TV Tropes Org

Forums

On-Topic Conversations:
LGBT Rights and Religion
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [15,600]  1 ... 172 173 174 175 176
177
178 179 180 181 182 ... 624

LGBT Rights and Religion:

Discussion of religion in the context of LGBT rights is only allowed in this thread.

Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBT rights..." threads.

Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.

edited 4th Oct '13 8:26:43 AM by Madrugada

 4401 Morgikit, Wed, 24th Oct '12 7:28:36 AM from Lavender Town Relationship Status: In season
Queen of Foxes
Maybe you should tone it down a bit, Lawyerdude. Obviously not all Christians support slavery and murder.
I'm an Irene!
Because certain parts of the Bible are fine like any other book. Certain parts should be followed, and stupid parts should not.

The problem is not everybody agrees what should and should not be followed. That's not the fault of the Bible, but the fault of certain people.

It's also not the fault of Christians as a whole.

Stop blaming the entire book or a full set of people because of certain people who do it in a way we find unacceptable.

And no, that would not automatically solve anything. People are taught through the book. The real thing is whether people actually know when to follow it or not. That's more the fault of specific people, not the book or group as a whole. Not everybody can introspect and actually choose the most "acceptable" passages.

And I'd like to remind you that much of the poor reasoning has been put down via Supreme Court(as well as other cultures have done so through various ways) before. Culture does matter here. Many acts are banned no matter what your Religion says. We all cherry-pick it, and even those who specifically say to follow it actually mean that since they all know not every bit can be followed to a T.
 4403 Lawyerdude, Wed, 24th Oct '12 7:46:05 AM from my secret moon base
Citizen
Because certain parts of the Bible are fine like any other book. Certain parts should be followed, and stupid parts should not.

Like I said, Christians do what the Bible says, as long as it's in agreement with what they wanted to do already. That's no different from anybody else; sometimes I do what the Bible says, sometimes I don't. Of course, I don't pretend that the Bible occupies any particularly special place in my worldview. So what's the moral difference between me and a Christian who does whatever they want and then tries to justify it using the Bible after the fact?
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
I'm an Irene!
The moral difference is not related to the Bible here. It's simply the act itself and whether it's morally acceptable in the culture.

It's a person specific thing, Lawyerdude. Not Christian, not Bible. Idiots will be idiots here. That's the fact here.

And yes, you're still generalizing us under false interpretations. We do not all follow the bullshit displayed. Especially when certain versions of the Bible don't have that bullshit either.

Jerks will use stupid justifications whether the Bible exists or not. That's what we're saying. People will be dicks if they can find a reason.

Oh, and to directly answer your question; There is no moral difference here. People who do that are a dick no matter their reasoning. The only difference that can exist is what culture it's in. At best. The reasoning behind it would not matter in this context. You're killing someone for being different. The Bible or a person doing it because they're a homophobe, thinks it's gross, whatever, it makes absolutely no different what the reason is. It's still killing in cold blood for a stupid reason.

edited 24th Oct '12 7:54:51 AM by Hydronix

NCC - 1701
Re: Does the Bible contradict itself or not: I've gone blue trying to explain that many things seem to contradict themselves when you take a slice here, a piece there, etc. The Constitution of the United States, the instructions on building a nuclear power plant, the laws of astrophysics, etc.

It might be that the Bible is infinitely more complex than that. And thus, it requires even closer examination.

Now, there are people here making these grandiose pronouncements that the Bible "clearly contradicts itself" and the people who follow it absolutely "must either be insane or are cherry-picking." What galls me is that no matter how many times you clearly show that the Bible emphatically denounces slavery, misogyny, or the murder of innocent people of any sexual orientation, it's like "No goddammit! This Bible will say this or that, and I'll ignore anything that doesn't support that view."

I mean you have people who say they've done their research and know that the Bible contradicts itself; and yet....these same people read forum posts and manage to get things out of it that aren't there or completely miss the points in it. My forum posts weren't written a thousand years earlier. They don't have to be translated into American English. And yet people have fabricated things that would have me doubting my own sanity but for the fact that I am present when I write my posts and thus know what I've written.

And that's my point. Perhaps it's not the Bible that's contradictory or false. Maybe it's a known fact that human beings going back to the tribes of Judah (or caves if you prefer) read things and bring their own biases to it all the time. They zero in on things and completely ignore the rest.

Because they're stupid? No. Because they're evil? No. But simply because they're human.
It was an honor
I'm an Irene!
Or the fact that multiple people wrote it, all having their own unique interpretation of what they think God means.

It's contradicts itself because it's a human-made product. It's not truly the Word of God, just a representation of what he possibly means.

But the literal passages are less important than... the meaning behind it.

And yes, everybody cherrypicks it. For good or bad. Even specific entries are not followed as they're written. Because some people actually find it better to ignore murder and go with the lesser of that. It doesn't make it less wrong, just "weaker", if you will.

Sadly, no matter how you cut it, people will follow the worst, and people will follow the best. This is simply a human error, but that happens with a human-made book full of more than one error(which includes the actual translations).
NCC - 1701
I'm not going to argue the point. Some people think it was written hodge-podge by a bunch of angry desert nomads, I think it was written under God's instruction.

The point is I find it laughable that people can accuse others of cherry-picking and don't even know what's written in the Book to make that accusation.

I used this analogy earlier, it's like somebody bashing Star Trek by saying that Captain Skywalker was the worst commander of the Enterprise.

edited 24th Oct '12 8:38:31 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor
I'm an Irene!
Maxima, you cannot declare that you or anybody isn't cherrypicking when you not only do that yourself(you do not follow Leviticus to a T, which is to put people to death, which by the way, is basically what "an abomination unto you" means in that context, for being gay or doing gay acts, if that's what he really meant), but everybody else does.

When it both supports and abolishes slavery in the same book, one must cherrypick which part to follow.

The book requires cherrypicking. And it has human errors throughout translations all the time. It's not a perfect representation of God either. If it was, the book would not contradict itself in any possible way. God cannot contradict himself. It's a human mistake here, as clearly not everybody believes the same thing about what God's will is.

That's the reason why I will tell everyone to follow the general teachings, and not the face value or exact words. Because that leads to terrible things. If you follow the meaning behind the teachings, you'll notice that Leviticus speaks only of Hygiene during the supposed homosexual act, meaning it's just about anal being unsafe, and having nothing to do with homosexuality. That's the full context of it. When one believes that only certain parts of that area matter, they are cherrypicking.

So yes, all in all, we all cherrypick it, and the contradictions proves that God's will is being presented by different people's different views of what he means. Every has a right to think he might mean something. I'm not disputing that. It was written by humans under the guise they believe that's what God means. I as a Christian fully accept the book is not perfect. And the fact that it cannot be perfect due to clear contradictions(because let's keep in mind that if God was actually wrong, the universe would be undone, wouldn't it? He's a perfect being, remember. He can't make mistakes)

Even better is that Jesus, who is the best one to look towards for the most relevant or "god's will", as he's the best representation of what God means, bar none, made mistakes. Because he's human. God did not write the book, Maxima. Humans did. With humans come errors. That's a fact. The book will never be perfect. It can't be, as I mentioned exactly why. Nobody has ever followed the latest versions perfectly(that is, once it has all "chapters" added to it) because, hey, they can't without being a hypocrite.
 4409 shimaspawn, Wed, 24th Oct '12 8:55:57 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
I do know what's written in the book, Starship. I've read it cover to cover and I've taken classes studying it and other major religious books. That's why I can say the things I do. Because I honestly know what I'm talking about. You're just dismissing it. Why I don't understand. You seem to attack me. Never my argument. You seem to continently side step the arguments or say "No it isn't" in face of actual evidence.

edited 24th Oct '12 8:57:16 AM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
 4410 Morgikit, Wed, 24th Oct '12 9:06:21 AM from Lavender Town Relationship Status: In season
Queen of Foxes
What galls me is that no matter how many times you clearly show that the Bible emphatically denounces slavery, misogyny, or the murder of innocent people of any sexual orientation, it's like "No goddammit! This Bible will say this or that, and I'll ignore anything that doesn't support that view."

More like "Bullshit! I've actually read the bible (try not to faint) and it clearly says one thing here and another somewhere else. You want me to cite chapter and verse? Cause I will."
Princess Ymir's knightess
Starship, I forced her my girlfriend is a Troper!

And she doesn't think you're crazy! >:P

 4412 Carciofus, Wed, 24th Oct '12 9:24:29 AM from Canterlot
Is that cake frosting?
If the Bible were truly a God's word, then the meaning should be self-evident from the page, and followers of that God should obey whatever it says without regard to their own judgment or reason.
If God did not want us to use our own judgement and reason, He would not have created them. And if He had wanted everything to be obvious and not needful of careful interpretation, He'd have created a very different universe.
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Princess Ymir's knightess
But if being homosexual is sinful, why did he make people like me homosexual?

 4414 Radical Taoist, Wed, 24th Oct '12 9:31:04 AM from the #GUniverse
scratching at .8, just hopin'
And that's my point. Perhaps it's not the Bible that's contradictory or false. Maybe it's a known fact that human beings going back to the tribes of Judah (or caves if you prefer) read things and bring their own biases to it all the time. They zero in on things and completely ignore the rest.

Because they're stupid? No. Because they're evil? No. But simply because they're human.
As a result, when we acknowledge that the Bible passed through their hands in its construction phase, we have to acknowledge that the Bible could not possibly be what it is advertised to be. Bronze Age desert nomads are simply too limited in their ignorance, too biased in their tribalism, and too ignorant of everything from psychology to biology to game theory to physics to mathematics. No document that relied on going through that particular game of telephone could preserve the kind of moral and cosmic insights claimed to be preserved in the Bible - that was just beyond the capabilities of the people involved in the process.

edited 24th Oct '12 9:31:27 AM by RadicalTaoist

I'm an Irene!
[up][up] Let's also remember that it's about as sinful as eating shellfish. Which is not really a sin either.

Being hygienic or not being the best at it isn't really a sin, people. It's just not being the best ever.

Homosexuality supposed being condemned is in the direct context of hygiene laws. The only other realistic interpretation, since homosexuality is not mentioned directly, or even really indirectly, is at best related to slavery, when a male should not have a male slave, or have sex with their slaves.

edited 24th Oct '12 9:31:44 AM by Hydronix

 4416 Morgikit, Wed, 24th Oct '12 9:32:20 AM from Lavender Town Relationship Status: In season
Queen of Foxes
[up][up][up]According to Romans 1, he did it to punish you for not believing in him.

edited 24th Oct '12 9:33:17 AM by Morgikit

Euo will do!
[up][up]Which could be argued to relate to "don't abuse your power over others, as you were slaves, once". tongue

edited 24th Oct '12 9:34:56 AM by Euodiachloris

"When all else failed, she tried being reasonable." ~ Pratchett, Johnny and the Bomb
 4418 Carciofus, Wed, 24th Oct '12 9:38:14 AM from Canterlot
Is that cake frosting?
But if being homosexual is sinful, why did he make people like me homosexual?
Well, as you know, I don't personally believe that homosexual behaviour is sinful; but for the sake of hypothesis...

Being attracted by same-gender people is certainly not sinful. What some (not me, though) Christians believe, however, is that homosexual behaviour is sinful.

Now, under that hypothesis, one might certainly ask why some people are innately, strongly attracted by that particular sin; but, well, other people are innately, strongly attracted by others — perhaps far worse — sins, like laziness or anger or so on. The reason for this, ultimately, would be that the natures of all people — while still fundamentally good — are tainted by the Original Sin, and that this manifests itself in different ways on different people.

I mean, as far as I can tell I am entirely heterosexual; but I cannot say that all of my impulses are in keeping with morality, not by far, and neither — I think — can anybody else.

Personally, I disagree with that point of view in that I don't think that there is reason enough to conclude that homosexual behaviour is always necessarily sinful; but in itself, I don't think that it is a contradictory or hateful point of view either.

edited 24th Oct '12 9:44:18 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Seeking for Light
Why do people keep saying that the Leviticus mentions of homosexuality are part of the hygiene laws? They're not. The first one is part of the laws on sexual ethics, and is followed by (other) cultural regulations, which is followed by the list of punishments for the violations of said cultural regulations, which includes the second mention.

edited 24th Oct '12 9:43:00 AM by Nocturna

 4420 Radical Taoist, Wed, 24th Oct '12 9:42:02 AM from the #GUniverse
I'm an Irene!
[up][up][up][up] Exactly.

It even says to respect your slaves fully. But that also ties into respect for mankind as is.

Anal was used as humiliation in slavery.

I hear that there's two passages referring to homosexuality. Where's this other one? Because I'll be honest; The first one I've nipped in the bud multiple times. It does not consider Homosexuality a sin in any way, and is most likely not even talking about it. If the other passage is the Mother/Daughter thing, that's specifically about incest as well as the "sex with direct family leads to birth defects", which is related to hygiene laws to an extent(Cleansliness and all).

[up][up] Because that's what the passages are about. Hygiene. Anal is non-hygienic. Eating shellfish is non-hygienic. Birth defects is somewhat related.

edited 24th Oct '12 9:43:12 AM by Hydronix

NCC - 1701
You seem to attack me. Never my argument. You seem to continently side step the arguments or say "No it isn't" in face of actual evidence.

I try not to attack anybody, least of all you, Shima. And I try not to sidestep anything. You believe the Bible is written by flawed people. I believe it was divinely inspired.

We have a differing opinion and that's okay. But your constant statements that I suspend my own internal logic regarding the Bible isn't so, and I've asked you to show me where I've applied literal Biblical reading to one thing and not the other, and as of this post you haven't.

edited 24th Oct '12 9:58:59 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor
Seeking for Light
@4421: The mother/daughter passage (Lev. 18:17) isn't talking about having sex with them at the same time, so therefore utterly unrelated to homosexuality.

The first Old Testament passage concerning homosexuality is Lev. 18:22 ("do not lie with a man as with a woman"); the second is Lev. 20:13, where the death penalty is prescribed.

And Leviticus 18-19 aren't hygiene laws. Having sex with your mother-in-law isn't unhygienic. Sacrificing your kids to Moloch isn't unhygienic. Lying isn't unhygienic. Etc. Etc. Etc. That's the context of the homosexuality laws. It's still culturally contingent, but it's not part of the hygiene laws.

edited 24th Oct '12 9:55:50 AM by Nocturna

NCC - 1701
More like "Bullshit! I've actually read the bible (try not to faint)

Channeling a bit of Captain Reynolds are we? cool

Maxima, you cannot declare that you or anybody isn't cherrypicking when you not only do that yourself(you do not follow Leviticus to a T, which is to put people to death, which by the way, is basically what "an abomination unto you" means in that context, for being gay or doing gay acts, if that's what he really meant), but everybody else does.

You're right. I don't follow Leviticus. I follow the entire Bible which in its entirety condemns even the mere harm of innocent people as being an affront and a disgrace to anyone who utters Christ's name. But thank you for once again illustrating my point. tongue

Well, as you know, I don't personally believe that homosexual behaviour is sinful; but for the sake of hypothesis...

Being attracted by same-gender people is certainly not sinful. What some (not me, though) Christians believe, however, is that homosexual behaviour is sinful.

Now, under that hypothesis, one might certainly ask why some people are innately, strongly attracted by that particular sin; but, well, other people are innately, strongly attracted by others perhaps far worse sins, like laziness or anger or so on. The reason for this, ultimately, would be that the natures of all people while still fundamentally good are tainted by the Original Sin, and that this manifests itself in different ways on different people.

I mean, as far as I can tell I am entirely heterosexual; but I cannot say that all of my impulses are in keeping with morality, not by far, and neither I think can anybody else.

Personally, I disagree with that point of view in that I don't think that there is reason enough to conclude that homosexual behaviour is always necessarily sinful; but in itself, I don't think that it is a contradictory or hateful point of view either.

Carc, how the hell do you articulate viewpoints so well that you don't even have??
It was an honor
I'm an Irene!
Maxima, that's a contradiction. You are still cherry-picking there. Because it contradicts the "put to death" part. No matter how many times you try to dodge it, you are still cherry-picking.

[up][up] Even so, anal is very unhygienic, and it's the only case where it makes sense to avoid it, other than slavery. I do not see where it specifies homosexuality. And the death penalty is ignored by most, and having sex in general with a man... I don't see it being put to death. Humiliating your slave/captive with anal? I can see that being put to death. Yeah, I definitely say it's purely taken out of context and homosexuality is not ever mentioned here.

edited 24th Oct '12 10:02:07 AM by Hydronix

Total posts: 15,600
 1 ... 172 173 174 175 176
177
178 179 180 181 182 ... 624


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy