LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Sorry to butt in — I've been content to lurk this thread for a while but some recent statements struck a nerve.

I beg to differ. Love requires mutual respect, understanding and trust. In any healthy friendship or relationship each partner needs to be able to accept their partner for who and what they are, even if certain traits don't mesh. To do otherwise — to demand that one's friend or loved one conform to a specific standard on pain of infinite punishment — is abuse at best.

False equivocation. COs, company managers and (good) parents and trusted because they earn their authority and are accountable to others. They have those positions because they demonstrate competence. They can be court-martialled, sacked or accosted by child services if they're found to be misusing their power.

God, on the other hand, is declared an unquestionable authority by fiat. Despite the fact that he (supposedly) only communicates through a vague, ancient text with thousands of different interpretations and the occasional 'revelation' indistinguishable from schizophrenia and/or making things up. This is a horrible authority to follow in making decisions that affect the world and people around you.

edited 4th Dec '12 8:14:00 AM by Snipehamster

I don't believe our statements preclude one another. In fact, I quite agree with you. If me and a gay person were to hold a friendship, they'd have to accept that my views on their sexual behavior are what they are. And I, of course, would have to accept that might not give a shit what I think.

With that out of the way, I actually do believe we could have a warm rapport, if not an outright friendship. There are people on these very threads I have deep affection for, and there are alleged Christians I consider outright enemies and would tell them so to their face.

But, at no point, would I lie or change my honest answers to accommodate anyone. And I wouldn't expect them to do it for me. The Bible says a person who lies to appease you or to "spare your feelings" isn't a friend, in fact, they hate you.

As to your point about God being God by fiat, see my previous post.

edited 4th Dec '12 8:21:53 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

@Starship Maxima

I disagree. If I don't agree with his reasoning, I won't follow it. He can't expect me to agree with him, in spite of not even explaining why the sin in question is a sin in the first place.

That is your choice to make Noirceur. One of the great ironies of the Bible is that an all powerful God whose word is such that on his say so the Universe came to be; does not and will not force anyone to follow him.

I cannot speak for God, but I don't think he thinks any less of you. Nor do I.

I follow the general idea, just not the parts I find stupid and unreasonable.

If I ever see him, I'll ask what's up with that!

Just had a random thought: David got into trouble with prophets like Nathan over his... sexual dalliances and... interesting choices. But, was preferred to most of his rivals (and, rivals of his son also got themselves black-listed for various misdemeanours deemed worse), regardless of this outright sinning and stomping over the "thou shalt not covet" and "adultery" sections of the Ten.

One thing he never did: temple prostitution (either with those willing or unwilling) and the whole dancing in the high places bit. Considering the context you may (or may not) read into Leviticus, this is telling. Yes, the covenant with the Kings of Israel was blighted by his adultery: but, it wasn't negated. (And, it's up to you how much you read that as being Nathan being a Rules Lawyer jerk.)

Compare and contrast with what happened with Ahab and Jezebel: they were all for the "old ways" of worship... and look what happened...

edited 4th Dec '12 8:27:07 AM by Euodiachloris

Quite respectable. I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't get along with gay people and wouldn't think to call your character into question, but I fear you've missed my point.

What I meant was: God, according to you, believes that specific sexual orientations (or rather, acting upon them) are sinful; somehow offensive to him. Therefore, failing to conform to God's standards brings the risk of punishment or separation. If my take on love is correct — that love is a two-way street — and failing to live to God's standards brings about the threat of punishment, how can it possibly be said that God loves us? If God is mortally offended by the traits with which he created us, how can he possibly be understanding or accepting?

Does he even explain why these things are an issue? There's simply no room for mutual respect or dialogue.

He doesn't force anyone? Really? What, precisely, is the consequence if one chooses not to follow him?

edited 4th Dec '12 8:28:11 AM by Snipehamster

You remind me of another non-Christian troper, that I have a great deal of respect for, who has a similar outlook.

If you look at the Bible, and the people God chooses to carry out his plans, you'll see that your stand on principles and refusal to bend to dubious authority actually make you prime Christian material.

I'm neither God nor you, so can't talk about what will or won't happen to you, but from what little I can gather of God's thinking, he may yet have plans for you.

I don't say that as an insult. I say it as someone who'd like to see Christianity shed the fakers and posers and liars and cheats, and gain people of some actual substance.

Edit: @Euo - I never thought of that that way. Hm.

edited 4th Dec '12 8:32:58 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

I wonder what God might think of my Utilitarianism.

I don't feel of sufficient intellect or character to answer this, but I'll attempt to share my opinion.

Your question is an exceedingly reasonable one, and I might not be correct but...

First, the Bible suggests that God doesn't necessarily make us wrong. Rather we live in a sinful world and we are by our own nature sinful. The question of where that sin nature comes from is left to better men than I.

But one way to explain it is this. God designed me to appreciate women. But I cannot say he made want to sleep with any partway attractive woman I could get my hands on. It's like, God makes us unique and awesome, and through our own sinning and living among other sinners, some of those very traits get perverted to something else.

Now, if you accept that, then we move to your second question of 'if God is mortally offended by our sin then how could he love us?'

Well first off, God hates sin not because we hurt him. We can't hurt the God who determines whether we live or die by a mere utterance. He hates sin because it hurts us . My fornication, while being an extremely pleasant experience, keeps me from the unique satisfaction of being with one woman who I belong to and who belongs to me, and together, it's like we form another person, separate and greater than the sum of us. I imagine there's a similar rationale behind condemning homosexuality or transgenderism.

Now, if we accept this, we're still left with "Then how can he love us?" And now comes the reason people become Christians. God basically takes the Papa Wolf and Team Dad tropes Up To Eleven and says, "As a parent cannot just abandon their children, no matter what they do, I won't abandon you." So he takes his actual Son and let's him die a death so fucked up it makes Nanking look tame, so that his other children can have a chance to be saved. It's the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one taken to the extreme as only the Creator of the Universe can.

So now, our lives are no longer forfeit due to our sins. Now what? God being God handles that too. He takes a piece of himself and imbues anyone who wants it with this...Holy Spirit. Think of it like The Force. And through this Spirit, you now have the greatest gift in the history of humanity; the ability to be better than you once were. The strength to defy your darker nature. Literally the power to "become sons and daughters of God." And this God will be there with you, literally every single step of the way, through every failure, every tear, every mistake.

....I apologize for rambling. But this is the reason I pledge Christianity. I can barely type this post without being overwhelmed by the sheer hope; the limitless promise; that this faith gives me. And...I've seen it work with my own two eyes. I sleep soundly, I no longer dread the next day. I can actually boldly go where I've never gone before.

And if God would do that for a little shit that would've been happier dead than alive, who can do it for anybody.

edited 4th Dec '12 8:47:35 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

Your first point is impossible to accept for me, since a monogamous heterosexual relationship is not considered a sin, but a monogamous homosexual relationship is. Do you get where I'm coming from?

I totally get where you're coming from.

Sins are choices. Being gay isn't. You can argue that homosexual acts are sins, but you can't argue that being gay is a sin because when someone is gay, they are gay from birth until death.

Also: There isn't even one verse in the Bible that condemns transsexualism.

edited 4th Dec '12 9:11:22 AM by Haldo

I doubt the writers even knew it was a thing.

Apologies for the slow reply. Had to get home from work.

I can't accept this. If God has the power to, as you say, create a universe through intent alone, then anything that exists or happens either does so at his command or with his implicit consent. Likewise...

...why? How is this even remotely helpful or nescessary? He can create a universe with a word, but can't forgive or save anyone (from himself) without a brutal murder (of himself*

I'm sorry, but I can't place my trust in someone like that. I can't turn to someone like that for advice on how to treat other people. And I can't understand why any reasonably-minded person would.

Your christianity is obviously important to you. I don't doubt that it's had a great positive effect on your life, and am happy for you. But does that mean that its supernatural claims should influence you or anyone else when it comes to who and how others choose to love?

With all due respect, and all possible seriousness, I've had my creativity, love of reading and writing, and a good degree of self-respect restored through editing angsty post-apocalyptic My Little Pony/Fallout crossover fanfiction. Really. But I'm not about to go seeking relationship advice from Rampage*

edited 4th Dec '12 9:33:58 AM by Snipehamster

Your very reasonable questions fail to take one thing into account, God is a staunch believer in free will. A classic libertarian you might say.

God could have simply said "Timeout. Do-over," and just do it over again. God specifically designed humanity to be better than dolphins, lions, parakeets, goldfish, etc. He wanted us to be made in his image. He wanted us to have his power, to impose our will on the world, and as the sci-fi fan in me likes to think, on the universe. We can't simply utter things into being. But as James Lovell said in Apollo13, "We live in a world where man has walked on a moon. And it wasn't a miracle, we decided to go."

This is also the reason why I don't buy the whole "Being gay isn't a choice". Just as gays have gotten married to opposite gender people and had families, I think we brainwash ourselves into believing that we simply can't overcome our urges, our nature; when this is precisely the point of our existence.

Now, to address your other point, I'm not wise enough to explain why Jesus had to be executed in order to save humanity. But I can hazard a guess why God couldn't just say "Okay guys, we'll just forget about it." That's not love. When a parent's child does something wrong, you don't simply just forgive them. You want them to learn from their mistakes.

Additionally, the things mankind had done; rape, pillage, murder, betrayal, lying....things done by good guys...well, I can see how God can't simply just write that off.

edited 4th Dec '12 10:02:08 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

More of that stuff has been done in God's name than I can even comprehend.

And I don't buy into the whole "denying your urges is the point of existence" crap. Urges exist for a reason. Sure, overindulging is bad and some of them need to be suppressed for the good of society, but on the whole denying your nature for the sake of some holier-than-thou ideal is just...wrong on a fundamental level.

The fact that you can't see this, that you view such a denial of human nature to be a good thing... Yes, we have our bad apples, but so does every other species. What we have achieved in spite of this, and in spite of centuries of petty squabbling over whose imaginary friend is better, I think more than makes up for it.

So what if being gay is a choice*

For me, the whole "being gay isn't a choice" thing isn't the issue here. Gay people could choose not to marry or get into relationships with people of their own gender, yes. But would that also make some of them miserable and unhappy? Yes.

The question is why it is supposed to be a sin, when there is no clear reason why it should be.

edited 4th Dec '12 10:15:55 AM by Noirceur

It's quite possible to overcome our urges; no disagreement there. But should we fight the urge to eat? Fight the urge to seek air while underwater? Fight the urge to scratch our arses from time to time? The question is: which urges should we strive to overcome, and more importantly, why? 'Big Brother says so' shouldn't be an answer that satisfies a thinking person.

Show me one parent that teaches their children through torture and murder.

When a child does something wrong, a responsible parent chastises them and invites them to think about why their action was wrong. If the child is capable of understanding, their parent might even sit them down and explain it to them. That way, the child learns that good behavior is beneficial to everyone and not simply a means of avoiding punishment. God doesn't seem inclined to clearly explain his motives. If we're not capable of understanding, then it's because he made us that way and the ball is therefore still in his court.

Again, how does torturing a man for hours and then nailing him to a cross so that he can slowly die over the course of several days solve or even mitigate any of the above? I'm not suggesting that they're justifiable or forgivable, of course, but two wrongs don't make a right.

edited 4th Dec '12 10:35:55 AM by Snipehamster

You are quite correct, no sane parent tortures their child to teach them a lesson. Jesus chose and God allowed that horrific death as payment for the misdeeds of all the rest of humanity.

Again, you really have to get a better trained theologian to explain the logistics, but it boils down to this, the payment of sin is death. Jesus showed up and basically looked death in the face and said "Paid in full."

Nor do they allow their children to torture their other children to death, as was the case with Jesus.

And who decided upon the debt in this case? Who, indeed, was being paid?

And three days later he got his life back and rose to become ruler of everything, ever. That's not a payment; that's a loan.

Edit: Sorry, I may be getting off-topic. I don't want to rant about Christianity and I'm sure you don't want to put up with my ranting either. My point is: why take the word of someone willing to advocate torture and murder (without explanation) as an arbiter of morality and good sexual and interpersonal conduct (again, without explanation)?

edited 4th Dec '12 2:28:32 PM by Snipehamster

What sort of bloodthirsty monster demands suffering and death to appease it?

edited 4th Dec '12 2:22:58 PM by Lawyerdude

This is a derail, flame bait, and frankly offensive. Please remove it.

Lawyerdude's post, or my line of argument?

yes