LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

The Song of Solomon is about sex, agreed-but that's what I meant when I said this fear of passions (I should probably have said passions coming from something other than the religion, sorry about that) comes from organised religion, and not the original source. By all accounts, religion is passionate.

Just to make clear something I probably should have said from the start: my point about outside passions interfering was for organized religion only. A personal relationship with God is another matter.

edited 9th May '12 1:11:53 PM by Vetinarification

@Carciofus: "They" of course are the Christian sub-culture, not all Christians are part of this sub-culture, but it exists. I wish there was a better term for it. I'd just call it Dominionist and call it a day but nobody probably knows what that means, and even if they do it's probably way over the top.

I don't think that everybody has that sort of aesthetic experience..but I do think that many people do. At least, when I'm generally talking to people about that stuff they describe to me it as an aesthetic experience. Now, there might be other reasons and I'm not willing to discount them, of course. But I do think that this sort of feeling is what locks it in for other people. For example, for older Catholics I've been told a bit part of it is about the sense of tradition and familiarity.

Especially for the "unchurched" component (which I think you're a part of?) which have their own reasons, often philosophical.

I am not "unchurched", if by that you mean that I don't go to Mass on Sundays. I do — not that the fact that I go to Mass on Sundays makes me better than those who don't, of course.

But in any case, one thing that should be stressed is that this "Christian sub-culture" that you are talking of is a very fringe phenomenon, if that. Most Christians read about the same books that you do, watch about the same shows that you do, and so on.

Also, I just don't think that the aesthetic experience that you mention is the fundamental part of a religion. There is nothing wrong with it; but as you point out, it can be obtained from many other sources.

edited 9th May '12 1:31:26 PM by Carciofus

Trying to monopolize Things That Feel Good may be a factor in recent times as part of reactionary movements, but it doesn't really trace back far enough to make sense as a root cause.

Keep in mind "non-procreative" sex — at least between fertile heterosexual couples — is a very recent concept. I mean yeah people would still do it without thinking about what might happen and some people figured out acacia gum had a noticeable effect, but reliable contraception wasn't really a thing*

Weirdly, a lot of our modern concepts of romantic love extending beyond the sexy-times, and marriage not just being a business transaction for babies actually came from the Puritans.

We've already discussed the cultural and health issues that surrounded sex between males in antiquity. There were very concrete reasons to be wary of it back then — at least how it manifested and got institutionalized among the dominant empires.

Between females was kind of an interesting (if depressing) case, as many of the cultures that accepted same-sex relations between men discouraged them for women. For instance, the Romans shut down Sappho's schools and denounced her teachings to keep women subordinate to men, and one of the side effects of a man in keeping a male partner in addition to his wife was to outrank her, effectively shutting the wife out of any power she may have had by proxy of her husband.

edited 9th May '12 1:30:59 PM by Pykrete

Oh yeah. I'm definitely saying it's a VERY modern thing. As in 1900-forward, taking various forms, and that it's by and large non-biblical.

But again, I think the culture has more of an impact than the actual text.

edited 9th May '12 1:43:25 PM by Karmakin

They are not famous for pushing their agenda even in those places. When the Hong Kong government called the Fa Lun Gung "an evil cult" and wanted to stomp it out, only every religious body in Hong Kong but the Buddhists stood up and called for religious freedom, and the Buddhists were called out for it.

That assumption very much is a gut feeling, a leap of faith. I freely admit there's nothing to definitely "prove" the Bible is 100% accurate. All I can say is that...for the time being...it hasn't failed me yet.

As for my denomination, I'm specifically anti-denomination. The closest thing you could say is that I'm Protestant.

Neither.

I feel the same way about you. There's absolutely nothing wrong about challenging or questioning a point of view. The day we stop doing that, society will collapse.

All good points Jojo. First off, I'm not absolutely certain that mine is the only correct interpretation. I often worry that I might be wrong, which is why I engage in discussions with those who question my beliefs. It's part of my quest to evolve and get better and hopefully become a good and decent man. That can't happen if I'm so enamored of my own ideas I won't see reason.

On the flip side of that, willing to hear reason is not the same as me taking I accept said reason. Just as arrogance foils self-improvement so does simply taking every suggestion just to be agreeable. I've heard those arguments, and I don't dismiss them, but they currently aren't good enough for me to change my overall view.

And I don't just hold the line on gays. There are several other Biblical teachings I hold firm on, it's just that those tend piss people off.

Sometimes I don't know where I'm coming from. It's a work in progress man.

Edit: Another thing to talk about with Biblical teaching, I'm not the only person who seems to hold to one interpretation of the Bible, seemingly in defiance of clear evidence to the opposite.

Only a page back, some people suggested Tim Tebow publicly praying is in violation of Matthew 6:5. On another occassion, a minor shitstorm started because someone suggested the Bible actually okayed and endorsed rape. And of course there's the question of the Bible being sexist.

In each of these examples, there were tropers who weren't even Christian who suggested that you'd have to read the Bible with an agenda to get that interpretation. And the people who had their opinions didn't change them.

So sometimes I do address why I think the Bible is being interpreted wrongly by others, and is they who ignore it. It's not that I'm ignoring them.

edited 10th May '12 10:58:06 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

@Starship

I know this may not be the place, but again can you elaborate on why you think it is "neither"?

Are woman allowed to speak in your church?

And if you view and interpretation is evolving, why do you hold so fast to these particular interpretations despite despite all logic and reason opposing them, and in fact them being contrary to the core message of your religion.

edited 10th May '12 10:56:05 AM by LMage

Hey L, I answered some of these in the previous post, obviously we ninja'd each other .

In the Church I used to attend, women could do anything except preach. I've been to other Churches where they allow them to preach if they want.

For me the question isn't one of my more pressing concerns. It goes back to my issue with how some people interpret the Bible. The Bible doesn't okay paying women less for their work, it doesn't okay domestic violence, it doesn't suggest women must only be cooks.

The fact that one verse says women should remain silent in Church to me doesn't equal endorsing sexism.

@Starship

The problem is that verse in particularly is hard to interpret as anything else then sexist with or without an "agenda"

And what's more is, with a "the Bible is infallible position" you HAVE to believe every part of the bible, have to believe that woman shouldn't be allowed to speak, or you don't consider the Bible completely infallible. It's a all or nothing situation.

edited 10th May '12 11:07:57 AM by LMage

Let me rephrase, even if that's what the Bible is saying, I'm saying that the Bible as a whole is pretty against treating women like shit. Considering that most Churches make their own call makes me think it's just not that big a deal.

As I've stated before, the Bible is big and complex, there are parts that defy my understand, and I've spent years trying to get it straight.

There are far far bigger issues to focus on than one verse suddenly endorsing wholesale piss-poor treatment of women.

edited 10th May '12 11:09:46 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

@Starship

But if you hold a position that says the Bible is wholly infallible, always right, then you have to believe that woman should not be allowed to speak in church. Not the curhces, not the priests, not the preachers, you have to believe that if you think the Bible is infallible It is a big deal because either you or you don't.

So do you think women should be allowed to speak in church?

If you don't you admit the bible is fallible.

edited 10th May '12 11:13:49 AM by LMage

It hasn't failed you in what way? What would count as a failure?

The reason I'm asking is because I don't understand why you aren't able to come up with your own interpretations of your faith. You say you wish it were so, but why isn't it? If you don't have a denomination, then there is no problem with finding your own answers to questions.

Expanding on this, my denomination doesn't ordain women, but I remember several times when the priests were indisposed via vacation/sickness and the choirlady basically ran mass.

And I've brought this up in other threads, but modern historians are pretty sure the book containing passages that tell women to sit down and shut up (as well as the other pastoral epistles) were written under false authorship a couple hundred years after the fact — which would put them right about when the church was gaining power in Rome. Those books contain language that didn't show up for much later; it's a similar effect as if someone in an American Civil War film busted out "groovy".

edited 10th May '12 1:12:16 PM by Pykrete

I think I have to agree with Joey, Pycrete, etc.

There are just as many verses in the bible forbidding women to do things as there are verses forbidding homosexuality. Why can you dismiss the one but not the other? What is different about the sexist verses that allows you to do that?

Um, such as? I've read the Bible pretty thoroughly and I'm not seeing a ton of verses supporting sexism. In fact, in the New Testament, Jesus seems to but heads with the sexist Pharisees quite often.

Not a ton of them, no. But there isn't a ton of anti-homosexuality verses either. Something like 6 of them in the whole bible, three in the NT? Not many, anyway.

I can remember three verses that restrict the roles of women - I don't usually memorise verses, though, so I can't remember the exact words.

There's the one mentioned in this thread before, the one that says that women should not speak in church. There's another one, in the letters to Timothy, that says 'suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over a man'. And there is the verse that goes "Wives, submit to your husbands".

I'm not claiming the New Testament is riddled with sexist verses. But the verses are in there, and how many times is homosexuality mentioned?

Considering that homosexuality isn't mentioned all that often either, and Jesus himself never said anything about it, then what basis do you have of ignoring the above three verses while clinging fast to those condemning homosexuality?

edited 10th May '12 9:27:02 PM by LoniJay

There's more than a few in the New Testament, and more in the Old Testament.

Leaving aside the OT, you have:

Ephesians 5:22-23 New International Version (NIV)
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

Colossians 3:18 New International Version (NIV)
Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

1 Peter 3:7 New International Version (NIV)
7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

1 Corinthians 11:3 New International Version (NIV)
3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God.

1 Corinthians 14:34 New International Version (NIV)
34 Women[a] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 New International Version (NIV)
11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet.

edited 10th May '12 9:28:55 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

Homosexuality is mentioned a grand total of once in the Bible. There's also one mention of male on male rape being wrong, but that's rape. There's also one mention that acting like a sexuality different than the one you are born to is wrong.

If there are eight versus supporting sexism in the Bible, then there's FAR more support in the Bible for sexism than there is condemnation of homosexuality.

There are also five versus that openly support slavery and that insist that slaves should obey their masters. Thus the Bible is more in favour of slavery than it condemns homosexuality.

edited 10th May '12 9:31:12 PM by shimaspawn

@Shima: Eight verses in the New Testament. There's more in the Old Testament.

Ah, good point, and the only verse about homosexuality is in the OT.

So, Starship, why is one verse in the Bible so much more important to obey than the ones that say we should be sexist and own slaves?

edited 10th May '12 9:35:01 PM by shimaspawn

Well, there's a couple of verses in the NT that could possibly be construed as anti-homosexual, but they're pretty hotly debated because of translation issues.

The only one in the NT that's clearly discussing homosexuality is in Romans.

Romans 1:26-27
(26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

But that's also by Paul, who wrote a lot of the sexist verses mentioned earlier, and that's still two verses over a dozen.

edited 10th May '12 9:38:46 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

I don't know if I would be so quick to discount Paul's verses as being about 'acting like a sexuality you weren't born to' rather than being about homosexuality. When he wrote it, was St Paul aware that it was possible to just be born homosexual? Or was he dismissing all homosexual activity as 'unnatural' due to the culture he lived in? I think the latter is more likely.

Anyway, doesn't change my point. Still not very many anti-homosexuality verses.

edited 10th May '12 9:40:18 PM by LoniJay