God, Gays, and Christianity

Great Debates
101

Buddhism And Poufs

In the extant teachings of Buddhism there are no views expressed about Homosexuality. The nearest thing that comes to it is references for monks and monastic orders about refraining from Unlawful sexual Intercourse – i.e. adultery! Oh and please don’t start quoting monastic rules – I go back the Sutras and don’t believe that Commentary is equal to the original!

Far too many folks think that Buddhism was suddenly created in a vacuum – and they think the same way about Christianity too! This is foolish. Christianity is not a religious view separated from Judaism – it is a reinterpretation or re-teaching of it in a modern context. Christianity that fails to live in the real world is dead and should be buried – Fundamentalist attitudes stem from backward looking attitudes. Buddhism is about living in the present where you are – the teaching and practice accords to the Time The Person and The Place – not some rule book.

Buddhism was taught and came into existence in the World of Hinduism. Buddhism re teaches and re emphasis many aspects of the Hindu world view. Reincarnation is not a Buddhist Teaching it is a Hindu one. The sensuality of Hinduism run through Buddhism. Sex and sexuality are not denied – they are embraced.

The highest ideal of The Hindu canon is Love – spiritual – emotional – sexual. Buddhism does not stand against this. Buddhism deals with intent and if your intent is to give love – that is good! It does not matter if that love is labelled by others as Heterosexual or Homosexual – that is their hang up and for them to deal with! Lrets also bear in mind that Traditionally Homosexuality has only been seen as wrong in certain religious world views not all! It is odd that the great JC Himself said nothing about Poufs being evil – but he lost his head over the Money men in the Temple! It seems that all bankers should be condemned and the poufs left alone:- so much for Modern day fundamentalists!

Mind you as My Brother in Law is and ex preist I may have an unfair advantage in dealing with some peoples views. These links may be seen as unfair too – but that is for others to cry about!

http://www.rainbowsashmovement.org/gayjesus.html

http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section18.html

http://www.gseh65.freeserve.co.uk/lettersevang.html

Many believe that Buddhism is about being a monk and ending up reincarnated as a Buddha in some non determined future. That is Rubbish. Buddhism teaches the manifestation of Buddhahood now in your present form. If in doubt read you lotus Sutra - where all previous teachings are cast aside and enlightenment on one’s present form revealed. The Lotus Sutra contains the only example of actual enlightenment and it is a Child that is the enlightened one – she is female and even a mythical creature. As Such all obstacles listed earlier to enlightenment are thrown away revealing that anyone can be enlightened in any moment and in any form!

So being a Queer Buddhist is just the same as being a NON Queer Buddhist – all beings are equal and all have the equal potential for enlightenment no matter what their form and nature is. The Lotus Sutra even rehabilitates the Arch enemy of the Buddha his cousin Devadatta and shown that he too has/had the innate Buddha of the Lotus Sutra!

If all living beings have innate Buddhahood then even queers have it too – so Buddhism has no real opinion on what you do in bed – only the intent that you do it with. If it is to create value – Loving Kindness and to remove suffering well what is wrong with that?

As for many poufs and lesbians taking up Buddhism – I don’t see that as an accurate potrayal. However, that Buddhism embraces those who use their life just as it is to teach happiness and to relieve suffering in their present form - even allowing Poufs and Lesbians to use their lives just as they are to do this – does tend to lead some to see Poufs and lesbians as being prominent in Buddhism. That is just a perspective and not absolute reality.

As a Buddhist Pouf or a Poufy Buddhist I just use my life as it is to show others the possibilities in their lives and to help them realise this. I do it with Poufs and Lesbians as well as Heterosexuals, Bisexuals, Transsexuals – Those of ambiguous sexual characteristics – Fourie Gender – Intersexed …. You name it! Each has their own unique way of embracing the teachings of Buddhism in their present form.

I even love the sutras where we see the worlds first recorded sex change!

http://www.buddhajones.com/Features/Buddha-ing101/EqualityOfAll.html

enjoy and learn and remember that even the most bigoted have the potential to manifest Their Buddhahood in their own unique way – now aint that a kick in the rubber parts!

102

Excuse me, but I’d appreciate it if you’d stop attributing to me attitudes, feelings, and ideas that arent’ so. I didn’t just wake up one day thinking about men kissing and decide it was wrong. For the unteenth time, I believe it’s wrong because I believe God says it’s wrong, period. Even if I didn’t have God’s word to tell me that, the fact that there are 2 sexes and I see men and women together would tell me something. If I saw 2 men or 2 women together acting all lovey dovey, my natural God-given instincts would tell me something wasn’t right. But I do have His word. Anyway, not all the things you’re saying about me are true,whether you think so or not. I’m not hateful nor did I decide it was wrong because I didn’t like the idea. So give it a rest already please.

103

I know i am nit-picking here, but…Theres nothing in the Bible about men kissing.
Carry on.

104

Just what is the “Nom de Plume” of God then. Mathew??? Mark??? Luke?? John??? Isaiah??? And when did he find time to write up his creation myth - it says on the seventh day he was resting - or are you now telling us that God was not resting.

The content and style of the Bible is slightly odd and written frequently in the third person – indicating that the author had a severe personality disorder if they were writing about themselves!

Perhaps it was gods secretary who wrote the book from his notes - we know that it was not Adam and Eve as they had learned sin and with their sin there is no way they would have written such a negative Autobiography! They would have lied – unless of course they were more interested in the Movie Rights!

You seem to think that GOD wrote the bible. I think you need to drop the Insane thinking and get real!

God the writer??? Please… and which version of the bible did he write… I’ve seen so many… and how the hell did they manage to translate the Pre Babel sections when the Language of man Pre Babel was lost???

Perhaps God Only wrote it down later - as he would be only one able to recall or translate any hard copy from before. So God has rewritten the bible if he has re written it at all. When you can get me Gods original draft I’ll read it. Other wise please make sure that you correctly attribute all sources even if they are out of copyright!
@ - - > ~~ > ~ ~ ~

105

Look - I’m a Bit Confused here… who is telling who what and how?

You seem to be getting messages from God that we are not getting - can you give me his unlisted number???

If on the other hand your telling us that GOD Told you cos you read a book - how the hell do you know he wrote it or even had editorial controle over his ghost writer???

Just a few simple questions that you should be able to answer given your repeated statements about hearing it direct from GOD!

106

I’ve been reading and following what people have chosen to answer to the points I made as questions in the OP, and in critique of each other’s views.

Several comments ought to be made on points brought up but not addressed:

Back on page two somebody raised again the question of why people think they can be Christian without “believing in the Bible, since it’s God’s Word.”

Well, the simple answer is that (1) it isn’t; it says it isn’t by describing what God’s Word is, or more accurately, Who God’s Word is. (See John 1:1-18.) It’s a record of God’s Word, recorded by men. To what extent He in-formed it to match what He wants to get across to humanity and to what extent it represents their own cultural presuppositions attributed to Him is a quite separate Great Debate, but that’s the bottom line.

(2) The reading of its text calls for humanity, to achieve salvation, to accept Jesus, seen as the Incarnate Word of God taking on human form, as one’s Savior and Lord – and to, in consequence of this acceptance and commitment, follow His teachings. And He is quite explicit about what behavior towards other human beings He expects. And (and His4Ever, Jersey Diamond, and Joe Cool will, I know, agree with this) it’s not legalism but the living of a moral life in accordance with what He taught, including in particular the Law of Love, that is key to that commanded behavior.

How that is to be applied to the question at hand is something on which they and I do differ. (Is it an appropriate expression of love to attempt to dissuade someone from breaking a law? Is that law even applicable to what they are doing? Where is the point at which attempting that dissuasion turns into being judgmental? We can and do differ on the answers to those questions.)

Vanilla commented:

Not true. However, social custom being different then from what it is now, it is nowhere condemned. In fact, in the epistles there is an explicit commandment for Christians to “greet each other with the kiss of peace.” This was a chaste, non-sexual and non-romantic gesture which, to preserve its non-sexual tone, was done exclusively between people of one sex. Were we to preserve the custom now, I would greet Tris or Joe Cool with such a kiss, but not Dreamer or vanilla, who would exchange it between themselves but not perform it with a man. Among the posts the hamsters ate when they went on their rampage was somebody bringing up the David-and-Jonathan story as a Biblically-endorsed gay sexual relationship. While that’s not quite accurate, in point of fact they are presented as two men (with heterosexual spouses, David being married to Jonathan’s sister, as noted in the snipped-out portions of the chapters quoted below) who loved each other and expressed that love physically, including kissing and embracing. The apposite portions of the story are quoted at length below:

[quote]

Note what is not said here. There is no indication of actual sexual relations – I’ve seen unconvincing arguments that this is implied; the sole place that I see any passage that might be so interpreted is the italicized section of 20:41, where the verb translated “wept the more” is actually “exceeded, became larger, went the full extent.” Possible renderings of this passage abound, but some might include:
[ul][li]…until David wept more [sc., than Jonathan][/li][li]…until David broke down in tears completely[/li][li]…until David had an erection[/li][li]…until David had an orgasm[/li][/ul]
Only the last two readings imply anything sexual, and one must note that they imply only David’s physical reaction and are based on possible implications of a single difficult-to-translate verb.

However, what is very clear in this passage is that there was a strong feeling of love shared by the two men, such that each sought for the well-being of the other in a treacherous political situation, and that they felt no sense of sin in expressing this in ways that would definitely get to the point that two people doing such activity in the narthex of a typical church would definitely get a lecture on PDA about it.

107

Oohh Darling

The Very idea that reading the bible can turn you straight! TUT TUT TUT

In my experience it turns most people from Christianity – and then they get the Fundamentalists banging on about what it’s supposed to mean – and that turns them straight away from the fundamentalists too!

It is interesting that you say it was faith in the bible and not the bible itself that turned them straight or at least into Non Practicing Homosexuals. By your comment it would seem that If Faith in a “House Brick” resulted in a Homosexual ending up either Heterosexual or non practicing – that would mean the House Brick is as Valid a View of God as Your Bible. Holy House Bricks Bat man

On the other hand if you’re trying to tell us that reading the bible will make a Pouf Straight – get your Proof Out. You show me yours and I’ll slap mine on the table for your examination! You will find it shocking I guarantee.

I have heard many tell me that reading the bible has turned people straight. I have read many versions of the bible across many Christian schools and defy you to quote consistently from all Christian Bibles that Homosexuality is wrong. I know it’s impossible – but you like miracles so off you go!

I’m Living proof that “Bible reading” will not turn you straight. What I find odd is the Crass stupidity of Fundamentalist of all schools. They seem to attribute mystical powers to things – so Just read and it will result in a miracle – Just touch and you will be healed – just do something that defies reality and you will be living proof of me delusion.; The flip side is the Fundamentalist abuse of “Oh – you didn’t get it cos you’re a sinner – lack faith – are going to hell etc” Jesus was one hell of a guy who dealt with folks just bas they were. He elevated the person and did not deride. Why the hell should abusive Fundamentalist be seen as a positive example of his teachings.

What about the Pouf beaten to death by children? Would it not be better for you to spend your time teaching them about throwing the first stone. This is of course the point at which the fundamentalist says – “Ah But if the Pouf did not sin they would not have to consider the stone throwing!”. Well that is the opposite of what Jesus is meant to have done – and he as the son god should have been smiting that Trollop Mary Magdalene not getting a toe job from here!

Arrogance is seen as a sin, and judging everything from Your Cultural paradigm and twisting history to fit it is arrogant. I love sinners! They can be re-educated. It’s the Bigots that can not be re-educated as they lack capacity! Prejudice that does not alter in the light of new experience is Bigotry.

I have studied many world religions and the most interesting trait in all of them is the fanatics. I deal with Fanatical Buddhists and they are a real hoot- and some even scream that Poufs can never be enlightened. I just take them back to the Teachings of a Guy called Sid – Fat Bugger sat under tree and teaching about life the universe and everything – also known as the Lord Buddha and even Siddhartha Guatama Buddha.

In Buddhism all teachings must be considered in relation to The Time The person and The Place. Shallow self satisfied understanding is a Buddhist Sin. You place your Comprehension of the bible in your culture but ignore the Time The person and The place. You Ignore the Time – Person and Place of the Bible and you Ignore the Time-Person and Place of the people you speak to today. In Buddhist terms that is the Sin of Slander!

In the Sutras it is clear that all evil rises from intent and all beings are equal. Your intent is to be in control of others lives and happiness. That is a Buddhist Sin! Just thought you would like to know that. Buddhism is about showing others the way to manifest the highest state of life – Buddhahood. Your mentality is to demean and debase people at every step – oh and that is a Buddhist sin too!

A Closed mind is the mind of a Bodhisattva – It’s like a rock totally solid and fixed. A Buddha has unlimited imagination and vision – just as a God would! If you’re happy with your limited vision and fixed mind – bully for you. You will just have to accept that others are nearer to their gods than you are to yours!

The Bible can be used to teach Buddhism and Christianity by a Buddhist – I wonder if you as a Christian can use the Sutras Positively to teach Christianity – another miracle in waiting!

108

It sounds like the Editor of The NEW YORK TIMES… and he knows he’s God!

109

Greg Martin

On the Master Disciple Relationship from a talk 7/21/01
About two years ago, I was sitting at home minding my own business on a Saturday night and I got a call from a member in California who is a producer of a TV show by Reverend Lawson, who is a Baptist minister in Los Angeles. His guest cancelled for the next day, it’s on the Christian channel, and would I fill in? She said, “But, before you answer, I should tell you that tomorrow is Easter. He will be asking you ‘What do the Buddhists think about the Resurrection of Christ?’ And I said Actually, we don’t think about it much at all.”

She said, “But this would be a great opportunity to make a connection because, you know, Reverend Lawson is actually one of the disciples of Dr. King and such and knows of us.” So I said, “I don’t know what I Can talk about,” and she said, “Well, you’ll think of something.” She knows me very well. So, I said okay. So I’m chanting about it and thinking, “What I’m going to do if he asks me a question? What am I going to say?” I had just finished reading this portion of the “Dialogue On the Lotus Sutra” and the model of religious faith is Teacher-Student and that we should look at Jesus and his life and his resurrection as a teacher, as a guide, as a role model for our own life not as someone special that we can’t relate to. So, I said, “Let me boldly go where no Buddhist has gone before and see what happens.”

So I went to the show and we were talking and sure enough, he turns to me and said, “So, what do the Buddhists think about the crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ?” And here’s what I told him based on the Mentor-Disciple as a model of religious faith for the 21st century. First of all, about 15 million households in America get this program, so I’m sure there were a lot of Christians out there going “Whoa!”

Anyway, so I said, “Well, my Mentor tells me that the correct model of religious faith should be that of Mentor-Disciple and not God and human being. Therefore, if you look at the life and death of Jesus as a human being and as a role model to teach us about our own life, there are certain implications. First of all, he was resurrected. That means life doesn’t end with death. There is something out there. We will be reborn. And he was resurrected into really good circumstances, right? He was sitting on the right hand of God, if my Christianity is correct. Now that’s a pretty good circumstance to be reborn in. What earned him the right, this incredible rebirth? How did he earn that?” And then I said, “Then we have to look at his life.”

“A couple of conclusions: Number One, living long does not determine how you are reborn. The length of your life is not the point because he didn’t live very long. Number Two, how much pain you can avoid, how pain-free, cushy your life is, is not the point either because he lived and died difficulty and painfully. Rather we have to look at his life and see that the real message of his life was how he treated other people, especially those who others discounted: the sick, the ill, the disenfranchised, those on the lower echelons of society. It’s the way he treated his fellow human beings that was the measure of this man. It’s because of that that he was reborn into a good circumstance.” “Therefore, for us as Buddhists, we would look at Jesus as a great teacher and we could find wisdom there. We can find the wisdom to understand that how we live this life will determine the next life whatever that may be. And that the key point is that as we walk through this life we should strive to emulate his behaviour, to be Jesus ourselves, not to worship his power. Therefore, we would regard Jesus as a teacher.” And he looked me and I thought, “Uh oh, here it comes.” And he said, “That’s absolutely correct. How did you do that?” By the way, I had basically the same conversation with Dean Carter just last weekend asking the same question and he said, “Yeah, that’s absolutely correct. Too bad more Christians don’t know this.”

Well a Buddhist can use the Bible and the Life of Jesus to teach buddhist ways - can a Fundamentalist Christian take the Lotus Sutra and do the same by return???

Miracles - where are they when they need one???:wink:

110

----Excuse me, but I’d appreciate it if you’d stop attributing to me attitudes, feelings, and ideas that arent’ so.—

You know, I’m really glad I’m not defending YOU specifically. You aren’t even reading people’s posts closely enough to tell that I was attributing this theory of your thinking to lissener, and suggesting that this WASN’T necessarily how causality worked with you.

111

Er, blooming, you might want to read up on posting copyrighted information on the SDMB. In fact, reading forum descriptions is also a good idea.

Otherwise, welcome. :slight_smile:

Esprix

112

Ah me dear Asprix

I’m full conversant with Copy Right law and practices – which is why I’m careful to only post material that is public domain and not subject to copyright or a possible “S
“Sauce” for litigation!

As for reading Forum Labels I do! Perhaps you judge me by the label and not my intent! Stay tuned you may get a surprise or three!

113

Actually, it’s Esprix.

I’m full conversant with Copy Right law and practices – which is why I’m careful to only post material that is public domain and not subject to copyright or a possible “S
“Sauce” for litigation!
[/quote]

The Chicago Reader and the Moderators and Administrators of the Straight Dope Message Board are equally as conversant, and, dare I say, more strict. Quoting complete texts is usually frowned upon here, but if what you posted above is considered public domain, then no worries. Just wanted to make you aware for future reference - 'tis always better to quote a synopsis and include a link to the full article around here.

I do not believe I’ve judged you at all - I’m just pointing out that some things are acceptable in, say, The BBQ Pit that would not by any stretch be acceptable here in Great Debates, and posting such unacceptable things in the wrong forums will get a user banned. For example, personal attacks or name-calling are not permitted in GD, so we all need to be very careful not to do so, especially in a topic with such high passions as this one.

Again, just making sure we’re all on the same page.

Esprix

114

[quote]
There is no indication of actual sexual relations – I’ve seen unconvincing arguments that this is implied;/quote]Actually, dear Polycarp, it may be unconvincing to you, but the argument is rather convincing in my opinion. In the time of David and Jonathan it is clear that men and women did not have Platonic relationships. Men and women weren’t equals and they didn’t cavort as friends. So I think it is quite telling about the nature of their relationship when David cries upon hearing of Jonathan’s death:

Since there was only one type of relationship between adult men and women, this would seem to indicate David and Jonathan shared a similar relationship.

115

That might be the worst coding train wreck I’ve ever been involved in.

116

OOPPSS Sorry:rolleyes: I’m a Bit of a key board clutz!

Hummmmm :confused:

I have to wonder why you would think it necessary to point out something that you claim has nothing to do with You NOT HAVING JUDGED???

I have to say that there can frequently be problems with language as I’m in the UK and Irish and I take it that you’re NOT!

I have found so many times that there is a real problem with the English Language and how it is used and apprehended by different people, especially the Non English and Non Irish! The Common language that divides – but only if people allow it to!

I always take the view that there is no difference until I create one - and then it is my responsibility to transcend that difference ( the ones I create ) - Not Impose it upon others who may well not share my mind set!

I am a great believer in making sure that if folks want to jump through hoops I let them – but If they want me to jump through Hoops of their invention, I tell them to go jump! After all, it’s the jumping that they see as important and I see no value in their imaginary hoops!

If such word play is seen as a problem, please let me know and I’ll make sure that you can learn the difference between intent and perceived intent! There is a big difference between what is in my mind and what you may decide is in my mind – and I object to part time Psycops who really shouldn’t give up the day job!

117

Huh. I was wondering if anyone (some pervert!) was going to post here how he’d like to see dreamer and vanilla kiss.

But…guess theres no perverts here.:wink:

118

[hijack]

Hi vanilla :wink:

[/end hijack]

119

Oooooooooo-kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay then…

Esprix

120

I’d be more interested in Chocolate and Vanilla my self - with lots of hot sauce and no fudge! What a Dreamy Vision:D