The Haters On Youtube

Hi Drew_445, That's one of the main reasons why flawed doctrines exist today because a handful of genuinely "good" individuals give credence to them.......and other people easily mistake the flawed doctrines as sound and good, but in reality, they are terribly dangerous, more so to gays. These genuinely "good" individuals didn't get their goodness from going to these flawed institutions. They are good, period. You sound like a sweet guy, but always read between the lines when it comes to religious institutions. Cal I.

 

Would I be right in saying that the Bible has only been interpreted as anti-gay relatively recently, as in, within the last few hundred years?

 

Most religious people do read between the lines. We wouldn't stop homophobia just by getting rid of religion, it provides a conduit for it but I don't believe anyone interpreting the Bible as a mandate to go out and kill queers is going to be dissuaded by the text. Most religions allow you a bit of leeway to believe what you want, as well as deciding your level of observance.

In the case of homosexuality, certainly Christianity does not outright condemn it. It condemns lustful intercourse, but that's much more recently been interpreted as anything which is not procreative. That's an extreme interpretation when you think about it, and often re-interpreted in a flawed way by those who are simply homophobic (i.e. they probably get their dicks sucked now and then, but if it's by a woman they don't care). There is nothing in the Bible itself that directly condemns homosexuality, so it's unfair to blame it on religion when religion is just people being people.

Religion should be worked with, not against. It's been around a bloody long time and means a lot to a lot of people, and represents freedom of belief to them (even if that seems paradoxical to those of us who don't have one). It's a long game to play, but I feel it's more effective. Arguing against a religion which is primarily being used as a means to justify existing homophobia, rather than demanding it of its followers, is counter-productive, because it makes us seem like we have a gripe with it in general, and people will resent that if their faith has been strongly attached to the religion for their whole life..

I guess essentially what I'm saying is that the bad people didn't get their badness from religion either. If they hadn't found justification in the Bible, they'd have found it somewhere else.

 

The book Christianity, Social Intolerance and Homosexuality by John Boswell will forever change your view on the bible. Boswell was a scholar of archaic languages as well as a biblical scholar. His book calmly and dispassionately exposes the bible in its many changing presentations. The church was uniconcerned about gay relationships for hundreds of years. The anti-gay stances came about usually as a matter of political sniping. The church was always a power whore and always in bed (often literally) with politics. Anti gay tracts were added to the bible at will by the poloitics and power whores who wanted to hurts some opponent. If the opponent was gay, anti gay bible tracts were installed in "God's Book". The early church even had ceremonies to recognize gay unions. Anyone who wants to discuss the bible and gay people must read this book or they go into battle ill informed. Google the book, get it cheap on half.com or whatever but please read this work. Boswell's work is important to any of us who struggle to shake off the poisonous grip of religion.

 

Well I'm not going to spend money on it given that you've just given me the gist of it, but I'm aware that the Bible is not strongly anti-gay, simply by virtue of the fact that there's only about five lines in the whole thing that can even be interpreted that way. I can imagine, especially given how linked government and church have been historically in Europe, that changing attitudes are likely to reflect how the Bible was interpreted (and I'd like to add at this point that I'm aware the Bible is not the only religious text - it's just the only I'm most familiar with). I'm not sure what "anti-gay tracts" you're referring to really. Can you post them? The only part I'm really aware of is the oft-quoted Leviticus line about "laying with a man as thou does with a woman", but to be honest, I don't know anyone who condemns homosexuality as a result of reading that that wouldn't condemn it anyway. That said, I do have an advantage in living in Europe that even our Christians tend to take the Good Book with a pinch of salt, particularly regarding the bits which read like the author had been out in the noonday sun a little too long.

I do feel there's a very strong anti-religious sentiment on this forum, among people who are intelligent enough and well-informed enough to know that religion has been manipulated so that it can be interpreted by the homophobe (or, as you describe, by those who seek to manipulate homophobes) to be homophobic, rather than being inherently so. You can insist that it's poisonous all you want, but in the end, it's just a few books, and it's those who have sought to manipulate them which has had the poisonous effect, so it hardly seems fair to blame the religion.

 

I've read his Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. Christianity, Social Intolerance and Homosexuality is a necessary evil to the Fundamentalists.

 

Re your statement: "Most religious people do read between the lines."

That you are right and that I also know. My last post was meant for Drew_445. It's the reason why I said, "Hi, Drew_445"......... I don't usually add this. I'm trying to make sure Drew_445 knows about this.


Re your statement: "Most religions allow you a bit of leeway to believe what you want"

Most, and let's not forget the ones who are exception to that rule. A miniscule exception is lethal as we all know by now. A miniscule could be in the thousands compared to the billions of people in this world. One to me is too many. It only takes one to kill you. That's too close for comfort because you never know where this one might be hiding. Murder is just around the bend like happiness.


Re your statement: "We wouldn't stop homophobia just by getting rid of religion, it provides a conduit for it"

Agree that we wouldn't stop homophobia this way by getting rid of religion, but getting rid of religion provides a conduit for furthering homophobia? Did I understand you correctly?


Re your statement: "I don't believe anyone interpreting the Bible as a mandate to go out and kill queers is going to be dissuaded by the text."

Because they already have their minds made up to kill queers? They're using the Bible or somebody's interpretation of the Bible as an excuse to kill queers even though the Bible is set against this? Am I getting you correctly?


Re your statement: "It's been around a bloody long time and means a lot to a lot of people,"

And this statement makes old religious institutions sound? People are hurt and dead. Old religious institutions need drastic makeover. It's like watching cows being led to the slaughter...... It's bad enough that I'm a second class citizen in my own country and I'm not about to lower myself to one more notch if I could help it. I don't want to be accept that badly by a strange cult or religion. One hint of inequality and I'm out out of that religion's door, baby.


Re my statement: "so it's unfair to blame it on religion when religion is just people being people."

Wrong, to many people religion is ordained by God. It's not just people power. Re your statement: "It's been around a bloody long time." This partly solidifies that belief of Divine approval. Bible in itself is not religion, but many people base their beliefs on the Bible. They read the Bible as God's laws. Directly from God. The Bible to them is the same as God. It's the reason why it's called the Holy Bible. I've met Christians who don't believe in the Bible but they believe in Christ as their Savior.


Re your statement: "There is nothing in the Bible itself that directly condemns homosexuality, In the case of homosexuality, certainly Christianity does not outright condemn it."

Your singing to the wrong choir. Tell that to the crazy Fundamentalists.


Re your statement: "Religion should be worked with, not against."

Why not create your own religion? Martin Luther and Muhammad did. I'm a Christian and I like my private religion.


Re your statement: "I guess essentially what I'm saying is that the bad people didn't get their badness from religion either."

Some do and some don't. The outcome is just as bloody.

Cal.

 

You can insist that it's poisonous all you want, but in the end, it's just a few books, and it's those who have sought to manipulate them which has had the poisonous effect, so it hardly seems fair to blame the religion.[/QUOTE]
Precious little difference to me, though I'm sure you may disagree. How about you expalin to all of those tortured, maimed and destroyed lives through out history that it's just a few books and nothing poisonous about that. The snake isn't poisonous but that venom is a son of a bitch.

Your observation that I'm anti-religious is close but not quite. For many people religion has proven to be a solid anchor in life...good for them. Overall though religion (any religion) has too much blood on its hands to have any value for me. You have your viewpoint on this...you've expressed it well, you're articulate and quite willing to do verbal battle. Frankly, it bores the piss out of me.

The haters on you-tube are in hog heaven, poor little insignificant pissants have found a way to safely hide behind their keyboards and fling shit out at the world... What're we gonna do with 'em...for my part, nothing. People like that are kind of like chiggers that bite my ankles, irritating but they don't last long

 

Idk if this exactly relates, i stopped going through too much of the posts cause it's so long (lol...). Alot of homosexuals hate religions because they are not tolerant of us(homosexuals). How can we expect them to be tolerant of us, when all we do is hate them and immediate expect or assume them to not want to accept us? How come at the sime time we are fighting such "institutions" we expect them to accept us?

 

OK.

I really am not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you saying that we're in danger from a tiny minority of religions, or a tiny minority within religions? Because it makes a huge difference. A religion which does not allow for degrees of observance is a cult, but I wouldn't say they present much of a threat to us compared to a bunch of drunk Rednecks who fancy a fagdrag of a Saturday night.

No, I'm saying that religion provides the conduit. Getting rid of the religion wouldn't get rid of the ill-feeling behind it.

Yeah, basically. That's why millions of people manage to read the same book and not feel obligated to go on the rampage. To me this indicates that someone at least needs to have homophobic tendencies to be persuaded.

That's nice. No-one's asking you to join the religion or stay in it though, so I don't really get your point. It's not like non-religious/atheistic ideologies haven't been just as detrimental historically, or cost just as many lives. But we single

Again, not really seeing your point. I'm saying religion can't make people do anything they don't want to do anyway. Most religions are about getting people not to do those things.

Why? Why try to persuade people who are beyond hope, when there are people who are capable of understanding but are choosing not to?

Well, why do it? If you've cast off religion, chances are you don't need another one. The reason to work with existing religion is that they're the other party in the equation. I don't really see the point in creating your own; the best you'll achieve is nothing, at worst you'll just bug the very people that you should be building bridges with.

I don't think you can have it both ways. You initially were fairly adamant that religion doesn't make any good people good. So why would it make any bad people bad?

 

self control you make some very good points, man. Im pretty much in total agreeance.

 

We're in danger from a tiny minority within institutionalized religions. I plant a seed and it will grow with God's help. I don't hold on to the idea that a person is beyond hope......., without me going into spiritual/metaphysical ideologies.

Initially religion was forced upon me by my overly devout family when I was younger. I'm not the only one in this boat......... Thing about being an adult is I have a choice to not stay in it. However, there are consequences for getting out of my family's church such as being removed from an inheritance. My brother gets it all now. I sounds old fashion but that's my reality. There are consequences for the choices we make sad to say.

How do you think some of these old religions were created? If they're bugged or not, tough. I'll follow my bliss for my own sake alone. I'm not about to let some idiot have power over me, wait for him or her to decide the course of my life. To me religion is the totality of life. It's not just a Sunday lipservice. SelfControl, it's the reason why America was created I'm sure you know this. We have freedom of religion here. It may be nothing to you, but I love my private religion. I enjoy my freedom. My private religion and freedom have achieved or created a finer better state of "my" mind. Strange that you said "People are free to make their own choices, it's their lives, after all"......... and all of sudden you give us this, "I don't really see the point in creating your own; the best you'll achieve is nothing, at worst you'll just bug the very people that you should be building bridges with". Suggestion? SelfControl, enlighten us on this........... Which is the real SelfControl?

First it was "outraged" and now, where in the world did you get the notion that I'm "adamant"? Interesting. Should I assume that you use certain words freely, for effect? Or do you quickly jump to conclusions, conveniently? Or other excuse perhaps? which is it? In the case of Drew_445, his good family and friends didn't get their goodness from that homophobic cult. I'm sorry, any establishment that's homophobic is automatically not good to me. I avoid it. There are good Christian churches who are not homophobic and they have great people in them. I'm sure some of them got their greatest from the teachings of their un-homophobic churches. Adamant? I think, not.

So why would it make any bad people bad? Bad people do have the tendancy to get worst. Good people could always improve themselves......., if not, the world will do it for them.......or die if you don't get with the better program.

Always,

Cal

 

Keep this in mind. Always.

 

"Some" is a good point, I agree, but unlike you, I'm not totally convinced. SelfControl hardly gives you any personal and tangible examples. In my humble opinion he only feeds off on what's already been given. I care a lot about real personal experiences.

 

You're right! Your opinion is humble. My personal experience is pretty irrelevant - remember when we talked about common sense? - but it basically concurs with what I've said. Do you really need me to say x thing, and then talk about how x thing happened to me this one time in a club? What difference does it make? If I cite a stat, but then my personal experience hasn't been in accordance with that stat, it doesn't necessarily mean anything, unless it's a zero sum, 100% stat. I don't feed off what's been given, I respond to your post. I can't help it if they're too full of holes for me to add anything worthwhile.

 

Oi vey. I know you're desperate to condescend, but cmon:

This is ridiculous. I don't see the point in starting your own religion. That doesn't mean I think you should be prevented from doing so, just that I don't see the point. A moron could see that there's no contradiction there.

 

That's your opinion. I could only respect that. However, others don't see them as such from the way they converse with me. The good thing about these other people is they don't jump to "erratic" conclusions. Always interesting, SelfControl.

Cal

 

Desperate? Condescend? There you go again. Didn't I just mention erratic conclusions?

Since you can't see the point, I will tell you the point. The point is we live in a world of uncertainty. No one that I know owns this supreme, infinite knowledge. I've never met anyone who knows the absolute truth. However, it doesn't mean that we should stop searching for answers and respect. I absolutely don't believe that the best you'll achieve is nothing. The effort is meaning in itself. To some the effort is the goal. The fruits of this effort and effort itself will only make you a better human being. A compassionate and loving human being with self respect. If I can't get my answers and respect from a notable religion, then that's not my religion. I'm outta there. Thing is we all have our private religion. Everybody in this forum holds to their ideals. You hold to your ideals. Collectively speaking, that's your religion. Weren't you the one who said "religion is just people being people"? I believe in human equality. My beliefs are just as good as Jesus, Muhammad and SelfControl. Achieving nothing is not part of my religion........... when I give it my all with all honesty and integrity. How I define integrity is for myself.

Re my statement: "Strange that you said 'People are free to make their own choices, it's their lives, after all'......... and all of sudden you give us this, 'I don't really see the point in creating your own; the best you'll achieve is nothing, at worst you'll just bug the very people that you should be building bridges with'".

Initially, the first sentence sounded optimistic, but since you cannot see the contradiction, let me add this....... The first point has become hope-less and negative. That's the contradiction, SelfControl.

With respect,

Cal

 

I'd argue that they just don't pay as much attention to your posts as I do. Maybe they're just humouring you. I don't personally believe that my conclusions are "erratic", since there's always reasoning behind them. If you come across a certain way in your posts and it's not the way you intend to... so what? Barthes, my dear boy; you're the author, I'm the reader. If you don't want me to reach my own "erratic" conclusions, you should be more specific in your posts.

Yes, and like an asshole I totally ignored it. It had nothing to do with you posting it some time after I made those posts.

That's not religion, that's ideology. They're completely different things, even though they occasionally intersect with each other. You'll probably think I'm being pedantic, but I'm just being specific.

Yup. I didn't say that people being people is just religion though, did I?

Pretty much covered this already. You used the word "religion" erroneously when you meant "ideology", and from thence the confusion arose. There is nothing depressing about trying to carve out one's own ideology, even though some would argue that it's impossible for us to ever really do so, but trying to carve out your own religion is utterly pointless, because religion requires a basis in history and tradition to really mean anything to you - if we know we're making it up as we go along, it doesn't have that gravitas, that mythological resonance, the sense of community, the essence of what, in fact, makes religion different from ideology.

Regardless, there is still no contradiction. Just because everyone is free to do and say and think what they want, that is no reason why I shouldn't think - and say - that doing and saying and thinking things is pointless. They're free to be wrong, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them or even humour them if I don't want to. My freedom is equal to their freedom.