christianity and homosexuality

First things first, im a christian but i HATE all the anti-guy stuff and since this thread came up recently....

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.353693-Christians-Have-the-Right-to-Bully-Gay-Kids

I was pretty annoyed that christians and non christians alike think like this, BUT then I saw this and I though I would I would post it...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/08/gay-marriage-dean-st-pauls?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

Obviously this doesn't represent the opinion of the church of england, just this one individual, but hes pretty high up.

also, this my first ever thread on the escapist so HELLLLOOO!!!

This argument has been done to death.

Some Christians say you don't take the Old Testament anymore, but then go and quote Leviticus (well only one part). Surely if you take Leviticus, you take ALL of it. Don't cherry pick. Also by your own rules, Jesus himself said that he did not come to change the rules, but to confirm them. Then again the amount of Christians who do not know their own religious texts is hysterical at the best of times.

Me personally, who the hell gets hurt by someone being in a loving consensual relationship, regardless of the genders involved? No one. Also when it comes to the "moral high ground" Christianity sure as hell doesn't have it.

Also the right to bully kids because your religion said so was something that really annoyed a lot of people. Your religion gives you no rights. In fact usually it takes them away. And if their religion was given the right to bully gay kids, then let us make up a religion that gives us the right to beat the ever living snot out of kids who bully gay kids. Bit stupid really, isn't it?

Rkiver:
This argument has been done to death.

Some Christians say you don't take the Old Testament anymore, but then go and quote Leviticus (well only one part). Surely if you take Leviticus, you take ALL of it. Don't cherry pick. Also by your own rules, Jesus himself said that he did not come to change the rules, but to confirm them. Then again the amount of Christians who do not know their own religious texts is hysterical at the best of times.

Most people DO take the old testament ...but only bits of it because the jewish laws, which accounts for most of the stoning adulteres, were written around the culture and society of the world then and it would be stupid to obey them now. when jesus was born and started to do his magic man thing he overruled the bits of the old testament like that ( yes, i realize you just said the opposite but i think he said both......the bible is confusing place ) as they were not applicable to the society anymore. BUT that doesn't mean that ALL of the old testament is then meaningless, just the laws involving death and genocide (among other things).... basically....

A WIZARD JESUS DID IT

Then again the amount of Christians who do not know their own religious texts is hysterical at the best of times.

well yes, but you dont have to know the bible inside out to be a christian and if you did, it wouldn't be as popular as it is.

Me personally, who the hell gets hurt by someone being in a loving consensual relationship, regardless of the genders involved? No one. Also when it comes to the "moral high ground" Christianity sure as hell doesn't have it.

EXACTLY, no one gets hurt AND christianity definitely shouldn't have it!! and nobody should ever think it does!! everyone is just as screwed up as everyone else!!!

Also the right to bully kids because your religion said so was something that really annoyed a lot of people. Your religion gives you no rights. In fact usually it takes them away. And if their religion was given the right to bully gay kids, then let us make up a religion that gives us the right to beat the ever living snot out of kids who bully gay kids. Bit stupid really, isn't it?

sorry, what i meant was that as a christian I hated people thinking that christians thought like that and i apologize if that it came across wrong. and you're right again, my religion gives me no extra rights.....and yes it is VERY VERY stupid.

I think you might of read into my post too much....all I was doing is just offering a comparison.....i didn't mean to impose my religion on you (or anyone else for that matter)

Rkiver:
Surely if you take Leviticus, you take ALL of it. Don't cherry pick. Also by your own rules, Jesus himself said that he did not come to change the rules, but to confirm them. Then again the amount of Christians who do not know their own religious texts is hysterical at the best of times.

Actually, no. There is no reason that you can't agree with something that someone (or something) happens to say, and agree with them or it on other issues.

Sure, if the claim is "It's in the Bible so it's true", then it doesn't work. But unless you say that, you can claim certain parts of the Bible (which is merely a collection of writings stuck together by human beings some time ago because they happened to think they were important). Maybe they were wrong, maybe something got muddled along the way, maybe somethign was true but isn't anymore.

I totally disagree with people using the Bible as justification for anything, but there's no reason why they can't pick and choose what parts they like. Nowdays it doesn't even start wars in most places.

Is he the one who sets the official and authoritative policy for the Church?

No? Then he doesn't matter. The religious answer for the official policy just as they would as members of a(n authoritarian) political party. By their own mouths, "god" if everything, and they and their personal opinions are nothing compared to its ethical absolute.

image

Ponder this for a moment.

Imperator_DK:
Is he the one who sets the official and authoritative policy for the Church?

No? Then he doesn't matter. The religious answer for the official policy just as they would as members of a(n authoritarian) political party. By their own mouths, "god" if everything, and they and their personal opinions are nothing compared to its ethical absolute.

As I said in my original post, I know he does not represent the church of england and his opinions on gay marriage are his personal opinions BUT as he is the dean of st paul's he is rather important in the CofE and not so long ago he would have been in a lot of trouble for saying what he did. especially since the CofE is a very traditional church. all i ment by this post was demonstrate that although there are anti gay christians, there is just as much positive change on christians outlook on homosexuality.........any other meanings were purely accidental.

im starting to really regret making this thread.......I was just posting a piece of news that i though was interesting......I never ment for this to turn into a debate on religion... now that i look back i realise that it was poorly written and i didn't really think about it.....sorry for kinda wasting your time :)

Hey anything that starts a discussion and gets people thinking, even if it's been done before, is never a waste of time.

Rkiver:
Hey anything that starts a discussion and gets people thinking, even if it's been done before, is never a waste of time.

hahah thanks

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked