Homosexuality and Religion #2

Remove all ads!

this is the loveliest BS ever. first of the oldes part of the bible, the genesis, is considered roughly 4000 years old. written by, what linguest has identefied as two persons, probably male. now writting at this point has existed in some forms for 2000 years before this. the babylons and the egypts had a picture based form of writting, and linear a and phoenician was around too.

several written accounts excist from the same time.

 

Ragusa, I see hypocrisy a bit differently. To me, keeping different sets of rules for yourself and others is equally as hypocritical as what you describe, and I see Gnarfflinger doing exactly that. He demands that everyone here show full respect for his beliefs, even if we strongly disagree with them, but refuses to show respect for any of OUR beliefs that he cannot accept. To me, that's hypocrisy.

I respect his right to live HIS life according to the requirements of HIS religion. Why should it be impossible for him to extend the same respect to other people?

@BTA: I don't expect anyone to "bend" to my beliefs. I expect that, unless another person is somehow directly impacted by me living my life according to my beliefs, that other person will keep his nose out of my business. Why must people manufacture reasons to be offended and look for insult where none is meant?

 

Rally,
pluralism (as in secularism) for a believer is sinful, because he is right and you are wrong. How can he possibly accept something wrong as equal? You may ask too much of him.

 

If that's the case, then he's pathetically small minded, and I should renew my stand that Gnarff should be ignored and not taken seriously by anyone here. "The people around me tell me what I want to hear and reinforce my beliefs...why should I listen to you or anyone else? Furthermore, despite the fact that I have no reason to believe anything you say - because you're all internet gamers and my Bishop knows better - you should all still take me completely seriously, because I'm right."

Double-Yoo...Tee...Eff...ever.

[ December 15, 2006, 21:43: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Deat Rabbit,
there is an elephant in the room you do not adress in the seriousness adequate to the topic. That elephant goes by the name of 'Fundamentalism', which you seem to resent, without taking it serious, as you should.

The ever remakable Spengler in his article Fundamentalism has a good comment on people who take the Holy Bible literally, as many US Christian fundamentalists do:

He points out Gnarff's problem quite well.

In 30 years, fundamentalists will likely make up the majority of US Christians. If you find the current US culture wars silly, brace yourself for more and worse to come.

 

@ Ragusa,

I don't know where you get the idea that I don't take Christian fundamentalism seriously. If you mean I find such a hardline literal interpretation of the bible absurd and deeply missing the point behind Christ's teachings, then you're right. If you mean I don't adequately address the issue of fundamentalism as it applies to denying homosexuals the right to civil unions, then you're wrong - check back through this and the previous thread.

So I do take it seriously, though I don't find it credible, logical or in any way productive.

As for the future of fundamentalism in the US - time will tell. But if history is any indicator, that's highly unlikely. Far more people believed the bible literally as little as 50 years ago than they do today. The conservatives who practice a fundamentalist Christian doctrine do so out of a hankering for "simpler times" of the picturesque 1950's America, as if Leave it to Beaver were their model. It will get harder as time goes on to believe in things like Noah's Arc and the parting of the Red Sea as modernity presses forward. Why people still think such "magical" events are plausible today (instead of taking away the moral message of such stories, which is the point) is beyond me.

Edit (below) - Noted.

 

DR,
I posted in response to your comment that you

Well, don't know about Gnarff, but these people will not go away if you ignore them.

 

To them, there likely are voices "in his head", possibly as real as if not more real than you or I over the internet. We can't deny that they hear them, but we don't. WE don't share their experience. In that case, Science may have an explanation involving neurochemicals. That will not convince them however...

I question the extrapolations in such theories. Where is the genetic material for Noah's sons and their wives to prove it insufficient? Secondly, are you claiming that Genetics is proven 100% and all knowledge is complete? Until that time, that door is not satisfactorily closed...

In a democracy, the state represents teh people. If God is placed first and foremost in the lives of enough of the people, then the teachings of Him will shape their opinions, and thus affect the way they vote. Wise politicians will take that into account...

No more frightening than the vision of society that some of my detractors are putting forth. The lack of a single, overriding morality means that almost anyone can justify almost anything. That will destroy the social fabric by causing it to collapse in on itself...

He had over 100 years to do this...

That's why we want seperate words used: one for Church, one for State. What's so confusing about that?

And that government would risk the loss of support of that portion. It would risk placing them as second class citizens as their lobby is constitutionally ignored, as opposed to other, non religious lobby groups, who politicians may freely court. Is that not the greater evil?

The problem is when one group wants dominance over the other. If the state takes a heavy hand, they oppress religion, but if the state accomodates religion, the other side complains. There is no satisfying everyone, that is why a compromise to keep the peace is required. The Courts say gays get some rights, the State must grant them. Many religions do not want their ordinances defiled by extending them beyond what they believe to be God's desires. This is why that compromise is needed. Then the moderates on both sides can claim victory...

It is secondary because it is harder to explain in those terms. It makes sense internally, but is virtually impossible to explain even preaching to the choir without some Spiritual help.

I argue with those that disagree with the use of different words.

That by itself, no. But it does not make it false either. I ask some leeway on that matter.

Examine it closely, test the spiritual teachings therein, and you'll get your answers. If you refuse this, then you will never get your own, personal answer.

Certain priveledges are linked to your obedience. If you don't obey, you don't qualify for those priveledge. Since we are divine sons and daughters of a loving Heavenly Father, does he not reserve the right to want the best spouses for us? Further, does he not reserve the right to have the best parents to entrust His precious children to for their mortal life?

Love the sinner, but hate their sins. You may call it hypocritical, but that's the doctrine. We want all to cast aside their sins and seek to follow God...

I'm worse at insults than I am at debate. Can I leave that one there?

I am accusing some people of twisting my words to make my theories soun implausible. That is the problem...

The Bible is my back up. You just don't like it. Does that sound more like an answer?

First off, it's Joseph Smith, and secondly, there are over 13 million members world wide. Some of the early members of the Church were persecuted, uprooted from their homes time and time again, and asked to make tremendous sacrifices for the re-establishment of the Lord's Church. When you can bring me a record of people willing to do that for you, then you're credibility can challenge Joseph Smith.

I know that. I'm not a polished debator. I go from the heart, not the mind.

All I have is the Bible, Book of Mormon (less accepted) and revelation of Latter Day prophets (again, less credible to the standards expressed here). Would I gain credibility in these forums if my basic arguements were backed up by other posters?

Looking at myself here, I have personal, spiritual experience that confirms my religious teachings. In some cases, I ask not conversion, but respect for my faith. I have more than the Bible, that some here don't have...

It does not mean that it is wrong. Please accept that too.

Until you can claim that the religious requirements to proclaim my faith are false, I'll ask you to refrain from making claims that it is. You not buying it? Me niether. That's why I will not be stopping just yet. Remember that this is what I believe, and I know that I'm not the only one that believes this. Unfortunately, most of them have more to do and don't post here...

It does not remove my requirement to share these claims. It also does not stop people from outright claiming that my religion is false with out sufficient proof that God does not exist.

Are you suggesting that I'm trying hard to resist open bigotry against homosexuals and am trying to talk myself out of a "fag Drag?" Or are you claiming that I don't relly believe? I assure you that both are incorrect. I do no hate gays, nor do I want to see them beaten for their acts. But I do not agree with what they do, I do not believe their arguements on why they do it, and do not think the state should support them in their sins. I only grudgingly accept that a judge has deemed that certain protections are due them by the state, and wish the state to deal with the matter in a less offensive manner.

Remember that I am not pure and pristine myself. In all my past sins, I not only did not find meaning, but a feeling that meaning was stripped away from life. It was only by doing as God commands and putting others above myself that i found any real meaning. I testify to all of you that this feeling is available to all of you by doing as I have done.

There is no evidence I can come up with that will change anyone's mind. All I have is rejected.

Some discussions, common sense will suffice. This is not one of those discussions. It is a spiritual matter that requires you to believe or not, and from there your position lies.

To you, they are nothing, to me they are everything.

I'm working to make the 21st century best for as many as possible.

UNconditional love and acceptance, yes, but Jesus Christ also wishes us not to sin. I am not perfect, and do get upset from time to time. I claim not to be perfect, but the blessings that Jesus Christ offers are for those that obey, including avoiding the bigger sins (like homosexuality, fornication, adultery) and repenting of our failures. Jesus did welcome those that would change their ways and follow Him. Homosexuals reject Christ by their sins (If you love me Keep My Commandments), and thus are exempt from the promised happiness.

That will not likely happen in my lifetime, but at the judgement seat, and the slapping silly could be straight to hell if I'm far enough from the mark...

The Scriptures forbidding homosexuality are explicit and unmistakable in their condemnation of homosexuality. The thing I find insulting is that people will claim to be Christians, but openly commit offenses against its teachings.

It makes much more sense from the perspective of the faithful...

Yes, it would. Basically, the promise of eternal marriage is a never ending posterity. Even though the gift of reproduction is denied them at this time, they may be so blessed in a future state after ressurection. In the mean time, they are called upon to build the marriage and home in which such reproduction may come. Completely spiritual, I realize, but it is my belief.

Eventually sufficient states agreed to emancipation to make it a permanent part of the law. This may happen with civil unions, but some states will resist longer than others...

You are correct, I am not painting everyone with that brush. Some may call me careless with said brush however. Never trust a guy with Tourette Syndrome with a paintbrush...

I think we do for the most part, but some areas are untouchable, and for some of us, quite sensitive on these areas.

But the holy books are the only source I have beyond gut instinct and spiritual guidance...

A day was easily understood by the people there. Somewhere in the church, where discussions of Creation the words "Creative period" were used. Perhaps "day" was chosen to simplify the basics of creation for the people at the time of Moses. Scientific advances, such as Geology and evolution were not mentioned because a, the people weren't ready for that, and b, that is not the point of the Bible.

Exactly. Belief often comes with an emotive connection. I can believe some of the science that you tell me here, but there is little emotion with it. It carries less weight personally. But my beliefs come with an emotional connection to that which is taught. This makes more sense to me than it does to some of you because the emotional connection is not there for you...

I demand a compromise that, while recognizing that the court demands that rights be given to the gays does not offend my faith. While I'd love everyone to convert to my religion, i realize that it won't happen, and that nobody can be forced to that...

Likewise, I now tolerate (even though I still don't like) the idea of civil unions for gays.

The fine line between noble and annoying is in the execution--which I suck at.

But are there any of the ancient Jews and their prophets? And how are they dated?

It is morally wrong for me to have sex with another guy. Would it not be hypocritical to tell someone else (assuming they are male) that it's okay for them to have sex with another guy? I hold others to the same morals I strive to.

I have yet to figure out how to respect an apparent contempt for religion in general. Perhaps this is something I need to learn for my own spirituality...

To respect someone for a greivous sin when I would not tolerate that within my own faith is hypocricy. The closest you will ever see in some such regards is that the things which are objectionable should be kept in private. I am OBLIGATED by God to testify of Him and to warn the people of the sins of the world. If that is viewed as disrespect, then that is your view.

That's personally how I deal with any gay people I know. I don't ask about it for fear that they'll tell me. Unless I seek to be a part of their sex life, it's not my business at this time...

One of the questions asked for a Temple Reccommend or Priesthood advancement is whether I belong to or sympathize with any group who's teachings are contrary to the Church. In some cases, your requests to bend actually translate to break with my faith. Would you ask that I abandon my faith for your point of view?

How about enviably clear minded? The more you cram into your mind on such topics, the more confusing things get. You risk spending more time thinking about how to live and not enough time living...

I'm debating that opinion with some other people in this thread myself, but I'm trying to learn this respect they talk about...

I really wish I knew how to put this better. I don't seek re-enforcement, only respect. I only seek support in a fight to protect a more traditional morality. Anything correct in the scientific record would somehow mesh with my faith. If you want to reach some understanding, then you must factor that into account. If you insist on a chasm, then hiow can a bridge be built? Third, while yes, my Bishop and my Church leaders do know better, but only by their callings and experience in my faith. Dismissing you is more a factor of perceived attitude, much the same reason you think I should not be taken seriously.

That is how we study it. We study it, comment and later, we are called to teach that which we have learned. We learn from commentary of those in our faith, and in turn become the commentators to the next generation...

You are right, but more because those on the fringes of Christianity (spiritually, not by affiliation) will drop off and not care, leaving the faith with a more dedicated core who will be more vocal and will fight for their beliefs and morality.

Standing up for what we believe is not productive to you? That's exactly the problem with this world. Too many people don't care enough to stand for what they believe...

But there is some way to build bridges between science and faith as some remind me. Until those bridges are built, Christianity will suffer. AS long as any attempts at building these bridges are mocked and undermined, then that will be prolonged. But those bridges will be built sooner rather than later...

I think that in some faiths, the emphasis is in the wrong place. In my church, I hear little about Noah and the arc or the parting of the red sea, but more about how we ought to live. It is the latter, which even DR seems to approve, which is where the prohibition of Homosexuality comes from.

WE have too much to lose if we do...

 

I'm sure I am completely misunderstanding you here, but are you saying that he is only considered a Messiah (or what ever - I'm not quite sure, sorry) because of the numbers who believe in him? Surely the numbers are irralevent. Would God still exist if no one believed in him?

 

Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, not the Messiah himself. Earlier someone was claiming in jest to be the Messiah to trump Joseph Smith as a prophet. Does this help?

 

Would you kill somebody if God told you to and said you'd be burned in the fires of Hell if you didn't?

 

I'm just going to sit here in bemusement for a few seconds. You've been arguing for the last 23 pages or so that the State has no right to "defile" your religious ordinances by using the word "marriage". In fact, you've said just that in that very post. I've pointed out that this is not the case in any way, as the state doesn't officially use that word, and you suddenly change your stance. What the hell?

So, you're supporting your argument by sheer fact that you can't be objectively disproven?

Sorry, but I got my own "answers" without the need for your book.

Why should he even care? He gave us free will for a reason. If he wanted a world of cheerful, obedient Christians He would have stopped us from devloping those capacities.

But what if they don't consider what they're doing sinful? Damnation comes from acknowledging your sin and not caring about the people you harm, but I would doubt that homosexuals would ever consider their orientationa crime against God. Not forgetting that homosexuality harms no-one, of course, which stands out a bit, considering every other sin involves harming another living being.

We don't need to.

I don't like it because it lacks common sense. It's like saying that you're God and you're right because God is infallible and that's you. There's no actual support for the claim.

Then Jimmy Smith couldn't hold a candle up to Stalin! He had millions upon millions of people willing to die for his cause! he must have been the Megassiah!

Actually, I'd say your arguments come from a specifically different part of the body. But thta's beside the point.

But why should we accept that you MAY not be wrong when you're under the absolute conviction that people should suffer for your beliefs? Sure, there's the single factor which can't be proved either way, but it's moot in an argument, as there is no evidence either way beyond personal experience (which doesn't translate into absolute reality, in case you didn't already know) and scientific fact.

And yet, if you had your way, you'd have them all put away in asylums and prisons. So, your inaction isn't a moral decision for the benefit of these people, it's just that you don't have the power to have them put where you can't see them. Real admirable.

What bridges? Religion has no bearing on science whatsoever. The two things are completely different; I don't see why either side should need to make concessions, or why there even needs to be communication between science and religion. Unless, of course, what you want is for science to stop uncovering information that contradicts facts in holy books, but that's just shooting ourselves in the foot from a progressive perspective.

Ha. "Blessed is the mind too small for doubt".

 

* First,

Which is not helpful when those commentators themselves limit themselves to a literal understanding of the text. You miss Spengler's point.

* Second, Joseph Smith dictated his prophecies out of a hat to his publisher. He dropped a magical seer stone into his hat, then buried his face in the hat and dictated the Book of Mormon. Joseph claimed to see in the darkened hat the words he dictated. That certainly makes me scratch my head.

Gnarff made a good point when he said:

As I tried to point at before: Belief is subjective. Plausibility, simple alternative explanations (like that Smith likely made it all up), evidence or facts don't matter.

[ December 18, 2006, 18:52: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Thanks for clearing that up. But my question remains. Would his points be any less valid if only a hundred thousand people believed it? What about one thousand? Thirty? Or what if no one believed in it, would it still be valid?

 

Reminds me of a David Eddings novel, where gods get weak when people stop believing in them (Belgariad series iirc).
Interesting theory, but somewhat

 

So the idea is that 'civil unions' will be a gradual spread eventually encompassing the entire nation? Now that I could support.

*snerk* Though I'm sure it wasn't your intention, that sounded very much like an admission of defeat.

And this brings us right back to the corresponding point that you summarily dismiss: If one thing was not meant literally, how do you determine what was and was not meant? Perhaps the prohibition against homosexuality was only so that the people of the time, all holding that same opinion, would find it more understandable.

The same can be applied with respect to the "shellfish are yucky" prohibition of the OT that was repealed in the NT. Could it not be time for a "Newer Testament" to repeal those things that are no longer applicable to our society?

On a personal note, I'm not asking for the change. I'm only trying to help you understand their point.

 

Good points, Felinoid. You echo what I wanted to say but couldn't phrase properly.

 

If commanded by one of high enough priesthood authority, I would be expected to, but if he was not acting in accordance with God's law, the Sin is on his head, not mine. Further, in such situation, if this was not right, the Spirit would warn me of this with an urge to balk. If the person legitimately was to die, then I would feel the support of God. I have trouble seeing any such situation in reality however...

Check the quote please. I argue with those that don't want different words used, not agree with...

Because he WANTS us to choose the right, but to be able to choose the right, wrong choices have to be possible...

Forgiveness is possible to those that realize their sins and repent of them. They must realize at some point that they are doing wrong and to forsake their sinful ways. Then, by seeking the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, they are forgiven and able to move foreward...

But Stalin had millions of soldiers that were willing to kill those that would not die for his cause. Joseph Smith did not have that luxury. Secondly, what is Stalin's legacy? How is he remembered by the people of Russia. Compare that to the memories of Joseph Smith among the Mormons, and you'll see that Stalin does not compare...

lmao. Didn't see that one coming...

If they keep it in private, then they could live in peace. It would be like speeding. If you are reasonable (within a certain amount over the limit) they won't go after you, but go crazy, then they have to do something...

I still hold that it is a choice. Since it is not a criminal offence, then they keep it private, and I don't want to know about their sins. If it is not a choice, then it must be a mental illness, and they then deserve help. Either way, the law stays out of their bedroom, I sure as Hell doesn't want to go in there...

Then would science please stay the hell out of my faith? The minute the two come into conflict, they begin to have bearing on each other. That's where you get people trying to teach Intelligent Design in science classes. When some people try to use science to attack religion, put on your flame suits because there are those out there that make me look moderate/apathetic who know how to use those flamethrowers...

I don't know. Why do people keep bringing it into religious/ethical debate?

So is the fundimentalistic insistance that Science and Religion are mutually exclusive therefore religion is wrong rant.

If the two can both contain truth, then the two are like assembling a jigsaw puzzle with pool light. It fits together somehow, but the pieces are harder to define with sketchy information. Science, as admitted by many here in the alleys, is not infallable, and thus doesn't have all the answers. Religion, has yet to reveal all it's mysteries either. But if there is truth in both, then there has to be some answer...

Perhaps not as literal as you are suggesting. Sure there is little room to dispute lines like Thou shalt not Kill or Thou shalt not lie with a man as thou would lie with a woman. Those are explicit. The commentaries are discussing the lessons learned from the stories of the prophets and their teachings...

Some of the things God asks may not make sense until after you've done as asked. We only ask that you believe and take the doctrine. In the new testament, a centurion of reputation came to Jesus top cure his leprosy. Christ told him to bathe in the river jordan 7 times. The Centurion calles it ridiculous, and left in a huff. A servant of his told him that had Christ asked him to slay a foe, the man would die by the Centurion's sword, or any other major feat would be donw, why not this. The Centurion did as Christ told him and was cured of leprosy. It's not always about why is this asked, but that it is asked.

It all stared rom Joseph Smith's first vision. As soon as he talked about it, soon people would believe him, but many would not. Eventually, it rose enough to organize the Church, and it has grown over that size. Yes, it would be valid, but it grows in the eyse of the world as more people convert and show the people who we really are.

AS fewer people believe or care to obey, God's influence on society will wane. It has happenned before in places like Sodom and Gamorah, and it's happenning today. The more that influence wanes, the more the fundamentalists (some of them scare even me), will have to bitch about...

It will happen, but only as the people can be satisfied that it is seperating Church and State. The state giving rights to a minority in a way that allws religion to wash their hands of them and not be confused with them.

It's an admission that I can't play by the rules imposed on me in this fight, and a statement that this issue can't solely be decided under such artificial conditions as created here.

Later in the bible, that prohibition was upheld. Creation was only mentioned in one chapter...

That was upheld by prophets later in the Bible. In some of the epistles of Paul, the practice was again denounced as contrary to God's desires.

Arguably, that is happenning now, but it's one Religion that takes that claim. But that's my faith. We believe that we are lead by a living prophet who is God's representative on this earth. The prohibition against Homosexuality is still in force. Some old practices like use of wine or polygamy have fallen by the wayside in similar fashion...