Acceptance of gays vs. view of religions

@Chalkos Yes, and we should note that St. Paul went so far as to say that everything in his letters was not divinely inspired.

So it's fine if I completely toss out Paul because he is boring and overly biased? And he even said he's not writing all divinely inspired stuff? Well then. You get points for honesty but are still boring as shit.

edited 24th Jan '11 12:36:10 PM by Aondeug

@Aondeug I wouldn't disregard everything he said; after all, he did have some great things to say about love, as well as showing how a legalistic interpretation of the law is flawed.

I personally prefer the writings of James and Peter; I wish more of their works had been added into the Bible.

Ok. Ignore most of what Paul said and rely on others to tell me the contents of his letters because I will not read them myself.

edited 24th Jan '11 12:41:01 PM by Aondeug

I've heard many adjectives used to describe Paul, but "boring" is not one of them

I am happy to have amused you!

@Aondeug I would be happy to assist you in that regard.

FUCK YEAH. Now I can like all the cool kids who are in the know about this shit.

But...off topic again.

I'm actually rather curious why more of Peter's writings weren't added, seeing how he was actually the first Pope and all. Instead all we've got outlining church leadership are a few epistles we're pretty sure were outright falsified during a power struggle.

Man, so much complaining about St. Paul. He actually penned the most optimistic verse in the entire New Testament: I Corinthians 15:28.

"And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

From which Origen and Gregory of Nyssa drew the logical implication that God can't "be all in all" unless all beings are eventually divinized. That is, no one goes to Hell forever.

Devalue Paul and you can't argue against eternal damnation on Scriptural grounds, only on grounds of "That's not nice!"

He's still boring.

^^Seems like you answered your own question.

unless all beings are eventually divinized.

Or the non-divine no longer exist.

edited 24th Jan '11 1:03:41 PM by Pykrete

KCK: I think it's depressing, that's what I think. It's terrible that people think that being "anti-gay" is a tenet of Christianity.

Seconded.

Karmakin: ^^ It depends on what you mean by that. It's perfectly reasonable for an individual to think that anti-homosexuality is a core tenet of Christianity when so many Christians make such a huge deal about it. Now, if you mean that it's terrible that so many Christians make such a huge deal about it, then I agree totally. But I've heard people make both arguments.

I think both are valid arguments. It might be "reasonable" to believe that anti-homosexuality is a core tenet of Christianity, but it's nevertheless a severe overgeneralisation.

Karmakin The theological argument is that homosexuality is not mentioned in the NT, and as such doesn't really count.

Not true, actually. Unlike many of the laws in Leviticus, the sinfulness of homosexuality is affirmed by Paul in the NT, who claims that being gay will actually prevent you from going to Heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, as neoYTPism pointed out).

The Mighty Anonym: It basically seems as though Christianity can only either be "Kill the gays with fire" or "homosexuality is perfectly fine and the Bible is completely inaccurate and made up".

Both sides will often completely miss the in-between: homosexuality is a sin because the Bible states it as being such, but the Bible also says that we need to accepting, kind and loving to everyone. "Everyone" includes homosexuals.

That's not the only in-between stage. It's possible to believe that homosexuality is perfectly fine without dismissing the entire Bible as being made up. I mean, people might be tired of me pointing this out by now, but the Bible's not even one book, it's dozens.

neoYTPism: Well yeah. One has to wonder what the point is of being a "moderate" Christian to begin with.

Well, if you believe in God, and you believe in Jesus, but you don't believe that homosexuality is a sin, are you not likely to be regarded as something of a moderate?

pagad: That homosexuality is still intrinsically a sin according to Christian doctrine is still a sticking point, though. A gay person may feel from their perspective that no matter how warm and friendly the Christians in their lives may be to them they are still being judged for practising sin.

And as long as it remains a sin it is going to remain a negative point from people outside of the religion.

Agreed, and furthermore, if I were homosexual, I can't imagine I'd be terribly trusting of people who actually worshipped a being who considered a major aspect of my personality to be an abomination deserving of death.

Rottweiler: What sort of thin-skinned egotist would only join a religion that tells them none of their pre-existing behaviors are immoral, though?

I think a distinction needs to be made between laws which are difficult to follow because, even though we believe that our actions are wrong, the laws seem a lot to ask of us, and laws which are difficult to follow because they are morally repellant.

To my mind, a readiness to abandon core moral axioms because a deity commands you to is an indication of susceptibility to brainwashing, and such a person would presumably obey Satan if Satan were to appear to them in a shiny robe and halo and tell them that killing people was actually righteous.

De Marquis: For us, it isn't a question of treating sinners nicely, homosexuals aren't sinners (and I still have both my eyes, in spite of being married and having looked on another woman with lust).

This is similar to my experiences (in England) as well.

Bonsai Forest: And the way fundies insist that only they are the true Christians doesn't help matters at all.

It goes both ways; I've heard plenty of people from other denominations dismiss fundamentalism as being incorrect, as well.

Karmakin: The religion is most certainly based around that view, but in a lot of cases these things are often said with an expected "wink wink nod nod" type effect, where the average person is expected to understand that these things are mostly intended as metaphors.

Interesting. Perhaps my own views are less removed from Christianity than I thought, although I've stopped identifying as such.

Karmakin: My advice to non-literalist, non-bigoted Christians is that it has to start at the ground floor of the belief system. Right at the root. God. That's a word that means something in our society. It means an anthropomorphic/materialistic deity-type thing. It's a bad word. Because not only does it mean something that's often entirely inaccurate from what people often believe, but because the belief in (or the image of, for non-believers) such a deity does not go well with the idea of peace, love and charity. It goes well with the tropes of domination and social stratification.

I think this is a dreadful shame, since that has nothing to do with my perception of God, and never did at any point when I was a Christian (except right towards the end, when I began to question my beliefs).

Beholderess: I'd say that giving up one's own morality is quite dangerous. Because if one gives it up, it can be given up for anything - there are no criteria to see if the replacement moralit better or worse.

Basically, if I can join religion despite considering some of it's demands wrong - not just inconvenient for me personally, but wrong - then I might as well join any sort of cult or sect, despite considering it's demands wrong also.

Seconded so hard.

aishkiz: 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.

As wonderful as that might sound, I don't think that would revolutionise Christianity or any other Abrahamic religion. If a prophet started preaching some new religious laws, they'd probably be branded a loony at worst or exert some slight influence over certain denominations at best. If God actually did something flashy, like a blazing cross in the sky over Times Square or something like that, and was captured on live television (not that God ever operated like that in the Bible) and then made His new commandments, I think there'd be a lot of commotion, but it wouldn't be the end of fundamentalist Christianity as we know it. Some people would start worshipping this God and consider themselves Christian, but, much like the Cathars in Mediaeval times, they might not be considered true Christians by anyone else. Some people would be sceptical. Some would probably attribute the blazing cross to some other deity. Some would probably associate it with a demon and assume the Apocalypse was on its way. Some might attribute it to aliens or whatever.

Ultimately, I think that whether your god is actually called "God" matters less than what that god represents. All these gods and demons and so on represent different things. Satan represents opposition to God. Mammon represents greed. Chronos represents time. Sophia represents wisdom. Azrael represents death. And so on.

If your conception of God features "opposes homosexuality" as a key aspect, it doesn't really matter if God doesn't oppose homosexuality. If that's the case, then that God may as well actually be Satan, and there's no reason why you'd be interested in worshipping Him.

I don't know how many people that's actually true of, but the way some of these American evangelists talk, one certainly gets the impression that God's opposition to homosexuality is fairly important to them.

Aondeug: I've never read Dawkins. From what I've heard about him and read about his beliefs...his work in biology sounds nice, but I think I will kill something if I read his books on religion. Militants of any sort rub me the wrong way. Especially militant atheists. I will read some of it eventually though...

I know that you probably mean "fanatics" rather than militants, but it still kind of rubs me the wrong way when people accuse folks like Dawkins of being militant. A militant religious person is a violent one. A so-called "militant" atheist like Dawkins is much more comparable to an evangelist.

"Antitheist" is a more accurate term, I think.

Pykrete: Personally I think they're both a strikingly identical shade of douchebag, but to play Devil's Advocate — a religious militant believes their douchebaggery is specifically called on by a source higher than life itself, while an atheist militant basically comes down to "I just don't like you so I'm gonna be a dick." The former is intrinsically less selfish, however misguided.

Speaking as a former antitheist, that's not true at all. My view, and I think the view of many other antitheists, was that there was nothing higher than life itself, which religion was endangering and holding back by encouraging unreasonable, dogmatic behaviour which is often used to needlessly restrict the liberty of others or even as an excuse to directly harm or kill others. To an antitheist, religion is not (necessarily) a trivial annoyance; indeed, it may be viewed as a threat to almost everything that matters in the universe.

Dawkins needs to describe himself better then. In his own words that is how he has described himself. From what I've heard that's how he comes off.

edited 24th Jan '11 1:23:40 PM by Aondeug

That might be what he calls himself, but it's still a misleading term. He only comes off that way because a lot of people seem to take it as more of an affront when an atheist criticises a belief system than when anybody else does.

Until he bombs someplace or shoots someone, or until "militant Christian" becomes synonymous with "evangelist", then as far as I'm concerned Dawkins is an antitheist.

"vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause" as in 'militant reformers"

I take this to mean "vigorously active and aggressive either physically or verbally or a mix". Physical violence is not needed to come off as such. His coming off as such may be in part because people exaggerate, but as it is from what I know he fits this description well enough as do Evangelists.

You're right, of course.

Still, I hear antitheists called "militant atheists" all the time, and I never hear evangelists called "militant Christians" - not unless they're actually violent, anyway.

Speaking as a former antitheist, that's not true at all. My view, and I think the view of many other antitheists, was that there was nothing higher than life itself, which religion was endangering and holding back by encouraging unreasonable, dogmatic behaviour which is often used to needlessly restrict the liberty of others or even as an excuse to directly harm or kill others. To an antitheist, religion is not (necessarily) a trivial annoyance; indeed, it may be viewed as a threat to almost everything that matters in the universe.

To which said Devil's Advocate would respond that antitheists have been known to do exactly the same thing — see Mao, Stalin, etc. — on an even greater scale without even needing the hurdle of having to justify their actions in the face of a pretty clear "don't kill people, dumbass". To a religious person, a sufficiently angry antitheist is not necessarily a trivial annoyance either.

Ultimately though — *shoots Devil's Advocate* — the militants of both parties tend to rather miss crucial points of their own philosophies. Militant religious-types tend to have little idea what their own doctrines actually say, and militant antitheists praising logic and fact above all else tend to themselves Fail Both Forever. I'd be more inclined to say the root cause is lack of education and understanding, so much so that comparing the faiths or lack thereof at heart is already too distorted to get much meaningful.

PS: I'm kinda using Aon's definition of militant too. Even if they're not violent, I'd still call someone loud and obnoxious beyond reason militant. Mostly because it's not too much of a stretch of the mind to see them take that last step.

edited 24th Jan '11 1:46:02 PM by Pykrete

That is a bother ain't it? I'll still use it to refer to him though.

Does it really matter what you call him? It's not like people who call him a militant atheist think he's a suicide bomber offtopiccccc

@ Aondeug: You're free to, but I will continue to glower while you do so.

@ Pykrete: Your Devil's Advocate would be right there, but still wrong - not to mention rather offensive - in characterising the antitheist position as the purely selfish and petty "I just don't like you so I'm gonna be a dick."

@ Tzetze: I just feel that the term makes it seem like people like Dawkins are on the same level as people like Bin Laden, even if only implicitly.

But yeah, drifting off topic.

More on topic, I can attest that the phenomenon in the OP is certainly relatable for me; I would not be able to glorify my perception of God by opposing homosexuality, so as far as I am concerned Christian denominations that attempt to do so are not Godly - that is, they are nothing to do with my God.

However, that's not really related to my move away from Christianity, since my Christianity never said that homosexuality was wrong, and my move away was more to do with simple inability to believe in key aspects of the faith.

edited 24th Jan '11 1:49:46 PM by BobbyG

"Well, if you believe in God, and you believe in Jesus, but you don't believe that homosexuality is a sin, are you not likely to be regarded as something of a moderate?" - Bobby G

Depends on what kind of god one believes in and why. Like I said earlier, when I ask pro-gay Christians why they are Christian in the first place, the answers resulting from it tend to resemble anti-gay reasoning in their logic.

But that does not make their beliefs pointless, or at least, not more so than the beliefs of the Christians with anti-homosexual views.

Like I said earlier, when I ask pro-gay Christians why they are Christian in the first place, the answers resulting from it tend to resemble anti-gay reasoning in their logic.

I don't follow. This would only be true if sex was the only issue Christianity dealt with, which is not the case — it's just the one people stink over the most.

And what do you even mean "anti-gay reasoning"?

edited 24th Jan '11 1:55:18 PM by Pykrete