Homosexuality is unnatural? Cool Story Bro, but it's not.
- Classic
- Newbie
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 9:36 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Homosexuality is unnatural? Cool Story Bro, but it's not
I blame Liberals for indulging a lot into the natural vs unnatural debates, that brings people like Jesus Christ Is Hard. Point one is all you need to mention. So what if something is unnatural?
- garrethdsouza
- Senior Member
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:47 pm
- Diet: Vegan
- Location: India
Re: Homosexuality is unnatural? Cool Story Bro, but it's not
Its by no way just a xtian phenomenon. It used to be more lax in other religions in India for example Hinduism and was more open to it. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_topics_and_Hinduism
Sadly through influence from other religions it now appears that all the bigotry is united, while they disagree with who is the right god and routinely kill each other they're all on one side here, even jain as a result of which homosexuality is still illegal in india. http://dailymuslims.com/2013/12/30/agai ... -of-india/
Sadly through influence from other religions it now appears that all the bigotry is united, while they disagree with who is the right god and routinely kill each other they're all on one side here, even jain as a result of which homosexuality is still illegal in india. http://dailymuslims.com/2013/12/30/agai ... -of-india/
“We are the cosmos made conscious and life is the means by which the universe understands itself.”
― Brian Cox
― Brian Cox
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 4:17 pm
- Diet: Meat-Eater
Re: Homosexuality is unnatural? Cool Story Bro, but it's not
I'm sure I'm on the minority side of this, but as a Christian, I have to take a step back and look at homosexuality as just another sin. Whether I agree with it or not, is you're lifestyle negatively affecting me? If not, then I don't care. And even if it is affecting me in some way, I have no right to tell you what is/isn't best for you.
The anti-LBGT folks I know have moved on from the 'unnatural' argument and have fully jumped on the "destroying marriage" bandwagon. Ironically, they all quickly shut up when asked if they think divorce is helping the institution of marriage. 50 years ago, divorce was a major no-no in Christian churches. Today, not only is it fully accepted in 95% of Christian denominations, they are even ordaining elders/deacons/ministers who have been divorced. Paul's line of thinking that an ordained person should be "the husband of one wife" has morphed into "the husband of one wife at a time". Further, the Bible is clear that divorce is adultery, which is the 8th Commandment. I don't see homosexuality in that list. Maybe it's number 14... you know, the other tablet that Mel Brooks dropped?
My point is pretty simple - what was completely unacceptable 50 years ago is now accepted and commonplace in Christianity today. It's so common that folks don't even care anymore - Divorced? No worries, come sit by me. Wanna teach a Sunday School class? Why is it accepted? It's merely my opinion, but the fact that 48% of Christian's have been divorced at least once makes it pretty clear that any attempt to condemn it as a "sin" would have a dramatic impact on the offering plate.
Sin is sin. Period. There is zero reason to not allow someone into your church when their sin is no different/worse than the sin(s) of those sitting in the pew next to you...
BC
The anti-LBGT folks I know have moved on from the 'unnatural' argument and have fully jumped on the "destroying marriage" bandwagon. Ironically, they all quickly shut up when asked if they think divorce is helping the institution of marriage. 50 years ago, divorce was a major no-no in Christian churches. Today, not only is it fully accepted in 95% of Christian denominations, they are even ordaining elders/deacons/ministers who have been divorced. Paul's line of thinking that an ordained person should be "the husband of one wife" has morphed into "the husband of one wife at a time". Further, the Bible is clear that divorce is adultery, which is the 8th Commandment. I don't see homosexuality in that list. Maybe it's number 14... you know, the other tablet that Mel Brooks dropped?
My point is pretty simple - what was completely unacceptable 50 years ago is now accepted and commonplace in Christianity today. It's so common that folks don't even care anymore - Divorced? No worries, come sit by me. Wanna teach a Sunday School class? Why is it accepted? It's merely my opinion, but the fact that 48% of Christian's have been divorced at least once makes it pretty clear that any attempt to condemn it as a "sin" would have a dramatic impact on the offering plate.
Sin is sin. Period. There is zero reason to not allow someone into your church when their sin is no different/worse than the sin(s) of those sitting in the pew next to you...
BC
- garrethdsouza
- Senior Member
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:47 pm
- Diet: Vegan
- Location: India
Re: Homosexuality is unnatural? Cool Story Bro, but it's not
^The problem with sin is that it merely means an act in contrary to certain rules that are laid down by authority irrespective if those rules in themselves make any sense.
When the rules dont make any sense cultures eventually adapt to cherrypicking or working around those rules with rationalizations like dependent on the context/ period of time or its not to be interpreted literally/metaphorical and no longer makes sense when in fact there was never any such loopholes explicitly mentioned. eg divorce, slavery
also different authorities say different things so different things are considered a sin. for some jains it would be eating meat, eating beef/pork if youre of other religions.
the problem with such a concept is that it is merely based on following a law set by an authority rather than reasoning out laws and determining whether they make sense in terms of metrics like the amount of pain/suffering caused. the problems with merely following laws based on authority is that the law doesnt actually matter, it is that it has been given by the authority that matters. so for eg if the authority said the exact opposite must now be performed, that would be the moral imperative. that is in fact the basis for the abraham story, that all that is right is you blindly following orders given to you irrespective if they make any or no sense. such a basis for morality is equivalent to no basis at all. eg if the authority said rape or dont rape, either would be just as moral. by contrast if you look at it from a suffering angle, not raping would be the right thing to do.
and as far as sexual orientations or gender identities are concerned, noone is in any sense harmed by it. by contrast homophobic bigotry and bullying people into closets etc has v detrimental consequences
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/can-homophobia-kill-you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth
https://www.ted.com/talks/morgana_baile ... anguage=en
When the rules dont make any sense cultures eventually adapt to cherrypicking or working around those rules with rationalizations like dependent on the context/ period of time or its not to be interpreted literally/metaphorical and no longer makes sense when in fact there was never any such loopholes explicitly mentioned. eg divorce, slavery
also different authorities say different things so different things are considered a sin. for some jains it would be eating meat, eating beef/pork if youre of other religions.
the problem with such a concept is that it is merely based on following a law set by an authority rather than reasoning out laws and determining whether they make sense in terms of metrics like the amount of pain/suffering caused. the problems with merely following laws based on authority is that the law doesnt actually matter, it is that it has been given by the authority that matters. so for eg if the authority said the exact opposite must now be performed, that would be the moral imperative. that is in fact the basis for the abraham story, that all that is right is you blindly following orders given to you irrespective if they make any or no sense. such a basis for morality is equivalent to no basis at all. eg if the authority said rape or dont rape, either would be just as moral. by contrast if you look at it from a suffering angle, not raping would be the right thing to do.
and as far as sexual orientations or gender identities are concerned, noone is in any sense harmed by it. by contrast homophobic bigotry and bullying people into closets etc has v detrimental consequences
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/can-homophobia-kill-you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth
https://www.ted.com/talks/morgana_baile ... anguage=en
“We are the cosmos made conscious and life is the means by which the universe understands itself.”
― Brian Cox
― Brian Cox
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 4:17 pm
- Diet: Meat-Eater
Re: Homosexuality is unnatural? Cool Story Bro, but it's not
I don't disagree. My point is simply that too many Christians are hypocritical and bigoted. They've decided to accept some sins but demonize others, yet they are fully aware that the book laying down the rules says there are no sins greater than others. It is very annoying, especially when someone finds out you're a Christian and automatically assumes you agree with their disgusting opinions...garrethdsouza wrote:^The problem with sin is that it merely means an act in contrary to certain rules that are laid down by authority irrespective if those rules in themselves make any sense.
BC