Parallels between the pagan persecution of early Christians, and the modern persecution of homosexuals...?
966321
Christians like those give Christians like me a bad name.People should be able to make their own choices,regardless of what religion other people have.
881987
Youre absolutely correct. Not one Christian pays any attention to THAT PART of the Bible anymore. Unless, of course, they feel like bagging on a gay person. Then they reach out with open arms to embrace their hateful Bible as PROOF that God hates gay people.....when in reality, God hates everyone that isnt a Jew. \n\nHey, dont blame me - its all written in the Bible!
148022
The above answer is correct. Monophysites were some of the first Christian heretics.
55086
It was interesting hearing what you had to say because I'm currently taking a Biblical Ethics class, and I have decided to do my research paper on the Homosexual issue.  I will know better how to answer your question after the research, but for now, I'll just express my opinions.\n\nNot all religions view homosexuality the same way, and not even all Christians view it the same way.  It seems clear to me that the Bible clearly condemns male homosexual relations.  (Female homosexual relations are not mentioned at all in the Old Testament, but it was written by men, and mostly for male readers, so perhaps it is implied).\n\nThe Bible however did not come down from God in the way that traditionalists think.  It was written by different people in different times and places, and the different voices therein conflict.  So what we have in the Bible are different views of various people, and it is quite clear that some of those people were homophobic.  They called homosexual relations "an abomination before the Lord."  These people were just expressing their gut reaction to gays.  They were intolerant, they did not understand the phenomenon, and so they basically just said, "Yuck," and didn't think about it anymore.  They just assumed it was bad and evil.\n\nOf course, most Christians do not realize that the Bible is the word of men and not God.  They were raised to believe that it is the Word of God, usually by honest, good parents who do not otherwise lie.  Therefore they believe their parents.  Why wouldn't they?  Their parents seemed to be right about other things.  So they never come to realize that well-meaning people can be totally incorrect and they perpetuate the teaching that the Bible is the Word of God.  \n\nNow these people, in their heart of hearts, often have compassion for gay people and have a tendency towards tolerance for them.  However, the people are trained to NOT listen to their hearts!  They think their hearts are wrong, and go against their own consciences to follow the Bible.  They justify this by saying, "God knows better than me."  \n\nMy mom is just such a person.  I can tell that in her heart, she would like to be tolerant of LBGT people.  But she can't let go of her belief in the Bible.  So she just can't let herself live according to her own conscience on this matter.  It is a very complicated issue.  My mom is not stupid or heartless.  She has her reasons for believing in the Bible.  It is not as simple as saying, "People who believe in the Bible are just idiots."\n\nI am not a Christian, but I am a very religious person.  I support LBGT rights.  I would like to just point out these 2 things:  that not all religious people are anti-gay.  And that not everything about religion is BS.  True, there is BS in religions, but not everything in a religion is BS.  Our job as religious people is to be discerning about that.  We must be willing to let go of a religious belief if it is proven false.  We must not be attached to our religion.  Religion is merely a means to a goal, and too many of us won't let go of the religion to get to the goal!  \n\nBut there are certain religious practices that are very good.  Daily affirmations of what is good in life, time spent daily working on how to improve compassion within yourself, reading of certain Scriptures which teach wisdom and love, devotion and humility before other humans and God (for those who believe in God) -- these are all beneficial to someone (and the people around him/her).
1035838
Okay, back in the day when the first set of pagans under Constantine converted to Christianity, a group of clergies and etc...got together and collected all the books every written by those who lived in that era of Jesus.  They sat in a council and decided which books they wanted to include in the bible and which ones they would throw out.  The people who wrote the current books of the bible read many of the ones who were not included, thus leaving us with a half written story of the bible.
418617
I don't think there's an increase in the number of people practicing these religions, per se.  I think it's just more widely talked about these days than in the past.  It's kind of like saying there are more gay people now than in the past.  That's not true, either, it's just that more people aren't afraid to admit their gay as they were in the past.
451873
Jesus was NOT homophobic, he does love all, including the prostitutes, homosexuals, theives, even.... tax collectors (Now thats really tough to do!) and on and on.  Love for a person, and most importantly their soul, doesn't mean Jesus, me, or you or anyone has to, or should love their shortcomings, transgressions or sins.  And yes... check out Romans, it DOES clearly and quite plainly condemn the practice of homosexuality regardless of what the queer preists, nuns,  pastors, bishops and so on say.  Seems they just skip over those passages.
707696
I think there are a lot of Christians who have been taught to hate themselves and their God given sexual orientation, and it hurts not only them, but their families.  I pray constantly that God will free people from the bondage of lies that keep them closeted.  Someday, homphobia will seem as outdated as racism, and probably take twice as long to shake off.
977681
Wow, I think there's some misunderstanding here....First of all, I'm straight, and I'm Catholic (practicing), and no, I do not hate homosexuals (oh and BTW I agree with that guy who answered before: homo is short for homosexual; although it can be used in a derogatory (sp?) fashion, I don't think that's the case in the asker's post).  In fact, I love homosexuals, just as I love heterosexuals, because they are children of God.  That doesn't mean I don't think they're misguided.  Does that mean I'm prejudiced?  No.  It means I think they're wrong.  As for the demon comment, I'm pretty sure the asker meant it in the way you'd say "battling your inner demons;" I don't think he meant literal demons.  I agree with the asker on some things, although I wish he'd phrased other things better.  I think it's undeniable that homosexuality has a much greater focus on outward/physical aspects than normal heterosexuality (when I say normal, I mean I'm discounting things like prostitution, etc., even if they are technically heterosexual.).  I think that many homosexual people (note the use of the word: MANY, not ALL) take an overly defensive attitude toward certain ethical viewpoints, most notably Christianity.  Of course, some people have experienced hatred or at least strong dislike for their sexual practices, but I think that's actually the minority of cases.  It only makes sense that the relatively few instances of discrimination are emphasized by the proponents of homosexuality.  That's natural for anybody to do about something they believe.  But it doesn't mean that all gays are hateful toward Christians or all Christians are hateful toward gays.  As for the rest of the asker's post about the musical instruments and "churchy homos," well to be quite honest, I kind of lost him at that point.  It's not exactly...easy to follow.\n\nOne of the most annoying things I hear nearly every day (yes, I do personally know some gay people, btw) is how it's so wrong for people to "force their morals on other people."  I heard this especially during the days leading up to a Nov. 6 (I live in Wisconsin, where a state constitutional amendment was passed defining marriage as btwn one man and one woman, and that no similar status would be granted to any other group.).  Now, that doesn't mean there aren't ways around this--people can technically get "civil unions," and what isn't accorded the same status as marriage can be quite easily fixed by other means (for example, simply naming the homosexual partner as the beneficiary of your will; it just takes a little more work.  Anyways, it bothered me to hear that because whenever you vote, you're "forcing your morals on other people."  You vote based on your beliefs regarding ethics and morals (most people do anyway), and by voting, you're partaking in a process which will constitute the law for a certain area; hence you are helping to force a certain moral code on certain people.\n\nAnyways, I hope that's not too rambling...In short, yes I bet some gays could say that a Christian (or non-Christian, for that matter) has demonstrated hatred or unkindness toward them based on their sexual lifestyle.  That isn't a Christian act, which is unfortunate--so many Christians are Christian in name only.  Does that mean I think gays ought never to be criticized?  No.  Do I think that their depiction of and view regarding sex is false?  Yes.  There, simple.  No hateful words, no claims of "judging," nothing but simple statements of moral belief and hope that we can cause a change in society's depiction of sex, to make it less about personal pleasure and more about self-giving love, which it ultimately is.\n\nLater all, try not to get too riled about these posts--you've gotta know that some people post just for the heck of ticking other pe
1057603
Religion into sexual violence and oppressing kids. Look at the history of christianity
681662
SAW THSI THE OTHER DAY AND THOUGHT IT WAS GREAT.  \nMAKES SENSE.\n\nLets first examine the definition of homosexuality...it is the practice of sexual behavior with the same sex. A great debate these days. Is it deviant? i.e. behaviors and attitudes that differ from the normal social and moral standards.\n\nHmmmmmm... \n\nLet me put it this way.\n\nIf I loved having sex with animals and formed a group to say that we were born this way, and started challanging laws that opposed this behavior... going so far as to challenge the very Bible that teaches against it... and marching in parades, having protest, and touting the illusion that I am being discriminated against because I love beastiality... would you say it is deviant or that it was just my right to do my thing?\n\nMoral decay, is moral decay, and unnatural behaviors can not be made right by giving it a superficial tweek with a name change. That name is "gay".\n\nGay is a cute name and makes it socially acceptable... socially palletable... But it still remains a continued and ongoing asset in the moral decay column. \n\nI do not hate or dislike people who practice homosexuality, but it is time for some one to stand up and call a horse a horse.\n\nThe aime of the homosexual movement is to attack the Bible. Oh, I know what youre thinking... this guy is nuts. But if satan can keep blinding the minds of the homosexual community, they will unwittingly get laws changed that will declair it a crime to speak against their sexual practices, under the satanic inspired veil of discrimination. \n\nIf that happens, what would happen to men and women of God who speak against homosexual practices from their church pulpits, or in the streets? Can you say, Monopoly Game--Go straight to jail... It could seriously mean persecution of true believers. Persecution of the true Church, if you will allow it....\n\njust food for thought...
498689
Wow. That is a loaded question. I would say it started way back in the beginning of the history of men and was part of the physical temptations Satan and his fallen angels used to try to persuade people to stop following God's commandments. I have read that it was also part of the reason the world was destroyed by flood, and Noah and his family (his sons had one wife each) had to start over on re-populating the earth. That's all I will say about this subject, because I don't want to get a lot of angry messages from people who think differently. I'm not a "homophobe," I just see things for what they are, and everyone is a child of God. Have a happy day.
1020266
The biggest problem facing the christian church as it expanded into northern and western Europe was paganism, which is basically about fertility - a pretty natural obsession of a substistence society.   The trick they used was to divide and conquer the religion itself.   \n\nSome things were, literally, demonised, made into the enemy.   The god of fertility, Pan, became Satan, which was an astute move since christianity was and is really antagonistic towards overly liberal shagging.   To this day Europeans and those they have influenced are still pretty hung up about sex as a result.   IMHO.\n\nBut complete opposition to the entire religion would not have worked.   So other things were not demonised, they were co-opted.   This was the trick with the festivals.   Christmas celebrated the passing of the winter solstice and promised that spring was not far off - fertility again - the evergreen tree is a symbol of life getting through the bad times.   So the church rebranded it as Jesus' birthday, and managed to keep the newly converted pagans onside.   Harvest festival too (god's abundent goodness etc).   As for Easter - spring? resurrection? eggs? bunnies?  need I say more?\n\nThe church hasn't much of an idea of when Jesus was born, but it doesn't really care - Christmas is convenient.   Easter is a bit easier, because Jesus' death was reported to be around the time of the Jewish Passover festival, so you can sort of place it around the time of the pagan bunny stuff - a natural fit.
667720
mass murder of individuals that the church considered heretics and manifestations of religious intolerance. Just to name a few!!!!\n\nHave you ever noticed that when the Church apolgises for its past sins, it apologises for "the sins of the daughters and sons of the church", never actually the church itself?!
892416
Cool.  Thanks.  I did not know that.  I guess that goes for "homosexuals", too...?  That term wasn't coined until about that same time.
1107770
I'd have to agree with you, except in the reverse order, Homophobes use Christianity as an excuse.  Many Christians aren't Homophobes and therefore don't need to quote (often misquote) the gay references in the bible.  Two very small references to Homosexuality in the old Testament are the only references that the bible makes, yet it makes references to many other things that Christians never attack and some of which most, if not all, Christians are guilty of committing.  The fact is Gays are an easy target.  They can point and say, "look at the sinner!" and draw the attention away from their own sins.
103787
Yes. It has caused so much suffering\n\nListed are only events that solely occurred on command of church authorities or were committed in the name of Christianity. (List incomplete) \nAncient Pagans\n\nAs soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed. \nBetween 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain. \nExamples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis. \nChristian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468] \nPagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468] \nChristian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]\nAccording to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..." \nIn 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights. \nIn the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466] \nThe world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.\n[DO19-25] \nMission\n\nEmperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30] \nPeasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain 5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany. [WW223] \nBattle of Belgrad 1456: 80,000 Turks slaughtered. [DO235] \n15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order. Victims unknown. [DO30] \n16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and civilized" Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that "the heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused "greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde".\nTens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage. [SH99, 225] \nCrusades (1095-1291)\n\nFirst Crusade: 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41] \nSemlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96 thousands. [WW23] \n9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then turkish), thousands respectively. [WW25-27] \nUntil Jan 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered (number of slain unknown) [WW30] \nafter 6/3/98 Antiochia (then turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women & children) killed. [WW32-35]\nHere the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy's] tents - save that they ran their lances through their bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. [EC60] \nMarra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36] \nJerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (jewish, muslim, men, women, children). [WW37-40]\n(In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour