Gays & Religion

[wolfgirl]

I note that some people will make a comment like "Religon is nothing but a tool for building armies."

This, in my opinion, is no different than a comment such as "Atheists are nothing but a bunch of immoral sadistic people."

Its nothing more than prejudiced insult.

There IS a difference.

The first one is an argument against religion, not against individual followers. It doesn't claim that the people who follow the religion are bad in any way; it's the institution of religion that is being attacked. (It's actually,to me, kind of in sympathy with those who are held in its thrall.)

The second one is an attack against atheists. (Note: since there is no organized institution of atheism, it cannot be attacked in precisely the same way.)

Just my viewpoint.

And, by the way, it's great to be back!

 

[Fade]

Wolfgirl:

That's pretty much correct.


Also, the arguments against homosexuality stemming from the Bible ought to only apply to the Jews. It was always my understanding that when Jesus came to Earth, he made an entirely new covenant. The history in the OT is supposed to be canoniacal, but the only biblical laws christians are supposed to follow are contained in the NT.

Is this accurate, or did I completely misunderstand what preachers have been telling me?

 

[ImpyTimpy]

That's correct, however there are homosexual references in the new testament if I remember correctly. They're buried somewhere in John I think. There are also other bizarre rules in the new testament but nobody seems to pay attention to those...

Wolfgirl:

That's pretty much correct.


Also, the arguments against homosexuality stemming from the Bible ought to only apply to the Jews. It was always my understanding that when Jesus came to Earth, he made an entirely new covenant. The history in the OT is supposed to be canoniacal, but the only biblical laws christians are supposed to follow are contained in the NT.

Is this accurate, or did I completely misunderstand what preachers have been telling me?

 

[Fade]

That's correct, however there are homosexual references in the new testament if I remember correctly. They're buried somewhere in John I think. There are also other bizarre rules in the new testament but nobody seems to pay attention to those...

That's what I thought. And, considering Jesus was supposed to be about love and acceptance, the hell-fire and brimstone shouldn't apply.

 

[Pahansiri]

Wolfgirl:

That's pretty much correct.


Also, the arguments against homosexuality stemming from the Bible ought to only apply to the Jews. It was always my understanding that when Jesus came to Earth, he made an entirely new covenant. The history in the OT is supposed to be canoniacal, but the only biblical laws christians are supposed to follow are contained in the NT.

Is this accurate, or did I completely misunderstand what preachers have been telling me?

Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus says he comes not to abolish but to fulfill "the law and the prophets".

 

[Finella]

Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus says he comes not to abolish but to fulfill "the law and the prophets".

I refer you all again to the link I posted in my last post; the article actually makes the case that the homosexual references are as strident in the NT as in the OT, and to argue that Jesus did away with the old Hebraic code was actually not going to take care of these NT references. Thus, the article says, one has to look at the cultural context of these sexual directives and realize that, since even the most fundamentalist of Christians does not follow all of the commands in the Bible, we are all picking and choosing anyway. So how to decide? Read the article.



---,---'--{@

 

[Roadtoad]

I would have said "Judeaism." I mean, Ruth is so ashamed of her barreness she sends her handmaids to sleep with her husband. Tell me, how many wives would do that with a little shunning and persecution?

Uh, Yahzi, I think you mean Rachel, not Ruth.

Facts, Amigo. Facts.

 

[Roadtoad]

Finella, I think what you're looking at, (Paul's Letter to the Romans), pretty solidly condemns ALL extramarital sex. Forgive my terminology here, but homosexuality, as an issue, is "sexier" than simple adultery between a man and a woman. It's more "shocking" in the context of the discussion.

Truth to tell, what I've found is that the punishment for sex outside of marriage in the Bible is pretty harsh no matter who is involved.

And yes, my wife and I did the "Wild Thing" before we got married. And, yes, we'd have probably done better if we hadn't. Just a thought.

(BTW: Why do most gays that I know have a better relationship with God than I do? )

 

[Pahansiri]

Greetings Finella.


I am not sure if you addressing me or my post as your post seem irrelevant to what I have said. I do not argue that Jesus did away with the old Hebraic code, my point was many Christian friends will say this when addressed with such things as I posted above. I am not Christian and while I respect their and all peoples right to beliefs I do not a argue that Jesus this or that as a fact that would be based in that this being ever existed. While such a being as a model may have lived it is not my belief the Bible tells his story in a factual way.


You write

Thus, the article says, one has to look at the cultural context of these sexual directives and realize that, since even the most fundamentalist of Christians does not follow all of the commands in the Bible,…. picking and choosing

That was the point of my first post, it is easy for many to attack something that they may not do personaly but pass over things they do even if the Bible say not to.

I believe there are many, many people who “think” homosexuality is a sinful perversion,” until they are looking into the eyes of their child as they are told the child is gay. When it has a face, and that face is that of your child, it becomes real and no longer “sinful perversion”. This is the same with war. It is easy to think of others as the “enemy” when they remain faceless, but if we seen them as people, husbands, fathers etc or seen their children’s faces as they cry for the loss of dad, could we still care so little.

 

[Finella]

Greetings Finella.

Greetings Pahansiri!

I do not at all disagree with what you posted -- my reply was to add an addendum to it in order to urge people to read the article, since I found it very interesting. I think you will find it interesting as well. I agree with you, too, that the Bible is not necessarily a factual account of Jesus' teaching. And in regard to this issue, Jesus himself has never had any anti-homosexual statements attributed to him anyway.


Here it is again.

---,---'--{@

 

[Roadtoad]

Let me ask another question:

(1.) (Bear in mind, I've asked this at churches I've attended, and gotten some very weird looks.) If you get to heaven, (and note, I have said if!), and you discover that God has allowed Gays into His presence, what are you going to do: LEAVE?

(2.) What is the criteria for anyone's entry into Heaven in the first place?

If I had to guess, and base this solely on behavior alone, I've found there are more Gays and Lesbians who would be welcomed into God's presence than many Christians. Considering your actions declare your faith, I'd say Pat Robertson, False Prophet of 1988, really has no faith in anything.

Just a thought.

 

[Peskanov]

Finella;
-----
Here it is again.
-----

Ok, I read it.

Fast summary:
1.-Bible's judgement about sex matters is wrong.

Ok; most people here agree about that. The bible is wrong about nearly everything, so?

2.- We must love everybody.

Do you need the bible for that? No.
Does the bible tell us to love everybody? No. And yes. The bible tells to hate the sinner, and to love the sinner, and any other message you can imagine.

Really, I am unable to get any clear message from the bible (universal love included), and the same applies to your link.
When you acknowledge the human nature of the bible, when you see it's brutal misjudgements...why do you still regard it as a moral guide?