• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christianity in decline

eik

Active Member
Where it conveys wisdom and truth, the Bible warrants our respect. Where it does not, it does not. The truth is not in the words, it's in our experiences with each other.
Jesus would beg to differ. Words are of supreme importance. By quoting your "experiences" which count for very little with God (what counts is treasure in heaven) you demonstrate a preference for humanism.

John 6:63 "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you--they are full of the Spirit and life."

Both the good and the bad. Through these we learn the truth. That God's love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity acting in us and through us to others does indeed heal and save us from ourselves, and help us to heal others. Where the Bible affirms this, it is good. Where the Bible does impedes this, it is not. The same is true of any 'holy' book. And of any religion. This 'truth of Christ' transcends religion, and should not be bogged down or distorted by our religions or our lack thereof.
Wooly words. Even pagans love those who love them. We are required to obey Christ. Only in that is salvation. If you don't know what he commands, how can you obey him? See John 14:15-31. Christianity is all about obedience to Christ, not re-interpretation of his words according to preconceived humanist philosophy based in the politics of the day.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
Yeah that one act being wrong is offensive to gay people.
Ok. Just so you know, I'm only asking in a friendly way, as I have been an outlaw myself plenty with the best/worst of them. (it's like in scripture: "all have sinned") I wonder how you see promiscuity -- which is what some would say the words mean, stuff like orgies, casual sex with strangers, etc.? The 'bath house' thing, or such.

(Context, Christians that have really turned to Christ are admitting that they've sinned, all. Everyone. And we learn in time that our own are things just as bad as casual sex with strangers (for a lot of us, including that also, to add in), in that they don't try to say that their own sins, such as greed, or lusting after someone not one's spouse, or etc., the long list of wrongs people can do -- we learn not to try to pretend our wrongs are somehow less wrong than others'. (The way to know something is wrong if you have a gray area: Matthew 7:12))
 

eik

Active Member
This thread is about 3 billion people believing that homosexuality is a sin.
Only 3 billion? I would have assumed far more than 3 billion. I can't think of any religion on earth, besides decadent and declining Christians sects in the Western world, who don't think homosexuality is a sin. The Western world is not a majority on earth. Even most of Japan thinks homosexuality is a sin and it doesn't really have any religion (except shinto). Same would go for China.
 

King Phenomenon

Well-Known Member
Ok. Just so you know, I'm only asking in a friendly way, as I have been an outlaw myself plenty with the best/worst of them. (it's like in scripture: "all have sinned") I wonder how you see promiscuity -- which is what some would say the words mean, stuff like orgies, casual sex with strangers, etc.? The 'bath house' thing, or such.

(Context, Christians that have really turned to Christ are admitting that they've sinned, all. Everyone. And we learn in time that our own are things just as bad as casual sex with strangers (for a lot of us, including that also, to add in), in that they don't try to say that their own sins, such as greed, or lusting after someone not one's spouse, or etc., the long list of wrongs people can do -- we learn not to try to pretend our wrongs are somehow less wrong than others'.)
It's fine you asked but it is personal. Yes I'm sure gay people are aware of the fact that a sin is a sin no matter what it is but they're still offended by that particular one, rightly so.
 

King Phenomenon

Well-Known Member
Only 3 billion? I would have assumed far more than 3 billion. I can't think of any religion on earth, besides decadent and declining Christians sects in the Western world, who don't think homosexuality is a sin. The Western world is not a majority on earth. Even most of Japan thinks homosexuality is a sin and it doesn't really have any religion (except shinto). Same would go for China.
yeah probably 7 billion people think it's a sin. My bad
 

eik

Active Member
yeah probably 7 billion people think it's a sin. My bad
So what's your point? May be God isn't really interested in the decadent west any more. May be he sees the future of Christianity as lying in Africa, China and so on. In fact current statistics bear this out. Christianity is massively increasing in Asia and Africa. Shame about the West. Seems to me that pretended accommodation with homosexuality is Christianity's downfall. God is most displeased with it.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Only 3 billion? I would have assumed far more than 3 billion. I can't think of any religion on earth, besides decadent and declining Christians sects in the Western world, who don't think homosexuality is a sin. The Western world is not a majority on earth. Even most of Japan thinks homosexuality is a sin and it doesn't really have any religion (except shinto). Same would go for China.
Uhh, pretty sure Hinduism is rather indifferent to homosexuality. At least on paper. So are most Dharmic faiths.
 

eik

Active Member
Uhh, pretty sure Hinduism is rather indifferent to homosexuality. At least on paper. So are most Dharmic faiths.
It's not approved for members of the three upper varnas—the Brahmans (priests and teachers), Kshatriyas (warriors), and Vaishyas (merchants) (twice born) and results in a loss of caste.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Because I have found the message of the story to be true, and I believe the promise it offers us to be logical. That is: that God's divine spirit of love, forgiveness, kindness and generosity exists in all of us, and that if we will set aside our own fear and selfishness and allow that spirit to rule our thoughts and behaviors, it will heal us and save us from ourselves, and help us to heal and save others, as well. And that when/if we all will finally accept this as our true reality, the whole world will be healed and saved (from us).
That is interesting.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Because I have found the message of the story to be true, and I believe the promise it offers us to be logical. That is: that God's divine spirit of love, forgiveness, kindness and generosity exists in all of us, and that if we will set aside our own fear and selfishness and allow that spirit to rule our thoughts and behaviors, it will heal us and save us from ourselves, and help us to heal and save others, as well. And that when/if we all will finally accept this as our true reality, the whole world will be healed and saved (from us).
That is interesting.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
It's not approved for members of the three upper varnas—the Brahmans (priests and teachers), Kshatriyas (warriors), and Vaishyas (merchants) (twice born) and results in a loss of caste.
Ehh, depends on who you ask really. The Karma Sutra doesn’t seem to mind and there’s not a lot in terms of “commandments” against it. Also don’t get me started on castes. *shudders*
I suppose the more conservative Vaishnavas might have some kind of prohibition on it in some form. But I won’t dare speak on their behalf.
 

eik

Active Member
Ehh, depends on who you ask really. The Karma Sutra doesn’t seem to mind and there’s not a lot in terms of “commandments” against it. Also don’t get me started on castes. *shudders*
I suppose the more conservative Vaishnavas might have some kind of prohibition on it in some form. But I won’t dare speak on their behalf.
Still I find it interesting that permission for gay relations are confined to the lowest castes. I'm not pretending Hinduism is anything like monotheism, where there are "multiple paths to reaching their God." Hinduism incorporates ancient paganism in the form of Henotheism, where at a guess most of its texts would be wisdom-based rather than law-based, which is why there would be so few legal prohibitions.

Even in Jewish wisdom literature, you won't find a single reference to gay relations. I guess it's just assumed that such is inherently antithetic to the whole "wisdom" enterprise: rather it was seen as the practice of those without wisdom, i.e. the Canaanites, the peoples whom God gave permission to destroy, upon the Israelites entering the promised land.
 
Last edited:

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Still I find it interesting that permission for gay relations are confined to the lowest castes. I'm not pretending Hinduism is anything like monotheism, where there are "multiple paths to reaching their God." Hinduism incorporates ancient paganism in the form of Henotheism, where at a guess most of its texts would be wisdom-based rather than law-based, which is why there would be so few legal prohibitions.

Even in Jewish wisdom literature, you won't find a single reference to gay relations. I guess it's just assumed that such is inherently antithetic to the whole "wisdom" enterprise: rather it was seen as the practice of those without wisdom, i.e. the Canaanites, the peoples whom God gave permission to destroy, upon the Israelites entering the promised land.
I suppose.
There is some “contention” regarding the whole caste thing. I will walk away from that war zone though.

Though there is the whole “Hijra” thing. So it’s at best “complicated.”
I was taught that it was a “sin” to disrespect a gay person. For they were under the goddess’ protection.

But given the higher infant mortality rate of bygone eras, is it really all that surprising that emphasis was often placed on procreation? And therefore sanctioned/justified in religious texts?
 

eik

Active Member
I suppose.
There is some “contention” regarding the whole caste thing. I will walk away from that war zone though.

Though there is the whole “Hijra” thing. So it’s at best “complicated.”
I was taught that it was a “sin” to disrespect a gay person. For they were under the goddess’ protection.

But given the higher infant mortality rate of bygone eras, is it really all that surprising that emphasis was often placed on procreation? And therefore sanctioned/justified in religious texts?
I wasn't taught that particular sin myself, but then my religion contains no goddess, not even the "virgin Mary," even if society is now more inclinded to goddess veneration in the form of feminism. Historically it is almost always the case that such things are more associated with goddess worship than with male monotheistic deities like YHWH, which is why the concept of the "gay Christian" is such a historical anachronism.

I do not know where Hinduism came from, so I couldn't discuss the origins of emphasis. However it seems to me that the Hijra are in many ways akin to the priests (Galli) of the goddess Cybele, the Magna Mater in Greek mythology, which was later transported to Rome. She is of ancient origin, at least 6000BC.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I wasn't taught that particular sin myself, but then my religion contains no goddess, not even the "virgin Mary," even if society is now more inclinded to goddess veneration in the form of feminism. Historically it is almost always the case that such things are more associated with goddess worship than with male monotheistic deities like YHWH, which is why the concept of the "gay Christian" is such a historical anachronism.
Hmm, it does seem more likely that acceptance or at least tolerance of homosexuality or other (for lack of a better word) oddities would align better under religions with goddess worship. I guess there is an expectation almost of an intrinsic nurturing and welcoming aspect. Though that’s likely a generalisation. But I mean yeah the whole gay Christian thing. I guess that’s certainly up for debate. But since I do not adhere to Christianity I cannot stake a claim in that race.

I do not know where Hinduism came from, so I couldn't discuss the origins of emphasis. However it seems to me that the Hijra are in many ways akin to the priests (Galli) of the goddess Cybele, the Magna Mater in Greek mythology, which was later transported to Rome. She is of ancient origin, at least 6000BC.
It’s from the Indus Valley, overlapping apparently with the Iron Age and even with trace roots going back into prehistoric religions.
But in any case the blend of the Indo-Aryan and Harappan tribes and cultures lead to the confusing mishmash of traditions now called “Hinduism.” There’s no solid like “founder” rather a whole host of “masters” of varying traditional schools, so you will find a wide array of opinions, let’s just say.
Although the similarities with Greco-Roman concepts are not lost on me.
 

eik

Active Member
But in any case the blend of the Indo-Aryan and Harappan tribes and cultures lead to the confusing mishmash of traditions now called “Hinduism.” There’s no solid like “founder” rather a whole host of “masters” of varying traditional schools, so you will find a wide array of opinions, let’s just say.
It's hard to take Hinduism seriously when you have gods like Ganesha. However I like the idea of becoming one with Brahman through wisdom, although I guess the problem is how do you gain knowledge of this mysterious god? It seems to be axiomatic that humans cannot describe or comprehend Brahman. So how do you know Brahman approves of all these lower gods and goddesses said to represent him? There seems to be scope for confusion and error.

Although the similarities with Greco-Roman concepts are not lost on me.
The endless proliferation of gods being one.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
It's hard to take Hinduism seriously when you have gods like Ganesha. However I like the idea of becoming one with Brahman through wisdom, although I guess the problem is how do you gain knowledge of this mysterious god? It seems to be axiomatic that humans cannot describe or comprehend Brahman. So how do you know Brahman approves of all these lower gods and goddesses said to represent him? There seems to be scope for confusion and error.

Aww, but Ganesh is adorable. His little pot bellie hehe.
He represents luck and good fortune. The tale behind his Elephant head is supposed to be a lesson in obedience towards one’s parents, even when it seemingly “conflicts.”

As for Brahma, well I guess my old teacher would tell me, Brahma is all things. Good, evil, malice, divine, cruelty, charity. Nothing is seperate from Brahma, not even ourselves. Only our egos prevents us from truly realising this. Now of course I won’t pretend to know what that “means.” I’m no priest.
Only that you’re supposed meditate, worship and try to fulfil your Dhama. Practices and rituals will differ through the different schools and each has their own interpretation of who is the “Godhead.”

The “lower deities” do not represent Brahma, they are parts of the same deity. They are more like aspects, moods or “costumes” to fit certain circumstances.
(Although some might take their separation more literally. I can’t speak for all of Hinduism after all. I don’t think I could even for my “branch.”)

The endless proliferation of gods being one.
Ha, true!
 

eik

Active Member
Now of course I won’t pretend to know what that “means.” I’m no priest.
How different is Christianity then? "He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen." Rev 1:6.

It seems you tolerate a lot of uncertainty in Hinduism. Perhaps too much, and perhaps you have too much faith in your priests. Christians, after the early church period anyway, have always been rebelling against priestcraft and the authority of the "priests;" although priests per se don't really exist in New Testament Christianity, as the term means "presbyter" (elder) (except in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy). We have only one High Priest who is Christ himself, the source of all dhama, which would roughly translate to the "logos" in Christianity. Although as the OP pointed out, a dhama that is being increasingly being rejected for irreligion.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
How different is Christianity then? "He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen." Rev 1:6.

It seems you tolerate a lot of uncertainty in Hinduism. Perhaps too much, and perhaps you have too much faith in your priests. Christians, after the early church period anyway, have always been rebelling against priestcraft and the authority of the "priests;" although priests per se don't really exist in New Testament Christianity, as the term means "presbyter" (elder) (except in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy). We have only one High Priest who is Christ himself, the source of all dhama, which would roughly translate to the "logos" in Christianity. Although as the OP pointed out, a dhama that is being increasingly being rejected for irreligion.
Well I guess, how seperate does Christianity view existence to that of God? If they are one and the same, I would guess that there are no differences. But I am not well versed in Christianity, so.. Although my older Aunt and Uncle are Catholics. Their children I think are more orthodox. (I say that as both my Uncle and Aunty blend their taught Catholicism with their Hindu traditions. But I don’t know if the kids do.)

I don’t follow any priests. They are only there to lead rituals and I dunno, read some scripture during service or give a sermon on Dharma or whatever.
If one wishes to follow a certain “priest” or master of their school, that is up to their preference. Hinduism tends to largely take a “hands off” approach. Or at least where I live. Perhaps because in Australia you tend to get many different schools coming together under one temple, as it were. So it could just be a happenstance?
Even questions such as scriptures, the only scripture everyone seems to agree is central is the Vedas. The rest, well opinions will vary. And that’s okay.
And uncertainty is just a fact of life. No use rallying against a fact, right?

Losing Dharma in favour of being irreligious seems to be a universal concern lol
But I mean the religious would say that, wouldn’t they?
 
Last edited:
Top