How the Religious View Homosexuality (page 7)

onlycurious

Serotonin:

You wrote:

I'm not sure if you have contradicted yourself here. You say the animals had sin which could not be taken away, then you say sin is actually only man's problem. If you believe that animals have sin, can you explain how they came to have it unless God just made them that way? If sin means something that is wrong to God, why would he put it in them from the begining of their existence, with no hope or chance of changing it? Animals being gay seems to be the way they should be naturally in that case.

This was an error in my writing. What I meant was that scripture DOESN'T state that the animals have an issue with sin. It was a little unclear.

onlycurious

Sirona -

You wrote:

I have to say something here because it is something which has been getting on my nerves on this forum. People appear to assume that if you are not an atheist then you are a Christian. I realise you said "spiritual path" but I expect you mean a follower of the bible? The thing is, there are those of us out here who follow a spiritual path but who are not bible believers and who don't have any issues with homosexuality.

Please be careful to not lump everyone into this camp. I personally do not belive there are 2 classes of people, atheists and Christians. I recognize there are many beliefs and that is why I specifically used the term 'spiritual path'. While I do believe in an absolute truth, I do believe we should all have the freedom to worship freely. I'm certainly not the judge and it's not my job to make everyone else think the same way I do. I just appreciate the same respect in return.

free2beme

As a Wiccan, we see it as your life and your choice ... not an issue at all.

jgnat

BFD: how you choose the parts of the bible out that have remained genuine.

I asked myself what are the repeating, overriding principles for me to follow? I follow those principles. If an individual scripture would require action against those principles, I reject the individual scripture. I also assume that the history is generally correct. Not in detail but in overriding action. I think of other great old legends, like Ulysses. There's an adventurer who duplicates these journeys in their broadest sense, and has proven that they could be done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Severin

I admire philosophers like Albert Schweitzer who similarly condensed Christian compassion to "Do no harm" and dedicated his life to treating and healing in Africa.

jgnat

The JW's are utterly dependent on the bible to impose bondage. The introductory studies follow a general outline of convincing the potential convert that God exists, and that God wrote the bible. Since God wrote it, it cannot be questioned. That's it, they've baited the hook. For the rest of their time together, the study leader takes the student through a series of selected scriptures to create a dense tangle of do's and don'ts.

I think it is this dependence on the bible that prevents Witnesses from making inroads in countries where the bible is NOT considered a divine instrument. So who primes un-Christianized nations for the Witnesses? Other Christian missionaries, of course!

I think a regular JW is hard-pressed to describe what is the essence of their faith. What rule, if broken, would mean they are not a JW anymore? The answer is, "all of them". This includes the prohibitions against smoking, meeting attendance, dress at the meetings, and so on. To break any jot or tiddle is to express rebellion against the "divine" plan. There is no sense, in the Witness community, of overriding principles that govern their steps. Hence the endless articles about what is acceptable and what is not. Pinatas are "in", Christmas Trees are "out". Hence the unbelievable cruelties where a mother spurns her son, just because he cannot follow all the dictates of the society. To turn away from natural love, in my opinion, is an abomination.

So how is my Christianity different? I believe it must be demonstrated by action, following the overriding principles I outlined above. The bible is a supplementary tool to my faith, not the foundation. I did not learn how to be a Christian from the bible primarily, but from other Christians. How do I justify such an independent interpretation, as an "imperfect human being?" I also believe I am devinely created with a mind that was meant to be used. I use it.

An introduction to Albert Schweitzers's philosophy: http://www.iseps.org.uk/

144001

Jgnat,

Many Christians would label those who deviate from that which is written in the bible to be non-christians. I like Thoreau's approach, which seems somewhat consistent with what it appears you've been expressing here. He believed that divinity comes from within, and not from a book, a church, or a group of New York corporations with a penchant for exploiting children and exercising extreme control over the lives of those they have deceived.

serotonin_wraith

It makes me wonder how someone can accept there are mistakes in the Bible, but still believe in Jesus or in heaven. How do they know those parts were not mistakes too?

onlycurious, if sin isn't an issue for animals, then animals being gay is not sinning, which means that God made them to be gay and didn't have a problem with it.

glenster

Here are a few things I found about it:

1995 "True, some individuals may very well be prone to homosexuality...a
Christian cannot excuse immoral behavior by saying he was 'born that way.'
Child molesters invoke the same pathetic excuse when they say their craving for
children is 'innate.' But can anyone deny that their sexual appetite is per-
verted? So is the desire for someone of the same sex." ("Awake!" Feb.8, 1995)

The Watchtower stance is that homosexuality is a sin like child molestation.
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20020601a/article_01.htm
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20050408a/article_01.htm

Some defenses of interpretations of scriptures to not ban homosexuality:
http://escapefromwatchtower.com/homo.html
http://www.gayxjw.org/bible.html

A Wikipedia article about homosexuality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

Does anyone familiar with the Greek or related history have an opinion on the defenses given above?

Qcmbr

I'm not certain that the bible is a standard of truth to be adhered to rather than the religious diary of many people's dealings with God. As a diary it has much to teach but I think a core lesson is to write your own dealings with God / our conscience, each other, create own record - just because the OT scriptures where available it didn't stop the early christians from recording their own problems and solutions.

Just as the issue of circumcision was a hot topic of the day and the scriptures gave no clear indication on what to do so they had the strength of character to make a decision - and record it. I think its time we wrote our own scriptures and stopped being lazy by relying on an ancient culture.

God has actually 'given' very few commandments (and they can be summarised in two) but we have many who love to define what the left leg must do and what the the right must do and in so doing stumble rather than walk.

If I was chronicalling our story (as scripture) I'd record the fall of the Berlin wall, the end of Apartheid, the miracle of medicine, I'd write an extensive footmote to the creation story pointing to wonders of adaptation, I'd record the miracle of breaking the atom, recording the genome of man, I'd hope many would be astonished at the massive food aid and charitable acts perpetuated on a scale never before seen in human endeavour, I'd mark the achievements of flight, space travel and the internet, I'd record the shame of current war, the consequences of intolerance, I'd throw in cautionary tales of excess debt, greed and the consequences of fanaticism and so on... I'd hope that people would read our scriptures and be amazed at the stories, that Mother Theresa would be stood up alongside Ruth, that Churchill would rank aside Boaz, Bill Gates(!) alongside Soloman and so on..

..and I'd record the current debate about the rights of gays with an interest to see how we (as a society and as religious people) decided what we should do. If God decided to chip in I'd even put some 'and thus sayeth the Lord' bits in but until then I'd hope we came to a modern day solution and maybe just maybe we'd be able to settle down and teach that from our pulpits, trusting ourselves over an old record for another time and another people.

onlycurious

"if sin isn't an issue for animals, then animals being gay is not sinning, which means that God made them to be gay and didn't have a problem with it."

Now, that's deep. I don't know if I can argue with this one. Wow...I think I'll completely abandon all my Bible based principles and rejoice in the fact that a FEW animals get confused and embrace homosexuality. lol

How the Religious View Homosexuality

Share this