'cept Niggers and Indians. And bitches. And folks who rent.
Equality for all may be a respectable goal, but don’t delude yourself that the country was started with it in mind.
No kidding. I’m a pretty defiant atheist and the sentiments this OP is demonstrating is exactly what I’ve always hoped for. I don’t understand the unpleasant knee-jerk replies.
I hope the OP is thoroughly enjoying his holiday.
I’m just tired of the low expectations that render only-partially-offensive statements like “gays should have equal rights, even though I don’t know what’s in their weird faggy brains” into some kind of achievement. Well aren’t you humanitarian of the year.
I am not gay, or an atheist. I am merely weary of the self-congratulatory tone taken by Christians like the OP. What do you want, a medal?
You seem to be in a place I was when I started really thinking about my faith, so I’d like to throw in a few of my own thoughts.
As I see it, there’s two aspects to marriage, there’s the ceremonial/religious aspect, and there’s the government recognition/privileges aspect. That people have issues with one aspect shouldn’t affect the other. That is, if the ceremonial/religious aspect is about how your friends, family, and community see a couple. If that community accepts them as a committed couple, it doesn’t matter if they’re straight, gay, interracial, or whatever. We don’t have to agree with the beliefs of a particular community, but we should recongize that they have them and are permitted to follow them, at least to a reasonable extent.
As for the government side, this is the part where religion has no say, and why I get endlessly frustrated that it gets mixed in. Fundamentally, all marriage his from this perspective is a special type of contract that involves the two people and the government. Why do we, as a society feel okay with a man and a woman who have either no or questionable romantic commitment to eachother having these privileges, but not the same for two people of the same gender, regardless of what their romantic interest might be? I cannot imagine a cogent argument against that.
It basically all comes down to the “icky” factor, which is exactly the opposite of a good basis for a law. Of course, there’s always other random justifications, but we’re pretty much stuck waiting for those who are “icked” out by it to become a small enough group, or at least lose enough power, that those laws can get changed.
I rambled a bit, but you say “it’s none of my business”, and as a Christian, I couldn’t disagree more. Jesus taught us to love, and even if you believe homosexuality is a sin, he taught us to love the sinner and hate the sin. How are we demonstrating love if we deny marriage to any consenting couple? I believe we have a moral obligation to push for equality of treatment for EVERYONE. This is why I am a strong supporter of gay marriage and gay rights, and I would be even if I did believe it was a sin.
I think it’s a reasonable interpretation of the various verses that homosexuality is a sin, but I also think that it’s irrelevant. As you point out, we are taught not to be hypocritical, to judge others in the manner we wish to be judged. Even if I believe homosexuality is a sin, though I may not have that specific sin myself, I still fall well short in a number of other ways. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what I believe about a particular behavior I don’t do is. The only part that does matter is the harmony, or lack there of, between the actor, the affected, and God. So, that all said, along with other reasoning that is probably too lengthy to put here, I have a really hard time seeing homosexuality as a sin; it just is.
This is simple separation of church and state, and I absolutely agree with it. Beyond that, it fits well with what Jesus taught. We shouldn’t be praying loudly, because it’s a manner of glorifying ourselves, rather than God. Further, as much as separation of church and state go to keep religion out of government, it’s just as important to prevent the opposite. Personally, even if I did celebrate Christmas (another discussion for a separate thread, I suppose), I still wouldn’t be in favor of any public displays exactly for that idea.
This is something I was taught when I was young, and it always bothered me, because that’s pretty much what all religions are. It struck me as saying other religions are just religions, but Christianity is different. What is religion and spirituality but for a person’s quest to connect with God, the divine, or whatever else he may believe in? It is always an intensely personal journey, regardless of whether one is Christian or not. And this is exactly why I generally keep it that way, other than when asked, or relevant to a conversation or thread, like this one. Not surprisingly, I ended up with a lot more people asking me about my beliefs with sincere interest after I took this approach than I ever got with any previous one.
Homosexuality is quite analagous to heterosexuality. Yes, their struggles are different because society sees them differently, but it is imperative to make an attempt to understand their struggles. Yes, I cannot personally imagine what it’s like to lose a child, as I do not have a child, much less lost one, but I do not need to personally experience a loss of that magnitude to have an understanding of the human aspect and need associated with it.
This is a big part of what it means to love people. It’s easy to say that I don’t struggle with, say, gambling or drugs, and then dismiss the difficulties of those who do. Similarly, I do not struggle personally with a sexual preference that society disapproves of. But regardless, we all have struggles that put us in difficult places, regardless of whether those struggles are called sins or not. But there’s countless other struggles that people have that I cannot empathize with, but that doesn’t stop me from sympathizing with them, and showing them compassion, and love. The former is not necessary for the latter.
And as for starting a crusade against homosexuality, if one decides it is a sin. I don’t understand why some Christians feel that particular sin needs a crusade, where others do not. Why do we as a society so easily forgive some sins over which there’s essentially no controversy, like adultery, theft, lying, etc. but then some segments go whole hog in condemning gays? We cannot stamp out sin or immorality, and this is exactly why we need to love, show compassion, and not be loud and obnoxious about it.
So I’ve picked out this one little bit, becuase I’m curious. Granting the distinction (which I agree with) between civil and religious marriage, and assuming that one believes the homosexuality (or homosexual conduct) is a sin, how do you conclude that Christianity compels you to actively support the ability of people to engage in sin? Loving the sinner doesn’t mean validating the sin, does it? I’m genuinely curious, because while I can understand the “no morality in government” argument, I have trouble with what you seem to be saying.
I think a lot of people in here read only the first sentence of the OP and then reacted. This seems to be happening more and more lately. I think it would help some of you to go read the OP again.
As an atheist, I appreciate that a professed Christian can understand the separation of church and state; many don’t. Also, what on earth is “witnessing” about this? Get a grip, people. MostlyUseless, I appreciate your point of view and I hope you enjoyed the time off. And I hope that some of the Dopers who have jumped to conclusions in this thread will re-read what you had to say and back down a step or two. Don’t despair though, some of us can read. I wish there were more Christians like you!
As an atheist, I also appreciate that a professed Christian can be reasonable with regards to state, if not church, as most let their irrational faith/indoctrination based religious beliefs from one bleed over to the other. So I guess it’s good that their glass is at least half full and all, and I appreciate that. I just can’t help but notice that their glass is still half empty though.
You are aware that the Bible is the word of humans they decided what was of God and what was not? Beliefs are a tool to help one cope with life, but can be used for good or evil. There is nothing wrong with having a belief, but each person believes what they desire. It is a fact that nay beliefs are of human origin, not any God. at least there is no proof but there is proof that humans wrote, taught and believe another human. There is a lot of good in the Bible and so is there in the teachings of the Buddha,some 500 B.C.E…
This all depends on how you define sin. Many denominations define sin the same way they’d describe a criminal act. If you kill, you commit a sin. If you commit a homosexual act then you have committed a sin. If you steal then you have committed a sin. This view is widespread and is the most common interpretation by the general public.
But more liberal denominations teach that sin is better described as a state of being. I’ve heard preachers describe it as “soul plaque” which keeps you from having a strong relationship with God. With this view it’s all about your state of mind. If you act with the best of intentions to love one another then you may not be sinning despite performing acts that the Bible may list as sins. Conversely, if you act with malicious intent while doing something the Bible lists as good and holy, then you are sinning. Pope Francis’ statements about homosexuality indicate that he views sin this way.
I think some peoples obsession with homosexuality is an easy way out. The Christians who are most homophobic subscribe to a viewpoint that “what you say and think” is more important than “what you do”. To them being Christian requires ideological purity so they rate themselves next to people that actively challenge the Bible and rate themselves saved.
But the Bible is not a book of “thou shalt not”'s, there are far more laws and exhortations devoted to behaviors Christians are supposed to perform in their community. More liberal churches believe that “what you do” is more important than “what you think”. This is the view that answers your question - we’re all sinners but we’re better Christians and better people when we focus on the positive side of the Bible and actually work to serve. The Christians who rate themselves by following a narrow subset of laws and proclaiming victory because “they don’t break any of them” are really missing the point of the Gospels.
Why then do some of the same people who are a man and a woman who are now married to each other ,but were divorced and remarried, the NT plainly says; “if a man puts away his wife and takes another, he commits adultery, and if he marries one who has been put away he commits adultery” but then worries about a homosexual sinning? I seem to have read that Jesus asked the people who were going to stone the adulteress;“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. also" how is it you can see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but can’t see the plank in your own."The State should accept all marriages as valid, but the religions do not, and no church is forced to have a same gender couple married against their beliefs, The say they believe in God let God be the Judge!
Indeed he has every right to his beliefs, as any one does as long as they don’t try to force their beliefs on others and the OP is not doing that.
Sounds like you haven’t read it.
I’m not sure I understand the distinction you’re drawing between “doing” and “thinking.” Certainly, Christian teaching suggests something more than merely not running afoul of a certain set of behavioral laws (although the lust = adultery; hate = murder stuff suggests that what you think, even if you can’t control it, can constitute a serious sin). But I also don’t understand how that answers my question. Whether or not Pope Francis sees sin in a particular way, he certainly doesn’t see it in a way that requires the Christian community to advocate for same-sex marriage.
I definitely don’t understand what you’re saying. Can a person who, himself, sins be aware of the sins of others? Yes, clearly. The bible makes clear that we’re all sinners. But we lack the capacity to judge others. Fine, that makes sense too. The story about the adulteress is a good example. It’s not that she didn’t sin, and it’s not even that she didn’t deserve to be stoned, it’s that the crowd (sinners themselves) lacked the capacity to judge her. They need to go and reflect on their sins before judging others, and she needs to go and sin no more.
Maybe I expressed my question incorrectly, since I’m so confused by the answers. Assume I’m a believing Christian and that homosexual behavior is a sin. I understand that, as a sinner myself in some way (in reality, in many ways), I lack the capacity to judge someone else’s sin. All that is well and good. What I don’t understand is how that requires the hypothetical me to advocate in favor of the sinful conduct. There’s a huge chasm between not stoning the adulteress myself and lobbying to decriminalize adultery. Isn’t there?
See but you are cherry picking. The Bible also says to kill homosexuals, right? And if you prefer the words of Jesus he would probably say that people should repent of sin, rather than try and justify it, and I think he said he would cast you into hellfire if you don’t. At least that’s what I gather from reading the Bible. I mean yeah, sometimes you should hate the sin and love the sinner, but the sinner needs to repent, or else.
Of course one can see another’s sins, but as I see it Jesus wanted people to worry about their own sins. There are some religions that do not consider Re-marriage after a divorce as a sin. Separation of Church and state have kept the state from running religion and religion running the state. If a person believes something as a sin that is their right, but the opposition also has a right to their behavior unless it causes harm to other’s, I guess some think some what they call sins should apply to everyone. Not all people believe the Bible is the way all should live and it seems some pick and choose what sins are okay and ones that aren’t!
Humans are humans. Why would there be any huge or significant differences between your own thoughts, feelings, and needs and anyone else’s–generally speaking?
Some people have been indoctrinated fom youth that homosexuals are deviant sinners and immoral. It takes a lot to overcome such training. Imagine trying to explain pedophelia as simply “its just love, like you feel for your pouse, what’s so hard to understand?”. Some people are taught homosexual love is just as unnatural and perverse.
If thats the case, kudos or the OP for trying to break through.
Personally, I think I can understand homosexuals just fine, at least in so far as I can understand anyone. Gay men feel roughly the same way about men that I feel about women. No, not quite exactly the same way, I’m sure, but close enough. And lesbians feel roughly the same way about women that I do-- If anything, I suppose I can understand lesbians better than I can understand straight women.
Agreed… I think I have at least a fairly good notion of how gays think.
Birthers and Truthers and Moon-Hoaxers and Chem-Trailers? Them, I do not understand at all!
Homosexuality. Is it all carnal?
Does your church have a stance on being a carnal Christian?
Is salvation communal? Why do I think of America as being a place of spiritual desolation?
Let’s all say a prayer for kidnappers and the kidnapped children of America.
And if you’re atheist start paying attention to the photographs of missing people and drink more coffee. Despite your unbelief, God may use of you. Believers should do the same.
Amen.