Most gays are Christians, right?

[aragorn_p25]

Has anyone ever observed non-living matter become living matter? Just a question. Because that is my understanding in what is causing the holdup in taking this theory any further.

Well, no, but no one ever observed the Earth as a sphere before the '60s either. Living matter is just matter with the property of self-replicating, and all evidence so far indicates that its natural occurrence is completely plausible. It's all about chemistry and the right environment...given how immense the universe is, both in time and space, the appearance of life shouldn't be surprising, it should be expected.

 

[MystikWizard]

Well, no, but no one ever observed the Earth as a sphere before the '60s either. Living matter is just matter with the property of self-replicating, and all evidence so far indicates that its natural occurrence is completely plausible. It's all about chemistry and the right environment...given how immense the universe is, both in time and space, the appearance of life shouldn't be surprising, it should be expected.

What I am most caught up on is two things. First, the Law of Thermodynamics. Being that matter nor energy can be created or destroyed, it would seem that the only logical explanation for our creation was that something, in fact, had to operate outside of the Law of Thermodynamics to initiate the Big Bang and allow for the plausibility of these theories.

Secondly, as far as self-replicating molecules, we know they exist, as in crystals, for example. But none of the molecules in our body are self-replicating. If one were to take DNA out of our bodies and stick it on the counter, it is not going to self-replicate. RNA is not self-replicating. Amino Acids are not self-replicating. Proteins do not self-replicate.

 

[TheObserver]

I kinda, sorta agree, midnight77. Someone who sets up the rules of the game and then just let it go. Maybe tweaking a little here and there. However, a different one than set forth in the Bible.

 

[aarya]

I believe in an ecclectic mix of buddhism, shamanism, occultism, animism, hinduism and anything else i might stumble onto in the course of a day. My belief is flexible and pragmatic enough to be able to talk scriptures with a cristian, or realism with an agnostic, or moralism with an atheist.

What i don`t get myself into however, is talking with people who are so deeply ingrained with dogmatism, that they are unable to explain to me what they believe in, and why they believe in it. (Usually ends up in aggression, and that`s a negative trait i don`t have any use for.)

 

[TheObserver]

Well put, Aarya. Ingrained dogmatism. Go take a look at what has been going on in the "Faith and Reason" thread. Plenty enough to go around.

 

[TheObserver]

Top Ten Organized Religions of the World

Religion Members Percentage
Christianity 2.1 billion 33.0%
Islam 1.3 billion 20.1
Hinduism 851 million 13.3
Buddhism 375 million 5.9
Sikhism 25 million 0.4
Judaism 15 million 0.2%
Baha'ism 7.5 million 0.1
Confucianism 6.4 million 0.1
Jainism 4.5 million 0.1
Shintoism 2.8 million 0.0

 

[AsianDream]

Top Ten Organized Religions of the World

Religion Members Percentage
Christianity 2.1 billion 33.0%
Islam 1.3 billion 20.1
Hinduism 851 million 13.3
Buddhism 375 million 5.9
Sikhism 25 million 0.4
Judaism 15 million 0.2%
Baha'ism 7.5 million 0.1
Confucianism 6.4 million 0.1
Jainism 4.5 million 0.1
Shintoism 2.8 million 0.0

FLIES : 450 Trillion - so lets all eat Shit

Your figures dont look right - Christianity is actually way lower in most assesments - plus you've missed out 3 billion people (China and Russia?)

 

[TheObserver]

I am not an expert. However, you appear to be, AsianDream. Would you do us the favor of providing the correct assessments? I would appeciate it greatly.

PS> Leave out the flies this time.

 

[LaloGS]

Rephrase the question: Most Christians are gay. . . right?

 

[Telstra]

what kind of odd translation are you using? The word "homosexual" in any form does not appear in the Bible

your experiences are your experiences but if you have been slammed because people you know have had other agendas than truth, the problem is theirs, not yours, and the problem is not our faith

and that Corinthians quote is taken way of context anyway but look at that list - where ever Paul was going, he was not doing what surface looking makes it appear

this whole thing is utterly tiresome anyway

someone posts a thread with all their bigotry - and then cannot spell the word "atheist" - and just rattles around with the same tired old rants

fuck the haters

your argument is very weak and does NOT make sense.

 

[AsianDream]

I am not an expert. However, you appear to be, AsianDream. Would you do us the favor of providing the correct assessments? I would appeciate it greatly.

PS> Leave out the flies this time.

Apologies for the reference to flies - this was a joke meant to illustrate the fact that the validity (or otherwise) of a religion can not be judged by the number of followers.

It is therefore not relevant if a religion is followed by just 1 person or 1 Billion people.

For the topic of this discussion - in my experience very few gays are Christian. Though I can appreciate that the anti-gay teachings of some organised Christian religions might cause conflict for those members of these religions who are gay.

PS: I am also a Russell Wong fan - so I like your Avatar

 

[mmaplus]

Homosexuality is a nineteenth century invention. The notion of homosexuality is itself is nowhere in the Bible.
We can, however, blame the churches for adopting the notion that homosexuality is a disease.

Sorry, Harke, homosexuality is more than a "notion" in the Bible. It's called out specifically, both in Leviticus and in the Corinthians passage Midnight 77 quotes. (To JackFT, Midnight's quoting the New International Version, which now outranks even the King James Version as the authoritative translation of the original texts.)

And as for homosexuality being a 19th-century invention, I'm sure that would surprise the Greeks and Romans and virtually every other ancient culture where it was prominently practiced. One of those places was Corinth, the most cosmopolitan city in ancient Greece. The majority of its people were extremely wealthy and well-educated and they spent much of their time in temples, worshiping gods they credited for their good fortune.

Corinthian worship was all-consuming, more than any other style of Greek religion. Among its temples' staffs were high-priced prostitutes of both genders whom worshipers consorted with as divine surrogates. The role-play was very elaborate, often involving drag and subordination. When Paul lists the "wicked" characters who "will not inherit the kingdom," he's describing the sorts of Corinthians who indulged in the local style of pagan worship. If you were a Christian in Corinth and read that, you'd immediately get his message: these rituals, those who practice them, and the values they drive are not compatible with our beliefs or style of worship.

Today's intolerant Christians read it out of this context and lean on it to excuse their homophobia. But, as this is the most explicit reference to homosexuality, they pick up the adjective ("homosexual") and drop the noun ("offenders"). This cancels out Paul's meaning. He doesn't say "homosexuality" is wicked; it's only those who "offend" in same-sex idolatry that he singles out.

To the thread's original question: in the Western world, it's a safe assumption that most gay people begin life at least as Christians. It's also a safe assumption that most of them grow up in a RELIGION that ignorantly bases its judgment of gay people as sinners on misunderstood scriptures like this one stripped of their context. As a result, they come to hate the haters who label and condemn them. And, consequently they make an equal mistake: they judge Christianity out of context. They lose their faith because they've been wounded by religion. This seems tragic to me.

I am a gay Christian, whether other Christians believe or not, like it or not. And I'd defy any of them, from the Pope on down, to tell me otherwise IF I thought their opinion of my right to believe in Christ mattered. But what they think is irrelevant. More than that, it's un-Christian of them to do so. If they can't see this, they can all go to Hell. (But, of course, I pray they get over their prejudices and avoid that.)

 

[Nishin]

Today's intolerant Christians read it out of this context and lean on it to excuse their homophobia. But, as this is the most explicit reference to homosexuality, they pick up the adjective ("homosexual") and drop the noun ("offenders"). This cancels out Paul's meaning. He doesn't say "homosexuality" is wicked; it's only those who "offend" in same-sex idolatry that he singles out.

... but that's sort of the point... why not simply single out those who "offend" in sex idolatry? Sounds like straight sex idolatry offense is ok but homo's not...

 

[kallipolis]

As a Greek who is able to read (and has done) the words of Paul of Tarsus in the Greek language, I am unable to agree with the interpretation that our good friend mmaplus has drawn from his reading of Corinthians on the matter of Paul's reference to soft men.

Corinth at the time Paul lived there (for some 18 months) was an international metropolis of some 100,000 people. There were some 5000 prostitutes. A few were male prostitutes.

Paul grew up in Tarsus, another international city with powerful Greek, Roman and Jewish cultural influences.
Thus the "foreign" cultural influences prevailing in Corinth should not have been a shock to him.

There is no doubt that Corinth during Paul's sojourn was a fun place to be; which did not sit well with Paul's rather prim and proper life as a former Pharisee.

According to my reading of the New Testament there is nothing therein that condemns homosexual loving relationships. Paul's willingness to condemn prostitution of any description should not be seen in the same light, as a loving relationship between two human beings.

 

[LaloGS]

Homosexuality is a nineteenth century invention. The notion of homosexuality is itself is nowhere in the Bible.
We can, however, blame the churches for adopting the notion that homosexuality is a disease.

Hardly Harke. The term Homosexual is a 19th century invention, the act between men and women has been present probably from the time of Lucy in Africa. Language just had different terms for it before the 19th century.

And unfortunately, the act is mentioned in the Bible, which is why Christians and Churches are generally negative about it, as are the Bible passages.

I also think when the term homosexual was invented, it was classed as an abberation from the norm which was, and still is considered to be heterosexuality. Early psyhcologists assigned homosexuality to the realm of disease, but after a century of attempting to find a cure for it, they declassified it as a disease, and have returned to referring to it as an abberation from the norm. Since the Christian churches tend to lag behind science, medicine, and current social thinking, they still want to call it a disease and believe it is curable.

I suppose that if a faith healer can cure lung cancer, he ought to be able to cure faggots, but they insist that it is their faith and the faith of the cured person that actually does the curing. Are there any faggots with faith enough to be cured? Are there any who really want to be cured?

 

[mmaplus]

As a Greek who is able to read (and has done) the words of Paul of Tarsus in the Greek language, I am unable to agree with the interpretation that our good friend mmaplus has drawn from his reading of Corinthians on the matter of Paul's reference to soft men.

Corinth at the time Paul lived there (for some 18 months) was an international metropolis of some 100,000 people. There were some 5000 prostitutes. A few were male prostitutes.

Paul grew up in Tarsus, another international city with powerful Greek, Roman and Jewish cultural influences.
Thus the "foreign" cultural influences prevailing in Corinth should not have been a shock to him.

There is no doubt that Corinth during Paul's sojourn was a fun place to be; which did not sit well with Paul's rather prim and proper life as a former Pharisee.

According to my reading of the New Testament there is nothing therein that condemns homosexual loving relationships. Paul's willingness to condemn prostitution of any description should not be seen in the same light, as a loving relationship between two human beings.

I totally agree with you about Paul's "prim and proper" issues, Kallipolis, which are unfortunate holdovers from his upbringing as a legalistic Pharisee. I didn't mean to imply that he was at all shocked by what went on in Corinth, yet I'm convinced he was doing there what he did with many other congregations--namely, trying to ensure that the local culture and pagan practices didn't seep into the Christian mindset and rites.

He names "prostitutes" as a whole, encompassing those in the temple and those outside it, male and female. The "offenders" ("soft men"--thank you for adding that nuance) applies to men who bartered gay sex without genuine affection for one another, which was understood when men consorted with other men, even if they attached religious reasons to it. In other words, no-string-attached sex was Paul's issue with Corinthian sex in general, gay and straight.

This actually confirms your point that nowhere in the New Testament does one find condemnation for anyone, hetero or homo, entering into loving relationships. Not even Paul, perhaps the most up-tight of all the apostles, could have justified that!