Are most homosexuals atheists?

[Damien Evans]

You got to be analytically defunct on a large scale when you simplify the issue the way you did. The causes and influences are far more intricate than you can possibly imagine and process, and there is an indication that atheism leads to homosexuality and not the other way around, as you think it's the case. Just listen to the tape . . .

Heather: What kept you? You never showed up for the sermon. Father Yonk was wonderful.

Bill: Honey, I need to tell you something.

Heather: What is it?

Bill: I was late, coz I had sex with Jim.

Heather: I don't believe this!!!!!!

Bill: Neither do I, but that's what happened.


It took only five weeks and the lack of belief made the couple to quit the church. Later, Heather unexpectedly fell in love with a police women who gave her a traffic ticket for driving under the influence of atheism.

Truly Epix Fail.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Apperantly it might shock some people... but surprise surprise, it *IS* just all a form of stupid cherry picking.

Heck, I know some conservative jews who accept homosexuality despite the fact that the bible *clearly* condems it. These are people who follow the "OT".

They reject it for the same reason they don't stone people to death today. Their excuse is "it was a different time and different people".

 

[slingblade]

But that's what's wrong with at least certain forms of religion...(I won't go so far as to say all of them, even though I suspect it's probably most of them):

They do not and cannot change with the times and mores.

The holy writ is set down in the ancient past, and it doesn't change. There's no editing, no updates, no consideration for the way living beings grow and change over time.

You'd think the very being who supposedly made us would know that we do that. He built it into us, or so we're told. So why don't we get updated holy writ? It's almost like some gods had no clue about things like computers or airplanes or even basic sanitation. I find that very strange in an omni-being. Don't you?

 

[Rasmus]

You'd think the very being who supposedly made us would know that we do that. He built it into us, or so we're told. So why don't we get updated holy writ? It's almost like some gods had no clue about things like computers or airplanes or even basic sanitation. I find that very strange in an omni-being. Don't you?

This!

And I like "omni-being".

Technically, we wouldn't even need updates. It could have all been in there from the start, with validity dates where needed. (It might be a bit much to carry around, so I can let this pass for pragmatical reasons.)

But what would have been wrong with "Thou shalt stop treating women like cattle around anno domini 1960" or "Thus shalt no longer keep slaves towards the end of the 18th century unless you're south Africa in which case you may continue a little longer but certainly not until the millennium is over."

Could have saved so much trouble, really!

 

[Darat]

No confusion necessary.

Where someone gets their beliefs from is irrelevant - how they are justified matters. And if the church contradicts the bible it still needs to be explained just as much as if the believer did it directly.

If the Bible is the word of God one should follow it.
If it isn't, then there's the question of what the basis for any belief is in the first place.

Sure, you could have a system where clerical revelation trumps scripture - but that isn't the norm, is it?

It is for the three major Christian denominations, the Anglican Communion (estimated around 80 million), Orthodox Catholic Church (estimated around 300 million) and Roman Catholics (estimated at over a billion adherents). It is a very much a small minority of Christians that claim to belong to churches in which the church does not decide what is the doctrine using whatever sources it wishes to.

 

[Rasmus]

It is for the three major Christian denominations, the Anglican Communion (estimated around 80 million), Orthodox Catholic Church (estimated around 300 million) and Roman Catholics (estimated at over a billion adherents). It is a very much a small minority of Christians that claim to belong to churches in which the church does not decide what is the doctrine using whatever sources it wishes to.

When did the Vatican decide that the Bible was no longer the word of God? On what grounds?

Yes, I am seriously asking!

Saying that they get to decide dogma is one thing - admitting that they can go against what the Bible says is something else, though.

 

[JJM 777]

counter productive to be Christian and be a homosexual (...) Do you guys think that most homosexuals are atheists?

We guys think that Christianity + Atheism does not cover the whole spectrum, and most gays probably fall in the part that you don´t include in your calculation: theism or superstition other than Christianity.

 

[brodski]

When did the Vatican decide that the Bible was no longer the word of God? On what grounds?

They have never believed that it is the inerrant word of god. The Catholic Church traces it's history to before the bible was compiled, their main article of faith is in the direct lineage (spiritually) of the Pope from St Peter. Mathew 16.9 has Jesus saying to St Peter:

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

This is taken by Catholics to mean that whenever the Pope speaks ex cathedra (lineally from the chair, meaning the chair of St Peter) then his word is as gods words, whatever he permits is permitted by god and whatever he forbids is forbidden by god, regardless of what's in the bible.

Catholic dogma is based on the need to have the church intercede between god and the people, and to interpret the meaning of gods words for the people- remember that it wasn't until the sixties that Catholic mass moved from Latin to the local vernacular, and thecatholic church was dead set against translating the bible into modern languages. If the Catholic Church held that the bible was the literal word of god which needed no interpretation then they would not have opposed mass ownership and reading of the bible in the way the did.

 

[slingblade]

We guys think that Christianity + Atheism does not cover the whole spectrum, and most gays probably fall in the part that you don´t include in your calculation: theism or superstition other than Christianity.

A very nice answer, that.

 

[arthwollipot]

It seems that the conclusions I have drawn from this thread are the following:
No, most homosexuals are not atheists. Also, homosexuals will either cherrypick the bible like everyone else to make it say what they want it to say, or they will just believe that they are living in sin.

This seems pretty accurate as far as I can tell.

 

[Darat]

When did the Vatican decide that the Bible was no longer the word of God? On what grounds?
Yes, I am seriously asking!

Saying that they get to decide dogma is one thing - admitting that they can go against what the Bible says is something else, though.

From the start of the church.

Both the RC & OC claim an unbroken line back to Paul and remember it is Paul who was the founder of their religion, not Christ. The major churches could as well be called Paulian as Christian, it is the Church that determines what is true using revelations, prophets, scripture and so on; that is why for example the RC holds that it is the only true church and all others are deficient - in simple terms the only way to god is through the church. (This is partly why the church was for so long against the great unwashed being able to read the bible - because there was no need for them to do so since it was the Church's responsibility to tell them what they had to know and believe.)

Looking for some sources to point you in the right direction I found the Wikipedia article on the Orthodox Church to be a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Church

...snip...

The Biblical text used by the Orthodox includes the Greek Septuagint and the New Testament. It includes the seven Deuterocanonical Books which are generally rejected by Protestants and a small number of other books that are in neither Western canon. Orthodox Christians use the term "Anagignoskomena" (a Greek word that means "readable", "worthy of reading") for the ten books that they accept but that are not in the Protestant 39-book Old Testament canon. They regard them as venerable, but on a lesser level than the 39 books of the Hebrew canon. They do, however, use them in the Divine Liturgy. Orthodox Christians believe scripture was revealed by the Holy Spirit to its inspired human authors. The scriptures are not, however, the source of the traditions associated with the Church but rather the opposite; The biblical text came out of that tradition. It is also not the only important book of the Church. There are literally hundreds of early patristic writings that form part of Church tradition.

...snip...

I think because this section tends to attract mainly USA Christians of the evangelical denominations it is easy to forget that they represent a very, very tiny minority of the people that self-identify as Christians. Most Christians in the world belong to one of the churches that claim to have been founded by Paul and therefore revelation and salvation is through the church.

 

[Arcade22]

Are there any religions where homo/bisexuality is mentioned in favorable light? I'm not talking about religions, philosophies and cultures where sexual matters and ethics aren't really talked about explicitly and is up to the discretion of the local followers, which can obviously vary wildly.

 

[Rasmus]

They have never believed that it is the inerrant word of god. The Catholic Church traces it's history to before the bible was compiled, their main article of faith is in the direct lineage (spiritually) of the Pope from St Peter. Mathew 16.9 has Jesus saying to St Peter:

Did you just seriously quote a bible verse to me in support of the claim that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God? Really?

Did your head explode when you did that?

 

[blobru]

A lot of homosexuals are aesthetes (males anyway, in my experience, fwiw).

 

[Rasmus]

(This is partly why the church was for so long against the great unwashed being able to read the bible - because there was no need for them to do so since it was the Church's responsibility to tell them what they had to know and believe.)

I am sorry, I just don't get it.

The above only makes sense if what's in the Bible is authoritative.
If the clergy can just overrule what the Bible says, then there'd be no harm in people reading the Bible.

It shouldn't matter if the Bible came before or after the founding of the Church - the moment God decides to reveals the contents of the Bible is when what the Bible contains begins to matter.

So when different denominations have different Bibles, that isn't really a problem. If a community decides to go and change their Bible - yeah, I can get that.

But leaving the words as they are and then going outright against it - not so much. (And the ridiculous lengths to which they go in twisting the meaning of words to avoid having to do just that suggests that I have a point somewhere, no?)

 

[arthwollipot]

Are there any religions where homo/bisexuality is mentioned in favorable light?

Wicca.

 

[brodski]

Did you just seriously quote a bible verse to me in support of the claim that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God? Really?

Did your head explode when you did that?

yes, yes, no.


The bible says that there is a higher authority than the bible this logically leaves two options:
1) The bible is not (totally) true therefore there are numerous authorities which are higher than the bible or
2) the bible is totally true therefore Mathew 16:9 is by definition true and therefore the bible can be overridden by the words of the right man.
The Catholic Church (and the Anglican and Orthodox church) believes 1, as do I although I believe that the bible has much less truth in it than they believe.

The belief which would make my head explode is the belief that the bible is the inerrant word of god including the bits which say that the bible is not the inerrant word of god.

It's the difference between saying "I may be wrong about this" and "this statement is a lie".

 

[DC]

You got to be analytically defunct on a large scale when you simplify the issue the way you did. The causes and influences are far more intricate than you can possibly imagine and process, and there is an indication that atheism leads to homosexuality and not the other way around, as you think it's the case. Just listen to the tape . . .

Heather: What kept you? You never showed up for the sermon. Father Yonk was wonderful.

Bill: Honey, I need to tell you something.

Heather: What is it?

Bill: I was late, coz I had sex with Jim.

Heather: I don't believe this!!!!!!

Bill: Neither do I, but that's what happened.


It took only five weeks and the lack of belief made the couple to quit the church. Later, Heather unexpectedly fell in love with a police women who gave her a traffic ticket for driving under the influence of atheism.

oh common, atleast try to be funny when you are trolling. this way its just not funny.

 

[Darat]

I am sorry, I just don't get it.

The above only makes sense if what's in the Bible is authoritative.
If the clergy can just overrule what the Bible says, then there'd be no harm in people reading the Bible.

But there is - because people might come up with a different interpretation of the Bible than the RCC taught, and they might start to think "hold on a moment why are these folks the authority". See Martin Luther for the trouble that followed when people stopped taking the RCC's word for it that they were the only route to god.

It shouldn't matter if the Bible came before or after the founding of the Church - the moment God decides to reveals the contents of the Bible is when what the Bible contains begins to matter.

The major Christian denominations do not say the bible is unimportant what they claim however is that it is only by their teachings will you be saved.

So when different denominations have different Bibles, that isn't really a problem. If a community decides to go and change their Bible - yeah, I can get that.

But leaving the words as they are and then going outright against it - not so much. And the ridiculous lengths to which they go in twisting the meaning of words to avoid having to do just that suggests that I have a point somewhere, no?)

Not when you remember the time line i.e. the Bible is younger than the two major churches (OC & RC). They existed before the bible, they actually created the bible they use today, they decided what to put in it and what not to put in it. So it is hardly surprising that those churches believe that they know what the bible means - they wrote the bloody thing after all.

Your point is a bit like a fan of a novel arguing with the author that they know better than she does what her novel was about!

 

[GrandMasterFox]

They do not and cannot change with the times and mores.

That's a false statement. Clearly religions do change with the times - just not fast enough and not for the right reasons.

Heck, they don't think the earth is flat these days.
They are starting more and more to accept evolution.
The pope recently talked about the big bang.

To quote MD, "Christianity has been dragged kicking and screaming to the 21st century".

A religion must evolve or perish.

They generally don't like to change, but if it's a choice between dropping the faith entirely or simply adjusting it, they'll choose the later.