h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

*potentially controversial question, so please skip if you can't think about this in a mature and logical fashion*

OK. In respects to the prevention of gay marriages thread, I was going to post this there, but being that it seems as if said thread wanted to keep religion out of the topic, I decided to bother you all with a new thread to ponder over.

My query is thus : lifestyles and the religions/belief systems people choose. More precisely, when they are incompatible.

For example, a gay Christian, is by all logic, an oxymoron. A Christian cannot be gay, because it's forbidden by God. Leviticus and all of that. Not my personal beliefs, as you all well know, but that which is stated in the Christian Bible.

This conflict is something I can't understand.

First of all, why would someone, anyone, even yourself, choose to follow a belief pattern that directly contradicts something that you are?

Secondly, there are only two methods to deal with this contradiction (and correct me if I am wrong of course): suppression of self, or attempted compromise with the belief system.

Now as far as I know, there is not one mainstream belief system that allows compromise with the deity. You can't sit in a room, and ask to reach some sort of level with whichever God you choose to believe in. Either you follow the rules, or you suffer negative consequences.

And supression, of course, is unhealthy.

The only explanation (if you can call it that, or at least follow my train of thought) is that it's down to laziness. People not willing to commit themselves entirely to whichever religion, and instead, believing that the religion allows them to tailor the rules and guidelines to suit themselves, and then claim the title as their own in some attempt at moral superiority in society. Which, as far as my eye can see, none actually allow. Going back to my earlier sentence; most mainstream, average, one-god-higher-deity-omnimpotent-being religions have the line of : follow the rules, or suffer negative consequences.

Any thoughts? It's a topic that, not bothers me, but interests me. How can people take that line of living? Do you? Does someone you know? Is hypocrisy that rampant?



By all and everything, this is not meant as a slur on any individual, dead, alive, or somewhere inbetween. It is a reality, and I would like to know more about it.

If you go and read Leviticus, it bans all kinds of stuff that ordinary heterosexual Christians do all the time. Ask an Orthodox Jew about beard trimming, clothes of mixed fibres, eating pork, shellfish or lasagne, or working on the Sabbath (which is Saturday, by the way). I could go on and on... Leviticus absolutely forbids loads of stuff.

In the New Testament, Jesus has nothing much to say about any of that, but then he has nothing much to say about being a homosexual either.

"Saint" Paul is down on gays, but he's down on sex in general, and women too, and in favour of castration for men, and he never actually met Jesus, and he argued a lot with the folks who had, so...

I'd conclude that there is absolutely nothing in the Bible which says that gay people can't be Christians, or Christians can't be gay.

As to why a gay person would choose to identify with a religion whose tenets are as homophobic as, for example, Catholicism, there is the possibility that people follow the religion they believe is true, rather than picking one which seems convenient.

Oh, and one last thing, what did your entry have to do with laziness? I was hoping you were founding the Church of the Crack of Noon.


Hed

People worship whatever god they choose to only after having remade him in their own image. They deliberately or subconsciously ignore the bits of the religion that they don't like.

Take the Levitical laws, for example. Several times I've been told that Jesus said the old covenant was broken, and a new one was forged. But if you challenge them on it, they can't actually produce the verse. But they *swear* it is there, and that the Levitical laws are no longer valid because of it.

I think the real facts of the matter are that most of us choose neither our religion nor our sexual orientation.

The former is usually indoctrinated into us at an early age (yes some of us do reject the religion we were brought up in. I have rejected a C of E upbringing myself and am no longer a christian but I am still stuck to some extent with stuff that was constantly forced into me at school, sunday-school, church , home etc when I was a child. It's something you can never completely escape and most don't even try or, more importantly, want to)

The latter is something we are born with and can do nothing whatever about, again, even if we want to.

Homosexuals who are also committed - indoctrinated - members of religions that regard their orientation as unacceptable are therfore stuck in a painful situation. They are outcasts from a system they cannot reject for a reason they cannot control. Laziness has nothing to do with it and, in my view, such people are to be sympatised with.

I would just add that I am not one of them; I am a heterosexual agnostic!

I feel that a lot of gay Christians or gay people of other religions may believe that their religion was founded a very long time ago and that times have changed and that you can't take the Bible or Holy book literally. {I have heard of lectures to help Christians to accept evolution (unfortunately I never went, it would have been useful information) - I think this would involve not taking creation literally.} I guess you would also have to accept that the "leaders" mostly see things differently.

Only guessing - not gay, not religious.

I think laziness is harsh. If you're brought up believing in a particular religion, then that religion is part of your personal identity, and that's very difficult to change. I know someone who's politics are greenl/liberal/left/feminist, reads the Guardian, and was brought up a Catholic. She was a Catholic for a long time (50 years at least) before finally ditching Catholicism as being incompatible with what she believed in. For many years, her line was that the church was an institution, and therefore falliable. Stopping going to church was a very difficult thing to do, because it had been part of her personal identity for such a long time, and it did her a lot of damage in the short term. Although her beliefs looked incompatible to me, I'd never say that she was "lazy".

I think that if you've never had a strong religious belief, you can't understand the extent to which it is part of your whole world view of morality, the universe, and your life plan. Many gay Christians would (I imagine) have been Christians when they were children and therefore (in many cases) before they knew they were gay. So the religion is deeply embedded, and the realisation about sexuality can come as quite a shock. So the result is to key facts about a person's identity that appear to conflict.

One option is to reconcile religion and sexuality (which I think can be done in the case of Christianity - if Jesus hung around with "outcasts" - tax collectors, prostitutes etc, it's also likely that some of his followers were gay). Another option is to reject one, and throw oneself into the other.

Interesting.

My point in using the word "laziness" was in terms of a person being too lazy to commit fully to the religion that they claim to be a part of/identify with; and instead, they live a kind of "half-life" with one foot in the dogma, and the other in the modern life. Which, when put together, are completely incompatible with each other.

By the way, I used the "being gay" thing as an example, and an example only. You could apply it to anything where the Bible, or whatever religious text says one thing, but modern life/trends dictate another and a "compromise" is formed in one's head...or even the local church.

Carry on.

Again, Sat has created an interesting thread. Whether she intended to or not.

Personally I believe that the foremost and at the same time most hidden aspect of organised religion is guilt. Guilt causes the desire for redemption, the drive to be better in some defined way, even the going to the temple or church. So wouldn't the guilt of being in a (possibly) unreligious state but in the religion itself be a logical response?

Just my

People being all different, I think it is hard to generalise.

Wasn't it the Red Queen in Alice through the Looking Glass who practised believing impossible things? I'm fairly sure that there are a lot of people who comfortably hold contradictory opinions, held in different compartments. They just don't think too hard about it.

I think there are also many people who enjoy the comfort and security of being within a religious community - people like rules & order in their lives. They also may not delve too deeply into the stricter tenets of their chosen religion. Or they acknowledge their sin, but then confess & repent.
I wouldn't consider either of these groups as lazy, they're just not deep thinkers.

Sticking to the example of being gay, as has been said, it is likely that the religion was chosen before the person realised their sexuality. I'm sure some of these people do suffer greatly trying to reconcile beliefs with reality. I'm also thinking of a recent case of a woman being sentenced to stoning for having an illegitemate child.

There are many sects within Christianity, and probably other religions, that have evolved to the participants' requirements. I don't see anything wrong with that, so long as they don't try to impose their views on other people.

I don't know if it's laziness really. As the whole bible is supposed to be the word of God and it's full of contradiction and so on it'd be impossible to follow it directly without leaving bits out.

I reckon it's more to do with practicality than laziness - it's not that people are too lazy to follow it, it's just that it's not possible no matter how much effort it put in. This is where the compromise has to come in.

I'd agree that people will tend to adopt a belief system that suits them. This would be laziness, though.

Umm.. I'm really not sure about this one.

I'm also inclined to think that the only people who are truly religious are the strict orthodox ones. And the clear insanity of these people does hold a lesson for us.

The people who talk of a new Covenant are probably thinking of this:


6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is
the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better
promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been
sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house
of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when
I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they
continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those
days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their
hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his
brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the
greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their
iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that
which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Hebrews chapter 8


Of course, as Blatherskite correctly points out, that ain't Jesus talking.

I'll pose this thought :

If a religion evolves to suit the needs of the people within it, does that not prove that the external worshipped deity is therefore defunct? Or does it, dare I say, prove that man creates his own gods?

After all, there has been no update from whatever god recently. There's nothing to prove that what was laid down in each religion years ago, is any the less relevant to how we are supposed to live our lives. The gods have not changed the rules...we, as a human race, have.

Of course, one could argue that the gods, whichever one you choose to believe in, speak through the church leaders elected.

But aside from the awkward oddity that is the Catholic elections, all leaders are chosen by...people...

Hmm. Just a thought. Dissect how you wish.

"After all, there has been no update from whatever god recently"

Of course there've been updates: The Ba'hais have an update; the Mormons have an update; the Mahdi in Sudan had an update; there are a few people on street corners in every major city who have updates. The problem is, the people who don't believe the update just say that it's the work of human hands, not God's. And, of course, the only way to prove any claim is to listen to what the Mormons call "the still, small voice" which will testify within you that what you read in the update is true. And the only way to prove that the "still, small voice" isn't self-delusion is to . . . gee, there is no way to prove it.

But there have been lots of updates.

This is an area that infuriates me immensely about modern religion. Sat's quite correct that it's ludicrous for a Christian, Bible based faith to cherry-pick the Leviticus rules to suit themselves. If gays are out, then poly-cotton underwear is out too (clothing from 2 types of cloth is banned in Leviticus). On the other hand, if these rules are no longer relevant, then the old standard of "Without the shedding of bloos there is no remission of sin" is also no longer relevant, and that calls into question the need for Christ's sacrifice in the first place.

The Bible doesn't allow for cherry-picking. It's the full package, or it's nothing.

Now we're touching on the question I posed a while back in the "If the Bible is meant to be taken literally, does Jesus, the Lamb, have wooly hair and four legs with cloven-hoofs?" thread. Perhaps, Mr. Taylor has pointed out, it's the full package or nothing at all. But there is little agreement on the contents of the package. (does a poly-cotton blend count as two fabrics? or does it have to be something like cotton sleeves and collar and polyester for the rest before it is forbidden? Does a stiffner in the collar make a shirt proscribed? What about starch? Cotton print? Christmas sweaters? A t-shirt with swoosh on the front? I think you get my point)

I don't think there's a Christian alive who doesn't regularly do something that is condemned somewhere in that Roman invention called "The Bible". People have different interpretations of the ways they thought Christ wanted people to behave. "Fundamentalist" Christians usually just pick out specific parts of the Bible in order to attack people or things that they don't like for very base, human, reasons.

I'm not a Christian myself, by the way.

I don't have a religion, being an agnostic, and I'm pretty much without much of a belief system. I tend to stick with "do as you would be done by" and that's it. As soon as you "latch on" to a political or religious belief system you become part of a "collective" and are (unofficially, in the case of politics, officially in the case of religion) "honour bound" to go with that gang-mentality, whether you want to or not. It's best to work out you own way of thinking, I find.

Sat. 'If a religion evolves to suit the needs of the people within it, does that not prove that the external worshipped deity is therefore defunct?'

No, I think it shows that religions are not static. There is usually a core tenet to which the followers adhere, it is more the peripheral trappings & interpretation of ancient writings that change with the times.

'Or does it, dare I say, prove that man creates his own gods?'

No, I don't think it's proof - but personally I do think it's more likely that man has created his own god rather than the other way around.

Carry on. All very interesting.

Nothing to add, move along.

Why is it that loads of people used to edit the bible all the time - entire new chapters and stuff - but noone does any more?