TV Tropes Org

Forums

On-Topic Conversations:
LGBT Rights and Religion
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [15,599]  1 ... 203 204 205 206 207
208
209 210 211 212 213 ... 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

 5176 Haldo, Mon, 26th Nov '12 1:00:33 PM from Never never land Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
Indecisive pumpkin
That's not what I said at all. Listen this time.

The old laws also say that eating shrimp and wearing mixed fiber clothing are "abominations". And you know why those aren't still taken seriously, either? Same reason: They're only mentioned once.
‽‽‽‽

^These are interrobangs. Love them. Learn them. Use them.
 5177 Kostya, Mon, 26th Nov '12 1:00:44 PM from Everywhere
The Razruchityel
[up][up]What does the original text say?

[up]You left out getting tattoos.

Unless various groups start proposing constitutional bans on those they need to shut up.

edited 26th Nov '12 1:01:25 PM by Kostya

 5178 shimaspawn, Mon, 26th Nov '12 1:01:31 PM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
[up] It says that they are cultural taboos that mark the tribes of Israel and distinguish them from the other tribes.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
 5179 Kostya, Mon, 26th Nov '12 1:03:03 PM from Everywhere
The Razruchityel
So it says taboo instead of abomination? That certainly puts a different spin on things.

NCC - 1701
Shima, the problem with you and all the people that have been running that line is this...you still, to this day, cannot find a single copy of the book known as the Holy Bible that has "cultural taboo" in place of 'abomination' or 'great sin'.

There was never any question of what the words on the page were; not even during the times when homosexuality was accepted.

This calling into question the translation is directly the result of certain people trying to bolster their position.

And beyond that, Paul condemned it in the New Testament. Like I said, it seems pretty straightforward to me. When someone can show me a copy of the Bible with these allegedly new definitions we'll discuss this again.

edited 26th Nov '12 2:08:35 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor
 5181 shimaspawn, Mon, 26th Nov '12 1:06:27 PM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
[up][up] When read in context, yes.

[up] Really? I can find plenty of online translations. Maybe not major dead tree translations, but getting those fixed even on minor errors takes decades. People expect the bible to be written the way they remember it even if that way doesn't turn out to be right.

Never mind that most modern translations are based on bad translations of the past rather than the original documents.

As for Paul, he condemned changing yourself from what you know to be true. And he was a sexist, sexphobic, bigoted misogynist. He's probably the last person you should be looking towards to advice on that front. He even admits that he doesn't understand anything sexual.

That and he's about four people most of which, including the passage you're talking about, were editted in long after his death.

edited 26th Nov '12 1:11:14 PM by shimaspawn

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

-Philip K. Dick
NCC - 1701
Really? I can find plenty of online translations. Maybe not major dead tree translations, but getting those fixed even on minor errors takes decades. People expect the bible to be written the way they remember it even if that way doesn't turn out to be right.

Never mind that most modern translations are based on bad translations of the past rather than the original documents.

I respect that, for you, that amounts to evidence. To me, it's a serious reach.
It was an honor
 5183 shimaspawn, Mon, 26th Nov '12 1:15:30 PM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
I've also read scholarly journals on the subject but unless you have access through a college to the right databases I can't really send you after them.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
 5184 Haldo, Mon, 26th Nov '12 1:16:01 PM from Never never land Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
Indecisive pumpkin
Paul was creating a general image of chaos with several things that changed themselves from their true selves. He brought up homosexuality because back in his time, it was commonly believed that homosexuality happens when someone has so much lust they become gay — Which we now know is ludicrous. He was making an uninformed judgement based on the extremely limited knowledge his people had of homosexuality.

edited 26th Nov '12 1:16:50 PM by Haldo

‽‽‽‽

^These are interrobangs. Love them. Learn them. Use them.
 5185 Morgikit, Mon, 26th Nov '12 1:26:48 PM from Lavender Town Relationship Status: In season
Queen of Foxes
This calling into question the translation is directly the result of the gay lobby trying to bolster their position.

The gay lobby...-rolls eyes-

I thought making generalizations was wrong, Max. You accuse us of doing it all the time, but then you turn around and talk about this "gay lobby" crap.
Nya

Tropers Riff Movies (7PM EST)
 5186 shimaspawn, Mon, 26th Nov '12 1:31:18 PM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
It's generally not any gay group, but devoutly religious scholars who honestly don't care about homosexuality other than wanting to do what God commands of them. The articles I'm talking about are ones published by deeply troubled Christians who are worried that all this anti-gay stuff is going against God's will and his message of love.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
NCC - 1701
I thought making generalizations was wrong, Max. You accuse us of doing it all the time, but then you turn around and talk about this "gay lobby" crap.

I'm sorry. My mistake. Honestly, I was rushing out a post and totally forgot about that one. Fixed.
It was an honor
 5188 Hilarity Ensues, Mon, 26th Nov '12 2:49:24 PM from Standing between Sho'Nuff and total supremacy.
Honestly, I don't think arguing over whether or not the Bible really supports homosexuality due to some mistranslations/misunderstood parables is very productive, unless you happen to be a theologian or something.

The real question should be this: why should a book that requires so much selective reading and outright dismissal of certain passages due to Values Dissonance still be treated as a moral guide in the 21st century? I just don't think that even entertaining the concept of biblical morality is a good idea, especially if the only real point is so we can say, "HA! Even your book agrees with us". At least, that's how it appears to me. If people are just really concerned about the veracity of Biblical translations for it's own sake and aren't trying to strengthen an argument, um, more power to you I suppose. It just seems rather unlikely to me that that's all that's going on here.

 5189 Haldo, Mon, 26th Nov '12 2:57:01 PM from Never never land Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
Indecisive pumpkin
Well, I'm a gay Christian, so that's why this topic is relevant to me.
‽‽‽‽

^These are interrobangs. Love them. Learn them. Use them.
 5190 Morgikit, Mon, 26th Nov '12 4:20:50 PM from Lavender Town Relationship Status: In season
Queen of Foxes
Christians have a lot of influence where I live, so it's a topic that concerns me.
Nya

Tropers Riff Movies (7PM EST)
Princess Ymir's knightess
A little late, but... demons?

What?

 5192 Morgikit, Tue, 27th Nov '12 7:46:27 AM from Lavender Town Relationship Status: In season
Princess Ymir's knightess
says Adams, who claims she was once possessed by sexual demons.

Wait, so she had filthy demon-induced sex with another woman?

Slut.

edited 27th Nov '12 7:49:26 AM by kay4today

 5194 Lawyerdude, Tue, 27th Nov '12 8:29:29 AM from my secret moon base
Citizen
Is it just me, or does that sound like the setup for an Erotic Horror movie?
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
 5195 shimaspawn, Tue, 27th Nov '12 9:08:26 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
I'm pretty sure Japan has already done it.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
Princess Ymir's knightess
About a million times, really.

NCC - 1701
Honestly, I don't think arguing over whether or not the Bible really supports homosexuality due to some mistranslations/misunderstood parables is very productive, unless you happen to be a theologian or something.

It concerns me because as Shima points out, there are good and loyal people who think they're doing the right thing in questioning things that have been more or less self-evident for a millenia.

As Christians, really..as people of conscience, it's important to resist the temptation to seem progressive and liberal and call things what they are.

With that said, I've come to agree that our Book shouldn't be the basis by which everyone is forced to live. They should live by choice, or not at all.
It was an honor
 5198 Jhimmibhob, Tue, 27th Nov '12 10:20:41 AM from Arm's reach of the julep machine Relationship Status: My own grandpa
Honestly, I don't think arguing over whether or not the Bible really supports homosexuality due to some mistranslations/misunderstood parables is very productive, unless you happen to be a theologian or something.

The real question should be this: why should a book that requires so much selective reading and outright dismissal of certain passages due to Values Dissonance still be treated as a moral guide in the 21st century? I just don't think that even entertaining the concept of biblical morality is a good idea, especially if the only real point is so we can say, "HA! Even your book agrees with us". At least, that's how it appears to me. If people are just really concerned about the veracity of Biblical translations for it's own sake and aren't trying to strengthen an argument, um, more power to you I suppose. It just seems rather unlikely to me that that's all that's going on here.

Because, H.E., if one happens to be a Christian, the Bible's take on various subjects is inherently relevant. Also, rigorous hermeneutics/textual analysis involves a tad more than simple "selective reading." And theology, at its core, is simply the application of intellect to religious issues—in that sense, no religious person ought to be a non-theologian!

(Not to mention that non-religious folks often ask questions of us whose answers require theological reasoning—would a dumb stare be preferable?)
"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
[up]

That you actually think most christians actually read the bible in any theological study sense is cute if naive.

But at least my personal experience says that at least where I live, most christians cant be bothered with it past quoting highly known by everyone passages to beat down on you for not being as moral as them.

edited 27th Nov '12 10:37:46 AM by Midgetsnowman

Going Forth!
NCC - 1701
@Midget - I agree that too few Christians actually bother to actively study the Book and know what is truly written.

But then, I too can potshot several gay rights supporters who quote dated, out-of-context, or just plain wrong factoids. Not to mention the number of people on this site who talk authoritatively about Christianity and yet the basis of their views are so wrong as to be laughable. I imagine it's the same with any group of people.

Like I said, people of all stripes and causes need to become better critical thinkers. People of all causes need to actually learn their position and their opponent's positions better.

edited 27th Nov '12 10:52:34 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor
Total posts: 15,599
 1 ... 203 204 205 206 207
208
209 210 211 212 213 ... 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