Many Faiths, One Truth

[Sky Dancer]

" A monogamous gay couple is able to cultivate responsibility and integrity. There is no harm happening anywhere to a family." So you have spoken to these families, intimately? They have told you, they think this is a great thing?

As far as "assume" that the texts included gay couples, you know what that means. If you assume you make an ass (out of) u (and) me.

You feel sorry for me? I am willing to see homosexuality as a sin (destructive behavior). There will be no homosexual, alone, on their deathbed, wondering why I lied to them about their behavior. I encourage them to fight the temptation to overcome sin, the same way I have for those on drugs, alcohol, or being promiscuous, or other types of destructive behavior. I want them to be happier people and to overcome sin (maybe I can make it to heaven with their support too!). I thought Buddhists tried to achieve the highest degree of awareness. Does destructive behavior bring you closer to awareness? Does denial of destructive behavior bring you closer to the truth?

It's not destructive behavior to make a committment to be with the man or woman you love for the rest of your life.

Being in a relationship can bring you closer to awareness. It matters not if the relationship is same or opposite sex.

We have a number of wonderful gay couples--strong meditators and compassionate people- in our sangha and our community is completely supportive of them. We welcome them with open arms and hearts.

Your view of gay people is misguided and sad. Your hatred of gay people does not become someone committed to a spiritual life. I do feel sorry for you. You judge, condemn and hate others which is not what Jesus taught.

The gay people in our sangha will die with their hearts and minds open in a state of awareness surrounded by the community who will be praying and meditating with them. No one has lied to them, they have been taught how to live and die well.


Robert Aitken, Zen Buddhist teacher puts it this way--this is part of a letter he wrote in support of marriage equality:

The word Zen means "exacting meditation," descriptive of the formal
practice which is central for the Zen Buddhist. It is a demanding practice,
from which certain realizations emerge that can then be applied in daily
life. these are realizations that each of us is a boundless container, a
hologram, so to speak, that includes all other beings. The application of
this kind of ultimate intimacy can be framed in the classic Buddhist
teaching of the Four Noble Abodes: loving kindness, compassion, joy in
the attainment of others, and equanimity.

Applying these Four Noble Abodes to the issue of same-sex marriage,
I find it clear that encouragement should be my way of counseling.

There is, of course, a precept about sex which Zen Buddhists inherit
from earlier classical Buddhists teachings. It is one of the sixteen precepts
accepted by all Zen Buddhist monks, nuns and seriously committed lay people.

In our own Diamond Sangha rendering, we word this precept, "I take up the
way of not misusing sex." I understand this to mean that self-centered
sexual conduct is inappropriate, and I vow to avoid it. Self-centered sex
is exploitive sex, non-consensual sex, sex that harms others. It is
unwholesome and destructive in a heterosexual as well as in a homosexual
context.
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/zen.buddhist.perspective.on.same.sex.marriage

The five precepts constitute an integrated set - each precept supports the others. To know what 'sexual misconduct' means you look at the other precepts. 'Sexual misconduct', in the spirit of the precepts as a job lot, means any sexual conduct involving violence, manipulation or deceit - conduct that therefore leads to suffering and trouble. By contrast good sexual conduct is based on loving kindness, generosity, honesty, and mental and emotional clarity - conduct that has good results.

The third precept about sexual misconduct is strictly superfluous - if in our sexual lives we act non-violently, do not take what is not freely given, do not deceive and do not act out of delusive and irresponsible mindstates, we cannot fall foul of the third precept anyway. Buddhism's very tough sexual ethic would be complete without the third precept. It's really there for the sake of emphasis. Sexuality is a very strong energy, the focus of many cravings, vanities and delusions. It calls for its very own precept! If we have a propensity to make fools of ourselves, to act stupidly and destructively - and we all do have this propensity - then we are likely to manifest it in our sex lives. On the other hand, each of us also has the opposite propensity to act out of friendliness, generosity and wisdom. With moral and meditative training our sex lives can powerfully express this propensity too. Hence the third precept expresses a tough and challenging sexual ethic. Not least for anyone who has grown up male and straight in a society like this one, with all its training in objectifying and predatory attitudes towards women, and deep fears of so-called deviance!

Lets look at the spirit of the precepts as a whole before returning to sexuality. Freedom is the ultimate promise of Buddhist practice - of the moral training as well as the other two great trainings, in mediation and wisdom. Freedom means letting go of the obsessions, compulsions and inhibitions of our psychological conditioning, and so freeing ourselves to respond appropriately in any and every situation. Often freedom takes the form of restraint, the ability to say no to an habitual or received compulsion, craving, fashion or dependency. Sometimes freedom takes the form of saying yes, a yes that overrides habitual or received fears, prejudices and inhibitions.

We can either treat other people and other elements of our environment as objects of our calculation, exploitation and consumption, or we can see other people as we see ourselves. All great religions more or less embody the latter ethic (like the Christian 'golden rule': "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"). Buddhism does so in pure form. The precepts are a training in loving oneself and others, expressed in the intention to act skilfully so as to set us all free. Free from what and to do what? In traditional Buddhist terms, free from bondage, suffering, harm and danger, and free to take responsibility for our own wellbeing, and to contribute to that of others.

So back to the third precept. In ancient India the precept in its negative form was conventionally read as an injunction against abduction, rape and adultery. It has always carried the additional implication that we honour our sexual undertakings. If we have taken a vow of celibacy we should abstain from sex so long as the vow is on foot. If we have contracted into a monogamous relationship, we only have sex within that relationship. Anything else would be deceitful.

But the precept's ambit, especially today, is obviously much wider and covers violating behaviours that the women's movement among others has rightly politicised. An important example is sexual harassment, so prevalent these days when women and men share public space - workplaces, universities etc. Where power relations are prevalent, the power relations themselves have a gender component, and opportunities and cultural encouragement for abuse are ubiquitous. Among other things, sexual harassment is harming and involves taking the non-given, based on a deep-seated presumption - and delusion - in male conditioning about the constant sexual availability of women.

Rape in marriage is strikingly similar. Also violent and misogynist pornography which creates a hostile and unsafe environment for women and induces moronic and demonic mindstates in men, including delusions about the nature of women and what they want. So both sexes suffer harm. Publication or use of pornography which eroticises women's subordination thus plainly contravenes the third precept. But by no mean all pornography does so, and other sexually explicit material might be equally innocent.
BuddhaNet Magazine Article: Buddhist Sexual Ethics

Can you show me where I said "I hate homosexuals!"? I have never said that I hate homosexuals. I have said that homosexual acts are sinful. I have said that homosexual lifestyle is a destructive lifestyle. I have never said that I hated homosexuals. I said that I wished for their salvation and to join "them" in heaven. I know that it is convenient for you to twist my direct statements, but you are now bearing false witness against me by claiming that I hate homosexuals (that, also, is a sinful act).

""I take up the way of not misusing sex." ",
" 'Sexual misconduct', in the spirit of the precepts as a job lot, means any sexual conduct involving violence, manipulation or deceit - conduct that therefore leads to suffering and trouble.", "Freedom is the ultimate promise of Buddhist practice - of the moral training as well as the other two great trainings, in mediation and wisdom. Freedom means letting go of the obsessions, compulsions and inhibitions of our psychological conditioning, and so freeing ourselves to respond appropriately in any and every situation. Often freedom takes the form of restraint, the ability to say no to an habitual or received compulsion, craving, fashion or dependency. ",
"The third precept about sexual misconduct is strictly superfluous - if in our sexual lives we act non-violently, do not take what is not freely given, do not deceive and do not act out of delusive and irresponsible mindstates, we cannot fall foul of the third precept anyway. Buddhism's very tough sexual ethic would be complete without the third precept. It's really there for the sake of emphasis. Sexuality is a very strong energy, the focus of many cravings, vanities and delusions.",

forgive me for cherry picking, but these are the points I was making: homosexuality violates family values, and takes (by seduction) what is not freely given (a family member). Homosexuality targets the young and inexperienced specifically by deceit or phychological conditioning.
Ask a homosexual about their 'first' homosexual experience; the majority will tell you they thought the activity was totally different than it turned out to be. A homosexual will not go to a family home for a 'date' and be honest about their intentions to enter into a homosexual releationship with the intended target. They will introduce themselves as a 'friend' or an associate; they will not tell the family that they have come to 'date' the child (don't go off on age, please, an offspring is a child, no matter what the age). If the child is homosexual, they will not tell their own parents that they intend to seduce another family's child using deceitful methods. My interpretation of your posting would lead a person to believe that homosexuality has no integrity, little honesty, and is a completely selfish act.

If two people of the same sex want to pledge to live and support each other as friends and are not engaged in homosexual activity, there is no harm, no sin. They maintain their integrity as people. Once they engage in homosexual acts, and pretend to be straight for situations of convenience, they no longer have integrity and have become deceitful. Once they are 'deceitful' that deceit increases, I am sure you know the tale, once you tell a lie, you must tell another, and another....

I think it is compassionate of you to try to include 'most people' in your high opinions of people. I just do not think that you are being truthful according to your faith's precpts, to yourself or to those that engage in homosexual acts. How can you help a person improve if you enable or accept bad behavior? Every person makes their own choices of how they live.

Our society used to reward honor and integrity. Ask yourself: if homosexuality was rejected for millenium, why is it so important that it is given an elevated status, now, today? What is the beneficiary? How can enabling this behavior improve society? Look at it through 'rose-colored' glasses and consider the very best homosexuality has to offer. Now be brutally honest, and look at the other side: look at the destruction and harm the "acceptance" of homosexuality and the extended rights the homosexuals want given to just them will cause. I doubt you will do it, those that claim the eastern religions, rarely look at the downside. Individual rights are being reduced to increase the status and power of specific groups. This has been done throughout history, it results in abuse and subjugation. "Every time" individual rights are replaced by specific groups or government power it starts with: it will be different this time. But through the millenium, "every time" it ends the same, ugly.

I wish you the best with your faith. I hope that by using it, you will search out the truth, and embrace it. The worst atrocities in history have happened because good people would not believe the evil being done, and would therefore do nothing to stop it, until those committing the atrocities came for them and theirs. It is your choice: eyes open, or eyes closed to determine how to live.

To not allow two adult human beings who love each other to be with each other in peace is a form of bias, aversion, it resides in the family of hatred. You'd like to banish gay people from a loving community. It's as if you decided to discriminate against all those with blue eyes. Sexual identity is hard wired into the brain.

That you consider homosexuality evil or atrocity is wrong. Bias crimes are an atrocity. Shunning perfectly loving people and treating them like second class citizens is wrong asking them to change their eye color from brown to blue for god's sake is wrong.

I would just point out that you have a prejudice against gays and lesbians--and I don't find prejudice a religious value. Projecting that two people being together who love each other is some kind of atrocity is wrong. The only harm I see happening if marriage equality is the law of the land is some Christians will have their pride of privelege hurt. I'm sorry for that. The amount of anger that gets directed against gay people by Christians over the issue of marriage equality is a shame.

No one care about being married in your church. These are civil unions we're discussing and they create a public acknowledgment that two people of the same sex have come together to be acknowledged as family. It makes me sad that you can't see that.

I'm sure you are well meaning in your way. But I won't budge in my view any more than you would. You conisder homosexuality 'bad behavior' we define bad behavior as promiscuity, adultery, exploitation, pedophila and rape. Whatever two adult do with each other in bed that is kind and loving is considered wholesome to us. You wear a glass darkly when it comes to gay people. You make sexual behavior the be all and end all of gay relationships and it's not.

We embrace gay people in our Buddhist community. Why not? We all take strict vows regarding regarding sexual misconduct. I have previously printed those in detail before. They are stricter vows than Christian vows and wiser IMO. We committ to being harmless and helpful.

Two committed adults loving each other wholeheartedly is virtue. Too bad you can't see it. Your mind and heart are as closed as a steel trap.

 

[logical4u]

Is this your way of not answering the questions? You are pretty good at throwing without backup, now will you answer the questions, please?

I did explain how homosexuality dishonors your parents. You did not explain how it honors them.

The mistreatment of strangers????? The town of homosexuals saw Lot's guests and wanted to rape them. When Lot offered his virgin daughters instead, the homosexuals rejected them and demanded he hand over his guests to be "raped". If you want to call that the mistreatment of strangers, that does not surprise me, you seem to have a problem with comprehension, I don't know if it is deliberate, or not.

In the Bible, the point of marriage was to have offspring, now there are times when you seem intelligent, can you explain how homosexuals could produce offspring before there was artificial insemination (and be true to their lover)? Why would the devout have to spell out that fact?

Your point was mine: "Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy." In the New Testament, you can be forgiven for these sins. Why do you want to deny one of those that is listed as sin, is not?

Yes, in the Old Testament there was polygamy. It was one of the reasons the kings of Israel and Judah fell into sin. Did you notice in the New Testament that Yeshua said a man will take a wife (again, no reason to define sex here), and the TWO shall become ONE. It is pretty simple; he is giving people a way to a better life. It is up to the people to follow.

Do a Bible search on lewd or perverse behavior. You will see when Yeshua spoke against it. You are the one claiming to know the Bible, thoroughly.

Name the Book, Chapter and verse that demonstrates "The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.".

Is there a Hindu nation (or other far eastern religious nation) you think offers more than this country? It is were Christians came to set up their lives without persecution. When they came together to make it a nation, there were safeguards for religious freedom as well as other freedoms built into the Bill of Rights. Now the politicians (and those with their own agendas) claim rights that infringe on others. Health care is the most recent example.

Not seducing your neighbor's child is part of the long form of the 10 Commandments. It is taking something that is precious to your neighbor for your own selfish purposes (if you were not being selfish, you would do the formal courting, and marriage).

"He did it too!!!" "As far as the bearing false witness thing? Straights do that as well as gays, so don't try to paint with that brush."
Seriously, is that your arguement, two wrongs make a right????
Would that be a formal agreement that homosexuals do bear false witness, reguarly?

Animals do it, so that makes it right? There is a sound justification. The male animals will often kill the offspring of a perspective mate (some will even eat it), do you want to 'elevate' that behavior too?

I am asking for an opposing view to clearly demonstrate why homosexuality is such a great thing that the people that practice it should be elevated above others. You calling me a bigot, implies you know a better way; I am asking you to present it. So far, all I get is ....well, they are sinners too. I have admitted that. You say my views are too hard. I did not say that people should be 'lawfully' prevented from committing these sins. I did ask, candidly, why, those sins should be overlooked. I would like to know with what authority, those that declare homosexuality not a sin, are using. The Bible clearly rejets this type of behavior (lewd and perverse). What Chapter and verse says otherwise?

Again, please stay calm and rational.


I feel you tried to intimidate me with your vast knowledge: you know, don't try me on that..., etc. I thought we would have a great discussion. You see, I am no Biblical scholar, but the stuff you put out there was pretty easy to show holes. Where's the beef?

You know......being kind, doing charitable things and taking care of others as well as your parents is what honors them........not what you do in the bedroom. As far as I'm concerned, sexual orientation has no bearing as to whether or not you honor your parents. Do YOU get into your parents sexual proclivities by any chance? Probably not. It's actually the parent who dishonors the child by not accepting them as they are.

By the way.......quick question that I ask all Christians when they decide to quote Leviticus...........what are you as a Christian doing using a manual that was written for Jewish priests? Would you allow a Catholic mass to be performed in a Protestant church? If not, then as a Christian, you should not use that book, it's not yours.

Like I said dipshit, gimmie the chapter and verse for where Yeshua spoke out against homosexuality SPECIFICALLY. Clue for ya........He didn't.

As far as David and Jonathan? Here's your chapter and verse...........

David and Jonathan

There is an extensive and very sympathetic description of a same-sex relationship in the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan, e.g.: 1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6. While their bond is described as non-sexual, it is difficult to characterize it as purely one of friendship.

Jonathan was the son of Saul, David's nemesis. Their souls are described as 'knit together'. David and Jonathan 'made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.' The word convenant is significant, because in the Tanach this word always implies a formal legal agreement. To mark this convenant, Jonathan literally gives David the clothes off of his back, as well as other gifts such as weapons.

Later in the narrative, Jonathan successfully intercedes with Saul to spare David's life. At their last meeing, 1 Samuel 20:41, they are described as kissing one another and weeping together. David's grief at Jonathan's death is profound and moving. In Davids lament for Jonathan he describes their friendship as '(sur)passing the love of women'. This elegy, 2 Samuel 1:18-27. known as 'the Bow,' is one of the most beloved passages in the Hebrew Bible.

This narrative far outweighs the two trivial aspersions against same-sex love in Leviticus. The bigots who use the Bible to assault gays are apparently blind to it.

The rest of your arguments are pure crap. Yes, if you lie, REGARDLESS as to whether or not you're straight, you're guilty of bearing false witness. However.......gays who are open and honest about their orientation DON'T.

Lots of those "good Christian GOP family values" types however........they lie about their affairs, and they're straight.

And.........just out of curiosity, what denomination do you belong to that encourages a "long form" of the 10 Commandments? Do you have a link for this that is part of a real church, or is this just some more bullshit you pulled outta your ass to try to prove your flawed points?

I'd guess the latter...........

These were your examples, would you show were it says that David had a homosexual relationship with Jonathan? You declare that homosexuality is not mentioned in the NT, where is it mentioned here?

1 Samuel 18:1-5

1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.

(This was a symbolic gesture to promote David, it showed that Saul and Jonathan acknowledged David's value)

5 Whatever Saul sent him to do, David did it so successfully [a] that Saul gave him a high rank in the army. This pleased all the people, and Saul's officers as well.

1 Samuel 19:1-7,
1 Saul told his son Jonathan and all the attendants to kill David. But Jonathan was very fond of David 2 and warned him, "My father Saul is looking for a chance to kill you. Be on your guard tomorrow morning; go into hiding and stay there. 3 I will go out and stand with my father in the field where you are. I'll speak to him about you and will tell you what I find out."
4 Jonathan spoke well of David to Saul his father and said to him, "Let not the king do wrong to his servant David; he has not wronged you, and what he has done has benefited you greatly. 5 He took his life in his hands when he killed the Philistine. The LORD won a great victory for all Israel, and you saw it and were glad. Why then would you do wrong to an innocent man like David by killing him for no reason?"

6 Saul listened to Jonathan and took this oath: "As surely as the LORD lives, David will not be put to death."

7 So Jonathan called David and told him the whole conversation. He brought him to Saul, and David was with Saul as before.
(no marriage mentioned here)

1 Samuel 20:30-42,
30 Saul's anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don't I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you? 31 As long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he must die!"

32 "Why should he be put to death? What has he done?" Jonathan asked his father. 33 But Saul hurled his spear at him to kill him. Then Jonathan knew that his father intended to kill David.

34 Jonathan got up from the table in fierce anger; on that second day of the month he did not eat, because he was grieved at his father's shameful treatment of David.

35 In the morning Jonathan went out to the field for his meeting with David. He had a small boy with him, 36 and he said to the boy, "Run and find the arrows I shoot." As the boy ran, he shot an arrow beyond him. 37 When the boy came to the place where Jonathan's arrow had fallen, Jonathan called out after him, "Isn't the arrow beyond you?" 38 Then he shouted, "Hurry! Go quickly! Don't stop!" The boy picked up the arrow and returned to his master. 39 (The boy knew nothing of all this; only Jonathan and David knew.) 40 Then Jonathan gave his weapons to the boy and said, "Go, carry them back to town."

41 After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together—but David wept the most.
(Jonathan saved David's life at great peril to his own, according to the law, Saul could have killed Jonathan for this act. He paid him homage as the one that saved his life, and then mourned with him for his loss, his father, Saul, would no longer give Jonathan the treatment of an heir, a great loss)
42 Jonathan said to David, "Go in peace, for we have sworn friendship with each other in the name of the LORD, saying, 'The LORD is witness between you and me, and between your descendants and my descendants forever.' " Then David left, and Jonathan went back to the town.
(Are you calling a 'sworn friendship', a marriage?)

2 Samuel 1:25-6
25 "How the mighty have fallen in battle!
Jonathan lies slain on your heights.

26 I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women.
(If David called him a brother, would he have had sexual relations with him?)

1 Samuel 20:41
41 After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together—but David wept the most.
(see above)

Samuel 1:18-27

18And she said, Let thine handmaid find grace in thy sight. So the woman went her way, and did eat, and her countenance was no more sad.

19And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the LORD, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah: and Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the LORD remembered her.

20Wherefore it came to pass, when the time was come about after Hannah had conceived, that she bare a son, and called his name Samuel, saying, Because I have asked him of the LORD.

21And the man Elkanah, and all his house, went up to offer unto the LORD the yearly sacrifice, and his vow.

22But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned, and then I will bring him, that he may appear before the LORD, and there abide for ever.

23And Elkanah her husband said unto her, Do what seemeth thee good; tarry until thou have weaned him; only the LORD establish his word. So the woman abode, and gave her son suck until she weaned him.

24And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, with three bullocks, and one ephah of flour, and a bottle of wine, and brought him unto the house of the LORD in Shiloh: and the child was young.

25And they slew a bullock, and brought the child to Eli.

26And she said, Oh my lord, as thy soul liveth, my lord, I am the woman that stood by thee here, praying unto the LORD.

27For this child I prayed; and the LORD hath given me my petition which I asked of him:
(This is not part of the Jonathan/David saga)



NT:


Mark 7:21-23
21 For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile you."
(Homosexuality is not specifically mentioned, but I believe it is covered)

Acts 20:30
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Philippians 2:15
That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;


1 Timothy 6:5
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
(Don't support it and stay away from it)


The 'long form' of the ten Commandments IS the law. The Commandments have been abridged to make them easier to learn. It is only when people that are denying the truth, that the 'full' reference has to be made clear.
You wanted to use the Bible for your purposes, and yet when called on it, you want to switch to another tactic. Please back up your statements.
Read the below and then answer: What authority do you have to declare what the Lord declared sinful, NOT??

Job 38
4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
9When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
10And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
11And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
12Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
13That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
14It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.
15And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.
16Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
17Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?
18Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.
19Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,
20That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?
21Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?
22Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,
23Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?
24By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?
25Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;
26To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;
27To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?
28Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?
29Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?
30The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.
31Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
32Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?
33Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?
34Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee?
35Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go and say unto thee, Here we are?
36Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?
37Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven,
38When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together?
39Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions,
40When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait?
41Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.
39
1Knowest thou the time when the wild goats of the rock bring forth? or canst thou mark when the hinds do calve?
2Canst thou number the months that they fulfil? or knowest thou the time when they bring forth?
3They bow themselves, they bring forth their young ones, they cast out their sorrows.
4Their young ones are in good liking, they grow up with corn; they go forth, and return not unto them.
5Who hath sent out the wild ass free? or who hath loosed the bands of the wild ass?
6Whose house I have made the wilderness, and the barren land his dwellings.
7He scorneth the multitude of the city, neither regardeth he the crying of the driver.
8The range of the mountains is his pasture, and he searcheth after every green thing.
9Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
10Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
11Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
12Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?
13Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich?
14Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust,
15And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them.
16She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not her's: her labour is in vain without fear;
17Because God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath he imparted to her understanding.
18What time she lifteth up herself on high, she scorneth the horse and his rider.
19Hast thou given the horse strength? hast thou clothed his neck with thunder?
20Canst thou make him afraid as a grasshopper? the glory of his nostrils is terrible.
21He paweth in the valley, and rejoiceth in his strength: he goeth on to meet the armed men.
22He mocketh at fear, and is not affrighted; neither turneth he back from the sword.
23The quiver rattleth against him, the glittering spear and the shield.
24He swalloweth the ground with fierceness and rage: neither believeth he that it is the sound of the trumpet.
25He saith among the trumpets, Ha, ha; and he smelleth the battle afar off, the thunder of the captains, and the shouting.
26Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom, and stretch her wings toward the south?
27Doth the eagle mount up at thy command, and make her nest on high?
28She dwelleth and abideth on the rock, upon the crag of the rock, and the strong place.
29From thence she seeketh the prey, and her eyes behold afar off.
30Her young ones also suck up blood: and where the slain are, there is she.
Job 40
1Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said,
2Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.
3Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
4Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth.
5Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further.
6Then answered the LORD unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
7Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
8Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?
9Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him?
10Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty.
11Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath: and behold every one that is proud, and abase him.
12Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place.
13Hide them in the dust together; and bind their faces in secret.
14Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.
15Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
Job 41
1Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
2Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
3Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
4Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
5Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
6Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
7Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?
8Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
9Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
10None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?
11Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.
12I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.
13Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?
14Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.
15His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
16One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
17They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
18By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
22In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.
23The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.
24His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
25When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.
26The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.
27He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.
28The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.
29Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.
30Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.
31He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.
32He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.
33Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.
34He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.
Job 42
1Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
2I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
3Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.
4Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
5I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
6Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

Are you joining the "children of pride"?

 

[logical4u]

It's not destructive behavior to make a committment to be with the man or woman you love for the rest of your life.

Being in a relationship can bring you closer to awareness. It matters not if the relationship is same or opposite sex.

We have a number of wonderful gay couples--strong meditators and compassionate people- in our sangha and our community is completely supportive of them. We welcome them with open arms and hearts.

Your view of gay people is misguided and sad. Your hatred of gay people does not become someone committed to a spiritual life. I do feel sorry for you. You judge, condemn and hate others which is not what Jesus taught.

The gay people in our sangha will die with their hearts and minds open in a state of awareness surrounded by the community who will be praying and meditating with them. No one has lied to them, they have been taught how to live and die well.


Robert Aitken, Zen Buddhist teacher puts it this way--this is part of a letter he wrote in support of marriage equality:

The word Zen means "exacting meditation," descriptive of the formal
practice which is central for the Zen Buddhist. It is a demanding practice,
from which certain realizations emerge that can then be applied in daily
life. these are realizations that each of us is a boundless container, a
hologram, so to speak, that includes all other beings. The application of
this kind of ultimate intimacy can be framed in the classic Buddhist
teaching of the Four Noble Abodes: loving kindness, compassion, joy in
the attainment of others, and equanimity.

Applying these Four Noble Abodes to the issue of same-sex marriage,
I find it clear that encouragement should be my way of counseling.

There is, of course, a precept about sex which Zen Buddhists inherit
from earlier classical Buddhists teachings. It is one of the sixteen precepts
accepted by all Zen Buddhist monks, nuns and seriously committed lay people.

In our own Diamond Sangha rendering, we word this precept, "I take up the
way of not misusing sex." I understand this to mean that self-centered
sexual conduct is inappropriate, and I vow to avoid it. Self-centered sex
is exploitive sex, non-consensual sex, sex that harms others. It is
unwholesome and destructive in a heterosexual as well as in a homosexual
context.
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/zen.buddhist.perspective.on.same.sex.marriage

The five precepts constitute an integrated set - each precept supports the others. To know what 'sexual misconduct' means you look at the other precepts. 'Sexual misconduct', in the spirit of the precepts as a job lot, means any sexual conduct involving violence, manipulation or deceit - conduct that therefore leads to suffering and trouble. By contrast good sexual conduct is based on loving kindness, generosity, honesty, and mental and emotional clarity - conduct that has good results.

The third precept about sexual misconduct is strictly superfluous - if in our sexual lives we act non-violently, do not take what is not freely given, do not deceive and do not act out of delusive and irresponsible mindstates, we cannot fall foul of the third precept anyway. Buddhism's very tough sexual ethic would be complete without the third precept. It's really there for the sake of emphasis. Sexuality is a very strong energy, the focus of many cravings, vanities and delusions. It calls for its very own precept! If we have a propensity to make fools of ourselves, to act stupidly and destructively - and we all do have this propensity - then we are likely to manifest it in our sex lives. On the other hand, each of us also has the opposite propensity to act out of friendliness, generosity and wisdom. With moral and meditative training our sex lives can powerfully express this propensity too. Hence the third precept expresses a tough and challenging sexual ethic. Not least for anyone who has grown up male and straight in a society like this one, with all its training in objectifying and predatory attitudes towards women, and deep fears of so-called deviance!

Lets look at the spirit of the precepts as a whole before returning to sexuality. Freedom is the ultimate promise of Buddhist practice - of the moral training as well as the other two great trainings, in mediation and wisdom. Freedom means letting go of the obsessions, compulsions and inhibitions of our psychological conditioning, and so freeing ourselves to respond appropriately in any and every situation. Often freedom takes the form of restraint, the ability to say no to an habitual or received compulsion, craving, fashion or dependency. Sometimes freedom takes the form of saying yes, a yes that overrides habitual or received fears, prejudices and inhibitions.

We can either treat other people and other elements of our environment as objects of our calculation, exploitation and consumption, or we can see other people as we see ourselves. All great religions more or less embody the latter ethic (like the Christian 'golden rule': "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"). Buddhism does so in pure form. The precepts are a training in loving oneself and others, expressed in the intention to act skilfully so as to set us all free. Free from what and to do what? In traditional Buddhist terms, free from bondage, suffering, harm and danger, and free to take responsibility for our own wellbeing, and to contribute to that of others.

So back to the third precept. In ancient India the precept in its negative form was conventionally read as an injunction against abduction, rape and adultery. It has always carried the additional implication that we honour our sexual undertakings. If we have taken a vow of celibacy we should abstain from sex so long as the vow is on foot. If we have contracted into a monogamous relationship, we only have sex within that relationship. Anything else would be deceitful.

But the precept's ambit, especially today, is obviously much wider and covers violating behaviours that the women's movement among others has rightly politicised. An important example is sexual harassment, so prevalent these days when women and men share public space - workplaces, universities etc. Where power relations are prevalent, the power relations themselves have a gender component, and opportunities and cultural encouragement for abuse are ubiquitous. Among other things, sexual harassment is harming and involves taking the non-given, based on a deep-seated presumption - and delusion - in male conditioning about the constant sexual availability of women.

Rape in marriage is strikingly similar. Also violent and misogynist pornography which creates a hostile and unsafe environment for women and induces moronic and demonic mindstates in men, including delusions about the nature of women and what they want. So both sexes suffer harm. Publication or use of pornography which eroticises women's subordination thus plainly contravenes the third precept. But by no mean all pornography does so, and other sexually explicit material might be equally innocent.
BuddhaNet Magazine Article: Buddhist Sexual Ethics

Can you show me where I said "I hate homosexuals!"? I have never said that I hate homosexuals. I have said that homosexual acts are sinful. I have said that homosexual lifestyle is a destructive lifestyle. I have never said that I hated homosexuals. I said that I wished for their salvation and to join "them" in heaven. I know that it is convenient for you to twist my direct statements, but you are now bearing false witness against me by claiming that I hate homosexuals (that, also, is a sinful act).

""I take up the way of not misusing sex." ",
" 'Sexual misconduct', in the spirit of the precepts as a job lot, means any sexual conduct involving violence, manipulation or deceit - conduct that therefore leads to suffering and trouble.", "Freedom is the ultimate promise of Buddhist practice - of the moral training as well as the other two great trainings, in mediation and wisdom. Freedom means letting go of the obsessions, compulsions and inhibitions of our psychological conditioning, and so freeing ourselves to respond appropriately in any and every situation. Often freedom takes the form of restraint, the ability to say no to an habitual or received compulsion, craving, fashion or dependency. ",
"The third precept about sexual misconduct is strictly superfluous - if in our sexual lives we act non-violently, do not take what is not freely given, do not deceive and do not act out of delusive and irresponsible mindstates, we cannot fall foul of the third precept anyway. Buddhism's very tough sexual ethic would be complete without the third precept. It's really there for the sake of emphasis. Sexuality is a very strong energy, the focus of many cravings, vanities and delusions.",

forgive me for cherry picking, but these are the points I was making: homosexuality violates family values, and takes (by seduction) what is not freely given (a family member). Homosexuality targets the young and inexperienced specifically by deceit or phychological conditioning.
Ask a homosexual about their 'first' homosexual experience; the majority will tell you they thought the activity was totally different than it turned out to be. A homosexual will not go to a family home for a 'date' and be honest about their intentions to enter into a homosexual releationship with the intended target. They will introduce themselves as a 'friend' or an associate; they will not tell the family that they have come to 'date' the child (don't go off on age, please, an offspring is a child, no matter what the age). If the child is homosexual, they will not tell their own parents that they intend to seduce another family's child using deceitful methods. My interpretation of your posting would lead a person to believe that homosexuality has no integrity, little honesty, and is a completely selfish act.

If two people of the same sex want to pledge to live and support each other as friends and are not engaged in homosexual activity, there is no harm, no sin. They maintain their integrity as people. Once they engage in homosexual acts, and pretend to be straight for situations of convenience, they no longer have integrity and have become deceitful. Once they are 'deceitful' that deceit increases, I am sure you know the tale, once you tell a lie, you must tell another, and another....

I think it is compassionate of you to try to include 'most people' in your high opinions of people. I just do not think that you are being truthful according to your faith's precpts, to yourself or to those that engage in homosexual acts. How can you help a person improve if you enable or accept bad behavior? Every person makes their own choices of how they live.

Our society used to reward honor and integrity. Ask yourself: if homosexuality was rejected for millenium, why is it so important that it is given an elevated status, now, today? What is the beneficiary? How can enabling this behavior improve society? Look at it through 'rose-colored' glasses and consider the very best homosexuality has to offer. Now be brutally honest, and look at the other side: look at the destruction and harm the "acceptance" of homosexuality and the extended rights the homosexuals want given to just them will cause. I doubt you will do it, those that claim the eastern religions, rarely look at the downside. Individual rights are being reduced to increase the status and power of specific groups. This has been done throughout history, it results in abuse and subjugation. "Every time" individual rights are replaced by specific groups or government power it starts with: it will be different this time. But through the millenium, "every time" it ends the same, ugly.

I wish you the best with your faith. I hope that by using it, you will search out the truth, and embrace it. The worst atrocities in history have happened because good people would not believe the evil being done, and would therefore do nothing to stop it, until those committing the atrocities came for them and theirs. It is your choice: eyes open, or eyes closed to determine how to live.

To not allow two adult human beings who love each other to be with each other in peace is a form of bias, aversion, it resides in the family of hatred. You'd like to banish gay people from a loving community. It's as if you decided to discriminate against all those with blue eyes. Sexual identity is hard wired into the brain.

That you consider homosexuality evil or atrocity is wrong. Bias crimes are an atrocity. Shunning perfectly loving people and treating them like second class citizens is wrong asking them to change their eye color from brown to blue for god's sake is wrong.

I would just point out that you have a prejudice against gays and lesbians--and I don't find prejudice a religious value. Projecting that two people being together who love each other is some kind of atrocity is wrong. The only harm I see happening if marriage equality is the law of the land is some Christians will have their pride of privelege hurt. I'm sorry for that. The amount of anger that gets directed against gay people by Christians over the issue of marriage equality is a shame.

No one care about being married in your church. These are civil unions we're discussing and they create a public acknowledgment that two people of the same sex have come together to be acknowledged as family. It makes me sad that you can't see that.

I'm sure you are well meaning in your way. But I won't budge in my view any more than you would. You conisder homosexuality 'bad behavior' we define bad behavior as promiscuity, adultery, exploitation, pedophila and rape. Whatever two adult do with each other in bed that is kind and loving is considered wholesome to us. You wear a glass darkly when it comes to gay people. You make sexual behavior the be all and end all of gay relationships and it's not.

We embrace gay people in our Buddhist community. Why not? We all take strict vows regarding regarding sexual misconduct. I have previously printed those in detail before. They are stricter vows than Christian vows and wiser IMO. We committ to being harmless and helpful.

Two committed adults loving each other wholeheartedly is virtue. Too bad you can't see it. Your mind and heart are as closed as a steel trap.

I guess this proves "many faiths, one truth" isn't so. Apparently, they are only "truths" if they agree with your belief. Though I pointed out were your faith's precepts paralleled the Christian faith, you chose to go into definitions of "virtue" and "non-virtue", semantics, rather than actually comprehend what I was saying.
I feel you want everyone to see things your way, but will not begin to acknowledge their viewpoint. I guess this is why the Buddhists in India are killing Christians: they won't agree with them. When a rational thought is presented, only an emotional, irrational ("We embrace gay people in our Buddhist community. Why not?") response is given. Is it possible that is why children are sold as "sex-toys" in the countries with huge Buddhist populations (Why not?)?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Can you show me where I said "I hate homosexuals!"? I have never said that I hate homosexuals. I have said that homosexual acts are sinful. I have said that homosexual lifestyle is a destructive lifestyle. I have never said that I hated homosexuals. I said that I wished for their salvation and to join "them" in heaven. I know that it is convenient for you to twist my direct statements, but you are now bearing false witness against me by claiming that I hate homosexuals (that, also, is a sinful act).

""I take up the way of not misusing sex." ",
" 'Sexual misconduct', in the spirit of the precepts as a job lot, means any sexual conduct involving violence, manipulation or deceit - conduct that therefore leads to suffering and trouble.", "Freedom is the ultimate promise of Buddhist practice - of the moral training as well as the other two great trainings, in mediation and wisdom. Freedom means letting go of the obsessions, compulsions and inhibitions of our psychological conditioning, and so freeing ourselves to respond appropriately in any and every situation. Often freedom takes the form of restraint, the ability to say no to an habitual or received compulsion, craving, fashion or dependency. ",
"The third precept about sexual misconduct is strictly superfluous - if in our sexual lives we act non-violently, do not take what is not freely given, do not deceive and do not act out of delusive and irresponsible mindstates, we cannot fall foul of the third precept anyway. Buddhism's very tough sexual ethic would be complete without the third precept. It's really there for the sake of emphasis. Sexuality is a very strong energy, the focus of many cravings, vanities and delusions.",

forgive me for cherry picking, but these are the points I was making: homosexuality violates family values, and takes (by seduction) what is not freely given (a family member). Homosexuality targets the young and inexperienced specifically by deceit or phychological conditioning.
Ask a homosexual about their 'first' homosexual experience; the majority will tell you they thought the activity was totally different than it turned out to be. A homosexual will not go to a family home for a 'date' and be honest about their intentions to enter into a homosexual releationship with the intended target. They will introduce themselves as a 'friend' or an associate; they will not tell the family that they have come to 'date' the child (don't go off on age, please, an offspring is a child, no matter what the age). If the child is homosexual, they will not tell their own parents that they intend to seduce another family's child using deceitful methods. My interpretation of your posting would lead a person to believe that homosexuality has no integrity, little honesty, and is a completely selfish act.

If two people of the same sex want to pledge to live and support each other as friends and are not engaged in homosexual activity, there is no harm, no sin. They maintain their integrity as people. Once they engage in homosexual acts, and pretend to be straight for situations of convenience, they no longer have integrity and have become deceitful. Once they are 'deceitful' that deceit increases, I am sure you know the tale, once you tell a lie, you must tell another, and another....

I think it is compassionate of you to try to include 'most people' in your high opinions of people. I just do not think that you are being truthful according to your faith's precpts, to yourself or to those that engage in homosexual acts. How can you help a person improve if you enable or accept bad behavior? Every person makes their own choices of how they live.

Our society used to reward honor and integrity. Ask yourself: if homosexuality was rejected for millenium, why is it so important that it is given an elevated status, now, today? What is the beneficiary? How can enabling this behavior improve society? Look at it through 'rose-colored' glasses and consider the very best homosexuality has to offer. Now be brutally honest, and look at the other side: look at the destruction and harm the "acceptance" of homosexuality and the extended rights the homosexuals want given to just them will cause. I doubt you will do it, those that claim the eastern religions, rarely look at the downside. Individual rights are being reduced to increase the status and power of specific groups. This has been done throughout history, it results in abuse and subjugation. "Every time" individual rights are replaced by specific groups or government power it starts with: it will be different this time. But through the millenium, "every time" it ends the same, ugly.

I wish you the best with your faith. I hope that by using it, you will search out the truth, and embrace it. The worst atrocities in history have happened because good people would not believe the evil being done, and would therefore do nothing to stop it, until those committing the atrocities came for them and theirs. It is your choice: eyes open, or eyes closed to determine how to live.

To not allow two adult human beings who love each other to be with each other in peace is a form of bias, aversion, it resides in the family of hatred. You'd like to banish gay people from a loving community. It's as if you decided to discriminate against all those with blue eyes. Sexual identity is hard wired into the brain.

That you consider homosexuality evil or atrocity is wrong. Bias crimes are an atrocity. Shunning perfectly loving people and treating them like second class citizens is wrong asking them to change their eye color from brown to blue for god's sake is wrong.

I would just point out that you have a prejudice against gays and lesbians--and I don't find prejudice a religious value. Projecting that two people being together who love each other is some kind of atrocity is wrong. The only harm I see happening if marriage equality is the law of the land is some Christians will have their pride of privelege hurt. I'm sorry for that. The amount of anger that gets directed against gay people by Christians over the issue of marriage equality is a shame.

No one care about being married in your church. These are civil unions we're discussing and they create a public acknowledgment that two people of the same sex have come together to be acknowledged as family. It makes me sad that you can't see that.

I'm sure you are well meaning in your way. But I won't budge in my view any more than you would. You conisder homosexuality 'bad behavior' we define bad behavior as promiscuity, adultery, exploitation, pedophila and rape. Whatever two adult do with each other in bed that is kind and loving is considered wholesome to us. You wear a glass darkly when it comes to gay people. You make sexual behavior the be all and end all of gay relationships and it's not.

We embrace gay people in our Buddhist community. Why not? We all take strict vows regarding regarding sexual misconduct. I have previously printed those in detail before. They are stricter vows than Christian vows and wiser IMO. We committ to being harmless and helpful.

Two committed adults loving each other wholeheartedly is virtue. Too bad you can't see it. Your mind and heart are as closed as a steel trap.

I guess this proves "many faiths, one truth" isn't so. Apparently, they are only "truths" if they agree with your belief. Though I pointed out were your faith's precepts paralleled the Christian faith, you chose to go into definitions of "virtue" and "non-virtue", semantics, rather than actually comprehend what I was saying.
I feel you want everyone to see things your way, but will not begin to acknowledge their viewpoint. I guess this is why the Buddhists in India are killing Christians: they won't agree with them. When a rational thought is presented, only an emotional, irrational ("We embrace gay people in our Buddhist community. Why not?") response is given. Is it possible that is why children are sold as "sex-toys" in the countries with huge Buddhist populations (Why not?)?

Cheap shot. The war going on in Buddhist countries is wrong. So is the sex industry in Asia.

But if it makes you feel good and you want to ignore that I deplore those hurtful practices have at it.

YOu have every right to your beliefs. IMO you have a good heart and you're quite sincere.

But you're broad sweeping negative judgement of me and all Buddhists is wrong. Buddhists done't kill Chiristian because they disagree with them.

Buddhists are killing Hindu in Sri Lanka, it's more of a tribal problem then a religioius one but I assure I take the precept of not killing to heart.

I would not kill you because we don't see eye to eye. I will continue to talk to you even though you choose to hurt me with your insinuations that all Buddhists are killers. Show me the link with Buddhists killing or at war with Christians please.

 

[logical4u]

To not allow two adult human beings who love each other to be with each other in peace is a form of bias, aversion, it resides in the family of hatred. You'd like to banish gay people from a loving community. It's as if you decided to discriminate against all those with blue eyes. Sexual identity is hard wired into the brain.

That you consider homosexuality evil or atrocity is wrong. Bias crimes are an atrocity. Shunning perfectly loving people and treating them like second class citizens is wrong asking them to change their eye color from brown to blue for god's sake is wrong.

I would just point out that you have a prejudice against gays and lesbians--and I don't find prejudice a religious value. Projecting that two people being together who love each other is some kind of atrocity is wrong. The only harm I see happening if marriage equality is the law of the land is some Christians will have their pride of privelege hurt. I'm sorry for that. The amount of anger that gets directed against gay people by Christians over the issue of marriage equality is a shame.

No one care about being married in your church. These are civil unions we're discussing and they create a public acknowledgment that two people of the same sex have come together to be acknowledged as family. It makes me sad that you can't see that.

I'm sure you are well meaning in your way. But I won't budge in my view any more than you would. You conisder homosexuality 'bad behavior' we define bad behavior as promiscuity, adultery, exploitation, pedophila and rape. Whatever two adult do with each other in bed that is kind and loving is considered wholesome to us. You wear a glass darkly when it comes to gay people. You make sexual behavior the be all and end all of gay relationships and it's not.

We embrace gay people in our Buddhist community. Why not? We all take strict vows regarding regarding sexual misconduct. I have previously printed those in detail before. They are stricter vows than Christian vows and wiser IMO. We committ to being harmless and helpful.

Two committed adults loving each other wholeheartedly is virtue. Too bad you can't see it. Your mind and heart are as closed as a steel trap.

I guess this proves "many faiths, one truth" isn't so. Apparently, they are only "truths" if they agree with your belief. Though I pointed out were your faith's precepts paralleled the Christian faith, you chose to go into definitions of "virtue" and "non-virtue", semantics, rather than actually comprehend what I was saying.
I feel you want everyone to see things your way, but will not begin to acknowledge their viewpoint. I guess this is why the Buddhists in India are killing Christians: they won't agree with them. When a rational thought is presented, only an emotional, irrational ("We embrace gay people in our Buddhist community. Why not?") response is given. Is it possible that is why children are sold as "sex-toys" in the countries with huge Buddhist populations (Why not?)?

Cheap shot. The war going on in Buddhist countries is wrong. So is the sex industry in Asia.

But if it makes you feel good and you want to ignore that I deplore those hurtful practices have at it.

YOu have every right to your beliefs. IMO you have a good heart and you're quite sincere.

But you're broad sweeping negative judgement of me and all Buddhists is wrong. Buddhists done't kill Chiristian because they disagree with them.

Buddhists are killing Hindu in Sri Lanka, it's more of a tribal problem then a religioius one but I assure I take the precept of not killing to heart.

I would not kill you because we don't see eye to eye. I will continue to talk to you even though you choose to hurt me with your insinuations that all Buddhists are killers. Show me the link with Buddhists killing or at war with Christians please.

Buddhist Extremists Attack Christian-Run Children’s Home in Sri Lanka
Buddhist Extremists Attack Christian-Run Children’s Home in Sri Lanka | Christian News on Christian Today
Killing Christian Priests Is Hardly the Way Towards A Sinhala Buddhist State
http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2469204

Again... the jump of 'all Buddhists are killers'. I said no such thing. I pointed out something that was being done by Buddhists (that is not all Buddhists). Again.... instead of you trying to see from another perspective, ie, that the tolerance of child molestation/rape would be acceptable under your path of logic, you want to jump to victim status. I demonstrated that the 'precepts' could be interpretted to view homosexuality as 'unvirtuous' within those precepts. You refuse to acknowledge that homosexuality is used for evil/unvirtuous reasons by anyone.

And yes, it was a cheap shot. It was done to 'shock you' that the arguement that you used for homosexuality could be used in a like matter to justify sex with a child, or for that matter any other crime against man or G*d. I found your attitude alarming, it is similar to the attitudes found in people that are about to be subjugated: well.... that is being done to them, it has nothing to do with me... if you look at it from that perspective, it could be wrong, but I am sure they must have brought it on themselves... And the next thing you know, the whole society is subjugated.

I understand if that is the way you want to live your life. I disagree with promoting it as 'a good' way, when it does nothing to stop evil.

I do not hate Buddhists; I do not hate homosexuals. As far as I can recall, I have hated only one person, and that was because of his abuse of power (injustice) to those that were subordinate (including his wife) to him. I have forgiven him, and rarely think about him. He was a loser. I hope he has learned to treat his family and his subordinates better.

You can comb any of my posts that you want and you will not find me wishing problems or ill will on homosexuals at any time. I put them in the same category as addicts: they have a serious temptation that must be fought every day. They make the choice. The main difference between addicts and homosexuals: to many people are willing to enable their behavior and tell them it is not a problen (not a sin or unvirtuous). The people telling them these things do not have that authority. That judgement will come in the next world (life for Buddhists). I choose not to speak with authority that I do not have. The Lord has said it was sinful; to date I have found none wiser. I can point them toward the Lord, but it is up to them to choose if they want to act with virtue (something that is praised in the Bible), or not.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I guess this proves "many faiths, one truth" isn't so. Apparently, they are only "truths" if they agree with your belief. Though I pointed out were your faith's precepts paralleled the Christian faith, you chose to go into definitions of "virtue" and "non-virtue", semantics, rather than actually comprehend what I was saying.
I feel you want everyone to see things your way, but will not begin to acknowledge their viewpoint. I guess this is why the Buddhists in India are killing Christians: they won't agree with them. When a rational thought is presented, only an emotional, irrational ("We embrace gay people in our Buddhist community. Why not?") response is given. Is it possible that is why children are sold as "sex-toys" in the countries with huge Buddhist populations (Why not?)?

Cheap shot. The war going on in Buddhist countries is wrong. So is the sex industry in Asia.

But if it makes you feel good and you want to ignore that I deplore those hurtful practices have at it.

YOu have every right to your beliefs. IMO you have a good heart and you're quite sincere.

But you're broad sweeping negative judgement of me and all Buddhists is wrong. Buddhists done't kill Chiristian because they disagree with them.

Buddhists are killing Hindu in Sri Lanka, it's more of a tribal problem then a religioius one but I assure I take the precept of not killing to heart.

I would not kill you because we don't see eye to eye. I will continue to talk to you even though you choose to hurt me with your insinuations that all Buddhists are killers. Show me the link with Buddhists killing or at war with Christians please.

Buddhist Extremists Attack Christian-Run Children’s Home in Sri Lanka
Buddhist Extremists Attack Christian-Run Children’s Home in Sri Lanka | Christian News on Christian Today
Killing Christian Priests Is Hardly the Way Towards A Sinhala Buddhist State
http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2469204

Again... the jump of 'all Buddhists are killers'. I said no such thing. I pointed out something that was being done by Buddhists (that is not all Buddhists). Again.... instead of you trying to see from another perspective, ie, that the tolerance of child molestation/rape would be acceptable under your path of logic, you want to jump to victim status. I demonstrated that the 'precepts' could be interpretted to view homosexuality as 'unvirtuous' within those precepts. You refuse to acknowledge that homosexuality is used for evil/unvirtuous reasons by anyone.

And yes, it was a cheap shot. It was done to 'shock you' that the arguement that you used for homosexuality could be used in a like matter to justify sex with a child, or for that matter any other crime against man or G*d. I found your attitude alarming, it is similar to the attitudes found in people that are about to be subjugated: well.... that is being done to them, it has nothing to do with me... if you look at it from that perspective, it could be wrong, but I am sure they must have brought it on themselves... And the next thing you know, the whole society is subjugated.

I understand if that is the way you want to live your life. I disagree with promoting it as 'a good' way, when it does nothing to stop evil.

I do not hate Buddhists; I do not hate homosexuals. As far as I can recall, I have hated only one person, and that was because of his abuse of power (injustice) to those that were subordinate (including his wife) to him. I have forgiven him, and rarely think about him. He was a loser. I hope he has learned to treat his family and his subordinates better.

You can comb any of my posts that you want and you will not find me wishing problems or ill will on homosexuals at any time. I put them in the same category as addicts: they have a serious temptation that must be fought every day. They make the choice. The main difference between addicts and homosexuals: to many people are willing to enable their behavior and tell them it is not a problen (not a sin or unvirtuous). The people telling them these things do not have that authority. That judgement will come in the next world (life for Buddhists). I choose not to speak with authority that I do not have. The Lord has said it was sinful; to date I have found none wiser. I can point them toward the Lord, but it is up to them to choose if they want to act with virtue (something that is praised in the Bible), or not.

We're done.

 

[THE LIGHT]

To not allow two adult human beings who love each other to be with each other in peace is a form of bias, aversion, it resides in the family of hatred. You'd like to banish gay people from a loving community. It's as if you decided to discriminate against all those with blue eyes. Sexual identity is hard wired into the brain.

That you consider homosexuality evil or atrocity is wrong. Bias crimes are an atrocity. Shunning perfectly loving people and treating them like second class citizens is wrong asking them to change their eye color from brown to blue for god's sake is wrong.

I would just point out that you have a prejudice against gays and lesbians--and I don't find prejudice a religious value. Projecting that two people being together who love each other is some kind of atrocity is wrong. The only harm I see happening if marriage equality is the law of the land is some Christians will have their pride of privelege hurt. I'm sorry for that. The amount of anger that gets directed against gay people by Christians over the issue of marriage equality is a shame.

No one care about being married in your church. These are civil unions we're discussing and they create a public acknowledgment that two people of the same sex have come together to be acknowledged as family. It makes me sad that you can't see that.

I'm sure you are well meaning in your way. But I won't budge in my view any more than you would. You conisder homosexuality 'bad behavior' we define bad behavior as promiscuity, adultery, exploitation, pedophila and rape. Whatever two adult do with each other in bed that is kind and loving is considered wholesome to us. You wear a glass darkly when it comes to gay people. You make sexual behavior the be all and end all of gay relationships and it's not.

We embrace gay people in our Buddhist community. Why not? We all take strict vows regarding regarding sexual misconduct. I have previously printed those in detail before. They are stricter vows than Christian vows and wiser IMO. We committ to being harmless and helpful.

Two committed adults loving each other wholeheartedly is virtue. Too bad you can't see it. Your mind and heart are as closed as a steel trap.

I guess this proves "many faiths, one truth" isn't so. Apparently, they are only "truths" if they agree with your belief. Though I pointed out were your faith's precepts paralleled the Christian faith, you chose to go into definitions of "virtue" and "non-virtue", semantics, rather than actually comprehend what I was saying.
I feel you want everyone to see things your way, but will not begin to acknowledge their viewpoint. I guess this is why the Buddhists in India are killing Christians: they won't agree with them. When a rational thought is presented, only an emotional, irrational ("We embrace gay people in our Buddhist community. Why not?") response is given. Is it possible that is why children are sold as "sex-toys" in the countries with huge Buddhist populations (Why not?)?

Cheap shot. The war going on in Buddhist countries is wrong. So is the sex industry in Asia.

But if it makes you feel good and you want to ignore that I deplore those hurtful practices have at it.

YOu have every right to your beliefs. IMO you have a good heart and you're quite sincere.

But you're broad sweeping negative judgement of me and all Buddhists is wrong. Buddhists done't kill Chiristian because they disagree with them.

Buddhists are killing Hindu in Sri Lanka, it's more of a tribal problem then a religioius one but I assure I take the precept of not killing to heart.

I would not kill you because we don't see eye to eye. I will continue to talk to you even though you choose to hurt me with your insinuations that all Buddhists are killers. Show me the link with Buddhists killing or at war with Christians please.

Yet you try to point at all of the problems done at the hands of socalled christians and attribute them to christianity. Double standard?

 

[Sky Dancer]

I guess this proves "many faiths, one truth" isn't so. Apparently, they are only "truths" if they agree with your belief. Though I pointed out were your faith's precepts paralleled the Christian faith, you chose to go into definitions of "virtue" and "non-virtue", semantics, rather than actually comprehend what I was saying.
I feel you want everyone to see things your way, but will not begin to acknowledge their viewpoint. I guess this is why the Buddhists in India are killing Christians: they won't agree with them. When a rational thought is presented, only an emotional, irrational ("We embrace gay people in our Buddhist community. Why not?") response is given. Is it possible that is why children are sold as "sex-toys" in the countries with huge Buddhist populations (Why not?)?

Cheap shot. The war going on in Buddhist countries is wrong. So is the sex industry in Asia.

But if it makes you feel good and you want to ignore that I deplore those hurtful practices have at it.

YOu have every right to your beliefs. IMO you have a good heart and you're quite sincere.

But you're broad sweeping negative judgement of me and all Buddhists is wrong. Buddhists done't kill Chiristian because they disagree with them.

Buddhists are killing Hindu in Sri Lanka, it's more of a tribal problem then a religioius one but I assure I take the precept of not killing to heart.

I would not kill you because we don't see eye to eye. I will continue to talk to you even though you choose to hurt me with your insinuations that all Buddhists are killers. Show me the link with Buddhists killing or at war with Christians please.

Yet you try to point at all of the problems done at the hands of socalled christians and attribute them to christianity. Double standard?

Some Christians have troubles right here in the US. Rather than acknowledge that they point the finger at Buddhists. Some Buddhists have trouble in Tibetan occupied China and Sri Lanla. Those two disputes have tribal implications as well as religious ones. I accept that these trouble exist. I pray for their quick resolution follwing the principles of nonviolence and compassion. I don't make excuses or minimize the import of these stories of real suffering. What the Buddhists are doing in Sri Lanka is against the Buddha's teachings. Buddhist scriptures do not support war and violence.

 

[logical4u]

Cheap shot. The war going on in Buddhist countries is wrong. So is the sex industry in Asia.

But if it makes you feel good and you want to ignore that I deplore those hurtful practices have at it.

YOu have every right to your beliefs. IMO you have a good heart and you're quite sincere.

But you're broad sweeping negative judgement of me and all Buddhists is wrong. Buddhists done't kill Chiristian because they disagree with them.

Buddhists are killing Hindu in Sri Lanka, it's more of a tribal problem then a religioius one but I assure I take the precept of not killing to heart.

I would not kill you because we don't see eye to eye. I will continue to talk to you even though you choose to hurt me with your insinuations that all Buddhists are killers. Show me the link with Buddhists killing or at war with Christians please.

Yet you try to point at all of the problems done at the hands of socalled christians and attribute them to christianity. Double standard?

Some Christians have troubles right here in the US. Rather than acknowledge that they point the finger at Buddhists. Some Buddhists have trouble in Tibetan occupied China and Sri Lanla. Those two disputes have tribal implications as well as religious ones. I accept that these trouble exist. I pray for their quick resolution follwing the principles of nonviolence and compassion. I don't make excuses or minimize the import of these stories of real suffering. What the Buddhists are doing in Sri Lanka is against the Buddha's teachings. Buddhist scriptures do not support war and violence.

For me, this is a false statement. I have acknowledged that I am a sinner. I have no tolerance for Christians that want to talk the talk, but will not even try to walk the walk. We call them 'cafeteria Christians' (they want to selectively choose the parts of the Bible that apply to each person). If they are committing sins, I will call them on it. If they 'act like' they are a 'good Christian' and I see a conflict with their actions and their stated beliefs, I call them on their actions.
I looked at Buddhism when I was a lot younger. "For me", it did not have the power of the Lord behind it. I do not think that Buddhism is bad. I do not see 'Buddhist nations' that people are racing to join; that seems to be a Christian-based nation occurence. Look at the nations that people want to join; they are based in Christianity. It is a simple fact. The nations that have huge populations of other religions are simply not shining examples of freedom or individual rights. When I have something good happen that is not caused by me, or any other person, I know it is the Lord. On the other hand, if I am acting pridefully, or forgeting who (the Lord) is in charge, something will happen to remind me that I could not tie my shoes in the morning without him. I do hope that you are fullfilled in your faith.

 

[Bill Angel]

“There are many paths to the top of the mountain, but the view is always the same” ...

Chinese Proverb

I came across an interesting variant on this proverb in the book "In Praise of Science"
(Curiosity, Understanding, and Progress) by Sander Bais (published in 2010)

On page 162:

"A party of mountain climbers may argue over the best path to the peak, and these arguments may be conditioned by the history and social structure of the expedition, but in the end either they find a good path to the peak or they do not, and when they get there they know it."
This quote is attributed to Steven Weinberg, from the chapter "Against Philosphy" in his book "Dreams of a Final Theory"