How the Christian Right's Homophobia Scares Away Religious Young People

[hortysir]

The label "homosexual" was invented in 1869. (19th Century, my mistake.) Before then, people didn't divide the world into straight or gay. For example, men in ancient Greece could have sex with other men and it wasn't a big deal. No one thought them immoral or even different from men who only wanted sex with women.

So there were gay people in the past but not like we think today.

Do you have links from Religious message boards of the time?
Because I'm almost certain that the Greek Orthodox would disagree with your statement.

 

[hortysir]

That and much worse would've come with all the inbreeding God forced people to do in order to keep the species going, that is if you believe in the story of creation.

"Inbreeding" within a Pure breed works fine.
It's the yeast of Sin that ate away at us through generations that made it necessary to make it against the Law.

So past humans sins are the reasons why babies are born with terminal illnesses and die slow painful deaths?

God did this and I'm supposed to worship him as a being with perfect morals? No thanks.

Nothing short of an incredible miracle could sway you, I think, Drock.
Even then you'd probably try to explain it as something else.

 

[wjmacguffin]

Pardon?

You're not saying that there were no gays before the 18th century, are you? I'm assuming I am just not understanding your point.

The label "homosexual" was invented in 1869. (19th Century, my mistake.) Before then, people didn't divide the world into straight or gay. For example, men in ancient Greece could have sex with other men and it wasn't a big deal. No one thought them immoral or even different from men who only wanted sex with women.

So there were gay people in the past but not like we think today.

Do you have links from Religious message boards of the time?
Because I'm almost certain that the Greek Orthodox would disagree with your statement.

"With the decline of the Roman Empire, and its replacement by various barbarian kingdoms, a general tolerance (with the sole exception of Visigothic Spain) of homosexual acts prevailed. As one prominent scholar puts it, “European secular law contained few measures against homosexuality until the middle of the thirteenth century.” (Greenberg, 1988, 260) Even while some Christian theologians continued to denounce nonprocreative sexuality, including same-sex acts, a genre of homophilic literature, especially among the clergy, developed in the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Boswell, 1980, chapters 8 and 9)."
Homosexuality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
How's that?

 

[Dr.Drock]

"Inbreeding" within a Pure breed works fine.
It's the yeast of Sin that ate away at us through generations that made it necessary to make it against the Law.

So past humans sins are the reasons why babies are born with terminal illnesses and die slow painful deaths?

God did this and I'm supposed to worship him as a being with perfect morals? No thanks.

Nothing short of an incredible miracle could sway you, I think, Drock.
Even then you'd probably try to explain it as something else.

Well done avoiding the question. I'd avoid it too if those were my beliefs.

Nope all I need are facts or evidence. I have no moral issue whatsoever believing in a god or gods.

 

[hortysir]

The label "homosexual" was invented in 1869. (19th Century, my mistake.) Before then, people didn't divide the world into straight or gay. For example, men in ancient Greece could have sex with other men and it wasn't a big deal. No one thought them immoral or even different from men who only wanted sex with women.

So there were gay people in the past but not like we think today.

Do you have links from Religious message boards of the time?
Because I'm almost certain that the Greek Orthodox would disagree with your statement.

"With the decline of the Roman Empire, and its replacement by various barbarian kingdoms, a general tolerance (with the sole exception of Visigothic Spain) of homosexual acts prevailed. As one prominent scholar puts it, “European secular law contained few measures against homosexuality until the middle of the thirteenth century.” (Greenberg, 1988, 260) Even while some Christian theologians continued to denounce nonprocreative sexuality, including same-sex acts, a genre of homophilic literature, especially among the clergy, developed in the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Boswell, 1980, chapters 8 and 9)."
Homosexuality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
How's that?

Thanks.

Even a "few measures" is more than America has against homosexuality.
Yet the LGBT community is sssoooo picked on.

 

[wjmacguffin]

Do you have links from Religious message boards of the time?
Because I'm almost certain that the Greek Orthodox would disagree with your statement.

"With the decline of the Roman Empire, and its replacement by various barbarian kingdoms, a general tolerance (with the sole exception of Visigothic Spain) of homosexual acts prevailed. As one prominent scholar puts it, “European secular law contained few measures against homosexuality until the middle of the thirteenth century.” (Greenberg, 1988, 260) Even while some Christian theologians continued to denounce nonprocreative sexuality, including same-sex acts, a genre of homophilic literature, especially among the clergy, developed in the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Boswell, 1980, chapters 8 and 9)."
Homosexuality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
How's that?

Thanks.

Even a "few measures" is more than America has against homosexuality.
Yet the LGBT community is sssoooo picked on.

We have a significantly different society than past nations. Ours is based on freedom of religion (both freedom to and freedom from). So you're welcome to your beliefs. But when our society uses belief to enact laws restricting rights of people (i.e., DOMA), then we are violating our own principles.

And to return to the original subject, we turn people off of religion by focusing on hating homosexuals and telling them they are sinners and cannot participate in church. It's not that Jesus approves of every behavior--he certainly does not--but he still loved and welcomed everyone.

 

[bodecea]

The label "homosexual" was invented in 1869. (19th Century, my mistake.) Before then, people didn't divide the world into straight or gay. For example, men in ancient Greece could have sex with other men and it wasn't a big deal. No one thought them immoral or even different from men who only wanted sex with women.

So there were gay people in the past but not like we think today.

Do you have links from Religious message boards of the time?
Because I'm almost certain that the Greek Orthodox would disagree with your statement.

"With the decline of the Roman Empire, and its replacement by various barbarian kingdoms, a general tolerance (with the sole exception of Visigothic Spain) of homosexual acts prevailed. As one prominent scholar puts it, “European secular law contained few measures against homosexuality until the middle of the thirteenth century.” (Greenberg, 1988, 260) Even while some Christian theologians continued to denounce nonprocreative sexuality, including same-sex acts, a genre of homophilic literature, especially among the clergy, developed in the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Boswell, 1980, chapters 8 and 9)."
Homosexuality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
How's that?

How odd that it blamed on homosexuals...because the Roman Empire did not fall until after the Christians had taken over. Are you claiming that the Early Christians were homosexual?

 

[hortysir]

So past humans sins are the reasons why babies are born with terminal illnesses and die slow painful deaths?

God did this and I'm supposed to worship him as a being with perfect morals? No thanks.

Nothing short of an incredible miracle could sway you, I think, Drock.
Even then you'd probably try to explain it as something else.

Well done avoiding the question. I'd avoid it too if those were my beliefs.

Nope all I need are facts or evidence. I have no moral issue whatsoever believing in a god or gods.

Avoiding a question is allowed when it is a bullshit question.

As much as it may bother you to hear, YES, "babies are born with terminal illnesses and die slow painful deaths" is all a product of original sin.

Like I said, we were created perfect. We lived for hundreds and hundreds of years.
Sin and any number of man-made garbage has deteriorated us through the ages.

 

[bodecea]

We were created perfect and in His image.

Cancer or the Flu or acne or moles or even homosexuality wasn't part of that original creation.

I think what it comes down to is this:

Either…

1.) You’re a know it all who thinks that you’re smarter than everyone, and should police the world based on your own personal values.

or

2.) Trust the virtue of liberty and freedom and let other individuals live their lives in any way they like, so long as they’re not infringing on your personal rights.


Which option do you choose?

3) You're full of shit, because I have never told anyone that they are wrong and I am right.
Like you, I can only voice my opinions.

This thread is in the Religion/ethics sub-forum, Kevin.
No mention of liberty and freedom, like you would find in the Politics sub-forum.

Where have I attempted to interfere with anyone's rights or freedoms?

You've not made a choice, I've noticed. His question struck too close to home, I wager.

 

[KevinWestern]

We were created perfect and in His image.

Cancer or the Flu or acne or moles or even homosexuality wasn't part of that original creation.

I think what it comes down to is this:

Either…

1.) You’re a know it all who thinks that you’re smarter than everyone, and should police the world based on your own personal values.

or

2.) Trust the virtue of liberty and freedom and let other individuals live their lives in any way they like, so long as they’re not infringing on your personal rights.


Which option do you choose?

3) You're full of shit, because I have never told anyone that they are wrong and I am right.
Like you, I can only voice my opinions.

This thread is in the Religion/ethics sub-forum, Kevin.
No mention of liberty and freedom, like you would find in the Politics sub-forum.

Where have I attempted to interfere with anyone's rights or freedoms?

Horty - I never accused you of anything, I just simply asked a question..

 

[BDBoop]

If being left-handed (how I was born, and part of who I am) was decreed a sin like homosexuality (how they are born, and part of who they are), I would be in deep serious. I would also not understand why God created me left-handed, and then said it was a sin. I don't get it. I likely never will. And don't bother explaining to me because I will not understand or accept.

You think that's a ludicrous comparison? I'm lucky I wasn't born a few centuries early.

Southpaws, lefties, sinistrals. All these terms describe a misunderstood group of people: left-handers. Lefties have been unfairly treated for hundreds of years.

Enmity against left-handers is thought to have begun with ancient sun worship. Most of these sun worshippers lived in the Northern Hemisphere and faced south when worshipping the sun. Under these conditions, the sun appears to move from left to right. Since the sun moved toward the right, ancient peoples saw everything related to the right "good" and everything having to do with the left as "bad."

The Bible contains about 25 unfavorable references to the left hand. In the best known example, in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says: "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all nations: And he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, 'Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.' ... Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, 'Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.'" (Matthew 25:31-34, 41)

The custom of shaking hands comes from medieval times. When two people met, they would hold each other's right hand. As weapons were usually carried in the right hand, this would show that neither of them was carrying a weapon. Lefties could not be trusted because they could shake their enemy's right hand and hold a sword behind them with their left hand.

This enmity toward lefties can be seen in many languages. For example, in Latin, the word for "left" is sinister, which has come into English meaning "evil." The French word for "left" is gauche, which in English means "awkward" or "tactless." The English word left comes from the Old English left, meaning "weak."

Nowadays, most societies, religions, and cultures no longer scorn left-handedness like they used to. It's something you should take pride in. I am left-handed (why else would I be writing this page?), and though it can be difficult, I like it. You and I are part of an elite 10 percent of the population, along with the ranks of Lewis Carroll, Nelson Rockefeller, Julius Caesar, Charlie Chaplin, H.G. Wells, Paul McCartney, Babe Ruth, 7 U.S. Presidents, and others.

It's important to note here that no one is exactly sure how many lefties there are. Estimates range from 2% to 30%, but 10-12% is the most likely range. That puts the number at about 630 million to 750 million lefties worldwide.

Being Left-Handed

 

[wjmacguffin]

Do you have links from Religious message boards of the time?
Because I'm almost certain that the Greek Orthodox would disagree with your statement.

"With the decline of the Roman Empire, and its replacement by various barbarian kingdoms, a general tolerance (with the sole exception of Visigothic Spain) of homosexual acts prevailed. As one prominent scholar puts it, “European secular law contained few measures against homosexuality until the middle of the thirteenth century.” (Greenberg, 1988, 260) Even while some Christian theologians continued to denounce nonprocreative sexuality, including same-sex acts, a genre of homophilic literature, especially among the clergy, developed in the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Boswell, 1980, chapters 8 and 9)."
Homosexuality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
How's that?

How odd that it blamed on homosexuals...because the Roman Empire did not fall until after the Christians had taken over. Are you claiming that the Early Christians were homosexual?

I think you misread the passage. It does not say homosexuals caused the decline, just that tolerance of homosexuality followed Rome's fall. It's also saying some early Christian theologians "developed" homosexual-friendly literature. I'm not saying early Christians were gay, but I'm sure some were.

 

[hortysir]

"With the decline of the Roman Empire, and its replacement by various barbarian kingdoms, a general tolerance (with the sole exception of Visigothic Spain) of homosexual acts prevailed. As one prominent scholar puts it, “European secular law contained few measures against homosexuality until the middle of the thirteenth century.” (Greenberg, 1988, 260) Even while some Christian theologians continued to denounce nonprocreative sexuality, including same-sex acts, a genre of homophilic literature, especially among the clergy, developed in the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Boswell, 1980, chapters 8 and 9)."
Homosexuality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
How's that?

Thanks.

Even a "few measures" is more than America has against homosexuality.
Yet the LGBT community is sssoooo picked on.

We have a significantly different society than past nations. Ours is based on freedom of religion (both freedom to and freedom from). So you're welcome to your beliefs. But when our society uses belief to enact laws restricting rights of people (i.e., DOMA), then we are violating our own principles.

And to return to the original subject, we turn people off of religion by focusing on hating homosexuals and telling them they are sinners and cannot participate in church. It's not that Jesus approves of every behavior--he certainly does not--but he still loved and welcomed everyone.

Telling someone they are sinning doesn't equate to hating them.
That's what agitates me the most about these discussions.

I manage people as a career.
Telling someone that they're not doing something the way that it was meant to be done does NOT mean that I hate them.
All I can do is try to relay, in the best way I know how, how it's supposed to be done.

I love you. I love Bo. I love Sky, et.al.
I love my niece and my grand-daughter, and they both come to church with us from time to time. Their discussions with God are their own private matter.
All I can do is pray for them.

 

[bodecea]

If being left-handed (how I was born, and part of who I am) was decreed a sin like homosexuality (how they are born, and part of who they are), I would be in deep serious. I would also not understand why God created me left-handed, and then said it was a sin. I don't get it. I likely never will. And don't bother explaining to me because I will not understand or accept.

You think that's a ludicrous comparison? I'm lucky I wasn't born a few centuries early.

Southpaws, lefties, sinistrals. All these terms describe a misunderstood group of people: left-handers. Lefties have been unfairly treated for hundreds of years.

Enmity against left-handers is thought to have begun with ancient sun worship. Most of these sun worshippers lived in the Northern Hemisphere and faced south when worshipping the sun. Under these conditions, the sun appears to move from left to right. Since the sun moved toward the right, ancient peoples saw everything related to the right "good" and everything having to do with the left as "bad."

The Bible contains about 25 unfavorable references to the left hand. In the best known example, in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says: "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all nations: And he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, 'Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.' ... Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, 'Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.'" (Matthew 25:31-34, 41)

The custom of shaking hands comes from medieval times. When two people met, they would hold each other's right hand. As weapons were usually carried in the right hand, this would show that neither of them was carrying a weapon. Lefties could not be trusted because they could shake their enemy's right hand and hold a sword behind them with their left hand.

This enmity toward lefties can be seen in many languages. For example, in Latin, the word for "left" is sinister, which has come into English meaning "evil." The French word for "left" is gauche, which in English means "awkward" or "tactless." The English word left comes from the Old English left, meaning "weak."

Nowadays, most societies, religions, and cultures no longer scorn left-handedness like they used to. It's something you should take pride in. I am left-handed (why else would I be writing this page?), and though it can be difficult, I like it. You and I are part of an elite 10 percent of the population, along with the ranks of Lewis Carroll, Nelson Rockefeller, Julius Caesar, Charlie Chaplin, H.G. Wells, Paul McCartney, Babe Ruth, 7 U.S. Presidents, and others.

It's important to note here that no one is exactly sure how many lefties there are. Estimates range from 2% to 30%, but 10-12% is the most likely range. That puts the number at about 630 million to 750 million lefties worldwide.

Being Left-Handed

Lefthanded students had their left hand beaten by nuns at Catholic school if they used it to write. This until quite recently. My cousin still has the scars on her knuckles.

 

[wjmacguffin]

Thanks.

Even a "few measures" is more than America has against homosexuality.
Yet the LGBT community is sssoooo picked on.

We have a significantly different society than past nations. Ours is based on freedom of religion (both freedom to and freedom from). So you're welcome to your beliefs. But when our society uses belief to enact laws restricting rights of people (i.e., DOMA), then we are violating our own principles.

And to return to the original subject, we turn people off of religion by focusing on hating homosexuals and telling them they are sinners and cannot participate in church. It's not that Jesus approves of every behavior--he certainly does not--but he still loved and welcomed everyone.

Telling someone they are sinning doesn't equate to hating them.
That's what agitates me the most about these discussions.

I manage people as a career.
Telling someone that they're not doing something the way that it was meant to be done does NOT mean that I hate them.
All I can do is try to relay, in the best way I know how, how it's supposed to be done.

I love you. I love Bo. I love Sky, et.al.
I love my niece and my grand-daughter, and they both come to church with us from time to time. Their discussions with God are their own private matter.
All I can do is pray for them.

My apologies. I did not mean to imply YOU hated them. I refer to people who call themselves Christian but focus on hate, such as the Westboro Baptist folk. And I completely agree that you can tell someone he is sinning without hating them. In fact, that's a form of love, isn't it?

But as is the case in this world, it's much easier to see the bad than the good. When young people, raised in a society that sees homosexuality as a natural thing, see churches condemning homosexuals, they turn away. I'm not saying Christian churches need to accept homosexuality; I am saying that there's bigger sins to worry about and Christian churches should reach out and accept LGBT folk.

 

[hortysir]

I think what it comes down to is this:

Either…

1.) You’re a know it all who thinks that you’re smarter than everyone, and should police the world based on your own personal values.

or

2.) Trust the virtue of liberty and freedom and let other individuals live their lives in any way they like, so long as they’re not infringing on your personal rights.


Which option do you choose?

3) You're full of shit, because I have never told anyone that they are wrong and I am right.
Like you, I can only voice my opinions.

This thread is in the Religion/ethics sub-forum, Kevin.
No mention of liberty and freedom, like you would find in the Politics sub-forum.

Where have I attempted to interfere with anyone's rights or freedoms?

You've not made a choice, I've noticed. His question struck too close to home, I wager.

I didn't realize I was required to choose.
Because someone at a keyboard, somewhere, said I should.

I think you know enough about me to know that 2) is the only logical choice.

But this thread isn't about politics or the political debate surrounding gay marriage or gay rights.

It's a religious topic on whether the church's stance on homosexuality is driving young people away from the church.

All of our different churches have their own doctrines.

If they choose to not allow homosexuals into their fold and, as a result, it drives others away then they have made their choice.
Chances are the people they drove away are people that didn't belong there in the first place, if they would choose the ways of the world over the ways of their promised Kingdom.

 

[BDBoop]

Be honest with yourself.

 

[Katzndogz]

Christianty is not a popularity contest, nor should it change by virtue of opinion. Anyone who does not believe what the Bible says is perfectly within their rights, they just aren't Christians. It's like saying "I'm Christian, I just don't believe in the divinity of Christ." Or, "I'm muslim, I just don't buy into the Koran being the Word of Allah."

If young people are being driven from Christianty by the Bible's admonitions against homosexuality it is not the Christian religion that must change to conform to some common whim.

 

[hortysir]

We have a significantly different society than past nations. Ours is based on freedom of religion (both freedom to and freedom from). So you're welcome to your beliefs. But when our society uses belief to enact laws restricting rights of people (i.e., DOMA), then we are violating our own principles.

And to return to the original subject, we turn people off of religion by focusing on hating homosexuals and telling them they are sinners and cannot participate in church. It's not that Jesus approves of every behavior--he certainly does not--but he still loved and welcomed everyone.

Telling someone they are sinning doesn't equate to hating them.
That's what agitates me the most about these discussions.

I manage people as a career.
Telling someone that they're not doing something the way that it was meant to be done does NOT mean that I hate them.
All I can do is try to relay, in the best way I know how, how it's supposed to be done.

I love you. I love Bo. I love Sky, et.al.
I love my niece and my grand-daughter, and they both come to church with us from time to time. Their discussions with God are their own private matter.
All I can do is pray for them.

My apologies. I did not mean to imply YOU hated them. I refer to people who call themselves Christian but focus on hate, such as the Westboro Baptist folk. And I completely agree that you can tell someone he is sinning without hating them. In fact, that's a form of love, isn't it?

But as is the case in this world, it's much easier to see the bad than the good. When young people, raised in a society that sees homosexuality as a natural thing, see churches condemning homosexuals, they turn away. I'm not saying Christian churches need to accept homosexuality; I am saying that there's bigger sins to worry about and Christian churches should reach out and accept LGBT folk.

As I didn't mean to imply that I felt you accused me of hating.

Westboro are the extreme of the extreme.

Had a sermon, just a couple weeks ago, about exactly that.

Don't ask me to quote chapter and verse, but he basically said that our doors keep us in, not others out.

 

[bodecea]

Christianty is not a popularity contest, nor should it change by virtue of opinion. Anyone who does not believe what the Bible says is perfectly within their rights, they just aren't Christians. It's like saying "I'm Christian, I just don't believe in the divinity of Christ." Or, "I'm muslim, I just don't buy into the Koran being the Word of Allah."

If young people are being driven from Christianty by the Bible's admonitions against homosexuality it is not the Christian religion that must change to conform to some common whim.

You are absolutely right. So....true Christians will not care if their church attendance goes down.

BTW, that's what happens anyways when you live somewhere where peer pressure or the pressure of the law no longer MAKES people go to church.