TV Tropes Org

Forums

On-Topic Conversations:
LGBT Rights and Religion
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [15,599]  1 ... 178 179 180 181 182
183
184 185 186 187 188 ... 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

 4551 pagad, Thu, 25th Oct '12 9:26:33 AM from perfidious Albion Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Sneering Imperialist
How you get women are inferior from 'woman is the glory of man while man is the glory of God'

What I take from that is "men are more holy then women in the eyes of God".

This is what I'm talking about when I talk about this seeming need to shoehorn some sort of misogynist bent into the text that isn't there.

It's not being shoehorned. The text explicitly outlines that women are not allowed to do certain things that men can do. It's "seperate but equal" without even the pretence of equality.

What is the Bible saying women can't do? The verses you and others are harping on refer to women in Church services and women praying or prophesying with their heads covered. I don't see where women aren't allowed to vote, run companies, serve in the military, have jobs, or do anything else.

Those are modern concepts that are completely alien to a text many thousands of years old. To me, the latter seems to be the logical conclusion of the former.
 4552 Morgikit, Thu, 25th Oct '12 9:29:05 AM from Lavender Town Relationship Status: In season
Queen of Foxes
If the Bible says woman should submit to man, how is that not sexism? Isn't that the textbook definition of misogyny, the belief that a man is somehow "above" a woman?
Nya

Tropers Riff Movies (7PM EST)
 4553 Radical Taoist, Thu, 25th Oct '12 9:56:25 AM from the #GUniverse
scratching at .8, just hopin'
I'm seeing some "different but equal" up innis. Reminds me of "separate but equal".
NCC - 1701
What I take from that is "men are more holy then women in the eyes of God".

[lol][lol][lol][lol]!!! Actually, the opposite. The Bible says that while Eve sinned, it was Adam's responsibility to speak up when Eve took the forbidden fruit. It was because of that failure, not Eve's, that all Mankind was condemned. Count how many times the Bible says, "Through one man, sin entered the world."

If you read the Bible properly you get the view that a wise woman is the saving grace a man needs. Hence, a woman is the glory of man. Note: I fully state that that's my interpretation there.

It's not being shoehorned. The text explicitly outlines that women are not allowed to do certain things that men can do. It's "seperate but equal" without even the pretence of equality.

Very good point. You got me on that one. I just have a hard time seeing this has female oppression when it only outlines that men should do xy while women do xx in this specific context, and no other.

Those are modern concepts that are completely alien to a text many thousands of years old. To me, the latter seems to be the logical conclusion of the former.

Excellent observation. Me myself, I read the Bible literally, so if it doesn't say women can't do t u v x y, and z, then as far as I'm concerned it's allowed.

Note: Jobs and businesses aren't necessarily new concepts, though. tongue
It was an honor
 4555 shimaspawn, Thu, 25th Oct '12 10:41:46 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
You don't read the Bible literally though. At no point does the Bible literally call homosexuality a sin. You infer it based on your own pre-conceived notions, but it's not actually written anywhere in the book. This is why we keep calling you on being inconsistent.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
NCC - 1701
You don't read the Bible literally though. At no point does the Bible literally call homosexuality a sin. You infer it based on your own pre-conceived notions, but it's not actually written anywhere in the book. This is why we keep calling you on being inconsistent.

You're right, the Bible never says "Homosexuality is a sin." It does say "Lying with a man as you would with a woman, " is an abomination before God, not "offensive to cultural norms." Paul then repeats that you are not to "Lie with a man as with a woman."

In general, what is disallowed is generally called "sin" for short.
It was an honor
 4557 shimaspawn, Thu, 25th Oct '12 10:54:55 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
It does not say abomination before God. It just says abomination which is the phrasing that better translates to "cultural taboo" and is the same phrasing used for all things that are cultural taboos but not sins. We've been over this before.

And Paul's bit was about male slave boys. Not about men. Different words. That bit has nothing to do with homosexuality. It has to do with proper treatment of slaves.

edited 25th Oct '12 10:58:31 AM by shimaspawn

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

-Philip K. Dick
NCC - 1701
I reviewed that verse, and you are right. The "abomination before God" thing was clearly not there. You were right.

Since I believe in literally interpreting Scripture though, I'd have to see the words "cultural taboo" on the actual page in order to agree with your assessment. It's not, therefore I don't.
It was an honor
 4559 shimaspawn, Thu, 25th Oct '12 11:00:20 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
Besides, in declaring it a sin you're actually going directly against Paul himself.

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, ’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” (RSV Romans 13:8-10)

Therefore if you're declaring love a sin (which is what homosexuality is, love for someone of your own gender) you're disobeying Paul.

edited 25th Oct '12 11:02:21 AM by shimaspawn

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

-Philip K. Dick
 4560 L Mage, Thu, 25th Oct '12 11:07:04 AM from Miss Robichaux's Academy Relationship Status: I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me
Evil Trickster
@Starship

What Shima is saying is that, in the original Hebrew the words on the page where "Cultural taboo" however was translating it to English just did it wrong, or the phrase "cultural taboo" didn't exist yet/wasn't common enough to be used.
"You are never taller then when standing up for yourself"
 4561 shimaspawn, Thu, 25th Oct '12 11:12:34 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
@ L Mage: Yes, exactly. And it's been ramped up in more recent translations that were done for political reasons despite the fact that it's farther away from the original text. After all, there's a version of the Bible where one of the commandments is "Thou shall commit adultery" but that doesn't mean it's what the Bible actually says.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
 4562 Silasw, Thu, 25th Oct '12 11:17:11 AM from UK :( Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Globalist Bunny
We just need to get Starship a better translated copy of the Bible. grin

Also I stand by my earlier question, it specifically states "as you would with a woman". Nowhere does it say "Lying with a man" is bad, it says "Lying with a man as you would with a woman" is bad. Am I missing something?

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael

"A nuclear powered magnet death ball is perfectly scientifically possible." ~ Discar
 4563 Morgikit, Thu, 25th Oct '12 11:22:47 AM from Lavender Town Relationship Status: In season
Queen of Foxes
I really don't see why I should follow a rule just because "God says so". Rules have to make some kind of sense, and this one doesn't.

edited 25th Oct '12 11:23:47 AM by Morgikit

Nya

Tropers Riff Movies (7PM EST)
 4564 deathpigeon, Thu, 25th Oct '12 11:53:17 AM from Bread, It Is Bread that the Revolution Needs! Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
Kaspar the Friendly Spook
@Maxima: Sure, it doesn't say "cultural taboo, " but the original Hebrew word means approximately "cultural taboo, " as evidenced by such places in the Bible as Exodus 8:26 which says that the Israelites to making sacrifices near the Pharaoh’s palace would be an "abomination" to the Egyptians and Genesis 43:32 which says that the Egyptians eating with the Hebrews would be an "abomination" to the Egyptians. In fact, some Bibles translate the word as "detestable, " rather than "abomination."

If you're going to read the Bible literally, at least read the original Hebrew and Greek literally, and not the potentially faulty translation into English.

edited 25th Oct '12 11:54:47 AM by deathpigeon

My Blog.

ACAB.

"The great are great only because we are on our knees. Let us rise." - Max Stirner
 4565 Pykrete, Thu, 25th Oct '12 1:09:54 PM from Viridian Forest
NOT THE BEES
Now, I do admit I totally missed the part about women being completely silent in Church, I've never seen that in any Church I've gone to.

To be fair, I don't think I've ever seen a church whip that one out for a reading, sermon, Sunday School, anything in the 8 years I went to Catholic school, or really ever — for that matter we have women do the first two readings and lead various prayers throughout the service all the time.

Even higher-ups' theological gymnastics to shut down women's ordination tend to mention it briefly, then start making shit up about how the priest has to play the role of Jesus and women can't do that because they're women (never mind that men who are very often white, portly, and older than their 30's would be just as out of the question), because they know we already don't follow it.

I reviewed that verse, and you are right. The "abomination before God" thing was clearly not there. You were right.

It actually is in some translations...because people started slipping it in around the 1960's.

edited 25th Oct '12 1:12:41 PM by Pykrete

 4566 pagad, Thu, 25th Oct '12 1:17:04 PM from perfidious Albion Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Sneering Imperialist
No offence, Starship, but it seems to me that you're excessively adhering to the letter of the text at the expense of its spirit - which is in my opinion dangerous even in a comparatively recent document (the Constitution of the United States, for example). In the case of a text that has been translated and re-translated into language after language over and over again, regardless of its original authorship, the problem is compounded. Relying on precise wording is useless, is what I'm trying to say.
NCC - 1701
No offence, Starship, but it seems to me that you're excessively adhering to the letter of the text at the expense of its spirit

Goddamit, it's offense! [lol]

No seriously, I hear where you're coming from. But actually, a literal reading of the Bible says, more or less, that if you get every other commandment wrong, if you misread any other verse, if you hold to any wrong prophecy or doctrine, if you drop the ball anywhere else, the ONE thing you must NEVER ignore is The Commandment; to love God, and your neighbor, as you love yourself.

So see pagad, when we get into these "Let's nitpick the Bible until we prove there's no way it's infallible", if I seem half-hearted it's because I actually don't see the point in trying to ascertain whether or not homosexuality is wrong only if it's two underage boys, or whether women must get written permission to speak in Church, as long as I'm carrying out the Bible's Prime Directive.

And I think I do that. Imperfectly, but nevertheless, I do do it.
It was an honor
 4568 L Mage, Thu, 25th Oct '12 1:46:13 PM from Miss Robichaux's Academy Relationship Status: I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me
Evil Trickster
[up]

But if your carrying out that directive then what dose it matter if the Bible if 100% infallible or not? Why can't your apply reason logic and scrutiny to so long as you keep to that central ideal?
"You are never taller then when standing up for yourself"
NCC - 1701
Well L, I get what you're saying; 'why not just accept the text as faulty and keep to the spirit of the rules'?

Well, to continue the Star Trek analogue, the Prime Directive is the 'main' rule, but as a Starfleet officer, we have to keep to all the Starfleet regulations and the complete Federation Charter. It's just that in a crunch, you go with the thing that does the greatest good.
It was an honor
 4570 L Mage, Thu, 25th Oct '12 2:05:49 PM from Miss Robichaux's Academy Relationship Status: I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me
Evil Trickster
[up]

But there is a theoretical process by the Star Fleet to change their regulations and rules to better fit the spirit and over all good and remove rules that have become counter to that spirit. No such mechanism exists with The Bible, despite many ridiculous rules and laws that make so sense in the broader ideals of the Bible now a days or that are now completely contrary those ideals.
"You are never taller then when standing up for yourself"
NCC - 1701
Well, L, I hear where you're coming from, but there's a thought that it's not the rules that are wrong, but rather that as civilization has gone forward, people are just less willing to keep to them.

It's as if....there's nothing wrong with the United Earth Charter, but once Vulcans, Klingons, and Andorians got mixed in, you had to change rules to accomodate them, not necessarily because the rules themselves were wrong.

....Dear God am I really explaining Biblical doctrine using Star Trek???
It was an honor
 4572 deathpigeon, Thu, 25th Oct '12 2:18:18 PM from Bread, It Is Bread that the Revolution Needs! Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
Kaspar the Friendly Spook
The only places in the Bible that refer to homosexuality are Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 male gay sex is referred to as תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה, which is often translated as "abomination, " and is used to refer to cultural taboos, not only of the Hebrews but of other groups, such as the Egyptians in Genesis 43:32, Genesis 46:34, Exodus 8:26, and Exodus 8:26, though, granted, some of those use תוֹעֲבַ֥ת, which, as far as I can tell relates to תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה in a similar way that sat relates to sit in that they are just different forms of the same word, and in Romans 1:26-27 which specifically refers to an exchange of heterosexual relations for homosexual relations, though it's not done in such words, but, rather, using φυσικὴν, which has a meaning that can approximately translated to mean "natural, " and παρὰ φύσιν, which has a meaning that can approximately translated to mean "contrary to nature, " and using φυσικὴν, which, again, means "natural, " and αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, which has a meaning that can approximately translated to mean "men with men, " and is, as such, referring to heterosexual men and women having gay sex.

The first two refer to cultural taboos and the third and final one refers to an exchange. Neither of which applies to modern day gay people as A: we no longer live in the same culture so the same cultural taboos would not apply, and B: gay men and women aren't heterosexual men and women who have gay sex.

edited 25th Oct '12 2:26:44 PM by deathpigeon

My Blog.

ACAB.

"The great are great only because we are on our knees. Let us rise." - Max Stirner
 4573 L Mage, Thu, 25th Oct '12 2:21:01 PM from Miss Robichaux's Academy Relationship Status: I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me
Evil Trickster
[up][up]

Not only that but your explaining it someone that doesn't watch Star Trek at all (Doctor Who and Star Wars!).

But in all seriousness, there where once valid concerns regarding shellfish, tattoos and sex, but those concerns have largely be sated or dealt with to the point where there aren't a concern anymore. For the culture at the time the Bible was written it was a taboo (not a sin, but a taboo since that's what the original Bible calls it) and there was a valid health concern regarding gay sex, now? Sex in general is safer for all persons (gay or otherwise) involved, there is no reason for it to still be a taboo.

It would be like as if the Doctor had a rule about not littering in the TARDIS but then the floors got an upgrade so that all trash littered in the TARDIS would be transformed into environmentally friendly fuel. Would there be any point to that rule anymore?

edited 25th Oct '12 2:21:18 PM by LMage

"You are never taller then when standing up for yourself"
NCC - 1701
It would be like as if the Doctor had a rule about not littering in the TARDIS but then the floors got an upgrade so that all trash littered in the TARDIS would be transformed into environmentally friendly fuel. Would there be any point to that rule anymore?

That was damn good analogy.

Well, I think that brings up an interesting point. Maybe the rule about littering the TARDIS was never about the litter so much. The Doctor could whip out his sonic screwdriver and zap the litter in one shot. But it was a sense that he wanted his companions to respect this great machine that was not only a space/timeship, but, they're home.

Now the Doctor being generally "Fantastic!" noticed that certain companions would just litter, and would actually trip or slip on litter, which would hurt them when the TARDIS is in a battle against the Dalek mothership. So being the cool Time Lord his is, he upgraded the TARDIS floors to self-clean.

Out of kindness he helped mitigate the consequence of their littering, but that doesn't mean the rule wasn't a good one, or not valid.

Similarly, the Bible makes the point that God doesn't just come up with rules for the kicks of making people miserable. You and I don't hurt God by sinning. We hurt ourselves. Personally, I think you're right, I don't see what's so harmful, on the surface, of a guy kissing a guy or sleeping with him. But maybe it's not just about health, or even the happiness you feel being with someone you love.

Maybe there's an even greater happiness that comes from following even God's most difficult rules. Maybe the amount of reward is directly proportional to the difficulty of the the rule.

All I'm saying is, maybe God does things for our benefit, not our misery. As always, that's my very humble opinion.
It was an honor
 4575 shimaspawn, Thu, 25th Oct '12 2:53:09 PM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
Or maybe it's not one of God's rules at all as it doesn't seem to be if you take the book as a whole. Maybe it's just people trying to control other people in defiance of God's will by calling it a sin. After all, it brings far more good into the world than it does harm, and branding it a sin hurts people.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits."

The fruits of calling homosexuality a sin are evil fruits. Ones that bring suffering and strife. The fruits of embracing homosexuals as friends and family and letting them have their own families are stability and love. Obviously the false prophets are the ones preaching homosexuality to be a sin.

If God does things for our benefit, not for our misery, why would he make a law that only spreads misery?

edited 25th Oct '12 2:54:06 PM by shimaspawn

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

-Philip K. Dick
Total posts: 15,599
 1 ... 178 179 180 181 182
183
184 185 186 187 188 ... 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