• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

LGBThread |OT3| Friends of Dorothy!

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

umop_3pisdn

Member
Rm88~ said:
Well, I repeat, if stoning, slavery and homophobia are not okay, then let's discard the religion that thinks those things are okay. Having a personal interpretation automatically involves a bias. That's not Christianity anymore, you're not following the rules anymore. It's having a religion for the sake of having a religion.
Click to expand...

You don't get to decide what Christianity is, and that's good.

As I mentioned, religions typically have components that are essential, what is essential in the case of Christianity? I think that's pretty clear:

Salvation through Christ, and aspiring to be more like Christ. The latter part at least the world could use a lot more of, and if we're carrying something into the modern day I'd rather that part not become a historical relic but actually serve as a meaningful motivation for people.
 
K

Kangi

Member
Rm88~ said:
Well, I repeat, if stoning, slavery and homophobia are not okay, then let's discard the religion that thinks those things are okay. Having a personal interpretation automatically involves a bias. That's not Christianity anymore, you're not following the rules anymore. It's having a religion for the sake of having a religion.
Click to expand...

Yes, "that's not Christianity anymore". Exactly. Christianity has moved forward from taking everything this (perhaps faultily-translated) version of the Bible says at face value. You really think Christians believe you should be put to death for mixing fabrics or whatever it is?

Christians just cling to that one (or two) verse(s) of the Bible because it's an excuse. Many Christians, outside of that, only follow what God/Jesus said, and not the chapters that are a list of "things to stone people for" like Deuteronomy. Plus or minus the metaphors and life lessons.

The Bible "thinks those things are okay". Christians, largely, do not and should not. The religion as a whole has moved on to be "love God/Jesus/Holy Spirit and all that jazz, and love one another", but the ignorant stragglers cause problems. I don't see how that's "religion for the sake of religion".
 
R

RM8

Member
Well, I still don't see the point.

Christianity used to strongly follow a barbaric and primitive book. Then people realized it was dumb. Now Christianity only mentions the bible when, individually, every believer thinks it's okay. Chaos ensues. I'm glad to not be part of it.
 
C

Cosmic Bus

pristine morning snow
Rm88~ said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Christianity is entirely based on its religious text (as opposed to say, Shinto). Well, the book says X is wrong, and it was inspired by God. Who do you think you are to dismiss his rules?
Click to expand...

Many of the more extreme laws/rules (ex: shellfish, stoning, mixed cloths, tons of things about women/wives, etc etc) are from the Old Testament, which is pretty much stated directly in the bible to have been made obsolete by the teachings that follow in the New Testament; the OT is kind of like the history and reference part of the bible rather than the, uh, immediately applicable part.

There's a fair amount of explanation regarding the hows and whys this comes about, but I won't get into it.
 
R

RM8

Member
Well, there's anti-gay and overall terrible stuff in the new testament too. Also, why isn't the old testament completely discarded now? Seems silly to still include it with the bible if it's obsolete. Also, God at some point thought old testament was okay, right? He just doesn't seem like a cool guy to me.
 
T

TheSeks

Blinded by the luminous glory that is David Bowie's physical manifestation.
Rm88~ said:
Well, I still don't see the point.

Christianity used to strongly follow a barbaric and primitive book. Then people realized it was dumb. Now Christianity only mentions the bible when, individually, every believer thinks it's okay. Chaos ensues. I'm glad to not be part of it.
Click to expand...

Like I said before: times have changed. The "rules" aren't set in stone anymore.

Yes, the "<x> is bad and you may go to hell" is said in Christianity. But it's not a strict lining. Only the super hardcore that take it super seriously and don't retranslate the bible for modern times believe these old (B.C.) punishments like stoning and stuff.

Modern Christians see the world as it is and modern Christianity is nearly the same as Buddhism in "treat everyone how you want to be treated" but with the caveat of "and trust in Jesus."

You could say it's "chaos," sure. But it's more like "people are finally starting to understand that faith in an old-book is sort-of stupid. It can be useful as a guide-post, but it doesn't work in modern times and we need to translate some of those values into a 'new-time Bible' situation dealie."

Let's change this around:

Some people are comforted by the thought that when they die, if they were good people they will be accepted into a heavenly place. If they aren't, they go to a place to be punished for being bad people in life.

How is this any different from morales that non-religious people have?

Now let's merge it: How is being gay and following these morales going to conflict outside of the faith people having an OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD non-relevant-to-modern-times-anymore book badly translated as "saying" that homosexuality is bad.

Now take the modern faither: They understand it's an old book and more than likely badly translated. They remove that "clause"/decree that homosexuality is bad.

Are they no longer "Christian" because they don't follow that rule because they think it's outdated/irrelevant to these times?

You're saying "yes, because they aren't following the book anymore!"

I say: "No, they're still Christian but they're amending the book like the US government amends laws to changing times."

Edit: As for "but God/Jesus said this so it's in the bible and should be followed."

Ah, but Jesus/God also want you to treat your fellow man with respect and be good people. This means being a judgemental asshole and wanting to stone someone for being homosexual isn't exactly "following their plan" so: "amending the book" that "they wrote" in their eyes (I'm assuming since I'm not "God"/"Jesus" obviously) would be alright.
 
C

Cosmic Bus

pristine morning snow
Rm88~ said:
Well, there's anti-gay and overall terrible stuff in the new testament too. Also, why isn't the old testament completely discarded now? Seems silly to still include it with the bible if it's obsolete. Also, God at some point thought old testament was okay, right? He just doesn't seem like a cool guy to me.
Click to expand...

It's not disregarded because the bible isn't simply a rule book; like I said, there's history, stories, teachings, and so on.

The OT laws were put in place for a particular time period and for those people. Things change.
 
R

RM8

Member
TheSeks said:
Like I said before: times have changed. The "rules" aren't set in stone anymore.

Says you. Does God approve of the eventual and progressive dismissal of his word?

Yes, the "<x> is bad and you may go to hell" is said in Christianity. But it's not a strict lining. Only the super hardcore that take it super seriously and don't retranslate the bible for modern times believe these old (B.C.) punishments like stoning and stuff.

Modern Christians see the world as it is and modern Christianity is nearly the same as Buddhism in "treat everyone how you want to be treated" but with the caveat of "and trust in Jesus."

You could say it's "chaos," sure. But it's more like "people are finally starting to understand that faith in an old-book is sort-of stupid. It can be useful as a guide-post, but it doesn't work in modern times and we need to translate some of those values into a 'new-time Bible' situation dealie."

See, that's fine. But it's hard to argue it's completely man-made. God didn't Tweet "guise, I was wrong. You can be gay now. Also, don't stone people.

Let's change this around:

Some people are comforted by the thought that when they die, if they were good people they will be accepted into a heavenly place. If they aren't, they go to a place to be punished for being bad people in life.

How is this any different from morales that non-religious people have?

For starters I don't believe you'll burn in hell if you don't share my beliefs. So I don't force my beliefs or lack of them down your throat. Like so many Christians have tried to do to me.

Now let's merge it: How is being gay and following these morales going to conflict outside of the faith people having an OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD non-relevant-to-modern-times-anymore book badly translated as "saying" that homosexuality is bad.

It's not an issue if you think God is okay with humans discarding his rules over time.

Now take the modern faither: They understand it's an old book and more than likely badly translated. They remove that "clause"/decree that homosexuality is bad.

Are they no longer "Christian" because they don't follow that rule because they think it's outdated/irrelevant to these times?

You're saying "yes, because they aren't following the book anymore!"

I say: "No, they're still Christian but they're amending the book like the US government amends laws to changing times."
Government is man-made, so yeah.
Click to expand...
---
 
C

CornBurrito

Member
umop_3pisdn said:
No, cherry picking suggests a selfish agenda.
Click to expand...

I'm certain there is nothing selfish about a gay Christian trying to find Bible verses to justify having hot sweaty gay sex and masturbating fervently to gay porn. Yeah that seems totally selfless.

Also I don't get the ultra liberal "everything is permissible in Christianity except like murder and stealing and lying... except white lies and a little stealing won't damn you" Christians. Why even believe you need Christ for salvation? So God somehow is fine with homosexuality and other things he used to not be ok with, but isn't fine if you take an agnostic stance or follow one of the thousands of other religions? Or do you not gain salvation purely through Christ? And once you drop that why even bother believing in Christ in the first place?
 
R

RM8

Member
I've been told you can be the worst scum on Earth and still be saved if you accept Jesus before you die. On the other hand, a pretty massive chunk of my family is hell-bound because they were born on the wrong country. Jeez, Jesus, that's a bit of a jerk move.
 
C

CornBurrito

Member
By the way Rm for future note, 20 Questions is played like this:

Person A and B decide on a topic (alternatively the topic might be decided on by A but it has to be limited to some list like People, Places, Animals,etc..)
Person A thinks of something that fits in that topic
Person B asks a series of Yes or No questions to Person A, examples of such are "Is the thing you are thinking about red?"
Person A responds truthfully with Yes or No.
Person B tries to guess what the object is within the span of 20 questions. He gets one final guess after the 20th question. He wins if he gets it right. Bonus points for getting it right with fewer questions.
 
U

umop_3pisdn

Member
CornBurrito said:
I'm certain there is nothing selfish about a gay Christian trying to find Bible verses to justify having hot sweaty gay sex and masturbating fervently to gay porn. Yeah that seems totally selfless.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's totally the same thing as the original question posed about the compatibility of faith with being gay. This sarcastic tone on both of our parts is a benefit to this conversation and not at all asinine.

CornBurrito said:
Also I don't get the ultra liberal "everything is permissible in Christianity except like murder and stealing and lying... except white lies and a little stealing won't damn you" Christians. Why even believe you need Christ for salvation? Or do you not? And once you drop that why even bother believing in Christ in the first place?
Click to expand...

I think the premise is more accurately that we're all subject to moral failings and it's only meaningful to consider our own failings in relation to salvation or whatever rather than getting into the ridiculous trap of judging other peoples' moral character when it really isn't our job. Christianity generally sets up a proposition which requires the acceptance of Christ for salvation because no one is morally perfect. Moral substance or character is absolutely important, but in the context of a religious doctrine that bases salvation on the agency of an absolute God it's obviously only going to go so far. This is kind of thing that I have a problem with, I don't think our will can move mountains but I don't buy into a system that requires salvation be reliant on some theoretical entity either. But at the same time it's kind of an interesting narrative.
 
R

RM8

Member
CornBurrito said:
By the way Rm for future note, 20 Questions is played like this:

Person A and B decide on a topic (alternatively the topic might be decided on by A but it has to be limited to some list like People, Places, Animals,etc..)
Person A thinks of something that fits in that topic
Person B asks a series of Yes or No questions to Person A, examples of such are "Is the thing you are thinking about red?"
Person A responds truthfully with Yes or No.
Person B tries to guess what the object is within the span of 20 questions. He gets one final guess after the 20th question. He wins if he gets it right. Bonus points for getting it right with fewer questions.
Click to expand...
Lol, I had forgotten about this! :p Let's try it tomorrow.
 
C

CornBurrito

Member
umop_3pisdn said:
I think the premise is more accurately that we're all subject to moral failings and it's only meaningful to consider our own failings in relation to salvation or whatever rather than getting into the ridiculous trap of judging other peoples' moral character when it really isn't our job. Christianity generally sets up a proposition which requires the acceptance of Christ for salvation because no one is morally perfect. Moral substance or character is absolutely important, but in the context of a religious doctrine that bases salvation on the agency of an absolute God it's obviously only going to go so far. This is kind of thing that I have a problem with, I don't think our will can move mountains but I don't buy into a system that requires salvation be reliant on some theoretical entity either.
Click to expand...

Stating that homosexuality is a sin and not permissible in God's eye is not a judgement of someone's moral character. In Christianity it would be a statement of fact. Pedophiles most likely aren't in control of their urges either. It wouldn't be a judgement of someone's moral character to state that God finds pedophilia morally unacceptable. Nor is it a judgement of the person if societies request that pedophiles not act on their urges, merely a judgement of the act. The only judgement comes from when you call a person disgusting for acting on their urge, which Christianity does warn against doing.

And yes I know that Christianity sets up a system that requires salvation through Christ. But that really only works in the context of original sin. And it seems asinine to believe in original sin (and that people go to hell if they are good people but don't accept Christ) when you simultaneously believe that God happens to align perfectly with 2013 American liberal morals.
 
U

umop_3pisdn

Member
CornBurrito said:
Stating that homosexuality is a sin and not permissible in God's eye is not a judgement of someone's moral character. In Christianity it would be a statement of fact. Pedophiles most likely aren't in control of their urges either. It wouldn't be a judgement of someone's moral character to state that God finds pedophilia morally unacceptable. Nor is it a judgement on societies part to request that pedophiles not act on their urges. The only judgement comes from when you call a person disgusting for acting on their urge, which Christianity does warn against doing.

And yes I know that Christianity sets up a system that requires salvation through Christ. But that really only works in the context of original sin. And it seems asinine to believe in original sin (and that people go to hell if they are good people but don't accept Christ) when you simultaneously believe that God happens to align perfectly with 2013 American liberal morals.
Click to expand...

We don't know the will of God. And "Christianity" like any religion ever isn't some monolithic entity, you can only make a statement of fact in terms of particular forms of Christianity, because that's how religion works. Usually these systems leave room for things like 'revelation', like maybe the particularly obvious cliché that most people come to independently that if "God is love" it would be incomprehensible for God to hate particular forms of love.

And that interpretation is also an individual one and inherently can't represent the diversity of views. A lot of people actually believe that in death we're confronted with the existence of God and are able to accept him then if not otherwise restrained from it. It's obviously convenient that we have to die first, but it's not like good people are punished for being born in the wrong place or to the wrong parents.

Religion takes a lot of forms and is way more complex than this artificial view of 'orthodoxy'.
 
C

CornBurrito

Member
umop_3pisdn said:
We don't know the will of God. And "Christianity" like any religion ever isn't some monolithic entity, you can only make a statement of fact in terms of particular forms of Christianity, because that's how religion works. Usually these systems leave room for things like 'revelation', like maybe the particularly obvious cliché that most people come to independently that if "God is love" it would be incomprehensible for God to hate particular forms of love.
Click to expand...

Yes I understand that some Christians think the Bible isn't an accurate indicator of the will of god. Though I can't wrap my mind around a liberal Christian who thinks homosexuality is fine, but simultaneously believes that salvation is only possible through Christ. That's absolutely fucking goofy to me. I mean what theology at all supports that?
 
R

RM8

Member
Okay so I'm reading you don't really need to accept Jesus in order to achieve salvation? Is that true? So basically, people in countries devoid of Christianity get a free pass? Why?
 
U

umop_3pisdn

Member
CornBurrito said:
Yes I understand that some Christians think the Bible isn't an accurate indicator of the will of god. Though I can't wrap my mind around a liberal Christian who thinks homosexuality is fine, but simultaneously believes that salvation is only possible through Christ. That's absolutely fucking goofy to me.
Click to expand...

Salvation itself can be a hard to contextualize, I think those same Christians often don't have the same view of what 'hell' is in actuality, so the meaning of 'salvation' itself becomes a measure more nuanced. As I said I don't really get it either. I think that narrative of salvation is an interesting one, it has a kind of neat symbolism or aesthetic to it, but it's not really for me.

Rm88~ said:
Okay so I'm reading you don't really need to accept Jesus in order to achieve salvation? Is that true? So basically, people in countries devoid of Christianity get a free pass? Why?
Click to expand...

Uh that's not what I said at all. In the situation I described you still have to accept Christ, it's just not that if you were an unbeliever in life you're fucked as soon as you die in some baffling and cruel game of chance.
 
R

RM8

Member
That's cool. Basically everyone is saved. Everyone, every single human being who dies. I mean, unless you're dumb and tell God "lol no you're not real" to his face.

If this is what matters, then living a Christian life is worthless.
 
U

umop_3pisdn

Member
Rm88~ said:
That's cool. Basically everyone is saved. Everyone, every single human being who dies. I mean, unless you're dumb and tell God "lol no you're not real" to his face.
Click to expand...

I remember stating something earlier about moral character being entirely important that you must have missed.

And it's not useless because they supposedly have a better understanding of the truth, it's only worthless in the perspective of someone who is wholly and solely concerned with salvation after death. Making the world a better place and spreading insight is probably pretty important too.
 
R

RM8

Member
;D

It's just a bit hard to have a good argument when you're that unfocused and vague. It was a super simple question that just never got an answer (that seems to be religion's bread and butter).

One of my Japanese relatives dies tomorrow (fugu fish was bad :S). S/he is confronted with God, and he says "well, your concept of reality was wrong because I, creator of everything, couldn't be bothered to think of a competent way to spread knowledge". My relative, terrified, "accepts" Jesus (I'm going to guess, not out of love and praise for the Lord). Boom, salvation achieved.

Y/N
 
U

umop_3pisdn

Member
Rm88~ said:
;D

It's just a bit hard to have a good argument when you're that unfocused and vague. It was a super simple question that just never got an answer (that seems to be religion's bread and butter).

One of my Japanese relatives dies tomorrow. S/he is confronted with God, and he says "well, your concept of reality was wrong because I, creator of everything, couldn't be bothered to think of a competent way to spread knowledge". My relative, terrified, "accepts" Jesus (I'm going to guess, not out of love and praise for the Lord). Boom, salvation achieved.

Y/N
Click to expand...
The problem is you clearly have a perspective already decided on and you are forming arguments in reverse after the fact in rationalization, anyone can see it because the situations you're outlining including the one above are incredibly shallow, flimsy, and slanted.

For one its entirely plausible people leading morally afflicted lives have impeded mobility. In fact I would bet on it, because our past follows us. Alternatively, if God is love you'd likely come into contact with this expansive and welcoming presence, basically how God is almost universally described across mystic experience. There'd be no ridiculous paternal threat. You'd welcome it because you'd be thinking 'this is awesome'.

Seriously, I get this may not be a thing you think about or appreciate, but your thinking is so slanted and ridiculously lacking in nuance you are in no way capable of offering 'Y/n' hypotheticals.

Now it's an hour past my bed time, and this isn't going anywhere.
 
R

RM8

Member
If Jesus is such an amazing experience that makes my relative realize his love and power, I say again: everyone is saved. Because if someone who lived a completely Jesus-less life gets so touched by his presence, then... Well, who wouldn't? And I ask again, if that's enough for salvation, then why should we live a Christian life? And the fact is, a serial rapist and killer who genuinely regrets his actions and accepts Jesus would achieve salvation, and not an actually good person that doesn't accept Jesus. And to me that's just terrible. Not only that - People love and worship other deities, maybe that becomes an obstacle for their salvation even if they're good people. It's all around cruel, flawed, and I fail to see how it was the idea of an omnipotent entity that is so full of love.

There's also the factor that I don't think the bible mentions this postmortem meeting with God previous to your trip to either heaven or hell. It defeats the purpose of missionaries.
 
B

bsej87

Member
Speaking of the afterlife, I had tickets to Ghost the Musical yesterday and it should be considered a crime against humanity and sanctioned by the UN.
 
Z

Zantetsuken88

Member
Ok,

So this is my 2nd Neogaf post as I only got validated yesterday but I'm a long time observer.

Thought I'd come say hi as a fellow gaymer :)

(Although it looks a little like I may have entered in the midst of a fairly heated debate)

awkward
 
S

scarlet

Member
Zantetsuken88 said:
Ok,

So this is my 2nd Neogaf post as I only got validated yesterday but I'm a long time observer.

Thought I'd come say hi as a fellow gaymer :)

(Although it looks a little like I may have entered in the midst of a fairly heated debate)

awkward
Click to expand...

Welcome another 88 :p

Edit: why the hell i keep posting 1st on new page :/
 
M

mantidor

Member
Rm88~ said:
Well, there's anti-gay and overall terrible stuff in the new testament too. Also, why isn't the old testament completely discarded now? Seems silly to still include it with the bible if it's obsolete. Also, God at some point thought old testament was okay, right? He just doesn't seem like a cool guy to me.
Click to expand...

The point is Jesus, as son of God and God himself, came out with a new rule "love each other as yourself, and God", most of the terrible things in the new testament are from the letters, the core teachings of Jesus are nothing like that. Which is why you have gay friendly churches.

edit: oops I brought the topic to the new page :p,
 
T

Trigger

Member
Rm88~ said:
If Jesus is such an amazing experience that makes my relative realize his love and power, I say again: everyone is saved. Because if someone who lived a completely Jesus-less life gets so touched by his presence, then... Well, who wouldn't? And I ask again, if that's enough for salvation, then why should we live a Christian life?
Click to expand...

There's a deeper value in living a Christian life than just getting into Heaven. It's not just a means to an end. I can't speak for every Christian obviously, but personally I find that a Christian lifestyle has given me access to a wonderful community of like-minded individuals and a certain inner peace in times of trouble. Mind you, this proposition that everyone goes to Heaven is a personal stance. It's not universal.

And the fact is, a serial rapist and killer who genuinely regrets his actions and accepts Jesus would achieve salvation, and not an actually good person that doesn't accept Jesus. And to me that's just terrible. Not only that - People love and worship other deities, maybe that becomes an obstacle for their salvation even if they're good people. It's all around cruel, flawed, and I fail to see how it was the idea of an omnipotent entity that is so full of love.
Click to expand...

A fair criticism and something that has always been debated in Christianity. There are plenty of Christians who understand the logic you're using here and reason that a good person regardless of their faith can still be accepted into heaven. There's no universal stance on the issue.

Zantetsuken88 said:
Ok,

So this is my 2nd Neogaf post as I only got validated yesterday but I'm a long time observer.

Thought I'd come say hi as a fellow gaymer :)

(Although it looks a little like I may have entered in the midst of a fairly heated debate)

awkward
Click to expand...

lol, this thread is 90% silliness. We don't usually discuss and debate religion in depth. Savor the moment.

Oh and welcome! :D
 
Z

Zantetsuken88

Member
Trigger said:
lol, this thread is 90% silliness. We don't usually discuss and debate religion in depth. Savor the moment.

Oh and welcome! :D
Click to expand...


Thanks for the welcomes everyone! I'm very excited for the silliness :)

Also... the appreciation of hot male video game characters which I always find slightly surprising.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Poll
2024 PC Screenshot Thread of No Compromises | "The Last Hope for Image Quality"
|OT| 3 4 5 6 7
337
37K
SliChillax replied
Stalker GAMMA: You should play this
Hype
0
988
Tomeru replied
Starfield Devs Q&A Session
37
3K
Hendrick's replied
Dragon's Dogma II |🐉| You done fucked it up, Capcom
Opinion Analysis 2 3
110
9K
Chiggs replied
2023 PC Screenshot Thread of No Compromises
|OT| 14 15 16 17 18
850
91K
KyoZz replied
Top Bottom