Should Gays Forgive Abrahamics?

[suncowiam]

I voted yes. The goal is not to hate but to accept one another.

Someday, after all this civil rights for sexual orientation is done and won, I see myself backing religious folks that don't want to "harm" others. Religion will be the minority as we become more technologically advanced.

I've met enough religious folks here to know some only want to believe in God but do not want the backwards hating culture and anti-science that comes with religion.

I will back those that simply want to do good for others like enabling hospitals, schools, and shelters... I will only do this if they reconcile their processes of arbitrary sin so that it doesn't target people without real-world reasoning and evidence. Many here have already done this by interpreting their holy book figuratively and reasonably. I believe some will be the pillars of their new religious communities and I will gladly support this.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, hating folks is a waste of time and energy.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why are his views "immature"? What do you mean by that specifically?

Because of his generalized hatred of the beliefs of half the world population. I've pointed out the genocidal undertones of his rhetoric more than once but he likes to pretend it isn't there. He's a vicious anti-theist. I wondered if he was raised in a harsh Christian fundamentalist environment but he wasn't even raised Christian, really. So his hatred is somewhat of a mystery. He can't be reasoned with on this subject.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

Yes, hating folks is a waste of time and energy.

It is also bad for your health, disrupts digestion, increases blood pressure, can lead to heart attack,
strokes etc .... Far better to find ways to live in harmony and peace ... none judgemental etc..

 

[lovemuffin]

I agree with everyone who said basically that before there could be a meaningful forgiveness (at least when were speaking at a cultural or societal level, rather than of individuals), there would first need to be a pretty radical repentance on the part of the religions. To say otherwise would seem to be putting an unjust burden on those who have been oppressed.

 

[gsa]

Within any one of the Abrahamic religions there are people who are homophobic and people who are supportive of gays. Lumping is dumb at best.

Young U.S. Catholics overwhelmingly accepting of homosexuality | Pew Research Center

This really doesn't speak to the institution of Catholicism, much less Abrahamic religion generally. As I said, multiple times, and despite the insistence to the contrary, this is not about individual believers. Many of them ignore their beliefs. I assume even Saint Frankenstein would admit that this poll simply indicates that they disobey the clear teachings of the church.

 

[gsa]

Because of his generalized hatred of the beliefs of half the world population. I've pointed out the genocidal undertones of his rhetoric more than once but he likes to pretend it isn't there. He's a vicious anti-theist. I wondered if he was raised in a harsh Christian fundamentalist environment but he wasn't even raised Christian, really. So his hatred is somewhat of a mystery. He can't be reasoned with on this subject.

genocidal, hatred, vicious...this sounds like a script for describing an imaginary opponent.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

genocidal, hatred, vicious...this sounds like a script for describing an imaginary opponent.

And I just call it denial on your part.

 

[gsa]

And I just call it denial on your part.

Right. I take this less seriously than the Islamophobic charge, a close libelous cousin.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Right. I take this less seriously than the Islamophobic charge, a close libelous cousin.

Don't care.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The post deliberately refers to Abrahamic religions as opposed to individual believers, and operates with the assumption that Abrahamic religions have unifying characteristics.

This also encompasses slightly more than half the current human global population, so we can expect substantial variation on points of belief. But I am assuming that the religion has some content independent of the variation found among believers. Or to put it another way, as Jeffrey Tayler argues quite well in this article, that these text-based scriptural religions have something to say within the foundational texts themselves:

The problem with religion lies not with, as Aslan would have it, interpretation – postmodern or otherwise – but with, for starters, the founding texts themselves. The canonical writings of Islam, Christianity and Judaism all contain a plethora of macabre fables and explicit injunctions for vile, sadistic behavior that no civilized person would or should accept, but which far too many do take as literal truth. (And not just in the Middle East. Even in the United States, a Gallup poll conducted this summer established that three out of four Americans consider the Bible the actual word of God.) The only way for those hoping to justify faith while shielding their scripture from censure is to do what Aslan does: shift the focus from the “holy” texts to the people reading them.

But if we cannot speak of these religions, if the very idea of religion has no coherence or use, then I suppose that your criticism makes sense.

To be clear, I didn't mean it as a criticism, just a point of view from someone who is less invested (in so far as I am neither Abrahamaic, nor gay).

I think we've had some variations of this discussion before, and whilst I always find it interesting, I don't want to derail, so just ignore, or let me know if I'm sidetracking.
But my approach to these things is more pragmatic than idealistic. So I'm less interested in what the foundational texts indicate. I've read more than enough history to see that religions evolve just as people do (and to be clear, evolution is not a positive force, and I'm not suggesting religions 'improve' over time).

My interest is more around what is the shortest and best possible path to achieving equality for people. And in that context, I think a refusal to accept Abrahamaic apologies, or indeed, making much of an issue about apologies at all is unproductive. I see this as a 'judge them by their fruits' kinda moment. Where people are accepting of gay people as equals, regardless of their background, then it should suffice. Where they are unaccepting, regardless of background, then it is unacceptable and should be viewed as such.

Keeping the message clear, simple and consistent is more important (in my opinion) than a more idealistic approach. It is worth noting that this would seem to make Aslan and myself natural allies, but I don't see things that way. I am not an apologist for Abrahamaic faiths, and personally don't think they add enough value for the harm they cause. But I don't want to judge based on backgrounds. I want to judge based on actions.

 

[gsa]

Don't care.

Making bold and even outrageous claims without evidence is certainly in keeping with tradition.

 

[gsa]

Well you did! Your OP excluded them!

Violent homophobia.... now!
It's building............

I think that it might be............

The OP did not address them, which is worlds apart from excluding them. Your logic is somewhat reminiscent of the logic employed by detractors within the Democratic Party in the US on gay rights for about three decades: "Once we have addressed every conceivable wrong in society, we can begin to talk about pressing for gay rights."

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Making bold and even outrageous claims without evidence is certainly in keeping with tradition.

Sorry, I don't screencap your posts from the chat room. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Now I have nothing to say to you.

 

[oldbadger]

The OP did not address them, which is worlds apart from excluding them.

OK....... but if you widen your viewpoint and increase your empathy for all people, this will reduce any feelings of anger within you and increase your level of contentment. Honestly. Try it.

Your logic is somewhat reminiscent of the logic employed by detractors within the Democratic Party in the US on gay rights for about three decades: "Once we have addressed every conceivable wrong in society, we can begin to talk about pressing for gay rights."

You moan about treatment of Gays by Abrahamic Religions, then start using analogies about detractors in some political party.

I know Gays who are Christians, and they mostly focus on extending their love to the World. There are many Gays in the Church of England. You are not a Christian and do not seem to extend your love .... you just want to moan about religions (and political parties) which you don't care about at all.

The World is changing and forgiveness is essential in healing processes. If you withold your forgiveness then you are just locked into a form of mind-self-harm.

My suggestion is:- Loosen up. Get over it. Move on.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes, hating folks is a waste of time and energy.

I wish somebody would tell that to the Christian evangelicals and the Muslim fundamentalists.

 

[Typist]

This really doesn't speak to the institution of Catholicism, much less Abrahamic religion generally.

The Catholic Church, any church, is defined by the sum total of what all followers believe and do (real world), and not by the statements of a tiny minority of that faith who have appointed themselves to leadership positions (theory world).

It is true that some Christians are homophobic, on a scale from mild to extreme. When such people come in to the public square and argue for discrimination against gays, then I'm with you all the way in challenging those individuals.

In spite of your dishonest tap dancing, you're looking for some way you can lump all religious people in to the same pile so you can proclaim a fantasy superiority over the whole bunch. I refuse to be part of anything like that, as that is exactly the mindset that has afflicted the gay community and other minority victim groups for centuries.

The solution to the problems of religion is not to replicate all the worst properties of religion under a new flag.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It is true that some Christians are homophobic, on a scale from mild to extreme. When such people come in to the public square and argue for discrimination against gays, then I'm with you all the way in challenging those individuals.

Gay marriage passed into law last year in the UK. The bad news is that it was delayed for years due to opposition from religious groups, including the mainstream Christian institutions. While some of the smaller more liberal Christian groups like Quakers supported gay marriage, the Catholic Church opposed it and the Church of England sat on the fence. So there is still an strong undercurrent of institutional homophobia evident in Christianity, and it's not good enough to just blame the problem on a few bigoted individuals

I think that more enlightened Christians need to be a lot more assertive in challenging discrimination, whether it be against women or gays or whoever. And the same applies to Islam, where the need is even more urgent.

 

[Typist]

The bad news is that it was delayed for years due to opposition from religious groups, including the mainstream Christian institutions.

The key word there is "institutions". It's clear beyond doubt that those institutions do not automatically represent their congregations.

Young U.S. Catholics overwhelmingly accepting of homosexuality | Pew Research Center

I've posted that link a number of times. Do you see how you guys keep ignoring well known documented facts from Pew Research, a fully independent objective third party professional research firm?

That's because you're looking for an enemy you can fight, and so all inconvenient facts are swept aside, discarded, ignored. You call such a process reason, but really it is just an emotion fueled faith based ideology, the very thing you claim to be fighting against.

So long as you are engaged in this process, you aren't in a position to credibly debunk religion or lead a crusade against bigotry.

The solution is simple. Find some individual who is arguing against gay rights, invite them here to join the discussion, and I will join you in ripping their comments to shreds.

But I'm not going to join a fight against religion, or Catholics, or Christians, or Muslims, or any other group containing literally billions of people we know nothing about. That's bigotry.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The key word there is "institutions". It's clear beyond doubt that those institutions do not automatically represent their congregations.

It's equally clear that members have a responsibility for what their organisation says and does, it's no good just "blaming the management". Grass roots change is needed.