metalslimer
Member
Self hatred is very easy to succumb to when you are indoctrinated from a young age.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"I'm a Christian who believes the Bible, and I don't believe in homosexual marriage."
- Thread starter Solid SOAP
- Start date
- Status
Self hatred is very easy to succumb to when you are indoctrinated from a young age.
he's also said i'm homophobic simply because i wouldn't have sex with a guy
I get the metaphor, even if the camel translation is kept, and, for the record, I don't find that verse to be ridiculous. It's mostly the Old Testament law that drives me crazy, especially when someone states the Bible must be taken as truth. Nearly the entire book of Leviticus is just...insane in terms of modern society.
Rabbi_Vole
Banned
Had this discussion with a catholic relative of mine. He's all for equal rights under the law, but completely snagged on the use of the word "marriage." He feels the church owns that word, is a basic tenet of the faith and should only apply to the union of a man and a woman.
I asked if he'd be ok for the state to stop using the word "marriage" for all union contracts and have it reserved for just the religious ceremony/recognition. He said "no."
We went back and forth. He called me hard headed and a third party at my church gym (I'm Methodist, he's catholic, but we WO at my church) had to step in. What was funny is that my pastor was within ear shot but chose to stay out of it.
I also asked if he recognized divorce or marriages between people who chose not to have kids. There is no logic at play here.. Only a gut feel. It's pure emotion and it's going to take time and patience for people to come around.
With that avatar, you could pretty much say anything you want and I will love it. :3
Clearly has no idea what homosexuality is. And thus, no understanding of why homosexuality need the same rights as anyone else
It is true. Annulment means the marriage never existed, so a person who marries after an invalid marriage is still doing it for the first time.
Rabbi_Vole
Banned
It's true, though. First it was tolerance, now it's support.. The next step is participation.
O dont know what to say about this topic or how to post or address it or have my thoughts shared on this topic. As I'm worried any questions I have may offend or I may come off as wrong but I guess if I cant discuss it on GAF where can I?
So my up bringing was heavily influenced by the bible, my dad is pretty famous pastor and to be honest I hated the whole thing (bar one or two things). Having stepped out "Christianity" and quickly realized the church isn't really much different to any other corporations out there... politics, ulterior or misguided motives, the want for status, power etc. and I'm speaking as someone who knows the inner workings of a particular denomination.
I guess the first thing I wanted to know, is I've been bought up to believe that marriage was between and a man and woman, as per says the Bible. I guess what I'm starting to realise is that "marriage" existed before this (providing you believe the world existed before In the beginning") but why such a push for marriage if you already have the same rights through civil partnerships?
What about religions that don't support marriage, are they legally obliged to marry same sex couples? This is a big thing for people I know who are still Christians (as alot of my close friends are) they believe this is a sign of the end of times blah blah blah... while I dont agree with all that jazz I do wonder if they would be forced into doing something that they didnt support?
And thirdly, why do people have such an issue with that Meme? I mean like someone said I disagree with a number of things a number of my friends do but that doesnt stop me being their friend? No one can tell me they agree with everything that any of their friends or S/O do, it's impossible, we're human and have differences etc.
Regardless even though its a bit odd for me seeing same sex marriage (again due to years of being indoctrinated) ... I really am happy for those it will involve, I can see how much it means to people so it can only be a good thing, there is no wrong that can come from love.
So my up bringing was heavily influenced by the bible, my dad is pretty famous pastor and to be honest I hated the whole thing (bar one or two things). Having stepped out "Christianity" and quickly realized the church isn't really much different to any other corporations out there... politics, ulterior or misguided motives, the want for status, power etc. and I'm speaking as someone who knows the inner workings of a particular denomination.
I guess the first thing I wanted to know, is I've been bought up to believe that marriage was between and a man and woman, as per says the Bible. I guess what I'm starting to realise is that "marriage" existed before this (providing you believe the world existed before In the beginning") but why such a push for marriage if you already have the same rights through civil partnerships?
What about religions that don't support marriage, are they legally obliged to marry same sex couples? This is a big thing for people I know who are still Christians (as alot of my close friends are) they believe this is a sign of the end of times blah blah blah... while I dont agree with all that jazz I do wonder if they would be forced into doing something that they didnt support?
And thirdly, why do people have such an issue with that Meme? I mean like someone said I disagree with a number of things a number of my friends do but that doesnt stop me being their friend? No one can tell me they agree with everything that any of their friends or S/O do, it's impossible, we're human and have differences etc.
Regardless even though its a bit odd for me seeing same sex marriage (again due to years of being indoctrinated) ... I really am happy for those it will involve, I can see how much it means to people so it can only be a good thing, there is no wrong that can come from love.
Not all judgment is equal. Outta here with this "tolerance is intolerant" nonsense.
Because posting that blithe little bit of hatred for someone's identity (and it is hatred, make no mistake) says a tremendous amount about the person posting it. These people can't even keep their mouth shut about it. It's saying that they have to let you, their supposed friends know that they are going to hate and judge (and they are judging, no matter what their meme macro says) an integral part of your very self because of cherry-picked lines from a collection of Bronze Age desert superstitions, 95% of which they don't even know in the first place, let alone follow as doctrine. It's absolutely ridiculous. And in most cases I suspect it's actually just an excuse to continue disliking something they think is "gross."
And if you're still confused, imagine the same meme posting, but instead of homosexuality, imagine the "sin" in question is being black. If it's not clear after that, I don't know what else to tell you.
Of course the marriage was never valid in the first place by Catholic law, but it might have been legally. Didn't mean to imply otherwise, sorry. If the annulment trial* comes to the conclusion that the marriage was valid there is no way (known to me) to marry again by Catholic law.
*Not sure if this is the proper English term.
krypt0nian
Banned
So their god would want people to be miserable and unfulfilled for their entire existence here?
Sounds legit.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Both sides judge the each others actions and reactions. Your judgement in your view is factual. to them it is ALSO factual. the other person will also say not all judgement are equal implying his judgement is the fair one.
again. a never ending cycle.
excelsiorlef
Member
Because being gay isn't just something you can disagree with, well I mean you can legally but it's not like being friends with somebody who likes Nickleback and Theory of a Deadman and watches Two and a Half Men religiously.
metalslimer
Member
Well gay people did not have the same rights in many states and no church will be forced to perform a ceremony. If you work in the clerks office yes you will have to hand out licenses to gay people.
Because being gay isn't something someone does, it's something someone is.
Necromanti
Member
Sounds like people should should be more specific with their language, then, since I see all gay people being lumped together. Many Christians say that being gay is a sin. That would be like saying that liking the taste of a Meat Lover's pizza is a sin; you'd still be "guilty" of such a sin by merely existing, even if you never order one and eat it.
Well, yeah. Leviticus was basically a very specific set of rules for a very specific time frame so that the Israelites could emerge from the desert intact and able to set up a society. It was not intended to be a long-term guide.
Good post. This is exactly why religion and state must be separate. Everyone is allowed to believe, think, and speak how they want. It is when these views are then attempted to be forced on to others where issues can arise.
Yeah, religious indoctrination can do some weird things to people as they try to merge their understanding of reality with religious mythology.
Rabbi_Vole
Banned
Do you think it'll stop here, though? I think the majority of the religious opposition can eventually come around on how it exists today but if they begin mandating churches perform ceremonies or risk losing tax exempt status, shit gonna hit the fan.
Sorry but, you're "not sure" that being against homosexuality (and stating such publicly) is somehow not inherently judgemental? Is the argument that a person's beliefs cannot be considered judgemental if the person earnestly believe them or that if you use nice enough words it makes a statement less judgemental?
Furthermore how often (and how vocally/publicly) to these persons tend to express the not accepting Jesus as your personal saviour is a mortal sin?
I'm sorry for basically JAQing off, but I do want a more clarification since I'm not sure what your argument actually is. The original post, as nicely worded as it is, is condemning people for just being who they are, not just actions, not just sins but for a fundamental part of who they are. I kind of dislike the "switch a word for another word argument" (what's the nice word for that?) but; "I do not support being black or 'interracial marriage'". Would you not say that this is (inherently) a judgemental message?
Pretty hard to argue against a false premise.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Christians view it as a true premise. They don't accept your definition, you don't accept their definition of what constitutes a marriage. both of you view your own views in the light of truth and the other as false.
metalslimer
Member
It's a good thing they continue to be separate then and no one is arguing forced beliefs on religion
This sounds like a sitcom conversation.
"You're such a homophobe! Sleep with me and prove me wrong." (wink, wink- cue laugh track)
metalslimer
Member
Why would this ever happen. The government never forced churches to marry atheists.
Also it's really crazy that religious people want government to infringe on other religious sects who are accepting of gay marriage
I have also decided against taking seriously the opinons on this issue anyone who somehow thinks Christianity in any way created, owns, or has any kind of revelance to only themselves beyond their sect or beliefs personal religous ceremony interpatations.
Especially since it's an offshoot of another religion, and that religion doesn't think that Christ was the messiah of their religion, which if you look at the circumstances of the views on homosexuality and other rules and laws( mostly Leviticus) were based on things a primitive nomad desert culture with no home land would choose to remain healthy and breed.
Especially since it's an offshoot of another religion, and that religion doesn't think that Christ was the messiah of their religion, which if you look at the circumstances of the views on homosexuality and other rules and laws( mostly Leviticus) were based on things a primitive nomad desert culture with no home land would choose to remain healthy and breed.
InsaneZero
Member
Christianity's primary message is that every human being is flawed, and without the sacrifice of a sinless being (JC) it's impossible to come to reconciliation with God. It repeats the point that actions and deeds alone will not allow one to get into God's good graces, and only the belief in JC will be able to cut it.
Within that context, singling out one specific form of sin (homosexuality) is meaningless, as all sin is equally bad in God's eyes. Making a statement about how you don't approve of actions of gays/lesbians is nothing but hypocrisy, since that comes with the implication that you're standing on a moral high ground for not committing such a sin. The problem is that nobody has the moral high ground, so nobody has the right to explicitly state what people should or shouldn't be doing to be "lawfully" correct in this religion.
Every Christian by themselves are still sinners. But JC did not come to judge them but to die for them so that they could live. To really follow in that example, Christians should not be making statements about what people shouldn't or shouldn't do, but rather to show that they really love these people by talking directly to them, trying to work out their differences, and showing support for them regardless of what they feel about their actions. Supporting an image like this mostly shows how much these people care for their own appearances rather than how much they actually care for their own religion.
True, but I think, eventually, some churches will. Many religious people also were taught to believe that interracial marriage was a sin. (When I was a kid, a visiting pastor came right out and said just that) Now, there's no issue with having an interracial marriage ceremony in a church, at least as far as I know.
The premise is false because the Bible itself does not deny gay marriage, but the laws at be in the governing body did, which is why they could be repealed in the first place. If the Bible had ever defined it, then the law makers would have had to change the word of the Bible, but they didn't have to, the Bible still says what it has always said; yet the law is now changed.
metalslimer
Member
I just want to know when has a church ever been forced to do anything? It's a pointless question to ask and the only place it comes from is paranoia
TheBaldEmperor
Member
People of faith that have any good sense will let God decide/judge and worry about their own salvation.
I really don't see why this is a hard thing to understand.
Why is it impossible to think something is morally wrong, but still support the right for someone to do it?
I would think there are a lot of Christian morals that fall under this area, including plenty of the "Ten Commandments", for example profaning God's name, disrespecting your parents, ignoring the Sabbath, committing adultery, coveting, lying, etc.
That's not even getting into things like premarital sex, ignoring the needs of others, or calling your brother a fool.
Why is it impossible to think something is morally wrong, but still support the right for someone to do it?
I would think there are a lot of Christian morals that fall under this area, including plenty of the "Ten Commandments", for example profaning God's name, disrespecting your parents, ignoring the Sabbath, committing adultery, coveting, lying, etc.
That's not even getting into things like premarital sex, ignoring the needs of others, or calling your brother a fool.
Poltergust
Member
Separation of church and state is a two-way street. Any cases that are brought up against churches that refuse to marry gay couples will not have a legal leg to stand on.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
This is the problem. A belief system has it's own rules and priorities that aren't intended to provide reason or rationality in a modern society that strives for reason and rationality. Humility is preached, but when it comes to the many, many people who don't believe the same way, then their humble belief system becomes the true law of the land for everyone, including non-believers. It's really just about spreading their belief system and converting non-believers, regardless of the content of the belief system or it's impact on others.
metalslimer
Member
Because thinking it is morally wrong has huge consequences and pyschological effects on the gay people it is told to. It's nice that they aren't actively campaigning against equality but we can't pretend it doesn't still cause damage.
Because it's a naive interpretation of what this image is: A way for people to broadcast "you gays are bad and you should feel bad", even after they lost the fight, without looking like assholes.
It's cowardly and petty and the fact that it's being shared around just means there's a lot of cowardice and pettiness out there.
What I'm asking people to do is follow this logic through to its natural endpoint and see what the problems are. Maybe there aren't any, but maybe there are.
The idea here is that this person believes that behavior X is morally wrong. It doesn't have to be homosexuality; it can be anything you want. Further, this person isn't trying to convert others or loudly condemn them, and is willing to be friends with them, just as I'm willing to be friends with a person who is sometimes selfish. No one is perfect.
But still, they believe X behavior is wrong. If that is unreasonably and cruelly judgmental, then it's important to note that we effectively object to the entire concept of religious belief, because a central part of virtually every major religion is that there are good behaviors and bad behaviors, and that the morality of these behaviors should be taken as an article of faith.
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
Read the image again, It's not supporting homosexuality or the right for marriage at all. It's just basically a very long-winded and passive aggressive way of saying "be tolerant of my intolerance".
That is inherently impossible, given there are known contradictions.
Maninthemirror
Banned
most of the bible today has been corrupted over the past centuries by the vatican with removals and additions but there are traces which are original to it. Studying the bible it does not deny gay marriage but suggests strongly that sex comes after marriage and gay sex is the one which is expicitly forbidden thus by proxy gay marriage is not allowed. its by proxy not as a direct statement. this is ironic though as many devout christians have sex before marriage and defy that suggests outright.
If I remembering right. "The eye of the needle" doesn't mean what most people think it means. The needle in this case is a small arch in the city wall. You had to get the camel to lay down on all fours and drag it through. This was very diffi ult, but not impossible. It wasn't like a sewing needle.
Yes, I strongly suspect a hidden agenda here, but I'm not sure it applies to literally every person who posts it.
Yep. Although I can see the argument that since you're holding some innate state of being against someone that it's different from the usual scenarios we can devise (I don't do drugs/can't support recreational drug lifestyles but don't hate you for it, for example.)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked