Religion and homosexuality?

[DC_DEEP]

Avalonlovelove, you have a lot of good things to say, but your posts are difficult and exhausting to read.

babybooboo100, same with yours.iappreciateyourclarificationonthetranslations
butthelackofpunctuationandcapitalizationjustreallytakes
muchofthestrengthoutofyourwordsifyoubothwouldjusttake
acoupleofsecondstoputspacesaftereachperiodusecommasandcapitalizethe
beginningofeachsentenceitwouldmakeitmucheasieronusoldfolks.

 

[babybooboo100]

i can only think of one response its just two words......IS THAT SHORT ENOUGH FOR YOU DC??????????????

 

[avalonlovelove]

Amen sister.

 

[avalonlovelove]

Once again people there is such a thing as manners and I am writing to the best of my ability.This is not a group called grammer police so please understand that.By the way you are not old age is nothing but a number. We are all young at heart no matter how old we get.:smile: :veryhappy:

 

[Instinctual Lover]

go to ffrf.org/quiz/bquiz.php

it is a great site and a great quiz for those of you who think you know the bible.

religion = mind control

 

[avalonlovelove]

nothing

 

[Corius]

When one really becomes acquainted with the Bible one is less likely to assume that the whole of the intention of the Almighty for human beings is summed up in it's pages. I am pleased that my dnomination is around to declare that 'GOD IS STILL SPEAKING.

The whole of the requirements placed on human beings is not that daunting, except, of course, when one attempts to live it. Life situations change and the best commands are those which are general in nature. I doesn't really matter what your sexual orientation may be, according to Micah 6:8 God requires of all that they do justly, love kindness, and walk humbly. Or we might put it: BE FAIR, BE KIND, AND ALWAYS REMEMBER, YOU COULD BE WRONG, YOU ARE HUMAN; YOU ARE NOT GOD.

When we get to the teaching of Jesus we find that he says we are to LOVE GOD WITH HEART, SOUL, AND MIND, and LOVE NEIGHBOR AS ONE LOVES ONESELF. My mind suggests to me that what some folks heard God commanding thousands of years ago will not be what my mind tells me God is expecting of us in our time. Time does make some ancient truth(?) uncouth.

I haven't arrived at the point where I can claim to know the mind of God. I'm pleased every Sunday when the minister's words of welcome conclude with NO MATTER WHO, NO MATTER WHAT, NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE ON LIFE'S JOURNEY, YOU ARE INVITED AND WELCOME HERE! And, yes, that is truly meant. I like the "mix" that our open and affirming stance brings to our fellowship.

 

[avalonlovelove]

Once again people there is such a thing as manners and I will write however I choose.This is not a group called grammar police so please get over it.

Ignore this post I wrote this previously sorry for the impoliteness.:biggrin1:

 

[Instinctual Lover]

Sorry about that. go to Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.
You will find a quiz on that page and lots of interesting information. I always find it so amusing when people quote the bible to prove a point.

 

[Instinctual Lover]

hmmm wonder why that happened. it is ffrf. org

 

[DC_DEEP]

avalonlovelove, my apologies to you. I did not intend to come across as the grammar police; I simply wanted to tell you that you seem to have great ideas that are not presented as well or as clearly as they should. I did my very best to make that clear; I did my very best to make sure that I presented it as a friendly suggestion rather than a grammar lesson. I failed.

babybooboo100, I'm sorry you have so much rage. Feel free to vent on me if it makes you feel better.

 

[Osiris]

Ignore this post I wrote this previously sorry for the impoliteness.:biggrin1:

Aw crap! I was just going to apply for Grammar Cop. Is there a position for Detective of Spelling I could get? :biggrin1:

I like your posts Avalon. Thanks!

 

[avalonlovelove]

I meant you no offense DC so please don't take it that way.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I meant you no offense DC so please don't take it that way.

You didn't offend me. :biggrin1:

 

[fortiesfun]

Your post presupposes that sexual orientation can be chosen.

If someone is essentially bisexual, it makes sense that they could "choose" to be only with one gender or the other (whatever you or I might think of their reasons for doing so).

Well, not quite, or at least not in the sense you are proposing. Bisexuals can choose not to have sex with one gender or another, but it is no easier for them than it is for monosexuals to choose to go celibate. One type of desire doesn't directly substitute for another. (If it did, given the discrimination all sexual minorities face, why wouldn't they just go "str8"? The answer, of course, is that they are bi-sexual, wanting and needing both.)

A religious friend of mine pointed out some scripture, in the book of Romans, and showed me where in that book that homosexual acts are sinful.

I think you might re-read that passage for yourself:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

It is not an easy passage to decipher, but anyone reading it can tell it is the past tense, and not an instruction about the future at all. (Most scholars paraphrase what it says as promiscuous people tended to get venereal diseases. What it absolutely DOESN'T say is that homosexuals are a special and separate class of human being and they are to be condemned.)

What seems missing from this debate so far is much sense that there are plenty of Christians out there who can and do interpret the Bible in pro-gay ways. As I have said many times in these pages, to little effect, is that Christianity is not the same thing as Fundamentalism. There certainly are large numbers of right wing crazies in Christian Churches who are unbearable bigots toward gay people (and many others as well) but they are not speaking for all of us. (There are plenty of homophobic athiests, also, and we can all agree, can't we, that they don't speak for all non-believers.)

 

[Matthew]

Well, not quite, or at least not in the sense you are proposing. Bisexuals can choose not to have sex with one gender or another, but it is no easier for them than it is for monosexuals to choose to go celibate. One type of desire doesn't directly substitute for another. (If it did, given the discrimination all sexual minorities face, why wouldn't they just go "str8"? The answer, of course, is that they are bi-sexual, wanting and needing both.)

Hmmm ... my remarks were shaped to respond to benderten, fruitless as that may have been. Not sure where you got the celibacy part from; it seems like monogamy is the issue here more than celibacy. And although I do see what you mean when you say that "one type of desire doesn't directly substitute for another," plenty of bisexuals in fact DO "go str8" -- and in many cases I would guess that IS related to the "discrimination all sexual minorities face."

I'm disturbed that you seemed to miss the entire point of my post: That some of us, no matter how hard we wish we could (or don't), CANNOT be attracted to a person of the "opposite" gender, or of the same gender, as the case may be. And it's precisely that fact that the ex-gay movement stubbornly refuses to accept, since it unravels the very basis for their existence.

 

[whatireallywant]

Well, not quite, or at least not in the sense you are proposing. Bisexuals can choose not to have sex with one gender or another, but it is no easier for them than it is for monosexuals to choose to go celibate. One type of desire doesn't directly substitute for another. (If it did, given the discrimination all sexual minorities face, why wouldn't they just go "str8"? The answer, of course, is that they are bi-sexual, wanting and needing both.)

I think you might re-read that passage for yourself:



It is not an easy passage to decipher, but anyone reading it can tell it is the past tense, and not an instruction about the future at all. (Most scholars paraphrase what it says as promiscuous people tended to get venereal diseases. What it absolutely DOESN'T say is that homosexuals are a special and separate class of human being and they are to be condemned.)

What seems missing from this debate so far is much sense that there are plenty of Christians out there who can and do interpret the Bible in pro-gay ways. As I have said many times in these pages, to little effect, is that Christianity is not the same thing as Fundamentalism. There certainly are large numbers of right wing crazies in Christian Churches who are unbearable bigots toward gay people (and many others as well) but they are not speaking for all of us. (There are plenty of homophobic athiests, also, and we can all agree, can't we, that they don't speak for all non-believers.)

I have come around to this and am more at peace, probably happier.

I grew up going to the fundamentalist, anti-gay, anti-woman type churches, and quit really more over the anti-woman part than the anti-gay part (although I was not homophobic - years of being bullied for being a "gender rebel" made me relate well with gays and I think most of my friends in my younger days were gay men.) For a long time I was very anti-religion because of this. However, I do know now that many Christians and other religions are not like the fundamentalists you hear about. Now I don't think it's just a media thing about that - my extended family are mostly fundamentalists so I grew up with all that!

I've also known homophobic and sexist atheists as well... I'd prefer a tolerant Christian any day!

 

[D_Bartasiah Candlestick]

Religion is the true root of all evil on this planet - a fact! We have terrorists murdering people in NY in the name of Allah, we have the Moral Majority in the US and their best buddy Dubya mixing politics with religion. The problem with the bible is it was written over 1000years after Christ died so its hardly an accurate account, in fact I think the stories told by JK Rowling are probably less fictional that the bible.

So homosexuality is a crime huh? Whatever happened to these gems from the bible that are ignored and just goes to show you that those of small-minds pick and choose what to believe in from the bible. Here goes...

When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:


When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?


I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?


I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.


Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?


I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?


A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?


Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?


Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?


I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?


My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Surely it is not for mankind to decide if gay people go to hell, if such a place even exisits, but surely it's god's duty ... that is if he even exists.

 

[BIGBULL29]

I've also known homophobic and sexist atheists as well... I'd prefer a tolerant Christian any day!

Absolutely!

There are plenty of Catholic/Buddhist monks who would show much more loving compassion to a homeless gay man dying of AIDS than your typical SUV lovin', college-sport lovin', flag-flyin', all-is-perfect American family.

Yes, there are plenty of non-religious people who would love to verbally (and possibly physically) bash gays and lesbians. Even though there are plenty of frightening Christian fundamentalists among us, never forget those Christians who have sacrificed their lives throughout the ages to love those who were despised among men.
:wink:

 

[DC_DEEP]

There are plenty of Catholic/Buddhist monks who would show much more loving compassion to a homeless gay man dying of AIDS than your typical SUV lovin', college-sport lovin', flag-flyin', all-is-perfect American family.

Yes, there are plenty of non-religious people who would love to verbally (and possibly physically) bash gays and lesbians.

Exactly true. What I have noticed is that the ones that a particular group loves to loathe are the screaming left-field minorities. (Wow, that didn't sound the way I wanted it to...)

Among the "religious" types, it's only a very small, but very loud minority that crusades against homosexuality. And among the gays, it's only the very small, but very flamboyant minority that inspires such vitriol among the religious queer-haters. The Truman Capote types and Jack (from Will & Grace) types are no more representative of gays in general, than the Fred Phelps types and Jerry Falwell types are representative of religious folks in general.