?

Log in

Word of God vs. Word of Man - The Art of Religion [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
World Religion Discussion

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Word of God vs. Word of Man [Aug. 11th, 2004|01:29 pm]
World Religion Discussion
art_of_religion
[jevine]
I'm posting this under Art of Religion as I think it falls under Religious Practice, of which currently there are many very bad artists. Also because there needs to start being something on here besides my banter with Bandarug - not that that shouldn't continue!!!

I was just listening to the BBC on the way home from lunch, and unfortunatley didn't catch the names of the inverviewed or the name of the show, but the comments I heard set off an entire dialogue in my head about religion.

The overall conversation was about whether or not homosexuality was good for the 'flock', and one interview believed it was, one interviewer beliefved that scripture spoke against it.

The interviewer opposed said, 'God ultimately wants what's best for his people. And I don't believe that this the best lifestyle for God's people, the church has an obligation to say no.'

Let me calm a bit.



Now.

First off, I need to say this just so it's not an issue in the discussion, homosexuality does not equal pedofilia. It might be tempting to make that the core of the discussion, but it's not where I wish to take it. That can be discussed elsewhere, and if it's to be fair, only if it's a discussion of pedofilia in totum, as there are plenty of hetero-pederos out there.

Secondly, looking at any number of historical/current event topics and books, I'd have to say that God does not really want what's best for It's people. God seems to continually throw things in people's lives that seem either unfair, unjust, or even flat out wrong, possibly a tad 'E-vil'. So... what could God possibly want or expect for It's people, this being the case?

It seems that what God wants is for people to experience all these things, and do the best they personally can to deal with them, and come through them with dignity, honour, and an unscathed love for life in this universe, for those that do us wrong in hopes that we will one day accept each other as the brothers and sisters we are. Basically, to deal with things in the best way we can. Time Bandits said it best - boy: "Why do you allow bad things to happen to good people?" God "I think it has something to do with Free Will."

From the many homosexuals that I have known, and the few relationships that I have had (which were heterosexual), I have to say, that for people who are respectful, loving, intelligent, and homosexually active, this might in fact be the best for them. Why? Comparing the homosexual relationships (of others) I know to the heterosexual relationships I know, (of others and of myself), I'd say the weight of respectability falls heavily in homosexual's favor.

I've known far too many cheaters, thievers, liers, and frankly people who are not honest with themselves about what they want, to believe that their "God-sanctioned heterosexual relationship" has ANYTHING whatsoever to do with a belief in God or a love of life. These relationships are based on loneliness, on desperation, and on lying to the partner and the self (not to say all heterosexual relationships, but what seems like a majority of the ones I've been involved in as a friend to the parties or a parner myself). Whereas, on the other hand, the homosexual relationships that come to mind (of people I know) are respectful, loving, and not sexually derogatory - in fact, far less sexually explicit than comments I'll make on a day to day basis.

This isn't to say that there isn't a lot of lascivious activity in the homosexual community. But have you been to ANY bar lately? Or in a simple public environment, watching eyes? And clothes, and body language? Lascivious behavior was not invented by homosexuals. And if it was, it had willing counterparts in the hetero community. Any look at our Greek and Latin 'forefathers' shows this (of several hundred years ago). But that's another discussion.

So, what this leads me to believe, is that people like the gentleman in favor of a non-homosexual house of God, are not trying listen to what God is saying. They are trying to listen to what their own beliefs say in regards to keeping people happy in their discrimination of 'us vs. them'. The problem is, if at the outset you are for making rules and laws that keep people at odds, then how are we ever to learn to live together on this planet? Homosexuality in my opinion is pretty low on the scale of divisive subjects, but if people can't get over themselves, realize that homosexuality is real, a fact, not going anywhere, and that THAT'S OK, then how are we ever going to tackle things like Religious/Governmental/Environmental disunity?

I find it interesting that there are a large number of Homosexual Christians, Homosexual Republicans, Homosexual Democrats, Homosexual educators. Is this bad, or indicative of the world 'going to Hell in a handbasket'?

Ultimately, I have to say no. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with being Christian, Republican, Democrat, or an educator.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: bandarug
2004-08-11 12:17 pm (UTC)
1. "It seems that what God wants is for people to experience all these things, and do the best they personally can to deal with them, and come through them with dignity, honour, and an unscathed love for life in this universe, for those that do us wrong in hopes that we will one day accept each other as the brothers and sisters we are."

- This argument has come up many times in life. It comes up when people are racist, it comes up when people are sexist, it comes up when people are homophobic: It is by far the more simplistic and all-encompassing argument there is out there. It is clear, concise, and for the love of everything that is good and whole, it is right.

2. "I've known far too many cheaters, thievers, liers, and frankly people who are not honest with themselves about what they want, to believe that their "God-sanctioned heterosexual relationship" has ANYTHING whatsoever to do with a belief in God or a love of life."

- Unfortunately, most of the people I've met who are like this, also believe that the minute they step into church (or wherever they worship) they have been forgiven for all the evil they have done in their previous week. And, for those of you who live life respecting others and yourself equally do not go to church (or another placee of worship) you are defying yourself and giving up on something higher that may potential save you from what you deem to be wrong.

I'm big on definitions.... really big on them. I feel that sometimes it is wrong to put labels on things, even words, but in their time and place they can speak volumes. So, in my final thought, I leave you this:

Love: A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness. A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair.

No where in this definition of love does it say that they cannot be two men or two women.

If in this world what we are trying to do is reduce suffering, love may very well be the answer. Who are we (who is god?) to refuse the love of two people of the same sex, when right now we're in a world that needs more of it than ever.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: artsclub
2004-08-12 10:55 pm (UTC)
"I'd have to say that God does not really want what's best for It's people. God seems to continually throw things in people's lives that seem either unfair, unjust, or even flat out wrong, possibly a tad 'E-vil'. So... what could God possibly want or expect for It's people, this being the case?"

it's been the subject of so many discussions, but i'm never done thinking about it. some people say its our mis-understanding of a larger picture...that what we perceive as evil is actually something quite good. how we can say hatred or fear on any level is good, can be difficult to understand. i believe that any act that does not stem from love has the possibility to be more.

placing barriers and turning a group into the 'other' does not make for harmonious living.
..and i completely agree with bandarug's reply. very well said. :)
-a
(Reply) (Thread)
From: jevine
2004-08-13 12:24 am (UTC)

definition of love

Love: A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness. A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair.


I'm going to expand on this a little so that it includes all life (and manages not to suggest that humans and parrots or other should be married together, and also manages to draw a line between love and lust)

Love: The desire to help another living being thrive. This can just as easily be a parent, a sibling, a friend, a lover, a teacher, a pet, a groundhog, or the spider trying desperately to get across the carpet/linoleum floor. We are all in this together. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we can stop dropping bombs and start dropping supplies.

This definition implies an active role - I would suggest the passive side of love is more akin to 'nostalgia', where as loving someone requires effort. This is the breaking point between love and lust - lust after someone is a greedy endeavor, you want them to gratify you somehow. Loving them, however, is you trying to gratify them, if it is accepted, and can only be done unconditionally - if you are expecting something in return, that is greed as well. It doesn't mean that they won't reciprocate. It means that you're expecting them to, and if they don't?
(Reply) (Thread)
From: karma_joe
2005-03-08 11:50 am (UTC)
i really like what you have said here. i agree whole-heartedly. do mind if i share it with the readers of my journal?
(Reply) (Thread)
From: jevine
2005-03-08 12:15 pm (UTC)
Of course! :) You might edit one thing - at the end, you might add 'homosexual' to the list of things I don't see as being necessarily wrong - it could be construed that I'm saying that, but hopefully from the previous paragraphs it will be taken with the sarcastic twist it's meant to deliver. Cheers to you!!! :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: karma_joe
2005-03-08 12:18 pm (UTC)
thank you! do you mind if i add you? i couls always use more like-minded friends such as yourself. i hope that you'll add me back...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)