TV Tropes Org

Forums

On-Topic Conversations:
LGBT Rights and Religion
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [15,599]  1 ... 204 205 206 207 208
209
210 211 212 213 214 ... 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

 5201 Jhimmibhob, Tue, 27th Nov '12 11:10:25 AM from Arm's reach of the julep machine Relationship Status: My own grandpa
[up][up]In my experience, Christians are generally steeped in the Bible and know the text deeply, though they're not necessarily textual scholars of any description. I come from a highly Evangelical area, though, so our experiences might well differ.
"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
 5202 Hilarity Ensues, Tue, 27th Nov '12 11:55:30 AM from Standing between Sho'Nuff and total supremacy.
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!

But of course. My question is not why do Christians use the Bible, but rather why we give it any credence as a moral guide. It's unusually common for people who clearly don't follow Biblical morality - whether they be atheists or even just moderate theists - to attempt to affirm that the Bible actually supports their position. That, to me, is just missing the point. With all the violence that is committed in the name of or directly by Yahweh within the Bible, as well as the vastly disproportionate punishments prescribed for what were sometimes the most meager of offenses, there are surely more obvious reasons to dismiss a certain verse of Leviticus beyond the fact that you interpret its meaning differently.

I understand that I'm starting to get outside the topic of homosexuality and more into religion in general, but it's difficult for me to talk about this honestly without running into this particular elephant in the room. And yes, in that sense you could call all theists theologians. Generally though, I've only seen the term used to describe those who study their faith significantly more than the average layman.

(Not to mention that non-religious folks often ask questions of us whose answers require theological reasoning—would a dumb stare be preferable?)

Keep in mind that I am only questioning the morality within Christian theology (as well as other religions, but that is less relevant), because morality is something that can be talked about outside the context of religion. There are things which are a matter of faith which, although I disagree with them, I tend not to bring up because they never go anywhere beyond "I believe in X" and "Well, I don't".

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.

Sounds good to me, then.

 5203 Haldo, Tue, 27th Nov '12 12:17:38 PM from Never never land Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
Indecisive pumpkin
I've done my research extensively into the topic. And from everything I've seen, I can conclude that the idea that homosexuality is a sin is absolute crap.
‽‽‽‽

^These are interrobangs. Love them. Learn them. Use them.
 5204 Jhimmibhob, Tue, 27th Nov '12 12:24:58 PM from Arm's reach of the julep machine Relationship Status: My own grandpa
[up]Oh, well then.
"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
 5205 Matues, Tue, 27th Nov '12 12:29:55 PM Relationship Status: Reincarnated romance
You would think that the original hebrew would be considered more accurate than the translated english versions.

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.

Questioning beliefs is a good thing. If they are wrong, then a new and more correct view can be forged. If they aren't, then that merely reassures their correctness.

It's a win/win.

Are you saying that Christians should not try to analyze the bible? * ** ***

NCC - 1701
I've done my research extensively into the topic. And from everything I've seen, I can conclude that the idea that homosexuality is a sin is absolute crap.

Well, that settles it then.

Are you saying that Christians should not try to analyze the bible?

Completely the opposite. I'm saying that just as there's pressure to blindly take the Bible out of context, likewise one can be pressured to see things that aren't there for the sake of "seeing the light" and "letting go of outdated views".

I've read the Bible. I've studied it. I've had people that specifically trained to analyze it all come to the same conclusion. Add to that the fact that contrary to popular opinion, written texts don't exactly drift as spoken word does, add to that the fact that no one can produce a single copy of the Bible containing this error, and add to that that for the last thousand years nobody called the words into question, until around the time of the gay rights movement.

My judgment is that the Bible says it's a sin. I can change my opinion for many reasons, but I don't feel I have a legitimate one. And I have to be true to what I believe.

Edit: The Bible NEVER said women to be treated as property. Just sayin'.

edited 27th Nov '12 1:03:52 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor
 5207 Haldo, Tue, 27th Nov '12 1:10:38 PM from Never never land Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
Indecisive pumpkin
I would have elaborated, but I've already explained what I mean by that in this thread, so.

Speaking of, Maxima never responded to my post about Paul's mention of homosexuality.

and add to that that for the last thousand years nobody called the words into question, until around the time of the gay rights movement.
That's not real evidence. Everybody took the passages in question completely for granted until the gay rights movement.

edited 27th Nov '12 1:15:33 PM by Haldo

‽‽‽‽

^These are interrobangs. Love them. Learn them. Use them.
 5208 Ekuran, Tue, 27th Nov '12 1:12:46 PM from somewhere. Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Hi.
The Bible NEVER said women to be treated as property. Just sayin'.

Haha no.

Specifically: Genesis 3:16: Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.

edited 27th Nov '12 1:13:01 PM by Ekuran

[Insert seemingly profound or amusing phrase here.]
Princess Ymir's knightess
That was back when American sitcoms hadn't existed yet.

edited 27th Nov '12 1:15:26 PM by kay4today

 5210 Matues, Tue, 27th Nov '12 1:20:50 PM Relationship Status: Reincarnated romance
I wasn't saying the bible said that.

On second thought, I think I will.

I will say that it was likely used as an excuse for that behavior.

Maxima, if you want to see a version of the bible that shows this "error" as you so call it, then please learn Hebrew.

I'm saying that the english translations may not be as accurate as the original.

Considering how often things are lost in translation, I would be surprised if it wasn't.
NCC - 1701
@Haldo: What is there to say? Paul likewise condemned it. Like Leviticus, it doesn't strike me as being context- or situation-specific.

That's not real evidence. Everybody took the passages in question completely for granted until the gay rights movement.

Perhaps.

I will say that it was likely used as an excuse for that behavior.

The Bible has been exploited to support many things that are in diametric opposition to the actual Scripture.

edited 27th Nov '12 1:38:35 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor
 5212 Haldo, Tue, 27th Nov '12 1:52:22 PM from Never never land Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
Indecisive pumpkin
You're simply ignoring the context because it's convenient for you. Here is what I said:
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.

‽‽‽‽

^These are interrobangs. Love them. Learn them. Use them.
NCC - 1701
You flatter yourself Haldo. If I ignore you, then I'll let you know. I'm saying I don't agree with your assertion that Paul is talking about a situational law.

When the Bible says something is situational it say so, e.g. allowing a rapist to marry their victim. When the Bible says "This thing is bad. Period." Then I close the book on it.
It was an honor
 5214 Matues, Tue, 27th Nov '12 1:59:18 PM Relationship Status: Reincarnated romance
[up][up][up]

I know.

I can imagine twenty or so years from now, the arguments.

Young Atheist: The Bible is wrong because it supports slavery, sexism and homophobia!

Young Christian: No it's not! I supports none of those things!

Young Atheist: Yes it does! Leviticus 18:22! It says homosexuality is a sin!

Young Christian: You're taking it out of context!

[up]

You must really hate seafood then.

edited 27th Nov '12 2:00:57 PM by Matues

 5215 Morgikit, Tue, 27th Nov '12 2:00:59 PM from Lavender Town Relationship Status: In season
Queen of Foxes
When the Bible says something is situational it say so, e.g. allowing a rapist to marry their victim. When the Bible says "This thing is bad. Period." Then I close the book on it.

Well that's easy for you in this case. You're heterosexual. The Bible doesn't tell you the attraction you feel hurts god's delicate feelings and you should never act on it ever or you'll burn in hell.
Nya

Tropers Riff Movies (7PM EST)
 5216 Matues, Tue, 27th Nov '12 2:02:28 PM Relationship Status: Reincarnated romance
[up]

Technically, it does.

Unless they marry*, in which case they may enjoy the wonders of sex so long as it's meant to make bebbies.

Otherwise, they burn.
 5217 Haldo, Tue, 27th Nov '12 2:03:20 PM from Never never land Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
Indecisive pumpkin
You're really not getting what I'm saying here.

What I'm saying is, Paul was not a reasonable authority on this particular topic, because his understanding of it was primitive to the point of absurd. Why you would take his views on this particular topic seriously is beyond me.

As for Leviticus? Going by what you said, you should be closing the book on a lot more things than you actually are. Leviticus condemns eating shellfish as an abomination. Done. End of story. Leviticus condemns tattoos as an abomination. Done. End of story. Leviticus condemns wearing mixed-fiber cloth as an abomination. Done. End of story.

And yet, you fail to live up to this.

edited 27th Nov '12 2:03:55 PM by Haldo

‽‽‽‽

^These are interrobangs. Love them. Learn them. Use them.
 5218 Matues, Tue, 27th Nov '12 2:06:06 PM Relationship Status: Reincarnated romance
[up]

His responses will probably be something to the tune of:

Paul was divinely inspired, and therefore knew better than us.

Those old laws were overturned when Jesus appeared, but homosexuality is condemned in other parts of the bible, unlike those.

I really think that if it mattered so much, Jesus would have popped a parable out.
NCC - 1701
Haldo, if I didn't know any better, I'd say you were Shima!

The Bible actually is quite clear that fibers and shellfish are not that big a deal anymore. Sexual immorality, of which homosexuality is but one type, was ALWAYS a big deal.
It was an honor
NCC - 1701
[up][up] Goddamn Matues, you ninja'd the shit outta me!

edited 27th Nov '12 2:07:06 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor
 5221 Haldo, Tue, 27th Nov '12 2:08:55 PM from Never never land Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
Indecisive pumpkin
Then by that logic, homosexuality should be no big deal as well. Just because it has "sex" in its name doesn't mean it's sexual immorality. For example, Leviticus also condemned sleeping with a woman on her period. And do you consider that sexual immorality?

If you don't, then surely, there is some outside influence which convinces you that homosexuality is sexual immorality.
‽‽‽‽

^These are interrobangs. Love them. Learn them. Use them.
 5222 Matues, Tue, 27th Nov '12 2:09:47 PM Relationship Status: Reincarnated romance
[up][up][up]

I've heard these arguments before.

edited 27th Nov '12 2:10:19 PM by Matues

NCC - 1701
Like I said, sexual immorality was always a big deal. Including the ones I ignore, like sleeping with a woman on her period. Or sleeping with a hot Latina that is not married to you.
It was an honor
 5224 Matues, Tue, 27th Nov '12 2:12:03 PM Relationship Status: Reincarnated romance
 5225 Haldo, Tue, 27th Nov '12 2:12:29 PM from Never never land Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
Indecisive pumpkin
So you do consider sleeping with a woman on the period sexual immorality. And you say you ignore it (like it's no big deal). Why.

edited 27th Nov '12 2:13:08 PM by Haldo

‽‽‽‽

^These are interrobangs. Love them. Learn them. Use them.
Total posts: 15,599
 1 ... 204 205 206 207 208
209
210 211 212 213 214 ... 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