Christian Tolerance

doctoremma

http://www.examiner.com/x-10853-Portland-Humanist-Examiner~y2009m12d18-Religion-in-Uganda-Christianity-fuels-attack-on-homosexuals

http://religioncompass.wordpress.com/tag/christianity-and-homosexuality/

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/12/08/uganda.anti.gay.bill/index.html

To be balanced, many Christians are vocally opposing this legislation. But the impetus for it was also borne out of religion.

Slav

monosharp wrote: »

man-on-man homosexuality was a criminal offence under Stalin.

Just for your information monosharp, consensual homosexual act was a criminal offense in Soviet Union from 1934 until its very last days in 1991. Homosexuality was decriminalised after the USSR collapsed by the independent states with Ukraine being the first in late 1991 or early 1992.

So ironically among all the Soviet leaders from Lenin to Gorbachev, only under Lenin and Stalin there were times when homosexuals were not persecuted.

The Soviet Union was an atheist regime ?

Most certainly it was. In fact it was probably the only organised and serious effort to find a strong scientific background for atheism, as successful as it could be. How about a mandatory discipline in all third level education courses - Scientific Atheism? That was fun!

PDN wrote: »

Albania.
Cuba.
Vietnam.
China.
North Korea.
Soviet Union.
Romania.

It's interesting to see how homosexuality came out of underground in countries returning from atheism to their Christian and Muslim roots.
Perhaps it's just a co-incidence as everyone knows that Christianity and Islam are the two biggest gay bullies in the world.

Stephentlig

I dont really have an absolute clue about the going ons in this thread but on my blog I have a story of Thirty franciscans in Bosnia/Herzegovina who were burned alive and slaughtered by the commys. they said ''there is no god'' and threw the crucifix on the ground, and one of the Franciscan friars picked it up and said ''you are my God and my all, and I love you'' and they were all dragged away to be slaughtered. they are known as the thirty siroki brijeg martyrs.

http://thebloodofthemartyrs.blogspot.com/2009/09/thirty-franciscan-martyrs-of-siroki.html

monosharp

Slav wrote: »

Just for your information monosharp, consensual homosexual act was a criminal offense in Soviet Union from 1934 until its very last days in 1991. Homosexuality was decriminalised after the USSR collapsed by the independent states with Ukraine being the first in late 1991 or early 1992.

No, I said male (man-on-man) homosexuality was a criminal offence.

In the Soviet Union, homosexuality was originally decriminalized by the Communist Party after the Revolution along with no-fault divorce and abortion.[9] In the 1930's under Joseph Stalin, male homosexuality, abortion and divorce were recriminalised in the nation. Article 121 explicitly criminalised male same-sex intercourse and with five years of hard prison labor as a penalty

So ironically among all the Soviet leaders from Lenin to Gorbachev, only under Lenin and Stalin there were times when homosexuals were not persecuted.

Stalin was originally a Christian. I wonder where he got his anti-homosexual views from.

Most certainly it was. In fact it was probably the only organised and serious effort to find a strong scientific background for atheism, as successful as it could be. How about a mandatory discipline in all third level education courses - Scientific Atheism? That was fun!

And yet the church was promoted during WW2.

It's interesting to see how homosexuality came out of underground in countries returning from atheism to their Christian and Muslim roots.
Perhaps it's just a co-incidence as everyone knows that Christianity and Islam are the two biggest gay bullies in the world.

And what were the reasons for many communist leaders anti-homosexuality stances ?

monosharp

Stephentlig wrote: »

I dont really have an absolute clue about the going ons in this thread but on my blog I have a story of Thirty franciscans in Bosnia/Herzegovina who were burned alive and slaughtered by the commys. they said ''there is no god'' and threw the crucifix on the ground, and one of the Franciscan friars picked it up and said ''you are my God and my all, and I love you'' and they were all dragged away to be slaughtered. they are known as the thirty siroki brijeg martyrs.

http://thebloodofthemartyrs.blogspot.com/2009/09/thirty-franciscan-martyrs-of-siroki.html

Would you like a list of the crimes committed in the name of Christianity and a list of people who were slaughtered for not believing in your god ?

Fanny Cradock

Speaking of intolerance, you are consistently the most vociferously intolerant anti-Christian poster that visits this forum.

There is little point in debating this topic with you, monosharp. The vices of man can be traced back to Christianity, apparently. It's your position and you'll be damned if your going to be convinced otherwise.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Speaking of intolerance, you are consistently the most vociferously intolerant anti-Christian poster that visits this forum.

In fairness I'm not really that bad except when I'm faced with an opinion I find reprehensible.

PDN's opinion that our society, rational thought, and tolerance are somehow due to a particular religions influence makes me very annoyed.

There is little point in debating this topic with you, monosharp. The vices of man can be traced back to Christianity, apparently. It's your position and you'll be damned if your going to be convinced otherwis

e.

Thats not my argument and you know its not. PDN gives lip service to Christianitys mistakes while at the same time wiping the record clean with his 'Everything good we have today is because we were influenced by Christianity'.

I'm not trying to paint Christianity as evil but to suggest its somehow the basis of our rationality and tolerance is incredibly wrong.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

In fairness I'm not really that bad except when I'm faced with an opinion I find reprehensible.

PDN's opinion that our society, rational thought, and tolerance are somehow due to a particular religions influence makes me very annoyed.

What you actually mean is you're not that bad so long as everybody else agrees with your point of view.

It's not my fault that your dislike of Christianity is such that you get annoyed by history.

And your mischaracterisation of the institutionalised rape of young boys in Ancient Greece as being 'toleration of homosexuality' makes me very annoyed.

PDN gives lip service to Christianitys mistakes while at the same time wiping the record clean with his 'Everything good we have today is because we were influenced by Christianity'.

I have never made that claim and you are way out of order to pretend that I did.

Also, I have, hundreds of times both in this forum and in the A&A forum, criticised evils done in the name of Christianity in the most straightforward terms.

To misrepresent that as giving 'lip service' is a despicable use of weasel words.

I'm not trying to paint Christianity as evil

Oh come off it. You've tried to pin Stalin's evil deeds on Christianity. Any fair minded person can see exactly what you're trying to do.

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

Stalin was originally a Christian. I wonder where he got his anti-homosexual views from.

monosharp wrote: »

I'm not trying to paint Christianity as evil...

Pull the other one! It doesn't take a through investigation into your contributions to this forum to see that this is all you ever do here.

Slav

monosharp wrote: »

No, I said male (man-on-man) homosexuality was a criminal offence.

"...under Stalin". Which was not correct as this was the case from 1934 until early 1990ies. Not just under represser Stalin but, for example, under fluffy Gorbachev as well.

As for your man-on-man part, you are also wrong. Although lesbian act did not fall under the criminal justice law the only real difference it made for homosexual women is that they went to closed psychiatric clinics instead of jail. I'm not sure which was worst tbh.

Stalin was originally a Christian. I wonder where he got his anti-homosexual views from.

Lol, that's smart! I feel ashamed for Christianity now, really!

The only thing I would ask you then is to add Judaism to your list of gay intolerant ideologies. As we know now from the Soviet archives the idea of adding that infamous article 154a in 1934 was of then head of NKVD Genrikh Yagoda.

BTW, ironically when comrade Yagoda was arrested some of the embarrassing confiscated items suggest that he might be a gay or bi-sexual. As for his colleague, executioner and successor comrade Ezhov, he was definitely a gay as he admitted it himself.

And yet the church was promoted during WW2.

Nice joke again, but (unlike your previous one about servus Dei Josephus) not a funny one.

And what were the reasons for many communist leaders anti-homosexuality stances ?

I don't know really as I'm not an expert on the subject. My own understanding is that it has nothing to do with communism or any other -ism really. I think homophobia is just a form of a personal protest against ones own homosexuality: either real or latent or imaginary. Based on my own observations:

• Heterosexual man are generally far more tolerant to female homosexuality; same heterosexual women are generally OK with male homosexuals. Also historically society was much easier on female homosexuality probably because it was men who were making rules.
• Children, both boys and girls, are probably the most homophobic of all at the age they explore their own sexuality and their sexual self-identification.
• Homophobia is far more likely to develop in closed same-sex societies, e.g. jail, army, boys only/girls only schools, etc.

For people homophobia is only means of defending their own sexuality. Why it can be so aggressive some time is beyond my understanding. Perhaps latent homosexuality can be blamed for all that but it probably would be too simplistic. Again, as I said I know very little about it and it's not based on any serious research. It's just my personal opinion so forgive me my ignorance if I'm talking complete rubbish!

So in general, I think it is not driven by any ideology; it's somewhere deeper in our human nature I guess. Something we used to call Original Sin in Christianity.

And as we mentioned Christianity, I think it's important to understand that Christianity is not supposed to be tolerant. In fact Christian tolerance is not good at all. When we say that our society is tolerant in reality it normally means that average Joe Public does not really like homosexuals but tolerates them as this is a comfortable position in modern politically correct society. For the same reason he is not racist (until his daughter starts dating a black guy of course). For the same reason he thinks that death penalty is wrong though most criminals are second class citizens and well deserve it.

If we only tolerate someone we are lukewarm.

"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm — neither hot nor cold — I am about to spit you out of my mouth." (Rev 3:15-16)

We are not suppose to tolerate any sort of people -- we are suppose to sincerely love them. This is the standard set by Christ and His Church.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

What you actually mean is you're not that bad so long as everybody else agrees with your point of view.

uh huh.

It's not my fault that your dislike of Christianity is such that you get annoyed by history.

I am annoyed by your depiction of christianity as the savouir of civilisation and the beacon of light which brought rationality and free thinking into our society when it had the exact opposite effect.

And your mischaracterisation of the institutionalised rape of young boys in Ancient Greece as being 'toleration of homosexuality' makes me very annoyed.

For someone who loves the word 'strawman' you do use them quite a lot.

You know, and anyone else on this forum also knows that I said no such thing.

To misrepresent that as giving 'lip service' is a despicable use of weasel words.

Yet your trying to suggest that as a civilisation today we somehow owe christianity for our development.

Oh come off it. You've tried to pin Stalin's evil deeds on Christianity. Any fair minded person can see exactly what you're trying to do.

I asked the question where his anti-homosexual views came from, from his ex-religion, from his communism (which doesn't say anything about the subject, at least Marx didn't) or from his society which had been indoctrinated by religion for so long.

monosharp

Slav wrote: »

The only thing I would ask you then is to add Judaism to your list of gay intolerant ideologies. As we know now from the Soviet archives the idea of adding that infamous article 154a in 1934 was of then head of NKVD Genrikh Yagoda.

No problem comrade. I'm anti-all abrahamic religions equally.

Nice joke again, but (unlike your previous one about servus Dei Josephus) not a funny one.

The Russian orthodox church was promoted as a patriotic organisation.

We are not suppose to tolerate any sort of people -- we are suppose to sincerely love them. This is the standard set by Christ and His Church

Supposed to but rarely did in the past.

Slav

monosharp wrote: »

No problem comrade. I'm anti-all abrahamic religions equally.

Yes, we all know that. Looks like for some reason that sort of intolerance is comforting you but makes your logical reasoning suffer. Well, that's life, there are always trade offs.

The Russian orthodox church was promoted as a patriotic organisation.

Check the facts of what was happening in the real world.

Supposed to but rarely did in the past.

Please forgive us brother for we have sinned.

Gurgle

Slav wrote: »

"...under Stalin". Which was not correct as this was the case from 1934 until early 1990ies. Not just under represser Stalin but, for example, under fluffy Gorbachev as well.

T'was illegal in Ireland until 1993 for that matter.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

I am annoyed by your depiction of christianity as the savouir of civilisation and the beacon of light which brought rationality and free thinking into our society when it had the exact opposite effect.

You see, this is your problem.

I can present a balanced veiw in which we avoid trying to attribute everything bad to our enemies and everything good to our friends. Therefore I am careful to note the bad things done by Christianity as well as the good things. However, I do acknowledge the long-term trends of history.

You have, over the last few days, actually mocked me for my efforts in trying to be fair and careful, for my use of phrases such as "on average" or "for the most part". You have also mocked me for citing trends over periods of 1000 years or more.

You, on the other hand, are the one who is trying to make sweeping generalisations. You can't even admit the failings in atheist regimes - trying to deny that they were atheist or (laugh a minute) that any failings they had were really the fault of Christianity.

Now, it's bad enough that you indulge in these sweeping generalisations and mock me for being more careful in my assessments and my language. But then you have the nerve to turn around and accuse me of being the one who made such generalisations - misrepresenting me as making claims that I've never made. There is a point where legitimate disagreement and discussion descends into downright dishonesty - and I honestly believe you have crossed that line.

I never claimed that Christianity was "the savouir (sic) of civilisation and the beacon of light which brought rationality and free thinking into our society".

I never paid "lip service to Christianitys mistakes" while at the same time wiping the record clean with a claim that "Everything good we have today is because we were influenced by Christianity".

Anyone who consistently misrepresents me as making such claims, especially when I correct them and restate my views, is a liar.

So here, once again is my position. One I have stated repeatedly over recent days in this and another thread.

Many awful things have been done in the name of Christianity over the years. Indeed, human beings of all ideologies have a tendency to commit unspeakable atrocities against each other and to enslave each other. It is to Christianity's shame that it's repudiation of slavery was so slow and uneven.

Nevertheless, it can be seen that societies with the longest exposure to Christianity did, for the most part, develop rationalism, tolerance and the scientific method faster and sooner than those societies that lacked such exposure. This historic process is also more pronounced in societies where a diversity of opinion existed within Christianity than where one dominant State-sponsored version was the norm.

This is not to say that other societies or cultures did not have their good points, indeed the societies influenced by Christianity often built on the foundations of others. Nor is this to say that other kinds of societies 'could not have' developed our modern rationalism, scientific method, universities, hospitals, a culture of tolerance etc. This point is purely about what did actually happen as opposed to what might have happened in a non-existent hypothetical world.

Now, monosharp, you are entitled to disagree with me - although I think history is against you. But you are not entitled to continually misrepresent my carefully stated view in the crude and dishonest way you have been doing. Please stop it now.

For someone who loves the word 'strawman' you do use them quite a lot.

You know, and anyone else on this forum also knows that I said no such thing.

I have used no strawman, and you did indeed say that that the Ancient Greeks were tolerant of homosexuality.

In Ancient Greece there was little or no toleration of what we think of as homosexuality today (men preferring to confine themselves to intercourse with other men and setting up home together). For a freeborn Greek man to allow himself to be penetrated anally was a shameful and disgusting concept to the Greeks. The "homosexuality" that was tolerated was where an adult male was 'on top' and where a slave or a young boy got reamed.

This practice was, in essence, a sexual outlet whereby the more powerful and privileged person gained his pleasure at the expense of the powerless - usually young boys or slaves (remember that Aristotle taught that some humans were naturally inferior and therefore fit only for slavery). It was, in reality, little different from how paedophile priests behaved (the powerful guy always on top, and the voiceless and powerless get screwed).

Society has changed to such an extent that Ancient Greece not only tolerated such sexual exploitation but actually wrote poems celebrating the practice. Today culture has changed to the point where we deplore such practices, and are rightfully outraged when they occur - setting up tribunals and commissions to investigate and hold the offenders accountable for their actions. You. monosharp, may attribute this modern 'intolerance' for child abuse to Christianity if you wish. My own view is that our intolerance of pederastry is a result of viewing all human beings as being essentially equal and therefore having inallienable rights. And that view, while not exclusive to Christians, did indeed develop sooner in certain societies than in others.

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

Society has changed to such an extent that Ancient Greece not only tolerated such sexual exploitation but actually wrote poems celebrating the practice. Today culture has changed to the point where we deplore such practices, and are rightfully outraged when they occur - setting up tribunals and commissions to investigate and hold the offenders accountable for their actions. You. monosharp, may attribute this modern 'intolerance' for child abuse to Christianity if you wish. My own view is that our intolerance of pederastry is a result of viewing all human beings as being essentially equal and therefore having inallienable rights. And that view, while not exclusive to Christians, did indeed develop sooner in certain societies than in others.

I think the word I am looking for is "parachronism".

I agree with most of the post you made. We can not compare our concept of hiomosexual behaviour today or "democracy" or "injustice" as if they were identical nor expect the same to apply anachronistically. also , we cant expect others i the past should behave in a different way when they have neither the knowledge or culture we have today.

Having said that, it is quite clear that atheistic regimes slaughtered hundreds of millions and that the Church didn't and that the Church had an overall good influence on scoiety in spite of people overemphasising and over estamating the toll of a few events such as the Spanish Inquisition, or the Crusades.

Overature

as a Christian myself i will not deny that Christians have not been tolerant of homosexuals in the past. And it does say in the bible that it is a sin to be a homosexual. I think most of the lack of tolerance over the years have been from some people blowing the situation out of the water and making such a big deal about it. Getting hung up on the little things, Christians now adays base their views on the life and workings of Jesus, who was extremely tolerant of all people, ie helping prostitutes and being in contact with people with diseases which was against the Jewish laws

Gurgle

Overature wrote: »

it does say in the bible that it is a sin to be a homosexual.

Where?
Chapter, Verse and quote please.

Glenster

Overature wrote: »

. And it does say in the bible that it is a sin to be a homosexual.

They were talking about that on the history of christianity last week and the reverend they were interviewing (the bloke from St Martin in the Fields in London) said that it had all been a big mistake.

He said that the reason the bible was so down on gayness was that in the times it was being written there was no such thing as monogomous homosexual relationships and they were attacking the promiscuity of it rather than it per se.

Anyway That's my new go-to "the church is anti-gay" retort now.

Sam Vimes

Gurgle wrote: »

Where?
Chapter, Verse and quote please.

Leviticus 18:22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

Little D

I am a christian of sorts in that my family are and that is what i am!! i dont really pratice my religion ever and haven't been inside a church in years, but i work with a lady who is a born again christian, she thinks homosexuality is a sin, but she is very tolerant of homosexuals and has 2 friends that are homosexuals infact she is very tolerant of everyone no matter what they might be, shes very spritual and is one of the nicest ladys i've ever met maybe this is what the term christian tolerence means??

Overature

I would agree with you there, we all have our different views and opinions on things, which we are entitled to do. Its when we try to force our beleifs on other people where there is a problem. In anything really.

Little D wrote: »

I am a christian of sorts in that my family are and that is what i am!! i dont really pratice my religion ever and haven't been inside a church in years, but i work with a lady who is a born again christian, she thinks homosexuality is a sin, but she is very tolerant of homosexuals and has 2 friends that are homosexuals infact she is very tolerant of everyone no matter what they might be, shes very spritual and is one of the nicest ladys i've ever met maybe this is what the term christian tolerence means??

Gurgle

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Leviticus 18:22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

The rest of Leviticus was thrown out with the advent of Christianity, why hang on to that bit?

Sam Vimes

Gurgle wrote: »

The rest of Leviticus was thrown out with the advent of Christianity, why hang on to that bit?

Apparently the ceremonial laws in Leviticus were thrown out but not the moral ones. Also the punishments for breaking the moral laws were thrown out so you don't have to stone people people anymore, you leave them to god to sort out

Overature

Can I just say that the rules in Leviticus are more of "guidelines" given to his people on how to live, back then people would not have understood any of the medical reasons why they should not have done this. Most of the laws were set forward by God for their benefit.

Gurgle wrote: »

The rest of Leviticus was thrown out with the advent of Christianity, why hang on to that bit?

Little D

each to their own if their not hurting anyone! the lady i work with tell's me all the time god forgives his children for all their sins his love is unconditional in his eyes all people are beautiful no matter what they have done sin isn't black and white its far more complicated then that. To hate is a sin so surely if a person hates homosexuals they to are sinners??
Live and let live!! It also states in the bible let he who is without sin cast the first stone, i can promise in this day and age no stones will be thrown,
I love the saying, Before you go pointing fingers make sure your hands are clean

JimiTime

Gurgle wrote: »

The rest of Leviticus was thrown out with the advent of Christianity, why hang on to that bit?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Apparently the ceremonial laws in Leviticus were thrown out but not the moral ones. Also the punishments for breaking the moral laws were thrown out so you don't have to stone people people anymore, you leave them to god to sort out

It has been on said on many occasions that nothing was 'thrown out' etc. You continue to use such language to be contentious. Whether you disagree with the language used in relation to the fulfillment of the law or not, you know well that you are simply being contentious. You want to learn nothing. Though you dress your snide remarks in a 'I'm just asking questions', it is obvious you simply have no class. If you truly want a discussion whereby you are seeking to learn, humble yourselves to pupil status. Point out problems you have with explainations, but cut the BS, and be honest. All of us are pupils here, and some are passionate, and sometimes forceful. However, purposely misrepresenting positions by using contentious terms like you have in such haughty ways is good for nothing but identifying the dishonest sh1t-stirrer. Maybe the lack of Oxygen you suffer from being on such high ground in the creation thread effects your behaviour on other threads. For everyones sake though, why don't you simply be honest and stop with the childish cr@p.

Overature

Im not sure if you can through out parts of the Bible, it would be another case of somebody thinking that they new best for everybody esle.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Apparently the ceremonial laws in Leviticus were thrown out but not the moral ones. Also the punishments for breaking the moral laws were thrown out so you don't have to stone people people anymore, you leave them to god to sort out

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

It has been on said on many occasions that nothing was 'thrown out' etc. You continue to use such language to be contentious. Whether you disagree with the language used in relation to the fulfillment of the law or not, you know well that you are simply being contentious. You want to learn nothing. Though you dress your snide remarks in a 'I'm just asking questions', it is obvious you simply have no class. If you truly want a discussion whereby you are seeking to learn, humble yourselves to pupil status. Point out problems you have with explainations, but cut the BS, and be honest. All of us are pupils here, and some are passionate, and sometimes forceful. However, purposely misrepresenting positions by using contentious terms like you have in such haughty ways is good for nothing but identifying the dishonest sh1t-stirrer. Maybe the lack of Oxygen you suffer from being on such high ground in the creation thread effects your behaviour on other threads. For everyones sake though, why don't you simply be honest and stop with the childish cr@p.

I was just using the same term he did to prevent confusion. You can pretend I said "don't have to be followed anymore" if you want

PDN

This thread is about Christian toleration of homosexuality, so let's keep it on topic rather than sidetracked into a discussion (which we've had here dozens of times already) about the interpretation of Leviticus.

Christians have traditionally interpreted the New Testament as teaching that homosexual acts are sinful and therefore incompatible with practising Christianity. If anyone wants to start another thread to discuss that position (again) then feel free to do so.

This thread is about the toleration of homosexuals - ie has Christianity promoted or hindered freedom of homosexuals in the community at large to do what they want.