Rosenskjold
Member
I've read the Bible, which is why I don't believe in him.
Really, you've read the whole bible?
I've read the Bible, which is why I don't believe in him.
If your "preference" is against race-mixing that's bigotry. Seems to me the same logic should apply to a "preference" against gay-mixing.
Really, you've read the whole bible?
People who think ministers are going to be forced to marry gay couples are buying into some Fox News bullshit. A church can (and does) refuse to marry anyone they want. I know of people who have been turned away because their marriage counseling sessions revealed the relationship to be toxic (a far better reason than being gay to turn someone down, IMO).
Essentially you have a group of some (not all Christians) that still hold onto a narrative that America is a "Christian" nation. They perceive all of our "success" and "wealth" as a blessing for being "following God."
I think for a lot of these people this ruling pulled the rug out from under their idealized America. They perceived the US as the final bastion of Christian ethics among the first world nations. All the other nations were "godless atheist" and America was the stronghold of Christian morality. Now we are moving towards socialized healthcare and allowing gay marriage, how can they maintain the self-image of being a "special?"
This is all wrapped up in why we have groups that still want to believe in creationism, "traditional" marriage, etc. They truly believe that this is God's country (as long as we support Israel).
This takes a lot of work to unwind and many times it's impossible. These types of Christians have a lot of poor views of theology, eschatology, and concepts of the Bible. It has been so reinforced that it's become a tribalistic bubble that cannot move on unless it's shattered - which rarely happens with older people. It's very much seen as in groups and out groups. Outsiders are threats to our ways of life and we have to defend it at all costs. We see a lot of younger people that can navigate these complicated dynamics much easier and quickly transcend a tribalistic narrative, but I fear some older people are too set in their ways.
Bigotry relates to intolerance. You can be tolerant but that doesn't mean you have to prefer it for yourself. If you're Christian does that mean you're bigoted against people of other religions? I think not.
Most of it, yeah, I used to be quite religious when I was younger
I have read the bible cover to cover over ten times and it is a hot mess, and one of the biggest reasons that even if I was forced to believe that particular religion I would be a luciferian, because gods whole "plan" is one amazing catch 22 of free will you cannot use unless you want to burn and rot in hell.Really, you've read the whole bible?
Alright, well I think the bible is pretty encouraging to read. What made you change your mind?
Hm. Most of the points you make I agree with. Although, your claim that other men stepped forward as "king of the Jews" is pretty well known and not really anything ground breaking in terms of undermining Christian perspectives. That's a pretty commonly understood reality in scholarly circles.
I think you are making some fairly broad and sweeping statements about the Old Testament being "simply myths that are misinterpreted and used as fact." But that's beyond the scope of this thread.
I don't disagree with some of the points you make. But you are presenting a fairly watered down perspective that is far from an accurate understanding of Biblical scholarship. It's definitely in the range of Bart Ehrman's critiques, which are interesting, but fairly myopic sometimes.
The cruelty of God shown in it, the many contradictions, the fact that I was gay and it made me feel like I was less of a person
Was the hardest time of my life, my teenage years. After I stopped believing things got considerably better.
Who is talking about "prefer[ing] it for yourself?" We're talking about preferring it for other people. Is it tolerant to say that Jews and Gentiles shouldn't marry? I think not.
Yep some part of the bible are really inspiring for a book written so long ago and others are a complete disaster.
As a kid when I read the bible with my grandmother I was always horrified at God pretty much condoning horrific murder all through the Old Testament. It was always interesting how Sunday school tried to sugar coat it
The cruelty of God shown in it, the many contradictions, the fact that I was gay and it made me feel like I was less of a person
Was the hardest time of my life, my teenage years. After I stopped believing things got considerably better.
So to rephrase then let's say my parents said, "You can't date anyone out of your race or we'll disown you." versus "We prefer you not date outside your race but we'll love you regardless and will be accepting of your significant other." Do they both equate to bigotry?
Alright, thanks for sharing that I think it's sadly the reality that the church is so busy with making homosexuals feel unwelcome in church, while Jesus never once spoke against it.
So to rephrase then let's say my parents said, "You can't date anyone out of your race or we'll disown you." versus "We prefer you not date outside your race but we'll love you regardless and will be accepting of your significant other." Do they both equate to bigotry?
So to rephrase then let's say my parents said, "You can't date anyone out of your race or we'll disown you." versus "We prefer you not date outside your race but we'll love you regardless and will be accepting of your significant other." Do they both equate to bigotry?
Just the amount of kids killed for ridiculous reasons in that book is horrifying
Yes. One is just more polite.
So to rephrase then let's say my parents said, "You can't date anyone out of your race or we'll disown you." versus "We prefer you not date outside your race but we'll love you regardless and will be accepting of your significant other." Do they both equate to bigotry?
But by accepting my girlfriend regardless of their personal beliefs they are being the opposite of intolerant.
Who is talking about "prefer[ing] it for yourself?" We're talking about preferring it for other people. Is it tolerant to say that Jews and Gentiles shouldn't marry? I think not.
The ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with
an advocate of religious tolerance
This seems like the most sensible explanation. They used to have a lot of sway over the country's politics, and especially when the GOP started tapping into into that voterbase. But they have become an increasingly fringe demographic which is really starting to manifest itself with results like these.
I can't prove God's experience, but you can seek him out on your own and read the bible.
Dating outside your race also isn't really equivalent to being gay. Perhaps it would be a better comparison to bisexuals.
Not believing in a certain institution doesn't make them "bigots" of homophobes, Im pretty sure that being actively against gay marriage and harrasing those persons surely is. But asking someone "do you believe in gay marriage" and that person replying "nope" doesn't make him a "bigot".
Also stop pretending using false equivalences like "jesus didn't talked about gay people so they are wrong lol" or "In the bible you musn't eat pork so the catholics shouldn't have to do that lol" because the bible has to be read and interpreted in a certain way, is you have some doubts about how have to be read of the logic behind the changes please talk to the nearest of closest catholic priest, he may answer all your questions.
Not believing in a certain institution doesn't make them "bigots" of homophobes, Im pretty sure that being actively against gay marriage and harrasing those persons surely is. But asking someone "do you believe in gay marriage" and that person replying "nope" doesn't make him a "bigot".
Also stop pretending using false equivalences like "jesus didn't talked about gay people so they are wrong lol" or "In the bible you musn't eat pork so the catholics shouldn't have to do that lol" because the bible has to be read and interpreted in a certain way, is you have some doubts about how have to be read of the logic behind the changes please talk to the nearest of closest catholic priest, he may answer all your questions.
Just the amount of kids killed for ridiculous reasons in that book is horrifying
Not believing in a certain institution doesn't make them "bigots" of homophobes, Im pretty sure that being actively against gay marriage and harrasing those persons surely is. But asking someone "do you believe in gay marriage" and that person replying "nope" doesn't make him a "bigot".
Also stop pretending using false equivalences like "jesus didn't talked about gay people so they are wrong lol" or "In the bible you musn't eat pork so the catholics shouldn't have to do that lol" because the bible has to be read and interpreted in a certain way, is you have some doubts about how have to be read of the logic behind the changes please talk to the nearest of closest catholic priest, he may answer all your questions.
I'm going to push back and argue with this a bit. It IS horrifying for sure. But nearly every ancient culture back then was Game of Thrones level violent.
This is problematic if you've been taught that these stories were approved by God. But that's not necessarily the case. I can see how that would be operating under this assumption though, but it's really a kind of fundamentalist reading on the other side of the spectrum.
Even if you come down disagreeing with the Bible, which I assure you I have no desire to convince you of believing. If it's a topic you're interested in understanding in a deeper way, I highly recommend Peter Enns' book "The Bible Made Impossible." It directly addresses some of the accusations you're are bringing up (and actually affirms them), but also fleshes out some less binary options than the sides you both are arguing. Again, you don't have to agree with it, but I always er on the side of understanding the nuances of arguments.
But by accepting my girlfriend regardless of their personal beliefs they are being the opposite of intolerant.
As I mentioned before, this is not really what the traditional meaning of 'tolerance' is.
And the example given for this definition of tolerance by the Oxford English Dictionary
Which is kind of what we are concerned with. I mean it is clearly related to the word 'tolerate'.
"I may not like what you say, but I tolerate it"
The point I am making is there needs to be further context in my mind when considering whether a person who believes Jews and Gentiles shouldn't marry is a tolerant person or not. I think it would be tolerant for instance if the person would accept the right for a Jew and Gentile to marry regardless of whether they personally feel they should.
Or we can look god killing first born kids, God destroying entire cities, and God wiping everything out in a flood for popular horrifying stories where God was actually behind the murder himself. I'm sure the argument though is the ends justified the means.
It's not merely wrong in my view, it's just logically wrong. You beg the question by assuming as a premise part of your conclusion. "Because being gay and acting gay are separate, one can accept a gay person but reject their actions without being bigoted because they are separate."Well, you hit the nail on the head. I understand why you can reject this argument, but this is what I was saying.
People can disagree with the actions, and the choices made, while not hating the person.
People who hate the state of being that is gay, also hate the person. There's no way around that.
That may be wrong in your eyes, because you say they're not separate. But I think there's a difference in the type of person that is. Even if the two people who take these views are bad, and worse. I still think there's a difference.
I was very pointedly and specifically addressing one and only one (poor) argument. To try to read into that anything more is ill advised. His comparison and the logic necessary to make it were, I find, pretty weak bullshit.Do you suggest that the people who accept gay people contrary to their religion leave that faith and find another that accepts gay people?
If they don't then they're bigots with no exceptions?
It's an easy trap to fall into. To me, it seems an easy fix: do not speak for God and, when a subject comes up, proclaim its sinfulness. You may as well slam the door shut in your own face, because telling people "your existence is sinful" with an inplication of "and you're going to burn for eternity in the hellfire of damnation" doesn't make anyone feel supported, welcomed or loved. Christians are so often too concerned with trying to save people that they push them further away. A lifetime of people telling me I was an abomination that must repent for my abhorrent sinfulness growing up caused immeasurable pain and made me reject a God whose servants and Word could and did inspire and proclaim such painful rejection.And sadly I have done the completely opposite apparently.
Or we can look god killing first born kids, God destroying entire cities, and God wiping everything out in a flood for popular horrifying stories where God was actually behind the murder himself. I'm sure the argument though is the ends justified the means.
I'm going to push back and argue with this a bit. It IS horrifying for sure. But nearly every ancient culture back then was Game of Thrones level violent.
This is problematic if you've been taught that these stories were approved by God. But that's not necessarily the case. I can see how that would be operating under this assumption though, but it's really a kind of fundamentalist reading on the other side of the spectrum.
Even if you come down disagreeing with the Bible, which I assure you I have no desire to convince you of believing. If it's a topic you're interested in understanding in a deeper way, I highly recommend Peter Enns' book "The Bible Made Impossible." It directly addresses some of the accusations you're are bringing up (and actually affirms them), but also fleshes out some less binary options than the sides you both are arguing. Again, you don't have to agree with it, but I always er on the side of understanding the nuances of arguments.
I'm going to push back and argue with this a bit. It IS horrifying for sure. But nearly every ancient culture back then was Game of Thrones level violent.
This is problematic if you've been taught that these stories were approved by God. But that's not necessarily the case. I can see how that would be operating under this assumption though, but it's really a kind of fundamentalist reading on the other side of the spectrum.
Even if you come down disagreeing with the Bible, which I assure you I have no desire to convince you of believing. If it's a topic you're interested in understanding in a deeper way, I highly recommend Peter Enns' book "The Bible Made Impossible." It directly addresses some of the accusations you're are bringing up (and actually affirms them), but also fleshes out some less binary options than the sides you both are arguing. Again, you don't have to agree with it, but I always er on the side of understanding the nuances of arguments.
Aw come on, who wouldn't want bears killing noisy kids?
I suddenly cringe at the unintended modern bigotted metaphor risen from that passage.
Is this thread about any of that though? Seems like its being derailed.
Why not make a thread about why you dont agree with the Bible or Christianity?
It's not just the violence though, it's the justification behind it.
I mean there's a story where a group of kids were EATEN ALIVE BY BEARS because they called a prophet bald.
That's it, there was nothing else. They called him bald and BOOM bears eating your entrails. Wheres are the morals in that?
I'm a Christian and believe in the the Bible but I don't have a problem with gay marriage. We have gay people attending church and singing in the choir.
I've said it on GAF many times, but the only thing wrong with Christianity are the people following it. Some people... sheesh.
That's awesome, but I'm genuinely curious how that works? I mean surely the other church-goers believe those people are living in sin and secretly hope those people are "touched" by God, see the error of their ways, and seek straight partners. I'm not sure I could be around people that may not say such things to my face but are thinking it.
Or maybe it's more of a "try not to think about it and let God decide what's wrong or right" mentality.
It would probably be closed. A general religion thread that isn't constant debating and bashing would be cool, but I wouldn't try to make it.
There are denominations that are perfectly fine with homosexuals and equal marriage.
It would probably be closed. A general religion thread that isn't constant debating and bashing would be cool, but I wouldn't try to make it.
From what I've seen, other religious threads do just fine. It's Christianity that particularly annoys OT because it disagrees directly with what most people here stand for.