|
|
|
|
Well, what do you think of that question? (I was somewhat inspired to write this becuase of the Religion topic on here.)
Do you think God accepts gay people? (I wont use the word "gays" cause the word bugs me.)
I think that if God created everyone in his image, then yes, he should accept homosexuals. What do you all think?
Also, I think that some parts of the Bible, should be ripped out. lol. Love is for EVERYONE! Not just hetero poeple. If you love soemone unconditionally, that should be enough right? Why then, does it say in the Bible, that Homosexuality is wrong? Why do Priests and Pastors of the Christian faith, think it's wrong when two men love eachother and sleep in the same bed?
Personally, I think that it's a lot of crap when people say that it's wrong for two men to love eachother.
But then, is it even that they love eachother? Is it that two men can have sex? What is it about homosexuals that is so wrong?
(This is no a religion topic, but iof you want to talk about religion here as well, feel free. I just want to see what people think here.)
~Josh~
21.
Love who you want to.
~Josh~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Josh,
This is quite a common topic on here -- you could try searching for other threads and read what everyone had to say in the past. In summary, on the whole, people here are either atheists, agnostic or see no conflict with their religion.
(I don't like the noun 'gay' either. It implies that the only thing of note about you is that you are gay. 'Gay person' is better -- though 'person' is best of all, with 'gay' reserved only for interactions with potential partners.)
I'm an atheist, so I think God is as you want him to be. This means God can be vengeful and malicious, and can also be goodness personified.
>Do you think God accepts gay people?
Literally? I don't think he exists. So the question is irrelevant. Less literally, I see no reasons other than prejudice that would make people expect him not to accept gay people.
>I think that if God created everyone in his image, then yes, he should accept homosexuals. What do you all think?
(You don't like the word 'gays' but you don't mind 'homosexuals'? What is the difference?)
If gay people are in God's image, it makes no sense for him to make people gay and then hate them for it. So I agree.
>Why do Priests and Pastors of the Christian faith, think it's wrong when two men love eachother and sleep in the same bed?
Because they don't like the idea.
Because they are preoccupied with gay sex and have no conception of gay love. Because they think being gay means nothing but promiscuity and sodomy. Perhaps even (for the most ignorant) rape and child abuse.
Because someone told them it is wrong, and they have not questioned the logic of it because they accept the views of their religion without question.
Because they have so little insight into sexuality they think that people are deliberately being perverted or perverse in not being attracted to members of the opposite sex.
From a Christian viewpoint, that the Bible does not support it in some places is a red herring. Jesus said nothing on the subject. Much of the rest of the Old Testament has already been discarded as irrelevant to the present day. Many Christian denominations embrace all people regardless of sexuality.
If you want to find the answers as religious people see them (I doubt they will be so condemnatory of themselves as I have just been) you could try posting in a fundamentalist religious forum. I'd be interested to see the results -- though it may just turn into a flame-war.
Best wishes,
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Josh wrote:
> I think that if God created everyone in his image, then yes, he should accept homosexuals. What do you all think?
I agree. if there is a god
But thats I'll say on this topic.
:-[
So say what you want
(You know I'm wasting all my time)
You've gotta mean it when you say what you want
(You're only safe when you're alone)
And everybody's on your mind
Saying anything to get you by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...that so many priests condemn homosexuality is that many of them are closeted or repressed homosexuals themselves. In other words, 'sour grapes'.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Possibly you should start with "What is a deity?" before this.
Do you mean a real "higher power" or do you mean "an invention by people who needed to explain natural phenomena"?
The former may do as it chooses. The latter is the people delegating authority to a priesthood that then controls them with their consent.
If two people love each other then they are free to love each other.
Why should we not be able to have sex with the people we chose to have sex with, though? Who truly has the right to stop you for having consensual sex with a person of either gender?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'sour grapes' XD that TOTALLY made me laugh^_^ lol. thanks for that^^
~Josh~
21.
Love who you want to.
~Josh~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what i mean when i say 'God' is... hm...
its strange. lol.
There isnt really a description of 'it.' And whats really wierd, is that people assume that it was a he. it could have been a she, or not even human. lol. regardless, hm..
Now that you mention the natural phenomena, i think thats what it is. lol. and I say it, becuase i doubt whatever it was, was human. nobody has seen 'God' so we cant all the sudden assume that God exists.
The Bible, could have just been written by people with nothing better to do. There were the12 deciples and what not, and the Last Supper. but that was it. lol. it doesnt mean they wrote the Bible. I dont even know if they could read...
Aside from that...
Nobody has any right to tell you who you can and cannot love. Anyone can love anyone, and it doesnt matter if they are the same sex or not. If they are, and someone doesnt like it, get over it. lol.
*huggles*^^ lol.
~Josh~
21.
Love who you want to.
~Josh~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, Josh!
Do you think God accepts gay people?
Yes, I'm sure that he accepts and loves us. 
I think that if God created everyone in his image, then yes, he should accept homosexuals. What do you all think?
I believe God made us basically who we are, and being gay is not something we can change. Believe me, I tried for so many years. To me it's an absurd idea that God loves only a part of the human race, not all of us.
Also, I think that some parts of the Bible, should be ripped out. lol.
Many people choose to ignore the fact that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. They also tend to forget that there are many laws and regulations in the Old Testament which are no longer regarded as valid. Here, the crab season isn't far away, and even the most conservative Christians along the coast love crabs, prawns and lobster.
Love is for EVERYONE! Not just hetero poeple. If you love soemone unconditionally, that should be enough right?
Of course!
Why then, does it say in the Bible, that Homosexuality is wrong? Why do Priests and Pastors of the Christian faith, think it's wrong when two men love eachother and sleep in the same bed?
Christanity is not about abiding laws. It is about love and forgiveness. Christ loved everyone, but he frequently reprimanded the pharisees. Even those who take the Bible literally regard most of the laws as invalid. Don't your priests and pastors eat pork? Do they still accept and support slavery?
However, not all pastors and priests reject homosexuals. The majority of our bishops accept and welcome us. I'm also sure that Deeej is right about 'sour grapes', and that condemning homosexuality is a way of fighting their own identity.
But then, is it even that they love eachother? Is it that two men can have sex? What is it about homosexuals that is so wrong?
I don't know. But the church has from its early days spread the idea that sexuality and the naked body are sinful, dirty and shameful, unless sex is used for the procreation of children. St. Augustin even wrote that '... if the means could be given them of having children without intercourse with their wives, would they not with joy unspeakable embrace so great a blessing?' Many churches still teach that sexuality is basically a tool for reproduction, and deny to take responsibility for the hypocrisy and double standards it creates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I have not, by the way, excluded a deity from being a natural phenomenon. Though you made me notice that
Why would it need a gender?
The bible is a set of histories, allegories, and fables. Some have a technically valid explanantion, we're told. But it was created by each author for the purposes of the author, or the authorities (interesting similarity of words there - derivation anyone?) supporting the author.
Ever read the Book of Revelation? Now St John the Divine was on a really bad trip that day! We have our mail delivered by one of the four postmen of the apocalypse.
You can have a deity without a "holy book", but you can't have a priesthood without a holy book. And who makes the rules?
Ah yes. The priesthood interprets the "wishes of the deity". Or rather od individuals like Osama bin Liner "believe they are doing God's work" according to a TV documentary that is being aired here on 24th August.
I still can't work out why homosexuality is a threatening thing for religions. But I think it's because the priesthood wants to control every aspect of life. Think of Lent, no meat on Fridays, no birth control, No having fun, no dacning, theatre, cinema. Add "No sex unless we say" (ie not before marriage), add "Only have sex with the opposite sex and THEN only to make babies" and then you get control.
"No baby yet Mrs O'Rourke? Are you and Mr O'Rourke doing it right?"
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Me, I'm an agnostic. I used to be a fairly committed member of the Anglican (=Episcopalian) Church, but the self-righteous attitudes of so many so-called committed Christians eventally discouraged me. So everything I say about God is said on the presumption that God exists, though I am not wholly convinced that he does. Nevertheless, I'm still very interested in the history of the Christian Church and of religion in general.
As Deej has said, this topic is often discussed on the board - at least twice in the last six months - so if you wander through the archives you'll find lots of information. I don't want to bore the rest of the readership by going over old ground at length, so I'll just summarise the arguments I've put forward before.
If there IS a God, then the teachings of Jesus make it absolutely clear that he is a loving and understanding god. It is impossible to believe that he would hate something which he himself had created. He may have granted us free will, but unbiased research demonstrates cleary that being gay is not a choice we make ourselves. It cannot therefore be a sin to be gay, because we have no choice in the matter. Many preachers argue that even if it isn't a sin to be gay, it's a sin to indulge in gay sex, because that IS a matter of choice. That view owes more to dogma than to logic.
The Old Testament was written by men, not by God. Possibly the writers were inspired by God, or maybe they simply thought that they were inspired by God. In any event, all we know of God has come to us through men. Even if we believe that God has entered our personal lives, the belief is founded solely upon a mindset created by the man-made Bible and those who claim to interpret it. The Bible is essentially the history of the Jewish people, and of the relationship they saw between themselves and their god, but it is a strongly political document and it reflects the Jewish view. If the Jews slaughtered their enemies - including their children - then the Bible states that it was God's will that they should do so. It was a case of 'Thou shalt not kill ... unless it is in the Jewish interest to do so'! But the Jews were neither more, nor less violent than the other tribal groups among whom they lived, and the Bible simply reflects the realities of life in those times.
So it is with the 'anti-gay' verses, especially those in Leviticus. The Jewish leadership was pretty obsessive about maintaining racial purity; intermarriage with members of other tribes was discouraged. So far as we are aware, homosexuality was by no means uncommon in several racial groups in the area, including the Canaanites. It therefore made good political sense to condemn the practice, as by implication this made the Canaanites appear inferior to the Jews. It must, of course, have been tough for the contemporary Jewish gays, who were probably as numerous then as they are today! The point is that the condemnation may well have been relevant to its time, but that doesn't mean that it is relevant today. On top of that, there is even now much debate between liberal and conservative Jewish theologians about what the verses in Leviticus are actually prohibiting.
Many Christian Churches view the Bible as a collection of allegorical stories, relevant to their times but needing re-interpretation in relation to the present day. Many Jews take a similar view.
The problems arise when preachers and churches seek to interpret the Bible in a purely literal sense - the fundamentalist approach. Almost always, this is done on a highly selective basis. For example, the Bible implies that homosexuality is an abomination, but it is even more explicit in condemning the eating of shellfish, and fathers of unruly sons are exhorted to have such sons stoned to death. Fundamentalist churches condemn homosexuality because gays are a minority, and inciting hatred of a minority is a tried and tested method of securing power and control. Shellfish eaters are NOT a minority; if a Church preached the evils of Prawn Cocktail or Clam Chowder, the congregation would see this as unacceptable - stupid, even - and would drift elsewhere. And, quite apart from the legal consequences, a demand for the stoning of unruly sons would be unlikely to be met with enthusiasm.
So, in short - if there IS a God, he is a loving and forgiving god, who would not conceivably hate someone whom he had created for something over which he granted them no control. The anti-gay verses were a product of their age, and even then - for the reason just given - I cannot believe that the verses were truly inspired by God. The anti-gay stance of the fundamentalist Christian Churches is a highly selective and cynical misuse of the Bible to incite hatred of anyone who is 'different' as a means of securing and exercising power and control.
Josh, gay or str8, your God loves you and will judge you by the way you live your life, not by anything over which you do not have the power of choice. If you are kind, considerate and tolerant, you will undoubtedly be judged far above those who peddle hatred in God's name.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah Josh I am probably one of the most outwardly religious person here (well who might post to this topic), but I agree with a lot which has been said already by Deeje, Cossie, and Sailor. I definitely believe God exists and I also firmly believe He would never hate anyone because they are homosexual. I further don't think it was His intention that a person develop feelings of attraction for the same sex, but that it happens as a result of a lot of factors which we may not even consider as pertinent to the matter. It is simply a human trait we acquire somehow. Notice I call it a human trait and not some abberation.
I think that Christ's main message was to reitterate what God has tried to tell us for all the written history of the Bible; that He loves us and wants us to live by His commandments. I don't think anyone here would disagree that being obedient to the 10 commandments would be a good thing for us all to do. God wants only for us to live in peace and practice what Christ told us; to love one another and be tolerant. It cant be much simpler than that can it?
The God I believe in would simply look into your heart and see if you hate or dispise anyone. He would feel sad if you didn't try to lived by His word which is only something to guide our behavior with others. Being gay may not be what God intended but it is simply not evil or something that will condemn you in His eyes.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not surprisingly, the general general trend of the discussion in this thread has been orientated towards a Christian view of the Bible. That's perfectly OK with me because clearly that was the assumed viewpoint of the original question.
Cossie gave us his understanding of the Old Testament, one which obviously came from the 'outside'. From the 'inside' things look different, of course. I shall not give a lecture here about how it looks from the inside, because that would truly try your patience. Let me just say, as briefly as possible, that Judaism has never been based on the Bible (i.e. what the Christian world calls the Old Testament); Judaism is based on the Bible as interpreted by the sages from age to age. The interpretations of the sages were usually towards a liberal understanding of the rules in the text. To give learned examples here would be way beyond the scope of this thread (and the purpose of this forum).
As far as the law in Leviticus is concerned, it has always been understood as referring to anal penetration only. Even many modern fundamentalists in Judaism accept gay people with love (as long as they forswear anal penetration), rather like Christian sects who profess to "love the sinner and hate the sin". The more liberal elements within modern Judaism are much more accepting of gay people, some synagogues even having openly gay clergy. Obviously, modern Judaism has its fair share of rabid homophobia, but generally speaking "the times they are a-changing".
Deeej mentioned that he is an atheist and Cossie has identified himself as an agnostic. Probably only within modern liberal Judaism would it be possible to find a sect that, while observant, absolutely denies anything and everything supernatural. This sect, the Reconstructionists, was founded by Mordechai Kaplan ( who died, aged 102, about 20 years ago). I am reminded of two jokes that were told of this (truly great) man. One was that the creed of his sect was: "there is no God and Mordechai Kaplan is His prophet" (with apologies to Islam). The other is that he would address his prayers "to whom it may concern".
While I am in no way a Reconstructionist I readily admit that Kaplan's thinking has had a great influence on my own religious outlook.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deeej is right about 'sour grapes', but I think it’s more a case of sour Balls.
My feelings in regards to God are summed up in a (author unknown) quote in my profile:
“There should be a sign over every Church door that reads "Important If True" ”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken said,
>I don't think anyone here would disagree that being obedient to the 10 commandments would be a good thing for us all to do.
I would. I disagree with the ten commandments in that they are so incomplete. Yes, many of the sentiments are useful ones. But they say nothing on so many things that matter; and by being black and white they fail to take into account special cases, cases where it is in the best interests of almost all concerned to break them.
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Well, that one prevents people from worshipping any other god. I certainly don't agree with that: I believe in free choice.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
See above. Also, does this not get exceedingly close to banning some of the greatest religious literature and art?
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
This assumes you believe in the same God. It's irrelevant if you don't.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
I have not met a single person, ever, Christian or not, who has not broken that commandment at some point. If people want to work, let them.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
Fair enough -- if they are worthy of respect. I suppose it's okay as a rule of thumb.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
Not even in self-defence?
Anyway, thou shalt not kill what? Your family? Your neighbours? Jews? The enemy? (What about all the people the Jews killed in the Bible, supposedly supported by God? What about exhortations to stone unruly sons to death?)
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
I agree with that one, but only because of the betrayal involved. I do not see any reason (though I still disapprove) why those involved should not be allowed to commit adultery with their partner's consent.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
Better to die than to steal? What if you have no choice?
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Not even if it means betraying someone's life? In war? What about during the Holocaust? This is far too black and white.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Isn't that the essence of capitalism? Funny how Bush and his fundamentalist friends don't seem to have noticed.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I might reply in response a bit to what you said that I am aware that if you dont believe in God the first 3 or so dont mean much to you. I dont think it will affect you if this is kept to a personal level and not forcing anyone else to believe the same thing.
I dont see that many of the other things are going to be a problem. You state that it might be the case to lie to protect a nieghbor instead of turning him in to the police for something like the holocast. I would say that good judgement would dictate you save the neighbor no matter what then.
As to killing, the original word was the one used for murder and that is far different than a lot of times when you might have to kill such as in war etc.
I think you are smart enough Deeje to know what is intended by these commandments. Just as most are aware of when they are doing something wrong that will harm someone, but go ahead and do it anyway because it follows the technicality of the law. Christ had a lot to say about doing that.
In my heart I know when I am causing hurt to someone, usually; and if it is called to my attention that I said or did something to hurt someone's feelings etc, I would waste no time in appologizing for it and so would you. I think of the commandments more as a guide for living and you always have to use judgement in your actions.
I think that saying goes Good judgement comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgement or something like that.
Who is to be the judge to determine which of us is worthy of respect? Do you want to set yourself up as that authority? Well just go from there and do what is right then is all I can say.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken,
>I think you are smart enough Deeje to know what is intended by these commandments.
I don't pretend to know anything about the commandments. I know only what I read, and where there is ambiguity I think, "What's the worst that people could make of that?". Far too many people assume they 'know' the meaning of every ambiguity in the Bible -- yet often they do not agree what the meaning is, and in many cases they use it to condemn practices that are entirely reasonable when judged on their own merits.
A 'smart' person does not know the meaning of everything in the Bible: a smart person realises that it means something different to every person who reads it.
>As to killing, the original word was the one used for murder and that is far different than a lot of times when you might have to kill such as in war etc.
There is plenty of murder in the Bible. It might have taken place during war, but that does not mean it is not murder.
>I think of the commandments more as a guide for living and you always have to use judgement in your actions.
Fine. As an atheist, I could not see them as anything else. But your original statement was "I don't think anyone here would disagree that being obedient to the 10 commandments would be a good thing for us all to do." and I most emphatically do not agree with that. At the very least, it expects us all to be good Christians. I don't want to be a Christian.
>Who is to be the judge to determine which of us is worthy of respect? Do you want to set yourself up as that authority? Well just go from there and do what is right then is all I can say.
I expect everyone to do that. Those people who blindly obey without questioning what is and is not a sin, and, more importantly, why it is so, are also those who are most likely to represent a danger to society and other people. Critical thinking is an important subject and it is appalling that people are not taught it at school or by their parents.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
What if the 10 commandments were a joke played on the old bearded Jewish guy by two teenage angels/gods or whatever, having a laugh at his expense?
"Hey, dude, let's see how much stone we can get the old guy to carry!"
"Yeah, ten commandments should be his limit!"
"I have a further 15 in case he can carry more than you think!"
"Shall we bet on it?"
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know a kindly gentilman who will correct me if Im wrong. the 10 commandments were not all the law. It was a concise listing of the law and each listing had sub laws underit. Something like 1500 laws or something like that. You know like chapter one "thou shalt have no other gods befor me" and then all the laws pertaining to that.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
to me, the 10 Commandments, mean nothing. XD Absoluitely nothing! so its really quite funny. lol.
I believe in my friends, my dreams, and the ones I love, and I dont need some piece of paper telling me what to believe in. lol.
-LAUGHS-
~Josh~
21.
Love who you want to.
~Josh~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian1407a wrote:
I know a kindly gentilman who will correct me if Im wrong.
I don't know who the kindly gentleman is, but I can confirm that from the Jewish point of view there are 613 commandments in the Torah (first 5 books of the Bible). More than 2000 years ago Jews stopped quoting the Ten Commandments every day so as not to create the impression that these 10 were more important than the other 603. (Each of those commandments has oodles and oodles of explanations, interpretations and updates.)
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
God is gay.......
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
is she?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, she impregnated Mary...
He certainly likes/liked to surround himself with male saints, angels and disciples. The women hardly get a look-in.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
