Acceptance of gays vs. view of religions

I feel like the laws in Leviticus were made for reasons that may or may not apply anymore depending on circumstances. Most of them were purely hygenic at a time when medical knowledge was limited to "keep organs in your body and don't get sick." I feel like the homosexuality ban fell largely into this too — keep in mind homosexuality as we know it now was a total unknown, and homosexual practices were more a symptom of extreme reckless excess (and often pagan ritual) than our modern idea of a couple dudes/chicks wholesomely raising kids together.

To not reevaluate these things and why they were there as we learn more about ourselves would be negligent — but sadly, infallibility poisonous practice mutter mutter

Is this like Judy Garland where something only tangentially related to gay culture gets appropriated as an icon, or am I just misunderstanding this?

edited 24th Jan '11 11:19:56 AM by Pykrete

The issue with most of the Abrahamic holy texts is that they condemn homosexuality in pretty unambiguous language. You're supposed to put gays to death. Along with adulterers and various and sundry other sinners. Likewise, animal sacrifice is encouraged, shellfish can't be eaten, and God has a habit of slaying the first-born of all who disagree.

Nowadays, people ignore most of those parts of the Bible and there hasn't been so much as a Great Flood from the heavens. And homosexuality is really not that big of a deal. I mean, how many people are gay? 7-8% of the general population? Far fewer than the percentage of the population that menstruates, and how many Christians do you think follow the specific guidelines set forth in Leviticus for dealing with that?

You can either admit you already ignore huge parts of the Bible (and then be hard pressed to explain exactly why homosexuality is so much worse than wearing mixed fabrics), or you can follow the whole thing (how many burnt offerings have you prepared this week? do you pierce your slaves' ears with an awl?). I suppose there's also the option of claiming the Bible isn't that important (damn Catholics :P).

Personally, though, I think it's high time God gave another revelation to a latter-day prophet and spoke through him to say something along the lines of "actually, slavery's not economically sustainable anymore, shellfish is tasty if it's properly prepared and I don't give a fuck if gay people want to get married in the privacy of their own home." Seriously, it's probably been centuries since I've seen a giant glowing cross in the sky and "In hoc signo vincite" scribbled under it in ethereal letters — you better get on that, God.

I have devised a most marvelous signature, which this signature line is too narrow to contain.

? I didn't think any popes had used infallibility with anything related to this, or even outside of abstract theological problems for that matter.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

Papal infallibility has been used seven times ever. Magisterial infallibility is actually pretty frequent.

edited 24th Jan '11 11:23:25 AM by Pykrete

I don't think that people who never have sex should be telling people who do have sex how to have sex.

Huh. Didn't even know that was a thing. Yay, learning

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

This, too. If certain parts of Bible can be judged to be not relevant anymore, then why does this particular bit about homosexuality is still regarded as holy truth?

If everything written in the Bible is to be followed forever, regardless of changes in society - why people are not encouraged to keep slaves, conquer unbelievers and rape-marry their daughters anymore?

And if they still are - well, that perspective is somewhat too frightening to contemplate.

edited 24th Jan '11 11:25:17 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Disagree. Such a rule should not be customized for only those who do not have it. In general, anyone should not be able to force other people to do things how they do, or wish they would.

edited 24th Jan '11 11:25:09 AM by MrAHR

Read my stories!

Fundamentalists don't reflect religious believes and for whatever reason, most of the fundamentalists I have spoken too and listened too actually don't understand their own religion. So I don't fucking know what it is that they do or why.

What?

It's a bad reference (obviously) on my part to an old meme where the people who take the Leviticus rules so seriously need to start protesting shellfish consumption and mixed-blend fabrics.

http://www.ariel.com.au/jokes/Dr_Laura_and_Leviticus.html

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

What does them not experiencing something personally have to do with it? It comes down to forcing once's preferences onto someone else, regardless of experience.

Read my stories!

Ah.

Note that I did not say the Leviticus rules should be offhandedly discarded, merely weighed carefully in the context of the setting in which they were made compared to our own in order to locate the deeper purpose behind it, and see if it's still relevant.

For example, "thou shalt not murder" is kind of a keeper.

edited 24th Jan '11 11:36:49 AM by Pykrete

I was quoting a comedian, although I think the joke was actually about condoms. The point being that the pope is not someone you would expect to be particularly knowledgeable about sex, and therefore not someone whose word on the subject should be taken as absolute.

edited 24th Jan '11 11:37:42 AM by Elfive

"Nowadays, people ignore most of those parts of the Bible and there hasn't been so much as a Great Flood from the heavens. And homosexuality is really not that big of a deal. I mean, how many people are gay? 7-8% of the general population?" - aishkiz

I'd say more along the lines of 2-3%, at least based on what I was taught in 1st-year psychology.

In any case, I'm not sure if the distinction between the homosexuality-condemning parts and the other parts is whether or not it's in the new testament as well (again, "Romans 1:26-27" and "1 Corinthians 6:9-10" condemn it too) but frankly, I think a more relevant issue is perhaps the similarity of pro-religion reasoning with anti-gay reasoning. Think about it, what reasons for supporting Christianity aren't similar in their logic to various homophobic cliches?

Then next time you should make that clear.

Read my stories!

My question is: If you are going to discard parts of the Bible, what distinction do you make between "what I like" and "what I think this is telling me to do"?

Tossing out parts of the Bible really cheapens listening to anything it has to say at all.

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

I think that's one of the reasons that a lot of people don't.

Anything that is now ridiculous and obviously done for health reasons in the path gets tossed right out. So a good chunk of Leviticus. The gay thing gets tossed out because I have never seen a decent reason for "homosexuality is wrong". I've got appeals to nature and "Because God told me so" among other things. The only convincing argument I've got so far is "unprotected anal sex can lead to ST Ds" which is a problem even straight people face though it is more prevalent with gay males I hear. Or was. Anything written by Paul gets ignored because Paul is a boring twat and if he wants people to listen he should be less so.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

But on the plus side, you can shave.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

^^^^ Then what are you going to do about the stuff that is obviously incompatible, irrelevant and out of date?

edited 24th Jan '11 11:44:16 AM by pagad

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

The author of those books also condemns pretty much anything short of self-extinction through celibacy.

By divorcing yourself from the equation and viewing it in terms of its greater impact on everyone else.

Actually, you don't even have the former. You really are left entirely with "Because God told me so", and more importantly, why he would've told you so.

edited 24th Jan '11 11:45:50 AM by Pykrete

Considering that current estimates have the global population at 9 billion by 2050, I think it's probably for the best if some people don't reproduce.

I know about that which is why that argument isn't convincing. Are you saying that a natural thing that happens in many species including our own and has endured through the years not natural? Is it useful is a better question against it I think...

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

At the very most, The Bible should be thought of as just another piece of literature. This may as well be your perspective if you're going to discard some of it.

Richard Dawkins put it best. "It seems to be an odd proposition that we should adhere to some parts of the bible but not to others. After all, when it comes to important moral questions, by what standards do we cherry-pick the bible?"