Gay Rights in Churches

[Calibrate]

To some extent yes. Discriminating on the basis of skin colour is very similar to discriminating on the basis of sexuality.

To be purely reasonable here (no personal morals involved in this sentence): Being born with a certain skin colour and not following the "norm" when it comes to sexuality are two very different things.
But I see what you mean. Feelings can't be controlled. Being born with a certain skin color can't be controlled.

 

[JoshCube2]

Churches allowing gays enter their congregations is nothing but self contradiction. This is why religion has a reputation where it is adopted by nut cases.

 

[Linnc]

I'm not Christian but I feel they should not judge......

 

[L9999]

He also instructs us to preach against sin.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Many Christians, most especially the super conservative right-winged bigoted ones, really have no clue what Christ and his teachings were about.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Many Christians, most especially the super conservative right-winged bigoted ones, really have no clue what Christ and his teachings were about.

But biblically, they're not wrong. The bible says "love thy neighbor". It also says, very clearly, that homosexuality is a sin, and that sodomy is awful, in both the new and old testaments. It also says to cast the sinful among you out, and not to walk among the sinners. This idea that Christianity is some nice, reformed religion, and that these conservatives have it all wrong... No, I'm sorry, that's biblically untenable. Their interpretation is entirely valid.

 

[Claire Diviner]

But biblically, they're not wrong. The bible says "love thy neighbor". It also says, very clearly, that homosexuality is a sin, and that sodomy is awful, in both the new and old testaments. It also says to cast the sinful among you out, and not to walk among the sinners. This idea that Christianity is some nice, reformed religion, and that these conservatives have it all wrong... No, I'm sorry, that's biblically untenable. Their interpretation is entirely valid.

Here's a video I've seen through its entirety some months ago. It's an hour long, but if you're willing to watch it, it could help bring about a different perspective. That, or you could simply call the man a sad hopeful with a misplaced sense of faith in his religion being about love. Take it how you will.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Here's a video I've seen through its entirety some months ago. It's an hour long, but if you're willing to watch it, it could help bring about a different perspective. That, or you could simply call the man a sad hopeful with a misplaced sense of faith in his religion being about love. Take it how you will.

Yeah, it's an hour-long video trying to offer a radically alternative view of the bible that I'm not sure can be defended. Got the Cliff's Notes version?

 

[Claire Diviner]

Yeah, it's an hour-long video trying to offer a radically alternative view of the bible that I'm not sure can be defended. Got the Cliff's Notes version?

To be as simple as possible, Christ, according to the bible, died to render the old laws, including those in the book of Leviticus, void. Yet, despite those laws being void, and despite modern Christians having banished laws forbidding wearing two fabrics, tattoos, blah blah blah, they still focus on the homosexuality thing. If this tells me anything, it's that Christians aren't exactly following Christ, but following the other religions and laws mentioned in the bible that precedes him. That, and religion, especially the Catholic church, appears to be the most obsessed with sex, what with 90% of their efforts going into the oppression of LGBT rights alone. I don't blame the religion more than I blame the religious leaders who twisted and warped the views of said religion.

 

[..uuuuu.....]

hmm, i used to be anti-gay, but then realized i was discriminating agaisnt human beings,

so since God made all human beings i had to rethink my ways,

so i decided that i was agaisnt the condition, if you will, not the people with it,

since God gave us free will, do we have the rights to take that away from others?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

To be as simple as possible, Christ, according to the bible, died to render the old laws, including those in the book of Leviticus, void. Yet, despite those laws being void, and despite modern Christians having banished laws forbidding wearing two fabrics, tattoos, blah blah blah, they still focus on the homosexuality thing. If this tells me anything, it's that Christians aren't exactly following Christ, but following the other religions and laws mentioned in the bible that precedes him. That, and religion, especially the Catholic church, appears to be the most obsessed with sex, what with 90% of their efforts going into the oppression of LGBT rights alone. I don't blame the religion more than I blame the religious leaders who twisted and warped the views of said religion.

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

1 Timothy 1:8–11

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Not only is the idea that Old Testament Law can be thrown out wholesale not really tenable in its own right (now there's a discussion I'm not quite equipped to get into), but the New Testament is pretty explicit about its rejection of homosexuality.

 

[..uuuuu.....]

1 Timothy 1:8–11



1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Not only is the idea that Old Testament Law can be thrown out wholesale not really tenable in its own right (now there's a discussion I'm not quite equipped to get into), but the New Testament is pretty explicit about its rejection of homosexuality.

On the Old Testament
we cannot use the Old Testament as a basis for our Christian walk,

the Old Testament is more like the trials and tribulations and histories of our anscetors.

Conflictions
many ways of the Old Testament and New Testament conflict,

the Bible contadicts itself.

 

[Claire Diviner]

so i decided that i was agaisnt the condition, if you will, not the people with it,

since God gave us free will, do we have the rights to take that away from others?

That's still technically anti-gay. Your question implies that people have the free will to be homosexual, bisexual, anything-that-isn't-heterosexual. This isn't true, as people aren't taught to be gay, nor do they choose to be gay. Homosexuality is something that is ingrained into their minds from birth.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/261/5119/321.abstract

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...22/AR2008062201994_2.html?sid=ST2008062202006

1 Timothy 1:8–11



1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Not only is the idea that Old Testament Law can be thrown out wholesale not really tenable in its own right (now there's a discussion I'm not quite equipped to get into), but the New Testament is pretty explicit about its rejection of homosexuality.

I understand that much, but did Christ say anything damning homosexuality? Get me something concrete, and I'll toss any wishful thinking I've had for Christianity's true intentions/teachings.

 

[..uuuuu.....]

ohoh. so you are one of those "you are born gay!" activists.

 

[Claire Diviner]

ohoh. so you are one of those "you are born gay!" activists.

Please, do not entertain the idea of bringing about ad hominem into this debate. I, as well as others, had to deal with that nonsense before. Just state your case, use citations if needed (preferably unbiased sources), and debate away.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

On the Old Testament
we cannot use the Old Testament as a basis for our Christian walk,

the Old Testament is more like the trials and tribulations and histories of our anscetors.

Conflictions
many ways of the Old Testament and New Testament conflict,

the Bible contadicts itself.

I'm well aware of this. I reject the bible outright as a source of any moral or factual guideline.

I understand that much, but did Christ say anything damning homosexuality? Get me something concrete, and I'll toss any wishful thinking I've had for Christianity's true intentions/teachings.

Seems like a bit of a cop-out to only accept lines straight from Jesus himself as valid biblical doctrine.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Seems like a bit of a cop-out to only accept lines straight from Jesus himself as valid biblical doctrine.

Not necessarily biblical doctrine, more than teachings by him, which is what Christians need to focus on. Instead, they focus on everything else, which technically speaking, goes against their own religion, and as I've said, I blame the religious leaders who marred the religion with their nonsense. Remember The Crusades? I'm willing to bet Christ never said "Thou shalt slaughter millions in my name if they don't follow me."

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Not necessarily biblical doctrine, more than teachings by him, which is what Christians need to focus on. Instead, they focus on everything else, which technically speaking, goes against their own religion, and as I've said, I blame the religious leaders who marred the religion with their nonsense. Remember The Crusades? I'm willing to bet Christ never said "Thou shalt slaughter millions in my name if they don't follow me."

@ Dre89 I remember you having some interesting things to say on the topic of church doctrine vs. "Just follow Christ's teachings" that may be germane to this discussion.

 

[..uuuuu.....]

Please, do not entertain the idea of bringing about ad hominem into this debate. I, as well as others, had to deal with that nonsense before. Just state your case, use citations if needed (preferably unbiased sources), and debate away.

sorry,
my bad.

 

[Claire Diviner]

@ Dre89 I remember you having some interesting things to say on the topic of church doctrine vs. "Just follow Christ's teachings" that may be germane to this discussion.

I'd love to see what Dre89 has to say. It could very well broaden some of my views. It's not often I get this optimistic over a debate.

 

[..uuuuu.....]

Not necessarily biblical doctrine, more than teachings by him, which is what Christians need to focus on. Instead, they focus on everything else, which technically speaking, goes against their own religion, and as I've said, I blame the religious leaders who marred the religion with their nonsense. Remember The Crusades? I'm willing to bet Christ never said "Thou shalt slaughter millions in my name if they don't follow me."

i forget,
this is Old Testament right?

 

[Claire Diviner]

i forget,
this is Old Testament right?

We're actually talking about the bible as a whole, but as far as Christ alone is concerned, it's in the New Testament.

 

[..uuuuu.....]

We're actually talking about the bible as a whole, but as far as Christ alone is concerned, it's in the New Testament.

you cant.

God specified the use of New Testament for Christians.

 

[Claire Diviner]

you cant.

God specified the use of New Testament for Christians.

Yet, there are Christians who are constantly using verses and stories from the Old Testament to try and further their points, including The Ten Commandments, Leviticus (mostly for their anti-LGBT arguments), and others.

 

[..uuuuu.....]

Yet, there are Christians who are constantly using verses and stories from the Old Testament to try and further their points, including The Ten Commandments, Leviticus (mostly for their anti-LGBT arguments), and others.

i dont understand,

do you mean to scorn these certain Christians,

or to challenge what I said.?

or,

are you merely making a statement.

 

[Claire Diviner]

i dont understand,

do you mean to scorn these certain Christians,

or to challenge what I said.?

or,

are you merely making a statement.

Both a counter-argument (or "challenge" as you put it) to what you said and a mere statement. As far as scorning them goes, I can care less.

 

[Sucumbio]

@ Dre89 I remember you having some interesting things to say on the topic of church doctrine vs. "Just follow Christ's teachings" that may be germane to this discussion.

Dre... Wow hahah that dude we went around sometimes but he had a tendency to pick sides that require the position to be full of ridicule. His relationship to the forum was tedious and in hindsight he angered a Lotta posters but it was never boring lol.

Sophistry, logical fallacy, concerned trolling... Seems to be the best descriptive words for god-centric arguments. Nicholas is a dh member iirc and far less annoying than dre.

 

[_Keno_]

Yet, there are Christians who are constantly using verses and stories from the Old Testament to try and further their points, including The Ten Commandments, Leviticus (mostly for their anti-LGBT arguments), and others.

It doesn't matter either way. The major interpretation is that God's morality is universal and unchanging. Once homosexuality and sodomy were deemed a sin, they simply are forever. You would have to redefine the whole of Christianity to say otherwise (this goes for other sins, etc). Christ doesn't change that.

Besides, Jesus didn't talk about a lot of stuff, so it's kind of difficult to sustain an entire moral system without largely filling in the gaps yourself or from the Old Testament.

 

[Claire Diviner]

It doesn't matter either way. The major interpretation is that God's morality is universal and unchanging. Once homosexuality and sodomy were deemed a sin, they simply are forever. You would have to redefine the whole of Christianity to say otherwise (this goes for other sins, etc). Christ doesn't change that.

I suppose in hindsight, religion of any kind won't change once something has been set.

I guess Buddhism is an exception, if the words of the Dalai Lama are anything to go by.

Besides, Jesus didn't talk about a lot of stuff, so it's kind of difficult to sustain an entire moral system without largely filling in the gaps yourself or from the Old Testament.

True enough. Anything we can say concerning Christ's thoughts are speculation at best. Still, it is said that just believing in him is enough to get one into heaven, since any sin mankind commits are forgiven through him. I can elaborate my point further, if I must, but that will have to wait, as I'm with some house guests at the moment... And I'd rather use my laptop than my phone.

In the end, I believe all current religions will suffer the same fate as previous religions that we now call mythology, from Greek to Norse mythology. They've given way to the what we have now, so it would stand to reason to predict that generations from now, we'll have Christian mythology, Islamic mythology, etc. Nothing truly lasts forever.

 

[..uuuuu.....]

sophistry,

and logical fallacy-

mean the same thing.

 

[..uuuuu.....]

I suppose in hindsight, religion of any kind won't change once something has been set.

I guess Buddhism is an exception, if the words of the Dalai Lama are anything to go by.

True enough. Anything we can say concerning Christ's thoughts are speculation at best. Still, it is said that just believing in him is enough to get one into heaven, since any sin mankind commits are forgiven through him. I can elaborate my point further, if I must, but that will have to wait, as I'm with some house guests at the moment... And I'd rather use my laptop than my phone.

In the end, I believe all current religions will suffer the same fate as previous religions that we now call mythology, from Greek to Norse mythology. They've given way to the what we have now, so it would stand to reason to predict that generations from now, we'll have Christian mythology, Islamic mythology, etc. Nothing truly lasts forever.

ah.
i need to study more religions ,

then agai-

i dont really study .

 

[Sucumbio]

try not to double post pls.

They're not precisely the same thing. Sophistry is more deceptively wording your argument to sound so convincing that you can't tell the argument really said nothing. Logical Fallacies are a broad category of argument types that sound good on the surface but when thought out to their logical conclusions end up totally wrong. So I suppose a sophist must employ logical fallacies in order to perform, but not necessarily. This paragraph for instance, would be mistaken as sophistry by hot-headed types who prefer to just be right and done with it instead of someone tapping their shoulder and whispering "hey, buddy... yeah, um... I dunno how to tell you this, but... you're WRONG."

Yah.

So where's what's his face's rebuttal? He swore to me he wasn't trolling, so... >.>;

 

[..uuuuu.....]

ok..

you prove nothing (?)

 

[Sucumbio]

Normally. If a sophist wins it means the other side didn't catch the loophole. Bringing this back OT, most God centric arguments rely heavily on positions that are seemingly iron clad, but ALL devolve into Belief. Since this forum is meant to look at world policies through forensics, among other things, any argument devolving into because Faith is pretty much chopped. And rightly so, until we can venture further into the unknown we have to keep asking questions, not accepting answers that tell us to look no further.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

When it comes down to it, Christianity is all about love. Loving your neighbors, loving your enemies, loving your God. Yeah there's some other stuff in the book, but that's the main point. God also says in the Bible, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Meaning, let he who is pure make the judgement. No one is pure or without sin, other than God himself. God doesn't want discrimination among people, nor does he want people to judge what is right or wrong, only him. To deny a gay service to a church would be against God's word. (Also, the Bible seems to make more remarks against shrimp than it does against gays).

 

[Sehnsucht]

Whether any religion chooses to recognize LGBTQ rights is their business. Religion is in its essence a voluntary enterprise. Usually, one becomes a member because they choose to. As such, if you don't like how things are done, you don't have to remain a member of the institution***.

So, if a church doesn't wish to conduct marriages between same-sex couples, so be it. Same if they do want to allow it. If a same-sex couple wants to be married, but a given church doesn't want to conduct their marriage, the couple can take their business elsewhere.

I do think, though, that denying same-sex couples the opportunity to be married -- on a civil, legal, and cultural basis -- is unethical on principle. Marriages between any consenting persons ought to be permissible and available. Whether one wants to add a spiritual layer to the marital process is up to them, though a religious institution that does allow such unions is ethically preferable to one that doesn't, even though I would not seek to strip these institutions of their right to deny such unions (though I will shake my head at it).

***Of course, things like indoctrination and social pressures and obligations -- as well as the fear of social consequences and stigma due to leaving religion -- will influence why a person will want to remain a member, even if they harbour a desire to leave. Unless one is being coerced into staying, though, it remains that one is free to leave, even if it does incur these consequences and stigmas.

 

[Claire Diviner]

***Of course, things like indoctrination and social pressures and obligations -- as well as the fear of social consequences and stigma due to leaving religion -- will influence why a person will want to remain a member, even if they harbour a desire to leave. Unless one is being coerced into staying, though, it remains that one is free to leave, even if it does incur these consequences and stigmas.

I left the Christian religion, and I'm all the better as a result.

 

[Sehnsucht]

I left the Christian religion, and I'm all the better as a result.

I'm certainly glad that your life has improved. Not to pry or anything, but since it's relevant to my footnote, how easy was it to transition to life beyond Christianity and its religious institution? Did you experience any of the things I listed (i.e. indoctrination, social pressures, fear of apostate stigma) that made you hesitant to actually cut your ties with the religion, despite desires to leave?

Answer to whatever extent you wish, or feel comfortable with. Just interested in how desire conflicts with expectations of conformity. If homosexuality were not so disavowed in most Christian denominations, I imagine that we would be seeing a lot more openly gay Christians, who are currently closeted as a result of pressures to conform with the presiding heteronormative climate.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I'm certainly glad that your life has improved. Not to pry or anything, but since it's relevant to my footnote, how easy was it to transition to life beyond Christianity and its religious institution? Did you experience any of the things I listed (i.e. indoctrination, social pressures, fear of apostate stigma) that made you hesitant to actually cut your ties with the religion, despite desires to leave?

Answer to whatever extent you wish, or feel comfortable with. Just interested in how desire conflicts with expectations of conformity. If homosexuality were not so disavowed in most Christian denominations, I imagine that we would be seeing a lot more openly gay Christians, who are currently closeted as a result of pressures to conform with the presiding heteronormative climate.

It was very easy. Though I never directly told my family or my church, they had already known and accepted that fact. They never pressured me or anything. Then again, my church in particular was the kind that accepted all people without judgment, so I suppose I was very fortunate in that regard. I also hail from Massachusetts, which is a liberal state with strong LGBT protection laws.

So why did I leave the Christian faith? Mostly because of all the negativity I've seen in media and in other churches I've visited, as well as religious people I've met. On top of that, science and my fascination in such a subject, combined with the fact that there exists many religions that swear up and down that theirs is the true religion, has led me to believe that religion is a man-made construct created years ago to try and explain what science couldn't at the time, such as the sun's existence, or why there are stars, etc.

 

[Sehnsucht]

It was very easy. Though I never directly told my family or my church, they had already known and accepted that fact. They never pressured me or anything. Then again, my church in particular was the kind that accepted all people without judgment, so I suppose I was very fortunate in that regard. I also hail from Massachusetts, which is a liberal state with strong LGBT protection laws.

So why did I leave the Christian faith? Mostly because of all the negativity I've seen in media and in other churches I've visited, as well as religious people I've met. On top of that, science and my fascination in such a subject, combined with the fact that there exists many religions that swear up and down that theirs is the true religion, has led me to believe that religion is a man-made construct created years ago to try and explain what science couldn't at the time, such as the sun's existence, or why there are stars, etc.

Cool beans.

With that, back to the topic of whether churches should allow gay unions. I've said my peace, so I'm out.

:upupandaway: