LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Ok so you claim that Jesus was a violent Jewish exclusionist? How about the story of the Good Samaritan? The bit about "turn the other cheek". Hell if Jesus's message had anything to do with USING violence you'd think that God would have smited Herod or something. Weren't several of his disciples from a non-Jewish background?

And yes Fundementalism is a relatively new take on religion. The idea of taking things "literally" in the Bible was usually forgone in the hopes of finding what the Bible actually means. And many doctrines of Fundementalist doctrine doesn't make sense if one reads the Bible "literally" as Jesus was clear on the values of good work, while many sects believe that faith is the only qualifier for who goes to heaven.

The Crystal Caverns A bird's gotta sing.

Officially joining Loni in the "I am bowing out" position. Not because I don't have responses, but because I fear I wouldn't be in the proper state of mind to make them.

The topic is still largely focused on Christianity anyway which I'm not as well researched on as I am with my own religion so I might not be as much help.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Yes, I'm not disagreeing with you that the Bible is a collection of glaring inconsistencies and direct contradictions, even in the words of Christ himself, but that seems to me beside the point.

Fundamentalism, in the current sense of the term, is definitely not what the founding fathers of the faith meant by Christianity. It's just a slightly less bastardized version of it.

Now, I'm not sure where you get the idea that literal interpretation of the Bible was "usually" forgone. The idea that the Bible must "actually mean" something other than what it clearly says has been, for the most part, a response to the changing values of society. A great deal of what Christians had been claiming was literally true for hundreds of years only began to "actually mean" something completely different from what the Bible actually says when scientific or moral progress made taking the claim at literal value ridiculous. Nobody could say without being executed for heresy that the Bible's claim that the stars in the sky were created after plant life on Earth was "metaphorical" or not "literally" true until science proved that claim to be ridiculous.

The evolution of Christian dogma is the result of receding human ignorance forcing Christians to constantly change their tune as to what their Bible actually "means." If there were still Greek polytheists around claiming that human life was not actually controlled by the Fates as previously believed, but it was actually just a metaphor that people just happened to errantly take literally until (purely by coincidence, no doubt) scientific investigation into the matter made the claim seem ridiculous, everyone would recognize the obvious bullshit immediately. Since Christianity has social sanction, people pretend that they're just moving towards a "greater understanding" of their holy texts, instead of just being forced to ditch the beliefs that defined the faith in the first place in the face of their increasing absurdity.

I'm not sure what the story of the Good Samaritan has to do with Christ's explicit affirmation of the brutal and sadistic laws of Moses, I don't see any clear connection. Even the most evil men in history performed good deeds, or showed mercy to the pitiful. Christ may have intended for his followers that were insulted to ignore the offense, or "turn the other cheek," but that doesn't change the fact that he does not equivocate whatsoever that the sadistic punishments demanded (for a man having sex with a man, just for example) in the laws of Moses are absolutely a part of his spiritual teachings.

Even if Christ never harmed a fly personally, explicitly saying "yes, capital punishment for these mundane "offenses," has my divine authorization" is not the act of a man of peace, nor is claiming that those who refuse his message will be cast into Hell, whatever you think Hell is.

Now, Sveni:

I'm afraid you've missed the point. I did say openly that the degree to which Christian doctrine complies with modern social mores is not in itself an indicator of how faithful that doctrine is to the book it's based on.

It's the clear caving to social pressure and the theological bankruptcy of the practice which does that. It's the obvious connection between social mores or scientific progress discrediting a particular Christian belief, and Christians retroactively justifying why their holy book really meant that all along, you just have to take it as a metaphor.

If you want to know to why I'm bothering to tell you this, it's because the practice of reducing Christianity to literary criticism in order to justify the most drastic changes in doctrine imaginable is intellectually dishonest and bankrupt. I'm glad fewer and fewer Christians are bigoted against homosexuals, but they can't dodge the responsibility their holy book has for inspiring that persecution in the first place, and claim that the Bible is a force for tolerance.

As long as we let people get away with telling others that religion is some inherently good thing (I'm not claiming it's inherently bad, either), and that any religious believer that believes nasty things about people is just "perverting" the faith, we're not just letting people get away with extreme intellectual dishonesty, we're preventing ourselves from criticizing books and the beliefs they engender that produce very real harm to our homosexual brothers and sisters in humanity.

edited 30th Apr '12 10:10:02 AM by Sarkastique

Memento Mori

I would like to say that I'm sorry for using my own limited experience in an accusatory manner re: bigotry from the pulpit a few pages back. It wasn't, and isn't fair for me to do so, and I'm sorry if I offended anyone- the Church is one of the greatest mixed bags of all time, and it shouldn't be generalized that way.

Would have posted this sooner, but was dragged away from computer.

edited 30th Apr '12 10:28:37 AM by Muramasan13

Smile for me!

Gonna have to throw in with the others who are bowing out of the the conversation because, quite frankly, this argument is pointless and no one is convincing or accomplishing anyone or anything. Just gonna say that no, the Bible is NOT supposed to be taken 100% literally, and the times in which you were burned at the stake for thinking that were much less enlightened times. I'd like to think that we as a species have largely moved away from that in most of the developed world.

Peace out, homies.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

Doesn't appear in... uh, damn was it Matthew or Marcus? Anyway, in the same gospel Jesus even specifically tells his apostles not to preach to or try to convert Samaritans. So, yeah, it depends on the gospel. In one Jesus definitely is a Jewish exclusionist, and painting him as such was very much deliberate by the author. Same for not making him one in the others.

Of course, that just goes to show how religion is unable to present eternal answers if they can't even get their own stuff straight and consistent.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

If we're going to start discussing the historicity of Jesus or the content of the gospels outside of the homosexuality issue, I think that should go in another forum, such as "What The Bible Says".

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

There's no Gospel of Marcus, unless you mean Mark.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

The culture is much more important than the theology, to be honest.

There's a lot of mainstream Christian beliefs that are non-theological. Most of the hell background, for one. Getting into arguments about theology is almost entirely beside the point.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Okay, I realize this is a counterintuitive idea, but I provided statistics indicating that this is around half the congregation rather than some obscure fringe. If you want me to trace all the way to the actual study, here, knock yourself out.

edit: blarg, it's not opening from the direct link. Here's the page that provides the pdf.

edited 30th Apr '12 2:42:46 PM by Pykrete

Just my two cents: I don't think talking about what the historical Jesus really meant or what the Bible originally meant is in any way helpful in this discussion. Religion, like every humanities, changes. The fact that Christianity had changed from being a Jew-only club to encompassing the gentiles as well proves that. So are we to say that anyone who doesn't think that are "being intellectually dishonest because that is part of Christianity"? Also, there's a theory that the Gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew are based on an earlier gospel which we do not have, so any attempts on finding out what the original Jesus (historical if assuming that He exists in the first place, or fictional if He actually is made up and is a sum of the "ideal" Jew at the time) said is futile and an educated guess at best.

Also, I think the title is a bit of misnomer. While there has been a bit of discussion on other religions like Buddhism and their views on homosexuality, the extend of exploration is hardly as deep as Christianity (for example, there's been quotes from the Bible. I did not see any Buddhist texts being quoted here). Making assumptions on other religions based on the Western experience of religion without even looking at their doctrines, to me, is very irrational.

Returning after sometime to calm down and sew...Found someone who didn't see any quotations...

The subject isn't mentioned in Buddhist canonical texts at all. Closest you get are the ubhatovyanjañaka and paṇḍaka genders which are now defunct. They were mentioned in a restriction on monks from having sex with the four genders; male, female, ubhatovyanjañaka and paṇḍaka.

All stances on homosexuality are therefore added upon the canon. There's nothing to cite canonically. Generally if there is a problem with homosexuality in a Buddhist country it is considered a form of sexual misconduct. While adultery and rape are pretty much always there in all definitions of what that means exactly sexual misconduct's definition varies. A lot.

There are things to cite in regards to treatment however. Treating people badly in any form is not a thing to be done. At all. Loving kindness is to be spread to all beings and it's talked about a lot.

"He abides, having suffused with a mind of loving-kindness
one direction of the world,
likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth,
and so above, below, around and
everywhere, and to all as to himself;
he abides suffusing the entire universe with loving-kindness,
with a mind grown great, lofty, boundless and
free from enmity and ill will."

-Basic Radiating Formula

"Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at heart would not be upholding my Teaching. Monks, even in such a situation you should train yourselves thus: 'Neither shall our minds be affected by this, nor for this matter shall we give vent to evil words, but we shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and we shall not give in to hatred. On the contrary, we shall live projecting thoughts of universal love to those very persons, making them as well as the whole world the object of our thoughts of universal love – thoughts that have grown great, exalted and measureless. We shall dwell radiating these thoughts which are void of hostility and ill will.' It is in this way, monks, that you should train yourselves."

-Kakacupama Sutta (MN 21)

"The absence of hate, hating, hatred; love, loving, loving disposition; tender care, forbearance, considerateness; seeking the general good, compassion; the absence of malice, of malignity; that absence of hate which is the root of good (karma)."

-Abhidhammic descriptor (Dhs. 189)

We also have karuna which is mercy, pity, and compassion.

"Compassion is that which makes the heart of the good move at the pain of others. It crushes and destroys the pain of others; thus, it is called compassion. It is called compassion because it shelters and embraces the distressed." - The Buddha.

And our cases of the Golden Rule in the Pali Canon...

"Comparing oneself to others in such terms as "Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I," he should neither kill nor cause others to kill." —Sutta Nipata 705

"One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter." —Dhammapada 10. Violence

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." —Udanavarga 5:18

There's a lot more in this regard and on many other related subjects as the Pali canon, The Tipitaka, is well...very, very long. It's about...57 standard sized Bibles in size. There are canonical accounts of the Buddha helping murderers and rapists and ordaining them. Such people have been helped by a number of Bodhisatta in Mahayana as well. The story of Princess Miaoshan (Guanyin) stands out best in this regard.

edited 30th Apr '12 5:00:12 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

That's interesting. Seems like homosexuality is beyond the scope of Buddhism and any Buddhist talking about it is speaking of their own personal opinion rather than from Buddhist influence.

Pretty much yes. I personally stand in support of it since I can't think of a way that it really does deal harm. The harm felt by gays or those who dislike them seems to be from what I view as bigotry, prejudice, or beliefs that don't need to exist. There is the issue of no children being born from gays, but given how many people we have I don't see that as an issue. Just let them adopt or whatever. Research doesn't seem to show negatives on children reared by gays either.

I myself haven't really suffered from my homosexuality.

In the case of sex itself there are unsafe sex practices that gay people practice but the same practices can be and are practiced by straights. In this case I feel it is best to instead teach ways to minimize the risks of certain types of higher risk sex acts (anal penetrative sex) while discouraging the practice of certain very, very high risk sex acts (we'll just use sexual cannibalism). The sex acts aren't exclusive to gays.

Now Buddhist ethics are based on circumstance and reduction and prevention of suffering. As such I don't see an issue with homosexuality and other sexual orientations. There are ways to express both in a fashion that can cause harm I suppose, just as there is with everything, but at the end of things I believe that sexual orientation is like romance and sex in general. Neutral. Neither right nor wrong.

It is however a hindrance to Enlightenment, but then so is heterosexuality and indeed sexuality in general.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Yeah, but not getting Enlightenment is not the same thing as not going to Heaven in Christianity, right? The former is something that is good thing to get but ok if you do not, the latter more "if you don't get it or not want it you must be evil, roar".

Enlightenment is considered the purpose of life. You're not evil for not getting there in a life and you won't get there for a long while. Still you should try to get there and some individuals are believed to be holding off on their Enlightenment specifically to help EVERYTHING THAT IS SENTIENT get to Enlightenment before them.

So you aren't evil. You just haven't passed the class yet. But you've got a fuckton of friends and very stubborn nice people who are going to help you stand on your own two feet and pass.

If you don't make it when the universe dies then you're just reborn in the new reborn universe. And have to start all over.

edited 30th Apr '12 5:19:05 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Well, to be fair, I'm putting off Enlightenment in this life for now. I'd like to enjoy the roller coaster ride of emotional ups and downs and great hilarity and sorrow before going for the tranquility of Enlightenment. But that's really off topic.

Yes, sorry. (The problem with gospel and apostle name is that they actually vary from language to language *

It's actually Mark in German as well, but I overcompensated, heh

)

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

@Pykrete: Yeah, that sounds about right. For what it's worth I generally assume that in terms of these views, Christians in North America are divided roughly in a 50/50 split. I think that's a pretty fair way to look at things right now.

The question is what are the best steps that can be taken to get half of those people on the right side of things. Some people say it's the religion that needs to go, personally I think that it's the theism in and of itself (massive difference), some people say it's a matter of getting the "correct" theology out there to the public (Good luck with that), some people say it's simply a matter of demographics and the best thing to do is to let it play itself out.

This is the discussion that we should be having.

Edit: Yes, I know that link is just Catholics, but I consider Catholicism to be in the dead center of Christianity.

edited 30th Apr '12 5:52:11 PM by Karmakin

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

How convenient that this view only gained any currency now that it's impossible to believe it literally. Maybe those were less enlightened times, but you couldn't prove it by the Bible.

When someone explains how they know you aren't supposed to take the Bible literally, I'll start taking them seriously. Until then, it seems to me that the book says what it says, and people who claim it says something else are making that assumption ex recto.

Memento Mori

"If you have faith the size of a mustard seed you may uproot this tree and cast it into the sea" is a line from the Bible. It's also impossible to be read literally. I honestly thing Genesis was also always meant to be a metaphor, but because there was no better explanation for how the world came to exist it was taken as fact by many in the past.

The Crystal Caverns A bird's gotta sing.

Actually, it gained currency when people weren't getting burned at the stake for it. When scientists weren't inflammatory assholes about it and challenging authority (granted as an institution of great power the church is as vulnerable to corruption and arrogance as anyone), the church was often very interested in the proceedings. The same things Galileo got vilified for on the second pass because he provoked a pissing match with the church, Copernicus dedicated to the Pope the first time around.

edited 30th Apr '12 6:33:50 PM by Pykrete

Unless you believe that God magically poofed the first Bible into existence, and ensured that nobody modified it, you have to acknowledge that it was first written down by humans. Humans have flaws, vices, and prejudices. It isn't that hard to conclude that these first writers put their own views into it, meaning the Bible isn't wholly the literal word of God. Many Christians understand this and have chosen to use their own reasoning to find out what God really wants.

And Sark, I'd have to say that I believe it's fully possible to be a Christian without even following the Bible.

edited 30th Apr '12 6:34:32 PM by Boredman

cum

Well, the monks put a lot of time and effort into making sure their bibles were completely accurate. They dedicated their whole lives, almost, to making accurate bibles.

It was their very being to create the flawless, perfectly accurate, bible. And for hundreds of years thousands of monks gave their very best to do that.

I'm sure all that effort was not in vain.

If you want any of my avatars, just Pm me I'd truly appreciate any avatar of a reptile sleeping in a Nice Hat Read Elmer Kelton books

The same monks also misspelt Boudicca's name, however. "Boadicea" looks physically too similar and sound too different for it to be anything else.