I can't get religious gay people!

[marqau]

Outside of staying religious to appease parents or other family member to keep the bankroll, I see no other valid reason to do so.

Religious faith is a free choice to believe. Staying religious to appease parents isn't staying religious.

 

[youfiad]

Un français ?

Non, je suis americain. ^^

 

[youfiad]

Don't mistake churches with religions please. Power corrupt, and religion has been used and misused by people to take control. That has nothing to do with the validity of the real teachings of religions.

Some scientists cheat and publish false results in order to be financed. Does that make all scientists cheaters and science a falsehood ? I don't think so.

It's not only church that is the problem though. It's the idea that an ever-poweful being wants us to obey their rules that is the problem. I have many personal experiences where people who don't even go to church, but have very strong religious conviction, disown their child and throw them out the doors if they find out they are gay. They use the bible as their reason for doing wha they do. And, the Bible can justify their acts...

The problem with "personal belief" is that everybody can have his/her own. And if all they have to argue is that they feel what they belief, thus it is their truth, then that opens the door to anything. That's why I generally don't like when people believe whatever they feel.

 

[Yuki Sohma]

Anyway, what did you buy?

Oh I just bought some new shoes, a few DVDs, CDs & books, some personal clothing items & lunch

 

[youfiad]

It was my point, science can't answer all questions, and religion can answer some, but not in a scientific way. I don't want to confront them, but to take from them the best to try and understand the why and the how of the universe and of human kind.

Oui je suis bien français On aurait pu se voir à Paris sans problème. Si tu passes par là un jour fais moi signe qu'on boive un verre

(english : yes I'm french and I'll be glad to meet you if you come to Paris someday)

Oui, bien sur que je te ferai signe. Je prevoir a y aller l'annee prochaine. Je creerai surmon un thread. je ne connais pas le mot pour ca en francais!! Comment as tu si bien appris a parler de l'anglais? Je ne vois plus le temps pour pratiquer et pour ameliorer mon francais, alors je suis tres rouiller apres ne pas avoir parle depuis presque deux ans.....

 

[oakpope]

It's the idea that an ever-poweful being wants us to obey their rules that is the problem. I have many personal experiences where people who don't even go to church, but have very strong religious conviction, disown their child and throw them out the doors if they find out they are gay.

If the Old Testament was perfect, there would not have been necessary to have Jesus and the New Testament, isn't it ? And there is nothing against gay people in the New Testament. People who disown their children because they are gay, in my opinion, have understand nothing of the teaching of Jesus. He answered to the question of what where the most important rules :
first is to love God
second is to love thy neighbor as thyself.
These parents will be judged by God, and I fear for them.

I don't think God want us to obey his rules, in the sense of obligation. Free will is paramount. He certainly prefers we do good versus evil. But there are levels of good and evil.

Remember the three main Virtues : Faith, Hope and Charity. And of the three it is said that Charity is the most important.

Quoting a passage of Deuteronum to justify gay hate is stupid, as is the acceptance of slavery, the obligation to marry a virgin's rapist, to not mix fibers in clothes,etc.

All commandments and rules are not at the same level and we can't be assumed to follow all of them, because we would all be perfect and saint. Confession and forgiveness for past sins have been created for a reason.

 

[Shepherd 2]

Friends, I am a religious professional, and a graduate of a seminary at an Ivy League School. I do not feel guilt because I am gay, nor do I believe I had a choice. My revealed knowledge of God, is that his love for me is unconditional.

God is merciful. Often, human beings are not. I will take my chances with God.

BTW one of the ten commandments is not: "Thou shalt not be gay."
Usually, I do not get into the religion topic here at JUB because it has a lot of baggage and anger for many.

Take care,
Shep+

 

[youfiad]

Friends, I am a religious professional, and a graduate of a seminary at an Ivy League School. I do not feel guilt because I am gay, nor do I believe I had a choice. My revealed knowledge of God, is that his love for me is unconditional.

God is merciful. Often, human beings are not. I will take my chances with God.

BTW one of the ten commandments is not: "Thou shalt not be gay."
Usually, I do not get into the religion topic here at JUB because it has a lot of baggage and anger for many.

Take care,
Shep+

There are technically 613 laws in the old testamen, of which one, Not to commit sodomy with a male (Lev. 18:22), is against homosexual relations. We can argue all day long about whether or not there is any validity in the testaments, but you can't say that there are not laws out there.... This is just the most famous one. There are a few more out there that prohibit homosexual acts.

 

[star-warrior]

^ i think lev 18:22 about not lying in the same bed with a man as you would do a woman is not a prohibition against homosexuality, but rather something about physical cleanliness of use of the marital bed. That is, you can have male-male sex, but don't do it in the same bed as you sleep in with your wife.

 

[youfiad]

^ i think lev 18:22 about not lying in the same bed with a man as you would do a woman is not a prohibition against homosexuality, but rather something about physical cleanliness of use of the marital bed. That is, you can have male-male sex, but don't do it in the same bed as you sleep in with your wife.

Of course you want to think that; it's a good justification for your actions. But, if you look at the other verses, they all seem to lead to the same conclusion. I am the first person to admit that if Christian God is real, I will be going to hell. I am not going to try to justify my acts as they are clearly against his book.

 

[-Kane-]

Well, I'm an Atheist. And if I made my disdain of religion a focal point in my dating life, I'd forever be miserable and alone. Given that fact that nearly all of the guys I've dated carried some sort of belief in an omnipotent being, I just don't care to bring up the topic.

 

[youfiad]

Well, I'm an Atheist. And if I made my disdain of religion a focal point in my dating life, I'd be forever be miserable. Given that fact that nearly all of the guys I've dated carried some sort of belief in an omnipotent being, I just don't care to bring up the topic.

I try, so hard, to give up talking about it. But the frequency that I run into these conversations is so high, that I just can't help myself!! I'm a rationalist, so I don't really consider myself an atiest, but I don't believe in an omnipotent being. I tend to get along more easily with atheists and agnostics.

 

[star-warrior]

Of course you want to think that; it's a good justification for your actions. But, if you look at the other verses, they all seem to lead to the same conclusion. I am the first person to admit that if Christian God is real, I will be going to hell. I am not going to try to justify my acts as they are clearly against his book.

Do you like prawns, pork or wear clothes made up of more than one material?

 

[youfiad]

Do you like prawns, pork or wear clothes made up of more than one material?

No, yes and yes. But thankfully I am no a Christian, so I have nothing to justify. i don't believe in the Bible, so Laviticus doesn't apply to my life ^^

 

[star-warrior]

I don't eat prawns either by choice - slight allergy to them.

I wasn't justifying lev 18:22, but putting forth what is already out there in terms of modern interpretation of the ancient Hebrew in layman's terms.

Historically, the first millenia of the Christian Church had little anti-gay sentiment. Only from the tenth century onwards is there the demonisation of male-male relationships. This in itself is curious, and this inherited line of dogma plagues christendom to this day.

 

[Rusty Crown]

OH MY GOD! [...]

It seems no one had discussed that here before! Well! let me read the 134 replies, first. Thanks for each reply in advanced.

 

[marqau]

No, yes and yes. But thankfully I am no a Christian, so I have nothing to justify. i don't believe in the Bible, so Laviticus doesn't apply to my life ^^

I'm not a Christian either, but I know many gay Christians who I presume are eating prawns and committing sodomy on other males. (In a quite few of these cases, I don't need to presume the sodomy bit ). But I have never heard any of them try to justify themselves against Leviticus (or actually Deuteronomy in this case?).

Obviously, a literalist interpretation of ancient Jewish law doesn't apply to their lives either. And unlike apparently you, I don't feel qualified to try to tell Christians what Christians should believe.

 

[FanofFiction]

I love God. I have no guilt about my sexuality because of my faith.

 

[bankside]

I'm not a Christian either, but I know many gay Christians who I presume are eating prawns and committing sodomy on other males. (In a quite few of these cases, I don't need to presume the sodomy bit ). But I have never heard any of them try to justify themselves against Leviticus (or actually Deuteronomy in this case?).

Obviously, a literalist interpretation of ancient Jewish law doesn't apply to their lives either. And unlike apparently you, I don't feel qualified to try to tell Christians what Christians should believe.

The trouble is, what could it be a metaphor for? What could the shellfish symbolize? Who would base a religion on divine anger at a figurative crustacean?

I don't care if someone wants to call himself a christian, but if they do so, they need to believe things that are plausibly christian. They don't get to just decide "what feels right for them" or that they don't need to justify themselves.

Well, indeed they do need to be coherent, unless "christian" can be substituted for any other adjective selected at random.

 

[Kulindahr]

To assume that something must be true because it cannot be proven false is an argument from ignorance. It is okay to admit that some questions in life are unknowable and can never be answered.

That's nice. Is it supposed to apply to something in this thread?