excelsiorlef
Member
Can we not compare being gay to being a mentally ill murderer.
-
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
Can we not compare being gay to being a mentally ill murderer.
Clinton514
Member
Some people feel the need to be thought police, though. That goes to both sides of this story.
Simple solution, people who piss you off or are annoying, avoid them.
GeordieMark
Member
And the right thing has been done. Which is kinda what I'm saying. Believe what you like, but don't impose that belief on others who may not share it, or who suffer because of it.
In the case of this particular post in the OP, it's kinda saying "let's agree to disagree". On an individual level, in some cases that is the best you can hope for.
I've seen WAY to much of this on my facebook. It's making me sick. Here's one I saw this morning.
His comment makes it even worse. How ignorant to you have to be to not get this? No one is offended by "traditional marriage". Your post is just as bad as someone going to a Million Man March and shouting "WHITE PRIDE!" then following it up with "What? I'm just proud of my race. You being offended by me expressing pride in my race is exactly what you don't want us to do."
His comment makes it even worse. How ignorant to you have to be to not get this? No one is offended by "traditional marriage". Your post is just as bad as someone going to a Million Man March and shouting "WHITE PRIDE!" then following it up with "What? I'm just proud of my race. You being offended by me expressing pride in my race is exactly what you don't want us to do."
Solid SOAP
Member
Also, fyi to all... I didn't intend this to be some Christian bashing topic either. Just a very specific sub-set of people who believe in the religion who enforce these intolerant views.
TheRagnCajun
Member
Sorry, I agree it's not a good comparison.
Why even care about Christian beliefs in the first place? It's not like they have a solid theological basis for anything due to the splintered nature of their "divine" scripture and leadership. Arguably, by making them accept opposing beliefs can be beneficial for homosexuals, but it's not like there's any theological legitimacy by hopping between different beliefs. It becomes less of a religion and more like a cult, though that's basically what it has been for the past 2000 years.
I'm on my phone, but I'm curious as to where Lutherans stand on the issue?
I was raised as one, but never heard any official teachings on the matter.
DoktorEvil
Banned
They don't have to or need to. People have options and if they take more than a minute to look through their options, they can find a denomination of Christianity/Judaism/Islam that will entertain their idea of spirituality and morality and cultural influence.
DoktorEvil
Banned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Lutheranism
There's good news though:
So, it really depends on what your congregation/diocese believes.
Your entire sense of logic is what I object to and I'm not sure that I can adequately explain this to you. It is an absurdist slippery slope in which people's doublethink does not exist and everything and everyone is connected/ruled by a specific (i.e. your) sense of logic.
If she specifically believes that she shouldn't be judged for being a woman in the clergy she is therefore is objecting to the entire concept of religion? I just do not agree that it is a logical conclusion to say that criticising a specific aspect of a whole is objecting to the concept of the whole. It is absurdist and reductive.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
To answer the OP's question, "Hate the sin, but love the sinner" is fundamental to Christian doctrine. Christians believe that human beings began as innocent, basically good creatures but have been corrupted over time by their own gravitation to sin, of which homosexuality (and really, all sexual behavior that is not procreative heterosexual coupling within a church-recognized marriage) is one. Their belief is not that homosexuals are evil for their lifestyles, but that they have given in to a sinful temptation that God intended them to resist. Much of Christianity, and this is true of religions as a whole, is about attaining some level of mastery of the self so as to transcend baser, more instinctual urges, with the promise that whatever hardship this brings upon one will pale in comparison to the more blissful afterlife one stands to inherit. In the context of religion as a tool of social and political cohesion and control, this makes sense - sex, drugs, gambling, rebellion, and other such things are potentially costly, destabilizing forces in human life, so having at least an ideal to try and shun these things and strive for something higher will leave a people better off than would a hedonistic embrace of all corporeal pleasures. Heck, I would argue that many individuals of my own less faithful generation are far too free and copious in their use of alcohol and drugs, and I sense a certain stagnation in many of them as a result. So to some extent, I honestly understand why these sorts of fleeting, shallow pleasures are downplayed in many religions the world over.
Anyway, in the time where Christianity came into being, "homosexuality" as a marker of identity, rather than behavior, simply did not exist. We understand now that there are those exclusively attracted to their own or to the opposite sex, and a very fine gradient in between. But in Ancient Rome, for example, the culture that ruled over the area where early Christianity first arose, the vast majority of gay folk - particularly those of the upper class, who would have been the moral "tastemakers", for lack of a better word - would still have been expected to marry, have kids, and pass the same milestones as any other Roman citizen because marriage, in that world, was not so much about the personal and the romantic, as in today's world, but about property rights, social standing, political ambition, and other such factors. A man, in such a society, would have had a certain degree of freedom to pursue extramarital romantic relationships, and while homosexuality might have been frowned upon, to a degree, it was really the passive homosexual partner that was met with the most scorn. In such a world, homosexual behavior was not understood as something fundamental to one's character, but as a "side dalliance", something that was part of one's personal life, rather than a matter of public importance. There is a wide variety of ways that societies have related to homosexuality, but in my own studying, this idea of it as something that one does in addition to the "real" things, a preference laid atop one's life rather than something a part of people's personal foundation, seems pretty common among many cultures, probably because, most of the time, that's what it WOULD have been. Given such a context, it's not hard to see how it might then have been understood as simply another earthly pleasure, to be discouraged and stamped out like all the rest.
So, OP, the reason Christians say they don't hate gay people, despite disapproving of homosexuality and of gay marriage, is because one of the basic principles of their worldview is that all human beings are tempted to at least some extent by things and actions that fall outside what God expects of the righteous. What they think is that gay behavior is wrong and that those with the desire to engage in it have a religious duty to shun it, but they might be able to relate to the difficult struggle that comes with being a righteous person and understand that, outside of their sexual and romantic lifestyle, a gay person can be good in other respects.
As for why such beliefs persist? Because death is scary, religion comforts, and if Christianity helped them in one respect, and has been helping people for far longer than any modern concept of sexuality, then it's probably right in this other respect. I disagree, and resist those who would try to impose this philosophy via legislation, but I do at least understand it, somewhat.
Anyway, in the time where Christianity came into being, "homosexuality" as a marker of identity, rather than behavior, simply did not exist. We understand now that there are those exclusively attracted to their own or to the opposite sex, and a very fine gradient in between. But in Ancient Rome, for example, the culture that ruled over the area where early Christianity first arose, the vast majority of gay folk - particularly those of the upper class, who would have been the moral "tastemakers", for lack of a better word - would still have been expected to marry, have kids, and pass the same milestones as any other Roman citizen because marriage, in that world, was not so much about the personal and the romantic, as in today's world, but about property rights, social standing, political ambition, and other such factors. A man, in such a society, would have had a certain degree of freedom to pursue extramarital romantic relationships, and while homosexuality might have been frowned upon, to a degree, it was really the passive homosexual partner that was met with the most scorn. In such a world, homosexual behavior was not understood as something fundamental to one's character, but as a "side dalliance", something that was part of one's personal life, rather than a matter of public importance. There is a wide variety of ways that societies have related to homosexuality, but in my own studying, this idea of it as something that one does in addition to the "real" things, a preference laid atop one's life rather than something a part of people's personal foundation, seems pretty common among many cultures, probably because, most of the time, that's what it WOULD have been. Given such a context, it's not hard to see how it might then have been understood as simply another earthly pleasure, to be discouraged and stamped out like all the rest.
So, OP, the reason Christians say they don't hate gay people, despite disapproving of homosexuality and of gay marriage, is because one of the basic principles of their worldview is that all human beings are tempted to at least some extent by things and actions that fall outside what God expects of the righteous. What they think is that gay behavior is wrong and that those with the desire to engage in it have a religious duty to shun it, but they might be able to relate to the difficult struggle that comes with being a righteous person and understand that, outside of their sexual and romantic lifestyle, a gay person can be good in other respects.
As for why such beliefs persist? Because death is scary, religion comforts, and if Christianity helped them in one respect, and has been helping people for far longer than any modern concept of sexuality, then it's probably right in this other respect. I disagree, and resist those who would try to impose this philosophy via legislation, but I do at least understand it, somewhat.
You're talking past me at this point. You're not engaging my position. It's possible I didn't explain it well; if so, I'm sorry.
Religions make judgments. These judgments are almost always based on religious texts and are taken as articles of faith.
Rodney McKay
Member
Your life IS built around science, even if your "believe" differently. The roof over your head, the electricity used to power the device your currently using, the medicines you take when you're sick, and the food you eat is all thanks to what you are calling science, which is theorizing, testing, sharing conclusions, having those conclusions questioned, do more testing, and on and on.
"The earth revolves around the sun", do you believe this? Have you tested this theory on your own? Have you mapped the position of the planets with a telescope over time to determine their position and movements? Or are you relying on what others have told you, or what you've seen or read from others?
In science OR religion there is no absolute truth. Religion changes and evolves constantly as well (how many schisms have occurred in Christianity alone?) and beliefs are changes and evolved as people come to different conclusions based on the given religious texts, and the texts themselves are changed over time as they are copied billions of times over thousands of years and translated into hundred of languages. Is it "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shall not murder" one tells you all killing is sinful while the other has some wiggle room from interpretation (war, defending yourself, etc.). Even ignoring mistranslations and differences between the same documents, the stories and messages themselves are completely open to an individual's interpretation.
At least with science we can test and show that theories (or "Beliefs" as you call them) are pretty darn close to what is the "right answer." We can test beliefs by building a structure and seeing if it stays up. We can plug in a computer. We can research homosexuality and see that it exists in nature.
Is the speed of light truly constant? Do we know everything about gravity? Is our understanding of the universe itself perfect? We don't know, but scientists (which includes every person on the planet willing to test their beliefs) will continue to test and push and strive for as close to 100% truth as we possibly can.
boiled goose
good with gravy
More accurate than genetically rooted would be biologically rooted. Homosexuality is definitely influenced by genes (runs in families) but other factors too like birth order and other factors. Identical twins can have different sexual orientations.
DoktorEvil
Banned
Thank you for this, especially the bolded.
Probably. But you've said that if someone criticises X they're objecting to the alphabet and I find that assertion absurd and you've not been able to explain why you find that logical. Does that make my objections clearer?
Yes, and those judgements are not necessarily consistent or well supported (even by their own dogma), and criticising a specific judgement is not criticising all judgements or objecting to religion as a concept.
GeordieMark
Member
Great post.
DrROBschiz
Member
Wow those last two longform posts are golden
Not sure I can evern contribute at that level
Not sure I can evern contribute at that level
boiled goose
good with gravy
Meh. To me it is actually more simple. Hate the sin love the sinner arises from a conflict.
God is supposed to have created everything, supposed to know everything, and it's also supposed to be all loving, so supposed supposed to no no reason, and is also supposed to be all and is also supposed to be all loving, so then how could he create people that are so predisposed to sin and therefore ddamnation?
The solution? Blame the victim for their behavior
hendersonhank
Member
I think you said it yourself -- they're judging the actions, not the person.
Serious question:
Which Christian faiths have excluded the hate speech?
When I was younger I used to go to a Methodist church and they had the old testament in their bibles. Even the New Testament had Revelations, which was Grade A hilarity. Why does this fear-mongering bullshit still exist in every one of their books if they don't believe it?
So... I think posters using this whole "there are infinite fractals of Christianity just pick one" are being real forgiving with reality when it comes down to picking a church, because I'm pretty sure most of them have bibles in every pew that talk about sinning. Whether or not the individual reading that book decides to believe or act on these condemnations is completely irrelevant - it's still what is actively being taught.
Which Christian faiths have excluded the hate speech?
When I was younger I used to go to a Methodist church and they had the old testament in their bibles. Even the New Testament had Revelations, which was Grade A hilarity. Why does this fear-mongering bullshit still exist in every one of their books if they don't believe it?
So... I think posters using this whole "there are infinite fractals of Christianity just pick one" are being real forgiving with reality when it comes down to picking a church, because I'm pretty sure most of them have bibles in every pew that talk about sinning. Whether or not the individual reading that book decides to believe or act on these condemnations is completely irrelevant - it's still what is actively being taught.
megatronium
Member
He didn't create robots. Free will and such.
The problem is these people have and will continue to vote, and their voting is definitely influenced by their beliefs.
Solid SOAP
Member
By making it your avatar on social media, you're not keeping it to yourself. It's passive aggressive.
GeordieMark
Member
Well this is a point against religion. A fair one, but I said that post was good because it does a good job of explaining why some Catholics hold the beliefs they do.
Liberal Quakers are pretty chill.
excelsiorlef
Member
It is when they still expect gay people to be friends with them and accept their "opinions"
I often feel that free will is an unstated major premise of religions that not everyone notices.
Obviously everyone notices God; we're all well aware that religious people believe in a God and that this belief is based on faith. What is less mentioned is that religious people believe in free will (or more generally the power of humans to choose), and that this too is core to virtually every major religion, outside of minor offshoots like Calvinism's unconditional election.
Sikhism talks a lot about our fates being predetermined.
They're not supposed to, though. The whole point of the first coming of Christ is that he fulfilled the law for humanity. The old law was impossible to be followed precisely (the initial tribe it was first handed to screwed it up that same very night). Christ came to fulfill the law so that he could take on the burden of man's sin. That's, like, the entire point of the New Testament. It's not exactly cherry-picking when people bring up old Levitcus laws and Christian say, "Of course we don't do that." The old law was simply abolished.
The new law is "love your God with all your heart, mind, body, and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself." If anyone is going to scrutinize Christian for not following their laws, they should quote THAT one. Too many Christians do not love their neighbors. They're wickedly hateful instead.
The ruling is about civil marriage, as defined by federal and state law. It has no impact on a religious ceremony. So, a church can't be forced to officiate a gay wedding if they don't want to.
minor effort
Banned
"Yes, we are still friends."
Yeah... about that.
Yeah... about that.
Bornstellar
Member
Though many on this forum have expressed that they would like to do exactly that.
If you shed relationships based on different perceptions of morality, you're going to live in a echo chamber really fast.
Right but how can opponents use religion as a reason that marriage should not be between two men or two women legally, what is their legal basis beyond their religious beliefs?
CornBurrito
Member
Would you be friends with someone who was pro slavery?
Like who? That's the majority opinion? I honestly haven't seen a post about forcing the Catholic Church to marry same sex couples.
There's plenty of churches that do officiate gay weddings. Plenty going on right now.
Also, lol at thinking only having relationships with people who feel people should be treated equally is hard to find.
oh no an echo chamber of positivity whatever will i do
also who is 'many'?
i wanna see the receipts
entremet
Member
They believe in it. That's the point of the faith. It's a worldview. Just like post Enlightenment thought is a worldview. It's how they see the world. Much like how Hindus see the world in specific way, or a postmodern atheist sees the world in a specific way.
DoktorEvil
Banned
This forum is a minority compared to the larger world that exists out there.
Also, most relationships are built on commonalities. If you are building your relationships on religious and political alliances, then yes, it is an echo chamber, but I don't see that here.
Shining Sunshine
Banned
Why is that a problem? If Christians are not going to shun their homosexual friends, why is it okay for the homosexual friend to shun their Christian friends for their beliefs?
I feel like there is a reversal that is happening for the role where Homosexual use to be the ones afraid of coming out of the closet. Now, anyone with a religious belief against homosexuality are the ones that are going to be the ones afraid of stating their religion because they don't want to step on the homosexual community's toes.
I think both sides should respect each other in this case. Just agree and don't engage in heated debates because neither ideals are going away.
Meus Renaissance
Member
I'm more fascinated with the proposition that some hold wherein gay sex is not sinful.
CornBurrito
Member
Serious question.
I've pointed out before that if you showed post-surgery Micheal Jackson photos to a young child, without them knowing about pre-surgery Micheal Jackson photos, they would undoubtedly believe that Micheal Jackson was Caucasian.
With that in mind, Mormonism used to believe that Africans were cursed with the mark of Cain. They've since shed that belief, but lets say they didn't. Or if you can't get over that, lets make up a new religion that actively holds the belief that black features are the remnants of the sin of Cain.
Would it be acceptable to then disagree with being African in appearance? Bleaching your skin and getting some cosmetic surgery might be expensive, though you could always use a Church program to secure funding. It seems to me no more unreasonable than expecting a life of celibacy from gays. Would looking Black be just fine and dandy for someone to disagree with? If not, what makes disagreeing with homosexuality different? People say that they don't dislike the person, but the "lifestyle" (whatever that means). Similarly people born with African features wouldn't be condemned for having those genes, but would be disliked for choosing to not cosmetically alter those genetic features? Is this fair?
Super easy when you aren't Christian. Just like holding the idea that African features aren't the sinful mark of Cain is easy when you aren't a Mormon from the time before they shed that belief.
This makes no sense. You have no problem with homosexuals but have a problem with the lifestyle. You just said that lifestyle is used interchangeably with homosexual. So translating your sentence I get:
You have no problem with homosexuals, but have a problem with the homosexual.
I've pointed out before that if you showed post-surgery Micheal Jackson photos to a young child, without them knowing about pre-surgery Micheal Jackson photos, they would undoubtedly believe that Micheal Jackson was Caucasian.
With that in mind, Mormonism used to believe that Africans were cursed with the mark of Cain. They've since shed that belief, but lets say they didn't. Or if you can't get over that, lets make up a new religion that actively holds the belief that black features are the remnants of the sin of Cain.
Would it be acceptable to then disagree with being African in appearance? Bleaching your skin and getting some cosmetic surgery might be expensive, though you could always use a Church program to secure funding. It seems to me no more unreasonable than expecting a life of celibacy from gays. Would looking Black be just fine and dandy for someone to disagree with? If not, what makes disagreeing with homosexuality different? People say that they don't dislike the person, but the "lifestyle" (whatever that means). Similarly people born with African features wouldn't be condemned for having those genes, but would be disliked for choosing to not cosmetically alter those genetic features? Is this fair?
Super easy when you aren't Christian. Just like holding the idea that African features aren't the sinful mark of Cain is easy when you aren't a Mormon from the time before they shed that belief.
This makes no sense. You have no problem with homosexuals but have a problem with the lifestyle. You just said that lifestyle is used interchangeably with homosexual. So translating your sentence I get:
You have no problem with homosexuals, but have a problem with the homosexual.
it's sinfully good, tbqh
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked