Why are some people so damn worried about what other people's sexual orientations or preferences are?

this

Also, it’s a prejudice they were taught growing up.

@tom_g I guess I don’t see what the Bible has to do with anything. It condones other things that we would find reprehensible today. Why do they choose to focus on mentions of sexuality in the Bible, and ignore other things that, to me, are far more serious?

Pat Robertson is worried almost exclusively about making obscenely large amounts of money for Pat Robertson. Private jets, a mansion here and there, and a fleet of limousines and pretty soon you’re talking the need for real money. Robertson and other televangelists know they can wind up their crowd of supporters to give by picking things their supporters inherently fear, demonizing those things, then saying they need donations to protect civilization from the corrupting influences of freedom and tolerance. It’s disgusting to those who can see through it. But that’s the game.

The group Pat Robertson helped to found is fighting against laws that protect members of the LGBTQ group on arguments of sexual discrimination and gender equality while diminishing other fundamental rights and liberties of others.

I know WHAT he’s doing, @bkcunningham, but I don’t know why. @ETpro is the closest to explaining that, I’m sure. Makes you wonder if they really, truly believe in God. Aren’t they the least big afraid of what’s going to happen when they face Him?

I believe he does, firmly and truly, believe in the god he has established in his own mind. Whether that god exists elsewhere is irrelevant to his actions, as his god uncannily agrees with everything Pat Robertson believes.

I thought you were talking about the LGBTQ issue specifically, @Dutchess_III. I answered the why part in my answer above.

I am talking about the LGBT thing specifically @bkcunningham. You reiterated what he’s doing. I already know what he’s doing or I wouldn’t have posted the question.

@Seek_Kolinahr It just blows my mind…..

Okay, @Dutchess_III. So we don’t continue talking in circles, could you, please, elaborate and explain to me what he’s doing and how he is doing whatever it is you say he is doing that has you puzzled.

Pat is encouraging ignorance and stigma in the Christian sect he caters to, and because they are being told they are following God’s will/ word, they feel no shame or guilt.

It’s a sad world where Christians are being taught hate instead of love. My God is about love for all His children.

@Dutchess_III: ”@tom_g I guess I don’t see what the Bible has to do with anything. It condones other things that we would find reprehensible today. Why do they choose to focus on mentions of sexuality in the Bible, and ignore other things that, to me, are far more serious?”

I don’t know. But the bible seems pretty clear about homosexuality. There may be things in the bible he is not taking seriously, like wearing clothing made of two different types of material (Leviticus 19:19). But his professions of faith and his position on homosexuality seem to be one area in which he in consistent. Right? In other words, isn’t it more puzzling that there are Christians who do not feel that homosexuality is an abomination and homosexuals should be put to death?

@bkcunningham: I said “He is taking his anti-GLBT agenda to Brazil and Africa and so on…”
You said, “He is fighting against laws that protect members of the LGBTQ group on arguments of sexual discrimination and gender equality while diminishing other fundamental rights and liberties of others.”
You don’t need me to answer what he is doing and how he is doing it, because you already answered it.
It doesn’t answer “WHY” which is my question.

It’s so twisted up @KNOWITALL. I mean, are there preachers out there still who encourage racism? In the 19th century there were, and they thought they were right to do so then.

You would hope that someone in a position of such power over so many people, would also have some intelligence. It’s disappointing. But…it’s the people that are making him rich, so he’ll keep telling them what they want to hear.

It blows my mind. What was the question the other day about “Why did you change religions?”

@tom_g… How could God be anything but consistent? It’s not like he’d ever change his mind!

@Dutchess_III @tom_g I reallly think it has EVERYTHING to do with the Bible/ religion. here in the Midwest, I can assure you I have heard every epithet and prejudice known to man. BUT I have also seen such generous loving people with open minds that are smart enough to question everything.

The thing is, you have to question things with your own insight and your own heart no matter what. I truly believe that the Christians I’m talking about think they’re doing the ‘right thing’, which just makes me really sad.

Previously I had posted that a church in our area welcomes gays and lesbians (who often feel they are not welcome), then attempts to ‘brain wash’ them into a hetero marriage. And supposedly it works quite often, isn’t that incredibly scary?!

I’ll try again. @Dutchess_III, can YOU elaborate on what you are upset about that Robertson is doing?

The need for scapegoats and bogeymen. Someone to blame for the problems in this world to avoid having to blame oneself or distract others because blaming oneself would be justified.

I’m not upset, just kind of disgusted @bkcunningham. Curious too. What are he, and others, SO AFRAID OF that they feel they need to crusade to “stamp it out?” It’s ridiculous. Gay people aren’t hurting anyone. Why don’t the religious leaders turn their efforts and millions of dollars on to things that ARE hurting people?

@KNOWITALL of course they’ll say it “works quite often,” whether it does or not.

Because solving problems gives you less power, less control, and fewer things to rant about on your high-dollar soapbox.

Whereas, if you invent problems, you can come up with any impossible-to-accomplish solution, and bank on preaching about it until your grandchildren are old enough to take up the torch.

You put the words – stamp it out – in quotes, @Dutchess_III. Where did that phrase come from in reference to the subject of your question? Maybe if you linked an article about what you are referring to it might help me understand what is disgusting you.

@Dutchess III The preachers son and I work together, and he thought I would approve (believe it or not) and instead I was surprised and disgusted.

The Christian community is not welcoming to people of different sexual orientations, and I only know one person who goes and stay’s on the DL, so they can go to church. It drives me insane.

It’s a BRILLIANT business model. Be it preaching, politics, corporations… all the same.

There will always be huge profit in telling the majority public what they want to hear. He’s just reaffirming pre-established beliefs to a segment of society that desperately wants affirmation. Formula for a most successful business model in a new market… perhaps because the old markets aren’t buying it any longer.

Or maybe he’s doing God’s work.

How is he specifically, as @Dutchess_III says, ”... taking his anti-GLBT agenda to Brazil and Africa and so on”?

@Dutchess_III: ”@tom_g… How could God be anything but consistent? It’s not like he’d ever change his mind!”

I mean that Pat Robertson’s professed beliefs and actions match the bible he claims to believe in with regards to homosexuality.

@KNOWITALL – I really appreciate progressive, liberal Christians. I know a few. I just don’t understand how they resolve their belief that the bible is divinely inspired with their understanding that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. I don’t get it, but I like it. Cherry-picking Christians are ok in my book, as long as they are moving along with the rest of us towards progress.

Here is one of about a million articles on Pat Robertson and his rabid homophobic beliefs. Here is another. And another
The Brazil thing I just glanced at on FB. I found an article, but it doesn’t strike me as very reliable, so I’ll leave it out. Brazil, Africa, America, whatever, is totally beside the point.

What is he so afraid of?

@tom_g….I see. Thanks for the clarification. God is pretty consistent in regards to how women should behave too (be silent and subjugated to their husbands.) He must really like that. I just LOVE how he put that here- Awful looking women responsible for marital problems.

But what God is MOST consistent on is loving each other. Why is that so CONSISTENTLY buried under the hate and intolerance?

@tom_g I can only speak for myself in that although I was raised in church, a few things occurred that made me question my faith and our leadership. I’ve been to Southern Baptist Conventions and have gone to almost every denomination of church that is available in our area, then studied religions of the world.

What I found is that there are so many contradictions in the Bible and church leaders, that a person can only make up their own mind as to who and what God is to them, and in their life.

So maybe I’m a cherry-picker, I don’t really care, God will judge each of us based on our choices in life, right or wrong. As far as I’m concerned, judging each other is a sin “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

@Dutchess_III Well, loving each other, and slaughtering that heathen group of nobodies over there, so we can have their land.

Sorry, but the evil isn’t solely contained in the man. He got his ideas from somewhere, and his words are found in the Bible.

I know @KNOWITALL. @Seek…Can’t get away from the fact that no matter how much we teach and preach against intolerance, we’re riding on the backs of those who took what we enjoy today through that same greed and intolerance and injustice that we condemn.

I’m just curious as to why some people seem to be so scared of things such as gay people..or black people, or whatever people. I mean, it is fear, hidden under a persona of righteousness. What is there to be afraid of?

@Dutchess_III: “I mean, it is fear, hidden under a persona of righteousness. What is there to be afraid of?”

I’m not sure all of it is fear. I mean, some of it (or much of it) might be fear. And we know that sometimes that fear is something of an internal struggle. But to play devil’s advocate for a second – If I believe that there is a god, a heaven, and a hell. And I believe that homosexuality is “sinful” and will result in a person going to hell, there is very little fear involved. In fact, actions against homosexuality might be motivated by compassion and love.

@tom_g Thank you for that perspective but…why then, would they be more worried about gay people going to hell—people who aren’t hurting any one—than they are about rapists and murders and people like that who are going to hell for sure? Why so much focus on gay folks? (It’s kind of funny that “LOVE” would be a motivating factor tho! :)

@Dutchess_III Also, people fear the unknown. In rural Missouri we don’t come across a huge population of gays or lesbians, or black people in our daily life. It’s an unfortunate part of our isolationist mentality in our region, which also ties into our religous perceptions, in my opinion.

My husband and I fought about this issue quite often, as he was a strict ‘by-the-Bible’ kind of guy, but after he started working with a gay guy who was an old family friend, and got a lot of answers, he has loosened up a lot. He still thinks it’s a sin though, as do a lot of our male friends, I just call them jusdgemental homophobes and move on.

The sins we see in others, yet are blind to the sins in ourselves! Or we explain them away, or justify them, or whatever. Astonishing!

@Dutchess_III: ”@tom_g Thank you for that perspective but…why then, would they be more worried about gay people going to hell—people who aren’t hurting any one—than they are about rapists and murders and people like that who are going to hell for sure?”

Are they? Christians are more concerned about homosexuality than rape and murder? I’m not sure I see this. Might it be that they feel that everyone is against rape and murder, but it’s up to them to fight off homosexuality? Same-sex marriage has been legal for 8 years here in Massachusetts, it’s spreading around the country, the president has voiced support for it. Where are the rape and murder advocates?

Look – I’m just guessing here. I’m not a theist, and I think Christianity is immoral. But I am just trying to state that it makes more logical sense that a Christian would be against homosexuality than supportive of it. If you hold unjustified beliefs, motivations of kindness and love may manifest in the most awful ways.

I’m enjoying the discussion @tom_g! It’s cool!

There aren’t any rape and murder advocates because rape and murder are just wrong. Across the board, they are wrong. The murder’ and rapists are going to hell…why don’t the evangelists focus on the really BAD stuff like that and save their poor souls?

All sins are equal in the eye of God.

That’s what the preacher told me for years.

If you as a man have sex with a man, you may as well be murdering people.

Raise your hand if, as an atheist, you’ve ever been asked why you don’t just pillage the countryside, because you don’t believe in the Bible that tells you not to do it.

When your moral code is based on a book written by neolithic nomads, you have two choices: Cherry-pick your morality (thus, your morality is no longer based on the book), or follow the book. The man is simply living according to Scripture. What could possibly be wrong with that?~

@Dutchess_III I was taught that even a child molester or murderer can be forgiven for their sins.

According to the Bible the only unforgiveable sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
http://carm.org/what-blasphemy-holy-spirit-can-christian-commit-it

here is my son pillaging the countryside for frogs. It’s OK, tho, because we own the land he is pillaging. We bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from the first person to own it who bought it from the government who stole it from the Indians.”

I was taught that too @KNOWITALL. So why aren’t the evangalists and churches spending thousands and thousands of dollars to “save” them because they are HURTING others and they will continue to hurt others until they get saved? Why waste it on something so harmless as a person’s sexual orientation which isn’t hurting anybody? You save a murderer, other people live. You “save” a gay person…it’s a wash.

We’re all on the same side here, playing different parts. Let’s not forget that friends. :) I was immersed in the Christian community for a long, long time, so I can argue with their philosophies with their own rhetoric and reasoning.

@Dutchess_III Cute. Too bad he’s going to hell for having his ears pierced.

@Dutchess_III Unfortunately, I can’t answer that. The Church ceased to make sense to me a long time ago, although I wish it did with all my heart. I love God, but His followers are something else.

And Jesus answered and said to them, ‘It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’”

To try again to answer your original question, @Dutchess_III, basically, the group whose motives you are questioning opposes the agenda and the laws the LGBTQ’s PACs, lobbies, whathaveyou, are trying to get passed in various countries because the group feels it hurts other groups and restricts other’s freedoms and liberties. I personally think it is important to understand what is happening and not just label one group or another with broad strokes.

It’s interesting what you say, @Seek_Kolinahr. The Bible clearly states that there is an unforgivable sin, which proves that all sins are not equal. So it’s interesting that many Christians seem to believe that they are. I’ve been told by some Christians that homosexuality is worse than murder. And this certainly would seem the case. “Thou shalt not kill” is a commandment but certainly, killing is permitted in warfare, and as punishment in many cases. But homosexuality is never permitted. The fact is that people like Pat Robertson believe that when society allows homosexuality, this is part of a greater “permission of the decline in morality” and so it’s inevitably a slippery slope. What’s next is allowing pedophile’s rights, anarchy, and total collapse of society. Fighting against homosexuality is just one part of this. If they can stop it, then they can stop further degradation.

Look at this way: homosexuality is like a factory that pollutes the air. No, it’s directly killing anyone, but the way they see it, is that it’s contributing to a greater problem. You wouldn’t just stand there and let this factory pollute the environment over time; you’d probably want it torn down. That’s how people like Pat Robertson view things like gay rights and same-sex marriage. It’s not as overt as a knife-wielder killing people randomly, but it is more like something that gradually “pollutes” society and is best done away with before it gets out of hand.

What it comes down to is a war of morality. Theirs against ours. Yours against mine. Only one will win in the end.

@bkcunningham So, they feel that granting rights to gays will hurt other groups and others freedom? In what way?

I find no logic in that what so ever. There is an emotional reason guiding their steps. I wonder what that emotion is. It is not logical to think that granting rights to a group, such as gays, blacks, women, etc. hurts any other group in any way, or “restricts” anyone elses freedoms in any way, what so ever. The only ones being hurt, or restricted, are the minority groups looking for the same rights that everyone else has. No one else.

Well said, @DominicX. Except there is a difference in murder and killing.

@DominicX Well said. There was a time when they compared granting rights to blacks and to women to pollution and corruption, too. They’re crazy. Pollution hurts other people. Being gay doesn’t. Being female doesn’t. Being black doesn’t.

I think Pat Robertson feeds off of the positive response he gets. The adoration and worship he gets. Whatever seems to rowel up his audience he will pursue like a dog wanting a bone. He has his combination of God, money, power all rolled up into one that feeds his ego. I do think in his mind he believes in God and believes what he does is “right,” but, mostly I think what he does is like an addiction going back for more. LBGT issues are hot right now, so he is right in there stirring up the pot.

@Dutchess_III, it has nothing to do with granting rights, and it involve more than “gays.” It is more about granting special rights and protections to LGBTQ people and denying rights to others, in some people’s eyes.

@bkcunningham How do you figure? What special rights? Denying what rights?

I guess regarding special protections you hate crimes laws and protecting them as a class, but hate crime is about punishment really, and protecting them as a class is to pursue equality that other classes already enjoy without legislation.

@JLeslie, remember @Dutchess_III‘s original question. The issue involves more than the US. If you are interested, look it up and read about the various issues.

@bkcunningham I know. I was answering her question. He must be getting positive response in those other countries. Countries that are very religious and or the population is easily bamboozled by things that are outside of the norm. Some countries in Africa have many of their citizens believing raping a virgin girl will protect a man from AIDS.

Are you going to answer my questions?

@bkcunningham—what do you mean it has nothing to do with granting rights? You said “the group whose motives you are questioning opposes the agenda and the laws (meaning “rights”) the LGBTQ’s PACs, lobbies, whathaveyou, are trying to get passed (rights they are trying to get passed) in various countries because the group feels it hurts other groups and restricts other’s freedoms and liberties”.

Well, lets keep it in the US, @bkcunningham. In what ways will granting gays the right to be married, or any other right, cause issues here in America? I can’t fathom what those issues could be. Don’t tell us to look it up. It would be much easier for all of us if you just explained it to us in a few words.

I have been on Fluther for too long to not realize when a question that I was simply trying to answer and trying to spark interest and research and education is going to turn into a bash BK thread. No thank you guys. Peace.

Oh, and @Dutchess_III, I think @DominicX did an excellent job in answering your questions to me. He explained perfectly.

Ok, @bkcunningham. Yes, Dominic did a good job of answering my question. But you brought up a different question, that granting gay’s rights will take away the rights and privileges of others. All that @JLeslie and I are trying to do is figure out WHAT rights and privileges you’re referring to…

Usually the argument is that same-sex marriage is a “special right” because marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman so gay people don’t have any claim to it in the first place. However, technically, it cannot be a special right because it would not be as if straight people would be barred from entering same-sex marriages themselves. If same-sex marriages were defined already as a “right”, both straight and gay people would have access to it, so it is not a “special right” granted to only one group of people. All would be allowed access to it.

And I’m not 100% clear on what is meant by “taking away rights”, but some see it as their right to live in a world where homosexuality is condemned and not permitted. That is part of their religious freedom to not have to live in a society that passes laws in favor of homosexuality. But then of course you just have a conflict of freedoms. Why does your religious freedom matter more than my freedom? I don’t have a religion, so to me, my rights as a homosexual are just as important as your rights as a Christian, as much as some may be unable to fathom how those can be congruent. But how do we determine whose freedom is more important? But that’s what I said: it’s a conflict, it’s a war. The two sides cannot coexist with the current terms they have.

Boggles my mind. Seems to me the easy answer would be “Who is getting hurt the most?” As Christians, that should be the number one question they need to answer before they rush to judgement.

I believe this country will come down on the right side, no matter what any religious groups think.

It appears to be similar to how people on fluther have spoken to me about Christian principles/ prayer taking over the schools and being forced on them.

Some Christians seem to feel that being accepting or voting for those rights, is a tacit approval of SSM, which goes against their beliefs, moral values, and everything they stand for.

SSM?

@Dutchess_III Sorry, Same Sex Marriage.

I know from our earlier posts that you and I are just playing Devils Advocate since we know the conservative religious point of view, but it sickens me that people are so misguided then blame it on God.

(Oh. I thought maybe it stood for “Satan Sent Messages” or something! :)

@Dutchess_III Ba-ha-ha!!! I’m not in on that stuff.

What really makes me ill is how one person can sway the way thousands of people think…how those thousands just suck in to what ever horrible thing he or she says. Hitler did the same thing. It’s our ape mentality kicking in. Don’t think, just follow. Well, that may have kept us alive at one point, but it just isn’t excusable today.

Hahahaha. Haven’t we discussed this before @bkcunningham? That this behavior of yours where you sit back and giggle while you passive aggressively don’t answer direct questions is quite annoying and doesn’t fool anyone? As you sit back and you stir and frustrate jellies. It’s not cute. And, I find it a shame, because often I look forward to your answers, point of view, and insights. I don’t know why you have to start this up again on this Q? I would be interested in your answers on this topic. What a shame.

@bkcunningham I understood perfectly what you were saying.

They are?

This morning, I heard an interview with the Russian legislator who wrote a bill that just passed outlawing the proliferation of “homosexual propaganda” to children. (In other words, anything intimating that it might not be an abomination to be gay).

Anyway, I strongly suspect that the fear is that gay sex is so tempting, that everything must be done to stop its spread. The depiction of the world that homophobes, especially religiously-motivated ones, paint, is one where surprise buttsex is lurking around every corner.

@KNOWITALL Maybe you can explain it to me since you understand what @bkcunningham said? What are the answers to my question and Dutchess? “What special rights? Denying what rights?” @Dutchess_III asked “In what ways will granting gays the right to be married, or any other right, cause issues here in America? I can’t fathom what those issues could be. Don’t tell us to look it up. It would be much easier for all of us if you just explained it to us in a few words.” There were others, but we can just do those two. Remember, you are just paraphrasing for @bkcunningham I am not talking about your own answer. Although, I am happy to hear your opinions also.

Because their lives are so empty and boring that they need to hate other people to make themselves feel better and occupy their time.

Sidebar: Pat Robertson is a moron.

To give a real world answer to @DominicX‘s hypothetical—My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.

Your right to be married to a man should be protected as long as you are not causing harm to do so, say, by marrying a minor, or straight men getting married for tax evasion purposes.

Your right to hold a religion should be protected as long as that religion does not cause harm, such as making undereducated people think condoms cause aids, preaching hell to small children, beating young women to death for the crime of being a rape victim, protecting child molestors, forcing women to be second class citizens little better than chattel, etc.

@tom_g – Divinely inspired doesn’t mean “dictated by God word for word”. The Christian faith acknowledges the human authors of the Bible. And modern Christians know that understanding the Bible without understanding the historical context is a foolish undertaking. Paul told women to shut up and to never try to teach men. Well, Paul was a product of his time. Like Aristotle who thought women were just the soil with men planting the seed. The Bible encourages people to increase their knowledge.

Today we know that homosexuality is perfectly normal. It’s rooted in the biology of the human brain. A good Christian is not allowed to disregard new knowledge. The Proverbs are full of such advice for example. We should honor this.

@mattbrowne: “Well, Paul was a product of his time.”

Sure. But what mechanism or process is available to a Christian to determine which things in the bible are merely things that were a product of the time or something inspired by god? Is there a process available?

@mattbrowne: “Today we know that homosexuality is perfectly normal. It’s rooted in the biology of the human brain. A good Christian is not allowed to disregard new knowledge.”

This sounds great – but very secular, and seems to squeeze the bible into a corner to the point that it seems unnecessary. Are you suggesting that most Christians view the bible in this way? This is not my experience with Christians.

Yes, the mechanisms are called higher criticism, exegesis and hermeneutics.

Unlike in Europe, many folks in the US Bible belt have never heard about these concepts. These folks believe that snakes can literally talk and find it hard to believe that the snake is merely a symbol for something else. They can’t define words like parables. Dumb Christians are a sad reality.

Hmmm…It could be that I grew up here in the states with the “10 commandments” and all of that bible is the word of the god stuff.

In Europe then, when people engage in these mechanisms, we’re really talking about interpretation. I’m confused about why the bible comes into play at all. In your answer above, you stated, “Today we know that homosexuality is perfectly normal. It’s rooted in the biology of the human brain. A good Christian is not allowed to disregard new knowledge.”. How does bible interpretation help with the fact that bible claims that god is very much opposed to homosexuality? If the interpretation is to just ignore those parts, then I fail to see what use a Christian has for the bible at all.

Well it’s called gospel of Matthew not gospel of God.

We can’t ignore the Proverbs either and deal with the contradictions. Christianity is not always simple. God created homosexuals. How can He be against them?

@mattbrowne If God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent (as the Bible says He is) then why would he permit humans to distort his message beyond rational recognition? If the Bible has it all wrong, and god is just some force or being somewhere else in the universe, lacking in all the qualities the Bible claims for him, why worship him?

@ETpro – An omnipotent being is not required to use all of its omnipotent abilities. Human understanding of God is limited by the finite faculties that humans have been created with. The Bible was written by humans. For Christians Jesus is central. We worship him as the son of God (symbolic meaning) because he reminded us that we make ourselves very unhappy when we hate other people. This reminder saves us from living a miserable life.

We modern humans who have cracked the genome and photographed DNA can’t understand the mind of God – can’t even find evidence of God, yet bronze-age nomads were able to write the book that is the entirety of over a billion people’s reason for believing.

It doesn’t make sense.

You @mattbrowne, as far as I can tell, simply like the idea that there’s a puppet-master. It wouldn’t really matter which god you happened to be brought up to believe in, because the concept of “Someone’s in control of the chaos” makes you feel comfortable.

That’s a perfectly fine stance to take. If something gives you comfort, awesome!

However, there is a great number of people who use that violent, self-contradictory “holy text” to attempt to control the lives of other people, even to the point of taking away the lives of others.

Saying “Well, they’re not good Christians anyway,” doesn’t excuse the fact that the book really does say that stuff, and the fact that moderate Christians choose to white-out the parts that modern life tells us is immoral does not excuse the religion as an institution from guilt.

@Seek_Kolinahr – Sure, there’s evidence for God. The world exists. It’s real. This requires an ultimate explanation. If God doesn’t exists, the ultimate explanation must explain itself. It must be self referential. This is like saying ‘electrons repel each other’ because ‘electrons repel each other’. If God exists, God also must explain himself. This is like saying ‘God exists’ because ‘God exists’. That is equally self referential. Some believer call this concept the ‘uncreated creator’.

Which god?

If “god” is simply “whatever the eff it was that started the universe”, it’s not necessary to devote your life to its worship, and I don’t care if you believe in it. It is unnecessary, but not harmful.

If you’re reading a bronze-age science fiction novel and calling it divinely inspired, that’s your right.

If you use said sci-fi novel to control the lives of other human beings, that’s an entirely different story.

@mattbrowne – I think we might be talking past each other here. I had stated that the bible is clear about homosexuality. You then said that the bible is imperfect and a product of humans. We can agree there. But what I was specifically asking was how (and frankly, why) Christians find any value in the bible if it were simply something that was a product of its time. In order to even come to that evaluation, one must use reason and/or science – or secular methods to determine that the bible is simply wrong about homosexuality, for example.

So, I’m still puzzled. What utility does the bible provide for non-US Christians? If it is of little use, or is merely a descriptive text about a particular time in human history, why is it used in a prescriptive way for a majority of Christians? And do you see any benefit in editing this book to reflect our current scientific understanding?

And the “uncreated creator” is a non-answer. I think we’ve put that one down a few times here. If the universe “requires an ultimate explanation”, creating something for which there is no evidence and declaring that this is the one thing that need not an explanation doesn’t help anyone. If we are going to arbitrarily decide that there is a “first cause” or something which has always been, you might as well use the universe itself – at least we know that exists. Infinite regress isn’t going to get us anywhere.

@Seek_Kolinahr – There is only one.

And out of the 3000 there have been in the world so far, you were just lucky enough to be born to worship the right one?

@tom_g – I told you that the Bible is also clear about having to seek knowledge. We need hermeneutics to deduce the prescriptive ways. A good way to do this is by asking: “What would Jesus do? Would he give a sermon that contains homophobic hate speech?”

@Seek_Kolinahr – The other 2999 don’t exist. There is no rain god. Rain can be explained by the natural laws, which can ultimately be explained by the one god. Another ultimate explanation is a self-referential one. The explanation explains the explanation. Your choice.

You’re being intellectually dishonest.

Biblegod – the Jewish sky-deity – has no more or less evidence to support him than does any other sky-deity, earth-mother, sun-lord, or [insert supreme god here].

You are Christian because you were born in a place at time during which Biblegod was worshiped. You believe in Jesus because – more likely than not – your parents believed in Jesus, and their parents believed in Jesus.

If you had been born in China, you’d likely be saying that Biblegod doesn’t exist but our dead ancestors watch over us. And there would be just as much support for that stance as there is for yours.

@mattbrowne: ”@tom_g – I told you that the Bible is also clear about having to seek knowledge.”

I can appreciate concision as much as the next guy. But I don’t think this came close to addressing my questions.

@Seek_Kolinahr – Progressive followers of all monotheistic religions believe that they all believe in the same God. There is no separate Jewish god. Allah and the Christian god are the same. Just different names for the same omnipotent being. Of course there are polytheists and there are people in China who believe in ancestors watching over them. It’s their belief not mine. But there are also Christians in China. Some were taught something else during childhood and they changed their beliefs when they became adults. But there are also Christians who become Buddhists or atheists. They changed their beliefs. Their choice. There are also monotheistic believers who think of other monotheistic gods as a fantasy like Allah is the true God and the Christian God is fake. I reject such a notion.

Different names, yes.

And different rules.
And they all, somehow, want the followers of the other same gods dead.

And if you don’t believe this, than what value does your holy book have? And since the holy book is the only evidence for your god’s moral codes, lessons, and ethics, I have to ask – what’s the point?

@tom_g – “Do Christians find any value in the bible if it were simply something that was a product of its time.” Yes, because many insights are timeless, like how can people get along with each other and how can we have peace.

“In order to even come to that evaluation, one must use reason and/or science – or secular methods to determine that the bible is simply wrong about homosexuality, for example.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism is such a method. It is based on reason. Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (1466–1536), known as Erasmus of Rotterdam, was a Dutch Renaissance humanist, Catholic priest, social critic, teacher, and theologian.

“What utility does the bible provide for non-US Christians? If it is of little use, or is merely a descriptive text about a particular time in human history, why is it used in a prescriptive way for a majority of Christians?” It is more than a descriptive text, but one has to understand the historic context to deduce prescriptive ways. One has to learn how to understand myths, for example. Myths are about the human struggle to deal with the great passages of time and life—birth, death, marriage, the transitions from childhood to adulthood to old age. They meet a need in the psychological or spiritual nature of humans that has absolutely nothing to do with science. To try to turn a myth into a science, or a science into a myth, is an insult to myths, an insult to religion, and an insult to science. In attempting to do this, (young-earth) creationists have missed the significance, meaning, and sublime nature of myths.

“And do you see any benefit in editing this book to reflect our current scientific understanding?”

Annotating is a better approach. The Bible isn’t a science book. The Old Testament was written before science was invented by the Greek. The people who wrote the New Testament had no access to the documents produced by the Greek scientists. Muslims rediscovered science around 900 CE and Christians rediscovered it around 1400 CE, some was translated from Arabic to Latin and later copies of the original Greek documents were found and translated to Latin. The Bible was never treated as a source for science.

@Seek_Kolinahr – Progressive believers reject the notion that any holy book is the only source for moral codes, lessons, and ethics. The Bible is an important source, but we believe in multiple sources. We believe in evolving societies and religions.

I got to go. I’ll be back tomorrow.

As do I.

“Wisdom is wisdom, no matter how come by”.

I’ve gotten great philosophical viewpoints from science fiction novels, but I’m not making a religion out of them.

Then again, Scientology…

I suppose I simply don’t see the point in claiming belief in a deity, and worshiping a deity, because “something created the universe” and the Bible “has some good stuff in it”.

It’s just not enough.

@mattbrowne: “Yes, because many insights are timeless, like how can people get along with each other and how can we have peace.”

The bible is the best source of these insights? If we were using this criteria, we’d certainly be hitting some other sources before the brutal bible, right (like Buddhists’ Metta Sutta, etc)?

I appreciate you taking time to answer, although I don’t think we’re getting closer here. We are agreement on such a wide range of topics – and probably would agree about our judgement about specific things within the bible itself (slavery, homosexuality, etc). But why the bible is still relevant to anything related to your “progressive” Christianity is puzzling. You seem to write it off as being nothing more than a self-help book written in riddles and full of errors.

Oh wow! :) We’re never going to get our questions answered @JLeslie! But that’s OK. This is very interesting!

I take that back! This is my train! (Picks up train all by herself and puts it back on the track!)

@KNOWITALL I would also appreciate it if you could tell me what @bkcunningham was trying to tell @JLeslie and me. We neither agree nor disagree with her because we don’t know what her point was. She maintained that some people think that giving gay people (and other non-traditional people) the same rights under the law as straight people will take rights and privileges away from other groups/people. We don’t know what rights and privileges others stand to lose. So please, explain, because bk won’t, or can’t, so we can decide if we agree with her or not. Thank you.

What exactly is Pat Robertson doing that has your’s and @JLeslie‘s panties in such a wad, @Dutchess_III? I tried to get you to answer that for me earlier but you didn’t or wouldn’t or can’t. I don’t know. Your answer would help me to see what it is you are trying to get at with your questions and would assist me in answering you.

I gave you a general answer about a group that Pat Robertson helped found working to stop legislation that they, the group, feel threatens the rights of people to hold beliefs that differ with the LGBTQ group’s views. @DominicX did an excellent job explaining that. If you can’t understand his answer, there probably isn’t any use in trying to explain anything further regarding the rights each group feels the other is infringing upon.

But, I would really be interesting in knowing specifically what it is that Pat Robertson has done that you are concerned about. I’ll try and answer from that point.

I will repost the links I posted above to answer your question, again, about what he has done that “concerns” me @bkcunningham. Here they are again:

1 Robertson “Gay Chick-Fil-A Protesters Should ‘Shut Their Mouth’ Until They Can Produce Children ”

2 “Pat Robertson On Homosexuality: It’s Related To A Type Of ‘Demonic Possession’ ”

3 “Pat Robertson: Homosexuality Is An Abomination”

It is hateful, mean spirited, nasty, cruel behavior on his part. THAT’S what I have problem with.

****************************************************
Your turn:

You said, quote “The group Pat Robertson helped to found is fighting against laws that protect members of the LGBTQ group on arguments of sexual discrimination and gender equality while diminishing other fundamental rights and liberties of others.”

One more time: How would laws that protect members of the LGBT groups diminish the rights and liberties of others? That is all we want to know.

Cool- apparently the empty chair has persuaded Clint to urge the Supreme Court to overturn CA Prop 8 and allow same-sex marriage! ;-o

Heh! Cool!!

It’s a race…...

I missed all of those links, @Dutchess_III. If you don’t like what he says, don’t watch his program. That isn’t too difficult.

In the Chick-Fil-A example you cited, the demonstrators were calling for people to help shutdown a private business because of the owner’s beliefs. They were attempting to take away his right to his own personal beliefs.

By breeching one’s group’s freedom of religion and freedom of speech, the religious groups feel that they could lose their right to broadcast television programs and lose their rights of getting out other information based on their beliefs because the LGBTQ groups are saying they are a protected class and are protected from “hate speech.”

@bkcunningham Where did I say Pat Robertson has me worked up? I explained in my first answer what I believe to be some of his motivation. I actually even wrote I think he believes what he says and believes in God, I am not accusing him of being a fraud or anything. My panties got wadded up when you didn’t answer the direct question.

So, now I know what @DominicX explained as what some people feel is a loss of rights are the rights you are talking about. Thanks for clarifying. You feel you should be able to live in a place without gay people. Is that correct? That as a Christian you find homosexuality wrong, and it displeases God, so for God to help us we need to abide by his laws? Is it something like that? I kind of used Jewish terminology in there, so if how I stated it is wrong, please correct me. And, you also think having gay marriage infringes on your right as a Christian in the same way? That Christians should be helping America be a blessed country, and supporting gay rights is contradictory to that? It isn’t a matter of personal freedoms, there is right and wrong, and the big picture is more important than the individual.

Again, don’t let me put words in your mouth, feel free to explain further.

I haven’t watched his programs since the 80’s @bkcunningham. But I am part of this world and I’d have to be blind not to see what he’s doing. It’s just horrible.

So, in regard to to the Chick-Fil-A example…if the guy didn’t want to serve blacks, and people called upon others to protest that, who would be in the wrong? The protestors or the jerk who didn’t want to serve people based on their color? Was MLK wrong to ask people to protest the way blacks were treated? It IS a valid comparison.

He never once said that he didn’t want to serve any group, @Dutchess_III.

@bkcunningham I was paraphrasing @DominicX. That is how I interpret what he wrote. You can actually write what you believe to be the rights taken away, but that would mean answering the question.

Let’s get @DominicX back, he can answer me, and correct me where I am wrong.

I won’t address you anymore @bkcunningham, don’t worry. I don’t want to ruin the Q for Dutchess.

That’s how I interpret what @DominicX wrote too, JLeslie. He was explaining how some people feel about gays….why they’re so scared. They’re afraid it’s some sort of disease…a “pollution” as he put it, that will affect “normal” people….

Wait… @bkcunningham…did you AGREE with @DominicX? I mean, did you agree that it’s like a “pollution’ that will harm everyone else?

No, @Dutchess_III, I didn’t voice an opinion. I said he explained the situation perfectly. This is EXACTLY why I got out of this thread before. I could feel it coming. @JLeslie would try to make me out to be something hateful, put words in my mouth that I didn’t say and she would call names and be a bully. You guys have fun with it though.

Just trying to understand you. That’s all. So, some people (not you, necessarily, and certainly not @Dom) feel they will lose the “right” to believe what they want to believe. They’ll lose the “right” to say what they want to say, ridiculous things like gay rights will “pollute” the rest of the country.

No. They won’t. They’ll always have the right to say and feel what they want, regardless of the laws. There are plenty people out there who still hate blacks, and continue to vent their hatred and rage. And that is their right. Most people don’t agree with them though.

….And THAT’S what anti-gay people are so afraid of. I think I have it now. Eventually they’ll be in the minority. They are afraid of being in the minority.

The Chick-fil-A incident is not well understood, and this is largely because everyone twists the information to fit their own agenda, and that happens on both sides. The pro-side saying that people wanted to prevent the owner from speaking against gay-marriage (false) and the con-side saying that Chick-fil-A refused to serve homosexuals (also false). What really happened was that people were calling on people to boycott (heads up: boycotting a business is NOT denying the business owner freedom of speech) Chick-fil-A because the owner of the business used money from the business to support anti-gay groups, including some that pushed the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness and supported “ex-gay” camps for children. I’m sure some people out there did want to silence them, but the bulk of the uproar was about where their donation money was going and about a boycott as a result of it.

Secondly, the hate speech issue is entirely different from the factory analogy that I brought up. It’s one thing to be punished for speaking out against homosexuality (wrong, in my opinion). Though there are people who want to pass laws to make anti-homosexual speech a criminal activity. I of course do not support that one bit and I personally don’t believe there should be any real “hate speech” laws if there is going to be true freedom of speech

Moreover, what the factory analogy was about was how people view homosexuality and how they view legalizing same-sex marriage as permission of moral decay. Same-sex marriage cannot be allowed because it illustrates degradation and will result in further (and possibly worse) degradation of society. It’s less easy to support because most of the time when we talk about not wanting something legalized it’s because this thing, whatever it may be, will cause tangible harm to something (people, animals, and even the environment). With same-sex marriage, the harm argument is usually only about children being raised by homosexuals (and being “screwed up” as a result), and the rest of the argument is less about tangible harm and more about a general gradual “pollution” of society, hence the factory analogy.

Great answer, @DominicX.

Right… @@DominicX. Knee jerk on my part, I initially had the idea that Chick-Fil-A was refusing to serve gay customers. I was wrong. Quite the opposite….they supported gay rights. Thence…the uproar. But whatever….there is a big to-do about nothing. Tempest in a teapot. Groundless Fear.

Oh, I wish Wis.dm was still up so I could find the thread about the Gay Virus! We even had pictures of it! :)

Oy vey.

Did you flag my remarks that got taken down, @Dutchess_III? It is funny that mine get taken down and I’ve flagged personal attacks against me several times and they are still there. I guess it depends on who you know and who you went to school with doesn’t it? Nice.

@bkcunningham Saying something like “fuck you” is clearly a personal attack. Nothing anyone has said to you reaches that level.

Actually, @JLeslie, private messaged me and said she didn’t mind me saying fuck you to her. I didn’t realize there were different levels of attack that are acceptable and it has to reach a certain level to be removed.

@Dutchess_III I think you’re a little mixed up. Chick-Fil-A has contributed corporate funds to Focus on the Family and other “sanctity of marriage” groups. They do not support gay rights. They supported organisations that participate in anti-gay activism.

@DominicX I actually have empathy for both sides. I think the side that worries about moral harm and pollution, are genuinely afraid. It probably feels like the country will go off a cliff. I think a lot of liberal people feel this way about the right wing gaining political positions, especially if it is the President’s spot. That it will move the country in a direction that is unnacceptable and scary. It feels like a loss of control. So, there is no compromise really. As you said way above the two are at odds, impossibe to reconcile.

@Seek_Kolinahr – I always try to make it very clear that a belief is not the same as a fact. I can understand that many people don’t see the point in claiming belief in a deity.

To me whether this belief exists or not is not the most relevant aspect of a person’s life. What defines a good person has to do with how he or she treats other human beings. Desmond Tutu summarized it like this: “Do your little bit of good where you are; it’s those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world.”

People who use the term brutal bible should consider this: “Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.”

Deuteronomy contains evil verses ergo the Bible as a whole is brutal. Ergo Christianity is an evil religion. I’m a Christian, ergo I am evil. Is this your logic @tom_g? Or is it just that cherry picking makes you feel good?

I think this deserves a new Fluther question:

http://www.fluther.com/156602/what-is-the-percentage-of-evil-verses-in-the-bible/

Deleted by me.

@mattbrowne: “Deuteronomy contains evil verses ergo the Bible as a whole is brutal. Ergo Christianity is an evil religion. I’m a Christian, ergo I am evil. Is this your logic @tom_g? Or is it just that cherry picking makes you feel good?”

Wow. No, that is not my logic. I have not stated anything like this, and I can see that we’re moving beyond talking past each other to completely distorting arguments.??

Against my better judgement, I’ll respond to you – even though you have shown that you are unwilling to answer a single question I have asked you. Seriously. If you think that statement is inaccurate, go back and read our little back-and-forth one more time before responding.

You seem to take offense at the term “brutal bible”. Well, let’s take a look at that statement for a second. You had stated that the bible is relevant to Christians (despite your claims that there is nothing necessarily true in it) because…

“Yes, because many insights are timeless, like how can people get along with each other and how can we have peace.”

This was a shocking statement, considering that I’ve read much of the bible – and that is not what I take away from it. While it may be sprinkled with the occasional “nice” sentiment, the majority of this book seems to be barbaric, twisted, and full of violence. I was merely following up on your statement and asking if this book was really worth hanging on to for the occasional nice things that are in it. As a book, it is brutal. Period.

Look, I will take you at your word that you are not representative of the type of Christian we see here in the states who feels that the bible is a the word of god. That’s fine. But I continually asked you then what type of significance the bible really has if it’s full of horrors that we’re only able to evaluate by “correct” interpretation and modern scientific advancements. Your statement that it’s “insights were timeless, like how people can get along with each other and how we can have peace” seemed to be patently absurd in that context because I was asking what significance this book had at all. If it is just about some of the nice stuff, all I was saying is that you could do much better. Heck, you could do better in the checkout aisle at your common US grocery store.

You want to talk about cherry picking? I have already stated here that I love when liberal Christians cherry pick and are ok with homosexuality. But don’t tell me I am cherry picking when I point out that your f*cking bowl of cherries has got a ton of shit cherries in with your decent ones that you can find anywhere else. The unanswered question has been why a Christian who doesn’t believe that the bible is accurate wouldn’t just throw out the whole bowl and do the work of filling one with just good cherries.

So, back to your statement. @mattbrowne: “Deuteronomy contains evil verses ergo the Bible as a whole is brutal. Ergo Christianity is an evil religion. I’m a Christian, ergo I am evil.” Sure, Christianity is evil (or immoral), but not all Christians are. I already told you that we’re likely in agreement on many things. But how we got there is what we’re talking about. This thread was asking why people had such a problem with homosexuals. I live in the US, and the clear answer is: Christianity. Why? Because the bible says homosexuality is wrong. Christians here in the US love their bible. Now you come along and sh*t all over the bible and tell me that the only things you can trust in the bible are the things that have stood up to secular methods of evaluation, yet you consistently fail to give me a reason why the bible is worth more than a roll of toilet paper.

You’re not evil, @mattbrowne. I never said or insinuated that you were.

@Seek_Kolinahr… I understand that Chick-Fil-A supports gay rights.

@bkcunningham No, I didn’t flag it.

@Dutchess_III They don’t. The company contributes funds to anti-gay organizations.

Now I’m back to square one! Thanks for clearing that up, @Seek_Kolinahr! I was right the first time. Thanks! :)

@JLeslie Yep. That’s pretty much it.

“I think a lot of liberal people feel this way about the right wing gaining political positions, especially if it is the President’s spot. That it will move the country in a direction that is unnacceptable and scary.”

That’s exactly how I felt about Santorum or Rick Perry or Bachman gaining power. It freaked me out. And the other side feels the same way about different politicians. But as the sides become more extreme, they make compromise even less likely and a whole large portion of the population that will be completely alienated by each side.

@bkcunningham A personal attack is about a person, not a behavior/belief/statement. “Passive aggressive” is a behavior, it’s not you. Do you see the difference? It’s a fine line, I know, but it is there.

I’m sorry for my rudeness and ridiculous behavior. Please, accept my apology. I’ve been having one of those weeks with my emotions going off the scales. I know it isn’t a good excuse for acting so childish and vulgar, but I am really sorry to all of you who witnessed it.

It’s all good, honey. We all have our moments. Welcome home.

It was nice of you to apologize, @bkcunningham. Thanks for that. :)

@bkcunningham I don’t know if you direct the apology at me, but if you did I accept it. If not I hope I don’t upset you more by responding. Sorry you have been through a difficult time recently and that this Q might have added to that, including my part in it. I hope things turn around for you.

It was directed at you too, @JLeslie. Thank you. I am sorry for responding to you like a jerk. You didn’t deserve my horrible words. I am sorry.

@mattbrowne Sorry to be so late to get back to this, but your “evidence” is in the form of a tautology. It holds no water, logically.

It runs along the line of “Everything must have a beginning, and a cause for that beginning. (unfounded assertion—we only know it applies to things we are familiar with). Therefore, the Universe had to have beginning and a creator, and that Creator was God.

But if everything has to have a primal cause, then so does God. And so does God’s creator, and so on in infinite regression.

It is no less logical to posit that the Universe is infinite and cyclical than to posit that God is eternal. Both are equally imponderable. All we can honestly say, based on actual evidence, is that at this time we do not know what transpired before the event horizon of the big bang.

Facts should always determine belief. When beliefs try to determine facts, we slide into error.

Damn…I forgot what the question WAS!...Oh yeah…

@Dutchess_III Sorry to digress, but as long as we humor the claims that God created the Universe and is its supreme ruler, God dictated what the Bible says, and the Bible says that homosexual males are to be stoned to death; then it’s perfectly reasonable for Christians, Jews and Muslims to persecute and even execute others because they don’t have the correct sexual preference.

I maintain that the god of “that thing that made it go bang”, even if we posit that something had to do it, is not Biblegod.

The biblical creation ditty is no more similar to the true origins of our earth than any other creation myth. Light, land and plants formed before the sun? Hardly.

Of course you’re going to argue that biblical creation is not literal. However, you’ve reduced your God, on your own, to ‘that which created’.

Biblical creation has no more truth than the idea that Earth is the product of copulation between Chronos and Gaia, or a world seated in the branches of Yggdrasil, or the womb of a stone age earth-mother.

If the bible had truthful information about the cosmos, included the big bang in the story, or gave any inkling that there was some real knowledge of the universe to be had at God’s ear, I would be tempted to give the idea credence. As it stands, it appears you’ve chosen Biblegod more out of convenience than conviction, and are now making excuses for your decision.

@mattbrowne Here is a short cartoon video that utterly demolishes the special pleading that God is eternal and omniscient, and therefore exempt from the need for a creator that all other things are supposedly subject to.

Its logic is bulletproof. It doesn’t prove that there is no God, but it handily dismisses the fallacy that God must exist. It shows its absurdity. I’ll grant anyone who wants to the right to believe that Yahweh, or Ganesha, or Hanuman the Howler Monkey God, or the Aztec God Quetzalcoatl created them. Such beliefs are amusing, but they are fine with me if they help allay someone’s fears. But I am not going to agree that special pleading makes it illogical for me not to accept any such fairy tales. Special pleading, instead, means that God is guilty of being an atheist, because He refuses to believe that He had a creator.

Sorry Dutchess_III, now let’s get back to your thread. Were any of the 3000 or so supreme deities that mankind has created so far actually gay?

I know of secular minded people too who oppose not only the concept of same sex marriage, but look down upon gays in general. One poster already covered my answer above, in that they likely view the idea of being openly gay as a potential threat for what they’re used to regarding their traditionalism. The only difference between the secular critics of homosexuality and the religious critics is the fact that the latter group has an extra reason to support their viewpoints on this issue, their religion and religious books.

Also, gay bashing is still a popular past time in America, and many of these individuals probably want to look good in the eyes of their peers. It’s this type of thinking that fuels information cascades, so the misconceptions about homosexuality continue because people don’t want to dare to think differently, at least not openly.

@ETpro – Zeus was pretty fond of his wine steward, Ganymede.

@Seek_Kolinahr That’s true. I liked those Greek Gods. They were a playful lot.