Why do Christians condemn LGBTQ as Evil?

[insecure]

The fact that religions (islam, christianity, don't know about the rest) discriminate is enough for me to not believe in them.
The gods in those religions are very "human", they share the same issues humans though, that makes their gods ungodly (is that a word?) for me, because as far as I am concerned any god should be above those bad human traits.
For example, the fact that he would demand that you only worship him, this is a jealous trait.
Why would an almighty god be jealous?
It just doesn't make sense.
The fact that he is jealous, proves that he is just a human invention.
A real god should not be affected by these feeble human emotions.

 

[user 139760]

Well, it's a rather interesting problem Christianity has been confronted with in modern times. See, the bible is supposed to be the word of God, unaltered and to be followed to a T. You got clear allusions (Sodom and Gomorrah being one among others) that homosexuality is sinful and Gid punishes it by death. Ergo...
Modern interpretation has it being more as imagery. Or allegory. But if you were to go onky by the bible and apply it directly, LGBTQ+ whatever thry are at now, is supposed to be sinful and an affront to God's eyes.
Therein lies the problem. But it also implies if you were to believe the Bible integrally, you have to believe in talking snakes. I'd rather view it as symbolic

 

[insecure]

Well, it's a rather interesting problem Christianity has been confronted with in modern times. See, the bible is supposed to be the word of God, unaltered and to be followed to a T.

I don't think that applies to the bible, it being the literal word of god.
The bible can't even be literal, because the 4 evangelists do not tell the same story.
Islam is different, there it is supposed to be the exact word from god.
That is also the reason why there is so much more religious terrorism in the name of islam than in the name of christianity.
Christianity allows for more flexibility.
If something is obviously wrong fact-wise, they can always say it was just to be taken as a figure of speech.

 

[blackdot]

Anything that is "different" is going to be viewed as outside your personal normal. If it's not "normal" then it has to be wrong. Even non-religious people can consider it wrong if they think everything should match up with what they consider normal. Unfortunately since religion is based on control and a lot of people will just follow what someone higher up says, it's easier to push that something is "bad" and have everyone else follow along. It helps that religion is based on belief and not facts so there is no way to prove you are wrong when you discriminate against something you don't think is normal.

It doesn't help when the politicians and religious leaders who push the hardest against something are usually that something. For instance when a politician pushing really hard for policies discriminating against gay people are themselves gay.

 

[insecure]

I think it also has to do with the incorrect notion that gay people don't reproduce.
As religions want to dominate they think the more offspring that is part of that religion is produced the better.
It is against their business...
(The reality is that many gay people will reproduce).

 

[Cherubino]

Christianity and all major religions need to be reformed according to the fast evolution in science, technology and its consequent social transformations ... they should only consider LGBT as eccentric and what is eccentric should not be encouraged but also not persecuted ... otherwise e.g. swingers can also require the right to marriage or adoption

 

[insecure]

Christianity and all major religions need to be reformed according to the fast evolution in science, technology and its consequent social transformations ... they should only consider LGBT as eccentric and what is eccentric should not be encouraged but also not persecuted ... otherwise e.g. swingers can also require the right to marriage or adoption

Yes, problem is the way that religions get a free reign in democracy.
You are entitled to believe whatever you like, but there is a fine line between believing LGBTQ is wrong, and acting upon it.

 

[user 139760]

I don't think that applies to the bible, it being the literal word of god.
The bible can't even be literal, because the 4 evangelists do not tell the same story.
Islam is different, there it is supposed to be the exact word from god.
That is also the reason why there is so much more religious terrorism in the name of islam than in the name of christianity.
Christianity allows for more flexibility.
If something is obviously wrong fact-wise, they can always say it was just to be taken as a figure of speech.

The Bible IS supposed to be that. Revisionism. It's been a thing for the last couple hundred years or so.
I was actually speaking to a younger muslim friend about that. There are groups in the middle East pushing for the same kind of reforms (Muhammad splitting the moon in half with his sword, among other things, has left troubles explaining it to be the litteral word of God) but it's slow going. Specifically because of the harder edged groups. Christianity is an older religion however, so it had the benefit of a longer "incubation" period if you will. It's also more centralized. More organized. Islam, with it's multiple Imams saying varied things, poses a bit more of an issue.

 

[michael2]

Why do Christians condemn LGBTQ as Evil?

Why do you think it is not evil?

 

[ardour]

The Book of Leviticus was written during the Bronze Age. Sexual behaviour that deviated from the norm could have been disruptive and spread disease among small communities. Reproduction would have been emphasized because of the high infant mortality rate. Moral codes would also have been a way to separate themselves from surrounding pagan societies, some of the more obscene practices of the Canaanites for example.

Now, these laws seem to be based on ignorance. We know homosexuality is partly genetic and found in other species.

 

[michael2]

HIV is rampant among gay African American men

Further, with the coming population collapse I feel like same *** partnerships won't be as celebrated as they are today. Just goes to show you times change, both ways. And if you think your on the 'right' side now, its very possible if not probable people 50 years from now will look back on current beliefs and consider them foolish

 

[user 190541]

Further, with the coming population collapse I feel like same *** partnerships won't be as celebrated as they are today. Just goes to show you times change, both ways. And if you think your on the 'right' side now, its very possible if not probable people 50 years from now will look back on current beliefs and consider them foolish

Unlikely to happen anywhere in the West. In 50 years or so you'll see an intensification of those trends, not their reversal.

 

[michael2]

Unlikely to happen anywhere in the West. In 50 years or so you'll see an intensification of those trends, not their reversal.

Oh God I hope not. We already have pronouns and gender fluid people. Whats next

Ron DeSantis can become president and push the country in a different direction

morals are like politics. its a pushing and pulling

and if you look at a place like Rome, which completely abandoned morals before collapsing. its not a good sign for a society to be extremely liberal morally, it usually reeks of excess and brings bad things

 

[user 190541]

Having a conservative president (and overall a lot of conservative leaders, because a president alone is not enough) can make it go underground for a little bit, but won't make it go away entirely, and after conservatives inevitably begin to lose momentum, it's gonna return with full force. That's because the cause that lies behind these changes in behaviour and customs has to do with what Marx used to call the base of society, in opposition to its superstructure, and so the revolution of behaviour, the development of juridical customs, artistic and beauty standards etc., are all regarded as primarily a reflex of society's mode of production, the developmental stage of its mode of production and its productive forces and so on, and, anyway, in this case, specifically, one can easily demonstrate that it is such, an outgrowth of a given and previous material state of affairs, as I briefly attempted to show in a past thread. But even if a large parcel of the American political leadership was to consist exclusively of Republicans, that in itself would accomplish little, as Democrats would still be a major (in fact, the most important) political lobby in the country. Only the complete removal of Democrats from the political scenario and the consolidation of an integrally conservative political leadership ruling the country in a dictatorship-like fashion would be enough to change this situation through repression and traditional political means alone.

I say so because I believe that's where America will head eventually, it's gonna become a semi-military dictatorship, a dictatorship of the military, the military-industrial complex and the security and policing apparatus. I see all of these institutions coalescing around a political party which will rule America as the sole effective political party in the country, something that represents only a small change when you consider that currently the number of effective political parties is already down to a mere 2, but I don't see that happening within 50 years or so. It's gonna take longer than that for that to happen.

 

[user 139760]

Having a conservative president (and overall a lot of conservative leaders, because a president alone is not enough) can make it go underground for a little bit, but won't make it go away entirely, and after conservatives inevitably begin to lose momentum, it's gonna return with full force. That's because the cause that lies behind these changes in behaviour and customs has to do with what Marx used to call the base of society, in opposition to its superstructure, and so the revolution of behaviour, the development of juridical customs, artistic and beauty standards etc., are all regarded as primarily a reflex of society's mode of production, the developmental stage of its mode of production and its productive forces and so on, and, anyway, in this case, specifically, one can easily demonstrate that it is such, an outgrowth of a given and previous material state of affairs, as I briefly attempted to show in a past thread. But even if a large parcel of the American political leadership was to consist exclusively of Republicans, that in itself would accomplish little, as Democrats would still be a major (in fact, the most important) political lobby in the country. Only the complete removal of Democrats from the political scenario and the consolidation of an integrally conservative political leadership ruling the country in a dictatorship-like fashion would be enough to change this situation through repression and traditional political means alone.

I say so because I believe that's where America will head eventually, it's gonna become a semi-military dictatorship, a dictatorship of the military, the military-industrial complex and the security and policing apparatus. I see all of these institutions coalescing around a political party which will rule America as the sole effective political party in the country, something that represents only a small change when you consider that currently the number of effective political parties is already down to a mere 2, but I don't see that happening within 50 years or so. It's gonna take longer than that for that to happen.

The more it changes, the more it stays the same, right, Carjack?

 

[insecure]

Christianity is an older religion however, so it had the benefit of a longer "incubation" period if you will. It's also more centralized. More organized. Islam, with it's multiple Imams saying varied things, poses a bit more of an issue.

That is a poor excuse for islam.
Think about it, islam is 600 years younger than christianity, that also means it developed in a society that should be 6 centuries more advanced than christianity, yet it remains a religion that is very brutal in many respects.
I have little hope that islam is getting more moderate over time, in many countries you see that it is always the biggest hardliners that take control.

 

[user 139760]

That is a poor excuse for islam.
Think about it, islam is 600 years younger than christianity, that also means it developed in a society that should be 6 centuries more advanced than christianity, yet it remains a religion that is very brutal in many respects.
I have little hope that islam is getting more moderate over time, in many countries you see that it is always the biggest hardliners that take control.

I don't make the rules, just collate the opinions lol.
Christianity wasn't much different a time. In some parts of the world it still is. Better education, secular education, would i think solve many issues.
Course..I'll be 600 years old by then

 

[Cherubino]

no big deal about this issue ... ChristianityOfficial considers e.g. oral *** between hetero, monogamous, wedded, church attending spouses evil as well

 

[user 139760]

no big deal about this issue ... ChristianityOfficial considers e.g. oral *** between hetero, monogamous, wedded, church attending spouses evil as well

...with the lights opened, seeing each other naked and having any kind of pleasure beyond procreation, is considered evil as well

 

[insecure]

I don't make the rules, just collate the opinions lol.
Christianity wasn't much different a time. In some parts of the world it still is. Better education, secular education, would i think solve many issues.
Course..I'll be 600 years old by then

No, but think about it, it is interesting to not just collate opinions but also to think for oneself.
Islam started in a society that was 600 years more 'advanced' than christianity did.
Sure, in itself it had less time to evolve, but the society it was generated in, had already evolved for 6 centuries more than christianity did.
Just imagine that a new religion would start 600 years from now.
That religion would grow up in a society we can't even begin to imagine, but it should be way more advanced in every respect than our own, just because of the people that will start it will do so with all the philosophical and technological knowledge from 6 centuries in the future.
Would you expect that new religion to be less advanced than all religions of today, but having evolved for 6 centuries more?

Personally, I grew up in a catholic environment, but I became an atheist, in part this was due to my doubts about my sexual preference and the way religion acts upon those people.
I don't know how things are in the US, but I think violence towards gay people comes a lot more from islamic communities than from christian communities.
If you look at the worst places in the world to be gay, almost all of them are islamic countries, or countries with a large muslim community.
In those countries there are laws that make it illegal to be gay, and you might get killed for them.
Those laws are mostly based on the shariah.