This won't answer your question but it will address a point that you made, not answering that point either just bringing up something else that may be something to consider (read: if you only want an answer to that one specific question then don't even bother reading anything else)

Being gay is not a sin, however homosexual acts, i.e. having anal sex or any other form of sex that does not lead to procreation (sex for pleasure based on lust) is a sin.

That being said everyone, not just homosexuals, sin. It is impossible to go through life without sinning for anyone. But according to most god will forgive sins if they are repented, even if you do them on more then one occassion, because humans aren't perfect and they sin.

It is also a practice of many schools of religious thought to adopt a policy along the lines of 'love the sinner not the sin' so they don't condone or even agree with the sin itself, but they try to accept the person that has done it recognizing that they are not perfect but are still god's children and should be loved.

Yeah, I guess that's why the local Catholic High School is banning students from taking same-sex partners to the grade 12 school dance, being supported by most other Catholic schools. I guess they display a debilitatingly powerful level of open-mindedness. I guess that's why every time sexuality-based equal rights laws are posed, the Church opposes it based on rhetoric like 'protecting the family unit' or 'upholding the moral fabrics of society'.

The Church represents many things, but the only thing it loves is itself, and donations.

Thread wasn't that old, but you can call it old if you want.



It's pretty hard to say that violent views are an interpretation of a religion that actively speaks against violence. But you can go down that way too if you'd like. It's a common thing to believe.



The answer to why we should respect people's religious beliefs are simple. Prove you are a better person by not following they're path. Most of the time, a person doesn't choose their religion actively, they just grow into it because it is what they're parents believed. Does that make them less worthy of respect that they would want to be more like their parents? I suppose that would depend on what other things their parents did.

Still, with so many other things to get angry with people about. Religion is a very minor one. There are more people, even within the church, that don't agree with the anti-gay statements given out by those few hardcore believers. However, there are not as many willing to stand up and admit it, which gives the impression that there are more who follow that belief than there are who don't. So in that, I suppose you could say they are less worthy of respect since they are unwilling to stand up for what they believe in. But as I said, there are bigger things to get angry over.

The thread is old.

Violent views are as valid an interpretation as merely saying that homosexuality is a-ok as a religious interpretation. That's the idea of interpretation you can't comprehend, there's no right or wrong answer. If you want to open the doors on interpretation, you're going to have to accept the rest of the crap that comes in with it.

Why must I be a 'better' person for anything? I know what I know and I act accordingly. I don't care how good or bad, high or low a person is, just whether they can back up their broad statements before they infect the populous with it.

Religion is a minor reason to get angry with people? Perhaps you could give me an example of a major one? Religion, it's pervasive penetration into the human psychy, is more than enough justification.

Ah yes, the old, regurgitated mantra that the anti-gay sentiment in the Church is such a vast minority. Majority rules in all things, even the Church. If the majority of believers with any amount of power whatsoever didn't see gay as a problem, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The reason I say that there is a difference between interpretting for violence and interpretting for homosexuality, is because several times in almost every religion's bible it tells you to "Love thy neighbor" and other such non-violent things. But the only things I've ever read about them speak only against the sexual aspect of it, and contrary to popular belief, you don't have to have sex to be gay. It's just fun.


Futhermore, even in those passages that seem to speak against gay sex, there is no mention of women "lieing" with women. Meaning that it must be okay to be a lesbian.

And also, think of this, men do not have the proper anatomy to "lie" with a man as he would with a woman. If you take the words entirely litterally that is.

If you want someone to change, you have to prove that the way they are doing things is not as good as the way they could be doing things. As I have said, and you've ignored, make yourself an enemy of the church, and you strengthen their belief that wha you feel is a sin against their god. Ignore them, and eventually they'll get bored and find someone else to persecute.

I could go into church right now and be welcome, even with my bf. The people in the churches near my home respect me because I respect their belief. Those who have a problem with homosexuality used to speak up. But like all bullies, they got bored and went away.

That being said. I don't go to church, for a couple of reasons really. One, because I'd fall asleep in the middle of the sermon. And two, because I have nothing to learn from their teachings, and nothing to prove to them.

BravoLima - you dislike their disrespect, which is completely understandable. But you think that the source of this is religious doctrine. Which is simply not true - the bible, qur'an, sruti, tanakh, guru granth sahib etc. etc. etc. don't preach violence.

The disrespect comes from the person. Disrespect also doesn't just come from religious people, as Im sure you know.

Sometimes complete dickheads are relgious, sometimes complete dickheads are not religious.

Your not religious and your not respectful.

So why the dislike of only religious disrespect? Isn't that discrimination?

Because if you do not respect other religions, then you are just as guilty as they are of intolerance.

A fine line, no?

Should you lose respect for them, then they can accuse you of what you are accusing them with. Understand that the world is progressing towards equality, but if the homosexual community is just as intolerant of the religious community, then we will only reach gridlock and stall.

O noes.. a religion section.. XD

I was raised almost completely devoid of religion, so it was beyond my childhood (thanks to parents.. ^_^). Over time, I've slid from agnosticism, where I had no opinion of religion, to a staunchly atheist opinion.

Even though religion may cause people to do good things, people do good things regardless of religion. In fact, wouldn't it be false to do good things because you believe? If you refrain from sinning because you're worried about your final judgement rather than from truly believing that you should do good, you're not faithful, but rather obedient to a superior power. We can debate whether or not religion is good for the world and cite miracles and atrocities til Kingdom come, but that doesn't answer the fundamental aspect of religion: God and his/her/its existence.

To me, God is a logical paradox. Omnipotent. Omniscient. Omnipresent. Omnibenevolent. It's not possible to exist with all those qualities. You may argue that we cannot know God or cannot fathom what he (I'll use male pronouns for convenience sake) intends, but hypocritically we still make conclusions of how God intends for the world, still interpret his words as if we knew their intentions.

And I have a large problem with omniscience. Strictly, God must know everything infinitely in every way. But think about it. If someone knows everything, then why act? An omniscient being will know the outcome of everything including his own decisions and actions. (That in itself sounds like an impossible situation of an infinite regression of knowing.) Being omni-everything else, there would be no motivation to act. No need to eat or drink. No need to learn. No need to create or simulate. No need for anything, as he will live forever and ever and will know exactly what happens forever and ever.

Worst off, is this ridiculous notion that God would be omnibenevolent - aka. good. What kind of good God would create such suffering in the world. People argue that maybe suffering is necessary. Why else would God impose suffering? Why would he create Hitler? Why would he make nuclear power to even exist? Why would he plague the world with epidemics? Above all else, being omniscient, he will know exactly the outcome. Then why create sentient people who can perceive and understand their own suffering and those around them? Why couldn't he prevent HIV from infecting people? Why couldn't he make each of us inherently kinder? Why couldn't he help some cancer foundation stumble upon the cure for cancer sooner?

To say that people are incapable of understanding, is to appeal to some sad defeatist notion.

You know what would be easiest way to have people believe in you? Reveal yourself in whatever way that would cause people to believe in you. These silly angel sightings and poorly recorded personal anecdotes of God speaking are all inadequate examples, especially for a being as powerful as God.

But, what God are we even considering? Considering all the hundreds and thousands of Gods that have come before the current prevailing religions, why should we believe in this Christian God or that Hindu Goddess? What about Jupiter? Ra? The Zoroastrian God? The Caodaist God? Each God asserts his or her trueness. Almost all Gods promise paradise and punish infidels with some eternal Hell after life. What chance do we have in picking the correct God? What if the true God belongs to a now-extinct religion or one not yet founded? If the Christian God was true, did everyone go to Hell before Christianity came around?

You cannot argue that these religions all point to the same God concept. The reason these religions are distinct are just that. They're different. They're fundamentally distinct. Where one God may smite you for eating beef, another may damn you for having sex at the wrong time. In fact, the God most people believe in is the God that prevails in the region. What if your region of the world believed in the wrong God and you were simply born in the wrong part of the world? Chances are, you'll end up in Hell.

When you think about it, just about everything, who will lives now, who has lived, and who will live, will go to Hell for some infraction, mostly for not believing in the true God, whichever God is correct.

The last large problem I have with the current major monotheistic religions is this rubbish notion of original or ancestral sin. Remember that Adam and Eve story? Apparently, the misstep of these two people have damned the entire Humanity. Each and every one of us inherits sin. So says the Bible, the Qu'ran, and the Torah. Can you believe that? Before you have even stepped into this world, before you have had your first thought or seen your first vision, you are a sinner and damned to Hell if you don't repent and pick the correct faith to follow. You inherit sin like you inherit your looks from your parents. And everyone gets it like a disease to the newborn. And religion then requires you to repent for the rest of your lives, restraining yourself from sinning further (as if inheritted sin even counts!), and confessing if you ever slip up.

So, God doesn't even logically make sense. Even if it does, chances are you'll have picked a false God to believe in or will live in a time period where the real God is not worshipped. And if you pass all of that, you inherit sin (so says those three big monotheistic faiths) which you will work to repent and refrain from recommitting for the rest of your life.

And that's before discussing if religion brings any good to this world. You hear of people doing horrible things in the name of belief of all sorts (even those that don't relate to religion), but you never hear of people who do anything in the name of non-belief. People don't commit good or bad acts in the name of atheism. Religion - to me - is one of those rare concepts that allows otherwise good people to commit horrible atrocities with good conscience.

When people believe in what we deem silly or false, we put them in asylums and try to "treat" them. When people believe in God, we call them faithful and revere them for their ability to believe in something they cannot verify. That's what faith is, after all. That's the very definition of faith: belief without reason.

I'm staunchly against such manipulation of people. It's not even people, it's children! Children who are brought up in a particular faith and made to learn that a particular religion is correct.

How can I respect such a concept?

What I respect and believe in is people. I respect the abilities of people collectively. I believe in the hope that people will do good. I believe that people are innately good. I put faith in worldly things because I see no good that can come from religion.

-------------------

As fundamentalist as I may sound, the distinction is if you could prove that God exists. Fine, then I'll believe, but I don't have to like him, for all the horrible things I've seen and all the horrible things I read about in the world. But that's the thing. Give me proof and I shall change. I promise.

I understand to spew this kind of dialogue is probably detrimental to progressing towards tolerance. But there are enough atheists who fit that category that Richard Dawkins so eloquently labels those "I don't believe, but.." folks that try to reconcile between disbelief and those who believe in things that require the discrimination of non-believers.

the.Watcher wrote:

QUOTE:


To me, God is a logical paradox. Omnipotent. Omniscient. Omnipresent. Omnibenevolent. It's not possible to exist with all those qualities. You may argue that we cannot know God or cannot fathom what he (I'll use male pronouns for convenience sake) intends, but hypocritically we still make conclusions of how God intends for the world, still interpret his words as if we knew their intentions.

For a earthly being it's impossible; but for something that is otherworldly it is possible to be everything omni-
Atleast in the realm of Abrahamic Religions we know Yahweh's intentions. Intereptations however, I think is up to the individual, since we as humans cannot tell someone what is right or wrong because that would mean we are above humanity and/or otehrwordly

QUOTE:

And I have a large problem with omniscience. Strictly, God must know everything infinitely in every way. But think about it. If someone knows everything, then why act? An omniscient being will know the outcome of everything including his own decisions and actions. (That in itself sounds like an impossible situation of an infinite regression of knowing.) Being omni-everything else, there would be no motivation to act. No need to eat or drink. No need to learn. No need to create or simulate. No need for anything, as he will live forever and ever and will know exactly what happens forever and ever.

Ehhh; for all we know The Divine could have been bored and wanted to play a real life Simms game

QUOTE:

Worst off, is this ridiculous notion that God would be omnibenevolent - aka. good. What kind of good God would create such suffering in the world. People argue that maybe suffering is necessary. Why else would God impose suffering? Why would he create Hitler? Why would he make nuclear power to even exist? Why would he plague the world with epidemics? Above all else, being omniscient, he will know exactly the outcome. Then why create sentient people who can perceive and understand their own suffering and those around them? Why couldn't he prevent HIV from infecting people? Why couldn't he make each of us inherently kinder? Why couldn't he help some cancer foundation stumble upon the cure for cancer sooner?

Who told you Yahweh was benevolent? Hello? The Great Deluge, Sodom and Gommorah, the whole testing of Abraham? Humans MUST suffer; nothing good happens if one does not suffer for it. Who told us G-D had to watchover us like a naggin parent? G-D isn't gonna make sure nothing happens; humans aren't fragile there has to be suffering to encite compassion, love, and goodness that humans have.

QUOTE:

To say that people are incapable of understanding, is to appeal to some sad defeatist notion.

Someone is Homocentric; somethings we aren't meant to understand, its like hello? Curiosity killed the cat.

QUOTE:

You know what would be easiest way to have people believe in you? Reveal yourself in whatever way that would cause people to believe in you. These silly angel sightings and poorly recorded personal anecdotes of God speaking are all inadequate examples, especially for a being as powerful as God.

ITS CALLED FAITH!!!! If G-D showed G-D's image to humanity then, that wouldn't be faith that would just be worshipping because you know for a fact some entity will judge you later on.

QUOTE:

But, what God are we even considering? Considering all the hundreds and thousands of Gods that have come before the current prevailing religions, why should we believe in this Christian God or that Hindu Goddess? What about Jupiter? Ra? The Zoroastrian God? The Caodaist God? Each God asserts his or her trueness. Almost all Gods promise paradise and punish infidels with some eternal Hell after life. What chance do we have in picking the correct God? What if the true God belongs to a now-extinct religion or one not yet founded? If the Christian God was true, did everyone go to Hell before Christianity came around?

Um, first of all; most dieties are in pantheons. They are a group that all believe in the same afterlife[s] 2. Other then Abrahamic religions, almost everyother religion believes that aslong as you worship something; that something's beliefs affect only you.
For example I worship A, A believes when I die I turn into a cat; now someone believes in the Almighty B, B teaches you become a spirit. Because I worship A I am in A's dominion while B's influence doesn't effect me because I don't worship it
Its all about faith dude; you have to feel your beliefs are right if you don't then you don't really believe, therefore there is no point in having faith in the first place. Oh and because Jesus never came to people in the past; that means they didn't hear Jesus' teachings and therefore they go to heaven because its not his/her fault.

QUOTE:

You cannot argue that these religions all point to the same God concept. The reason these religions are distinct are just that. They're different. They're fundamentally distinct. Where one God may smite you for eating beef, another may damn you for having sex at the wrong time. In fact, the God most people believe in is the God that prevails in the region. What if your region of the world believed in the wrong God and you were simply born in the wrong part of the world? Chances are, you'll end up in Hell.

How do you know the All Point concept isn't true; did you have a one-on-one with the Big "Man" Upstairs?; the differences are minimal; certainly the 3 major faith (Since there are dozens of different interrealted faiths) teaches of the God of Abraham Judaism/Christianity/Islam all lead to the same G-D. The natural evolution of religion changes things
Zoratrianism-Judaism-Chrisitanity-Mormonism for example also a synthesism of faiths like Haitian Voodou, Santeria, the Native American Church etc... All worship the same G-D in different ways based on changed interrupritations

QUOTE:

When you think about it, just about everything, who will lives now, who has lived, and who will live, will go to Hell for some infraction, mostly for not believing in the true God, whichever God is correct.

Just because you sin; that doesn't mean you go to hell or some other plane of existence that is "evil"; READ THE BIBLE/QU'RAN/TORAH!!!

QUOTE:

The last large problem I have with the current major monotheistic religions is this rubbish notion of original or ancestral sin. Remember that Adam and Eve story? Apparently, the misstep of these two people have damned the entire Humanity. Each and every one of us inherits sin. So says the Bible, the Qu'ran, and the Torah. Can you believe that? Before you have even stepped into this world, before you have had your first thought or seen your first vision, you are a sinner and damned to Hell if you don't repent and pick the correct faith to follow. You inherit sin like you inherit your looks from your parents. And everyone gets it like a disease to the newborn. And religion then requires you to repent for the rest of your lives, restraining yourself from sinning further (as if inheritted sin even counts!), and confessing if you ever slip up.

Actually you aren't sinful untell you are born (Thats one of the reason why the Catholic Church is against abortion). If it's rubbish then don't follow it; but don't be a douche bag and call it rubbish if people believe it. Its called manners

QUOTE:

So, God doesn't even logically make sense. Even if it does, chances are you'll have picked a false God to believe in or will live in a time period where the real God is not worshipped. And if you pass all of that, you inherit sin (so says those three big monotheistic faiths) which you will work to repent and refrain from recommitting for the rest of your life.

Well first of all I don't think you can "pick" a divine entity; its not like picking a player for a basketball team, its a deep commited feeling one has towards that entity. Second; repenting isn't that hard, really its just being kind to folks and doing the right thing.

QUOTE:

And that's before discussing if religion brings any good to this world. You hear of people doing horrible things in the name of belief of all sorts (even those that don't relate to religion), but you never hear of people who do anything in the name of non-belief. People don't commit good or bad acts in the name of atheism. Religion - to me - is one of those rare concepts that allows otherwise good people to commit horrible atrocities with good conscience.

That is PEOPLE; not a Divine Entity/[ies] don't blame G-D because people are dumbasses trying to put there causes to the masses. There are people who kill just because they want too; so its not impossible that people kill in the name of Atheism.

QUOTE:

When people believe in what we deem silly or false, we put them in asylums and try to "treat" them. When people believe in God, we call them faithful and revere them for their ability to believe in something they cannot verify. That's what faith is, after all. That's the very definition of faith: belief without reason.

I wouldn't; I know a girl who worships some Fairies up in the mountains here. She isn't crazy; she is just happy worshipping them. If that makes her a better person and she has faith, why not; she's not hurting anyone

QUOTE:

I'm staunchly against such manipulation of people. It's not even people, it's children! Children who are brought up in a particular faith and made to learn that a particular religion is correct.

You could have been manipulated; since your parents aren't religious, they could have instilled in you that religion is bogus and "flawed".

QUOTE:

How can I respect such a concept?

Easy; you stop acting so uppity and let people be, you seem just like those zealous religious people.

QUOTE:

What I respect and believe in is people. I respect the abilities of people collectively. I believe in the hope that people will do good. I believe that people are innately good. I put faith in worldly things because I see no good that can come from religion.

Your belief that all people are innately good is based on faith; because logically no group is entirely the same, therefore there is always some person born to be bad.
-------------------

QUOTE:

As fundamentalist as I may sound, the distinction is if you could prove that God exists. Fine, then I'll believe, but I don't have to like him, for all the horrible things I've seen and all the horrible things I read about in the world. But that's the thing. Give me proof and I shall change. I promise.

I understand to spew this kind of dialogue is probably detrimental to progressing towards tolerance. But there are enough atheists who fit that category that Richard Dawkins so eloquently labels those "I don't believe, but.." folks that try to reconcile between disbelief and those who believe in things that require the discrimination of non-believers.

Really now you seem stuckup and selfish; as if unless YOU see The Divine it is not real period. Fuck anyone else who says they saw an Angel or Jesus, YOU have to see G-D for yourself wow

I know many people who "believe" but don't discriminate non-believers; your generalizations, lack of study, and obviously common observations show that you are A. Doing EXACTLY what Zealots do; trying to spread your beliefs B. Had been taught this and/or been manipulated by unknown authours of books that teach this isn't real C. You have no respect for different peoples and D. So seriously you need to get you arguments in check; theres some shit I wrote down you probably didn't know, but you'll brush it off give me a snarky remark and get me into some never-ending "Why" argument which you'll know I don't have all the answers to and therefore say you are right. Forgetting that as living creatures we are flawed and therefore no one is right or wrong.

That's all I have to say, for now.