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

I'm not personally a Christian (I went to a Catholic school, after all ), and I certainly don't think you wrong for not believing. It may have been me misreading what you said. All I was saying was that, even if you subscribe to the religion, it would be wrong to dismiss the benefits that religion offers to society. Irrespective of whether its teachings are based on fact, the lessons within it have brought a stability to society which, in my opinion, would not have been present had those rules been simply presented in a demystified form. Whether or not you're a Christian, there are some teachings of the Church (and indeed pretty much every major religion) which are undeniably beneficial to the growth and stability of society.

For example:

That's from Wikipedia's entry on the Ten Commandments.

Like I said, this may all be a misunderstanding, but I've just found a lot of people are quick to dismiss religion offhand because it does not feel obliged towards proof, thereby ignoring a lot of the benefits of its teachings. I suppose no-one can prove that murder, adultery, violation of trust etc. are inherently bad things, but it's a commonly held view amongst the religious and secular alike, and that's mainly thanks to religion giving us the ideas in the first place.

 

There are so many different Christians believing so many different things that I don't think it's fair or healthy to give a yes-or-no answer. If it is a form of Christianity that is based on fear, it is not healthy. If it is a Christianity that is based on love and is willing to truly listen to and consider other points of view, it is healthy.

I really sincerely doubt that Christianity is going to die any sort of death, natural or otherwise. What is far more likely is that Christianity is going to continue to evolve. As Christians and other people grow in knowledge of themselves, their faith and the world around them, some doctrines may change. There were churches at one time that advocated slavery and used the Bible to defend it. As far as I can tell, this is a position that has either disappeared or is decidedly a minority position. It seems you are more likely to find a church that teaches racial equality and respect for *all* people.

First of all, I don't believe that homosexuality is protected by the government. The term "interests of the government" seems a bit too vague here. Same-sex relationships aren't legally recognized everywhere, and discrimination against homosexuals is legal in many places. When it comes to the church, my concern is that some doctrines may be preached in a way that may incite some people (not most, not many, but some) to discrimination or even violence against homosexuals. I don't see that as an issue of the interests of the government. I live in the USA, and like many Americans I believe in a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you incite someone else to discrimination or violence, you are acting against someone's rights. At the very least, churches should be held responsible if what is taught there leads to discrimination and violence against *any* person or group of people.

 

"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?

Excuse me Erasmus, but I've been nothing but respectful to your posts. I'd appreciate it if you have the same attitude for me.
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."

Erasmus, I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass with "outrageous" claims. I have my thoughts; I'm being practical and realistic.

C'mon, do you really think Jonah was swallowed by a whale or that the world simply began under two people, Adam and Eve?
Did Moses really split the Red Sea and did God really punish mankind with the pains of child labor and death after Adam ate the apple?

I believe in God and I can give credit to some of the more mild stories you read in the Old Testament, but most of it is rather mythical, if you ask me. When it comes to the OT, there's no telling what's true and what's false.

Look at the Greeks and their stories on how fire was made or how every animal came to existence.

Every religion or belief seems to have a lot of mythical origins to it. Catholicism is one of them.

Go to a scientist and explain to them how God made the world in seven days. I'm sure he'd prove you wrong otherwise on a scientific level.

This is what I mean by how the Old Testament is mythical and how even the Church accepts that to some extent. You need to support your facts with evidence.

For example, its a scientific fact that the world was created millions of years ago under evolution, whether or not God really exists. Nevertheless, the OT still has it's usual creation story otherwise.

Now, from what I've last heard from, The Church doesn't fully take the stories of the old Testament literally but they understand and value the "moral lesson" behind it. So on that level, it's mythical, and they even acknowledge to some of the stories as "mythical." This sounds reasonable, but on the flipside, what's the point of valuing the "moral lesson" if the story may not exactly be true?

This is what I mean where we can't take everything literally, because not everything you read from the Bible is a complete fact.

And by the way, I go to a High School Seminary...So I know the basics to Catholicism. This is just my opinion and analysis to what I have learned. It's not just some "crazy talk," sometimes you can just point out the obvious. I don't "learn" about this from the "insane" school at the HipForums.

But, I'd love to hear more from you about my replies.

 

If you go to a High School Seminary then you would know that almost all of the Old Testament is dedicated to very 'unmythical' events, geneologies, social codes and laws, historical accounts of the Israelites including wars with other tribes etc.

Otherwise, this is not the appropriate topic to be getting into yet another Evolutionism - Creationism debate.
Enough Scientists and Christians most definately do accept Genesis as a literal and scientific story but again - maybe go post that in the Cre-Evo debates up in Philosophy and Religion.

Incidently, I think its interesting (and this is relevant) to this thread and the questions asked that you did include two concepts you stand by.
- Evolutionism
- 'Liberal' or 'Higher Critisism' way of interpreting Christian Scriptures.

Im not trying to imply anything here necessarily - but only to say the person who did answer 'Yes' to the original questions in this thread also happened to be a strong believer in those two philosophies.

 

Doesn't the Old Testament also figure that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old? Presumably when God made the world he also made radio carbon-dating not work properly. For some reason.

Also, just to be a complete pedant:

I'm pretty sure that Jonah and the whale isn't even mentioned in the Bible.

 

Carbon Dating may very well 'not work properly' if the Planet was indeed the type of destruction described in Genesis.
There are no 'clocks' anyways.
I can just keep turning back my own clock to 500000Gazillion years ago.. but I doubt thats when it was created back in Taiwan?

In fact, the account of Jonah being swallowed by a 'Big Fish' is in the Old Testament.
Its presented as a real physical event and not as an allegory.
Well.. I guess if you are a follower of German Higher Critisism then it would be.

Anyways.. not to get off topic here.

 

I'd like to add that there are plenty of Christians (I know some personally) that don't believe the stories in the Bible happened literally, nor do they believe that homosexuality is a sin, nor are they against birtch control and condoms.

Christianity is not a whole, therefore I will not condemn it as a whole.

I do believe that inciting discrimination etc whether it be towards gays or others, whether it be on the basis of christianity or not, should be illegal.

 

OK, stick with me here: since Christianity (and many other religions) is based on the idea that people who abide by its rules go to Heaven and people who don't go to Hell, surely it and other religions like it are founded on a kind of discrimination? In that they directly condemn those who don't subscribe to their ideals of right and wrong.

If that's the case, and I'd be happy to be argued against on this matter, barring the preaching of discrimination could pretty much bar the preaching of religion.

I mention this because I think it's dangerous to start legislating against what people say as well as what they do.

 

But isn't christianity supposed to teach love towards EVERY ONE, even sinners?

 

In us mortals, maybe. I'm pretty sure that God and St. Peter get to do what they like.

 

You're right Erasmus, some events in the Old Testament have been proven to be true.

For example, they belief an ark was really made because they found one in Turkey and they believe a "great flood" really did exist.

However, these are simply historical accounts. And with history, people can change them into myths, too

For example, history proves that Moses did exist in like, 1500 BC or something. They have discovered that he was an asset to freeing the slaves and developing a moral code. However, history does not support what the Bible writes when it comes to splitting the Red Sea, talking to a burning bush, forming plagues, or having divine revelation with God. (Prove me wrong, otherwise) Thats the Bibles job, which is a particular religion for particular people, only. On the other hand, history tries to crack down facts on a more universal level.

I remember learing in Sophomore year about Jesus and His miracles. While Jesus is even proven to be a historical person, His miracles take it to a rather "mythical" level. For example, take the incident where He fed 400 or something people with loaves of bread and fish.

Now, the Church doesn't necessrily believe that miracles REALLY occurred under Jesus. Its the ACTION that made it "miraculous." For example, it is possible that Jesus did not feed 400 people with just 2 loaves of bread and fish. However, his action to SHARE the food as much as possible with a certain amount of people is a different story.

This is one way the Church looks at something like this...its not concrete, but its in my book.

Anyway, I don't find what I say to be completely irrelevent...Christianity has its beliefs in homosexuality because of biblical writings. This is where I simply stand in terms of my "Gay View of Traditional Christian Views." Therefore, I find it relevant to point out how the Bible can be very controversial in terms of scientific and historical facts when you take it to a literal level.

 

Supernatural events are not 'unnatural' events and its to be pointed out that the very fact they are mentioned just goes to demonstrate how unusual and truly special these events were.
The feeding of the 400 is described as a literal and real event - not an 'allegory' and its not presented as would a 'mythology' be written at all.

But anyways.. I think there is a situation where homosexuality is simply understood to be a 'negative' or 'unhealthy' behavior in all sorts of cultures, religions and throughout all the planet throughout its history.
People like to point out exception to the rule but dont even realise that 'proves the rule' so to speak.
To this day, in many cultures you could be killed for such behavior and it doesnt even have to do with a specific 'Religious law' either.
As someone once crudely put it "You would put animals to sleep if they were doing that sort of thing.. it would be considered humane since they are clearly warped in the head'.
Id say in the vast vast majority of all cultures in all of known history that kind of behavior is at least considered 'Weird'.
Even in this particular Western culture its still true.
If you were to just think about it for a bit.. probably about 30% of people in typical modern North America would say Homosexuality is an absolutely disgusting behavior.
I bet even a good percentage of them would say it should be illegal.
Now.. I think it would more than fair to say the majority of people.. say another 50% more do not think its disgusting but... if you REALLY were to get down to it most of them would find it 'wierd' or 'kinda freaky' or something they would feel very uncomfortable with.
"Not that theres anything wrong with that"
I think you have another 10% who would be so interested in totally accepting it as if it were normal and no different than anything... but.. even then they would not actually be able to have homosexual sex themselves without being very freaked out.
Even knowing two dudes were in the room beside them doing it would be a bit 'weird' for that group.
Now this is in a society that overall has made one of the most stunning acceptances of this behavior in history!

Not sure where that leaves the thread but there it is.

 

Let me straighten something out. YOU might believe that the Bible relates real events, but there are a lot of Christians who don't. I had religion classes from a CATHOLIC PRIEST (and a conservative one at that) who kept emphazising that for example Jona and the big fish, the creation of the universe and the sharing of fish and bread were moral lessons, not at all to be taken literally.

"I think you have another 10% who would be so interested in totally accepting it as if it were normal and no different than anything... but.. even then they would not actually be able to have homosexual sex themselves without being very freaked out."
Well duh! If you're not gay, then of course having gay sex will "freak you out"! Having said that, I'm sure some straight people have engaged in homosexual sex, without having been freaked out, who simply found that it wasn't "their cup of tea".

"Now this is in a society that overall has made one of the most stunning acceptances of this behavior in history!" Euhm, come again? Ever been to Europe? Northern-Western Europe to be specific? In the US, I would hate to be gay in the more rural areas. Cities are great...

Furthermore, I am deeply disturbed by your suggestion that gays are "warped" in the head.

 

The phrase "the exception that proves the rule" stems more from a weakness in scientific practise. It is a verbal mean and in no way a sound basis for a debate. Even if it were, I'd hardly call two major religions an ignorable exception.

Is there any point in trying to argue whether everything that was prudent advice millenia ago remains so today? For example, you find that eating certain foods -typically varieties of meat- is widely forbidden by religions originating in countries with hotter climates, whereas they are less common in more temperate zones. I'm going out on a limb here, but one could argue those laws were put in place because people couldn't be trusted not to give themselves food poisoning unless you put the fear of God in them, rather than because of some ineffible plan, and that now people have a greater understanding of science (although not that much greater) there is less need for them.

 

I don't think the fact that many people wouldn't engage in an act makes it morally wrong. If that were the case, it'd be wrong to read books.

 

We are not discussing empirical data but I think there is some confusion here on whats the exception (and im up wayyyy late so maybe its me)..

I suggest that Homosexuality as a socially acceptable behavior is the exception to the rule.
Im not just talking Judeo-Christian or Muslim (Abrahamic cultures) but there is all kinds of reasons to believe that it has been 'Taboo' or even downright illegal in cultures around the planet and in all times.

But.. I was making the point that you dont need to go searching through historical accounts to see this and its evident in todays societies, including even a 'secular' society like China where such a thing between two men is typically a 'nasty' activity.
Oh sure.. its not like peope are running around killing 'gays' either but just look at your own country.
Im being very conservative here when I say the good majority of people would fit in somewhere in between holding it as 'downright disgusting and an obscenity against nature' - to - 'Tolerated as long as I dont have to see it or have it in my house'.
I even suggest that the minority who do think they find it 'totally acceptable' are made up of a majority that would really be say its weird or abberant even if they do condone it.
I dont think this is an unreasonable assessment on my part at all.. I think most people will agree with that if they think about it.
In many cultures today you would be murdered (if you were lucky) just being caught doing that.
Im not saying thats a good idea - Im saying it demonstrates a worldwide, crosscultural value in humanity on this.

I honestly enjoyed that way of putting it heh.
But seriously, I have heard this argument that another more 'trivial' law somehow 'nullifies' or tempers the signifigance of another law.
That doesnt work at all.
Stealing a pack of gum is forbidden according to our lawbooks.
Murdering people is forbidden too.
Nobody says "well aha.. sure they say murder is illegal but this is a judge who also says taking a 49cent pack of gum is illegal too"

Besides.. isnt it equally valid that a Jew determines homosexuality is an abomination.
Thats his right and we should tolerate it i think.

 

How is this analogous? The law is a document deliberately designed to be as unambiguous as possible. Therefore there is no dispute over whether those things are illegal. I think I'd be putting it mildly if I said that religious texts do leave themselves open to interpretation by the individual.

And I certainly wasn't saying that the one nullifies the validity of the other, merely making the case for the constant re-examination of the way in which we conduct ourselves - the interrogation of the falsely obvious, if you will. The law is constantly being revised in keeping with social change, is it wrong to even suggest that people might do the same with their religion?

Without wishing to put words in your mouth here, but if you state that you personally consider homosexuality a bad idea because of the detrimental effects that the intolerances of society as a whole has on the health and well-being of homosexuals, then you are advocating those intolerances.

I personally believe that homophobia is very much a person's choice; people's opinions may be informed by the culture they were born into, but individuals are not Pavlov's dogs incapable of thought or action beyond their culture's norms. Therefore blaming cultural factors for people's attitudes to anything seems misguided.

Also, to avoid confusion: the religions I was referring to were Hinduism and Buddhism, both of which generally take a very relaxed attitude to homosexuality.

 

Supernatural events do occur, but on what level?

Is every supernatural event religious? We consider UFO's to be part of the supernatural, but it doesn't seem like there's a religious connection to it.

In reference to the Bible, I'm sure supernatural events have occured. Now, I'm not doubting Jesus' miracles. In fact, I feel that His miracles are probably the most realistic supernatural events that really happened in the Bible.

There are other incidents that just don't add up, and therefore ya can't take everything literally. As SelfControl previously stated, science proves that the earth was created several million years ago whereas the Bible states that it was created about 6,000 years ago under just 7 days. It doesn't add up.

Well, which is true? Could this be a miscalculation by one of the writers? I'd say so. The writers of the Bible were humans like us, too. Revelation says otherwise, but then everyone has their own level and experiences with revelation.

A priest at my school claims that he gets his jokes (and they're corny too lol) from the Holy Spirit. Now, did he really experience a divine revelation from the Holy Spirit? Probably not. Most likely, the scripture writers didn't exactly receive divine revelation themselves.

Anyway, have you ever read "Inherit the Wind?" I find the debate intriguely remarkable. It's basically science against religion, and I feel that one of the lessons in the end is that you really can't completely disregard one idea without the other. It pretty much applies to the whole idea of a Ying and Yang world.

 

Anyway, most cultures do find homosexuality rather disgusting.

This isn't surprising, because natural law states that the majority of sex and creation involves the interaction between a man and a woman. Because of natural law, civil and moral codes stemmed from it.

However, there are always scenarios that are considered to be a little bit 'unnatural.' I'm not saying that homosexuality is wrong and therefore uncalled for, but I'll give you credit, it's abnormal behavior from the basic structure of social development.

Nevertheless, there are other incidents that are 'unnatural.' What about the mentally challenged? The handicapped? The deaf? The blind? There are several conditions that have been produced on an unhealthy or natural level, too. Even society frowns upon those conditions and perceive them as lepers. But does that make it right?

 

Inherit the Wind is a flagrant Propaganda piece that would easily rival those 'Hitler Youth' propaganda films in the 40s.
The movie is absolutely fascinating to watch for that very reason alone.
Just the fact they duped anyone into the false dichotemy of 'Science versus Religion' (a phrase STILL used by media everywhere) says a LOT about what they achieved with the 'mock' trial which served as the script.

Re: Homosexuality being considered a disfuntion, illness and something comparable to mental retardation or deafness etc.
I think you get into a dividing line between those who would see homosexual behavior like a 'mental sickness' or those who see it as a lust.
I think you see both of those getting bandied about and I can see why society would frown on it as a sexual lust/fetish being indulged in.
IF you are going to see it as a mental condition.. like a sickness like mental retardation then how can you blame them either?

I can say this though - if you ask me there is no room for anyone to be 'hating' anyone anymore than you need to 'hate alcoholics' - a behavior which has certainly led to more pain and despair than anything else.
But you dont 'hate' alcoholics and hopefully you do things like start ministries to go and help them help themselves get back up.

Im not so sure if 'frowning' upon things is so bad.. if its a sincere 'frowning' anyways?
Maybe we should be 'frowning' at Christina Aguillera for shoving her greased up crotch at teenagers and pumping on dildo like objects while groaning 'wanna get dirtay' over and over.
Didnt say stop her - but surely a good frowning is called for here?