The Simple Reason For Religious Homophobia

[jefferiah]

There is no evidence people are born gay M Dancer. In fact I think most evidence reveals the opposite. There was scientist who thought he may have identified a gay gene, but it was mostly theoretical and this became the big argument for the gay movement. Personally I believe gays are affected by some sexual trauma in early development, and I dont think they really choose to be gay. By the same token many people dont choose to be alcoholics, or addicts. We all have our problems to bear, and our thorns in our sides. Having high blood pressure and a violent past doesnt give you license to commit violent acts more than anyone else. But I can understand where gay people may need more love and mercy than others, because of this situation.

[jefferiah]

look all i am saying is, because Jesus forgave paul does it mean he thought his previous executions were "little misdemeanors"?

[M.Dancer]

In fact I think most evidence reveals the opposite.

Nope sorry.......but on the otherhand there does seem to be a genetic predisposition to alcoholism.....

[M.Dancer]

look all i am saying is, because Jesus forgave paul does it mean he thought his previous executions were "little misdemeanors"?

Sure okay....mind you, adolescent blow jobs between consenting pairs can't be compare to violent crimes....heck, short changing the gardener is worse......

[jefferiah]

Does a genetic predisposition to alcohol mean that once an alcoholic is aware of his alcoholism and his problem, that he should use it as an excuse to go out and tie one on, or should he seek help. Like I said no one chooses their thorns in life. But we dont ok everything just because we have them.

[jefferiah]

look all i am saying is, because Jesus forgave paul does it mean he thought his previous executions were "little misdemeanors"?

Sure okay....mind you, adolescent blow jobs between consenting pairs can't be compare to violent crimes....heck, short changing the gardener is worse......

I agree totally. Its not as bad in my mind either. But what I am pointing out is that God forgives all sins not just "sexual misdemeanors". So the forgiveness does not mean the sin is ok does it. You made the point earlier that Jesus was forgiving to sinners. It doesnt mean he forgave only little sins and OK-ed them. He made the old standard even stricter, rather. When he says that to look at another woman lustfully is sin, he is certainly not softening his position on what is wrong. He made the law stricter but at the same time showed more mercy than the old standard.

[M.Dancer]

Does a genetic predisposition to alcohol mean that once an alcoholic is aware of his alcoholism and his problem, that he should use it as an excuse to go out and tie one on, or should he seek help. Like I said no one chooses their thorns in life. But we dont ok everything just because we have them.

Sort of irrelevant...it just shows that yes, one could be born gay.....but being gay isn't a crippling disease iunless "we" make it one.

By the way, we do okay blue eye and heterosexuality....just becasue....

[jefferiah]

Heterosexuality is the natural way of propagating the species.

[jefferiah]

I make no claim to be better than anyone who is gay. I myself have committed sexual sins. I have done a lot worse than looking at another woman lustfully too. The point is it is a sin. I am a sinner. I cant blame my hormones or my birth or my genetic dispositions.

And actually yes there is a lot of evidence to suggest there is no gay gene. One example of evidentiary support for the gay gene is the fact that something like in 20 percent of cases where one identical twin is gay the other is also. But many people now interpret this as evidence against the fact, and leaning more toward the environmental influence, because DNA is identical in identical twins, therefore both twins should be gay in 100 percent of the cases.

Either way I dont know. But genetic predisposition, as in alcoholism does not give license to binge drink.

[M.Dancer]

DNA is identical in identical twins

that is 100% wrong.

Google it if you want

[jefferiah]

well either way, as i said before, and i admitted i dont know for sure, and no one does either way. but genetic predisposition is not an OK. some people may more genetically predisposed to violence than others. i know you may say that violence is not the same as homosexuality. i know that. but all i am pointing out is that circumstances are not excuses.

[jefferiah]

Well, the world would be better off if Christians actaully followed what Jesus told them to do. Jesus was originally a pacifist socialist. As for the old testament I believe they are mostly fables, however many of them do relate to history.

As for saying if we were all atheist their would be no more killing, atheist regimes in the 20th have killed countless millions. Human's kill due to small differences, race, religion, political allignment, etc.

I just want to address why I feel it is wrong to label Jesus a socialist. I think Jesus should not be given any political label first off. I dont think he is a republican, conservative, a democrat, or a liberal. or a socialist, or what have you. I think he was very elusive to labelling in many ways. I think in many ways you have a point though. He and his followers did believe in sharing their possessions and all that. But I think there is a difference between central politically enforced kindness, and individual kindness. Jesus never passed legislation to enforce his views. Kindness that is enforced by law is no real kindness, though it is always necessary to some degree, that is true. But sharing and kindness on the individual level are true kindness. When we attempt to legislate kindness to the umpteenth degree, we end up with a lot of difficulties. HOw are things to be shared? Who decided who shares? Who decides who deserves most? Are the decisions fair? Also I think socialism in certain degrees can hamper individual talent and potential. In Canada we have a certain degree of socialism, and I think this is a big reason why our television shows suck. The popular choice is not allowed, not that the popular choice is always the best artistically. But I think that government subsidized art is government controlled art and stifled art.

[Charles Anthony]

I just want to address why I feel it is wrong to label Jesus a socialist. I think Jesus should not be given any political label first off. I dont think he is a republican, conservative, a democrat, or a liberal. or a socialist, or what have you.

Hello?!? You are missing something.

But I think there is a difference between central politically enforced kindness, and individual kindness. Jesus never passed legislation to enforce his views. Kindness that is enforced by law is no real kindness,

Correct. It sounds like Jesus was an anarchist and promoted anarchy -- at least on Earth.

It looks like I am not the only one who thinks this:

Christian anarchism is based upon the answer of Jesus to the Pharisees, when He said that he without sin should be the first to cast the stone, and upon the Sermon on the Mount, which advises the return of good for evil and the turning of the other cheek. Therefore, when we take any part in government by voting for legislative, judicial, and executive officials, we make these men our arm by which we cast a stone and deny the Sermon on the Mount.

The Book of Ammon

"What about Romans 13?"

Vine & Fig Tree

The Christian Anarchist

[jefferiah]

Nah not an anatrchist either. Eludes your labelling once again. "Give to ceasar what is Ceasar's, right".

[jefferiah]

And he asserted when he was arrested that he was not leading any sort of political revolution. He told his followers they had to obey what the teachers of law taught, but not to be like them, for they were not really practicing what they preached. So he was not a revolutionary either. He was not a politician period.

[jbg]

You would not ask a Rabbi to hold a Ham Potluck dinner at a Synagogue would you?

Actually the opening banquet for the Reform Movement was loaded with such food; to drive away Orthodox troublemakers. It was called the "Trefe (non-Kosher food) Banquet".

[jefferiah]

Well I was not a supporter of the reform party. Still though, they didnt hold it at a Synagogue did they.

[jbg]

Well I was not a supporter of the reform party. Still though, they didnt hold it at a Synagogue did they.

I believe they did.

[jefferiah]

Lol thats outrageous. Thats pretty disrespectful. But I mean why did the rabbis allow this?

[jefferiah]

Oh wait this is not the reform party is it? This is a reform Jewish congregation?

[jefferiah]

The point is they wouldnt hold a ham dinner at an orthodox temple. Or I wouldnt go passing out pastrami at a Yoga ashram. And I wouldnt call the Catholic church bigots cuz they dont allow gay marriage to be held within. Homosexuality is against their religion. They dont kick homosexuals out of Church, but I dont think they should ever be forced into performing the rite of a marriage they dont condone, any more than an Orthodox Rabbis should be forced to condone un-kosher diet in his church. If you dont like it.....make a reform Church then.

[jbg]

Lol thats outrageous. Thats pretty disrespectful. But I mean why did the rabbis allow this?

The goal of the Reform movement at that time was to purge any hint of Orthodoxy. Only one or two Hebrew prayers made it into the initial liturgy.

Fortunately that has changed rapidly and the movement has headed much more in the direction of traditional Judaism.

[Rue]

Better put, homosexual activity serves no biological or species-preservation purpose. Also, it leads to the kind of misconduct as characterized Sodom and Gomorrah.

And who says, exactly, that all sexual acts must ultimately culminate in reproduction?

Better yet, who are you, or any Christian/Muslim/Whatever actually, to dictate what constitutes as "misconduct"?

I engage in a number of sexual activtities (all heterosexual) many of which couldn't possibly result in reproduction. And I certainly don't consider that I am guilty of "misconduct"

Lol. Wasn't that what Michael Jackson said in court?

[Rue]

I think the argument for the Bible being the most copied, therefore it must be true, is a misnomer. It was messed with at the Council of Nicea, where Jesus became God essentially, and undergone countless translations from Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to English by countless translaters and scribes. And we are to believe the "finished" project is the absolute and total word of God? I'll take the Greek classics in any form for their veracity over an over-translated book of tales and fables. And on the topic of Religious homophobia please understand Jesus said NOTHING on homosexuality, zip, nada. His message was love and forgiveness. Paul's words on this topic are his, not Jesus'.

EDIT: Also not to be forgotten are the gnostic gospels which surprisingly do not appear in the Bible. Wonder why that is?link

Yah the point is the old testament, new testament and Koran were all re-edited and re-written with many passages left on the editing floor and we will never ever know what was actually originally said.

[jefferiah]

My point is, the Church should not be called bigoted for calling homosexuality a sin. This is not intolerance. Tolerance means putting up with, not agreeing with and condoning. You can tolerate people you dont agree with. Alot of Vegetarians dont agree with meat-eaters but they live with them right. Its possible to believe homosexuality is a sin, to be able to teach that is a religious freedom. It becomes intolerance when a person tries to exercise unfair treatment or attacks on homosexuals.