If you are anti-gay, you do not understand Christianity

[tcaudilllg]

Bullshit Abbie. Those organizations have severely limited means, because the people who cheat to become rich care little for the poor. The safety net exists for a reason.

There was no design. If you haven't learned that from socionics by now, I don't know how else to get it through to you.

If Jesus was the incarnation of God, then perhaps Paul was the incarnation of Satan. Because he sure did a great job of nullifying Jesus' work.

Via my research, I have concluded that Paul's personality was such that he would create a myth to suit a purpose, knowing it was false, and then delude himself into believing it! Paul converted to Christianity because he realized he could use Jesus as a proxy to spread the Talmud. And that is precisely the devil that dogs us today.

Jesus announced early in his ministry that only he could interpret the law. That effectively made it null and void.

[Creepy-Snaps]

The conflict preventers will always promote religion. They couldn't bear the grief otherwise.

Fortunately, Jesus was a decently smart dude. And quite manipulative.

The key is to recognize that sin isn't a problem, because Jesus has already given his life. Thus, all sin in nullified. So homosexuality is a sin. Who cares now that Jesus is dead, and arisen?

The problem is pride, particularly the pride of positivist extremists (i.e. fundies). These people cannot bear association with sin, and as such, they condemn those who commit sin. But because Jesus has already redeemed man, sin is irrelevant. There is only the individual nature of the person, which is to play out in concert with other such natures. The tale of human history, in other words.

Anti-gays don't seem to understand Christianity, but judging by this post, it doesn't seem you do, either.

Just because Jesus died for us, that doesn't entitle us to sin as much as we want, because the price has been paid for. Nor should Christians "condemn" those who sin, but rather should generally try to help those in need, and be understanding of people's differences. Jesus walked among the diseased, sick, and outcasts of society.

We know you support gays, tcaud. If you need help, I'm sure BnD will lend you a hand.

In the meantime I will pray for you.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Oh fucking barf, especially, "...because Jesus died for us..."

Keep the bandwagon in your pants.

[JWC3]

You know who made the internet? Some pro gay, atheist. So stop using it if you are a so called Christian who wants to fallow the word of God/Jesus and want to follow his design.

I'm pretty sure the pentagon made the internet as a way to facilitate military communications. Plus like, I don't have to do a google search to know that there were more than likely many people involved in it's creation. Like common, this is just a dumb thing to say maritsa, even for you.

[Beautiful sky]

I'm pretty sure the pentagon made the internet as a way to facilitate military communications. Plus like, I don't have to do a google search to know that there were more than likely many people involved in it's creation. Like common, this is just a dumb thing to say maritsa, even for you.

I wasn't serious.

My entire point is that if Crazy ass Fundamentalist Christians are going to support that we should preserve God's creation, than let them live in the wild. God created that and that way they can stay off the internet.

[JWC3]

I wasn't serious.

It's really hard to tell sometimes.

[Beautiful sky]

It's really hard to tell sometimes.

Things that I say that are too general, too extreme, too off the wall are not serious.

[Pa3s]

Things that I say that are too general, too extreme, too off the wall are not serious.

So... you're never serious?

[DirectorAbbie]

I'm pretty sure the pentagon made the internet as a way to facilitate military communications. Plus like, I don't have to do a google search to know that there were more than likely many people involved in it's creation. Like common, this is just a dumb thing to say maritsa, even for you.

This would be constructive if it weren't for that bad apostrophe. It is against my beliefs to support anything with misplaced apostrophes.

[JWC3]

This would be constructive if it weren't for that bad apostrophe. It is against my beliefs to support anything with misplaced apostrophes.

Yeah, I make that mistake all the time. In speech I also often say 'seen' when I should have said 'saw'. I grew up in rural America *shrug*

[ashlesha]

the bible has some stuff that is pretty explicitly against homosexuality. you can play rhetorical games with it to squeeze out other interpretations but I think the more honest option is to acknowledge that not everything is going to fit nicely into a book written thousands of years ago about a mythological creature. its like asking permission from religious people to be gay when they are wrong anyway so who cares.

[tcaudilllg]

So... you're never serious?

How many times have I told you she likes to troll? It's a form of teasing.

[willekeurig]

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I've understood most of the anti-gay stuff is in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament there is only something in one of Paul's letters. As Jesus made a new covenant that replaced the old one (in the old testament, between the people of israel & god), Christians are not expected to follow the purity/ritual stuff or other funny little rules that are found in the Old Testament, though the 10 Commands are still valued by most of them. What's important to Christians is the teachings of Jesus, and he never said anything against gay people.. ? He taught us to love each other and not judge others and be more concerned about our own sins than those of others. There's only the thing about gays in Paul's letter, but what I don't understand is that Paul said all kinds of other weird things that are not followed today (women should cover their hair, not talk in parishes, not teach etc), so why is this issue any different?

[DirectorAbbie]

(women should cover their hair, not talk in parishes, not teach etc)

It's okay for women to teach other women. Should I wear hats more often?

[willekeurig]

It's okay for women to teach other women.

But not men? What about children? Male children? How old does a boy have to be that a woman can't teach them anymore? Does this only apply to religious teaching or school etc also? What about religion/theology in schools/universities, are those alright for a woman to teach?

Should I wear hats more often?

Maybe, if it's hot in the summer and there's a risk for sunstrokes. Or if you like them. I'm not religious at all so I guess you'll have to ask someone else to get the Christian point of view.

[tcaudilllg]

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I've understood most of the anti-gay stuff is in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament there is only something in one of Paul's letters. As Jesus made a new covenant that replaced the old one (in the old testament, between the people of israel & god), Christians are not expected to follow the purity/ritual stuff or other funny little rules that are found in the Old Testament, though the 10 Commands are still valued by most of them. What's important to Christians is the teachings of Jesus, and he never said anything against gay people.. ? He taught us to love each other and not judge others and be more concerned about our own sins than those of others. There's only the thing about gays in Paul's letter, but what I don't understand is that Paul said all kinds of other weird things that are not followed today (women should cover their hair, not talk in parishes, not teach etc), so why is this issue any different?

There may have been gays amongst the Apostles.

[willekeurig]

There may have been gays amongst the Apostles.

Yeah, I've heard that too. Also that there may have been gay couples in the early parishes, and I've heard about a likely female Apostle too (not one of the twelve obviously, but someone that came after them).

[Slacker]

It seems like an underlying theme of religion in general, including Christianity, is to be kind and live in a kind way among others in the world. I don't think that means "kind except to people you think are sinning" or even "kind except to people who ARE sinning." Kind in general.

And for every line in the Bible that talks about homosexuality, how many talk about judgment?

[DirectorAbbie]

But not men? What about children? Male children? How old does a boy have to be that a woman can't teach them anymore? Does this only apply to religious teaching or school etc also? What about religion/theology in schools/universities, are those alright for a woman to teach?

Women can always teach guys individually. They need that. And mothers can always teach their children. That's part of being a mother. But women shouldn't teach groups of men because the men are supposed to show leadership. Besides, female Bible teachers seem to spend more time screaming praises in the middle of sermons, and that gets pretty annoying.

[willekeurig]

Women can always teach guys individually. They need that. And mothers can always teach their children. That's part of being a mother. But women shouldn't teach groups of men because the men are supposed to show leadership. Besides, female Bible teachers seem to spend more time screaming praises in the middle of sermons, and that gets pretty annoying.

But does that apply only to bible teaching (and not schools etc.)? And what about groups of teenage boys? When does a child become a man?

[DirectorAbbie]

But does that apply only to bible teaching (and not schools etc.)? And what about groups of teenage boys? When does a child become a man?

It only applies to spiritual teachings. Women can make good history teachers.

I think a boy becomes a man once he goes through puberty. He just doesn't act like one because nobody calls him an adult until he turns 18. Then he still doesn't act like an adult until he's like 30...

[Creepy-pokeball]

Women can always teach guys individually. They need that. And mothers can always teach their children. That's part of being a mother. But women shouldn't teach groups of men because the men are supposed to show leadership. Besides, female Bible teachers seem to spend more time screaming praises in the middle of sermons, and that gets pretty annoying.

Are you trolling, lol?

[tcaudilllg]

Anti-gays don't seem to understand Christianity, but judging by this post, it doesn't seem you do, either.

Just because Jesus died for us, that doesn't entitle us to sin as much as we want, because the price has been paid for. Nor should Christians "condemn" those who sin, but rather should generally try to help those in need, and be understanding of people's differences. Jesus walked among the diseased, sick, and outcasts of society.

We know you support gays, tcaud. If you need help, I'm sure BnD will lend you a hand.

In the meantime I will pray for you.

I don't need your prayers. You're putting yourself up on a high horse but such elevation just serves to lower your moral standing.

Jesus was an EII. Like most EIIs, he was very astute in human nature. I consider his ministry quite the work of genius. He may be who he said he was... EIIs are after all the most quick to make peace, which makes them the most favored by the conflict prevention caste. He was charismatic, gifted with mystique, probably asexual, very pure, deeply loving... and so desperate to give his talents meaning that committed himself to believing that he was a scion of prophesy.

Maybe he was the son of god. I don't know. But I do know that it is very unlikely anyone will ever make significant inroads against Christianity in the west. And they don't need to, because properly interpreted Jesus offers you anything you could ever want in a religion (or just about it).

When you take Paulianism out of the equation, you are left with the framework for a secular society. Jesus really only had one order and that was to be good to others. Socialism was created primarily in service to that ethos, which did in fact exist long before Jesus. The restoration of the downtrodden is an instinct that is normally a driving social force, although the prideful scorn the negative to the detriment of all.

I should mention that: I recently realized that conservative discordancy (ie fundamentalism) is driven by pride. The complete absence of pride results in the opposite, liberal discordancy. Pride is healthy but only in so far as it motivates you to do your best in your natural duty of transforming negatives to positives.

[rat1]

With these religious questions people generally seem more interested in preserving their bubbles of misplaced control than stripping away their egos to discover true beliefs. The question remains, nagging from within. And then life tends to press and repress the issue... This is the one topic which will never go away.

I think the answer to the OP is obvious, which abbie gave. Still, the gay question is so over discussed due to aggressive denial / projections of male teens scapegoating gays, that the issue is perceived much larger in the culture than it is. As each of us do so many things either directly or indirectly resulting in harm, the scope of our problems is so far exceeding gay rights that it's bizarre we still bother with this one issue.. I think people already know to respect gays and treat them humanely, and the few who don't are usually dealt with.

It's an issue, but while we're at it let's talk about Al Queda being a CIA run organization to infiltrate arabic nations and generate terrorism as a justification for war to the american public. Or maybe that's too large scale. Alright, let's talk about the time I spend in front of this screen and how I'm neglecting the people in my life; and how that neglect changes the way the people around me go about their lives. Or maybe we should talk about how 96 percent of males are now addicted to porn by the age of 15, and how this is going to split the sexes apart to where for the first time, love between the sexes will almost no longer exist; and how this in turn will effect the world as a whole. Or how about the ritualistic brainwashing we have all been exposed to from childhood which is present in all media, rooted in the kabbalist religion which also happens to be the religion of the ruling class; and how this is specifically aimed at riling us into chaotic behaviors, and getting us fighting amongst eachother.

Or we can go back to collecting fap material and crying about the evils of religion, as we wither away in wombs of denial.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Or we can go back to collecting fap material and crying about the evils of religion, as we wither away in wombs of denial.

It's always an either/or thing with you. Why can't we save the world and then look up porn when we're all done?

[DirectorAbbie]

It's always an either/or thing with you. Why can't we save the world and then look up porn when we're all done?

After the world is safe, there won't be any porn left.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Abbie, can I imagine you while I fap myself to sleep tonight?

[Creepy-male]

The key is to recognize that sin isn't a problem, because Jesus has already given his life. Thus, all sin in nullified. So homosexuality is a sin. Who cares now that Jesus is dead, and arisen?

I look at it differently, I think the entire concept of "jesus died for our sins" isn't supposed to be so literal but metaphorical. I don't literally think there is a god somewhere keeping track of our sins and ready to put us into hell, so eventually he says "oh crap didn't mean for it to work like that" shoots out jesus by impregnating mary and then waits around for 30 years until eventually some romans crucify him for being annoying and then he reappears in heaven and gods like "oh now that you've done that you've rebooted the system and people won't go to hell", back to earth you go to say goodbye and laugh at the romans then right back here in heaven mmmk?

I think jesus being the son of god, is supposed to be similar to concept of heaven and earth as two dimensions. Heaven being pure and divine and earth being grounded and realistic. Jesus is the son of god, so that implies an avatar relationship, he is the earthly embodiment of god, but isn't god. God I think is maybe a metaphysical concept of greatness and unity, like the force. Jesus is the human embodiment of that, how this greatness looks in human form.

Anyways I think the core to the story is painting the portrait of someone who is exalted like a king for their greatness but not in a physical sense of power but in a spiritual or heavenly sense of power, of being part of god. This is the backdrop of the story that is set up with mirth, wise men, angels, and a lot of random pomp and circumstance. Anyways he's pretty much a healer, he is capable of taking on people's problems and healing them. Consider this concept -- imagine if someone was able to infect themselves with a disease someone else had, like drain it from them but infect themselves, and then with their immune system they are able to defeat the disease. This is how I look at empathy or spiritual healing. Anyways the story goes on about him performing miracles and healing and this is all allusion to the concept of empathy or spiritual healing. He is considered to be able to defeat the disease because before he went out on his whole expedition he went into the desert and "confronted the devil". This I think again is metaphorical, meaning he cast off his insecurities and doubt and learned to harness his spiritual energy like a master -- similar to how neo in the matrix learns to give up doubt and make a willful decision and thus begins to see the matrix and become the "one". It's also interesting to note that if neo was a christ figure, morpheius would be like john the baptist.

Anyways so the story evolves with him doing all the miracles and healing. But it ends with the crowd turning on him even though he is a good guy... at first this seems thoroughly depressing to see this exalted and good guy turned on... but when he rises this is supposed to be part of the cycle. He is taking on disease of injustice, phoniness, and deception that is part of humanity as a disease (like an empathic/spiritual healer) and letting it work itself in him until he is able to defeat it, which he does when he arises from the grave. THIS IS WHAT I THINK IS MEANT BY DIED FOR OUR SINS. I think it's supposed to be metaphorical, he was a victim of injustice but transcended it. I think that's the core of story when people say that -- but somewhere along the line it was taken ridiculously literal -- like it was some ceremony that needed to happen for a divine annulment in some heavenly court.

I think the entire point was metaphorical -- that injustice can be defeated through transcending it spiritually rather than physically, and that people shouldn't worry about there (or other people's) physical sort-comings or "sins" so long as they focus on their spirit and attempt to transcend there own and others sort comings through some sort of enlightenment.

This is also a very particular outlook that I have on this.

Anyways I think that obviously we share the same views on homosexuality in both our frameworks -- I would say that homosexuality is largely irrevelant to the core of what I think the entire "jesus" thing is about -- as I view it as primarily commenting on the concept of transcending victimization and the nature of empathy.

I think genesis is also poorly interpreted for the most part minus "paradise lost" -- so I don't think adam and eve is good evidence to use against homosexuality -- I don't even believe in adam and eve as actual things -- I believe the scientific theory because well I'm not a fucking idiot even though I like a few aspects of religion.

[Aquagraph]

So... you're never serious?

What maritsa said sounded like a tailored save suited for her needs, it's like: "Every time I act like a stupid person would, I do it on purpose."

Women can always teach guys individually. They need that. And mothers can always teach their children. That's part of being a mother. But women shouldn't teach groups of men because the men are supposed to show leadership. Besides, female Bible teachers seem to spend more time screaming praises in the middle of sermons, and that gets pretty annoying.

Wow, you are so conservative it's almost cool. Basically no one here where I live gets even close to following those things.

But I kinda get it;
if they would have been proper laws for God to Man why would most of them simply cease to exist after the appearance of New Testament? And without clearly mentioning which stuff is edited out besides the stuff Jesus said that everything is now Kosher. My memory can serve me a bit hazily but I'd appreciate if anyone can point out parts in the Bible that tell us something about the renewed laws of the New Covenant.

[Absurd]

I'm pretty sure the pentagon made the internet as a way to facilitate military communications. Plus like, I don't have to do a google search to know that there were more than likely many people involved in it's creation. Like common, this is just a dumb thing to say maritsa, even for you.

Pentagon is a homosexual.

I look at it differently, I think the entire concept of "jesus died for our sins" isn't supposed to be so literal but metaphorical[...]I think genesis is also poorly interpreted for the most part minus "paradise lost" -- so I don't think adam and eve is good evidence to use against homosexuality -- I don't even believe in adam and eve as actual things -- I believe the scientific theory because well I'm not a fucking idiot even though I like a few aspects of religion.

According to Jews none such person died the way it died and even Islam considers Manichaeism as the most evil doctrine, with Christianity a close second. Adam and Eve story in Genesis is not what it is.

[Creepy-bg]

What maritsa said sounded like a tailored save suited for her needs, it's like: "Every time I act like a stupid person would, I do it on purpose."



Wow, you are so conservative it's almost cool. Basically no one here where I live gets even close to following those things.

But I kinda get it;
if they would have been proper laws for God to Man why would most of them simply cease to exist after the appearance of New Testament? And without clearly mentioning which stuff is edited out besides the stuff Jesus said that everything is now Kosher. My memory can serve me a bit hazily but I'd appreciate if anyone can point out parts in the Bible that tell us something about the renewed laws of the New Covenant.

i think that's kind of looking at humanity as a static thing, one set of laws for all time. if there is a God, I think you have to think of humanity as something that he is still creating. mankind changes, comes under new conditions, and develops... god needs to update the programming for a new stage of the process... *


* sorry... i just lost my thought... stoned **

** actually just went back and read it, that's good.

[Absurd]

When you take Paulianism out of the equation, you are left with the framework for a secular society. Jesus really only had one order and that was to be good to others. Socialism was created primarily in service to that ethos, which did in fact exist long before Jesus. The restoration of the downtrodden is an instinct that is normally a driving social force, although the prideful scorn the negative to the detriment of all.

Harbouring such beliefs and most importantly acting out on them you would have been ridiculed instantly by any kind of person who considers themselves socialist. Take member Rob on this site for example. I know he would do it. Hell, I would.

[Gilly]

the bible has some stuff that is pretty explicitly against homosexuality. you can play rhetorical games with it to squeeze out other interpretations but I think the more honest option is to acknowledge that not everything is going to fit nicely into a book written thousands of years ago about a mythological creature. its like asking permission from religious people to be gay when they are wrong anyway so who cares.

So what happens if your neighbor is gay? You don't lie down with him, sure, but do you stop him from getting married? The Bible also says we should follow the laws of our country, and right now those laws dictate that gay marriage is legal in many places.

The point is not that Jesus said anywhere "Oh yeah gays are cool with me," its that if you read the bible and understand the nature of Christianity beyond just its explicit texts, you can see that Jesus probably would have loved homosexuals the same as anyone. He was friends with hookers, and sex out of wedlock is just as un-Christian as being gay.

Ultimately you are right though, they are wrong either way, its just fun to turn their own ignorance against them to expose their double-think.

[somavision]

The thread's title seems to work from the assumption that homophobia is exclusively linked to Chrisitanity. It is not, there are many people who are anti-gay who have no interest in christianity and who do not use this faith to rationalise their homophobia. Their understanding of Christianity therefore plays no part in t

[Slacker]

That seems to side-step the point of this thread. Pretend it says, "If you are anti-gay because you are a Christian . . . " and then respond to that.

[rat1]

It's always an either/or thing with you. Why can't we save the world and then look up porn when we're all done?

Well, saving the world [imaginary hypothetical, since it's impossible] would require, among many things, the sexes reconnecting with eachother on an unprecedented scale. Which porn is the main thing driving the objectification of women and warping the male/female relationship from a young age. And if we can't root this problem out in ourselves, how would we ever solve it on a global scale? We're not going to save the world anyway, the world is on an unavoidable collision course. But when we speak about saving the world, the problem is first in us primarily. All the problems with government are just larger reflections of ourselves.

[somavision]

That seems to side-step the point of this thread. Pretend it says, "If you are anti-gay because you are a Christian . . . " and then respond to that.

Fair enough...


If I were anti-gay and I attributed this to a Christian belief, I would more than likely believe that I understood my religion well and that my homophobic interpretation of the bible was correct.
The thing about the bible as with any book, is that understanding and meaning is imposed upon the text by the reader rather than the author.
Due to the multiple translations of the bible, the multiple sources from which it is composed, the editing and censorship it has gone through imposed by councils and edicts to fit it in with the systems of the times, that the distance between the author and the reader is so vast, that I personally believe that know one can reliably say that they understand Christianity. Frankly the societies that people live in today, the languages we speak and our understanding of the world is so far removed from the world of those living in palestine that well... I hope I've managed to communicate my point... which is er... Chrisitanity is so decentred, diffused and removed from the original source that it can be stated that it cannot be said to have one correct understanding and that the meaning applied to the insitutions and texts are the meanings of the seperate individuals and groups that apply the meaning. Of course their does seem to be some shared meaning across the majority of Christian groups, however there is also areas of disagreement. As it stands I would wager that the majority of those worldwide who identify those as Christians would to a greater or lesser extent also identify wit a degree of homophobia. As Christianity is defined by the chrisitians rather than by a absolute and true interpretation of a text, I would conclude that some Christians believe that their religion supports homophobia, others that their religion does not. Therefore I disagree with the OP.

EDIT: I realise that this may seem like some relativistic post-modern cop-out post, given the points raised I believe that this is the best way to approach this issue.

[ashlesha]

most people i know identify as christian and i think a slight majority support equal rights for gays. thankfully the ideology a person believes in and the actual values they follow in reality are often pretty different. if that wasn't the case, i wouldn't be able to stomach talking to anybody who believes wholeheartedly in intertype relations.

maybe from a pragmatic standpoint playing up the "jesus loves everyone" angle is the best way to move u.s. society forward for gay rights but it does seem kind of like selling out.

[Aquagraph]

I realise that this may seem like some relativistic post-modern cop-out post, given the points raised I believe that this is the best way to approach this issue.

Well, now that the "God is dead" I can only see your aspect to be very relevant. I can find you a great variety of people who say that they are Christians and this will include everyone from the fundamentalists for bigger nuclear armament all the way to the pot-smoking lesbian who believes Christ is her savior, whether she likes pussy or not.

[DirectorAbbie]

But I kinda get it;
if they would have been proper laws for God to Man why would most of them simply cease to exist after the appearance of New Testament? And without clearly mentioning which stuff is edited out besides the stuff Jesus said that everything is now Kosher. My memory can serve me a bit hazily but I'd appreciate if anyone can point out parts in the Bible that tell us something about the renewed laws of the New Covenant.

Two main points come to mind. One is that sacrifice is no longer necessary because Jesus was the final sacrifice. The other is Peter's vision of the sheet filled with non-kosher animals that he was now allowed to eat, showing there was nothing wrong with associating with gentiles...or eating gross stuff like pork or lobster.