Support NeoGAF

[Rosenskjold]

I've read the Bible, which is why I don't believe in him.

Really, you've read the whole bible?

 

[family_guy]

If your "preference" is against race-mixing that's bigotry. Seems to me the same logic should apply to a "preference" against gay-mixing.

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.

 

[PulseONE]

Really, you've read the whole bible?

Most of it, yeah, I used to be quite religious when I was younger

 

[lazygecko]

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.

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.

 

[Dude Abides]

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.

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.

 

[Rosenskjold]

Most of it, yeah, I used to be quite religious when I was younger

Alright, well I think the bible is pretty encouraging to read. What made you change your mind?

 

[Matty77]

Really, you've read the whole bible?

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.

 

[PulseONE]

Alright, well I think the bible is pretty encouraging to read. What made you change your mind?

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.

 

[CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls]

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.

Great post, man. And yes, I am watering it down and mostly pulling from Aslan's "Zealot" which I found to be very fascinating.

 

[metalslimer]

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.

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

 

[family_guy]

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.

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?

 

[PulseONE]

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

Just the amount of kids killed for ridiculous reasons in that book is horrifying

 

[rjinaz]

If people want to believe in a God, if people want to not agree with homosexuality, then fine. I think people can believe what they want even if I strongly disagree.

What I do have a problem with is people not having equal rights. I also have a problem with people telling others what they are doing is a "sin". Stop that, it's rude. Go ahead and believe that if you want but stop talking to others like it's a fact. Just because you believe something doesn't mean it's a fact. Religion is a personal faith, it cannot be proven and cannot be applied to anybody but yourself. If you say things like it's a sin, then there is no way around it, yes you are judging others for doing something you view as wrong. Religion is all about judgement really.

 

[Future]

All of this is really about the lack of ability for certain people to empathize. "Not what God intended" only applies if you are not gay, because if you were you would understand there is nothing you can do about it and therefore MUST be intended. It literally makes no sense otherwise, and if you wanted to follow the church you'd be insulted that your entire existence is not intended by God. What an incredibly hurtful thing to insinuate

But if the aren't gay then they will never understand, and choose to remain in their closed off world where they can only understand things that happen directly to them. What a sad place to be.

 

[Rosenskjold]

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.

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.

 

[Dude Abides]

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?

Yes. One is just more polite.

 

[PulseONE]

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.

It would be one problem struck from the list of problems with religion at the very least, so agreed

 

[Vincent Grayson]

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?

Yes. It doesn't matter if you're articulate and nice about it, or screaming from the streets.

 

[Chococat]

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?

Why do they prefer you not to date outside of your race?

If it is because they hate X race, or they are worried out what THEIR family/friend will think, then yes they are racist.

If it because they know you live in a bigoted area and would rather you not have to put up with other people ridiculing you, then that would not be bigoted. They're trying to protect you from harm from society, not because they hate your chosen. Despite your choice, they are going to stand by your side=bonus points.

If they had always imagined you would stay within your race, but are now are confronted by the fact they you may not AND are will to accept your choice, that should be applauded. They are expanding their world view and that should be encourage.

 

[Corronchilejano]

Just the amount of kids killed for ridiculous reasons in that book is horrifying

Aw come on, who wouldn't want bears killing noisy kids?

Spoiler

I suddenly cringe at the unintended modern bigotted metaphor risen from that passage.

 

[family_guy]

Yes. One is just more polite.

But by accepting my girlfriend regardless of their personal beliefs they are being the opposite of intolerant.

 

[Daingurse]

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?

Both are bigoted phrases the latter is only sugar-coated.

But by accepting my girlfriend regardless of their personal beliefs they are being the opposite of intolerant.

"we prefer you not date outside of your race" is not a tolerant thing to say. That immediately tells me you have a prejudice against interracial couples. My mom is the same way, if I ever marry she would much prefer that person to be black. I've always thought that was prejudiced and did not sound right. Just feels backhanded, and weak, not tolerant.

 

[leadbelly]

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.

As I mentioned before, this is not really what the traditional meaning of 'tolerance' is.

The ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with

And the example given for this definition of tolerance by the Oxford English Dictionary

an advocate of religious tolerance

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.

 

[TheOctodad]

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.

Absolutely this is the case. It scares conservatives even more because a lot of the younger Christians are actually far more liberal or independent. Most millennials don't carry the tribalistic narrative into their young adult development. Much of this is due to the internet allowing us to personalize what were formally distant "out groups."

There are some fantastic books about the rise of the conservative party when they were able to convince key Christian leaders to get in bed with them during the abortion debates. The Republican party used that as leverage for decades, yet, rarely acted upon their promises (shocking!). This won a lot of mindshare for Christians though who began to link their "Christian" tribalistic perspectives with the Republican party. Politicians aren't stupid. This is the reasons there is a lot of religious language and heroism attached to soldiers. Keep religious people believing they are fighting a tribalistic war for their God/group and they'll do anything you ask.

Never mind that's against the very narrative of even the Old Testament. God elects a chosen nation for the very purpose of them being a blessing to other nations. When they abandon this agreement and focus on building war machines and dominating other people groups they are left to their own devices and essentially get annihilated.

 

[CornBurrito]

Dating outside your race also isn't really equivalent to being gay. Perhaps it would be a better comparison to bisexuals.

 

[whitehawk]

Some people try to fight gay marriage by saying it's defined by god that it's a man with a women. But marriage really isn't a religious thing. I has no idea there was any relation growing up. And if the government is involved with marriage, then religion has no influence.

 

[Christopher]

I can't prove God's experience, but you can seek him out on your own and read the bible.

What does this even mean?

 

[CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls]

What does this even mean?

 

[Vincent Grayson]

Dating outside your race also isn't really equivalent to being gay. Perhaps it would be a better comparison to bisexuals.

I'm not following what you mean by this.

 

[machemachete]

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.

 

[metalslimer]

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.

If a person is against gay marriage because they believe gay people aren't deserving of the institution than yes they are a bigot. Polite intolerance does not make you tolerant. The problem it seems is that some bigots don't want to be compared to some of the worse bigots out there the same way people think not calling someone a racial slur makes them not racist

 

[Mecha]

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.

There is a one, correct way to read and interpret the bible?

 

[TheOctodad]

Just the amount of kids killed for ridiculous reasons in that book is horrifying

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.

 

[TheOctodad]

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 know many, many educated catholic priests (and Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian, etc.) that would blatantly disagree with your argument.

It's not as simple as you'd like to think.

 

[metalslimer]

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.

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.

 

[Dude Abides]

But by accepting my girlfriend regardless of their personal beliefs they are being the opposite of intolerant.

In disliking your relationship based on nothing but race they are holding a bigoted belief.

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.

I don't find this semantic exercise useful or interesting. The belief that Jews and Gentiles shouldn't intermix is bigoted. Or prejudiced. Or shitty. Take your pick.

 

[megatronium]

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.

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?

 

[ab.aeterno]

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.

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."

I cannot accept that they are different because I do not acknowledge or agree with the notion that the separation upon which the difference relies even exists. Because it doesn't. Your sexuality is not simply who you are or what you are attracted to but also its expression in reality. You're attempting to divorce identity from expression of itself which makes no sense to me. You're simply restating the tired "hate the sin but love the sinner" that all LGBT people have heard all their lives. Go ahead and ask us how often we found that to be as true in practice.

I would very much advise not telling gay people what homosexuaity is and isn't, which you are doing when you try to argue that it's a divided concept that can be partly rejected and reviled.

Because let's make one other thing clear: rejecting the acts and "choices" made to reflect my orientation isn't some harmless opinion like "I didn't like Mad Max Fury Road" (although such people are monsters, clearly. ) It makes it ok to sneer and show disgust at people being same-sex affectionate in public, be ause after al, it's just the act they're rejecting. You wanna know the psychological damage you can do to people by avoiding eye contact at best for holding hands? I know too many gay people who are too afraid to be affectionate in public because of the responses they get.

It's not harmless, and it rejects me as a person.

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?

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.

How you found that suggestion in my dismantling of that very singular argument is beyond me.

Partly because it assumes a premise I do not necessarily accept (that one can "accept" a gay person contrary to a faith that proscribes them as inherently abominable -- as I have pointed out already, I do not believe one can separate homosexuality as a state of being from its manifestation in reality.)

And sadly I have done the completely opposite apparently.

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.

 

[TheOctodad]

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.

Sorry, but this isn't an accurate understanding at all. And no, that's not the conclusion.

 

[DedValve]

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'll be sure to give that book a check. Thanks.

 

[PulseONE]

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.

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?

Aw come on, who wouldn't want bears killing noisy kids?

Spoiler

I suddenly cringe at the unintended modern bigotted metaphor risen from that passage.

Also this

 

[Mecha]

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 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.

 

[TheOctodad]

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?

The progressive understanding would be something like this:

Short answer for a question that deserves a long answer: There aren't morals in it. That's the point. Ancient culture was devoid of the morality that we have today. God operates within that culture. But just because an ancient text perceives God as approving of their antiquated understanding of morality, does not meant that we are intended to stay there.

Much of the Old Testament (and some of the other parts) are viewed much like viewing the middle school years of a genius - fascinating, at times pathetic, at other times disgusting, and sometimes beautiful. In some ways we wish we could skip it, but it's all part of the development of the person.

In this case the development is of the human race and culture and their understanding of the divine.

 

[BlackGoku03]

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.

 

[rjinaz]

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.

 

[Mecha]

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.

There are denominations that are perfectly fine with homosexuals and equal marriage.

 

[Wynnebeck]

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.

 

[rjinaz]

There are denominations that are perfectly fine with homosexuals and equal marriage.

So basically, they interpret the bible in a different way than what is the most popular interpretation. Hey that's a good thing, I think religion needs to be accommodating. I would even support it if love and community became the central theme and not judgement and consequences in the after life.

 

[Kinsei]

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's a christianity OT. I'm guessing since it was still open last I checked that there's not a bunch of fighting.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

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.

It's also (given GAF's predominantly Western audience) the religion with which the majority of people here (whether they are Christian or not) are intimately familiar with and likely interact with on a daily basis.

There's plenty of say, Muslim ideas that and pronouncements that plenty of us would take issue with. Hell, there's probably a ton of that in most religions. But we don't deal with people espousing those ideas daily, nor do most of us have to worry about someone with a backwards idea in non-Christian religions exerting any kind of serious political or cultural influence over us.