Maybe They Should Read The Whole Thing
A 17 year old male expresses his experience regarding homosexuality and the Bible.
Well, as you know, I am gay, and I came out to my parents a while ago and they did not take it well. They gave me many anti-gay speeches, but the one that will stick out in my mind is this one.
I came home one day, I was in town visiting or something, I get in the door, and my parents said they wanted to talk to me and I knew exactly what it had to do with, and I hate those conversations with my parents because my mom cries, and my dad just pisses me off and makes me hate him even more. Now, I must point out that my parents have not attended a church service for a long time, and did not raise me religiously. But when the conversation started, they pulled out the Bible, and they had pages marked with Lottery Tickets (that just shows how religious they are), and the proceeded to read my several anti-gay quotes from the Bible and told me that it was wrong.
That has obviously twisted my view on God and the Bible. I personally believe the Bible is all fiction, and it has been translated so many times that is has lost its original meaning. I do not understand how people can live by the Bible, especially since it is extremely out dated to today’s morals. I think religion just adds to the many tensions in the world because of religious wars and discrimination.
I mean no disrespect to the parents, but it seems as if they are utilizing the text of the scripture as a means to justify their opposition to homosexuality. Instead of talking as a family, his parents are using the Bible as a shield to avoid dealing with their son directly as a person. If they were a deeply religious family, then their use of the Bible might have some validity. But they are not a religious family. (Lottery tickets in the Bible? Blasphemy!) I feel that turning the Bible into a club to beat some sense into their son to be hypocritical and inappropriate. It is not the religious text per se, but taking the religious text to extremes that initiates conflict.
July 23, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Interesting. I find the topic of homosexuality and religion to be fansinating. The story I usually pull up in defence is one form a zoo. Penguins, when together, are so attached that they will never leave their partner. It so happens that at one zoo (England or Canada I can’t remember which) their was a penguin couple that for some reason in 5 years had never had a baby. After a few tests it was dizcovered that theywere both male (point 1, homosexuality happens in the animal kingdom as well). So in an attempt to make some penguin babies, the males were isolated and both shown to about 5 female penguins who were sexy. How humans know what a sexy penguin is i can’t say. In any case, neither male was at all attrcated due to their bond to each other. My point, if there are gay animals, then it must be natural. And if God did not intend it to happen, it would not have happened.
August 7, 2006 at 5:04 pm
It is absurd to believe that a bible reference, simply by virtue of being from the bible, equals a cogent argument. So many people have not embraced the bible as an authoritative text as others have, so why is it surprising to people of faith when others aren’t compelled by scriptural reference? I don’t see a family’s level of devotion as an issue in this case so I don’t necessarily fault the parents for using the Bible as a means of trying to fortify their position. The Bible or any other religious text is no more or less credible depending on who’s reading it. The Bible has its own intrinsic merit, or lack thereof, depending on your point of view.
Taking a stance in support of or opposing homosexuality would at this point in time be an exercise in futility. I haven’t the patience. It’s a debate that can not so easily be settled. Evidently this individual’s parents have an objection to it, and regardless of whether we are of the same opinion or not I think it’s naïve for us to think that they would abandon such a view simply because we believe they should.
The fact that they used lottery tickets as bookmarks is a pretty feeble criticism.
If a verse denouncing homosexuality is seen as invalid, how can another, describing gambling as a violation of a moral code, be taken into greater consideration? If gambling does constitute some sort of malfeasance it’s due to how inherently destructive it is, not because it’s an affront to the religious imposition.
And in response to Gumby’s comments, bringing attention to animal behavior always makes for a very specious argument. Humans are tragically sentient beings with the burden of reason. The more primal inclinations of man and beast are not necessarily the correct template for how we should conduct ourselves. It’s just as convenient to believe that nature’s form is not something to be emulated but transcended. God’s “intentions” and identity are not things we can claim to know as absolutes.
March 22, 2007 at 9:02 am
Okay man, I just want to say this. Who are you to judge your parents when you say that they cant judge you? If marking pages with lottery tickets is blasphemous than shouldnt saying that the bible is fiction, as something against the bible, also be blasphemous? One more point on the bible though. How do you know its totally outdated when you havent read it? Yes the experiences are 2000 years old, but man they can still be performed today! And they are. The bible is very true and I believe in it 1000%. I know how you think this, or at least a few reasons why you would. But maybe its worth doing a study on it, finding out more. It wouldnt hurt you in any way either.
May 19, 2007 at 2:53 am
In response to the Devil’s Advocate, and also to Trumpeter4God, your criticisms are stupid.
“If a verse denouncing homosexuality is seen as invalid, how can another, describing gambling as a violation of a moral code, be taken into greater consideration? If gambling does constitute some sort of malfeasance it’s due to how inherently destructive it is, not because it’s an affront to the religious imposition.”
Well, what he’d actually been pointing out was that his parents were picking and choosing. He states that he doesn’t believe the bible. The criticism this part is refering to is saying that his parents take the stance that homosexuality is wrong using the bible as defence, but then go against the bible by gambling, which is wrong according to the bible. He’s pointing out the hypocriticality of his parents.
“The fact that they used lottery tickets as bookmarks is a pretty feeble criticism.”
Same as above, or rather, the symbol of above.
Now, Trumpeter4God, you say that he says his parents “cant judge you (ie him)”. Hmm…now…where did he say this? He’s criticising his parents because of HOW they criticised him. No where does he say “what right do they have to judge me”.
“If marking pages with lottery tickets is blasphemous than shouldnt saying that the bible is fiction, as something against the bible, also be blasphemous”
Once again, he is pointing out his PARENTS inconsistency. HE doesn’t believe in the bible.
“Yes the experiences are 2000 years old”
He isn’t talking about experiences, he’s talk about the changes in societal and individual morals.
“The bible is very true”
Prove it. Unlike you, he said that “I personally believe” and “i do not understand”. Those, he can prove. You can’t prove that the bible is true.
And if you did do a study on the bible, you would know that parts of it are most likely based on the myths/traditions of the people, and likely there are parts that aren’t real.
I really do wish that people would read what is said, instead of seeing what they want to have been said.
Maybe its worth doing a study on reason, finding out more about it. It wouldn’t hurt either of you in any way.
May 19, 2007 at 7:30 am
Right on Peter!! I agree whole heartedly with “Well now,” there isn’t a single flaw in his analysis worth note. I think that the above writers should learn not to attempt to disguise their feeble opinions as empirical fact, you debase yourselves at every chance. For the most part we are seeing a rather sincere but groundless debate, which skirts the main issue expressed within the article. I admit it is the arguer’s prerogative whether to enter into areas of the debate, but the real issue is HOMOSEXUALITY. That said, i agree that the animal kingdom speach both lacked relevance and significantly impeded any real debate, at least in my opinion.
If you are wondering, my view is that Homosexuality, as all things, is a choice which is justified by the libertarian views of our modern society. This explains many of the older fears of alternative sexualities and promiscuity, which have been regarded as immoral for practical reasons in the past and are evident in biblical texts.
If you were not wondering, then you may be interested in an Aramaic text which was recently found in Cyprus. Its contents were mundane in general, but for the fact that it contained cogently used themes of speach which must have been copied from it into the Lucan Texts, proving that the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic, rather than Greek. This IS empirical evidence that our modern Bible is of diluted provenance, and should be treated as such. In my belief, this dispells the myth of “Bible truths.” This holier than thou attitude is dangerously close to the vices of pride and averace.
Let us not confuse my philosophies with these theologies, let me make myself clear; the fact is that a greater empathy is required for some resolution. Judgement and imposition of views is a violation of rights (i would say liberties, but it gives a false impression of scale). The alienated son is evidently being imposed upon, and the parent’s “fears” are serving to aggravate the situation. Whether either are hypocritical is simply an ad hominum, a red herring which lies at the surface of the real psychology of the subjects. As such, i doubt that religion really holds any bearing on this debate. If you wish to discuss symantics, that’s all well and good, but it should be paired with the full knowledge that it doesn’t resolve the issue.
May 19, 2007 at 8:08 am
come now nick, you can’t truly expect people to understand all these big words…”discuss”, “resolve”, “good”, “Judgement”…i guess “copied” would have to be pretty well understood by a christian though. And religion not holding bearing on something? how could this be!
Opps, i forgot to turn off my sarcasm…no, i meant it to be on, srry
May 19, 2007 at 8:20 am
Come Come Peter, we mustn’t under-estimate the opinions o… oh i can’t do it, both you and i are equally aware that these people have the reasoning power of turnips. There is no need to mask our inherent sarcasm any longer. Let’s laugh distainfully. *Hahahahahaha* Pity, this started out so promising.
But in all, or at least partial seroiusness, i’m scared by the apparent prevalence of zealots in an assumed intelligent society. even disguise of these convictions would prove them more plausible. Yet i dare not mock the intelligence of the deep south of the christian empire. You know what i mean…
Intelligent society… i wasn’t at all serious, was i. Oh well, that’s why they call me soulless.