagine that all christians believe the same things. Christaianity seems to me to be as diverse as Paganism; and I have met a few of those who don't like homosexuals.
I think there are people who are frightened by the idea of homosexuality for reasons that have been stated earlier in this thread and they will cling to anything including their religion to justify their fears and prejudices. We see it more in Christianity because that is the religion we most often rub up against, but I am sure there are just as many homphobes in Isalam, Hinduism and Buddhism. For example, I was rather saddened to read some of the Dali Llama's rather negetive views on homosexuality.


Yes I understand that... I just don't see how some people can say they are Christian when to me at least they don't really believe in everything the bible says but I suppose they might just see it more as a helpful guide in some ways and just have faith that the underteachings of it are true, such as treat others as you would like to be treated.... love thy neighbor, etc... but that can be said about many different peoples views because I hold those values even though im Atheist.

I guess my beef is... if you say this book is the word of god, how can you ignore some of it?

Isn't that what Christianity is based upon, the bible being the word of god? Or just some parts are and some arent?

ignescentphoenix
January 17th, 2009, 10:12 PM
Well I'm holding up my end, my ring finger is actually surprisingly longer than my index.


Lol, you have lesbian fingers too. :lol:

Philosophia
January 17th, 2009, 10:28 PM
Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)


13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.'


Please tell me how else to interpret this verse, other than with disgust?


Is there a pleasant translation that I am missing??

I think the issue is that the translation can be interpreted differently, depending how one reads it from Hebrew.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh3.htm

Various interpretations of Leviticus 20:13:


* Conservative Christians generally interpret the passage as condemning all male homosexual activity. Some would extend it to lesbians as well. A comment on the capital punishment aspect of this passage by an Evangelical authority is:
o T.Crater: stated that the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) are a covenant between God and Israel, which also set up a civil state and decreed its laws. The Christian Scriptures (New Testament) is an agreement "between God and a multinational body called the church. It is not a state, so it doesn't engage in state functions like capital punishment." 2 Thus, the death penalty called for in Leviticus 20:13 is no longer binding for Christians.
* Liberal Christians Some comments on the death penalty aspect of this passage by pastors and academics taking a liberal position are:
o J. Nelson: "It is grounded in the old Jewish understanding that women are less worthy than men. For a man to have sex with another man 'as with a woman' insults the other man, because women are to be treated as property." She added that this passage is not part of the 10 Commandments, but merely part of almost 600 additional rules put forth via Israel's religious leaders.
o D. Bartlett: "Nobody I know, even the most conservative, is saying homosexuals should be executed. I think people who think they take the Bible literally don't take it so literally as to want to execute people."
o Krister Stendahl: "If you look at the whole chapter, a lot of things come in for capital punishment that no Southern Baptist would argue that capital punishment is appropriate for. So their reading is a little selective." 2

Many religious liberals believe that this passage does not refer to all homosexual behavior, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution - that performed in a Pagan temple.

* National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA) interpretation: They state that a word-for-word translation of this verse from the original Hebrew is:

"And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is on them." 3

In modern English this could be translated as:

"If two men engage in homosexual sex while on a woman's bed, both have committed an abomination. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

This does not generally forbid homosexual behavior between two men. It only limits where the act can be done.

This wiki page actually goes into detail about the translation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviticus_18

princeether
January 17th, 2009, 10:43 PM
I think the issue is that the translation can be interpreted differently, depending how one reads it from Hebrew.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh3.htm

Various interpretations of Leviticus 20:13:



This wiki page actually goes into detail about the translation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviticus_18

That is all well and good Philosophia, a very valid point, but, that verse I posted is the accepted and preferred translation used by the Christian Faith, the translation printed into every modern day bible.

debnmike
January 17th, 2009, 10:44 PM
Ya know...after reading this entire thread I think we can safely say (as Stormbeard pointed out) that this isn't a Christian issue, it's a people issue.

I know people of all faiths (well, a lot of them, anyways) and there's not necessarily a correlation between religion and belief regarding homosexuality.

Believe it or not, there are plenty of non-pagans who feel just as strongly about homosexuality as Christians do. Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with it--I'm sure there are a lot of homosexuals who'd have a problem with the way Mike and I live (story for another time).

Again, like Stormbeard said, insert "people" instead of Christians and see where the thread goes from there.

Cunae
January 17th, 2009, 11:19 PM
Sad but true, deb. Closed-mindedness and hatred-fed phobias happen in the strangest places, from people you'd never guess... as we've seen in this thread. I wish I could understand it.

evergreen
January 17th, 2009, 11:20 PM
My father says that many civilizations that practiced homosexuality/bisexuality deteriorated because of a lack of morals or something... (he mentioned the Romans, in particular). He loves history, so he'd know more about that then me. Anybody else ever heard anything similar?

Infinite Grey
January 17th, 2009, 11:31 PM
My father says that many civilizations that practiced homosexuality/bisexuality deteriorated because of a lack of morals or something... (he mentioned the Romans, in particular). He loves history, so he'd know more about that then me. Anybody else ever heard anything similar?

Not at all, they had very developed morals - they were simply different from the west's 1000+ years of Christian prudishness.

SwordsFlameSong
January 17th, 2009, 11:32 PM
Unfortunately, we live in a world where it is very easy to hate. Misunderstandings abound based upon perceptions. Effective communication is always a good rule of thumb. However, if someone is already biased then communication is moot.

There are bigots in all walks of life and paths. It's sad. But true. I have seen gays bashed by members of many faiths and I have seen gays embraced by members of the same faiths.

It's the people that make the difference. The Bible may say this or that but I thank whatever powers that are out there that my experiences with most Christians are with those that truly embrace the teachings of Jesus and not the man made version of the faith in his name.

The last was a run-on sentence and as a former English major I should be ashamed but am going to leave it that way. Perfect I ain't. None of us are. :)

evergreen
January 17th, 2009, 11:36 PM
Not at all, they had very developed morals - they were simply different from the west's 1000+ years of Christian prudishness.

I'll be using this one the next time he gets into lecturing me. :fpraiseyo

princeether
January 18th, 2009, 07:10 AM
Sad but true, deb. Closed-mindedness and hatred-fed phobias happen in the strangest places, from people you'd never guess... as we've seen in this thread. I wish I could understand it.

My oh my. You are so patronising. UNDERSTAND - some people have different opinions to you, that doesn't constitute closed-mindedness or hatred-fed phobias.
You really need to get off your high-horse love, and allow others to express themselves.

Cassie
January 18th, 2009, 08:09 AM
Yes I understand that... I just don't see how some people can say they are Christian when to me at least they don't really believe in everything the bible says but I suppose they might just see it more as a helpful guide in some ways and just have faith that the underteachings of it are true, such as treat others as you would like to be treated.... love thy neighbor, etc... but that can be said about many different peoples views because I hold those values even though im Atheist.

I guess my beef is... if you say this book is the word of god, how can you ignore some of it?

Isn't that what Christianity is based upon, the bible being the word of god? Or just some parts are and some arent?
Well actually I think the Bible as the word of God only gained the significance it has in some quarters today after the protestant reformation. Before that, most ordinary christians didn't have any access to the bible, and many couldn't read anyway. Doctrine and dogma was the province of the Catholic bishops and history shows that those beliefs were added to and revised many times.
Again, the point is that not all christians believe the same things. And who are we as Pagans (or whatever) to say what christians 'should believe' according to their scriptures?
The fact is some Christians do take a very conservative view, but many don't. You just can't tar the whole religion with the same brush.


That is all well and good Philosophia, a very valid point, but, that verse I posted is the accepted and preferred translation used by the Christian Faith, the translation printed into every modern day bible.
I honestly don't know if it is indeed the preferred translation, but even if it is it does not mean that most Christians believe it to be 'an instruction'. I would guess that most leave it open to a lot of interpretation. It also states in the bible that adulterers should be stoned to death; but I haven't heard of any Christians who take that passage literally.
Again, it is a huge mistake to assume that all or most Christians use the bible as a manual to be obayed literally in all circumstances. For example, even some high ranking bishops are on record as saying they don't believe in the virgin birth.

Philosophia
January 18th, 2009, 08:13 AM
That is all well and good Philosophia, a very valid point, but, that verse I posted is the accepted and preferred translation used by the Christian Faith, the translation printed into every modern day bible.

The problem with this is that the accepted and preferred translation isn't always correct. It does depend on where a Christian stands, i.e. liberal, conservative, etc..

LostSheep
January 18th, 2009, 08:28 AM
I see people are still enthusastically quoting the Old Testament as instructions that must be obeyed to the letter by all Christians, still. As I've said numerous times, I don't believe that it is, any more. Simple as that really. The Old Testament was applicable to its time, but in and of its time. Not superseded exactly by the New testament, but "fulfilled", as Jesus put it; which I see as meaning brought to a conclusion. A basis to build on, but not to be obeyed automatically. Context, I think, is the thing that's overlooked by those who insist that the Old testament should still be obeyed word-for-word: the context of when it was written, under what circumstances and for whom.

And I do sometimes find it interesting that it often seems to be those who are so adamant that they've broken away from Christianity completely and they disassociate themselves from it completely are often among those who insist most strongly that all Christians should follow the bible exactly word-for-word. Should Christians insist that all Wiccans should follow Gardner's original procedures to the letter and always practice skyclad, etc?

Ah, wait, you'll say; what about Paul, then? What indeed. My answer to that is that what Paul wrote was Paul's views; not Jesus's. He was never one of the disciples, so his views on matters are very much his own, coloured by his own personal views and, indeed, prejudices. Much like St Augustine, who was another that was so influential in later Christian thinking that associated sex in general with sin, not just homosexuality. (There is a body of opinion, also, that Paul's comments about the subject were part of a general disapproval of sexual behaviour, not just same-sex behaviour.)

Cassie
January 18th, 2009, 08:44 AM
And I do sometimes find it interesting that it often seems to be those who are so adamant that they've broken away from Christianity completely and they disassociate themselves from it completely are often among those who insist most strongly that all Christians should follow the bible exactly word-for-word. Should Christians insist that all Wiccans should follow Gardner's original procedures to the letter and always practice skyclad, etc?


Very good points.

Lunacie
January 18th, 2009, 10:35 AM
Ya know...after reading this entire thread I think we can safely say (as Stormbeard pointed out) that this isn't a Christian issue, it's a people issue.

I know people of all faiths (well, a lot of them, anyways) and there's not necessarily a correlation between religion and belief regarding homosexuality.

Believe it or not, there are plenty of non-pagans who feel just as strongly about homosexuality as Christians do. Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with it--I'm sure there are a lot of homosexuals who'd have a problem with the way Mike and I live (story for another time).

Again, like Stormbeard said, insert "people" instead of Christians and see where the thread goes from there.

As some have pointed out, many people (not just Christians) do have this bias against homosexuality, and they use whatever means they find to justify it.

However, the OP was contrasting using the bible to justify this hatred while ignoring the laws against things like eating shellfish. We don't see anyone advocating making laws against selling and eating shellfish do we?

It does seem inconsistent to me.

princeether
January 18th, 2009, 10:55 AM
As some have pointed out, many people (not just Christians) do have this bias against homosexuality, and they use whatever means they find to justify it.

However, the OP was contrasting using the bible to justify this hatred while ignoring the laws against things like eating shellfish. We don't see anyone advocating making laws against selling and eating shellfish do we?

It does seem inconsistent to me.

Exactly, I don't understand how some parts of the Bible are adhered too and others dismissed.
How would a non-Christian, who maybe read the Bible, or looked into the principles of the Christian faith know that some passages were to be ignored and others strictly followed?
What about young gay people who are trying to find their path, and they come across Leviticus? How do they know that most Christians discount these vile verses?
If these verses are badly translated, misleading or simple abhorred by most Christians, then why are they still printed in black and white in every Bible?

Lunacie
January 18th, 2009, 11:23 AM
Exactly, I don't understand how some parts of the Bible are adhered too and others dismissed.
How would a non-Christian, who maybe read the Bible, or looked into the principles of the Christian faith know that some passages were to be ignored and others strictly followed?
What about young gay people who are trying to find their path, and they come across Leviticus? How do they know that most Christians discount these vile verses?
If these verses are badly translated, misleading or simple abhorred by most Christians, then why are they still printed in black and white in every Bible?

Because if we don't learn from history we make the same mistakes?

However, I see a lot of people (and not just Christians) who take what others have written at face value without looking at the history and the reasons, and misinterpret what they're reading. Even worse, they share their misinterpretations with others who also buy into the misinformation.

Someone mentioned Wicca - unless you dig into the history, you might think that it is absolutely necessary to be skyclad within the circle, when that was simply his belief and he never intended for it to be a mandate for all who follow Wicca. Same with the binding/scourging, he mentions at least 8 different ways to achieve the trance state that can be helpful for allowing the divine spirit to enter us and transform us, but binding/scourging is the only one of them that worked well enough for Gerald himself; and he understood that other groups did very well using other methods. Those who don't understand this history and background just assume that Wiccans have to be skyclad and have to use scourging, and they are limiting themselves and not being open to new experiences. And some of them are the worst kind of fundamentalist Wiccans, just as there are fundamental Christians who don't look beyond the words on the page to see the background and the history.

I am one of the people who believes that Jesus came to reform the Jewish Church - but the Jews didn't accept him so his followers started a new branch of the religion. Jesus never intended that the whole world should become Jewish, only that all Jews should have a chance to look at what they had become and be more open minded.

Cassie
January 18th, 2009, 11:49 AM
How would a non-Christian, who maybe read the Bible, or looked into the principles of the Christian fait? h know that some passages were to be ignored and others strictly followed?
By attending a variety of Christian churches, speaking to lots of different people and reading around the subject in books, magazines and on the internet.
No Wiccan high priestess would take a novice seriously if that person wasn't prepared to do a lot of research on their own. Anyone who just believed everything they read in the first book on the subject they read would be laughed out of the coven.
Why should we expect those investigating Christianity to know how the religion should be practiced and how the Bible should be read before they have seriously researched it?


What about young gay people who are trying to find their path, and they come across Leviticus? How do they know that most Christians discount these vile verses?
How does anyone know how anything should be understood before seriously investigating it?


If these verses are badly translated, misleading or simple abhorred by most Christians, then why are they still printed in black and white in every Bible
Because the Bible is a revered ancient scripture and can't be re-edited to suit the mores and morals of every new generation. Nor can the Koran or the Upunishads. That is the nature of scripture. It is why every mainstream religion has an ongoing army of theologians to interpret and give guidence on sacred writings; and very often there is dramatic disagreement sometimes leading to the formation of breakaway sects.
Just because things are printed in black and white doesn't mean they should be believed in black and white.

LostSheep
January 18th, 2009, 11:58 AM
Exactly, I don't understand how some parts of the Bible are adhered too and others dismissed.
How would a non-Christian, who maybe read the Bible, or looked into the principles of the Christian faith know that some passages were to be ignored and others strictly followed?
What about young gay people who are trying to find their path, and they come across Leviticus? How do they know that most Christians discount these vile verses?
If these verses are badly translated, misleading or simple abhorred by most Christians, then why are they still printed in black and white in every Bible?

A surprising number of the people who read them nowadays do actually think about what they read, incredible as it may sound. Not everyone does just accept every single word as the Word of God(TM). Why is all of it still included? Well, because that how it's always been, I expect. You know how traditional the church is, all the cardinals and Latin and all that. It's just pure tradition. Like Genesis. Few Christians, even mainstream Chrsitians, take that all literally. But it would be, well, unthinkable, for anyone to be presumptuous enough to take it upon themselves to re-edit it now. It's part of the literature of the English language, indeed, of any language. The last one to do that was King James, after all, and to take it to bits now would be like someone deciding to take Shakespeare's works apart and discard the bits they didn't think were necessary. There are modernised versions, in modern language, yes; but they don't presume to take out certain bits.They leave it, I think, to the reader, and the more enlightened branches of the Church, to decide for themselves what to make of it and what to take out of it.

LostSheep
January 18th, 2009, 12:11 PM
By attending a variety of Christian churches, speaking to lots of different people and reading around the subject in books, magazines and on the internet.
No Wiccan high priestess would take a novice seriously if that person wasn't prepared to do a lot of research on their own. Anyone who just believed everything they read in the first book on the subject they read would be laughed out of the coven.
Why should we expect those investigating Christianity to know how the religion should be practiced and how the Bible should be read before they have seriously researched it?.
Indeed. Probably, for every edition of the Bible that's ever been published, there's a whole shelf full of books on how to interpret it and so on. If everyone was expected to just take every word literally, would that be necessary?

princeether
January 18th, 2009, 12:39 PM
By attending a variety of Christian churches, speaking to lots of different people and reading around the subject in books, magazines and on the internet.
No Wiccan high priestess would take a novice seriously if that person wasn't prepared to do a lot of research on their own. Anyone who just believed everything they read in the first book on the subject they read would be laughed out of the coven.
Why should we expect those investigating Christianity to know how the religion should be practiced and how the Bible should be read before they have seriously researched it?


How does anyone know how anything should be understood before seriously investigating it?


Because the Bible is a revered ancient scripture and can't be re-edited to suit the mores and morals of every new generation. Nor can the Koran or the Upunishads. That is the nature of scripture. It is why every mainstream religion has an ongoing army of theologians to interpret and give guidence on sacred writings; and very often there is dramatic disagreement sometimes leading to the formation of breakaway sects.
Just because things are printed in black and white doesn't mean they should be believed in black and white.

Firstly, your comparisons are ridiculous. What does Wiccan high priestesses and her relationship with a novice have to do with the topic?

Secondly, speaking from experience, when a young person who is homosexual comes across Leviticus, it doesn't really encourage you to research the faith any further, and why should trying to understand a faith have to be a complex series of riddles?

Thirdly, I never said that the Bible should be re-written to suit our modern needs, I said if it is translated incorrectly, or parts of it completely renounced by Christians, why isn't it further edited or the offending parts removed?

And FYI, Ancient texts are constantly being updated, re-translated and improved, all over the world.

princeether
January 18th, 2009, 12:49 PM
A surprising number of the people who read them nowadays do actually think about what they read, incredible as it may sound. Not everyone does just accept every single word as the Word of God(TM). Why is all of it still included? Well, because that how it's always been, I expect. You know how traditional the church is, all the cardinals and Latin and all that. It's just pure tradition. Like Genesis. Few Christians, even mainstream Chrsitians, take that all literally. But it would be, well, unthinkable, for anyone to be presumptuous enough to take it upon themselves to re-edit it now. It's part of the literature of the English language, indeed, of any language. The last one to do that was King James, after all, and to take it to bits now would be like someone deciding to take Shakespeare's works apart and discard the bits they didn't think were necessary. There are modernised versions, in modern language, yes; but they don't presume to take out certain bits.They leave it, I think, to the reader, and the more enlightened branches of the Church, to decide for themselves what to make of it and what to take out of it.

Well if that is the case, then I have read it and taken out of it that it is pedjudice and cruel, and also can have a very negative effect on vunerable people, who aren't equipped with this special riddle deciphering ability everyone here keeps banging on about. Am I allowed to have that opinion? or is it simply that I read it wrong, or missed this infamous hidden message?

I have never seen so many elaborate excuses to justify what is written in black and white, when it is fundamentally so wrong.

LostSheep
January 18th, 2009, 12:50 PM
Firstly, your comparisons are ridiculous. What does Wiccan high priestesses and her relationship with a novice have to do with the topic?

Secondly, speaking from experience, when a young person who is homosexual comes across Leviticus, it doesn't really encourage you to research the faith any further, and why should trying to understand a faith have to be a complex series of riddles?

Thirdly, I never said that the Bible should be re-written to suit our modern needs, I said if it is translated incorrectly, or parts of it completely renounced by Christians, why isn't it further edited or the offending parts removed?

And FYI, Ancient texts are constantly being updated, re-translated and improved, all over the world.

Surely, any religious path is all about understanding a complex series of riddles? that's why it's called a path; because you're constantly discovering new things, re-interpreting old things, making new discoveries and figuring out how you fit into them, taking completely new directions, even. Surely, to use the example of Wicca again, that's no different? All the symbolism and the metaphor there; would you expect to know all there was to know about it and what all the symbolism means just through reading all Gardner's books? Surely you'd read other things, other people's interpretations of it, alternative angles, and you'd try to talk to people who have experience in it.

And having great bits selectively taken out of ancient texts and discarded is a very different thing from re-translating them.

princeether
January 18th, 2009, 12:58 PM
And having great bits selectively taken out of ancient texts and discarded is a very different thing from re-translating them.

Did I say they were the same thing? Ummm, No.

And I'm glad to see you think Leviticus is a 'Great bit'.

Cassie
January 18th, 2009, 01:01 PM
Firstly, your comparisons are ridiculous.
There really is no need to use such inflamatory vocabulary. It would be enough to say that you disagree.


What does Wiccan high priestesses and her relationship with a novice have to do with the topic?
I am sorry if my comparrisons were wasted on you. If you look at the posts above you will see that some people understood what I was getting at.


Secondly, speaking from experience, when a young person who is homosexual comes across Leviticus, it doesn't really encourage you to research the faith any further,
I don't disagree. I guess it depends on the persons motivations for learning about Christianity as to whether whan confronted with this passage they still want to investigate furher.


and why should trying to understand a faith have to be a complex series of riddles?
Because it is. And Paganism is no different.


Thirdly, I never said that the Bible should be re-written to suit our modern needs, I said if it is translated incorrectly, or parts of it completely renounced by Christians, why isn't it further edited or the offending parts removed?
Are the two bolded parts consistant with each other?
I can only refer you to my previous answer.


And FYI, Ancient texts are constantly being updated, re-translated and improved, all over the world.
I know this. Holy Texts of living religions are seldom fundamentally edited though. Try telling a Moslem that the Koran should be edited!
And even if the offending text is disliked by many Christians and Jews; which branch of either relgion would have the authority to edit it out? Again, we are talking of religions that encompass thousends of denominations.

LostSheep
January 18th, 2009, 01:09 PM
Did I say they were the same thing? Ummm, No.

And I'm glad to see you think Leviticus is a 'Great bit'.

By "great", I meant in size. :rolleyes:

princeether
January 18th, 2009, 01:18 PM
There really is no need to use such inflamatory vocabulary. It would be enough to say that you disagree.

I hardly think that using the word 'ridiculous' is inflammatory vocabulary.



I am sorry if my comparrisons were wasted on you. If you look at the posts above you will see that some people understood what I was getting at.

That's ok, apology accepted. I am glad some other people understood, I must be a bit thick...



I don't disagree. I guess it depends on the persons motivations for learning about Christianity as to whether whan confronted with this passage they still want to investigate furher.

I ca tell you from experience, most gay's don't really want to investigate further, but that must be because we aren't getting that all important hidden message!!!



Because it is. And Paganism is no different.

Paganism is very different, paganism allows freedom of thought and expression.



Are the two bolded parts consistant with each other?
I can only refer you to my previous answer.

Yes they are. I never advocated re-writing the Bible, just to make me feel better, what I said was, if it is translated incorrectly, or parts discounted because it is considered incorrect, why isn't it improved or removed?




I know this. Holy Texts of living religions are seldom fundamentally edited though. Try telling a Moslem that the Koran should be edited!
And even if the offending text is disliked by many Christians and Jews; which branch of either relgion would have the authority to edit it out? Again, we are talking of religions that encompass thousends of denominations.

So because they are 'seldom fundamentally edited', does that mean we just leave them all, regardless of whether they are correct or not, because it is not the done thing?
And, any branch of Judaism or Christianity has the authority to edit the bible, it's called leading by example.

princeether
January 18th, 2009, 01:25 PM
By "great", I meant in size. :rolleyes:

I am not trying to argue with anyone actually, I just don't understand why everyone is attacking me for having an opinion.

LostSheep
January 18th, 2009, 01:25 PM
Paganism is very different, paganism allows freedom of thought and expression.


Are you deliberately trying not to understand what people have been saying here? Do you honestly, truly, think that that's completely forbidden in all branches of christianity? Do you think that the Inquisition will be round if anyone dares to pause to think what a pasage meant, or thinks about when it was written and for whom?

I'm beginning to suspect that you seem to have a very fixed opinion of Christianity, and you don't want to hear anything that might challenge your preconceptions.

oh well.

Cassie
January 18th, 2009, 01:32 PM
Princeether, I can't answer your questions any more fully than I already have. I am not Christian (although I was born into that religion). I am Pagan and as such have no authority to dictate what Chrsitians should or shouldn't do with their scriptures.
I understand that the Leviticus passage offends you; it disturbs me too.
However I also know gay Chrsitain men who are able to live fully in their faith without that passage causing them the grief it seems to be causing you.
I can't say more.

princeether
January 18th, 2009, 01:35 PM
Are you deliberately trying not to understand what people have been saying here? Do you honestly, truly, think that that's completely forbidden in all branches of christianity? Do you think that the Inquisition will be round if anyone dares to pause to think what a pasage meant, or thinks about when it was written and for whom?

No, I am not, I just completely disagree. Is that allowed?

If it is written in the Bible, why wouldn't I believe that is what Christians believe? Am I supposed to be able to tell what is accepted and what isn't when reading through the Bible?


I'm beginning to suspect that you seem to have a very fixed opinion of Christianity, and you don't want to hear anything that might challenge your preconceptions.

oh well.

I am willing to hear anything you have to say, and my thoughts on Christianity are not 'preconceptions', they are conclusions made from reading the Bible. Again I apologise for not knowing which parts were acceptable and which parts were not.

Cloaked Raven
January 18th, 2009, 01:37 PM
I'm on a Christian path myself and have NO problems with gays or bi sexuals, as I have stated earlier on in this thread.

What has not been stated yet is that there are Christians who have caught up to the times... We are open minded, are respectful to others and don't try to shove our beliefs down others throats. We believe in doing what Christ has taught us... TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS WE WOULD OURSELVES. That means RESPECTING other's paths, their sexuality, their ethnicity, their opinions, everything, and not trying to change them. To love another for WHO THEY ARE and not what we think they should be.

Times are changing and if there isn't anyone out there that can see that, well, I pity them.

princeether
January 18th, 2009, 01:39 PM
Princeether, I can't answer your questions any more fully than I already have. I am not Christian (although I was born into that religion). I am Pagan and as such have no authority to dictate what Chrsitians should or shouldn't do with their scriptures.
I understand that the Leviticus passage offends you; it disturbs me too.
However I also know gay Chrsitain men who are able to live fully in their faith without that passage causing them the grief it seems to be causing you.
I can't say more.

The passage itself does not offend me, I just find it very sad, what does offend me is the fact that so many people, lots of whom are in this tread, are willing to justify and defend this cruel message.

If I was to start a thread, with Leviticus 20 13 as my opinion, on MW's, I would be ripped apart and then banned.

LostSheep
January 18th, 2009, 01:45 PM
The passage itself does not offend me, I just find it very sad, what does offend me is the fact that so many people, lots of whom are in this tread, are willing to justify and defend this cruel message.

If I was to start a thread, with Leviticus 20 13 as my opinion, on MW's, I would be ripped apart and then banned.

No, that's the whole point, no one has been trying to justify and defend it. People have just been saying that it was written when it was written, when these views were, much as we might wish they weren't, the norm, and trying to explain that, in their view, not every word that's written in the Old testament has to be strictly obeyed. As to why certain parts haven't been taken out; well, people have tried to explain that as well. That's all.

princeether
January 18th, 2009, 01:57 PM
No, that's the whole point, no one has been trying to justify and defend it. People have just been saying that it was written when it was written, when these views were, much as we might wish they weren't, the norm, and trying to explain that, in their view, not every word that's written in the Old testament has to be strictly obeyed. As to why certain parts haven't been taken out; well, people have tried to explain that as well. That's all.

Yes they have.

And I am sorry that my limited intelligence doesn't allow me to understand what 'people have tried to explain' to me...

Darth Brooks
January 18th, 2009, 05:37 PM
My oh my. You are so patronising. UNDERSTAND - some people have different opinions to you, that doesn't constitute closed-mindedness or hatred-fed phobias.
You really need to get off your high-horse love, and allow others to express themselves.

And you need to understand that some people have different opinions to you, and this does not constitute being on a "high horse." If you had phrased yourself better in the first place, your input in this discussion might have been more willingly accepted. The fact of the matter is that there are quite a few Christians on this board who are friendly toward the pagan community, and despite whatever you might think of their religion personally, you might want to become a bit more thoughtful of their sensitivities if you're going to stick around here. I will not challenge your right to believe that "People who take the Bible seriously are mental." However, I would hope you can see why that was not the best way to have phrased yourself, and why many of the other people here would find such a thing as inflammatory. If you wish to be tolerated then you must tolerate others, as simple as that; it's a two-way street.


Exactly, I don't understand how some parts of the Bible are adhered too and others dismissed.

For the same exact reason that some parts of paganism are adhered to while others are dismissed. How many Kemetic pagans have themselves mummified and buried with all their jewels and possessions and slave girls inside a pyramid? How many Odin worshipers go around, hanging human sacrifices from trees and spearing them? How many Aztec reconstructionists go around cutting people's hearts out? And might I point out to you that in some pagan cultures in history, deformed children were buried alive - simply because they were deformed. In some cases they were buried alive just because they were girls and the men wanted boys. Animal and human sacrifice were both important aspects of many ancient pagan religions, but how many contemporary adherents of these religions actually practice such things today? Most people today aren't even accustomed to killing their own food, much less making sacrifices. So if you want to attack Christians for ignoring certain parts of their own religion then you also need to wake up and realize that pagans are ignoring certain parts of their religions, too. The next question becomes: Why is it okay with you that pagans take what they like and leave the rest, but not Christians?


How would a non-Christian, who maybe read the Bible, or looked into the principles of the Christian faith know that some passages were to be ignored and others strictly followed?How would a Christian, who maybe has read up on ancient paganism, or looked into the practices of ancient pagan faiths, know which practices are considered "okay" by most pagans today, and which ones aren't?


What about young gay people who are trying to find their path, and they come across Leviticus? How do they know that most Christians discount these vile verses?It's called meeting Christians and talking to them.


If these verses are badly translated, misleading or simple abhorred by most Christians, then why are they still printed in black and white in every Bible?That's like asking, "If most pagans find the idea of sacrificing animals and humans to the Gods abhorring, why do people still discuss pagan blood sacrifice in history textbooks?" The answer is, no one gives a hoot what pagans think about it, history is history. The same can be said of this situation here. The Bible is not just a Christian book, it's an important historical document. It doesn't matter what you or Christians think about the anti-homosexuality verses - the fact of the matter is they are history and you can't just censor an ancient text because some particular verse offends you.


Secondly, speaking from experience, when a young person who is homosexual comes across Leviticus, it doesn't really encourage you to research the faith any further,

That may be true, and I can empathize. But if the young person who is homosexual expects to be able to debate this stuff and be taken seriously about it, he or she had better research it. "Only she who knows can play with the pros."


and why should trying to understand a faith have to be a complex series of riddles?I guess you haven't been practicing a faith for very long then, because this does not sound like something a person who has had any lasting experience with a faith would ask. All religions are full of mysteries and riddles and that's just the way it is.


Thirdly, I never said that the Bible should be re-written to suit our modern needs, I said if it is translated incorrectly, or parts of it completely renounced by Christians, why isn't it further edited or the offending parts removed?Which would amount to re-writing it, essentially.


And FYI, Ancient texts are constantly being updated, re-translated and improved, all over the world.Really? I don't remember hearing about anybody editing out certain passages in the Papyrus of Ani or the Koran or the book of Aradia.


Well if that is the case, then I have read it and taken out of it that it is pedjudice and cruel, and also can have a very negative effect on vunerable people, who aren't equipped with this special riddle deciphering ability everyone here keeps banging on about. Am I allowed to have that opinion? or is it simply that I read it wrong, or missed this infamous hidden message?

You are allowed to have your opinion, in fact I agree with it. I believe the Old Testament laws concerning homosexuality are prejudicial and cruel, no matter if the passage is actually talking about gay sex in general or just sacred prostitution. But I also think that pushing donkeys off of cliffs, which is one of the things the later Egyptians did to ward off Set, is mean and petty and cruel. I also think that enslaving the Hebrews because they were aliens, foreigners, and "children of Set" was a very, very evil thing to do. But does this mean I am going to condemn the entire ancient Egyptian culture across the board? No, it doesn't. Nor do I think it is logical for you to condemn all of Christianity across the board, just on the basis of one passage that is not interpreted the same way by all Christians. Despite your opinion of the passage, yours is not the only valid interpretation.


I have never seen so many elaborate excuses to justify what is written in black and white, when it is fundamentally so wrong.I have not seen anyone in this discussion attempt to "justify" the passage you're talking about. No one here is saying it's a good idea to kill gays, not even the Christians who are regulars here.


I hardly think that using the word 'ridiculous' is inflammatory vocabulary.

No, but the way you phrased yourself wasn't particularly kind to Cassie.


I ca tell you from experience, most gay's don't really want to investigate further, but that must be because we aren't getting that all important hidden message!!!I have gay friends who consider themselves Christian. Apparently, they found a message in Christianity that they liked.


Paganism is very different, paganism allows freedom of thought and expression.LOL. Not always.


Yes they are. I never advocated re-writing the Bible, just to make me feel better, what I said was, if it is translated incorrectly, or parts discounted because it is considered incorrect, why isn't it improved or removed?Because even though most Christians don't want to kill gays, the passage needs to be kept there because it's a part of the history of Judaism, which is very important to Christianity. Your insistence that Christians ought to edit this passage out from their entire history sounds like the pagan who claims that human sacrifice was just a "myth" created by the "Christian conspiracy" and that it was "never" a part of paganism's past. (Yes, I have actually heard people make such claims before.) The reality is, there is a dark side to everything, including paganism, and turning a blind eye to it will not make us any more enlightened.


So because they are 'seldom fundamentally edited', does that mean we just leave them all, regardless of whether they are correct or not, because it is not the done thing?
And, any branch of Judaism or Christianity has the authority to edit the bible, it's called leading by example.No, what you are talking about is called censorship. Actually, what you seem to be talking about is the censorship of a book that is not even from your religion, just for the sake of not having your tender sensibilities offended - while at the same time, you are perfectly happy to offend the sensibilities of others.


I am not trying to argue with anyone actually, I just don't understand why everyone is attacking me for having an opinion.

Like I said, if you had phrased yourself more diplomatically in the first place, you might not have received the response you did.


If it is written in the Bible, why wouldn't I believe that is what Christians believe?

You might try talking to them, for one thing. I know it seems a bit taxing, but there are an awful lot of them to go around.


Am I supposed to be able to tell what is accepted and what isn't when reading through the Bible?Nope. That is why they have things like Bible Studies.


I am willing to hear anything you have to say, and my thoughts on Christianity are not 'preconceptions', they are conclusions made from reading the Bible. Again I apologise for not knowing which parts were acceptable and which parts were not.I don't think you need to apologize for that. In any religion, we have the theory and we have the practice. Often, the way a religion is practiced is not always consistent with its theory. This is as true for Wicca as it is for Christianity. Reading the Bible, IMO, is a good way to acquaint yourself with the theory of Christian religion, but it doesn't really do squat to show you the practice part. To learn that, one must actually mix with Christians and observe what they do after they have put the Bible down.


The passage itself does not offend me, I just find it very sad, what does offend me is the fact that so many people, lots of whom are in this tread, are willing to justify and defend this cruel message.

Again, your accusation here seems unfounded. No one here has attempted to "justify" the message.

DoktorSick
January 18th, 2009, 05:45 PM
It all comes down to marketing.
The sodom and gorrmorrah is one the big stories of the bible.
And as the story goes god layed that town to waste for doing
the homo freaky deeky.And think that really stuck out in the jesus
fan club group heads.
I think if there was a big story about god detroying a town for eating shellfish or something like that.Red Lobster would be considered the anti christ.

David19
January 18th, 2009, 07:00 PM
You can pretty much remove the word 'Christians' from this thread title and replace it with 'people'

Last time I checked, Traditional Islam, Orthadox Judaism and Sikhism weren't that big on buggery.

Add, certain Wiccans (notably Gardner, as well as modern ones) (and traditions of Wicca), Atheists, Hindu's, other Pagans, etc.

David19
January 18th, 2009, 07:16 PM
I think anyone who actually takes the Bible seriously must be mental,
Therefore their opinion is worthless to me. Christians use their religion to justify their disgustingly judgemental nature.
I also think this religion is reponsible for a lot of the pain and suffering in the world today.
Live and let live I say.

I don't think you can blame Christianity, or Christians, for the state of the world, pagan cultures also had the same faults, and, even if Christianity had remained an underground religion, persecuted by the Roman State, the world would, probably, still be in a similar state.


The bible is whatever you want it to be since it mostly relies upon one's interpretation of the symbolism contained within it.

If a person is going to hate heterosexuality, they're going to do it with or without religion. In my opinion, religion is merely a tool that some people use to reinforce that hatred, fear, etc..

QFT, exactly, people will hate regardless of their religion, or lack of religion, personally, I think the homophobes that say homosexuality, and LGBT people, are "sinful", "against God", "against nature", etc would be saying that anyway, regardless of Christianity, the only difference is they might be saying "we're against the Gods", "against nature", etc.

David19
January 18th, 2009, 07:53 PM
It all comes down to marketing.
The sodom and gorrmorrah is one the big stories of the bible.
And as the story goes god layed that town to waste for doing
the homo freaky deeky.And think that really stuck out in the jesus
fan club group heads.
I think if there was a big story about god detroying a town for eating shellfish or something like that.Red Lobster would be considered the anti christ.

The homo freaky deeky? :rolleyes:, is that what my sexuality is now called.

LostSheep
January 19th, 2009, 03:54 AM
I think anyone who actually takes the Bible seriously must be mental,
Therefore their opinion is worthless to me. Christians use their religion to justify their disgustingly judgemental nature.
I also think this religion is reponsible for a lot of the pain and suffering in the world today.


I hadn't actually seen this comment before. This is find very illuminating. I suppose i know where we stand now, then.

i will wish you a good day.

Phoenix Blue
January 19th, 2009, 05:49 PM
Well Mystic Christian (?) I find your religion offensive, so get over it.
Then stay the hell out of the Abrahamic Paths forum. Further bashing of other religions will earn you an immediate ban.

Vampiel
January 19th, 2009, 06:16 PM
Well actually I think the Bible as the word of God only gained the significance it has in some quarters today after the protestant reformation.

I could accept that then as long as they wouldn't say the bible is the word of god and accept that it was written by men that were flawed themselves but can see the guidance from some of the text because many literally do ignore some of it.

Then again I could say that about a lot of books so it's not really that sacred anymore. Kinda waters it down a bit doesnt it? Not so 'divine' anymore:nicetie:

Cunae
January 19th, 2009, 06:28 PM
I will not challenge your right to believe that "People who take the Bible seriously are mental."

Really? Wow. To me, PrinceEther's sentence is the most offensive I've ever read on MW to date. If I said this about a pagan text in a pagan thread or anywhere else, I am almost sure I would banned. It's an incredibly insulting slam.

I was just stunned, and still, to see no one else finds even this single statement an outrageous insult to the Christians here. I don't care how "poorly stated" some people think it was.

ignescentphoenix
January 19th, 2009, 06:39 PM
Really? Wow. To me, PrinceEther's sentence is the most offensive I've ever read on MW to date. If I said this about a pagan text in a pagan thread or anywhere else, I am almost sure I would banned. It's an incredibly insulting slam.

I was just stunned, and still, to see no one else finds even this single statement an outrageous insult to the Christians here. I don't care how "poorly stated" some people think it was.

Yes, the comment was quite offensive. At least he said his comment was "silly" afterwards. *shakes head*

LacyRoze
January 19th, 2009, 06:40 PM
I was just stunned, and still, to see no one else finds even this single statement an outrageous insult to Christians. I don't care how "poorly stated" some people think it was.

Mystic, I also feel it was an insult to all of us who follow a Christian path. I'm constantly reminding myself that people are entitled to their opinions, even when they offend others. If they choose to believe I'm mental, well, there's really nothing I can do . I know my mental status, that's all that really matters..

ignescentphoenix
January 19th, 2009, 06:50 PM
Well, since no one will say it I will.

Princeether, how about you give an apology. Perhaps try one that isn't so half-assed this time.:thumbsup:

Philosophia
January 19th, 2009, 06:51 PM
Princeether, how about you give an apology. Perhaps try one that isn't so half-assed this time.:thumbsup:

How about we drop it? There has already been an admin. warning over this and I don't see a need to carry it on.

princeether
January 19th, 2009, 06:54 PM
Well, since no one will say it I will.

Princeether, how about you give an apology. Perhaps try one that isn't so half-assed this time.:thumbsup:

I have already done so, where it matters.


How about we drop it? There has already been an admin. warning over this and I don't see a need to carry it on.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Cunae
January 19th, 2009, 07:07 PM
I agree and so I am moving on... and out of this thread. I can't imagine anything more of value coming up, as the Bible and Christians really have been adequately defended. At least IMHO! :)

princeether
January 19th, 2009, 07:14 PM
I agree and so I am moving on... and out of this thread. I can't imagine anything more of value coming up, as the Bible and Christians really have been adequately defended. At least IMHO! :)


I agree. You did yourselves proud :fpraise:

Darth Brooks
January 19th, 2009, 07:56 PM
Really? Wow. To me, PrinceEther's sentence is the most offensive I've ever read on MW to date. If I said this about a pagan text in a pagan thread or anywhere else, I am almost sure I would banned. It's an incredibly insulting slam.

Please understand, MC, saying that someone has a right to their opinion is not the same thing as endorsing that opinion. We can't very well go around and prevent people from having opinions that offend us. I don't believe it's my place to tell Princeether that he has no right to his opinion, because for one thing, he's gay and I'm not. Although I can empathize with gay and lesbian folks in many ways, I really know nothing of what it is like to actually be gay. So to me that means I should give a person like Princeether a certain amount of leeway, because I already know he's experienced things I will never experience. And experience is a mighty big part of what shapes a person's opinions.

In this country, even Nazis are allowed to have their beliefs, so long as they don't cross the line and actually threaten or harm anyone because of those beliefs. (And I am not equating Princeether with Nazism in any way shape or form, I am just using another example to illustrate my point.) That's part of the cost of having freedom of speech, you know. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't speak out against the things that offend us, because we have the right to do that, too. But my main point in the last few pages of this discussion has not been to change anyone's belief, but simply their approach to the subject at hand.


I was just stunned, and still, to see no one else finds even this single statement an outrageous insult to the Christians here. I don't care how "poorly stated" some people think it was.MC, please do not mistake me for an anti-Christian. I would hope that it would be obvious from my previous posts in this discussion that I take issue with making inflammatory statements against Christians. I do not approve of such conduct and I have tried my best to be as objective as possible about this. But I really do believe that if Princeether had phrased himself a bit differently, we would not be having this argument right now. Again, he has just as much right to believe what he believes as the rest of us; I don't think we have any right to try and deny him that right. But we do have a right to criticize his belief and the way he presents his ideas, which I have attempted to do as respectfully as possible. Do I think what he said was offensive? Yes, most certainly, and I think I've already made this clear in earlier posts. But there is responding emotionally to something that offends us, and there is responding intellectually to something that offends us. Nine times out of ten, I think, the intellectual response wields much better results than the emotional one - but then again, this is just my opinion.

It has been my hope in this discussion not to discourage Princeether from his right to believe whatever he likes, but only to encourage him and anyone else reading to think about this matter intellectually, rather than emotionally. And I will not apologize for this, to anyone. But if you feel that I have insulted you or your faith in some way, then I will most certainly apologize for that. It was never my intention to hurt you or to make you feel that way.

Infinite Grey
January 19th, 2009, 08:39 PM
Really? Wow. To me, PrinceEther's sentence is the most offensive I've ever read on MW to date. If I said this about a pagan text in a pagan thread or anywhere else, I am almost sure I would banned. It's an incredibly insulting slam.

I was just stunned, and still, to see no one else finds even this single statement an outrageous insult to the Christians here. I don't care how "poorly stated" some people think it was.

A bit hypocritical of you as you have continuously spit in the face of science without even a basic understanding of it. You might want to reflect on that for awhile.

~Elise~
January 19th, 2009, 09:57 PM
Play nice or this sandbox will be closed. I will take all the toys home with me, too.

LacyRoze
January 19th, 2009, 10:01 PM
Hides my tickle me elmo....

~Elise~
January 19th, 2009, 10:06 PM
Hides my tickle me elmo....

ohhhh...my grandson would LOVE that one!

David19
January 21st, 2009, 12:03 PM
Not at all, they had very developed morals - they were simply different from the west's 1000+ years of Christian prudishness.

Very true, they had a very sophisticated society, although, even the Romans, and ancient Greeks, weren't exactly supportive of LGBT people, like I've said before, it was fine if you were a male to be the active partner and have male lovers, as long as your "official" and main relationship was with a woman/women, they, probably, wouldn't have had anything to do with gay marriage, same-sex adoption, 2 guys or 2 women living together, kissing in the streets, holding hands, etc.

David19
January 21st, 2009, 12:12 PM
Well actually I think the Bible as the word of God only gained the significance it has in some quarters today after the protestant reformation. Before that, most ordinary christians didn't have any access to the bible, and many couldn't read anyway. Doctrine and dogma was the province of the Catholic bishops and history shows that those beliefs were added to and revised many times.
Again, the point is that not all christians believe the same things. And who are we as Pagans (or whatever) to say what christians 'should believe' according to their scriptures?
The fact is some Christians do take a very conservative view, but many don't. You just can't tar the whole religion with the same brush.

Also, I'm not sure if this is true for all Christian sects, but, I thought that most Christians believed the Bible was written by humans, who were inspired by their God. It can still be divine inspiration, just filtered through human minds, who have biases, aren't perfect, etc.



I honestly don't know if it is indeed the preferred translation, but even if it is it does not mean that most Christians believe it to be 'an instruction'. I would guess that most leave it open to a lot of interpretation. It also states in the bible that adulterers should be stoned to death; but I haven't heard of any Christians who take that passage literally.
Again, it is a huge mistake to assume that all or most Christians use the bible as a manual to be obayed literally in all circumstances. For example, even some high ranking bishops are on record as saying they don't believe in the virgin birth.

QFT, especially the part I bolded, I haven't heard which Bishops oppose the Virgin Birth, but, many don't take the Bible literally, the Pope recently stated that the Bible shouldn't be interpreted literally, and that it doesn't conflict with evolution. Also, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/), said, I think, last Christmas, that the story of the 3 Kings visiting the baby Jesus shouldn't be taken literally (although, personally, I quite like the tale).

Cloaked Raven
January 21st, 2009, 12:23 PM
Also, I'm not sure if this is true for all Christian sects, but, I thought that most Christians believed the Bible was written by humans, who were inspired by their God. It can still be divine inspiration, just filtered through human minds, who have biases, aren't perfect, etc.


:uhhuhuh: I believe that myself, David. And yes, there are a number of Christians out there who think that way too.

David19
January 21st, 2009, 12:27 PM
I see people are still enthusastically quoting the Old Testament as instructions that must be obeyed to the letter by all Christians, still. As I've said numerous times, I don't believe that it is, any more. Simple as that really. The Old Testament was applicable to its time, but in and of its time. Not superseded exactly by the New testament, but "fulfilled", as Jesus put it; which I see as meaning brought to a conclusion. A basis to build on, but not to be obeyed automatically. Context, I think, is the thing that's overlooked by those who insist that the Old testament should still be obeyed word-for-word: the context of when it was written, under what circumstances and for whom.

And I do sometimes find it interesting that it often seems to be those who are so adamant that they've broken away from Christianity completely and they disassociate themselves from it completely are often among those who insist most strongly that all Christians should follow the bible exactly word-for-word. Should Christians insist that all Wiccans should follow Gardner's original procedures to the letter and always practice skyclad, etc?

Ah, wait, you'll say; what about Paul, then? What indeed. My answer to that is that what Paul wrote was Paul's views; not Jesus's. He was never one of the disciples, so his views on matters are very much his own, coloured by his own personal views and, indeed, prejudices. Much like St Augustine, who was another that was so influential in later Christian thinking that associated sex in general with sin, not just homosexuality. (There is a body of opinion, also, that Paul's comments about the subject were part of a general disapproval of sexual behaviour, not just same-sex behaviour.)

Here's an interesting article on Paul and his views on homosexuality:

On the Ethics of St. Paul (http://thegodabovegod.com/index_files/Jim%20West%20Articles/On%20the%20Ethics%20of%20Saint%20Paul.htm)

It's has some quite interesting, and surprising, things to say.

David19
January 21st, 2009, 05:35 PM
Exactly, I don't understand how some parts of the Bible are adhered too and others dismissed.
How would a non-Christian, who maybe read the Bible, or looked into the principles of the Christian faith know that some passages were to be ignored and others strictly followed?
What about young gay people who are trying to find their path, and they come across Leviticus? How do they know that most Christians discount these vile verses?
If these verses are badly translated, misleading or simple abhorred by most Christians, then why are they still printed in black and white in every Bible?

They should also use their own judgement, for example, if they came across the passage that said gay people should be killed, they should automatically know to ignore that part, most Christians, and, any religious person, uses their brain, and critical thinking skills when it comes to reading their Scriptures. If someone reads the Bible and then goes out and kills a gay person, there must be something wrong with them, as that's not a defence at all, and they must have homophia in them already, or are just very, very mentally unstable. When someone plays a violent video game, or watches a violent movie, reads a very violent book, they don't go out and copy it, do they?.

Also, when it comes to young gay people, looking into Christianity, or young gay Christians, looking to stay in their Faith, that's what organisations like the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (http://www.lgcm.org.uk/), and the Young Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (http://www.ylgc.org.uk/)are for. They can get support there, and people to explain the context of the homophobic verses, etc.

Infinite Grey
January 21st, 2009, 05:39 PM
Very true, they had a very sophisticated society, although, even the Romans, and ancient Greeks, weren't exactly supportive of LGBT people, like I've said before, it was fine if you were a male to be the active partner and have male lovers, as long as your "official" and main relationship was with a woman/women, they, probably, wouldn't have had anything to do with gay marriage, same-sex adoption, 2 guys or 2 women living together, kissing in the streets, holding hands, etc.

That had more to do with heir production than anything else really. The Greek used to use graffiti to brag about whom they had sex with, especially of the same sex. But the family line was still the obsession.

LostSheep
January 21st, 2009, 05:40 PM
Here's an interesting article on Paul and his views on homosexuality:

On the Ethics of St. Paul (http://thegodabovegod.com/index_files/Jim%20West%20Articles/On%20the%20Ethics%20of%20Saint%20Paul.htm)

It's has some quite interesting, and surprising, things to say.

Thank you for that. Yes, shows how you really need to read between the lines of just about anything in the Bible, even the Gospels aren't a straightforward biography of Jesus, they're all written with that writer's particular slant on things. Even with Paul you need to put it in the context of the time, and these were letters for particular people, of course, he didn't sit down to write a book telling the world what they should and shouldn't do.

David19
January 21st, 2009, 05:43 PM
Secondly, speaking from experience, when a young person who is homosexual comes across Leviticus, it doesn't really encourage you to research the faith any further, and why should trying to understand a faith have to be a complex series of riddles?

If they were serious about their Faith, they would research further, ask questions, etc. Also, they wouldn't even have to ask someone, a quick Google search of Gay Christians, or LGBT Christians, will give out a lot of sites of support for young LGBT Christians, or young LGBT people looking into Christianity.


And FYI, Ancient texts are constantly being updated, re-translated and improved, all over the world.

Some Christians, and others, do do this, for example, they make the Bible, or Biblical Stories, relevant for the modern world, they revise certain things, add new meanings, they don't take a section out, they just change the meanings for an new generation (in Judaism, Stories in the Tankah are supposed to be reinterpreted by each new generation, the meanings are not meant for every generation).

David19
January 21st, 2009, 05:54 PM
I'm on a Christian path myself and have NO problems with gays or bi sexuals, as I have stated earlier on in this thread.

What has not been stated yet is that there are Christians who have caught up to the times... We are open minded, are respectful to others and don't try to shove our beliefs down others throats. We believe in doing what Christ has taught us... TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS WE WOULD OURSELVES. That means RESPECTING other's paths, their sexuality, their ethnicity, their opinions, everything, and not trying to change them. To love another for WHO THEY ARE and not what we think they should be.

Times are changing and if there isn't anyone out there that can see that, well, I pity them.

QFT, I'm not Christian, but, I really agree with you :thumbsup:.

David19
January 21st, 2009, 06:10 PM
For the same exact reason that some parts of paganism are adhered to while others are dismissed. How many Kemetic pagans have themselves mummified and buried with all their jewels and possessions and slave girls inside a pyramid? How many Odin worshipers go around, hanging human sacrifices from trees and spearing them? How many Aztec reconstructionists go around cutting people's hearts out? And might I point out to you that in some pagan cultures in history, deformed children were buried alive - simply because they were deformed. In some cases they were buried alive just because they were girls and the men wanted boys. Animal and human sacrifice were both important aspects of many ancient pagan religions, but how many contemporary adherents of these religions actually practice such things today? Most people today aren't even accustomed to killing their own food, much less making sacrifices. So if you want to attack Christians for ignoring certain parts of their own religion then you also need to wake up and realize that pagans are ignoring certain parts of their religions, too. The next question becomes: Why is it okay with you that pagans take what they like and leave the rest, but not Christians?

Also, apparantly, in times of war, women in Babylon would have more babies to sacrifice to Marduk, does that mean Babylonian Recons, or anyone who worships the Mesopotamian Gods, are going to go out and sacrifice their kids, or get knocked up and have one baby after another just to sacrifice them?. Like you said, in pagan cultures, there were many things we would consider bad today - slavery, murder, rape, pediphilia, etc. Also, I don't think there has been any ancient culture that has been supportive of LGBT people, I know people always talk about ancient Greece and Rome as being gay-friendly, but, they weren't that great, like I've said before, it may have been fine if you were a "hetrosexual" man who was the active/top and had male lovers, as long as your main/"official" relationship was with a woman, but, if you were the bottom, or wanted to be with your boyfriend permently, and not with women, I doubt they would have been supportive, they also wouldn't have accepted anything like same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, etc.

How would a Christian, who maybe has read up on ancient paganism, or looked into the practices of ancient pagan faiths, know which practices are considered "okay" by most pagans today, and which ones aren't?

It's called meeting Christians and talking to them.

That's like asking, "If most pagans find the idea of sacrificing animals and humans to the Gods abhorring, why do people still discuss pagan blood sacrifice in history textbooks?" The answer is, no one gives a hoot what pagans think about it, history is history. The same can be said of this situation here. The Bible is not just a Christian book, it's an important historical document. It doesn't matter what you or Christians think about the anti-homosexuality verses - the fact of the matter is they are history and you can't just censor an ancient text because some particular verse offends you.



That may be true, and I can empathize. But if the young person who is homosexual expects to be able to debate this stuff and be taken seriously about it, he or she had better research it. "Only she who knows can play with the pros."

I guess you haven't been practicing a faith for very long then, because this does not sound like something a person who has had any lasting experience with a faith would ask. All religions are full of mysteries and riddles and that's just the way it is.

Which would amount to re-writing it, essentially.

Really? I don't remember hearing about anybody editing out certain passages in the Papyrus of Ani or the Koran or the book of Aradia.



You are allowed to have your opinion, in fact I agree with it. I believe the Old Testament laws concerning homosexuality are prejudicial and cruel, no matter if the passage is actually talking about gay sex in general or just sacred prostitution. But I also think that pushing donkeys off of cliffs, which is one of the things the later Egyptians did to ward off Set, is mean and petty and cruel. I also think that enslaving the Hebrews because they were aliens, foreigners, and "children of Set" was a very, very evil thing to do. But does this mean I am going to condemn the entire ancient Egyptian culture across the board? No, it doesn't. Nor do I think it is logical for you to condemn all of Christianity across the board, just on the basis of one passage that is not interpreted the same way by all Christians. Despite your opinion of the passage, yours is not the only valid interpretation.

I have not seen anyone in this discussion attempt to "justify" the passage you're talking about. No one here is saying it's a good idea to kill gays, not even the Christians who are regulars here.



No, but the way you phrased yourself wasn't particularly kind to Cassie.

I have gay friends who consider themselves Christian. Apparently, they found a message in Christianity that they liked.

LOL. Not always.

Because even though most Christians don't want to kill gays, the passage needs to be kept there because it's a part of the history of Judaism, which is very important to Christianity. Your insistence that Christians ought to edit this passage out from their entire history sounds like the pagan who claims that human sacrifice was just a "myth" created by the "Christian conspiracy" and that it was "never" a part of paganism's past. (Yes, I have actually heard people make such claims before.) The reality is, there is a dark side to everything, including paganism, and turning a blind eye to it will not make us any more enlightened.

No, what you are talking about is called censorship. Actually, what you seem to be talking about is the censorship of a book that is not even from your religion, just for the sake of not having your tender sensibilities offended - while at the same time, you are perfectly happy to offend the sensibilities of others.



Like I said, if you had phrased yourself more diplomatically in the first place, you might not have received the response you did.



You might try talking to them, for one thing. I know it seems a bit taxing, but there are an awful lot of them to go around.

Nope. That is why they have things like Bible Studies.

I don't think you need to apologize for that. In any religion, we have the theory and we have the practice. Often, the way a religion is practiced is not always consistent with its theory. This is as true for Wicca as it is for Christianity. Reading the Bible, IMO, is a good way to acquaint yourself with the theory of Christian religion, but it doesn't really do squat to show you the practice part. To learn that, one must actually mix with Christians and observe what they do after they have put the Bible down.



Again, your accusation here seems unfounded. No one here has attempted to "justify" the message.[/QUOTE]

David19
January 21st, 2009, 06:11 PM
For the same exact reason that some parts of paganism are adhered to while others are dismissed. How many Kemetic pagans have themselves mummified and buried with all their jewels and possessions and slave girls inside a pyramid? How many Odin worshipers go around, hanging human sacrifices from trees and spearing them? How many Aztec reconstructionists go around cutting people's hearts out? And might I point out to you that in some pagan cultures in history, deformed children were buried alive - simply because they were deformed. In some cases they were buried alive just because they were girls and the men wanted boys. Animal and human sacrifice were both important aspects of many ancient pagan religions, but how many contemporary adherents of these religions actually practice such things today? Most people today aren't even accustomed to killing their own food, much less making sacrifices. So if you want to attack Christians for ignoring certain parts of their own religion then you also need to wake up and realize that pagans are ignoring certain parts of their religions, too. The next question becomes: Why is it okay with you that pagans take what they like and leave the rest, but not Christians?

Also, apparantly, in times of war, women in Babylon would have more babies to sacrifice to Marduk, does that mean Babylonian Recons, or anyone who worships the Mesopotamian Gods, are going to go out and sacrifice their kids, or get knocked up and have one baby after another just to sacrifice them?. Like you said, in pagan cultures, there were many things we would consider bad today - slavery, murder, rape, pediphilia, etc. Also, I don't think there has been any ancient culture that has been supportive of LGBT people, I know people always talk about ancient Greece and Rome as being gay-friendly, but, they weren't that great, like I've said before, it may have been fine if you were a "hetrosexual" man who was the active/top and had male lovers, as long as your main/"official" relationship was with a woman, but, if you were the bottom, or wanted to be with your boyfriend permently, and not with women, I doubt they would have been supportive, they also wouldn't have accepted anything like same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, etc.


How would a Christian, who maybe has read up on ancient paganism, or looked into the practices of ancient pagan faiths, know which practices are considered "okay" by most pagans today, and which ones aren't?

QFT.

David19
January 21st, 2009, 06:20 PM
That had more to do with heir production than anything else really. The Greek used to use graffiti to brag about whom they had sex with, especially of the same sex. But the family line was still the obsession.

True, I'm actually reading a book (well, one I downloaded) called 'Homosexuality in Ancient Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents' by Thomas K. Hubbard (http://www.amazon.com/Homosexuality-Greece-Rome-Sourcebook-Documents/dp/0520234308), and, so far, it's quite cool, apparantly, there was a subculture of gay individuals in ancient Greece, not just guys who only were the active partner, much like there have always been subcultures of LGBT people in every culture, whether it was officially "legal" or "illegal". That said, I still wouldn't like to live back then, as LGBT people have more freedom now than back then.


Thank you for that. Yes, shows how you really need to read between the lines of just about anything in the Bible, even the Gospels aren't a straightforward biography of Jesus, they're all written with that writer's particular slant on things. Even with Paul you need to put it in the context of the time, and these were letters for particular people, of course, he didn't sit down to write a book telling the world what they should and shouldn't do.

No problem, I liked the article, I thought it added a new perspective.

Stormwt
January 21st, 2009, 06:22 PM
I've read through a lot of this thread and I think some of it raises a question I've often considered; Why do so many Pagans think it's ok to look down their noses at Christianity or dismiss it altogether?

I know a few people who seem so angry at Christianity. Obviously we've discussed the reasons for this but I've still never been given a really reasonable explanation...

Cunae
January 21st, 2009, 07:17 PM
I've read through a lot of this thread and I think some of it raises a question I've often considered; Why do so many Pagans think it's ok to look down their noses at Christianity or dismiss it altogether?

I know a few people who seem so angry at Christianity. Obviously we've discussed the reasons for this but I've still never been given a really reasonable explanation...


oooh nooo... :bolt:

SwordsFlameSong
January 21st, 2009, 07:25 PM
Well, that is an interesting question. As a pagan who has been a victim of the rough edge of what some deem Christianity, I think some have trouble forgetting. I don't know, honestly, even when I was faced with some bad things that were done by people in the name of their religious beliefs (which was not necessarily true of the religion as a whole) I differentiated.

Frankly, life is too short for me to feel the need to fight a holy war of sorts. The Bible is the Bible. I do like parts of it but it isn't my holy book and I don't feel the need to disparage or question those who feel differently. I will disagree perhaps on say - how old the earth is. If someone preaches to me than I will request they stop. I mean, they wouldn't want me to preach to them now would they.

I guess, having seen hate on all fence sides between different religions I think it a waste. Each person follows the path that is right for them. Aye, I don't like seeing religion used as an excuse to beat down someone like a homosexual. I don't think that is what religion is about. I am happy to say that it is the few who do the latter. And, where I have a tendency to dislike ANY religion being perverted I keep in mind that such is not the majority.

I daresay that doesn't answer the question. In every religion you will find those who even disagree with others on the same path. I think part of it is arrogance or a form of narrow-mindedness that some may not even be aware that they are exhibiting. Note, again this is in reference to all religions and is not meant as an indictment of any specific religion.

ETA I think the true answer lies in human nature and past experiences. All it takes is one person to pervert a religious system and victimize another in that name. For example, when I was in my 20's I had a roomie who was a lesbian - she was the kind of person who didn't care what your preference was - well one night she tried to assault me. I often wonder if, she had been my first experience with a lesbian if I would have stayed as open-minded as I am. What got me through the trauma was the knowledge, from past experience, that she was an abberation and not the norm.
I've read through a lot of this thread and I think some of it raises a question I've often considered; Why do so many Pagans think it's ok to look down their noses at Christianity or dismiss it altogether?

I know a few people who seem so angry at Christianity. Obviously we've discussed the reasons for this but I've still never been given a really reasonable explanation...

Infinite Grey
January 21st, 2009, 07:47 PM
True, I'm actually reading a book (well, one I downloaded) called 'Homosexuality in Ancient Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents' by Thomas K. Hubbard (http://www.amazon.com/Homosexuality-Greece-Rome-Sourcebook-Documents/dp/0520234308), and, so far, it's quite cool, apparantly, there was a subculture of gay individuals in ancient Greece, not just guys who only were the active partner, much like there have always been subcultures of LGBT people in every culture, whether it was officially "legal" or "illegal". That said, I still wouldn't like to live back then, as LGBT people have more freedom now than back then.

Awwww you wouldn't like to get in on the action that happened in the Thermae (Roman bath houses)? Or the orgy rooms. :hahugh:

Cassie
January 21st, 2009, 08:00 PM
ETA I think the true answer lies in human nature and past experiences. All it takes is one person to pervert a religious system and victimize another in that name. For example, when I was in my 20's I had a roomie who was a lesbian - she was the kind of person who didn't care what your preference was - well one night she tried to assault me. I often wonder if, she had been my first experience with a lesbian if I would have stayed as open-minded as I am. What got me through the trauma was the knowledge, from past experience, that she was an abberation and not the norm.
Very good points.
The problem is that for people in general to grow up and for societies as a whole to move forward, people have to be willing to look beyond their own personal experience, and it seems that is very difficult for some.
What I mean is that there comes a point when the abused child has to realise that not all adults are cruel to children and that their own suffereing is not an excuse to inflict pain on others. There comes a point when the victim of a crime has to realise that not all people of the same race, gender or social status (etc) as the criminal who attacked them are equally mallicious. And in the same way there comes a point where people have to realise that not all Christians are the same as the ones they might have had personal problems with.
Some people never seem to get to that point of realisation, and that of course creates further conflict.
The Pagans I have met who seem the most secure in their beliefs seldom have any real hostility to Christians or Christianity even though they might well have many issues of disagreement with that religion.

Bartmanhomer
January 21st, 2009, 08:10 PM
Because according to the Old Testament in Genesis, two angels wants to "make out" with men in the city of Lot. And God didn't tolerated it and destroy the city of Lot.

It's true.

And tell you the truth, I really tolerated homosexually (but not becoming one, just to be extra clear.)

Also, since the late 70 and the early 80, homosexually was very popular. Since so many people was coming out of their closet revealing their same-sex intercourse, it's pissed so many people off. Such as gay-bashing, and not to mention AIDS and HIV!

And Christians are very strict about homosexual they find it very evil.

SwordsFlameSong
January 21st, 2009, 08:17 PM
Excellent points Cassie. I think you defined it much better than I did. :uhhuhuh:
Very good points.
The problem is that for people in general to grow up and for societies as a whole to move forward, people have to be willing to look beyond their own personal experience, and it seems that is very difficult for some.
What I mean is that there comes a point when the abused child has to realise that not all adults are cruel to children and that their own suffereing is not an excuse to inflict pain on others. There comes a point when the victim of a crime has to realise that not all people of the same race, gender or social status (etc) as the criminal who attacked them are equally mallicious. And in the same way there comes a point where people have to realise that not all Christians are the same as the ones they might have had personal problems with.
Some people never seem to get to that point of realisation, and that of course creates further conflict.
The Pagans I have met who seem the most secure in their beliefs seldom have any real hostility to Christians or Christianity even though they might well have many issues of disagreement with that religion.

Vampiel
January 21st, 2009, 08:26 PM
Originally Posted by SwordsFlameSong http://www.mysticwicks.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?p=3842787#post3842787)
ETA I think the true answer lies in human nature and past experiences. All it takes is one person to pervert a religious system and victimize another in that name. For example, when I was in my 20's I had a roomie who was a lesbian - she was the kind of person who didn't care what your preference was - well one night she tried to assault me. I often wonder if, she had been my first experience with a lesbian if I would have stayed as open-minded as I am. What got me through the trauma was the knowledge, from past experience, that she was an abberation and not the norm.


The difference here is the norm is to be against gay behaviour for Christians.

While there may be some that don't view it that way lets not fool ourselves here.

Why do you think gay marriage is such a hot topic in the states and isn't already legal?

One word

Christianity


... but ya not all of them

Cunae
January 21st, 2009, 10:58 PM
And tell you the truth, I really tolerated homosexually (but not becoming one, just to be extra clear.)




I have to giggle whenever a heterosexual person has to make it EXTRA CLEAR they aren't even thinking about ever being even remotely close to almost accidentally being gay...

sorry, Bart, just giving you shit. :weirdsmil

Infinite Grey
January 22nd, 2009, 01:21 AM
Because according to the Old Testament in Genesis, two angels wants to "make out" with men in the city of Lot. And God didn't tolerated it and destroy the city of Lot.

It's true.

Evidence?


And tell you the truth, I really tolerated homosexually (but not becoming one, just to be extra clear.)

okkkkkeeeeeee.


Also, since the late 70 and the early 80, homosexually was very popular.

Wrong way to phrase it, but I'll let it slide.


Since so many people was coming out of their closet revealing their same-sex intercourse, it's pissed so many people off. Such as gay-bashing, and not to mention AIDS and HIV!

Ok, hate crimes against homosexuals is somehow linked to HIV? :wtf:

The reason HIV spread so quickly through the gay community is simple... they didn't wear condoms, didn't think they really needed to either.


And Christians are very strict about homosexual they find it very evil.

Yeah, with no good reason. Sodom and Gomorrah are not historical locations, at least not in the way the Bible portrays them (there are a couple of locations that suffered volcano damage that might fit the bill). That story is simply a myth - like Hercules, or Beowulf. Hardly a basis for prejudice.

David19
January 22nd, 2009, 11:09 AM
Well, that is an interesting question. As a pagan who has been a victim of the rough edge of what some deem Christianity, I think some have trouble forgetting. I don't know, honestly, even when I was faced with some bad things that were done by people in the name of their religious beliefs (which was not necessarily true of the religion as a whole) I differentiated.

Frankly, life is too short for me to feel the need to fight a holy war of sorts. The Bible is the Bible. I do like parts of it but it isn't my holy book and I don't feel the need to disparage or question those who feel differently. I will disagree perhaps on say - how old the earth is. If someone preaches to me than I will request they stop. I mean, they wouldn't want me to preach to them now would they.

I guess, having seen hate on all fence sides between different religions I think it a waste. Each person follows the path that is right for them. Aye, I don't like seeing religion used as an excuse to beat down someone like a homosexual. I don't think that is what religion is about. I am happy to say that it is the few who do the latter. And, where I have a tendency to dislike ANY religion being perverted I keep in mind that such is not the majority.

I daresay that doesn't answer the question. In every religion you will find those who even disagree with others on the same path. I think part of it is arrogance or a form of narrow-mindedness that some may not even be aware that they are exhibiting. Note, again this is in reference to all religions and is not meant as an indictment of any specific religion.

ETA I think the true answer lies in human nature and past experiences. All it takes is one person to pervert a religious system and victimize another in that name. For example, when I was in my 20's I had a roomie who was a lesbian - she was the kind of person who didn't care what your preference was - well one night she tried to assault me. I often wonder if, she had been my first experience with a lesbian if I would have stayed as open-minded as I am. What got me through the trauma was the knowledge, from past experience, that she was an abberation and not the norm.

QFT, any religion, or even Atheism, etc can be perverted by somebody to suit their own ends, what people need to remember is they aren't the norm, you can't judge Islam, or all Muslims, by Al Qaeda, you can't judge all Christians, or Christianity, by the homophobes or the KKK, you can't judge all Wiccan's by Gardner's homophobia, etc.

BTW, sorry about your experience with that roomate :hugz:.

LostSheep
January 22nd, 2009, 11:16 AM
Also, since the late 70 and the early 80, homosexually was very popular. Since so many people was coming out of their closet revealing their same-sex intercourse, it's pissed so many people off. Such as gay-bashing, and not to mention AIDS and HIV!



There's a direct correlation between all of those things? Most interesting.

Darth Brooks
January 22nd, 2009, 11:51 AM
And Christians are very strict about homosexual they find it very evil.

Not all of them do, which is proven by the good people who post right here at MW. :thumbsup:

David19
January 22nd, 2009, 11:57 AM
Awwww you wouldn't like to get in on the action that happened in the Thermae (Roman bath houses)? Or the orgy rooms. :hahugh:

I wouldn't have to travel back in time to have that happen, there's quite a few gay saunas round London, if I wanted fat old men to hit on me, I might go there!.


Very good points.
The problem is that for people in general to grow up and for societies as a whole to move forward, people have to be willing to look beyond their own personal experience, and it seems that is very difficult for some.
What I mean is that there comes a point when the abused child has to realise that not all adults are cruel to children and that their own suffereing is not an excuse to inflict pain on others. There comes a point when the victim of a crime has to realise that not all people of the same race, gender or social status (etc) as the criminal who attacked them are equally mallicious. And in the same way there comes a point where people have to realise that not all Christians are the same as the ones they might have had personal problems with.
Some people never seem to get to that point of realisation, and that of course creates further conflict.
The Pagans I have met who seem the most secure in their beliefs seldom have any real hostility to Christians or Christianity even though they might well have many issues of disagreement with that religion.

QFT, like SwordFlameSong said, well said :thumsbup:.


Evidence?



okkkkkeeeeeee.



Wrong way to phrase it, but I'll let it slide.



Ok, hate crimes against homosexuals is somehow linked to HIV? :wtf:

The reason HIV spread so quickly through the gay community is simple... they didn't wear condoms, didn't think they really needed to either.


Yeah, with no good reason. Sodom and Gomorrah are not historical locations, at least not in the way the Bible portrays them (there are a couple of locations that suffered volcano damage that might fit the bill). That story is simply a myth - like Hercules, or Beowulf. Hardly a basis for prejudice.


Very true, and, unfortunately, people use the fact that HIV/AIDS spread fast throughout the gay community to say it's "God's judgement', or that it shows how promiscuious they are, "dirty", etc (I've heard people who aren't religious level the last 2 at gay guys).

Infinite Grey
January 22nd, 2009, 07:16 PM
I wouldn't have to travel back in time to have that happen, there's quite a few gay saunas round London, if I wanted fat old men to hit on me, I might go there!.

Oh... I didn't think of that. yuck.



Very true, and, unfortunately, people use the fact that HIV/AIDS spread fast throughout the gay community to say it's "God's judgement', or that it shows how promiscuious they are, "dirty", etc (I've heard people who aren't religious level the last 2 at gay guys).

:goodgrief

Sooo what about the Scandinavian or Russian homosexuals? something like 10% to 15% of those tall bastards are resistant or immune to HIV - I wonder what those religious asshole have to say to that.

Bartmanhomer
January 22nd, 2009, 07:17 PM
Evidence?



okkkkkeeeeeee.



Wrong way to phrase it, but I'll let it slide.



Ok, hate crimes against homosexuals is somehow linked to HIV? :wtf:

The reason HIV spread so quickly through the gay community is simple... they didn't wear condoms, didn't think they really needed to either.


Yeah, with no good reason. Sodom and Gomorrah are not historical locations, at least not in the way the Bible portrays them (there are a couple of locations that suffered volcano damage that might fit the bill). That story is simply a myth - like Hercules, or Beowulf. Hardly a basis for prejudice.

Sodom and Gomorrah were angels. Lot was an historical location.

Darth Brooks
January 22nd, 2009, 07:20 PM
Sodom and Gomorrah were angels. Lot was an historical location.

This the first time I've ever heard that.

Infinite Grey
January 22nd, 2009, 07:21 PM
Sodom and Gomorrah were angels. Lot was an historical location.

:wtf: what bible have you been reading?

genesis 19
1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.
...
14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters. He said, "Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!" But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.


Looks like Sodom and Gomorrah are mythological cities to me... and Lot was a mythological character.

Infinite Grey
January 22nd, 2009, 07:22 PM
This the first time I've ever heard that.

Me too. And I've hung out withe Gnostic Christians.

Bartmanhomer
January 22nd, 2009, 07:23 PM
:wtf: what bible have you been reading?

genesis 19
1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.
...
14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters. He said, "Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!" But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.


Looks like Sodom and Gomorrah are mythological cities to me... and Lot was a mythological character.

That was the same Bible I read.

Philosophia
January 22nd, 2009, 07:41 PM
Sodom and Gomorrah were angels. Lot was an historical location.

No, Sodom and Gomorrah were Biblical cities. Lot was the nephew of Abraham (his father was Abraham's brother).

Infinite Grey
January 22nd, 2009, 08:09 PM
That was the same Bible I read.

Then how do you get them switched? :huh:

Darth Brooks
January 22nd, 2009, 08:16 PM
Bartmanhomer, Lot was the guy whose wife got turned into a pillar of salt.

Bartmanhomer
January 22nd, 2009, 08:16 PM
Then how do you get them switched? :huh:

I try to detail them as accurate as possible.

Infinite Grey
January 23rd, 2009, 01:38 AM
I try to detail them as accurate as possible.

By calling Lot a place and Sodom and Gomorrah angels - even though that directly contradicts the bible... ... ... :wtf:

That's like saying the Hydra was Zeus' father and Hercules was a lion.

LostSheep
January 23rd, 2009, 06:24 AM
I try to detail them as accurate as possible.
:eyebrow:

So whose wife was it got turned into salt?

Rick
January 23rd, 2009, 08:58 AM
Mr. Morton, I think...

David19
January 23rd, 2009, 10:42 AM
Oh... I didn't think of that. yuck.

You say that like it's a bad thing, wouldn't you just love to have a sweaty old man come on to you? ;).





:goodgrief

Sooo what about the Scandinavian or Russian homosexuals? something like 10% to 15% of those tall bastards are resistant or immune to HIV - I wonder what those religious asshole have to say to that.

Really?, I actually didn't know that, has anyone done any research into them, to see if they can take what makes them immune and make it available to everyone?.

As for religious assholes, they'd, probably, say Satan was protecting them, or something.

David19
January 23rd, 2009, 10:44 AM
Sodom and Gomorrah were angels. Lot was an historical location.

I suggest you actually read a Bible, or even just Google it. Lot, if I'm remembering right, was Abraham's nephew.

LacyRoze
January 23rd, 2009, 11:00 AM
I'll be nice and help you out here. The following link shows Lot was Abraham's nephew and Sodom and Gomorrah were cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

Google gives plenty of links showing the same..

Infinite Grey
January 24th, 2009, 05:27 AM
Really?, I actually didn't know that, has anyone done any research into them, to see if they can take what makes them immune and make it available to everyone?.

As for religious assholes, they'd, probably, say Satan was protecting them, or something.

Plenty of research - it is linked to the ancestors of the communities that got hit with the Small Pox to the worst. The whole of Europe was slammed by the disease since the crusades (the disease probably originated in Asia); by the mid-18th century, every 7th Russian child died of small pox.

Another hypothesis connects it to the bubonic plague survivors. But bother cases, it is a genetic mutation found mainly in Swedes and other Northern Europeans (a small number).


As to vaccinating people against HIV - well that's a technology on the brink of completion. I've read a few journals of a few methods entering the trail stage - or close to. The problem is the ethical procedures here.

David19
January 24th, 2009, 03:20 PM
Plenty of research - it is linked to the ancestors of the communities that got hit with the Small Pox to the worst. The whole of Europe was slammed by the disease since the crusades (the disease probably originated in Asia); by the mid-18th century, every 7th Russian child died of small pox.

Another hypothesis connects it to the bubonic plague survivors. But bother cases, it is a genetic mutation found mainly in Swedes and other Northern Europeans (a small number).


As to vaccinating people against HIV - well that's a technology on the brink of completion. I've read a few journals of a few methods entering the trail stage - or close to. The problem is the ethical procedures here.

Thanks for the info, I didn't know about all of that, I'm hoping there can be a HIV/AIDS vaccination, it can really help a lot of people. I might actually do some research and see if I can find out more about that.

Bartmanhomer
January 24th, 2009, 04:31 PM
Ah, nuts. Well thanks for the link about this confusion. Also, Christians finds it sexually immoral about gay. Because it's a sin. If I already mention it before.

ignescentphoenix
January 24th, 2009, 05:13 PM
Ah, nuts. Well thanks for the link about this confusion. Also, Christians finds it sexually immoral about gay. Because it's a sin. If I already mention it before.


So is eating shellfish.

Darth Brooks
January 24th, 2009, 05:39 PM
Ah, nuts. Well thanks for the link about this confusion. Also, Christians finds it sexually immoral about gay. Because it's a sin. If I already mention it before.

How many Christians do you actually know, and how many of them actually agree with that statement?

LacyRoze
January 24th, 2009, 06:31 PM
Ah, nuts. Well thanks for the link about this confusion. Also, Christians finds it sexually immoral about gay. Because it's a sin. If I already mention it before.

Not all Christians agree with your statement. Many, maybe even most, but not all. I and many of the Christians I know do not agree.

Cloaked Raven
January 24th, 2009, 06:35 PM
Not all Christians agree with your statement. Many, maybe even most, but not all. I and many of the Christians I know do not agree.
I agree with Lacy Roze.

Philosophia
January 24th, 2009, 07:07 PM
Ah, nuts. Well thanks for the link about this confusion. Also, Christians finds it sexually immoral about gay. Because it's a sin. If I already mention it before.

Like LacyRoze stated, that's not true. There are many who disagree with you.

Lunar Raven
January 24th, 2009, 07:35 PM
How many Christians do you actually know, and how many of them actually agree with that statement?

Many actually. Of course though, not all.

I know many Christians however that believe homosexuality is a choice, and the person who is a homosexual is living a life of sin by choice.

Again, obviously not all believe this..but it's safe to say that many do.

LostSheep
January 25th, 2009, 05:46 AM
Many actually. Of course though, not all.

I know many Christians however that believe homosexuality is a choice, and the person who is a homosexual is living a life of sin by choice.

Again, obviously not all believe this..but it's safe to say that many do.

Many people may do, it may be true... but many people call themselves "Christian" if they ever have to tick a box specifying their religious affiliation, regardless of whether they ever actually actively participate. Just as many people grow up with a kind of default anti-gay prejudice, simply because that's what they're accustomed to throught the media and suchlike. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they actually hate gay people, just that they have preconceived assumptions. And I really don't think that the "choice" argument is what many people really believe now, even a majority of Christians of the more mainstream variety.

Darth Brooks
January 25th, 2009, 05:55 AM
Many actually. Of course though, not all.

I know many Christians however that believe homosexuality is a choice, and the person who is a homosexual is living a life of sin by choice.

Again, obviously not all believe this..but it's safe to say that many do.

Thank you, but I already knew this. I was actually directing my question at Bartmanhomer, because I find it disturbing that he seems to think all Christians would agree with that. He seems to be misinformed.


Many people may do, it may be true... but many people call themselves "Christian" if they ever have to tick a box specifying their religious affiliation, regardless of whether they ever actually actively participate. Just as many people grow up with a kind of default anti-gay prejudice, simply because that's what they're accustomed to throught the media and suchlike. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they actually hate gay people, just that they have preconceived assumptions. And I really don't think that the "choice" argument is what many people really believe now, even a majority of Christians of the more mainstream variety.

Agreed. As time marches on, the "homosexuality is a choice" argument is getting harder and harder to defend.

Lunar Raven
January 25th, 2009, 06:01 AM
Definitely @ the last comment. I don't want to sound "agist" or something by any means..but from my experience it seems the older generations are the ones whom use the argument of gay being a choice. And of course..I'm not trying to generalize here, but I've heard the argument several times, primarily by older individuals. More and more people seem more accepting these days though, which is great.

Kraheera
January 25th, 2009, 09:44 PM
what is amusing about this is that my supervisor and I were discussing the "homosexuality is a choice" thing.

He really couldnt' declare in logical terms why he believed it to be a choice, other than that a man and a woman are biologically designed to be attracted to each other.

So I mentioned how many animals will be seen having homosexual relations, and that it could in fact be nature's way of creating natural birth control. To back it up, I brought up how a person can look like a woman, be able to bear a child like a woman.. and yet scientifically be considered a man because she holds a y chromosome. Sex testing is now standard at the Olympics because of this discovery.

Could it not be extrapolated then that homosexuality is caused by some sort of genetic mutation on the chromosomal level?

Of course, he said it was still a choice, and that if they really wanted to, they could be in a hetero relationship. So I turned around said "True... just like if I want to be a man, i can go have my sex changed, and then technically, I am not having a homosexual relationship, right?"