RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism"

RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Yachtie -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/23/2014 10:07:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Yes, Christians have been in opposition to God for a long long time. It's unfortunately a part of our fallen nature. .. and some of us who are not Christian would see it exactly the opposite. I strive against pretty much everything in your old testament and some of your new testament exactly because I see myself as a good person. Much of the old testament is just plain horrific. It stretches the bounds of my imagination to think that anyone has ever read Leviticus and thought "Oh yeah, now there are some great ideas". And you know what? I happen to like silk & linen as a fabric blend and it sure wouldn't occur to me to judge the character of a man's soul on the basis of his clothing choices. There is some weird shit in your bible. The rest of us are content being "fallen". Won't argue on your points. I too like silk and linen. I do see OT as between God and Israel, having its own purpose which is well outside our discussion. I've got two Hawaiian shirts. edit: this is a good link to The Dilemma Crazyml. I think it throws light on such a change from God to Good can be. Admittedly Eurythfro concerns itself with multiple gods, very different from a singular Creator God of gods. Your Jesuit had a sense of humor.

SilverMark -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/23/2014 10:07:44 AM)
Thread is far too long for me to read, but I do think as long as people are looking for answers, there will be religion. I doubt it ever becomes unacceptable, and to compare all religion to racism is far too broad a statement to become true. People need to believe in things, even if they can't explain them, or adhere to the tenants of the religion.(some Christians being a prime example of the latter)

chatterbox24 -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/23/2014 10:18:41 AM)
OH poo. Excuses Excuses Excuses. I agree, no one wants thumped over the head with a bible if they are in opposition. I frankly don't like someone cramping stuff I don't understand either and if they do that I am going to get O.D.D. If one doesn't believe in a certain faith, has God aversion for whatever reason, hates religion with a passon, doesn't like the Bible. FAIR ENOUGH. We all have our reasons. I read a lot of bologna justifying this and that but the fact remains, there is an incline in peoples values and goodness in a certain area of the world I call home. This thread was started and called Religion will become as unacceptable as racism, and it became a homosexual thread. In respect that it is Sunday, I am going to express my own measure of freedom of speech and to My God. And if you notice these scriptures I am going to quote, speak of a lot more then homosexuality. This is New Testament, not Old Testament. Argue with the words if you like, but most people whether they believe or not, don't want to live in a society full of this. Compromise can change a whole world. Enjoy your day. 1 Corinthians Chapter 6 vs 9 Do you know that the unrighteous and the wrong doers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who practice homosexuality.10 Nor cheats, nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/23/2014 1:57:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml [ED to fix my idiotic wording] Forgive me Yachtie, I'm not completely clear about what you meant by... quote: Does that include religious ceremonies or are you solely pointing to State law as to gay marriage as legal? Where you asking tweakabelle to clarify whether she simply supported legal gay marriage or whether she wanted religious groups to be required to perform gay marriages? Yes, you are quite clear. Thanks. Obviously I can't answer for tweakabelle, but here's where I am. Getting the right to have a civil partnership is certainly the most important thing to me, as that affects things like inheritance rights, insurance, taxation etc. So allowing same sex couples to enjoy the same legal protections as opposite sex couples seems like a very big step in the right direction, and it is. Where it comes to obliging religious groups to accept same sex marriage, we obviously get into really gnarly territory since we're touching on people's beliefs. In the interests of disclosure, I would say that ultimately, yes I would like to see religious groups offering the same access to the different sacraments (or their equivalents) to same sex couples as to opposite sex couples. I am honestly not certain that legally enforcing equality in the context of religious groups is the best way to address this inequality, but I can see some pretty strong arguments for doing so. If you believe that it is wrong to treat same sex couples differently then what reason can you give for arguing that they should not be allowed equal status in religious ceremonies/sacraments? If it is against the law to discriminate against people on the grounds of gender, disability, or sexual orientation then why should one group claim exemption? I believe that prejudice (which in this case can reasonably be described as homophobia) is the reason people oppose gay marriage. I believe that because ultimately the reason for their opposition boils down to a belief that it's wrong to be gay. The tactic by some groups to support civil partnership while opposing marriage is an interesting one, because it is an attempt to cloak that prejudice by claiming a) I am not prejudiced so support civil partnership while believing b) God would not approve of gay people making a formal faith-based commitment to one another. The arguments that are put up against gay marriage then begin to decay into the absurd. The first, and one of the most ludicrous, is the "I'll be forced to marry someone of the same sex". This is a particularly stupid argument because I'm pretty sure that no-one who promotes the right of people of the same sex to marry has ever suggested that hetero people should ever be forced into same sex marriage. Lets face it, that would be as prejudiced as forcing people into opposite sex marriage. Then there's the "pollution" argument... which goes along the lines of "If we allow this to happen our kids might end up gay!". I can't help thinking in this case.. if you're not prejudiced against gay people, why would it be a problem if your kids ended up gay? Ultimately, I believe that religious opposition to same sex marriage is a question of prejudice. I am open to the idea that someone might be able to make an argument against same sex marriage that doesn't essentially boil down to prejudice, but I haven't heard one yet. Crazy- I agree with most of your writing, but forcing churches to open sacraments to same sex couples (I am talking legally here) is a violation of the first amendment, it is telling a church in their core function, as a religious community, what they have to believe. A church is not a public conveyance, so the first amendment holds (it is where the big difference is between a church, and a public program run by a church, like a hospital, one is purely religious, the other is a public conveyance). Right now, the law cannot force a church to marry someone they don't wish to or hire someone as a priest, until fairly recently the Mormons did not allow black clergy, for example, and a church could legally exclude blacks or Asians or women. Orthodox jewish churches don't allow women to be rabbis and they aren't allowed to sit with men in the temple, the law cannot step in there, because it is belief.....Catholic churches do not marry non Catholics, even liberal CHristian churches may require that at least one of the people getting married is a baptized Christian, that is their right...... A JP or clerk, on the other hand, cannot claim that, because they are performing a public duty, so a JP or Clerk refusing to marry a same sex couple cannot or should not be allowed to claim religious belief, because their function is not religious, it is civic (a public office can accomodate someone's beliefs and not ask them to marry a same sex couple, but they also have to make sure that there is a clerk there who will do so. There are county clerks in several towns in NJ who refused to marry same sex people, who lost because the town only has the one clerk, so they had no choice, because they would then be denying the couple service by accomodating the clerk's belief).

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/23/2014 2:02:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml Ultimately, I believe that religious opposition to same sex marriage is a question of prejudice. I am open to the idea that someone might be able to make an argument against same sex marriage that doesn't essentially boil down to prejudice, but I haven't heard one yet. If a religious precept states that "same sex" (and therefore marriage) is ~abhorrent (*Biblical does), is one who adheres to that precept doing so out of prejudice or obedience? You are certainly free to argue that such precept is itself one of prejudice, but can you really argue that obedience to it is due to prejudice and not obedience itself? * this is to say, God's game, God's rules. This is a different point you are making from the question above - yes I would like to see religious groups offering the same access to the different sacraments (or their equivalents) to same sex couples as to opposite sex couples. Again, Biblical, *. Such offering would be in opposition to *. There is no way around that other than to be in opposition from a Biblical point of view. I'm not referencing any other religious position. Not a biggie, many churches do marry same sex couples, because they have figured out that like many other aspects of the bible, what claims to be God's law isn't. The same churches that deny gays the right to marry, citing the bible, also allow divorced people to marry, yet according to the NT, divorce is legal only in cases of adultery, Christ says that outright..so where is the defense of the bible/God's word there? The Bible in Paul rants against women being preachers (at least in Timothy), but yet even fundamentalist churches allow women priests (but the RC does not, claiming that women Priests goes against God's will..who is right?) it is belief, yes, but it is no means universal, since every church picks what it wishes to take from the Bible.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/23/2014 2:08:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml plenty of christians don't seem to have much trouble finding a way to support same sex marriage and still feel in touch with what they believe Jesus wanted them to do, and how he wanted them to live. I don't think obedience to a religious doctrine is a valid excuse for prejudice, and I can think of many examples in history where "I was acting under orders from above" was attempted as an excuse for all sorts of unpleasantness. Now, if a person wants to take the hard line and claim that the biblical texts are the actual, solid, word of god then we're all going to have to wind our sleeves up because the clock's going to need a whole lot of winding back. Therein is the rub that is argued. Backing upward through your thought train, the biblical text either is or is not. Yes, were down to a form of fundamentalism. Also, what I quoted in color opens that argumentative can of worms which is not really part of the question or the discussion. It's off point and would send us off into never-never land It boils down to, God either IS or IS NOT. If He is, then it's God's Game, God's Rules. Therefore, obedience itself is not prejudicial from a rules following perspective. Christians who wish to argue otherwise than God's Game, God's Rules have a fundamental problem pointedly understood - man's fallen nature. There is no right answer to the whole argument except one FROM a Biblical POV- God's Game, God's rules. Christians I have had such discussions with most all say "no problem" with a form of civil union which allows what you wish. But they do draw a line at altering their religious institution(s) allowing inclusion at the cost of opposition to God's Game, God's rules. In a sense one might argue that such are not prejudicial, their wanting to find a way without falling into opposition. Except that, most religious people acknowledge that many of the "rules" their religion imposes are pretty much man-made. In most cases, they're "man's" rules. Not so much the rules, but the doctrine. Just my opinion here. What you just said above, about Christians not alerting their religious institutions, shows how twisted the argument is. If same sex marriage is made legal, it doesn't change their religious beliefs one iota, and it certainly won't force them to marry same sex couples. No church has ever been forced to marry someone they don't want to, and that is the crux of it, and if they are arguing that same sex marriage being made legal hurts their faith, they are either really ignorant or they are lying. What most of them argue isn't that their church will have to marry same sex couple, it is that a same sex couple using the term marriage, and having it legally recognized, goes against their beliefs....which basically is tough luck, since when do their beliefs have anything to do with law. What same sex couples want is civic marriage, not religious, and therein is the crux of the argument. If a same sex couple gets married by a JP, or a UCC minister, it doesn't do anything in terms of Catholic Marriages, it doesn't change them, it doesn't force them to do anything. The problem is that people of those faiths want the law to reflect their beliefs, because they think anything with the term marriage other than they believe is an affront to them and their God..which is pretty galling. Yet the same people run around like Chicken little claiming Sharia law is coming...

Yachtie -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/23/2014 2:10:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren If same sex marriage is made legal, it doesn't change their religious beliefs one iota, and it certainly won't force them to marry same sex couples. No church has ever been forced to marry someone they don't want to, and that is the crux of it, and if they are arguing that same sex marriage being made legal hurts their faith, they are either really ignorant or they are lying. Not the point we were addressing.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/23/2014 2:14:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml [ED to fix the kind of grammar that, frankly would deserve a stoning whether it's mentioned in Leviticus or not] quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml It may be God's game, but the rules have been changed so many times As for those who sincerely believe that they have a duty to be homophobic because their God demands it. They are simply wrong. Just as those slave owners who sincerely believed that it was right and proper to discriminate against black people were wrong. Our 'arguing with God' has indeed been a source of our changing of His rules. God's Rules, though, have not changed at all. While, I can just about sympathize with this position, I don't think it helps us move forward. So many "rules" that used to be "God's rules" have been discarded, that I'm just not sure that we can really nail which of the biblical rules are "God's" and which aren't. quote: Question: Does there exist anyone who is not homophobic (using your word) yet states anti-marriage (Biblical POV) because God's Game, God's Rules? Your posit seemingly states that all opposition to gay marriage is of homophobic nature because "God demands it". According to my understanding of homophobia, no, I don't think that anyone who claims to object to gay-marriage on biblical terms, even if sincere, can escape the fact that they are homophobic. No matter how sincere their position. Now,I do think that it is entirely possible to be a "good person" but to be very wrong at the same time. Can I ask you a question in return? When I was at school, a South African girl joined my class, her parents had just left South Africa ( "Before the Bliks take over and kill us all"). She was in many many respects a deeply virtuous person, they were a churchgoing family, and she sincerely believed that black people weren't really human. Was she racist? quote: God's reasoniong for his Rule(s) as to homosexual behavior I do not know. I cannot state with any certainty that such is due to homophobia or not. My guess is not, though, as homosexuals have consistently had such a low number to population ratio. Besides, on what basis would God have a phobia for homosexuality? That's but one thought I have on that and not really germane to the topic. I just don't know if a person can say that their "God" would object to same sex marriage. On what basis can a person know that their "God" would object to two people of the same sex, in a loving committed relationship wishing to share their commitment with their "God"? You can point to scripture, sure. I don't think you can use scripture convincingly, because Christians have been quietly ignoring big chunks of scripture for centuries. A belief that same sex couples shouldn't get married or are sinners isn't homophobic, if that stays a belief. Where it is homophobic is when you translate that belief into something that affects the lives of gay people. If you believe same sex marriage is a sin, and want to deny gays the right to legally get married by a JP, Clerk, or by a friendly religious group, it is homophobic, since you are using your belief to deny someone something based on your beliefs. If you fire someone who is gay simply because he is gay, which can happen in 35 states in the US, you are homophobic. It is especially in sharp contrast to the fact that most of those claiming they are against gays because of religious belief ignore a lot of other sins. Most of the fundamentalist churches allow people to get divorced and remarried, and I can't quite think of the last time a church denied someone the right to remarry after they committed adultery in a prior one, I have seen any religious group arguing that adulterers should be put in Jail (though some have tried in recent years) or that they should be allowed to be fired if accused of adultery...but they want the law in the case of one 'sin', gays, to deny them legal rights and protections, in this case found in the LEGAL term marriage..and that is homophobia, especially when you pick and choose which sin you choose to rail against.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/23/2014 2:20:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chatterbox24 OH poo. Excuses Excuses Excuses. I agree, no one wants thumped over the head with a bible if they are in opposition. I frankly don't like someone cramping stuff I don't understand either and if they do that I am going to get O.D.D. If one doesn't believe in a certain faith, has God aversion for whatever reason, hates religion with a passon, doesn't like the Bible. FAIR ENOUGH. We all have our reasons. I read a lot of bologna justifying this and that but the fact remains, there is an incline in peoples values and goodness in a certain area of the world I call home. This thread was started and called Religion will become as unacceptable as racism, and it became a homosexual thread. In respect that it is Sunday, I am going to express my own measure of freedom of speech and to My God. And if you notice these scriptures I am going to quote, speak of a lot more then homosexuality. This is New Testament, not Old Testament. Argue with the words if you like, but most people whether they believe or not, don't want to live in a society full of this. Compromise can change a whole world. Enjoy your day. 1 Corinthians Chapter 6 vs 9 Do you know that the unrighteous and the wrong doers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who practice homosexuality.10 Nor cheats, nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God. Chstterbox- Your translation of Corinthians is bogus, and it is easy to see it....That 'practice of homosexuality' is basically made up, because the word homosexuality didn't exist when the NT was written, and the Greeks had no word for it. Translations of the bible who say that do so because the NT doesn't have very many proscriptions against Homosexuality, it is primarily OT, so they create things that don't exist. It should be telling that Christ speaks against adultery many times, yet they have to translate something that scholars will tell you translates as "abherrent behavior' into homosexuality , and Christ not once says anything about gays, only Paul, who is not quoting Christ, he is quoting himself (and if we wish to follow Paul, none of us should get married, he tells people not to get married if they can help it....)

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/23/2014 2:23:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren If same sex marriage is made legal, it doesn't change their religious beliefs one iota, and it certainly won't force them to marry same sex couples. No church has ever been forced to marry someone they don't want to, and that is the crux of it, and if they are arguing that same sex marriage being made legal hurts their faith, they are either really ignorant or they are lying. Not the point we were addressing. Your quote said that people would be forced to change their religious beliefs because they would be forced to marry same sex couples, and that isn't true. The only other argument people of faith argue is that they don't like the word marriage being used for same sex couples, that it is against their faith, and that is tough luck when it comes to civic law, civic law and their faith have and should have no relationship. We once allowed religious groups to determine things like alcohol being legal, and look where that left us, faith should be left to the people and their churches or temples, it has no place as law or especially determining rights. As Jefferson was quoted as saying, mix religion and government and you end up with an oppressive government and a corrupted religion.

Yachtie -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/23/2014 2:25:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren Your quote said that people would be forced to change their religious beliefs because they would be forced to marry same sex couples, and that isn't true. Quote me. Where did I say that? Don't say I said that, quote me... or I ask that you retract.

JeffBC -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/23/2014 2:51:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Your Jesuit had a sense of humor. LOLOL, my first thought when I read that and wrapped my head around it a bit was, "Fuckin' Jesuits - grrrrrrrrrrr" (in an intellectually amused and delighted sort of way).

JeffBC -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/23/2014 2:57:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chatterbox24 1 Corinthians Chapter 6 vs 9 Do you know that the unrighteous and the wrong doers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who practice homosexuality.10 Nor cheats, nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God. Thanks for that chatterbox. I was operating under the mistaken impression that the prohibitions against homosexuality were old testament. Now I know better. And Yachtie, that also explains a bit of confusion between you and I. I agree with you, from my understanding of world religions "Christianity" is new testament. That was the "new deal" :)

Yachtie -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/23/2014 3:10:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC And Yachtie, that also explains a bit of confusion between you and I. Good we have that out of the way [:D]

DaddySatyr -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/23/2014 3:16:32 PM)
I have argued this very point here, before. "I Corinthians" is, actually, "the first letter of Paul TO the Corinthians." Nowhere in the NT does anyone attribute any damnation of homosexuality to Jesus. It's why I say most Christians today are actually "Paulians". If you read all of "I Corinthians" (I think) you'll find that Paul is re-iterating Leviticus. He is not breaking any new ground. He's re-affirming (I guess) what Leviticus said. He's sure-as-shit not repeating anything that is attributed to Jesus in the NT. quote: ORIGINAL: chatterbox24 1 Corinthians Chapter 6 vs 9 Do you know that the unrighteous and the wrong doers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who practice homosexuality.10 Nor cheats, nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.

kdsub -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/23/2014 3:29:13 PM)
I'm not so sure about that... below is what it really says: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind What chatterbox posted is a translation... there are many such translations I believe but above is what is truly said... now you make your mind up about your own translation. Butch

Yachtie -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/23/2014 3:33:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr ]I have argued this very point here, before. "I Corinthians" is, actually, "the first letter of Paul TO the Corinthians." Nowhere in the NT does anyone attribute any damnation of homosexuality to Jesus. Jesus didn't damn the prostitue either, but He did tell her to go and sin no more. Paul's letter to the Church at Corinth is one of admonishment. He's teaching. Read all of Ch. 6.

Yachtie -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/23/2014 3:35:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I'm not so sure about that... below is what it really says: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind above is what is truly said... Which translation are you using? [;)]

kdsub -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/23/2014 3:56:12 PM)
Myself I translate the Bible to be writing of men inspired by God... but with the prejudices of men of that time. I refuse to believe my God would create homosexuals then condemn them and call them sinners. Butch

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/23/2014 7:54:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren Your quote said that people would be forced to change their religious beliefs because they would be forced to marry same sex couples, and that isn't true. Quote me. Where did I say that? Don't say I said that, quote me... or I ask that you retract. "Christians I have had such discussions with most all say "no problem" with a form of civil union which allows what you wish. But they do draw a line at altering their religious institution(s) allowing inclusion at the cost of opposition to God's Game, God's rules. In a sense one might argue that such are not prejudicial, their wanting to find a way without falling into opposition." The key word here is altering their religious institutions, which implies that they would be forced to marry same sex couples..and you posted in a discussion about whether churches should be forced to marry people, which strongly says you believe the same thing, otherwise you wouldn't post in. In a discussion about beliefs as we have had here, you wouldn't post the views of others if you didn't agree with them, the same way that if I post the opinions of those supporting same sex marriage, it is because I agree with them, too. I am sure you will play the semantics defense here, how you didn't say that people of faith would be forced to marry people, but that is all it is, otherwise why would the opinion of other Christians be relevant in the discussion at hand, unless you agree with them?

Page: << < prev 26 27 [28] 29 30 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625