How should religions honour the freedom of conscience of their members?

[1213]

...Gay catholics are part of this Church because they love christ and their god....

Bible tells loving God means this:

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3

I don’t see any evidence they love God.

Why would anyone want to follow christ if they are being compared to murderers and pedophiles?

Everyone who goes against God’s will, is in the same group of people who go against God’s will. I think that is just truth. If we would accept that God’s will is not valid in one point, why would we accept it in any point?

It's not about that. It's about christianity putting gay people in a shoebox and justifying it by their interpretation of the bible (as if they are god) rather than supporting that gay person (love the sinner) without comparing and accusing him or her for criminal things even When he hasn't "committed a crime."

Bible tells:
You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestible.
Lev. 18:22

I think that is clear message and no interpretation needed. What do you think that means and is there some good reason to interpret that to mean something else than what is said?

Basically, homosexual sex is as wrong as sex with neighbor’s wife, because in the same book it is said:

You shall not lie carnally with your neighbor's wife, and defile yourself with her.
Lev. 18:20

If we ignore and don’t believe Lev. 18:22, why should we believe anything else said in the book?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Bible tells loving God means this:

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3

I don’t see any evidence they love God.



Everyone who goes against God’s will, is in the same group of people who go against God’s will. I think that is just truth. If we would accept that God’s will is not valid in one point, why would we accept it in any point?



Bible tells:
You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestible.
Lev. 18:22

I think that is clear message and no interpretation needed. What do you think that means and is there some good reason to interpret that to mean something else than what is said?

Basically, homosexual sex is as wrong as sex with neighbor’s wife, because in the same book it is said:

You shall not lie carnally with your neighbor's wife, and defile yourself with her.
Lev. 18:20

If we ignore and don’t believe Lev. 18:22, why should we believe anything else said in the book?

Do you mind I correct this (from a factual view rather than my opinion)?

It's very insulting and does not at a refer to homosexuality (the 21st definition and from gay people themselves) and it makes assumptions on gay people that are simply not true.

It's kind of like defining christians and christianity based on the biases of my experiences and not scripture and from christians themselves.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Three quick things:

1.Churches, like all other organizations, deal with and teach what they think is right.

2.Regardless of what a Church or any other organization may say, one always has the right to leave.

3.The Catholic Church no longer teaches that those who may leave are automatically condemned to hell. If it did, I'd leave in a heartbeat.

A religion doesn't have to automatically condemn apostates to Hell for the potential for coercion to be present.

Religions can have tremendous power over their adherents... more than, say, a workplace over its employees. There are legal and ethical restrictions on how a company or supervisor can treat its employees; why shouldn't there be similar restrictions on how a religion can treat its adherents?

Of course, if we did want to go with the approach that you and others are suggesting, then it raises a question:

If a person's deeply-held religious beliefs don't deserve any consideration in their dealings with their church, why should those deeply-held religious beliefs get special consideration in other contexts? If a person's church has no duty at all to accommodate the varied beliefs of its members, why should, say, a workplace have to accommodate the varied beliefs of its employees? After all, employees are free to quit their jobs just as adherents are free to quit their churches... right?

 

[metis]

A religion doesn't have to automatically condemn apostates to Hell for the potential for coercion to be present.

Religions can have tremendous power over their adherents... more than, say, a workplace over its employees. There are legal and ethical restrictions on how a company or supervisor can treat its employees; why shouldn't there be similar restrictions on how a religion can treat its adherents?

Of course, if we did want to go with the approach that you and others are suggesting, then it raises a question:

If a person's deeply-held religious beliefs don't deserve any consideration in their dealings with their church, why should those deeply-held religious beliefs get special consideration in other contexts? If a person's church has no duty at all to accommodate the varied beliefs of its members, why should, say, a workplace have to accommodate the varied beliefs of its employees? After all, employees are free to quit their jobs just as adherents are free to quit their churches... right?

This has been covered many times before, so I simply am not going to waste any more time with you on this.

If you have no respect for religion, and you've made it clear that you don't, then why are you even here at ReligiousForums? If I didn't like art, for example, why in the world would I waste my time posting on art websites? Obviously, you have the right to be here, so that's not the question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This has been covered many times before, so I simply am not going to waste any more time with you on this.

If you have no respect for religion, and you've made it clear that you don't, then why are you even here at ReligiousForums? If I didn't like art, for example, why in the world would I waste my time posting on art websites? Obviously, you have the right to be here, so that's not the question.

If someone doesn't like climate change, why would they spend time on climate change forums?

Edit: and no, you haven't covered this before. Not with me, anyhow.

Edit 2: and weren't you the one who made a big show out of putting me on ignore "permanently"? Maybe try following through on that if you don't like my posts.

 

[1213]

...It's very insulting and does not at a refer to homosexuality (the 21st definition and from gay people themselves) ...

If it does not mean that man lies with another man as with a woman, then it is not necessary wrong thing. After all, Bible says just this:

You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestible.
Lev. 18:22

If one doesn’t do that, then I don’t see any problem at that issue.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If it does not mean that man lies with another man as with a woman, then it is not necessary wrong thing. After all, Bible says just this:

You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestible.
Lev. 18:22

If one doesn’t do that, then I don’t see any problem at that issue.

It isn't a wrong thing when the intentions behind the actions are not of sodomy and lust.

The bible does not mention of any intentions of same-sex sex (not homosexuality) in a good light. Not mentioning it doesn't make same-sex sex bad (that's a fallacy) unless the two parties (gay or straight) did so out of lust. That's the context of scripture: not same-sex sex acts in themselves but that the people involved (straight or gay) were involved in it by lust (putting flesh over god).

That and other verses have nothing to do with homosexuality at all. I don't know why the translators chose to use that word-maybe out of not knowing what the word meant until, in the US, 1970s or so. But I have a good feeling it wasn't even discovered as a sexual orientation (straight/gay/bi) before the common era.

There shouldn't be a problem with the issue unless, from a christian standpoint, that action is committed in lust:

Same-sex sex is not a lustful act. The intentions behind the action (as any action) make it either lustful, intimacy between two committed partners, or just like any other behavior-exercise even.

Why is not the context considered in this word rather than focusing on the word itself?

And... why does this word need to be applied to gay people when anyone can have same-sex sex regardless their sexual orientation?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If it does not mean that man lies with another man as with a woman, then it is not necessary wrong thing. After all, Bible says just this:

You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestible.
Lev. 18:22

If one doesn’t do that, then I don’t see any problem at that issue.

Another question. Why do christians keep repeating these verses?

It is not homosexuality, has nothing to do specifically with gay people (homosexuals), and can be done by any person regardless their sexual orientation.

That's why it's insulting. It's judging and applying what one calls sinful actions on a group of people and consequently, harming many gay people just because this word is used. It's the application of what christians define as sin to a group of people (stereotyping) and not people as a whole.

 

[1213]

Another question. Why do christians keep repeating these verses?

It is not homosexuality, ...

I repeat that scripture, because it is what Bible really says about this matter. If homosexuality means something else, then it is not necessarily wrong in Biblical point of view.

 

[1213]

It isn't a wrong thing when the intentions behind the actions are not of sodomy and lust....

The problem with that is, Bible has nothing to support your view.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I repeat that scripture, because it is what Bible really says about this matter. If homosexuality means something else, then it is not necessarily wrong in Biblical point of view.

Exactly. People today, aside from many christians, tend to say homosexuality is not a sin due to knowing now in this era, generation even, that it is not an action and not a temptation.

But why do christians stick to that word and not the context in which the bible describes people in general not specifically gay people?



.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The problem with that is, Bible has nothing to support your view.

It doesnt oppose it either; that's my point. The argument is irrelevant cause it doesn't exist in scripture. We didn't know people of the same sex can actually love reach other as christians till near recently.

It's not in scripture because no one was aware not even translators.

That and of course the bible isn't written originally in english, so I'm not sure why the translators used that word other than genuine ignorance.

 

[alypius]

To me the answer seemed obvious: when people have been raised from birth to believe that the fate of their soul depends on staying in the Catholic Church, some of them will stay even if it's uncomfortable or if they're disrespected.

How could an adult honestly continue to believe their soul depends on staying the the Church nowadays, when there is such abundant access to the internet outlining counterviews and countless people who have left the Church?

 

[oldbadger]

Another shorter version that gets at my point:

If participation in an activity or group is mandatory or coerced, then there's a duty to accommodate the diversity of people that are forced to participate. This means, IMO:

• If a vegetarian is conscripted into the armed forces, they should have vegetarian meals available.
• If a student's religion has mandatory prayer times, their schedule should allow them to pray at the appointed times.
• If a person is threatened with Hell for leaving their church, then the person's partner - regardless of sex or gender - should be welcome just like any other member's partner is.

IMO, if 'you' no longer believe in a church's tenets then it's a waste of time staying with that one, since there will be churches that would welcome you. And if 'you' would inmsist on hanging around and upsetting a church, that's just sad.

But..... for goodness sake may democracy keep all and any religions far away from any theocracy because a country or world run by any of the ones that know would be hell on Earth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

IMO, if 'you' no longer believe in a church's tenets then it's a waste of time staying with that one, since there will be churches that would welcome you. And if 'you' would inmsist on hanging around and upsetting a church, that's just sad.

If all the Catholics who no longer believed in every single Church tenet decided to leave, Catholic churches would be very empty places.

By 1970 the number of Catholic women in the U.S. using birth control hit 68 percent, and today there is almost no difference between the birth control practices of Catholics and non-Catholics in the United States. Globally, as of 2015, there is little difference between Catholic and non-Catholic regions. For example, the percentage of contraceptive use in heavily Catholic Latin America and the Caribbean was 72.7 percent, – a 36.9 percent increase since 1970 – compared to 74.8 percent in North America.

How Catholic women fought against Vatican's prohibition on contraceptives

It's almost a prerequisite for membership in some denominations that you have to disagree with some core teaching, so I'm not sure why sexual orientation would be the one and only issue where dissenters get kicked out.

 

[metis]

IMO, if 'you' no longer believe in a church's tenets then it's a waste of time staying with that one, since there will be churches that would welcome you. And if 'you' would inmsist on hanging around and upsetting a church, that's just sad.

Because the Church is not the Gestapo, and Catholics have the right and obligation of using personal discernment.

 

[1213]

It doesnt oppose it either; that's my point. The argument is irrelevant cause it doesn't exist in scripture. We didn't know people of the same sex can actually love reach other as christians till near recently.
....

Bible tells people should love even their enemies. For love, there is no gender limits. But, perhaps you have some different definition for word “love” than Bible and I have?

 

[1213]

Exactly. People today, aside from many christians, tend to say homosexuality is not a sin due to knowing now in this era, generation even, that it is not an action and not a temptation.

But why do christians stick to that word and not the context in which the bible describes people in general not specifically gay people?

Probably because in practice homosexuality seems to mean that person wants to do the thing Bible tells is not good.

Perhaps someone already said it, but could you tell, what “homosexuality” means nowadays?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Bible tells people should love even their enemies. For love, there is no gender limits. But, perhaps you have some different definition for word “love” than Bible and I have?

Love isn't an abstract word. You can't love someone but then say they can't love another because of their sex. That's contradictory. If you really love someone, you support them and if what they do does not harm anyone or themselves, I see no reason not to support them. If a parent loves their gay son, that is fine. If that gay son wants to bring home his boyfriend or someone who he soon will marry and be intimate with, that nature or love is a part of him. If that parent loves their son, they would support the love he has for someone else (as christians) without regards with whom the child's sex is in relation to his partner.

Love isn't an abstract word. Tolerance, maybe. Love the sinner and hate the sin is literally a. correlating a person you (person in general) loves with a specific sin and b. it's assuming that that the person you love that loves another can "only" do so by sinning (being intimate with same-sex).

The bible doesn't speak of a gay man loving another gay man and expressing that love (via relationship and/or marriage) without it being called a sin. Love is not conditional.

But, that aside, my point is homosexuality and homosexual in the bible is not and does not describe homosexuality and homosexuals of what we know of today. So, it's an insult to correlate the two (from the christian). As for what the bible says, it's doesn't bother me since I don't follow that book but when I see it bothers others per above, that's what gets to me.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Probably because in practice homosexuality seems to mean that person wants to do the thing Bible tells is not good.

Perhaps someone already said it, but could you tell, what “homosexuality” means nowadays?

Nowadays, we know it's not a behavior and not a temptation to sin. Though, the only reason I can think of the biblical translators would use the term is probably their generation political worldview. In 1970s or so that word meant sodomy not sexual orientation. Now we know sexual orientation (heterosexual and homosexual) are just referring to the sex a person is attracted to and not the nature of the attraction itself. So, when someone says homosexuality is unnatural (for example), it literally has nothing to do with the sex (technically) but saying one's biological and physiological make up is, well, off or distorted.

The context in the bible, though, doesn't refer to what we know of today. It doesn't mention that gay people can actually have relationships like straight people without regard to the sex both couples are attracted to. So, I think it's generational bias. In the US, gay people at one time couldn't be boy scout leaders and couldn't fight in the military. So, definition and choice of word is pretty important.

You'd be surprised people still believe gay people can't be in the military today.