Turnabout is Fair Play: What is the 'Gay' view of Traditional Christian Views?

I asked this question to Hipunk in another thread but I would put it out here for anyone to consider and answer/comment on?

First, I understand that this is not necessarily a 'Gay View' but because some have indicated these attitudes, I wanted to narrow it down a bit to more of a real form of a question in an effort to get some more definitive answers:

At the very least, typical or traditional Christianity believes there is something very unhealthy about Homosexuality. (more or less).
Would you agree that there is something very unhealthy about Christianity?
If so:
Would you agree the best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death and that when better understanding has become widespread - Christian doctrine will be proven to be absurd?

Another question .. considering you believe homosexuality is protected by government (which I agree it is 'officially' valid) then would you like to see to it that the Churches cannot spread around teachings in conflict with the interests of the Government?
(Ideally I mean)

Your answers appreciated?

 

.
Please look to the top of this page: Hip Forums >Alternative Lifestyles >Gay.
The name of this forum is the "Gay" Forum, it is not the "Wing Nut Christian Proselytizing" Forum. Also, because it is the "Gay" Forum that doesn't mean it is the "Gay Bashing" or "Gay Hating" Forum, though you seem to think that's your right.

If I truly believed you were looking for answers I would answer you. But you are looking to spread your evil propaganda. If you were looking for debate, I would debate you. But you are looking to, convert, shame and damn the LGBT community. That is, you wish to control us. Your issues belong on the [b]Politics[/b] Forum, or the Philosophy and Religion Forum. Not here.

Not only is this the wrong forum for you, but your presence here is an insult to the LGBT community. You are like the crazies who stand out front of the gay bars on Saturday night trying to save souls with shame and damnation. But in this case you have actually walked into the bar to cause disruption and spread your hate.

I will tell you one thing about gay folks and God, we do pray to God. I am praying to God right now that no one is foolish enough in this forum to engage you in a debate on this topic.
.

 

This is definatley related directly to ongoing conversations and topics regarding homosexuality.
I dont think I can get any more appropriate a place to ask these questions.

One of the things you can do is stop derailing threads or turning them into personal attacks and start by answering the questions.

Im not trying to 'lead' any sort of response either - I just want to know if those questions would (more of less) characterise your opinion and view of the Christian perspective on Homosexuality.

Replies appreciated.
Thx

 

As I understand it, the church only really started fretting about homosexuality (and recreational sex in general) in the last 1000 years. Even since then, it's gone through various stages of being villified, tolerated and just ignored.

Re your two specific questions:

This seems to be a leading question. There is a lot of good in Christian teaching even from the view of a fairly committed atheist. The majority of the morals presented in the Bible (and most other religious texts) are perfectly legitimate and sensible rules for any society. My experience of human beings to date has led me to believe that many of them will go to extraordinary lengths not to do what's good for themselves and those around them. Therefore, if imbuing the morals of a society with a theological impetus helps to get the message across, I say there's no harm in it.

I guess where I'm going with this is that there is no reason to dismiss Christian doctrine as absurd just because one happens not to agree with a few aspects of it. Most Christians will respect you more if you don't.

I think there would be something very wrong with the world if any entity or agency had to modify its message simply because it conflicted with the interests of the government. It's one of the dichotomies of a liberal society that, by permitting free speech, you give a voice to those who seek to undermine your society. But there's no ideological argument against doing so. All you can do is ensure that there is a platform for the rationalist and moderate majority as much as there is for the extremist minority.

 

If you can't hold your own in a debate with those whose beliefs are founded on little more than misinterpretations of a book they've probably never even read (and on an aside: isn't there a strong argument against preachers of any kind now that most people are perfectly able to read the texts for themselves?), then you can't argue for shit. If you're not willing to hear out those who are likely to disagree with you, you're as bad as those you're damning above.

 

I appreciate your reply Selfcontrol.
That is more or less my position on it - however there are some people who (if possible) would have it that Churches (or their Pastors) can be prevented from teaching 'Hate Crime Speak' if they teach or preach to their congregation that Homosexuality is wrong or immoral.
Sweden is already well under way with this.

I was really trying to put some of Hipunks views on the subject into a question form without wanting to be 'leading' - thats why I asked for clarification or comments.
In other words - correct me if Im wrong but.. isnt this how you see it?

 

I have been debating, if you want to call it that, with E70 on another thread and I am sorry you believe I can't hold my own, or that I am unwilling to hear his propaganda. E70 is a third positionist, or tying to be. He has no intent on honest debate.

Now I am going to be perfectly honest with everybody. Probably a mistake, honesty always seems to get me into trouble. In my life, I have met as many homophobic Hippies as homophobic Neo-Nazis or homophobic Christians. Hip doesn't always equal "cool with that."

I can't participate in a "Gay" forum or "Rainbow Power!" forum that condones homophobic propaganda without feeling sad and alienated. That crap belongs over on the Christian forums or the Politics forums. LGBT folk are ill served by anti-gay smears and derisive threads where the only purpose is to provoke us into a propaganda lesson.

I do thank Chip for the opportunity to share my thoughts here and I thank you all for the wonderful conversations we have shared.

Cheers,

Robt.
.

 

I don't necessarily think you can't hold your own, but you certainly came across like you were dismissing his opinions are propaganda simply because you didn't agree with them. If that was not the case I apologise also.

Does "third positionist" mean the same as "devil's advocate"?

 

I've noticed a tendency not just among homosexuals for people to slate Christianity rather than those who pervert its fundamental (as oppose to fundamentalist) message of good will to all men. I think this represents just as a great a regressive step as anything Sam Phillips can come up with.

Speaking of my opinion rather than anything which I would wish to see enforced (because it couldn't be done), I'd draw a line. The line being that a religion can have whatever rules it likes about whatever it likes provided that a) they don't hurt anyone, and b) they don't attempt to inflict them on those who do not subscribe to that faith.

I believe that if someone chooses to kill or injure, it is their responsibility. No religious text tells you to kill. If someone tells that person to kill from the pulpit of religion, they should suffer the same penalty as someone would if they told them to do it from a secular standpoint.

To recap: I don't have a problem with any religion preaching that homosexuality is wrong or immoral if that's what they want to do, but I do not want to anyone who doesn't directly subscribe to the religion to suffer as a result. I also feel that there is no rational argument for religion and government having anything at all to do with each other. A government having a religious affiliation only serves to alienate those who need not be alienated.

 

Hipunk.. I really dont see the problem with you engaging in the hypothetical questions.
I engaged yours.
If you see a problem or disagree with what Im asking - then what better opportunity is there for you to correct me or at least make your position known and heard?

If you have right on your side - THIS is where you can make it heard and never mind what I think.
Dig?

 

OK, I'm beginning to see where the problem comes from. How about you guys actually discuss your opinions with each other, rather than just "make it heard and never mind what I think"? That means actually reading each other's posts and making some attempt to react to them with anything other than a recapitulation of the same point.

 

Thats not the way Hippunk rolls.. we are trying to work out some new version of 'point/counterpoint'.
Apparently?

 

christianity doesn't see homosexuality as unhealthy they see it as immoral, against the laws of their god and an abomination.

christianity isn't the be all and end all of moral teachings. I grew up in a christian home, but the more I questioned the more the lacking in answers I got. In my teens I stopped believing althogether in mythical god.

In the last year or so I started reading and learning the Buddhist path, which, to me is far more pertanent in todays world than christianity. Buddhism is far more open minded and accepting to things and differing thoughts than christianity. If one wants to believe in god, that is well and fine but don't make it that it is the ONLY one true religion.

You also have to understand that others have come into this forum and called us "sinners", abominations and evil. So there are some that take afront when someone comes in with claims to want to enter into dialog and then start spouting scripture, not that you exact have done so. I view christianity as unhealthy and have nothing but disdain and absolute contempt for it.

 

I read a study in New Scientist that found a happiness level for various people around the world (based on the person's own assessment and that of a few of their friends), and the only significant correlation they were able to pull out was that those who had a strong religious conviction and who were involved in religious practise tended to be happier. I think it'd be a shame to dismiss something that has brought happiness, security etc. to millions on the basis of a few minor issues.

I guess faith and belief can be confusing to people who favour science and reason. You can't necessarily ask someone who has a strong belief in a god they have not seen to rationalise that belief with the world around them.

 

Have you considered ignoring hir?

 

Some good replies here!

 

Hmmm interesting topic...

Anyway, I don't think Christianity is necessarily 'unhealthy' to a CERTAIN extent. Any religion with a moral code and an abundance of spirituality can actually be a very healthy and satisfying life. As one mentioned before, Busshism rubs off on them as an ideal and healthy religion.

However, one can also go too far. This is where religion can become a flaw because one seems to be 'brainwashed' where they perceive religion as a literal interpretation or aspect of life.

Let's consider homosexuality in the Christian Bible. It's in the Old Testament and Paul condemns it in the New Testament. So the Bible tells us that homosexuality is a sin, right?

Well, first off, the Old Testament is a bunch of crap, if you ask me. Sure, it has a 'moral' to the story, but that's practically what the Old Testament represents: A fable or a myth. Every religion has its origins to myths and legends and how they apply to their moral beliefs where there's the typical fairy tale ending. Hell, even the Church acknowledges the fact that the Old Testament is most likely mythical, but they still value and consider the "moral lesson" behind it. Fine. Nevertheless, Christians will still refer their sources to the Old Testament as a last ditch effot for supporting their argument.

Fast-forward to the New Testament. Paul specifically condemns it in his letters. As Catholics, we believe the New Testament is more accurate since its writers are on record and Jesus is a true historical figure, right?

Sure! Hell, I definitely believe in Jesus and the basics of his moral teachings. However, flaws exists here, too. First, if you're a believer that homosexuality is wrong, look up your sources in the Gospels and you'll find out that not ONCE does Jesus condemn it. Out of all of the teachings Jesus preached, why isn't homosexuality included? Paul has it written in his letters, but why didn't the evangelists have it down in theirs if they're practically the first-hand witnesses of Jesus' life?
Maybe it's because Jesus never condemned it in the first place. Otherwise, it would be stated from Jesus' mouth as well.

No no no, but wait...Paul condemns it in his letters, though!! That means he MUST'VE said it but the evangelists just screwed up their editing or someone else did.

Well, you could say that, too...But then why would Paul condemn it and not Jesus? If you perceive this on a cultural level, society back then wasn't too fond of homosexuality, similar to how culture also degraded the role of women. In the Bible, both women and homosexuals have the lower rankings in society. In the Bible, the writers are men and society was run by men. Therefore, only their viewpoints would be considered.

And now we have Christians pulling the mechanism that homosexuality is psychologically unhealthy. After all these years of referring their sources to the literal text of the Bible, it looks like they're just looking for a more legit excuse, if you ask me. So now we have Christians teaching that there's a psychological disorder.

Hmmm....

 

Where exactly are you getting all this from logsonsticks.
I have never heard such an outrageous bunch of crazy talk.
Is there some school for insane, totally inaccurate revisiionism and total false assertions that Hipforums people attend?

Things like this: Hell, even the Church acknowledges the fact that the Old Testament is most likely mythical,

Total nonsense, this is nothing a 'real thing' happening in Churches and I cant even begin to imagine how a serious critic would even make such an outrageous claim like this.

I guess you can just say anything nowadays on the internet. Just pull anything out of the air and say it.

Seriously, you have to get SOME better information than this stuff .. i dont know who is feeding you this but seriously.

 

I'm assuming some people believe different things. I haven't gone to a ny sort of church in a long time, so I don't really know anything about the subject at hand.
Personally I believe that Christianity can be healthy and unhealthy. People that attend church on Sundays, who know their prayers and whatnot, are generally very good people.
On the other hand, there are people who preach on sidewalks, and condemn people for living the way they want to. This approach is downright rude, and annoying.
I believe that people should be able to live however they want to. If that means practicing Christianity, Hinduism, Satanism, etc. If these activities make a person feel better about themselves, then more power to them. However, I think a line should be drawn when they are harming other, verbally or physically. So overall, yes I believe Christianity is a healthy thing.

Question #2
I agree with you, Homosexual relationships are protected by the government, as they should be(If it's two consenting adults, they should be allowed to do whatever they please, as long as it isn't harming others).
I think churches and anyone for that matter should be allowed to say whatever they want. I believe in freedom of speech, and that doesn't exclude churches. Therefore, churches and other religious organizations should be allowed to conflict with the government.
The only problem I have with this, is when Religious groups are hateful towards homosexuals or other people who have "sinned" in some way. This type of attitude towards people doesn't really show the compassion that christians claim to have, and downright disrespectful.
I may not agree with their antics, but I do believe that they should be allowed to say what they please.

 

I am happy and content without christianity/religion, thank you very much. I just dismiss christianity for MYSELF. I see it as an archaic, mythical religon, but if you wan't to believe go for it, it is of no concern to me and I don't care. I won't look down on you for it, so don't think me wrong for not believing.

Faith isn't confusing to me because I favor science.

I believe the universe was created in the Big Bang and not a mytical entity snapping its fingers and POOF, everything came into existence. I believe the universe is 13 billion years old, not seven thousand years or so as some think by adding up all the begots, begets and begins in the bible.

I fully believe that there is, has been and will be, other life in the universe different than our own that exists on this one planet.

I don't believe said entity could know the hearts and minds of all who have ever been , who are or ever will be. If such a "kind and caring" entity could affect the lives of those it created, then why have diseases ? why allow children to be murdered ? war ? rape ? starvation ? oh, wait, because god doesn't interfere with humanity, it is his own destiny. yet when a natural disaster happens and someone survives because they prayed, then god answered their prayers, isn't that interference and doesn't that contridict the aforementioned "non interfence" ?

these are but a few of the questions I asked as a teen that I didn't get answers to, other than "it is gods way". what total and utter bull shit. I slammed the door shut long ago and will not open it again.