Homosexuality/Christianity conflict (MERGED)

Just a random thought but....I'm Christian, and both of my parents are Christian but I'm bi. So according to the bible I'm going to hell when I die. I don't really beleive that, and don't really care. >.< Do Buddist's or Pagen's (ect.) go to hell as well?

 

I believe that God loves everyone and doesnt care what peoples preferances are. As long as they're good christians we will go to heaven

 

im not christian or anything, but i find it amusing how you can be a christian while it clearly does not condone homosexuality in the bible.

 

leki, you go and read the bible to see if youre goin to hell or not. dont listen to what other people say. you make up your own mind, and if you want to jesus'l come and save you.

 

Much of what contemporary (pardon the expression) 'christians'-particularly fundamentalists-portray sexual immorality is not at all what was being described in the Bible when it was being written. Sexual immorality in those days involved rape, deceit and sexual torture, not to mention human sacrifices. It was not defined as engaging in consentual sexual encounters outside of a given institution (i.e. Marriage).

Much of how sexual immorality was re-defined came about during the fourth century of the common era. Christianity had gained widespread popularity among the populace. In an effort to squelch the disagreements that were taking place among the populace at the time, officials of the government of the Roman Empire called to assembly the council of Nicea which would become the foundation for church doctrine for centuries to come. The motives of the officials were not to promote spiritual integrity but instead to further the political agenda of the Roman officials. One of the issues that was dealt with involved sexual conduct thus the twisted, demented view of sexuality emerged as part of church doctrine. The effects of this are still being felt today.

Fundamentalists and other dogmatists can quote chapter and verse 'til the cows come home in an effort to justify their stubbornness and bigotry. Without understanding all of the logistics into what was trying to be illustrated and with taking things out of context, their credibility needs to be brought into question. I could go into further detail, but I'll direct you to the following websites:
http://inkaboutit.homestead.com/adultdefine.html -interesting perspective on what was really meant by adultery.
www.libchrist.com -deals with Christians in the polyamorous lifestyle-may provide interesting perspectives on other topics as well.
www.mccchurch.org -Metropolitan Community Churches- A GLBT Christian Outreach.

On the subject of Buddhism, it is possible that Jesus may have trevelled to Kashmir at one time during His life, and it is said that He was welcomed by Buddhists but not by high-caste Hindus. He deplored the tratement of the lower castes by the upper castes. Check out:
http://a1.nu/christian/jesuschrist/lived_in_india.htm -features intersting links

Also, type in "Jesus";"Buddhist(s)" and "Kashmir" in any search engine for more information not provided here.

Hope this helps! Remeber, Never cave in to fudamentalist dogma! Do your best to beat them at their own game! The Almighty One loves you without reservation.

 

umm.. really?

ever seen the mitzvah?

ive seen different translations but a quick example..

-Not to commit sodomy with a male (Lev. 18:22)
that one seems worded too perfectly, but it was the quickest i could find.. most others ive seen usually are along the lines of not lying with a man like you would a woman.. im not anti-homosexuality in anyway but just stating the case. the anti-homosexual standpoint in christianity came from its jewish roots, none of this 4th century crap. also, im not christian, im not jewish, this is just what i think is correct as far as biblical ideas go.. as far as i know, their is nothing in the mitzvah barring lesbian sex, unless it came under incest.. i could be wrong on all counts, and i know a few people who visit this forum know more on judaism/christianity than i do so maybe they can fix it up.. again, i dont agree with it, just clearing up what you said.


some christian translations..

NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".
ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."

 

Can't say that I have.

When quoting the Bible, one must understand the true meaning of what was really trying to be illustrated. As I see it, Leviticus was written at a time when the Jews were in the wilderness and sanitation issues were quite horrendous and one wrong error could mean grave consequences for the "tribe". Health problems that aren't even tought about today ran rampant in the desert during that era. In an effort for the tribe to survive, it had to set down sanitary measures and reproduce itself so that sufficient numbers could "carry-on". Because homosexuality was seen as counterproductive to posterity, it was seen by the Jews (a cultic type people at that time) as an abomination.

One problem fundamentalists have is taking chapter and verse totally out of context to justify their zealousness, bigotry and stubborness. Again one must understand the entire situation at hand before drawing conclusions. In addition to the sites listed in my post above, be sure to check out
www.whosoever.org/bible/index.html

FTR, you have quoted three versions of the Bible in your entry whose authenticities I must question.(Though I'll confess that I have yet to find a Bible whose authenticity I find acceptable).

 

well for one, if they were only not homosexual due to sanitation problems and productivity, wouldnt that be saying something about homosexuality. wouldnt that be showing it as an unsanitary and counterproductive thing, in anyday life.? i dont believe that, just stating a case.. im not trying to attack your belief or anything so dont worry.

and yes, especially such the KingJamesVersion, definately wouldnt accept any authenticity from it.. just seemed more common so i added them in..

also i got a broken link.. its probably me though

 

yall hit the nail on the head, leki has to worry more about some dude gettin her up the butt, then she has to worry about being with a woman. i happen to believe in the bible, the message in it, i dont get nitpicky on translations, the way people pervert the bible is not by mistranslating it, its by misinterpreting it. i dont hate gay people, i dont hate people who believe in the bible. i personally feel that sodomy is disgusting, unhealthy, and unnatural, and thats why i dont partake in it. just because there have been advances in the lubricant industry, i dont think thats grounds for rewriting the bible.

 

jesus was gay and hung around hookers all that crap added to the bible was done long after he die. jesus was a hippie too.

 

just stop posting, your an idiot.

 

Wait I'm confused....

 

who's an idiot? >.< *lost*

 

splifvortex, complete idiot.

 

[font=&quot]For anyone using the word Sodomy, you have to remember that it was invented between the 17th and 20th centuries. Using it implies that one of the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah was gay sex. Which, if you carefully read the scriptures, is not included in the lists of sins of the two cities. Nor is it found as an actual word in either Greek or Hebrew. Homosexual is also a word created between that period as well and is also not found in either Greek or Hebrew.

I happen to be a gay Christian and I don't for one minute believe that the Bible has not been corrupted or mistranslated in any way. Those two words making it into various translations of the Bible are just one example of proof. And when someone says that they think the Bible has been changed or edited, it does not mean that entire sections have been removed and new things have been put in all over the place. No. What is meant is very simple things, such as adding a word or two, here and there, to make what you are reading easier to understand is corrupting the texts. Taking out a few words or restructuring a sentence to make it look better is corrupting the texts. Not doing very in-depth research into the original texts and making guesses on the meanings of words or sentences is corrupting the texts. Simple things like that can change the meaning of verses or entire areas of the Bible.

One example of a simple change that influenced how the Bible was read for centuries came from a simple mistranslation in the "Exodus from Egypt" story. For over 1,000 years, Christians thought that a great miracle had been performed when Moses apparently parted the Red Sea. But in the last few years, an error in the translations has been discovered. The word wasn't "Red" Sea at all. All this time is had been the "Reed" Sea. This made much more sense to historians and Biblical scholars. The Reed Sea, or Sea of Reeds, in Egypt, made a much more likely place for the Crossing. But a simply mistranslation so many years ago affected the telling of the story ever since.

There is clear evidence of editing done to the texts during the 12th and 13th centuries when the Church wanted to go over the translations again and produce the Bible into more languages as perfectly as possible. But by this time, the ideas between that era and the era when the books were written already a large gap between them. Also by this time many new ideas were starting to circulate, and it is more than plausible to think that new ideas may have made it into the Bible at some point, especially during the oncomming Renaissance.

That verse somewhere in the Bible that says that "the Bible is the uncorrupted word of God and that God would punish anyone who tried to change it", is an almost empty threat. There is, however, a very real punishment outside of the being "struck down dead on the spot" punishment. This punishment is what the changes to the Bible have done to successive generations of Christians who have embraced them without even realizing that what they may be reading is false or edited and acting them out. Examples of this punishment are the Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, the fight FOR slavery, witch hunts, the idea that women should have no say in government and be governed by men, the fight against the Civil Rights movement, and now its the fight against gay rights. In each and every case, the Bible was used to justify ideas and was used to defend the ideas they were being preached. in most cases, the ideas were later considered crazy and were abandoned. And today, most of the ideas in the Bible that supported those times of upheaval have been abandoned now that we know better.

And how is it practical to pick out any law or idea from any place in the Bible and apply it to a modern situation, while ignoring all verses around that one and never digging deeply into its actual meaning. The ideas and laws of then and today are much different, and to say that they are automatically the same is very foolhardy. And while a verse or idea may look clear and concise to the ordinary Christian, people who look deeper into meanings can see things very differently.

Homosexuality and the Bible

I'll enclose this website which really changed my opinions about the Bible for the good. If it wasn't for this site, I might have become an atheist. For the last couple of years, since leaving my mom's church, I thought of the Bible as an outdated bunch of religious doctrines, Conservative in its views, and not worth the paper they were written. But after finding this site, I realized that the Bible is not actually condemning monogamous gay relationships at all, so it couldn't be all that bad in other aspects. If you study the original texts and look at more than just the verses used for condemning people, which is a sin to do to begin with, you'll see that it is not as simple as "It is true, for it is written."

If you are not reading in-depth into what you want to preach, than you will do more damage than good. If you are completely misinterpreting what you are reading, then what you teach will be flawed and those flawed ideas will pass onto others and so on down the line.
[/font]

 

I can't talk for buddists, but I know that neopagans don't believe in hell... They generally don't believe in the idea of any set rules for humanity within the universe - some believe in gods, anothers don't, but even the ones that do believe in gods, believe they are all PART of the universe (like us), and not the creators of the universe, so they are not in a position to dish out rules to people. Another pagan view is that there is no devil, no evil god, no one trying to tempt people into doing bad, etc..

So, because of this, we make their own rules, while trying to cause as little harm to everyone else as they can (it's just a matter of respect, you'd not want someone else to cause harm to you, so in return, you don't cause harm to them).

So you need to ask yourself, is your being homosexual hurting anyone? the answer is no, so you go ahead, and feel free to be homosexual...

 

i have not read every single post on here...

but.. you shouldnt just follow whats written on a piece of tissue paper. i asked my religion teacher and she said that throughout the centuries, many little laws have been added in- not by jesus.. but by people...

if the christian god says that it will love everyone and that it called everyone into being- choosing all their attributes and everything... then it shouldnt be against homosexuals. there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual or a bisexual...

okay yeah.

 

Well said! It's nice to see some intelligence here! FTR, I think that this thread should be posted in the 'Religion' section as well.

One of the things that churches (and individuals) that identify themselves as christian is that they have a difficult time tearing themselves away from a literal and/or dogmatic interpretation of scripture. As I've said before, alot of this happened during the fourth century with the council of nicea when bishops and other clergy who had more of a political than a spiritual agenda did their best to try to manipulate church doctrine for centuries to come! I also tend to believe that many churches of a fundamentalist bent seem to thrive on what I'll call 'hate campaigns.' These faults as well as the ones that you've mentioned above involve the violation of at least three of the ten comandments if you think about it. In addition to violating the commandment forbidding murder, these individuals have also violated the commandments forbidding adultery and using the Lord's name in vain!

Like you, I went through a period when I turned to atheism (or agnosticism) for a while when I was in my early teens. It was an enlightened catholic priest who 'shed light' on issues that I had never thought about before who began to change my mind about things. In more recent years, I became more interested in religious matters as two friends returned to church. One of these guys turned to a monotheistic based Unitarian-Universalist congregation, the other went to what I'll call a "soft-core" fundamentalist church. I went to church once with my friend that joined the fundamentalist church and found it to be undesireable. I was friends with a local UU congegation for several years, but found their doctrine bereft of any real spiritual substance.

I've noticed very often that many of the followers that the fundamentalist/evangelical churches attract are individuals who had a history of addictions (i.e. drugs, alcohol, etc.), or individuals who are a bit weak-willed.

With the way that christianity has been manipulated over the centuries, It's understandable why some people choose to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" and turn their back on the faith. As such, I think that religious liberals should try to do their best to reach disenfranchised people and others, band together and do their best to beat the fundamentalists at their own games. There are more people that fall under this category besides homosexuals. Religious condemnation affects people of many diverse backgrounds. All in all, excellent points you've made here.

www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/culinks.html
www.americanunitarian.org

 

The best "religion" is based on love rather than fear.
That's why I am not a fundamentalist.

 

Really the most you will find about hoimosexuality in the Bible is in leviticus, which also says that a woman can't talk to God except through her father or husband. It says a lot of fucked up things in leviticus. The Bible is obvioulsy littered with greedy men writing stuff that will keep them in power. Sure God tried to inspire them, but they were just guys, and their opinions and the opinions of society at the time are in there. Do you really think the creator of the world hates the women It created or the gay people It created? Do you really think such a powerful spirit has a penis? I mean come on, the stuff about hate and unequality in the Bible isn't from God! It should be obvious! Plus, I've seen a bunch of people explain quite well about all the passages supposedly about gays is really about sexual promiscuity, adultery, stuff like that, not a commited relationship. I'll try to look for it.