Science LGBT+ and religion

[Idea]

The Bible is the sole source of Christianity's entire being.

Dude that´s about as wrong as you can get. It´s right in the name of the religion. CHRISTianity. The source for christianity´s being is Jesus Christ. Son of God, God Himsef, and founder of the Christian Church, who appointed St. Peter as the first Pope with the words "You are Peter and upon this rock I build my church" followed by "Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever you loosen on Earth shall be loosened in Heaven."

Even the Bible specifically states the authority of the Pope, only further condensed by the sending of the Holy Spirit and pretty much everything between Jesus and the Apocalypse books (I am missing the name right now), is dedicated to the Church and clearly shows the dogma being defined and discussed within it.

The words you have mentioned are against heresy. Not against the fundamental institution of the Christian Faith.

(Although there is clearly one there, which we could discuss if you'd like)

I´m still waiting for it

 

[High Moon]

Dude that´s about as wrong as you can get. It´s right in the name of the religion. CHRISTianity. The source for christianity´s being is Jesus Christ. Son of God, God Himsef, and founder of the Christian Church, who appointed St. Peter as the first Pope with the words "You are Peter and upon this rock I build my church" followed by "Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever you loosen on Earth shall be loosened in Heaven."

Not that I have a problem with such a notion but I have a question, How can some one believe İsa is the son of god? or equal to God? That is against Monotheistic nature of Abrahamic faiths.

 

[Idea]

Not that I have a problem with such a notion but I have a question, How can some one believe İsa is the son of god? or equal to God? That is against Monotheistic nature of Abrahamic faiths.

Good question. It´s actually one of the most complicated things in our Faith. And it´s bet summed up as "God is one and three at the same time". There is only one God, but that one God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost. There are more precise words than the ones I used, I´ll ask the priest who taught me this for them later on.

 

[Lycanthrosis]

Dude that´s about as wrong as you can get. It´s right in the name of the religion. CHRISTianity. The source for christianity´s being is Jesus Christ. Son of God, God Himsef, and founder of the Christian Church, who appointed St. Peter as the first Pope with the words "You are Peter and upon this rock I build my church" followed by "Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever you loosen on Earth shall be loosened in Heaven."

Even the Bible specifically states the authority of the Pope, only further condensed by the sending of the Holy Spirit and pretty much everything between Jesus and the Apocalypse books (I am missing the name right now), is dedicated to the Church and clearly shows the dogma being defined and discussed within it.

The words you have mentioned are against heresy. Not against the fundamental institution of the Christian Faith.

I´m still waiting for it

"Even the Bible specifically states" - Alright. Let's take what you just said there. Why is that even important then? Why do we even need the Bible?
Can you explain to me how anyone would know about Christianity or how it would've spread without the Bible?
How would you know about any of it? You, personally.

 

[Imperator_tenebrae]

And this is why I despise organized religion...

There is never a shortage of dogma or complete misinterpretations of the Word.

 

[Idea]

"Even the Bible specifically states" - Alright. Let's take what you just said there. Why is that even important then? Why do we even need the Bible?
Can you explain to me how anyone would know about Christianity or how it would've spread without the Bible?
How would you know about any of it? You, personally.

It's important because it's true. The Bible and the Holy Church complement one another. The Bible is needed as a guide to the Christian faith but it's correct interpretation is only possible with the Church.

As for it would spread without the Bible, well, historically several Christian communities existed all throughout Asia and the Roman Empire before there even was a Bible.

 

[Lycanthrosis]

It's important because it's true. The Bible and the Holy Church complement one another. The Bible is needed as a guide to the Christian faith but it's correct interpretation is only possible with the Church.

Why is the only correct interpretation possible through the Roman Catholic Church? Because they say so?
Do you realize that every single other religion makes that exact same claim?
Shouldn't there be something to back up that claim?

As for it would spread without the Bible, well, historically several Christian communities existed all throughout Asia and the Roman Empire before there even was a Bible.

Yes, but you must know they also relied on other sacred texts, and word of mouth that regurgitated what these texts said when they didn't have physical copies.

Maybe I'm a little confused. Are there any things that you believe about Christianity that are not found in the Bible?
Does the Church ever make any statements without basing it on holy text in some place or another?

 

[Lappi]

I thought queer was an insult, I guess I'm too traditional. Growing up in SC,

Spoiler: Unrelated

even though I'm Bi, or homosexual. However you want to put it. (I say that last part because sexual preference is more or less an less thought of thing of mine) I still consider it an insult. But it's all context.

But I'm ready to make a proper argument today. I'm writing a new post as soon as this is posted. And I'll be citing sources and being polite. But to say something, I think that many Christian's(At least the ones I have seen and debated with. But don't take it like I said 80%. I mean closer to 30-40%) do take the Bible in a literal since but at the same time disregard the old testament. When it it all gods word as stated

Spoiler: Sources

2 Timothy 3:16 New International Version (NIV)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

. Yes this is a straw man to some extent. But alot of this is also personal experience. So take it with a microscopic grain of salt from the fact that I'm commiting multiple logical fallacies(no excuse for you to not call me out though). Infact, if you want to, you can ignore most of this, as it is far from my best work. As it is mostly Antidotal.

Spoiler: My Antidotal Story

The Bible is a religious text and as I've been told and know to be true. It is very much (in the modern day) open to interpretation. But when verses that I've found in a Bible in the Lutheran Church my family goes to(I used to go there but I'm no longer christian. I consider myself agnostic however I do help in community service events). That I consider an attractional driven church that very much helps the people. Raising over 1 million dollars to put Wells in African villages. Makes homeless shelters, works in soup kitchens and helps nearby farms. They are very good people.
But alot of them are not so much Christian's. And I call it attractional because it focuses on attracting people and kids. They leave out man bad verses. Now is this a bad thing? Certainly not, but they won't admit the old testament holds some terrible advice and ive even had civil debates between some members. Many not reading the old testament. But they were below 30 years old on average so it doesn't shock me. As they were indoctrinated into it. (Not necessarily bad, just distasteful to me)
Anyways some of the verses I brought up in an debate about an similar topic included
Leviticus 18 & 20
And Romans 1:26-27
Needless to say Romans being in the new Testament lays what it means a little lighter. While Leviticus puts it bluntly) All leading up to the general conclusion that God never intented for homosexuality to exist. And you should be put to death. The pastor dodged the question dodged the whole point by saying they simply don't believe in it. Which us fair, but still shocks me that you can find these verses in the children's Bible's.
Anyways, my bad arguments aside. I think that LGBT and religion don't mix too well. They can, but religion really has to disregard a small but crucial part of the 'fine print'.
Edit: for the sources i messed the code up. Sorry bout that

Like I said, you can disregard all of the above if you choose. I'll be writing another post with a proper argument soon as said above.

 

[TheRockInception]

Why is the only correct interpretation possible through the Roman Catholic Church? Because they say so?
Do you realize that every single other religion makes that exact same claim?
Shouldn't there be something to back up that claim?

Yes, but you must know they also relied on other sacred texts, and word of mouth that regurgitated what these texts said when they didn't have physical copies.

Maybe I'm a little confused. Are there any things that you believe about Christianity that are not found in the Bible?
Does the Church ever make any statements without basing it on holy text in some place or another?

I think s/he means all. As stated in the Apostles creed:
I
believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic* church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
The reason as to why catholic is not spelled with an upercase c is because it refers to all who are with the church, that is, all who abide by this creed.

 

[Idea]

Why is the only correct interpretation possible through the Roman Catholic Church? Because they say so?
Do you realize that every single other religion makes that exact same claim?
Shouldn't there be something to back up that claim?

(That every single other religon comletely ignored a whole bunch of them, including pretty much all protestant religions)
There are three main arguments that back up that claim.

Argument 1:
The fact that Jesus himself appointed St. Peter as the first Pope annoints the original church, AKA the Catholic Church, with an inherent authority, among christians at least. If you then take into account the difficulty of bible interpreation given how it is written, you have good reason to believe that, once accepting the Bible and the Christian religion as at all meaningful, the ones with the authority to interpret the Bible in an united manner would be the Church.

Argument 2:
If two people disagree on a topic that is not entirely subjective (what is or not subjective is an entirely different rabbit hole that I will not discuss in this thread), at most one of them can be right. In all likelihood, they may both be somewhat wrong. But they can´t both be right. Afterall, reality doesn´t just bend to your opinion and feelings about it. Therefore, when it comes to something like a religion, whose whole thing is proclaming a truth, the idea that different people can hold different beliefs and all be fully right, or that anyone can just up and try to guess is absurd. Now, there ARE several religions that do have religious leaders unifying their beliefs, but among those that follow the Bible, only the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (and the latter I´m not even too sure) have one.

Argument 3:
The Roman Catholic Church has the deepest roots when it comes to the real story and has also shown to adapt to new scientific and archeological evidence, without that putting the dogma into question. In other words, there is no reason to believe their information, thousands of years of history dating right to the closest people to Jesus, and stability, would have been in any way to seriously compromised that their authorty to interpret the Bible would be down to the level of the common man´s.

Yes, but you must know they also relied on other sacred texts, and word of mouth that regurgitated what these texts said when they didn't have physical copies.

Incorrect. Word of mouth didn´t do anything about these texts, the texts were compilled from the word of mouth and memory, the new testament at least.

And in either case, you missed my point entirely. I was stating that these communities spread before a Bible, as in the sacred text Bible that related the life of Jesus and could be read, even existed. In fact, now that I think about it, pretty much nobody could read the Bible before the 16th century, since it was in latin. So, what´s important is not the book the Bible, nor the words, phrases, pages that compose it, but the content and meaning in them. Before there was a bible, Jesus´s life was already a fact. The community around him that later spread was also a fact. And the miracles were facts. These were the things that began spreading Christianism. It´s the thing the catholic church still defines itself as today. Ask a catholic priest what the catholic church is all about, and he will tell you that it´s not just a set of beliefs, but it´s a real person, Jesus Christ, and a holy community.

Maybe I'm a little confused. Are there any things that you believe about Christianity that are not found in the Bible?
Does the Church ever make any statements without basing it on holy text in some place or another?

Yes and no. In a sense everything the Church is somewhat predicated on the contents of the Holy text. Because it is the events described in it that give meaning to christian faith. But the church has authority to say things outside of simply parroting what is in the text, in particular, when dealing with certain specific matters. When evolution came, for example, the Pope did issue that the church should accept the scientific facts and that they did not contradict our faith (contrary to public belief). Evolution is not once mentioned in the Bible, in fact, it is so not mentioned that no one had even considered anything other than an instataneous creation, and many fundamentalists went against the Pope´s official position, the Church´s official position.

 

[CJAlex]

Because topics like religion are life-defining, and a little bit of [epistemic] [responsibility] (that is, [responsibility] about what we believe and communicate to others) goes a long way into making discussions meaningful and lives better.

Shout out to my boy, Chomsky! WHAT! WHAT! *ahem*

As a gay Christian that no longer frequently practices due to facing hardship because of my "lifestyle choice", I appreciate surveys and discussions like this; lay or otherwise.

I've read every post in this thread and am itching to jump into the conversation, but I am currently restricted to a tablet for the next couple of hours. Typing on a halo keyboard would be a royal pain for a discussion like this. So, please allow me to return later with my other boys: Anselm, Kant, and Kierkegaard. WHAT! WHAT! (Yeah, I'll stop that now.)

 

[TheRockInception]

You know its an logical fallacy to use the piece of material your trying to prove with that piece of material as the proof. It uses 'circular' reasoning
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/66/Circular-Reasoning
making your argument a paradox and thus either false or impossible to argue.
You can keep your opinion. But to call it fact is simply too far. A fact is something we know, a hypothesis is a better word for what you want to call it.

Uhh, I was trying to clear something up.

 

[Lappi]

Uhh, I was trying to clear something up.

Oh sorry. I must have quoted the wrong post. Please forgive me for my mistake. Ill edit it soon.

 

[TheRockInception]

Oh sorry. I must have quoted the wrong post. Please forgive me for my mistake. Ill edit it soon.

It's cool brah.

 

[CJAlex]

Drippi, I believe that the Apostle's Creed was introduced into the conversation to present a base of belief to aid in clarifying Idea's stance and where they're coming from, not be used an argument. Without a proper frame, it's hard to hold a conversation with any interlocutor.

Similarly, I shall do the same before adding my own full opinion to the fray!

As I stated before, I'm Christian, but I don't actively practice anymore. Mainly, I believe in the Trinity, I believe in confession, I believe that Christ died for my sins, and I believe that God is pretty freakin' cool. Not sure if He has a beard and lives in the clouds, or if His Son looks like Constantine, but all of that is up for an artist to depict as they are so inspired to.

Since leaving the fold of my church (I should clarify here that I was raised Methodist, but my family later became"non-denominational", which is... pretty much, ironically, a denomination nowadays), I have described my relationship with God as a strictly personal one. My prayers are simply in the form of critical, existential thoughts. I walk with Christ by reflecting on decisions I've made or am about to make and try to apply a Christ-like lens to them as best as I humanly can. I do this by asking myself one key question: "Am I being compassionate here?"

While I cannot state for certain, as I do not know what the OP's original intent of the survey and this thread was, beyond collecting data, I can surmise from previous experience that they are interested in the idea of harmonizing "God and gays"; or, at the very least, touching on the idea. So, my opinion here will not necessarily be to expand on the fascinating debate going on above (I wish I had time for that, though), but to get right to what I think the OP is interested in the most; based off of the questions presented in their survey.

Can modern religion be tolerant (preferably accepting) of those that identify as LGBT+? Well, unfortunately, there is no clear cut answer to that; but I would argue: yes, it can be. So, let's pass the proverbial mic to my good pals.

Anselm of Canterbury is famous for what is commonly known as his Ontological Argument (Proslogion, or Fides Quaerens Intellectum: Faith Seeking Understanding). Now, stick with me here, as this isn't necessarily an argument for God's existence, as Anselm's original Proslogion actually was. I am merely using him here to establish something else.

It can be implied through his argument about God ('s existence) as "that than which nothing greater can be thought", that God is so great, no issue, substance, or thing can be greater. Sin is not greater than God, nor the very issue of sin itself. That is the accepted position of the modern Christian. God is Great. The very idea that we would devote ourselves to judging others because of perceived sin, or because we've gone against a certain flow, or because we've said abrasive words, or that we have "not loved enough" is wasteful and antithetical to the greatness that is God.

This subconscious idea that someone is tainted because they have sinned, or that they are not worth the effort to save, or that they should even be saved in the first place from something is, again, pointless. When we take our eyes off of God because we fear something else, we have taken our eyes from the Greater Thing that Anselm was talking about. Sinners are saved by God when they seek to understand Him and acknowledge that there is nothing greater, not by the worry-worts on Earth that would judge them.

Throwing the ball over to my buddy Kant, I'm going to draw a comparison between his famous Categorical Imperative and the Golden Rule that my homeboy Pope Francis mic-drop-reminded the U.S. Congress of. You know, that whole "do unto others..." thing.

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

When I apply that "Jesus lens" to situations I encounter, the "compassion" I was talking about needs one critical element: empathy. I may not always be able to sympathize with someone that is hurt, or comprehend the depths of another's despair; but I can do my absolute best to be empathetic, understanding. As a gay man, that is what I would humbly request of others that would thump me with a Bible. You don't have to "walk a mile in my shoes", but at least try to understand why your words have hurt me.

In a moral or epistemological dilemma, Kant would say that the key is empathy, not apathy.

Finally, I'm gonna drag Mr. K over here. There is no one better, in my opinion, at conveying what it means to be empathetic in practicing one's religious beliefs than Søren Kierkegaard.

Mr. K would argue, to wrap this up before it becomes too long-winded, that in order to understand something (say, sexual diversity, for instance) and be subjective, onc must become the subject. So, if you are religious and you wish to understand how someone that identifies as LGBT+ can integrate with your core belief system and practice it as you do while respectively being Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish, or Hindu, etc., etc., then be prepared to suspend the objectivity that was ingrained by the dogma of whatever faith you practice.

*whew!* Editing this real quick, because I submitted it too soon... I just wanted to give a proper sign-off and conclude the post.

So, all of that is pretty much how I stand on the issue of, as a book by Joe Dallas was titled, "God vs Gays" (if I wasn't against book burning, I would torch that mother fucker alongside my steak).

 

[Lappi]

Drippi, I believe that the Apostle's Creed was introduced into the conversation to present a base of belief to aid in clarifying Idea's stance and where they're coming from, not be used an argument. Without a proper frame, it's hard to hold a conversation with any interlocutor.

Similarly, I shall do the same before adding my own full opinion to the fray!

As I stated before, I'm Christian, but I don't actively practice anymore. Mainly, I believe in the Trinity, I believe in confession, I believe that Christ died for my sins, and I believe that God is pretty freakin' cool. Not sure if He has a beard and lives in the clouds, or if His Son looks like Constantine, but all of that is up for an artist to depict as they are so inspired to.

Since leaving the fold of my church (I should clarify here that I was raised Methodist, but my family later became"non-denominational", which is... pretty much, ironically, a denomination nowadays), I have described my relationship with God as a strictly personal one. My prayers are simply in the form of critical, existential thoughts. I walk with Christ by reflecting on decisions I've made or am about to make and try to apply a Christ-like lens to them as best as I humanly can. I do this by asking myself one key question: "Am I being compassionate here?"

While I cannot state for certain, as I do not know what the OP's original intent of the survey and this thread was, beyond collecting data, I can surmise from previous experience that they are interested in the idea of harmonizing "God and gays"; or, at the very least, touching on the idea. So, I my opinion here will not necessarily be to expand on the fascinating debate going on above (I wish I had time for that, though), but to get right to what I think the OP is interested in the most; based off of the questions presented in their survey.

Can modern religion be tolerant (preferably accepting) of those that identify as LGBT+? Well, unfortunately, there is no clear cut answer to that; but I would argue: yes, it can be. So, let's pass the proverbial mic to my good pals.

Anselm of Canterbury is famous for what is commonly known as his Ontological Argument (Proslogion, or Fides Quaerens Intellectum: Faith Seeking Understanding). Now, stick with me here, as this isn't necessarily an argument for God's existence, as Anselm's original Proslogion actually was. I am merely using him here to establish something else.

It can be implied through his argument about God ('s existence) as "that than which nothing greater can be thought", that God is so great, no issue, substance, or thing can be greater. Sin is not greater than God, nor the very issue of sin itself. That is the accepted position of the modern Christian. God is Great. The very idea that we would devote ourselves to judging others because of perceived sin, or because we've gone against a certain flow, or because we've said abrasive words, or that we have "not loved enough" is wasteful and antithetical to greatness that is God.

This subconscious idea that someone is tainted because they have sinned, or that they are not worth the effort to save, or that they should even be saved in the first place from something is, again, pointless. When we take our eyes off of God because we fear something else, we have taken our eyes from the Greater Thing that Anselm was talking about. Sinners are saved by God when they seek to understand Him and acknowledge that there is nothing greater, not by the worry-worts on Earth that would judge them.

Throwing the ball over to my buddy Kant, I'm going to draw a comparison between his famous Categorical Imperative and the Golden Rule that my homeboy Pope Francis mic-drop-reminded the U.S. Congress of. You know, that whole "do unto others..." thing.

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

When I apply that "Jesus lens" to situations I encounter, the "compassion" I was talking about needs one critical element: empathy. I may not always be able to sympathize with someone that is hurt, or comprehend the depths of another's despair; but I can do my absolute best to be empathetic, understanding. As a gay man, that is what I would humbly request of others that would thump me with a Bible. You don't have to "walk a mile in my shoes", but at least try to understand why your words have hurt me.

In a moral or epistemological dilemma, Kant would say that the key is empathy, not apathy.

Finally, I'm gonna drag Mr. K over here. There is no one better, in my opinion, at conveying what it means to be empathetic in practicing one's religious beliefs than Søren Kierkegaard.

Mr. K would argue, to wrap this up before it becomes too long-winded, that in order to understand something (say, sexual diversity, for instance) and be subjective, once must become the subject. So, if you are religious and you wish to understand how someone that identifies as LGBT+ can integrate with your core belief system and practice it as you do while respectively being Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish, or Hindu, etc., etc., then be prepared to suspend the objectivity that was ingrained by the dogma of whatever faith you practice.

Well formed opinion.
Honestly, in my opinion i think most organized religion is not the brightest thing. Theism is one thing, Organized religion is another. I think there could be a god, but i dont have any proof is i suspend most notions. My general rule is anything that has to use large amounts rhetoric or indoctrination tactics is not a group to be in. But that aside, i feel like if there is a creator, where the mammals that live in one planet of trillions stick there dicks or do with their whatever baffles me.
but as a wise man once said
"You can want to lynch me and i wont care, but if you have the power and want to lynch me, then its my problem."

 

[Lycanthrosis]

CJAlex
Always appreciate seeing other viewpoints being brought in. Especially, philosophical ones.
_{This whole conversation is getting rather drawn out at this point, so in order to preserve some of the beauty of this thread I'm just going to put my response to Idea here in a spoiler.}

Spoiler

Argument 1:
The fact that Jesus himself appointed St. Peter as the first Pope annoints the original church, AKA the Catholic Church, with an inherent authority, among christians at least. If you then take into account the difficulty of bible interpreation given how it is written, you have good reason to believe that, once accepting the Bible and the Christian religion as at all meaningful, the ones with the authority to interpret the Bible in an united manner would be the Church.

You record of Jesus appointing Peter as the first Pope is based solely on the Bible.
This is based on the Church's interpretation of certain scripture, of course.
Which is fine and all, but that sort of makes this "Argument 1" circular, doesn't it?
- We know we have the only true interpretation, because of our interpretation which verifies that we do

Argument 2:
If two people disagree on a topic that is not entirely subjective (what is or not subjective is an entirely different rabbit hole that I will not discuss in this thread), at most one of them can be right. In all likelihood, they may both be somewhat wrong. But they can´t both be right. Afterall, reality doesn´t just bend to your opinion and feelings about it. Therefore, when it comes to something like a religion, whose whole thing is proclaming a truth, the idea that different people can hold different beliefs and all be fully right, or that anyone can just up and try to guess is absurd. Now, there ARE several religions that do have religious leaders unifying their beliefs, but among those that follow the Bible, only the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (and the latter I´m not even too sure) have one.

Not even sure how this is a solid argument.
This amounts to "We have more leaders than they do" it seems?
This says nothing about how your church has the only correct interpretation.
Plenty of other groups could claim this same thing. This doesn't seem to have any bearing on the truth of a thing.

Argument 3:
The Roman Catholic Church has the deepest roots when it comes to the real story and has also shown to adapt to new scientific and archeological evidence, without that putting the dogma into question. In other words, there is no reason to believe their information, thousands of years of history dating right to the closest people to Jesus, and stability, would have been in any way to seriously compromised that their authorty to interpret the Bible would be down to the level of the common man´s.

The Roman Catholic Church also has deep roots in bearing bad fruits... Which if I'm not mistaken is a direct sign that God's spirit is actually probably not with them, according to his Word of course.
Aside from that, however, the Roman Catholic Church has only adapted to science and archaeological evidence when it has suited their own interests or they have been pressured to. _{(Copernicus, anybody?)}

Incorrect. Word of mouth didn´t do anything about these texts, the texts were compilled from the word of mouth and memory, the new testament at least.

???? I never said anything about word of mouth ruining the texts in any way. (Although it's likely)
I was referring to how the stories, and sacred texts that were available before the Bible was compiled, were shared and passed along (in the days of the Jews, and then the early Apostles).

As riveting as this conversation was, I think I'll leave it here - for myself.
I get the feeling that this might otherwise go on for an unforeseeable amount of time. P:

 

[High Moon]

I'd just like to make something clear, The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople outranks the Patriarchate of Rome (Pope) by the orders of First Council of Nikea under Roman Emperor Constantine I.

 

[CJAlex]

If you are Eastern Orthodox, yes. Otherwise, Roman Catholics, I believe, would disagree. For a long time, the Pope spoke in duality with God ("we", not "I").

Nicea was as much of a political shitshow as it was a foundation of a state religion to try and keep the early sects of the faith from ripping a crippled empire apart (I feel bad for Constantine). Suffice to say... it worked as well as duct tape.

 

[zachie mel]

i am bi and i love most people execpt people who hate me first

 

[WickedDreams]

At the church I frequent, my Pastor frequently speaks on how even the Bibles we use are surely not properly translated. So, everyone brings the Bible they prefer, and when he reads a passage, he reads it from multiple texts in all their translations to show us how easily the meaning can change based on the translation. He constantly informs us that God is the main focus, and the Bible simply a guide whose true meaning can be interpreted however someone sees fit, like a piece of music or a book the creator leaves open for interpretation. He is pretty cool. In any case, that was just to show his open-mindedness.

He is very tolerant of my sexuality, and his wife is considerate. I have sarcastically informed her of many topics, such as Evolution, and the LGBTQ community. In each instance, while she clearly doesn't fully agree, she is never malicious. She can disagree with my sexuality and still treat me with respect. I, for simplicity's sake, compare it to not agreeing with someone's taste in genre of music, but not bashing them for it either. I understand it's their choice, and while we can discuss it and debate over it, we can agree to disagree and still respect each other's decisions. It is common knowledge I am an Agnostic-theist at my Church, and our Pastor has even said it is nice, as during Bible Study I can essentially be the voice for the other side of things a lot of the older people in the Church seem a bit oblvious to. One Lady didn't know what the Big Bang Theory was and thought I was stupid, as she corrected me and said it was Evolution that 'nonbelievers' considered to create the universe. It was pretty funny, since my little cousin agreed that what I said was something I made up, until the Pastor spoke up and explained both the Big Bang and Evolution to them.

No one, in my family, has been hateful, either. My grandma is one those really religious people who pray multiple times a day, goes to Church and Sunday school, and watches live broadcasts of sermons on tv all day long when not in Church. Before I came out, a cousin of mine did, and his parents disapproved. My Grandma instantly called them up and scolded them, saying that God would want a mother and father to put a parent's love before something like sxuality. A month later, they threw him a 'welcome back' party and openly apologized. So, even in her more old fashioned ways, while she doesn't agree with other sexualities, she personally believes that God would want you to love a person first, and put that love and respect before their sexuality.

Now, on the other hand, my Uncle has a girlfriend who annoys me to no end. She never attends Church, and yet will constantly tell you how God doesn't agree with something. Any conversation you have with her, she will claim to quote something from the Bible to put something she doesn't agree with down. Funnily enough, when you hand her a bible and ask her to point out where she's getting her ignorant, false information from, she can never do it. She will argue day and night that a gay person was possessed by the Devil as a baby, and that's why they're gay. And will judge you for every little thing, while knowing she is no better. People like her annoy me, but thankfully I only run into them online. So, my experience with my religion and sexuality has been overall positive.

 

[Halycon]

Submitted.

 

[Caffeine Freak]

Being gay is a choice and God doesn't exist.

Come at me.

 

[The Chronicler]

Being a gay jew, who the fuck cares anymore?

 

[smol_minou]

Submitted