There are a number of Christian denominations that also either fully accept homosexuality or are working toward it.
True, people who are only having gay sex are not having children. It’s an interesting anthropology question as to why homosexual sex was taboo in ancient cultures. It could be because of the importance of procreation, or what we call ‘the ick factor’, or other social reasons.
That’s an important aspect of it IMO: it’s not so much that in Israelite times they were saying that it was “immoral” per se to dress or shave differently, but that* members of the tribe* were mandated to do so in a particular manner and not going along with the plan imperiled the tribe. The various Levitical rules IMO were not meant to be universal dictates of human morality but just the civil and penal code of the Israelite tribes, so that the tribal identity would be preserved by behaving in a specified way (including having a bunch of legitimate Israelite babies from known descent, beause having children and grandchildren WAS your Social Security); they’d outlaw trasvestism for example because other cultures around may have is as part of some of their rituals, and they are saying, sorry, we’re all about being “Not-THEM”, if you’re one of us you’d better not even dream of rolling like that(*).
It was later that their spiritual descendants, including Christianity and Islam, decided that some of those were universal moral mandates that you must cram down the throats of otherwise harmless unbelievers or else. When the proto-Christians were deciding to admit non-Jews they then pondered what they wanted to keep or dump from Levitic law in order to do so (see: Acts 15), and that’s when they kept the proscriptions against idolatry and “fornication”, probably as speculated before because they viewed those as specially characteristic of the pagans, but dumped a whole bunch of the dietary and sartorial rules.
*(The death penalty part was an artifact of the age. Heck, it wasn’t so long ago that horse rustling was a capital crime in parts of the Western World. If you’re a desert tribe barely scraping by you can’t afford to jail and feed a contrarian convict for years, the more economical course of action is to kill 'im.)
Part of the reason is misogyny. If a man wants to be with another man he must in some way be feminine and that is by definition inferior.
What, you’ve never heard or seen “God hates fags”? That’s as straightforward a declaration of religious hatred for homosexuals as you could get.
I think religion is the result of people trying to understand the world around them. They saw the world as “ordered” in a particular way that allows it to function, and the guidelines for sexual reproduction are an obvious aspect of that.
They also felt that this ordering was set up by powers beyond our comprehension, albeit for our benefit, And so by condoning an apparently disordered form of behavior in this area, we risk upsetting the system and causing consequences in a way that we can’t understand or predict.
Also, guilt and hatred of the “different” are common tools used by religion to control people, and forbidding various kinds of sexual desires and practices are great ways of inducing both. Homosexuality is great “witch hunt” material; it’s impossible to prove you aren’t homosexual after all, and they “look just like us!”
I really don’t think the procreation theory makes any sense. Unless all of your males are engaging in exclusive homosexuality, the limiting factor on how fecund your tribe is going to be is not whether or not a few males are abstaining from procreative sex. It takes all of ten minutes to impregnate a female, the heterosexual male tribemembers aren’t going to have any problems taking up the slack left by having a few gay peers not doing there part.
Exclusively homosexual woman would be a problem, since that actually lessens the number of wombs you can have churning out babies at any given time. But since if anything, anti-gay prohibitions seem focused on men, I don’t think maximizing new babies is the real reason. (plus I suspect woman in most tribes are going to end up forced to engage in hetero-sex whether they want to or not,)
Because the whole point of being religious is to act like an asshole and then pretend you’re the victim when called out on it.
Faithful followers of the Bible don’t hate anybody. I have said it here before, my God doesn’t hate fags. Nor can faithful followers of the Bible condone sex except between a man and his wife. Modern Christians didn’t write the Bible. We just try to understand it and follow it. We all fail at times. Either the Westboro Baptists or I am wrong about the treatment of homosexuals. I pray for both.
I am not familiar enough with the Quran to know how it really calls for treating homosexuals. While afirming the sinfulness, I don’t think the New Testament singles out the treatment of homosexuals. The Old testiment isn’t very nice to them.
Yes Christians do spend a lot of time on sex. I know those that have sinned sexually, but few robbers and murderers. I have never robbed a bank and likely never will.
Well, it’s not the only point, but that’s certainly a major function of religion.
And they aren’t True Scotsmen either.
:rolleyes: Ah, the old “if not for Jesus I’d be an amoral psychopath” bit. A way of being both self righteous and insulting at the same time.
The problem is that a lot of other people who also consider themselves faithful followers of the Bible do hate people (including gays) - and both of you can find some scriptural support for your views. There are religious traditions that embrace unusual sexual identities and views, but there’s also a strain of homophobia that runs through all of the major religions. It’s a very old human prejudice.
History is full of robbing and murdering christians, but then when the event (if I need to cite, OMG
I will be here all day..) But the point is whenever I have cited the unholy events in history,perpetrated
by christians, it is generally denied by the christian- I am speaking to at that moment.
And a typical response from the christian is- that these were not “real christians” committing these crimes against others. Leaving me to wonder who then are the real christians?
I hope that you are not doing that here with your post, and I only speak from my own experience because I am the real florez.
Good job, Sir! If your son is being raised a Christian, get him a “red-letter” bible (words of Jesus in red) and let him know that those are the words that count.
And do those who say it have any religious (under)standing?
Who decides who has the correct understanding?
The Big Three are all Abrahamic religions, all stemming from the same religious belief roots of the divine male god figure who has absolute power upon the lives of human beings and has the same personality traits as an average neurotic mentally unstable person that grew up in a dysfunctional and hostile environment.
There are also a couple of core psychological factors in heterosexual males and females that predispose them to hostility against homosexual behavior and somehow they became a social norm in the three major Western religions.
For males, it’s a fear of castration - subconsciously fearing they may be castrated before a sexual encounter with another male, and for females it’s a fear of abandonment - they can’t understand why another male may leave them for another man, and they can’t predict or avoid the possibility.
By the way, in the ancient Greek times, and in most Roman times later, homosexuality as a social behavior was nothing like how we think of it in our modern mostly Victorian-era influenced moral social standards.
Also, child rearing, or the perceived lack of it, would not be a factor to explain the entrenched hostility against homosexuality. In ancient or pre-Abrahamic religion times, hetero- and homo- sexual relations were not exclusive of each other. They are not in our times either.
. . . abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality" Acts 15
Paul states that Christians are not subject to the law of Moses, but then cautions: Be careful that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. (1 Corinthians)
The main concern in these passages is to avoid giving public offense to the Jewish community.
Personal holiness is another matter.
Getting into semantic debates over extremely ambiguous words like “hate” just distracts from the main issue: you’re telling me I can’t get married or have sex, ever. I couldn’t care less whether that means you “hate” me or not, because I don’t subscribe to your religioun where “hating” or not “hating” things is of central importance. I do care a lot about the implications of your views for me and I do have a strong opinion of what kind of person they make you.
Pretty condescending, Robot!
Is my comment on christian denial of historical christian crime-by conveniently relabeling the perpetrators-- as not “real christians” being addressed here?
And are you questioning the religious understanding of the afore mentioned christians?
And is it possible that you believe these are not real christians due to a lack of religious understanding- that you yourself possess? Correct me if I am misunderstanding here.
Sorry to go off thread.