Hate is a choice not a rule

Their strength is waning, but there is still a depressingly large number of powerful men in the west, spread across a range of religions, spewing raw hate and naked predludice at gay people. All in the name of Christ.

I'm talking about the sort of hate that gives rise to claims that homosexual "inclinations" are an "intrinsic moral evil" that, if acted upon, preclude gays from taking communion, occupying any official role in the church and, ultimately, 'entering heaven' (metaphorically speaking).

The sort of predjudice that led an Australian Anglican Archbishop to forbid any parish in his archdiocese to welcome an openly gay American Bishop Gene Robinson, and to declare that if Robinson was invited to a crucial meeting of the world's Anglican bishops, then the Australian Archbishop would not be attending.

I'm sorry, but someone seems to have had a fundamental misunderstanding of the core insights of the gospels, and it isn't me.
It was precisely this sort of attack on the social outcasts of Jesus' time by the powerful men of the day - the Temple priests - that inspired Jesus' mission and the birth of christianity.

But even if the bible did advise us to shun homosexuals or stone them, we don't have to listen. After all, we ignore its command to wed our virginal daughters to their rapists and refuse its permission to purchase the children of foreigners to serve us as slaves. The point is that even those who claim absolute obedience to scripture are selective in the scripture they obey. They know as well as anyone that there is much in the bible that is irrelevant, outdated or just plain barbaric.

So spare me the Bible-made-me-do-it crap. It didn't work for the Nazis at Nuremburg and it won't work here. Acting pursuant to orders by superiors of any sort doesn't relieve an individual of responsibility if a moral choice is possible. Powerful christian leaders have a choice. They don't have to vilify and discriminate against gay people, they choose to, and for this they can - and should - be condemned.

Perhaps one day both our spiritual and political leaders will get it through their heads that taking potshots at people because of who they are, not what they do, is stupid and wrong.
That everyone deserves respect and a fair go no matter the colour of their skin, their marital status, if and how they worship or who they love. That individuals have a moral right to be judged on nothing more nor less that what Martin Luther King Jnr. called "the content of their character".

The powerful men who yearn for the good old days when they could stigmatise and exclude whoever they liked while calling themselves holy should have the courage to source this yen in their own dark heart, and not an ancient book.

Any thoughts?

Please forgive the length but this is my way of venting my frustrations.

[Brett]

I completely agree with you here. I attended a Christian Church or two or twenty in the last few years, and every one of them said that their motto was to accept any one onto the Church JUST THE WAY THEY ARE, but these same churches also sponsor the ex-gay programs, and after talking to their members it's obvious that they don't accept homosexuals. The hipocracy that Churches today preach is not only a disgrace to God but just defeats everything that Jesus taught and fought for.

[Austin]

Alas, its sad but true. It is in nature of *most* human beings to dislike what is different. The world would be much better if people could become less close minded and more willing to accept other people's differences. Again, sadly, its not easy turn a close-minded person to an open-minded person, if not impossible. The good news is that the Gay/lesbian/trans/bi community is doing great to help people accept us. But, there are still so many people who will not change. :/

And, about the religion part, what I can't stand is how hypocritical they are. Killing/hurting/discriminating against gays by Christians said to be in the name of Jesus is extremely against what Jesus taught. Haven't those Christians ever heard of "WWJD?" Would Jesus kill a gay person? Would Jesus HATE any person? I thought Jesus loved us all. Apparently not. They believe that homosexuals cannot enter heaven. According to Christianity, I do not believe /They/ cannot enter heaven with hate in their hearts.

The good news is that many countries (other than a lot of third world countries) are becoming more accepting and there are laws to protect us, allow us to marry, etc, and I've very happy with whats happening for the good. Not too long ago it would have been way worse to be gay. There are too many closed minded people in this world, and, their minds are closed, and they won't change.

I believe that Christians and church leaders abuse the bible to do what they want. They have so many people following them, and they can say its because of God, and God cannot really say "um, no, thats not what I think..." so basically they do what they want.

Anyways... thats basically ends my pointless rant. Its kinda all scattered around, but its almost 2 AM and I can't sleep and I don't feel like fixing it.

[n1ck]

God cannot really say "um, no, thats not what I think..."

Sure he could... oh wait, he would have to exist first

[Austin]

Originally Posted by n1ck

Sure he could... oh wait, he would have to exist first

Even if he did exist, he wouldn't. I'm agnostic. I'm not sure if a 'god' exists but speaking as if he did, the Christian God wouldn't really say anything... since he isn't doing anything about killing/crime/evil in the world.

[n1ck]

Agnostic is good.

I am definitely Atheist. Why? Well, I do not believe that a greater being exists...

Equally I cannot be sure that one, or an infinite number, does not exist but...

As you cannot prove a negative, it is impossible for anybody to show that the Christan God, or anything for that matter - like a flying spaghetti monster, does not exist.

It certainly does not follow though that just because I cannot show that a greater being does not exist that one must exist, or that I should believe in one just in case! That would be patently absurd and I would do myself a huge disservice were I to do so.

It is illogical and completely irrational for anybody to structure their beliefs without evidence - and, in my view, doing so is tantamount to intellectual suicide. (Following that line of thought, somebody who is prepared to do so should believe in everything...)

[cc6log]

I chimed in with my views on this a day or so ago but I just want to say one small thing in regards to n1ck's argument there...

Isaac Newton set out on some of his enlightenment quests to prove that God existed... So you can see believing in religion does not mean a necessary turn towards intellectual suicide... Of course you could always take the stand that Newton was an intellectual idiot but (uh...well I'll just leave my next part of the sentence empty and open for interpretation).

[pirateninja]

Originally Posted by n1ck

As you cannot prove a negative, it is impossible for anybody to show that the Christan God, or anything for that matter - like a flying spaghetti monster, does not exist.

Have you been watching South Park? Richard Dawkins says practically the same thing in "Go God Go XII"

Anyway, to the discussion at hand:

As for the "is there actually a God?" talk, I'm sorry, but one of the most unbelievable reasons for human existence is "we're all here just 'cause".

And as for hate, it is fuelled by ignorance. People hate because they don't know better, and because it's much easier to hate than to try and understand.

[n1ck]

As for the "is there actually a God?" talk, I'm sorry, but one of the most unbelievable reasons for human existence is "we're all here just 'cause".

Absolutely! (And I don't remember saying that we are just here without a reason.) Not knowing why we are here is completely unsatisfying and very frustrating.

But... Just because we cannot answer that... it does not follow at all that we should therefore make the situation truly unbelievable by making it arbitrarily more complex, without any evidence to do so. (Occam's Razor)

Introducing the concept of a deity/greater being does exactly that and it is an act of intellectual suicide to believe that it provides a satisfying, let alone any, explanation. It does not.

(In my opinion, it is one of those questions that we just cannot answer.)

I'll end with a quote from Carl Sagan...

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

[n1ck]

Have you been watching South Park? Richard Dawkins says practically the same thing in "Go God Go XII"

Haha, no. I haven't seen it.

[Beebo]

can I ask what happened to get you so frustrated?

My Story for the Day.

My pastor preached about homosexuality today, even though he knows I am out to everyone, and he definatly made me feel like the biggest outcast ever. But then at the end of the sermon, all my friends, in the youth, came over and talked to me, and made me feel loved. :P I'm lucky haha. (some of them even told me not to listen to him O_0.) hahah.

Much love.

[n1ck]

can I ask what happened to get you so frustrated?

I'm not!? Just trying to put forward a robust and well reasoned argument.

In the general sense though, the power of indoctrination does frustrate me.

For that reason, I dont think i'll change anybody here. But if I can at least make a few question and justify their beliefs, then I will be very happy.

Blind faith is a very dangerous thing.

[Beebo]

Blind faith is also an awesome song by my favorite band -- Dream Theater.

Anyways. I think I agree with what you said in the first post, because it was the only one I read. I didn't know about that Australian. But Auzzies are all lame anyways. HAHAH kidding. Hate is obviously not love, and therefore John Lennon would whip his weak old grandmother's wheelchair at whoever showered hate and taught it.

I would say you are preaching to the choir.

[GMSuerte]

I don't even see why homosexuality is a "sin" and why Christians see it that way.

[n1ck]

Isaac Newton set out on some of his enlightenment quests to prove that God existed... So you can see believing in religion does not mean a necessary turn towards intellectual suicide... Of course you could always take the stand that Newton was an intellectual idiot but (uh...well I'll just leave my next part of the sentence empty and open for interpretation).

This is an example of association fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy)

You don't actually make a point here.

Your argument breaks down as follows:

[1] Isaac Newton was an intellectual/scientist.
[2] Isaac Newton believed in a greater being (a religion).
Therefore, religion is intellectual/valid.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

[cc6log]

I had interpreted intellectual suicide as once it happens their is no going back for the recipient i.e. he holds this belief so his other findings not in relation to religion overshadow his findings. As I could have the wrong interpretation of what intellectual suicide really is, what the statement before attested to was that one can hold beliefs that conflict with modern intellectual thought, yet that doesn't necessarily mean they themselves should be minimized for it...


I agree with you about religion not making sense logically "although I find it more subjectively than objectively", but... Taking this I'm right and you are an idiot for believing stance falls in line with people like Christopher Hitchens who makes many great points... but, not everyone seeks things at a highly intellectual level anyway and pushing to alienate religious thinking seems often to be counterproductive. Like watching Fox News in America is preaching to the choir, so I feel this argument only does that as it reaffirms people who don't believe yet it pushes others back further towards religion because in a more simplistic view as you would be seen as "that heathen!"

This is my last post on the subject here, But I will come back to read how you find my second post as intellectual suicide. Leaving you the last word...