Homosexuality and Religion

Remove all ads!

Is Christ spelt with a D?

AD stands for Anno Domini. And it doesn't prove Christianity right. It's just that the Christians were the best at forcing everyone else to use their calendar.

Ah, telling your opponents to "get a life", the mark of the truly masterful arguer. All I can see is that people are questioning your justification for your beliefs, and you don't like that because it brings up old doubts.

 

Good old doubt...the faith killer...

Gnarf, it's perfectly fine to doubt your beliefs. I doubt my beliefs quite regularly, and I allow them to change with new evidence that arises. Stagnant beliefs lead to a stagnant mind.

 

Gnarf, as an innocent bystander that just tumbled in this thread by a wayward link...and being a former Mormon myself...I can clearly see that you've got the typical Utah Mormon mindset going on. While you're intentions are good, you're actually driving more people away from the church than drawing them closer. Calm down, take a breath, and realize that the LDS church is just one of dozens and dozens of beliefs, mainstream religions, and theologies. You're in a crowd where each person has a different view/take on life, and you're in the middle with a megaphone...angering the masses.

One of my biggest issues with the LDS church is the member's lack of acceptance.

Now, with that said, let me just toss in my little belief. The bible is a record. Agreed? Throughout time, wars happen, and whoever wins a war gets a chance to re-write the record. So it is very hard for be to believe in a record that has been re-written so many times, and could have been misinterpreted each time. My school had an experiment one time that has something to do with this. You line about 20 or so students up in a line. The first student whispers a short sentence to the person next to him, and so on...by the end of the line, the sentence is nowhere near what the original sentence was.

If two guy's or two chicks want to hook up and have a legal document saying that they are legally married and qualify for all the benefits that come with marriage...then why should a inconsistent, inaccurate record of stories that are easily blown waaaaay out of proportion state that people who love each other, regardless of sex, not be able to get legally married?

But that's just me.

 

I spent several years doubting my beliefs. All I have to show for it is regret over the wasted years and a firm conviction that they were right all along. I wouldn't be able to afford the booze and dope if I went back to that at your request...

Membership has it's responsibilities. For those that believe, there are privelidges too...

Back on page one, it was stated that the views of religion regarding Homosexuality. For the last 13 pages, every attempt made to do so has met with mockery as opposed to serious discussion. About the only thing that has changed is my opinion of some of you here. Like many of the changes you want me to make, that's not a good thing...

 

Booze = evil...'dope' = gift of God that shouldn't be abused. It is for personal insight into the reality of consciousness and the non-duality of the body and mind, and also of the non-duality of the mind and God.

 

It's also a handy catalyst for such mental disorders as depression and schizophrenia. But that's a different story.

Mockery? No. You're just so deep in denial that any questioning of your beliefs is twisted into you being "mocked". All that's been happening for the last 13 pages is people pointing out that your precious holy book isn't as infallible as you'd hoped it'd be.

 

Off topic, I know, but pot helped my depression...it's only when it's abused and not used correctly that it leads to problems...

On topic...Gnarf, really we haven't been mocking you, we have been trying to tell you and NOG that there is more to the equation than you're willing to admit. That is all.

 

Ok, to start this off:

I think this was meant sarcastically, so drop it, please.

For something to be considered a mental disorder it must have a significantly negative impact on your life. All evidence (which isn't much) points to Christianity usually having a positive impact on your life. So no mental disorder here.

Recorded history doesn't go back 10,000 years. You're stretching it to say it goes back 5,000 years. On the other hand, the anatomically modern human form (Homo Sapien Sapien) has been around somewhere between 100K and 200K years. There's no evidence for any kind of civilization for most of this, though. Intellectually modern humans (as much something taught as born to) seem to have developed somewhere between 6K and 10K years ago, though it is VERY unclear where in that range it actually started to happen.

These cultures have texts which can be dated older than the oldest surviving copy of the Torah (I keep thinking I'm misspelling that), but not older than the Torah claims humanity to be. The first hints of civilization (permanent settlements and farming) don't occur until around 5K-6K years ago.

WTH? Could you cite a source, please?

Except the older copies have shown the Bible to be remacably resistant to this effect. Regardless of what normally happens, the Bible HASN'T been re-written since the oldest surviving copy of it (several hundred BC). On top of that, archeology has yet to prove anything in the Bible false, which is quite possible with histories falsified by the winner, but has rather shown much of it to be true.

??? Where's this from?

I'm not sure I'd call it mockery, but it hasn't been the passive attempt to enlighten us you claim it to be. You have attacked our beliefs and tried to prove the Bible false. We have countered those attempts. You seem to refuse to accept our counters for various reasons, lets not get into the legitimacy of them, but haven't countered our counters.

Additionally, I haven't seen much of anything that is actually 'adding to the equation'. Most all of it seems to be trying to take the Bible out, but I haven't seen anything that tries to add more info in. That's what I'd like to hear. No more 'this is why the Bible is wrong/irrelevant', but rather 'this is why I believe homosexuality should be legal'. And lets get into some real governmental mechanics here, like does the government have the right to legislate marriage (or similar relationships).

 

First things first: You're the one who made the argument go down this path by using the Bible as justification for refusing homosexuals rights that are available to heterosexuals. we were merely pointing out the inadaquacy of the source. And you haven't provided an adaquate counter-argument, hence why this argument has drawn on for so long. Here's a hint: you can't prove the legitimacy of a source using the source itself.

Yes, it does. It has the right to legislate a governmental function which allows homosexuals the same rights as a married heterosexal couple. I see no reason for homosexuals to have their rights restricted by religion within a secular society.

 

Archeology has already falsified biblical claims: Jericho for example. Nataraja mentioned it. Destroyed not by Israelis but by earthquakes that devastated the entire region. This Josua/Joshua "conquered" a destroyed and mostly abandonded city. Never mind that Palestine and Syria were part of Egypt's territory. Egypt, the regional hegemon of the time. Unlikely they would fiddle around with their sistrums while marauders attempt to burn down their holdings.

 

Take a look here. There are many such cultures appearing before 4000 BC. This one in particular seems to have been around 11000 years ago. If you take a look here, the first known farmers were around roughly 13,000 years ago. Or if you look up the Natufian culture, you'll see that there were settlements around the Mediterranean region around 14,000 years ago. They weren't a farming culture, but did have permanent settlements, with up to about 1000 houses in them, which IMO is certainly signs of civilization.

Go back even further than that and you find that the first art appeared in Europe around 37,000 years ago, during the Paleolic period. Or just back even further and you find that the Cro-Magnons, when they moved into Europe around 42,000 years ago "they brought with them sculpture, engraving, painting, body ornamentation, music and the painstaking decoration of utilitarian objects."

So, to quote you, NOG:

 

I used to think that pot helped me make sense of the world too. It didn't work. Once you start, it's like Pringles--once you pop, you just can't stop. (until you pass out or get sick...)

Why do you think I'm glad I quit?

People who saw me when I was toking regularly, they said that my Tourette Syndrome was not as severe. But Like I said before, I didn't use it in moderation, so I really don't want to go through that again.

Back to topic:

Again, it comes down to beliefs. We are defending our beliefs. From our beliefs, it's a simple case of homosexuality is wrong, just like adultery and fornication, no better, no worse. The only difference is that this transgression is championed by a group that identifies themselves by their preference of this sin. The presense of such a group does not change that point of doctrine.

That is why Homosexuality was no longer classified as a mental illness according to the American Psychiatric Association after 1973.

The Bible is our source of our beliefs. Attack the Bible and it's validity, you seek to remove the validity of our beliefs.

Actually, I challenged that too. All marriage derives from some religious background, and thus the State cannot trump it. The State merely builds a framework around it to accommodate it. That framework can adapt, but the core of Marriage should be beyond government tinkering.

 

I think that this must be the most repetitive thread I've seen.

First off I'll give a short message Gnarf...

I share membership of the same church as you, but I can see we have major differences. First off I believe that you inform people of you beliefs and guage their reaction. If they don't want to hear it (as is the case here) it truly does no good to try to force it down their throats. It makes a hypocrite out of you in relation to your statements regarding homosexuals trying to force their beliefs. Consequently this makes people care even less for your beliefs. You've made your possition clear now aim at supporting it rather than tearing the other side down.

For those non-religious backers...

I know this is the Alley, but ripping apart people for their religious beliefs isn't the way to go about making your point. Unless you are delibrately trying to provoke Gnarf and NOG, as it seems to be here, in which case it doesn't even belong in the Alley and reflects negatively on you and causes the chasm between the two sides to grow even more, bringing out more immature behavior on both sides.

I'm not trying to force you guys to not state your beliefs, but it is getting kind of ugly on BOTH sides as Beren pointed out a few days ago (and possibly more recently). Keep on with the postings (as it is a good topic), but keep it civil please.

Feel free to be with me

 

So could I form a new religion where homosexual marriages are allowed and then the state should build a framework around to accommodate it?

But no, in general I fully respect that belief. The only thing I would add though, if marriage is a religous thing, which the state has no right to tamper with, it should have no legal baring at all.

This is where the seperation of chuch and state comes in. Either marriage is a purely religous thing, in which case the government has no right to alter it; but as a result, there is no offical status for it. Or marriage is a legal thing, in which case the state has every right in the world to change it. After all, that is what the government is there for - to keep our laws up to date and relevant.

 

@Clixby:

Actually, no. This started when Rotku innocently asked where the Bible condemned homosexuality. We answered with quotes and several of you then attacked the Bible, claiming those passages were unclear, that it could have been added later, or that the Bible as a whole is irrelevant. On top of that, I haven't claimed homosexuals shouldn't get rights.

How have my counters not been adequate? I've explained why you are wrong, in several different terms, and even given sources when asked.

Who's trying to? I'm using Roman records, historical documents, and archeological evidence.

@Rotku:
Interesting, and certainly news to me. I find it interesting, however, that some of the archeologists on the dig associate the artwork on the temple with the story of Eden. Far from breaking the Biblical story, this seems to provide a realistic possibility to explain it. Again, nothing absolute either way.

Thanks for the links.

@State and marriage:
The term marriage originally refered to religious cerimonies binding two individuals (sometimes more). These bindings became legal as they addressed things like sharing of property, inheritence, etc., but these things were likely established in a basic sense before much in the way of organized government existed. When organized government was formed, it incorporated these long-cherished cerimonies into the government, much like early governments did with religion and the like. Now we have gotten religion and government mostly seperate, but marriage is still a solid part of governmental institution. This then raises questions of its own. Should we seperate religious marriage and governmental union? Should the government have the right to re-define marriage as it sees fit? Remember that your answers to these can swing both ways. If government has the right to re-define marriage as it sees fit, then a democracy or democratic republic has the right to re-define marriage as the majority of the people under that government see fit, which may well be against homosexuality.

 

Which is where you come across JS Mill's Tyrrany of the Majority. The government also has the right to remove the vote from minority races, religons or what ever. This doesn't mean it's right. But nor does it mean we should give the church the power to decide who votes or not.

 

As long as Mariagge is seen as an official status giving certain advantages in society it should be availeble to all.
Secondly and this is the importent part, while mariagge may come from religion, it dosn't particulary comes from christianity.
but that is completely off topic.

Now regarding religeus texts, while i dont believe in any god/goddess.
I do see that most religions have some good messages. Most religions teaches kindness and goodness, Sadly the three major religions (jewidism, islam, christianity) also justifies or at least can be used to justify intolorence, which history have shown us.
So generaly I feel religion is outdated, and while it might have a place in private homes, it should have no influence on society.

 

@Equester:
Just about anything can be used to 'justify' intollerance. Science has been the tool more than once, Hinduism has been there at least once, Buddhism several times throughout the history of Japan. Anything that even suggests any kind of difference between people can be used to 'justify' intollerance.

 

Indeed, it was not my intention, to only blame does 3. religions or not take in science, since the Nazies for eksample twisted science to say the jews was an inferior race (which is wierd since jewidism isn't even a race, its a believe).
But if you look through out history in almost any case it has boiled down to religion, even in modern days. secondly i used jewidism, christianity and islam as examples, since that are does which have affected us in the west most.

And in my opinion, a lot of this could be avoided if religions didn't tend to claim that they are the only right believe, that thier believers are superior and by not condeming certain people.