?

Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Gay churches?

Is being gay wrong?
What about those churches that allow it?
Hmmmm....



(PLEASE JUST READ THIS SENTENCE... I know this looks like a lot but it's really not. I have re-read it a couple times, and it takes only 8 minutes. So if you have 8 minutes to spare, and to read some stuff that is very interesting (as well as entertaining...), then please take the time to at least glance through some of this. However, do not, under ANY circumstances, comment if you do not read the whole thing please...) :)


Okay. So recently I did the usual, same as you all did. I woke up, and the first thing I did was check my myspace. Lol. But when I looked at it I noticed something. I had a message from an interesting lovely friend that I haven't seen in years. Her name is Longtimefriend. (I don't want people judging her, whether good or bad...) And this is what she told me.

Longtimefriend told me that she needed advice about God and stuff, so I did the best I could. I am no saint, and I am no pastor or anything. But I am a soldier of Christ, (even though I don't look it... ;)   ), and I gave her my opinion of the things she was going through. But when she was talking about stuff, specifically the church that she goes too, she mentioned something interesting. She said that her church is okay with homosexuality.

Now to be honest I wasn't too shocked. I have heard of these types of churchs before, so it was nothing new. But I had never actually KNOWN someone that went to one. So I asked her questions about it, and did some research, and here is what I came up with.

Now first of all I want to point out a few things, before you read what I have to say.
1. I am not, in any way, judging homosexuals. If you are a homosexual, please just read what I have to say, and take it or leave it. The same if you are NOT a homosexual but think it is okay, and the same for people who think that all gays are "gunna go da hell!". I don't want to offend anybody. I am just saying what I think. I don't ask that you agree with me or disagree, simply, to just see what I came up with. And if you do feel strongly about this, then PLEASE leave a comment, I would love to see what you have to say. Even if it's disagreement.
2. I want everybody to know something that I probably haven't told any of you. This is VERY personal. I want you to know that I used to be bi. For a while I thought I might be gay, and I had intimate relations with men. Guys. I did gay stuff. I won't say how much or how little, but it was enough to raise eyebrows. So don't feel I am being one sided about this. I am not one of those people that are like "ewwww yucky... gays.." I am NOT being one-sided about this. I am simply trying to point out a couple FACTS, and logically make a conclusion.

Okay, so here we go.

Now when we ask the question about whether or not being gay is wrong or not, we have to have a base, or a source from where we make our conclusions. And yes, I am a Christian, so i will make my base be from the bible. But that would be wierd right? Because some churches say it's okay and accepts gays, and some churches don't.

I am from a Church that says it doesn't, and let me explain.

The church is based on the bible. Without the bible you wouldn't even have the church, just a bunch of people walking around telling you what's bad and what's good, and you wouldn't know why. The bible IS the church, in essence, it is what it teaches, and we do what it says, and we go by it. That's why I don't agree with churches that say it is okay to be gay. Now wait. I am not saying here being gay is wrong. The person that reads what I just wrote and says "There it is, he is saying he is against gays and I am not listening to him..." that is being ignorant. Listen to me.

I am not saying being gay is wrong there, with that sentence. I am saying that a church that says it is okay to be gay, that doesn't condemn homosexual marriage, is wrong. And if you think about it, I think you will agree with me. The Church is BASED on the bible, how can something stand for something and not stand for all of it? That would be like the government saying some rules don't apply. That they are there for no reason. Or that would be like taking some of the rules and saying "Well Washington didn't mean THAT... he meant..." w/e, to achieve the selfish need the person had at the moment. I am not saying being gay is wrong there, I am saying Churches that take parts of the bible out to suit their needs is wrong. And I know, even if you are an atheist, even if you are a GAY atheist, will agree.

That's like a church saying "Well stealing is not ACTUALLY wrong...". Imagine if that happened. How ludicrous would that be? If churches started popping up all over the place, you would have the church that is okay to steal, the church that is okay to lust, the church that is okay with JUST killing.... how crazy would that be? Well, I think it is the same as the church that think it is okay to be gay. And right now your probably thinking, if your an atheist, or gay, or w/e, well what are the verses? What are they? If you showed me, Drake, that it specifically says so in the bible, then I can agree that this church is wrong. And that's all I ask for. I am not asking you to believe in god and love jesus, if you are an athiest, I am asking you to agree with the basic fundementality that if something is built on something, it should be BUILT on it! All of it, not part of it. Even atheists or hinduists or what the heck ever can agree with me on that.

So here are 4 quick verses that I believe are the core of it. Just glance through real fast, and see if you agree or disagree. Afterwards I want to also tell all of yall of one VERY important thing. So just glance through these and read what I have to say afterwards, I promise you I'm almost done, lol.

Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. (The Sodomites consisted of a lot of homosexuals...)

Romans 1:26-27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (here the author is talking about THE VAGINA AND THE PENIS. Lol. When you were 12 you may have seen a "nature" video about how a male and a female have babies. This is what he is talking about...)
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; (and again here...) men with men (right here...) working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (here...)
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Timothy 1:9-11 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, (again here...) for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

NOW STOP.
There is one thing I want to point out. Paul was the first person to start speaking of these thing, and what Paul meant was, that homosexuality is a sin. In the bible it says to God, all sin is equal. If this is true, that means that lying to your mom about going to the mall is the same when two gay guys do each other in the butts. (Gross? Why is it? Think about why you had that initial reaction...) If this is true, then all sin is equal. That means that a guy lusting after a hot guy is the same after a guy lusting after a hot guy.

What does this mean? This mean that Paul, among the other authors, is saying that homosexual ACTS are a sin. He is saying that a guy being tempted to have gay sex is the same as a guy tempted to have pre-maritatl sex with a woman. The world has this mixed up thing that God condemns the feelings of a homosexual. That is not true. God doesn't condemn feelings. Feelings, it says this in the bible, are not a sin. It is being tempted. FEELINGS = BEING TEMPTED. It is not wrong to be tempted, it is wrong to act on it. Don't forget that since I am a crazy christian, I believe the verse that says the authors of the bible only spoke from the holy spirit, from god. So god is saying this.

What I am saying here is that we should view Homosexuals as any other sinner. Whether you steal or lie or have sex with the same sex, you are still a sinner. Churches need to stop abandoning gays and lesbians because they are different "sinners", they are still sinners. And so are we.

So what am I saying? Am I saying we need to be a church that allows and accepts homosexuals?

Not at all. These churches think that homosexuals are OKAY... that they are going to heaven. That somehow if you are a MARRIED homosexual, you are not sinning. And that is ridiculous, as the scriptures CLEARLY point out earlier...

Even if you are athiest, even if you are gay, even if you are a gay atheist, you should be able to agree with me. Those churches are split. They are forming their own way, and it is wrong, because they are based on the bible. PLEASE leave me comments, I would love to know what you think. But please don't leave comments on whether or not being gay is wrong. I am not argueing that. I already said I am a christian and I agree with christian morals, but that is not what I am disproving or saying is wrong. I am saying churches that accept homosexuals, and don't condemn it, are wrong.

SOME EXTRA THOUGHTS...

I talked to this girl, Longtimefriend, and she told me a couple things. She said that, although one of her pastors is a lesbian, the church "chooses not to talk about those things..." and I can't help but wonder why. Why? What do you think? She also, when pressed about her personal beliefs, and evidence, said that she really didn't know, and that they mostly use a "prayer book" when in church. I asked her who wrote it. It seemed reasonable if you base your beliefs and morals on a book you should know all about it. She said she didn't know who wrote it, and neither did her parents.

Comments

( 28 comments — Leave a comment )
lostvirtue
May. 10th, 2008 07:37 pm (UTC)
My "church" says that homosexuality is fine... but I doubt you'd call it a church, since it has no doctrine (only principles and sources), and even though we have Christian members, it is not a Christian church.

I agree with you that it is odd for a by the book Christian church to accept homosexuals, it's part of the reason (well, my very large number of reasons) why I'm not a Christian.
lostvirtue
May. 10th, 2008 07:44 pm (UTC)
Oh and just to note this is my church: http://www.fusmadison.org/
(Deleted comment)
lostvirtue
May. 15th, 2008 12:51 pm (UTC)
Yeah, well, I completely and utterly disagree with telling people their sexual preference (in a case where it's consenting adults) is wrong. And it isn't JUST a sexual preference it's who you love and want to be a family with.

Our Society accepts both the person/s and the lifestyle without judgment. I get the difference actually, what I find odd (but morally correct) is Christian churches that say, have openly gay priests or leaders who wear signs of their support rainbows(of which I actually approve) and the general Christian ideas taken from the Bible.. White you do have a love the sinner hate the sin concept you don't have an openly thieving paster for example who wears a name tag with a "I am currently practicing sin right now".

I don't accept the Bible as the word of God though, so it's pretty straight forward. I'm not trying to reconcile things that make no sense (and I apologize if that's sounds offensive, but I grew up in a highly religious household and spent a lot of failed time trying to do just that).
(Deleted comment)
lostvirtue
May. 16th, 2008 02:35 am (UTC)
I don't believe anything was "meant" to be anything, I am an atheist.... and not being straight is no longer considered a mental illness by the medical society.

I work at a Psychiatric Office.
lostvirtue
May. 16th, 2008 02:37 am (UTC)
Anyway, make long story short, I don't believe as you do, nor what you base your beliefs on, so we will get exactly no where. I do admit my tone beginning this conversation was not the best, as I had just woken up and am extremely defensive about this issue. Regardless, I disagree with you on nearly every point, but I don't have the motivation to go into it further.
aimlessunshine
May. 10th, 2008 07:49 pm (UTC)
So let me see if I'm reading this correct. It's ok to be gay but gays are sinners and the church shouldn't recognize them as "ok"?
I may need to think about this a little more but I find this to be hypocritical. And hasn't it always been the practice of the church to teach those things that self serving? What I mean by this is they preach on the do's & don'ts of life but how many actually follow this? In the age of mega churches & pedophile priests I find it hard to believe that the church would be so self-righteous as to shun anyone.
The fact that I've yet to find a church that actually practices what it preaches it what prompted me to leave it. I grew up in the church and went to private Christian schools. I found nothing but hypocrisy and confusion.
I need to absorb this and organize my thoughts on it. Nice to meet you btw. :)
hotfirecrotch
May. 10th, 2008 10:45 pm (UTC)
Take me off your friends list.

Edited at 2008-05-10 10:49 pm (UTC)
featherdancer
May. 10th, 2008 11:13 pm (UTC)
I see that you just added me, so I began to read this entry and I have to say I partially agree.

I agree with this statement concerning the church viewing homosexuals as any other sinner, but, when you say there are certain churches that accept homosexuals and you think that they are somehow changing what the bible originally intended, I don't see how that is so.

If all sinners are equal, a person who steals is the same as a person who loves the same sex...that part I can understand. I do not know much about the other churches that openly accept homosexuals but wouldn't it just be the same as what you said about accepting sinners? because basically we are all sinners from the start. I am not very religious but I would think that a church that is accepting of homosexuals, is really the right idea because, as you said, sins are sins. They are no different from each other, as long as that person of the Christian faith asks for forgiveness for their sins.

Does that make sense?

boyvirgil
May. 11th, 2008 08:01 pm (UTC)
you are comparing "being gay" with acts of violence.
this is a huge mistake.
this comment pertains to the observation that you are seeing things under a light which presents personal choices which would "raise eyebrows" as "the same" as "stealing ... lusting ... killing ... lying" --

For some people, church is a provider of moral instruction. People attend church in order to become indoctrinated with the established codes and standards. I believe that this relationship in itself is very shallow: ideas of rules and regulation are NOT the foundation of church nor religion, nor Christianity.
What IS at the foundation of these things? What IS the ESSENCE of the WORD OF GOD?
The answer can only be found though one's personal relationship with God, which at any time can never be any more solid than one's personal relationship with themselves and their choices which have been part of the unfolding of this very present moment.
It is my understanding, an understanding which was gained through intuitive insight, an understanding gained through direct experience, that sin occurs when one loses the TRUE KNOWLEDGE of his connection with God.
When I lose touch of the TRUE KNOWLEDGE of my connection with God, I steal, I envy, I disdain, I spite, I lust. When I try to separate myself from God, I am already punishing myself and punishing mankind by pure ignorance alone. When I wish violence upon another, I suffer already from violence against myself. This is the truth of the world and the truth of the children of God.

BUT TO LOVE?
TO LOVE WITHOUT GENDER AS A QUALIFIER?
This is sin?
now I'm not saying that boy-on-boy joy is not sinful, but if it is sinful, is it any more sinful than girl-boy love-joy?
Now as I ask you this, you are taking my question and asking it internally, so tell me, who are YOU asking?
are you asking your church, the learn'ed interpretation of a spiritual leader, or are you asking God?

Jesus said, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed ADULTERY with her in his heart."
Sin is in distancing one's self from God. Sin is in doubting God.
God. above church, above church leaders, above the text of the bible. God.
So who are you asking?

A loving relationship with a person of the same sex is not contrary to God's will. Marriage, as a symbol of unity, love, and commitment, between two people of whichever gender, is not contrary to God's will. If I smilingly choose to live my life in an intimate partnership with a man or a woman, I am doing nothing contrary to the will of God. Now at this point in the paragraph, I believe it is the responsibility of Christianity to welcome all unto the Word of Christ who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
It's fucking simple, but the path to the truth of God is realized by us all in an instant of inspiration, love, joy, lightness, oneness... It is realized when we allow ourselves to forget all our self-imposed conditions and restrictions and protections, and what is realized is that we ARE the path to the truth of God and we ARE the truth of God. And to KNOW where we stand as God's children is to be free of our doubts and notions and interpretations, and then in faith we exist to do the work of God, whatever that might be.

The homosexual debate is one that exists because of human fear and human self righteousness. When we allow our hearts to be filled with God's love, there is no room for fear, nor violence, nor doubt. The more we cultivate this truth, the less importance is held by things like this debate.
It is my (admittedly rather immature) understanding of [American] [Christian] church culture, that the importance of stances on things like this debate is paramount as it pertains to one's acceptance by the church. It is my opinion, that I don't deserve to be included or excluded for claiming a stance on an issue which amounts to being imaginary and rhetorical. Better, I would say, for all superficial distinctions to disappear among the family of humanity, let us all see God's grace for the first time and with clear eyes come together in works as in spirit, as one body to serve under God.

boyvirgil
May. 11th, 2008 08:01 pm (UTC)

I know little about you so allow me to share this:
http://www.emersoncentral.com/divaddr.htm
one of the more important things I've read in my life, that is, it helped prepare me to keep an open mind in times that have been troubled or doubtful. I repeatedly find that in summoning the strength to break away from my assumptions and ideals that they might be questioned, I have opened myself up to being found by the greater truth, which is always new, and which rings like a bell.
dwarsement
May. 12th, 2008 02:41 am (UTC)
read romans chapter 1.

clearly, homosexuality is wrong. thus, homosexual marriage is wrong.
boyvirgil
May. 12th, 2008 10:12 am (UTC)
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; [6] for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so [7] that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

call me a fool but
ASK YOURSELF
when have you known God?
what do you glorify as God and when do you give thanks?
How immediately will you drop the questions, "which" "why"
And finally, putting the intellectual game aside, WHEN will you recognize the glory of the incorruptible God

YOU
asura_reborn
May. 13th, 2008 05:33 am (UTC)
The great thing about being Demonkin...
The great thing about being Demonkin is the nonconformity...

I have a LOT of respect for Mr. Jesus...

He was a great man. Before the Bible was rewritten (see book: Misquoting Jesus) there was this verse in Acts:

"And Jesus descended to Hell, and preached to even the [demons] there. And on the third day He rose."

Myself, I am Bi. I think God knows I know my place, and accepts that. And I think God's Son, Jesus (who is not directly declared God in the Bible anywhere except through interpretations declared true by the man Constantine who mixed Paganism with Christianity) is pretty accepting of it.

I guess for every knee to bow, and every Tongue Accept, that Jesus the Christos is Lord, Mister Jesus might accept that some of us just can't change, and thus can't have it as good as the rest, but...

Hey, that's a choice right.

When Revelation talks about reincarnation, (a new soul and body for all spirits), it says those who oppose God's Will directly are sent to Hell, not all non-believers, but then there are some other places that reference that...

Anyway, long point made short...
I think Mr. Jesus accepts I'm not good enough to be a non-deviant, and I think that's okay with Him, as long as I stay in line.

We all are what we are. And The Christ is probably a bit better at understand this than the humans.
southleft
May. 15th, 2008 03:51 am (UTC)
I don't know why you adds me. But you clearly have some sort of mental illness.. I'm sure you know this deep down but you are gay. This post suggests you have very serious psychological issues that you need to address. I suggest you seek out others who have found loving relationships with both people of the same sex AND God, and you will begin to realize that there are other worldviews that are fulfilling. You will be a much happier and more fulfilled person once you learn to love yourself, homosexuality and all.

in the mean time, your post just sounds like an artifact from the 1950's, and is incredibly backward and offensive to many good, decent people.
grinningevil
May. 15th, 2008 04:27 am (UTC)
You just added me so I thought I'd have a look at your journal just to see what's up...

I'm not a Christian, so you can make whatever you'd like from my perspective. I don't think there's anything wrong with homosexuality. Love is good. In fact, I think any situation where everyone involved is consenting is okay.

As far as your reasoning I understand where you're coming from, but I feel using the Bible as an unerring guide to what God intended is flawed. Many people have definite ideas about which version of the Bible is authoritative but few know how the KJV (the version many feel is the most accurate for whatever reason, probably because of it's archaic English) came about. Before the KJV there were three popular versions of the Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Geneva Bible and the Great Bible. The Great Bible was the former official bible of the Church of England (commisioned by King Henry VIII) but it had "flaws" in that it didn't exactly match the doctrine of the Church of England. King James set out to rectify that with his version.

So, long story shory (too late?), basing your belief system on something as inaccurate as even the KJV seems like it might not be that great of an idea. For more interesting reading you might want to check out Richard Friedman's "Who Wrote The Bible". It's mostly about the Old Testament as I recall, but it's facinating nonetheless.
(Deleted comment)
lostvirtue
May. 15th, 2008 01:00 pm (UTC)
Getting straight, that sickens me. One of my best friends is gay and a healthy strong person with a strong work ethic and she's one of my favorite people. Trying to make someone straight honestly makes me gag a little.

You have any idea what your rhetoric does to a young gay person in a church? Bah humbug,I say onto you.

Thanks for your psychoanalysis btw. You have a doctorate I assume?

(Deleted comment)
lostvirtue
May. 16th, 2008 02:31 am (UTC)
Because the only problem gay people have is religious people giving them shit about who they are. That's why.

My friends don't want to be straight, that's the difference.



sinister_foxx
May. 25th, 2008 07:34 pm (UTC)
Homosexuality is actually a personality disorder brought on by unresolved emotional pain that can go back to the womb. Unborn babies can hear and feel what the mother is going through and what attitudes others have about them, the infant.

are you fucking serious?
what century do you live in?
dorjejaguar
May. 15th, 2008 05:56 am (UTC)
I'm not gonna read the whole post cause it's damn long and you're just not gonna convince me that being gay is wrong.
But I will say this. The Bible is not the Church.
The Church is the Church. The bible is a book.
The Church existed before the bible. It was a movement, not a book and how the bible ended up was significantly influenced by the Council of Nicaea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

If you're going to argue that homosexuality and homosexual acts are wrong cause the bible says so then think about this.
The old testament says so. You're not Jewish, right? You're a Christian. I seem to remember Jesus said he came to bring a new law, that he had fulfilled the old law and it was now done with.
There's plenty of things in the old testament that were regarded as wrong that I bet you do daily or weekly. Go ahead and look it up, it might be interesting.

Jesus never talked about sexuality, he did talk about love. He said things like "fear not", "judge not" and "love one another".
If you are a Christian shouldn't the words of Christ be the paramount influence in your life rather than the Mosaic law?






Edited at 2008-05-15 05:58 am (UTC)
(Deleted comment)
dorjejaguar
May. 26th, 2008 01:03 am (UTC)
Edit: Excuse me I thought you were the dwarsement guy (whoever he is), hardly matters though.

My info has nothing to do with the movie. My information predates the movie by many years. Perhaps it's incomplete. But what information I have did not come from a movie. I've been alive and around and thinking since far before that movie came out.

But it hardly matters, someone made those decisions. Certainly at the Councils of Nicea they were deciding doctrinal issues. Don't you think that would affect what was taught thereafter?

Moreover you've not responded to the rest of my comment. Do you really think me not knowing the exact origin of the books of the bible makes any difference to my reasoning?

But anyway, since you think you know better, instead of implying I get all my info from the movies how bout you explain how the books of the bible came to be "The Bible" as it is today?



Edited at 2008-05-26 01:15 am (UTC)
(Deleted comment)
dorjejaguar
May. 26th, 2008 02:11 pm (UTC)
I'm gonna guess you haven't read my edited response. I thought you were dwarsement at first. I don't know how old you are. If I remember correctly dwarsement is rather young though.
Dwarsement wrote a *very* long post. I certainly read more than I ended up writing in response.
But I did read all of your comment to me.
When you assume what my intentions are you are very likely to be wrong. You do not know me.

"Keep digging, or are you afraid to find out you might be wrong?"

Thanks for the rather inflammatory challenge. Do you really need to see me as afraid? The simple fact is it matters not at all to me when the bible was formed. It doesn't change anything really. The date of inclusion or exclusion of various texts has little to do with my comment to dwarsement.

As for your experience, well I don't know what it is. Can't very well disagree with it, then can I?

If you don't want to start arguments it might help if you had a slightly more open and less rude tone. You invite arguments with such a tone.

dorjejaguar
May. 26th, 2008 01:28 am (UTC)
Is this good enough for you?

"The Council of Carthage, called the third by Denzinger,[4] on 28 August 397 issued a canon of the Bible restricted to: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kingdoms, 2 books of Paralipomenon, Job, Psalter of David, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Esdras, 2 books of Machabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 of him to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Judas, and the Apocalypse of John."

Obviously if that's the list the list has changed since then too. Or at least it has for what non-catholic Christians call their bible.

Still the when and where of the inclusion or exclusion of texts has shit all to do with the bulk of what I was saying to dwarsement.
asouthernthing
May. 15th, 2008 01:41 pm (UTC)
This is one of the most ignorant pieces of shit I have ever read. Take me off your list, troll.
halfscripts
May. 20th, 2008 05:54 am (UTC)
I can't believe I'm even bothering with a reply to this since you seem like just another internet troll, but I'm bored enough and now irritated enough to waste my time on this. So here we go.

The Church is BASED on the bible, how can something stand for something and not stand for all of it? That would be like the government saying some rules don't apply. That they are there for no reason. Or that would be like taking some of the rules and saying "Well Washington didn't mean THAT... he meant..." w/e, to achieve the selfish need the person had at the moment.

They're called Amendments.
The Bible, like the Constitution, are outdated documents. They were created in a different time when education was limited to wealthy, Caucasian men. Therefore, the rules (The Constitution, the Bible) are written to suit the needs of ONLY the wealthy, Caucasian men. Amendments were made to the Constitution when it became apparent that the rules originally lined out only represented a fraction of the population. Because times change. As more people become educated, we begin to realize that early misconceptions about human nature and what is "right" is, in fact, wrong.
It is the same as the Bible.
It is an outdated document.
It requires amendment.

That's like a church saying "Well stealing is not ACTUALLY wrong...". Imagine if that happened. How ludicrous would that be? If churches started popping up all over the place, you would have the church that is okay to steal, the church that is okay to lust, the church that is okay with JUST killing.... how crazy would that be? Well, I think it is the same as the church that think it is okay to be gay. And right now your probably thinking, if your an atheist, or gay, or w/e, well what are the verses? What are they? If you showed me, Drake, that it specifically says so in the bible, then I can agree that this church is wrong. And that's all I ask for. I am not asking you to believe in god and love jesus, if you are an athiest, I am asking you to agree with the basic fundementality that if something is built on something, it should be BUILT on it! All of it, not part of it. Even atheists or hinduists or what the heck ever can agree with me on that.

You know, you're right. A religion that only picks and chooses the rules that suit them is wrong. But homosexuality seems to be the only one the religious fundamentalists are hung up on- for some unknown reason, people seem to forget that it's also stated very specifically in the Bible that it is forbidden to eat pigs. How many Christians have a Christmas ham? Ham for Easter, perhaps? Interesting. I, personally, think that if "something is built on something, it should be BUILT on it. All of it, not part of it." And by going on your line of reason, here, if all sins are equal, churches should not allow people who eat pigs into their fine establishments. In fact, I think that people who eat pigs should be stripped of all their basic, human rights and made to be humiliated- why, these freakshows should not be allowed to marry! Imagine, the horrors! THEY MIGHT ACTUALLY MAKE THEIR KIDS EAT PIG TOO. AND WE CAN'T HAVE THAT.

While I'm at it, the Bible also states that if you find out that someone is worshiping a different religion than your own, you should go into their town and kill them all, and then you should put all their possessions in the middle of the town and set it on fire. You'd better get started, I've heard rumor that there's a lot of Jews, and Hindus, and Muslims and don't forget all the sub-sects of even Christianity that are floating around this country! You're going to need a lot of matches.

Have you ever disobeyed your parents? Have you ever been stubborn, have you ever rebelled? According to the Bible, they should have taken you to the middle of the town and had you stoned to death. I think people who don't stone their sons to death when they disobey them, I think those awful, terrible people should not be allowed to go to church either. It's against the Bible, against GOD HIMSELF!

Women who wear pants, off with their heads.
All those cute little scenester boys who borrow their girlfriend's jeans.... off with their heads.
halfscripts
May. 20th, 2008 06:16 am (UTC)
Actually, I amend and withdraw my comment about the Bible being written by wealthy Caucasian men. I apparently forgot the fact that the Bible was written by men in the Middle East (so why is Jesus always depicted as white, anyway?)
halfscripts
May. 20th, 2008 05:54 am (UTC)
And oh my god, don't get me started on the heathens that wear COTTON BLENDS. Wearing a cotton blend, according to the Bible, is a sin. All sins are equal. You are going to hell, for wearing a cotton blend. They should start checking people's clothing tags at the door to make sure they're not trying to sneak in with their vile clothing, because of course, wearing a cotton blend is outlined in the Bible as wrong and therefore it is WORD. It cannot be disobeyed.

According to the Bible, victims should be forced to marry their rapists.

I could go on. But I think you're beginning to get the idea.
If we go by your own argument, then all of the above people should not be accepted in any church. And a church that accepts such people, with their cotton blends and those women wearing pants, is wrong.

If all sin is equal
then I suppose every single person who has ever eaten ham should be stripped of their rights, and should definitely not be allowed to get married. I mean, people eating pig, loving other people who eat pigs? THAT'S JUST WEIRD.
cupcake_razor
Aug. 11th, 2008 06:31 pm (UTC)
i'm not going go into a lot of detail on this, because i simply don't have the energy right now for it.

a christian church is based on their interpretation of the bible, period. some say abortion is ok, some say homosexuality is ok, some say both are satanic and wrong. it's all their take on things. there are many instances of homosexuality in the bible, and god condemns those acts because of deeper embedded issues. to say that one church is wrong for their belief because it is different from your view of right and wrong... that's intolerance. maybe it's a lesser form, if you are accepting of people of different beliefs... reminiscent of the christian cowboy from seinfeld, who didn't mind dating elaine because he wasn't the one going to hell.

the fact that people don't talk about their sexual experiences in church does not surprise me. in fact, that's probably the most proper thing to do. people who go to church with the sole purpose of hooking up with others, that seems a little wrong to me.

not wanting to bring up the topic of what types of people one finds attractive, or what one looks for in a mate in a church setting, that is common decency. there are far too many people who automatically assume when someone is gay, that person must be horny all the time and wants to hook up with someone solely for their physical attributes, the ones that are covered up at beaches. you wouldn't go up to a straight person and bombard them with questions about someone of the opposite sex they want to bone, right? same concept here. you accept someone is single or taken, and deal with it. too many people automatically think of things carnal when they hear someone is gay.

the most spiritually sound people i have ever met have been able to separate their core beliefs from that of any church; they interpret their holy scriptures so that it is true for them. most people, however, listen to how a mass majority interpret the bible and assume that's what is right. i encourage you to read the bible without hearing another person's view of it and see if you still agree with your church's views on the issues you brought up in your post.
resistdeath
Jan. 12th, 2009 03:17 am (UTC)
You probably shouldn't call yourself a writer.
( 28 comments — Leave a comment )