Question to Christians:

Just Arrived Joined: Nov 19, 2009 Posts: 4

Why is it that you follow the one or two verses in the bible which briefly mention gay marriage and proceed to support the murder of innocent people, like Matthew shepard, but do not support the laws in thebible stating that disobedient children must be stoned to death, or that working on sunday is worthy of the death sentence, or not to eat pork? The only two excuses I've ever heard are:

1. "It's from the old testament, and a lot of things were messed up then. God didn't really MEAN 'stone children' or 'kill people who work on sundays.'"

Well, then why do you accept ANY of the old testament? These laws are in the same set of books as the ten commandments, why do you only go halfway? Does it seem unjust for an uninvolved being to dictate how to live your life and how to deal with problems that are out of your control, like the threat of losing your job for not working sundays?

2. "Well, God UNDERSTANDS that I need to work sundays or that I can't really kill my children for being bratty some days."

Well, why doesn't he UNDERSTAND the fact that someone is gay? Like I said earlier, being gay is more out of a person's control as needing to work sundays. You've just created a double-standard by which you can twist the REAL word of God to keep yourself looking holy, when you know that the next time your kid is a brat on sunday and you just got home from work, and you do not seek to stone your child and be murdered, you will have made two abominable sins in one sitting.

Just a thought Wink

Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 5:45 am

hey rj,

you make an excellent point. this picking and choosing of scripture that many do to fit their lives, is one of the major reasons that led me away from dogmatic thinking.

having a cousin who is gay and great person, and with me being a strong supporter of gender equality, it really pisses me off how some people use religion to justify their homophobia and sexism, but ignore the stuff that's inconvenient for them.

i know plenty of people who, although religious, don't use their beliefs to justify bigotry. however, the ones that do, are the ones that make religion potentially dangerous.

Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:07 pm

elusive_elf wrote:

-peace through reciprocity and reason-

Like the quote. I think though, it might be reworded just slightly to... "peace through empathy and reason". It seems to me that reciprocity is equally responsible for our warlike nature as it is our peaceful nature. Nearly all violence and war is a reciprocal act, justifiable or not. On the other hand, it's difficult to use empathy to justify non-peaceful activity.

Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:00 pm

MockingGods wrote:

Like the quote. I think though, it might be reworded just slightly to... "peace through empathy and reason". It seems to me that reciprocity is equally responsible for our warlike nature as it is our peaceful nature. Nearly all violence and war is a reciprocal act, justifiable or not. On the other hand, it's difficult to use empathy to justify non-peaceful activity.

you make a good point m.g. obviously, i meant the better side of reciprocity, but i guess i forgot about the darker side, like revenge.
thanks for pointing this out to me, now i can change my sig to more accurately reflect my feeling about the matter, even if it means losing th double "r" alliteration. Sad

Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:47 pm

elusive_elf wrote:

MockingGods wrote:

Like the quote. I think though, it might be reworded just slightly to... "peace through empathy and reason". It seems to me that reciprocity is equally responsible for our warlike nature as it is our peaceful nature. Nearly all violence and war is a reciprocal act, justifiable or not. On the other hand, it's difficult to use empathy to justify non-peaceful activity.

you make a good point m.g. obviously, i meant the better side of reciprocity, but i guess i forgot about the darker side, like revenge.
thanks for pointing this out to me, now i can change my sig to more accurately reflect my feeling about the matter, even if it means losing th double "r" alliteration. Sad

I'm glad you appreciated my comment, it's certainly something to think about. I've argued quite often in discussion about morals that reciprocity is the primary basis for human ethics. Our sense of justice and economics is highly steeped in it. I've also argued that it's not necessarily a "good" thing.

Just Arrived Joined: Mar 02, 2010 Posts: 8

I have noticed that most religious people I know only get quotes which agrees with their point of view. If a scripture is ambiguous, they go past it or even avoid a discussion about it altogether. I find that very unfair actually. If they keep on doing that, how do they expect people to believe their teachings ?

Newbie First Class Joined: Dec 11, 2011 Posts: 26

I have been forced to moved away from my own Christian faith BECAUSE of anti gay doctrine, and
it is BECAUSE of this that I question scripture, belief, everything I stood for once.

Anti-gay Christianity has shaken everything I trusted. It has shaken my faith in the Christian
church.

Anti-gay Christiany has hurt me so badly that it has shaken my belief in the existance of God.

I never thought I'd sign up and want to consider atheistic points of view, I've been a religion
addict. But here I am folks.

Forum Master Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 10152

wanaknownow wrote:

I have been forced to moved away from my own Christian faith BECAUSE of anti gay doctrine, and
it is BECAUSE of this that I question scripture, belief, everything I stood for once.

Anti-gay Christianity has shaken everything I trusted. It has shaken my faith in the Christian
church.

Anti-gay Christiany has hurt me so badly that it has shaken my belief in the existance of God.

I never thought I'd sign up and want to consider atheistic points of view, I've been a religion
addict. But here I am folks.

Again, having an emotional reaction to the behaviors of others IS NOT a good reason to hold or reject a position. You could argue the morality as an issue, but that is a secondary argument. The primary one is that of the existence of ANY deity. Lack of evidence is the ONLY core reason, not the only reason, but the only core reason to reject a claim.

The core reason I reject all claims of all deities, past and present, monotheist or polytheist even to pantheism(the idea that the universe is a thinking thing itself) is lack of evidence.

Every time we find something that displays a consciousness it within evolutionary biology.

Since we know what a human brain looks like we know that it is absurd to claim that a non material version of such can exist. Thus the only option is that humans merely want a god to exist.

HOWEVER the secondary argument of morality can be made as well, but as a concept only.

IF IF IF IF IF this claimed deity didn't want gays, if one is to claim it to be all powerful, then it would be immoral to blame humans for a game they did not set up.

The real biological reason that homosexuality, and bisexuality and trans gendered people exist is because sexuality is not simply what you have between your legs, but a range. Even outside humans mammals display on average the same percentage of this display.

I think gays serve a very natural purpose from an evolutionary standpoint to act as a counter to over population. But even then evolution is not black and white and always constitutes a variety of presentations.

The more we know about evolution,t he more we see how vital variety is. Evolution cannot take place in stagnation.

I see nothing about the gods of Abrham that are good for minorities. I see nothing good about a religion that teaches that natural human behavior is bad always. It teaches us that we are scum and only by sucking up to this god can we escape harm and get our cookie.

You don't need a god to do the right thing. Gays don't need god to not molest children. Especially when the molesting of children is done by mostly heterosexual men. It is the failure to see sex crimes, for what they are, power and control.

Gays can and are perfectly capable of consent. They are perfectly capable of accepting "no" as an answer. They are perfectly capable of monogamy as well as a heterosexual is being a womanizer.

That is because life is not black and white. Nor do the rantings of absolutes in book of myth explain the range of human behavior, both good and bad.

Increasingly in the west we are growing up in accepting that LTBG people are merely part of our range and not monsters to be feared.

Newbie First Class Joined: Dec 11, 2011 Posts: 26

Firstly for the record, I"ve been that person. I literally was that person that sat
in my churchgroup feeling as though God hated me for my girl
crush. I have been there. That's why I am so angry. Couple
that with the GLBT community representing a good chunk of my close
friends and family.

Personal data, yes..but yes it's emotional.

Yes, I want God to exist. I really do. I've always believed
in God because I chose to and wanted too.

I do though think that my own outrage against religious immorality
IS reason enough to switch faiths, look elsewhere. Do you object to emotional
reasoning in all forms? If so why? Is emotion itself useless?

If religion is primarily emotional as those without a diety argue then
why would a negative emotion NOT be a good reason for choosing a different
position.

Insofar as the brain there is electrical energy that can not be created or
destroyed (save consciousness discussion for another post). Something else about the brain. There are
seperate areas of the brain that determine our identity one that determines gender
identity..add that to the third factor our physical make up.

Nobody teaches that in churches...why people dont know that is beyond me.

Back to the point, if religion exists for the purpose of emotions and moral context
than yes I object to the Christian religion's negative effect on my emotions and
moral standing of late. The experience of Church, for me was not always thus. There
were good moments of it before.

Insofar as the existance of God I do not claim that God is the Christian church. I
do believe in so far as we can not proove or disprove God's existance, then God
remains possible.

I want to believe in God because firstly I do not want to think of my consciousness
completely ending with my own death.

Second, I feel that there is good still within the contest of religion(s) along with
some of the bad. I feel it is worth fighting for and I want others to have the freedom
to persue God even if the persuit much like the persuit of happiness doesnt always
result in an answer.

I do not want anyone, especially not the church to take away mine, or anyone elses
right to "persue" the idea of God.

And I also wanted to mention that I agree in my experience of
Christian faith I completely picked and chose what suited my needs out
of that religion, as well as many other religions.

Reason being I do not believe any one persons belief system will work
for everyone, we hare all individuals.

No person who values moral character can advocate bigotry, and to see it happen
again and again and again is a highly charged negative emotional experience
for me.

It takes something to make us examine our standpoints why would emotion not?
Long post..sorry.


Login/Register New account	Home · FAQ · News · Shows · Videos · Forums · Arcade · Listen & Chat · Book Store · Contact Us · Go Mobile