Is this phrase discriminatory?

[Unveiled Artist]

First of all, I don't agree that religion is who that person is. It is but one aspect and it is their faith, not who they are. I have friends I love who are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Pagan and so on. I may disagree with their faiths, although I find that word to be misleading really, but I surely don't hate them. I love them all. I guess a good example is my dear friend Kathy. A Christian woman who is somewhat racist and cannot abide gays. She doesnt know I am Bi but I still love her for her. She is an amazing woman and would give her heart to anyone who asked. Just because her faith has her believing what she does doesn't change a thing.

What if Kathy said "I cant be your friend because I believe (not my religion believes) that being bi is wrong?"

I totally disagree. If christianity is not who a christian is, thats saying they did not die In Christ and visa versa. That takes out the relation-ship with Christ and separating that relation as if it was not themselves. Christ is who they are. If they love Christx they cannot seperate themselves from Him no more than I can seperate myself as nature. Our beliefs make us Who we are not what we believe. It shapes our lives, our being, everything. It is who we are not just what we believe.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That kind of scenario happens almost every day Carlita. People disown their children for marrying a person of color. Or being gay. Or choosing the wrong field of work. It happens. What then is the point here? People who hold strong beliefs such as Blacks are lesser or that gays are abominations are not about to change in some way over night. It's what they were taught and how they live. We just recently had a pile of KKK literature placed in a laundromat, or so I am told, here in Maine and the proprietors decided to let them leave it. What shall we do? Course, I will never set foot in that place again. (*they were my dry cleaners) but it won't change that they endorse racist literature.

And it bothers me a lot because I interact with psople whonbelieve this. I cant change them AND I am affect by their beliefs. I accept them that dosnt mean I am not insulted by them.

It haple s every day. Im surrounded by it. I want to undersrand how not Why they think that way. I dont want to change them.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Religion is not a choice? Excuse me but bull merde. A child has NO religion. Not until they have the capacity for abstract thought. You intimate that we are born to be of one faith and that is simply not true. I have been Christian for a time, Pagan for a long while and now Buddhist for the last 20 or more years. It is what I believe, not who I am.

Religion is a spiritual lifesfyle and it BECOMES who people are when they reach am age where they can think for themselves (espcially if they are indocrinated). Its not a dogma. Religion Has dogma. We are not the dogma. We are the faith (the people who believe in spirituality and Live it) of that dogma whether its celebrating moon phases or taking the Eucharist.

Children are born athiest. Usually people get a "revelation" of the faith they say they Already believed. They chose a faith that resgonates with their "already innate (as so believed) beliefs.

Unless you are saying we pick faiths because we are interested in it?

If that be the cause, I am a Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, Pagan, half Muslim, somewhat Wiccan, a family inherrit Vodist (cant think of spelling), a Witch, a Native American, Uniterian Universalist, a spiritualist, and a athiest.

I am interested in these faiths but they are not me. I am not in All of the.

I am not in Christ. That is not who I am. That was what I practiced. We can change those any time.

I am not a Buddhist. I do have a Buddha nature that was there since birth. Buddha nature defines who I am not what I believe as a dogma. Just because I didnt know it as a child doesnt mean it didnt exist until of age. Buddha nature is a part of makes me, me.

I am not a Hindu. Its a beautiful faith. I can choose to "practice" it; but it is not my faith. Its not a part of who I am. It doesnt define me.

I am a pagan. I didnt chose it. I "realized" it. As a child, I am still part of the earth whether I knew it or not. As a child, magic exists whether I called it that or not. I knew that spirits exist as how my family doesnt separate their existence from spirits existing. As a child, I didnt know the details. That does not make it false.

Its like a baby knowing the mother's affection and only when she develops language etc she can put a name to it.

 

[JoStories]

Religion is a spiritual lifesfyle and it BECOMES who people are when they reach am age where they can think for themselves (espcially if they are indocrinated). Its not a dogma. Religion Has dogma. We are not the dogma. We are the faith (the people who believe in spirituality and Live it) of that dogma whether its celebrating moon phases or taking the Eucharist.

Children are born athiest. Usually people get a "revelation" of the faith they say they Already believed. They chose a faith that resgonates with their "already innate (as so believed) beliefs.

Unless you are saying we pick faiths because we are interested in it?

If that be the cause, I am a Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, Pagan, half Muslim, somewhat Wiccan, a family inherrit Vodist (cant think of spelling), a Witch, a Native American, Uniterian Universalist, a spiritualist, and a athiest.

I am interested in these faiths but they are not me. I am not in All of the.

I am not in Christ. That is not who I am. That was what I practiced. We can change those any time.

I am not a Buddhist. I do have a Buddha nature that was there since birth. Buddha nature defines who I am not what I believe as a dogma. Just because I didnt know it as a child doesnt mean it didnt exist until of age. Buddha nature is a part of makes me, me.

I am not a Hindu. Its a beautiful faith. I can choose to "practice" it; but it is not my faith. Its not a part of who I am. It doesnt define me.

I am a pagan. I didnt chose it. I "realized" it. As a child, I am still part of the earth whether I knew it or not. As a child, magic exists whether I called it that or not. I knew that spirits exist as how my family doesnt separate their existence from spirits existing. As a child, I didnt know the details. That does not make it false.

Its like a baby knowing the mother's affection and only when she develops language etc she can put a name to it.

i hear you carlita but I just don't agree. I am Buddhist but its not me, as in my self, or ego. My journey requires that I set aside the self as unimportant. Being Buddhist is just the name of the path I walk. I am the one walking that path, not the path walking me.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

i hear you carlita but I just don't agree. I am Buddhist but its not me, as in my self, or ego. My journey requires that I set aside the self as unimportant. Being Buddhist is just the name of the path I walk. I am the one walking that path, not the path walking me.

You are the path. There is no "either or" its duality. You are what you walk. To separate it, from my opinion and learned from the Lotus Sutra (couldn't understand the other sutras.. very heavy in analogy), we are Buddhas.

Not everyone agrees, though. I understand that. I just feel if I am not the path I walk, why walk it. If I separate it from myself, I can change paths and it wouldn't matter. Spirituality isn't like that for me. I am the path I walk; hence, edit hence, I can't change it. That would mean, I am trying to change who I am. Impossible. Can't change being a Buddha.

 

[viole]

"I love gays but I disagree with homosexuality?"

Isn't that like saying, to those who say this above, "I love who you are but I disagree with what, of many things that makes you, you"?

Isnt it contradictory to say you love someone but hate the way they Love other people?

That is like my telling a Muslim, I love you but I hate your religion. That means I hate the Muslim because he is not separate from his faith. He IS his faith.

Alas, I think think this is exacty the strategy to use.

If I were gay and someone tells me I love you but I hate your sinful habits, then I would reply that I love him but I hate his gods delusion.

If he is offended, then I am offended too. If he is not, then I am not, either. It is basically his decision whether his statement was offensive or not.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Alas, I think think this is exacty the strategy to use.

If I were gay and someone tells me I love you but I hate your sinful habits, then I would reply that I love him but I hate his gods delusion.

If he is offended, then I am offended too. If he is not, then I am not, either. It is basically his decision whether his statement was offensive or not.

Ciao

- viole

True. For me, it's not like sports... I like football and you like soccer. If I told a believer, I hate your Christ if they are not their faith, why be upset? People take offensive because Christ is their Savior. So, basically, it's insulting them.

I think of it the same with homosexuality. I can't change who I am. I find it very unsettling for anyone to say "I hate homosexuality but love who you are" cause, to me, that's saying "I hate part of what makes you, you but, I still love you." Of course, they mean actions. To me, actions in a committed relationship is not a sin. So... its also whose saying it and the context.

The statement bothers me nonetheless.

 

[JoStories]

You are the path. There is no "either or" its duality. You are what you walk. To separate it, from my opinion and learned from the Lotus Sutra (couldn't understand the other sutras.. very heavy in analogy), we are Buddhas.

Not everyone agrees, though. I understand that. I just feel if I am not the path I walk, why walk it. If I separate it from myself, I can change paths and it wouldn't matter. Spirituality isn't like that for me. I am the path I walk; hence, edit hence, I can't change it. That would mean, I am trying to change who I am. Impossible. Can't change being a Buddha.

I think what we are disagreeing on here is the Higher Self, where I might agree with you and the self that is me in this incarnation. In that instance, no, I am not that path. I am the self navigating through this incarnation to learn what I must from past Dukkha, the first Noble Truth. That is what I am doing. Now, in that, I might have chosen to be Christian, if that fit my Dukkha but it didn't. However, in the future, it might be. One must learn from lessons that we find here in this plane before we can go on and then, yes, I would agree with you. The No Self, for me, is why I cannot agree with you.

 

[JoStories]

True. For me, it's not like sports... I like football and you like soccer. If I told a believer, I hate your Christ if they are not their faith, why be upset? People take offensive because Christ is their Savior. So, basically, it's insulting them.

I think of it the same with homosexuality. I can't change who I am. I find it very unsettling for anyone to say "I hate homosexuality but love who you are" cause, to me, that's saying "I hate part of what makes you, you but, I still love you." Of course, they mean actions. To me, actions in a committed relationship is not a sin. So... its also whose saying it and the context.

The statement bothers me nonetheless.

The question for me is why does it upset them? If someone has faith in God, as I do, then no one can shake that faith. You can tell me I am full of merde because I believe in God and I will say ok, whatever you say and walk away. That is what I don't understand about some people of faith. If their faith is that shaky, I wonder really. And btw, if I told my friend Kathy I was Bi she would laugh and hug me. She is that kind of person but because my partner is dead and I remain celibate in her memory, I see no real point. KWIM?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think what we are disagreeing on here is the Higher Self, where I might agree with you and the self that is me in this incarnation. In that instance, no, I am not that path. I am the self navigating through this incarnation to learn what I must from past Dukkha, the first Noble Truth. That is what I am doing. Now, in that, I might have chosen to be Christian, if that fit my Dukkha but it didn't. However, in the future, it might be. One must learn from lessons that we find here in this plane before we can go on and then, yes, I would agree with you. The No Self, for me, is why I cannot agree with you.

I find it odd, especially in Buddhism, one would separate themselves from the Buddha being a Buddha themselves. Not everyone believes in the Buddha nature though. Christianity, many christians say christians shouldnt be away from the world. (Defeats the purpose of Jesus being human; anyway) The Buddha came down from His royalty to be among the poor. He made Himself "be" not chose a path and kept His royal living like those whp are suffering. The Buddha also said we share in others suffering as (meyahana) help others relieve their own. If The Buddha just "chose" a path that He was interested in, I dont think He could have helped anyone. He was enlightened and Is enlightenment (as we all are) so that He can help others find enlightenment themselves.

Anyway, I know we disagree. I just find it odd for a Buddhist to say that. Christian, I used to hearing that. Even if we switch paths we still walking in the same direction. If that direction is not a part of us, why believe in anything.

/shrugs/

 

[RedDragon94]

"I love gays but I disagree with homosexuality?"

Isn't that like saying, to those who say this above, "I love who you are but I disagree with what, of many things that makes you, you"?

Isnt it contradictory to say you love someone but hate the way they Love other people?

That is like my telling a Muslim, I love you but I hate your religion. That means I hate the Muslim because he is not separate from his faith. He IS his faith.

Likewise with people in general. When they love someone in marriage they ARE the love they give.

The question is one, a yes or no and two, is it logical to say you love the person but not what makes the person, a human being.

I think we need to define what love is if we haven't already.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The question for me is why does it upset them? If someone has faith in God, as I do, then no one can shake that faith. You can tell me I am full of merde because I believe in God and I will say ok, whatever you say and walk away. That is what I don't understand about some people of faith. If their faith is that shaky, I wonder really. And btw, if I told my friend Kathy I was Bi she would laugh and hug me. She is that kind of person but because my partner is dead and I remain celibate in her memory, I see no real point. KWIM?

I dont like the statement. An atheist can say the statement, it would still bother me.

Kinda like saying someone is a n*. Sometimes I hear people my skin tone say it. Its against our culture to say the full word but we let it slide depending on where we are and who we speak with. If a causian person said it, that is toootally different regardless of what the carcasion person believed. Its the statement. It has negative connotations and history.

Saying, for example, "homosexuality is a lifestyle" unnerves me. Makes me think Im just going out doing unhomesome acts everytime I leave the house. Puts me in a box. And I live around christians whon say it. Its Not them its the statement.

Likewise with the OP statement. I find it wrong; but, maybe others have a different perspective on what that means to a christian when they say it. Maybe they mean one thing and I mean another. Regardless, thats why I ask if the statement itself is disriminatary not the christian.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think we need to define what love is if we haven't already.

In general or in a christian view?

I see love as a combination of trust, affection, not selfish, etc that two committed people share. I see this love expressed in words and actions. I dont see love limited and judged by what people are externally. Doesnt make sense.

How would you define it?

 

[RedDragon94]

How would you define it?

The selfless giving of yourself for another person's good. If I give myself for a certain cause I am loving the people that problem affects. I feel like there are a lot of Christians that feel this way about love, and I think that the rest of the world defines love as acceptance. So, when a Christian says "I love you but I do not support you" what they're saying is they feel the way that said person is living is harming them more than it's doing them good and they want to see them take a different path. And by that definition a Christian can love somebody without necessarily giving the thumbs up to everything said person does.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The selfless giving of yourself for another person's good. If I give myself for a certain cause I am loving the people that problem affects. I feel like there are a lot of Christians that feel this way about love, and I think that the rest of the world defines love as acceptance. So, when a Christian says "I love you but I do not support you" what they're saying is they feel the way that said person is living is harming them more than it's doing them good and they want to see them take a different path. And by that definition a Christian can love somebody without necessarily giving the thumbs up to everything said person does.

Here is the thing. I do not see homosexuity as something someone does. When you love someone, you see things in their shoes. You may not agree and have different definitions of the same word, but you see them in their shoes nonetheless.

For example, my friend is very Catholic. I do not talk about paganism and witchcraft because it bothers her. I alsondont say "I love you but I hate your christ". She is my friend. Thats an insult. Same thing the other way around. We can disagree all we want, its how we express our disagreemsnt is the key.

I tell her instead. You are my friend and I dont agree with some of the things Christ taught.

She could say, you are my friend and i dont support marriage between twp men or two women.

Instead she called marriage murder if two people were same gender. Yes, she disagrees but its not that.

Likewise, if someone said "I love you and I diagree with homosexual 'behavior'" thats fine. I dont lust over people I am not commited to. If they cant understand the difference, dont know what to say

Saying "I love you but i hate homosexuality" is not specific. I am thinking orientation. Its a direct insult to many people who are not the lust protrayed in the bible. It looks nice. The meaning from thr christian doesnt let the christian see in the other persons shoes...how homosexuality is defined by the person who IS homosexual. Hence. No love.

Thats why i see it as a contradiction.

 

[dgirl1986]

Actions speak louder than words if you ask me. I do not find that phrase to be discriminatory, it is what they do with that position that bothers me. People loving gays but not agreeing with homosexuality should not make them feel entitled to tell me how to live.

 

[JoStories]

I dont like the statement. An atheist can say the statement, it would still bother me.

Kinda like saying someone is a n*. Sometimes I hear people my skin tone say it. Its against our culture to say the full word but we let it slide depending on where we are and who we speak with. If a causian person said it, that is toootally different regardless of what the carcasion person believed. Its the statement. It has negative connotations and history.

Saying, for example, "homosexuality is a lifestyle" unnerves me. Makes me think Im just going out doing unhomesome acts everytime I leave the house. Puts me in a box. And I live around christians whon say it. Its Not them its the statement.

Likewise with the OP statement. I find it wrong; but, maybe others have a different perspective on what that means to a christian when they say it. Maybe they mean one thing and I mean another. Regardless, thats why I ask if the statement itself is disriminatary not the christian.

I see a difference between the two. I loathe racial epithets. I would never use the N word. Its just disgusting. And as you say, homosexuality is not a lifestyle, its who I am. As a Bi woman, I read something the other day that I loved. A gay woman said "I am a human in love with a human". As a Bi, I don't see gender as something to stop love. Anyway, I agree about most of what you say but when it comes to faith, if someone wants to denigrate my belief in God, let them. It doesn't change that I believe.

 

[JoStories]

I find it odd, especially in Buddhism, one would separate themselves from the Buddha being a Buddha themselves. Not everyone believes in the Buddha nature though. Christianity, many christians say christians shouldnt be away from the world. (Defeats the purpose of Jesus being human; anyway) The Buddha came down from His royalty to be among the poor. He made Himself "be" not chose a path and kept His royal living like those whp are suffering. The Buddha also said we share in others suffering as (meyahana) help others relieve their own. If The Buddha just "chose" a path that He was interested in, I dont think He could have helped anyone. He was enlightened and Is enlightenment (as we all are) so that He can help others find enlightenment themselves.

Anyway, I know we disagree. I just find it odd for a Buddhist to say that. Christian, I used to hearing that. Even if we switch paths we still walking in the same direction. If that direction is not a part of us, why believe in anything.

/shrugs/

But we are not enlightened yet Carlita or we would not be here now. I am striving toward it but I have not yet achieved that. We have the Buddha within but to achieve enlightenment, at least for me, would mean we are a part of the nature or spirit of God. Why do you think you are still on this plane?

 

[masterp48hd]

Is like saying "i love black people but i disagree with the rights of African-Americans" or "i love jews but i hate Judaism" it is indeed discrimination frist because you're generalizing and secondly because you're saying you accept every member of a collective but at the same time rejecting tge collective. And since genre is something one can't change you can't disagree with homosexuality without discriminating gays. However you can say ypu disagree with pride manifestations and.that wouldn't be discriminatory

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But we are not enlightened yet Carlita or we would not be here now. I am striving toward it but I have not yet achieved that. We have the Buddha within but to achieve enlightenment, at least for me, would mean we are a part of the nature or spirit of God. Why do you think you are still on this plane?

The Buddha said that He attained enlightenment years before he was enlightened in his "plane." Then He says "you think I am extinguish. [I am not] I am always here listening to the Law" when its spoken. Meyahana teaches that we are all Buddhas. We are all enlightened before were born and after we pass. The point of the Buddha is to end suffering; since suffering covers up who we are as Buddhas. We are still enlightened even though we suffer in birth, growth, age, and death.

I feel the Buddha didnt end suffering but lead the way so that people Accept it in peace. Swim with the waves. Dont let them knock you down.

If that means for you to have the spirit of God, toto. Thats who you become (how I see it) not just what you believe.

Anyway,

I agree with your other post with the homosexuality comment. I still hold strong your believe is what makes you, you.

Its the difference between:

1.

A. Who are you?
B. I am a Christian, a person who believes Jesus as my Lord and Savior

Compared to this

2.

A. Who are you?
B. I Am a child of Christ.

1.

A. Would you be a muslim if that were true?
B. Sure. If it were true, Id chamge my belief.

Compared to

2.

A. Would you be a muslim if that were true?
B. I know I Am a Child of Christ. I cant become something I am not. That is like asking me why should I not become a boy when Im a girl.

I see people pick and choose religions a lot. We have many world-views and many practices. They are Our (not just a wv) world-view because thats how we see the world interpret everything we know through the lens of our faith(s). If we separate our lens from our bodies, how can we see? How can we a path without knowing or even believing In the path you walk?

Anyway, long story short, to me it defeats the purpose of having a religion if it isnt personal lifestyle and world view but a hobby once an switch when one doesnt work well.

When children of christ find things that dont work well, thry "go to" their faith for help. Their inner being or God is their source not hobby.

Some christians in time of pain run "from god" because many to them, belief is not who they are..not personal...so, if God cant help, Buddha will.

I see a severe difference in those who live their faith: it becomes their lives and someone who picks a belief but dont make it their world view.