Homosexuality and Religion

[lunamoth]

Hi Marsh,

Thank you for considering and replying to my post. I agree that it is sticky trying to explain 'different, not better.' I posted my view on adoption because I felt it was a viewpoint not yet represented in the discussion. I think that ultimately it is a weak argument against homosexuality. You are raising some very interesting ideas, and I would like to respond to a couple of them.

Right after I submitted my post I thought of a dozen different ways to refute my own ideas because, well, they are just that. My ideas, my experiences. But this is different from the main objective of this thread, which is to examine homosexuality from a religionist standpoint. So the question is what do you do when you profess a religion but are challenged by some of its dogma. I think your first post handled that quite well, whether you view yourself as challenged by this issue or not.

I'll answer my own rhetorical question first. Who is being tested? I am. I'm not gay but it is my challenge how I will reconcile my religion with my very human perception of homosexuality, a perception colored by culture, science, and personal experiences. Tests and challenges are good. Without them we do not grow. It would be much easier, simpler, if I were to just put this struggle down, to say either yup, no brainer, all homosexual acts are sinful or to say well, the Bible is outdated or flat out wrong about this issue. But I am not willing to do either. I believe the Bible to be God-inspired and God-protected. But I also believe that God's revelation to us progresses. Sometimes it comes in the form of scientific inquiry and data. Sometimes it comes in the form of Elizabeth Cady Stanton re-writing her bible and opening the door for women to vote and have other important rights. Sometimes it comes to us in the form of a Teacher who shows us the truth right before our eyes. Am I an "evolutionist?" You bet! Right down to the idea that religion itself evolves. But the heart wisdom is always constant.

Marsh said: "And I still can't figure out why people are accusing me of saying that homosexuality is a sin. I didn't say it; the Bible did. So please place your accusations where they belong."

lunamoth: No accusations here! Sorry if it seemed that way. The end of my post was directed in general. My take on it is that if one considers homosexuality a physical illness, then it can't be also considered a sin. I didn't say it had to be one or the other.

Honestly, at this moment I could not give you any firm conclusions I have made about this issue. I am very much struggling with it. I conclude for now that homosexuality is an adaptation made in response to genetic predisposition and/or early nurturing conditions. I use adaptation neutrally. Humans have a need to establish initmate relationships with other humans and some people find they have no choice but to do so with people of the same sex. I may be wrong, but I have chosen to err on the side of acceptance until proven otherwise. I hope I don't have to next defend why I find it easy to believe that promiscuity, polygamy, incest, rape, adultery and murder are wrong.

Marsh said: What I did say was that homosexuality is just one more indication that the original equilibrium with which the world was created has been thrown off. Funny how nobody has questioned me on this.[/quote]

lunamoth: This is a great discussion point! I have a couple of thoughts about this, and they are just that. I do not read the creation story of genesis literally, so we have no basis for debate.

I think Genesis is informing me about my creation. It think it is telling me quite clearly that I was not created in sin, but created pure and good. And as I gained knowledge I started to question God, and even rebel! I still do! So what hope is there for me? Well, I follow a Christian path now, so I will state it this way: My hope lies in the forgiveness promised to me by Jesus for believing in Him. People in other religions will phrase this in different ways. One way or another we each try to conquer our baser instincts and rise to a more noble being.

Equilibrium is a good way to think of God and an ideal state. But I don't think we humans ever started out in an equilibrium. As soon as there were two humans there were two different ideas about how things can be done. It is easy to imagine an idyllic primative world where humans lived in harmony with nature, but I think that is more a goal to strive toward rather than an ideal we have left behind us because of original sin.

Would it be correct to say that you postulate that homosexuality is a symptom of world disorder? And that the world has essentially been out of order since the day of Adam and Eve? OK, I would like to think more about this but my daughters both just got up from their naps, so I will have to come back to this later.

Cheers!

[Mohsin]

Regards to all

A few things that I have noticed from the so many replies here is that among the Christians, there is a great concept of forgiveness. I respect that. The Qur'an also has a good concept of forgiveness, its called Taubah(sincerely praying for forgiveness). But in Islam, there is a saying that if someone who does a sin but without knowing will recieve one degree of sin while someone who knows and does wrong, he will recieve seven degree more sin. Thus, the one who knows will be held more sinful for his wrong doing then someone who does not. But still, the door of Taubah is open until death.
In the case of Christianity, the concept of forgiveness is being misused. I do recall somewhere that in the Gospels it is said that a true believer in Jesus Christ(P.B.U.H) will not do sin. This is not the case observed. There are articals even in news papers saying about the acts of homosexuality among the fathers of churches. It is agreed upon that The Qur'an and the Bible holds this act as a sin. So if some Muslims, according to some are involved in homosexuality, they are wrong and they will be held responsible for their acts.

Also, there is a Hadith which is actually among the prophacies or a sign of the Last of Day(the day of Judgement).
People will indulge in homosexuality and lesbianism. (Al-Muttaqi Al-Hindi, Muntakhab Kanzul Ummaal). You can find more on this artical(Signs of the last days) from the following link http://harunyahya.com/signs05.php .

I hope that none are offended.
Sincerely,
Mohsin

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Mohsin

Also, there is a Hadith which is actually among the prophacies or a sign of the Last of Day(the day of Judgement).
People will indulge in homosexuality and lesbianism. (Al-Muttaqi Al-Hindi, Muntakhab Kanzul Ummaal).

Have you heard of the Ancient Greeks, though?

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Have you heard of the Ancient Greeks, though?

Or what happened in the first hour after Constantinople fell to the Turks?

[Avinash]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Ah, now, let's not state that other people are "nasty" or do not practice "genuine spiritual practice", simply for having different opinions, thank you.

With respect Brian, but I never said that Marsh was "nasty". I simply said that I find his typifications of homosexuality nasty which is my personal opinion about such ideas and not about the person.

I also did not comment in any way on the spiritual practices of Marsh. How could I do such a thing when he hasn't told me what kind of practices he is actually into?

It does seem that Marsh is being treated as something of a "fundie bashing stool" in this thread, simply for being honest with his opinions.

Again, I am not attacking Marsh as a "fundie" because I have no detailed picture of where he stands in general. But I did express my opinion that certain things he expresses about homosexuality are done so from a fundamentalist viewpoint. If someone says things like
>>And I still can't figure out why people are accusing me of saying that homosexuality is a sin. I didn't say it; the Bible did. So please place your accusations where they belong>>
then it is clear to me that such a person is not using any logic but religious dogma. I think this is a fundamentalist viewpoint (religious writings are the fundament and not a logically coherent spiritual philosophy).

As with all of us here, we may not share the same views, but we should at least share a little more civility.

If I am called a handicapped person or a sinner, I should at least be able to make my case in a clear way. Noone who makes questionable and/or hurtful remarks and then hides behind statements in religious writings should IMHO be defended. If this is the policy on this site, then I'm out of here today.

[I, Brian]

Avinash, the point is simply that there is going to be a lot of opinion that a lot of people disagree with on an interfaith forum. It is an expression of human diversity. It is not the place of this forum to judge any individual for their ideology, merely ask for good manners.

Your previous posts on a variety of subjects have been interesting, and you have been careful not to intrude on others beliefs. I simply put a gentle word in to attempt to guide the dialogue in a more constructive and positive direction.

My earlier point is to not let someone be turned into a straw man for our own prejudices - Marsh simply states an opinion from a Christian perspective - but certainly not from the rabidly anti-gay camp that Falwell's boys seem to live in.

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by Avinash

it is clear to me that such a person is not using any logic but religious dogma.

I'll ask this question in language that you will certainly understand:

All persons who believe in scripture are persons who do not use logic.
Marsh is a person who believes in scripture.
Therefore, Marsh is a person who does not use logic.

All persons who believe in scripture are persons who believe in religious dogma.
Marsh is a person who believes in scripture.
Therefore, Marsh is a person who believes in religious dogma.

My question: Do you agree with these two syllogisms, Avinash?

[Avinash]

Originally Posted by Marsh

All persons who believe in scripture are persons who do not use logic.
Marsh is a person who believes in scripture.
Therefore, Marsh is a person who does not use logic.

All persons who believe in scripture are persons who believe in religious dogma.
Marsh is a person who believes in scripture.
Therefore, Marsh is a person who believes in religious dogma.

My question: Do you agree with these two syllogisms, Avinash?

Namaskar Marsh,

No, I cannot agree because I obviously have a different definition of scripture than you do. I have said before that religious writings contain some scripture and a lot of dogma, myth and superstition. All persons who believe in dogma, myth and superstition are persons who do not use logic (all the time).

Many religious people take their religious writings as sacred. They will accept the dogma, the myths and superstitions together with the scriptures in their religious writings. I am not addressing any religion in particular here but am speaking in general terms. When I answer your postings they are equally applicable to people who believe in the sacredness of other religious writings. If you use a dogma as your starting point then any logical discussion becomes impossible. When I try to get to this root of the problem, I get into trouble with the moderator for not being civil enough.

If you say that homosexuality is unnatural or sinful, then I would like to hear a rational argument and not simply a text that you believe to be true because someone else told you it is true and you decided to believe him or her. If you want to think in such a way, then that is your right and freedom but then I can't have a rational exchange of thoughts with you on the subject.

This is an inter-religious forum and you may well argue there is no place here for people who do not have a religion. Or perhaps I should just stay clear of the Monotheism section, although I don't believe there is more than one God. Yes, I think I will do this because my path is not mentioned in the three/four subsections of Monotheism.

[Avinash]

So Marsh, if you wish to discuss this matter further with me, please move the topic (on religion and dogma) to a section where I fit in better.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Avinash

When I try to get to this root of the problem, I get into trouble with the moderator for not being civil enough.

...

This is an inter-religious forum and you may well argue there is no place here for people who do not have a religion.

Nobody is in trouble - as before, I am simply trying to guide the discussion towards a more constructive dialogue.

As for people having no religion - I don't carry any such titles either. This is
an emotive subject matter, though, and it obviously hits very close to hoime for you - as you've already stated.

[Zenda71]

The point that I always go back to is that God in the Bible also states that many other things are absolutely wrong as well. I wonder whether people use the Bible to simply support their prejudice against an act they find repugnant. In the end, what harm does homosexuality in a committed partnership really do to the societal, moral, spiritual, and physical fabric of this world that is any greater than what any other human being can do?

With metta,
Zenda

p.s. Having now read the previous threads, let me say that I mean no offense whatsoever to those who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. I am merely posting a question.

[StrangeQuark]

I believe the Bible is a spiritual guide and is very valuable in this function. I believe it was inspired by God, but was still written by human hands.

When Paul (okay, in the letters *attributed* to him) condemns, or says that God condemns, homosexuality, I think it's possible that Paul allowed his personal prejudices to seep through. I'm not certain that this was really God's message.

"God is spirit," "God is love," "love your God," "love your neighbor," and "love your enemy." This is what I believe the message of the New Testament boils down to (besides salvation from death). So I have a problem with other parts of the Bible that portray God as something that doesn't fit my definition of a loving God. I don't go for the "either it's all true or none of it's true" statement. It's true, yes, but only relatively so--not absolutely.

I would rather find where the Bible agrees with my heart than to take it literally.

As long as two people really care about each other and remain in a committed, monogomous relationship, I see nothing wrong with it. I only think it's a problem when people are promiscous (because of disease), or want to have relations with anyone or anything other than ADULT HUMANS.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by StrangeQuark

I believe the Bible is a spiritual guide and is very valuable in this function. I believe it was inspired by God, but was still written by human hands.

When Paul (okay, in the letters *attributed* to him) condemns, or says that God condemns, homosexuality, I think it's possible that Paul allowed his personal prejudices to seep through. I'm not certain that this was really God's message.

"God is spirit," "God is love," "love your God," "love your neighbor," and "love your enemy." This is what I believe the message of the New Testament boils down to (besides salvation from death). So I have a problem with other parts of the Bible that portray God as something that doesn't fit my definition of a loving God. I don't go for the "either it's all true or none of it's true" statement. It's true, yes, but only relatively so--not absolutely.

I would rather find where the Bible agrees with my heart than to take it literally.

As long as two people really care about each other and remain in a committed, monogomous relationship, I see nothing wrong with it. I only think it's a problem when people are promiscous (because of disease), or want to have relations with anyone or anything other than ADULT HUMANS.

I agree, StangeQuark. The Bible is written in our hearts.

[Avinash]

Yes, as long as two people really care about each other and remain in a committed, monogomous relationship, I see nothing wrong with heterosexuality. I only think it's a problem when people are promiscous (because of disease), or want to have relations with anyone or anything other than ADULT HUMANS.

[Mus Zibii]

I'm late to the party and everything has been said. So I'll keep my two cents sharp and brief.

I'm fairly homophobic myself, but I've always looked at the issue of homosexuality in regards with religion as being the proof of the pudding, much in the way the belief in a flat earth or that the universe revolved around the earth, or that demons were responsible for sneezes. Its one of those things science and common sense have exposed as being wholly without merit.

I'm put in mind of St Augustine's apologetics for Matthew misquoting perceived prophecy (confusion between Zechariah and Jeremiah) in his gospel. Augustine said that he simply wrote what the angel told him, though he knew full well himself it was false. Sound heretical until you consider David being told by God to take a census or Mohammed being fooled to write against God.