has religion become about hate?

[protege]

So... what do you propose to do with the 'nuts'? That's the real problem!

I hear Siberia is nice this time of year... Seriously though, I don't think we'll ever get rid of them.

[Flyndaran]

I was taught to love the sinner and hate the sin. ...

I try real hard to live by the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
To answer the question in some instanances some folks do twist their religion and use it as a weapon of hate, but I think those that do are in the minority at least amoungst the folks I associate with.

I hope you don't offended when I say that whole thing is absurd and ridiculous.
It's like saying that you don't hate me because I'm male, you just hate it when I do anything masculine.
You don't hate fish, only those that breathe through their gills.
If you hate defining actions, then you hate those that can't be anything else. Trying to weasel out of it makes "you" look hateful AND devious.

I always thought as religion as more about who you can hate than who you can love. As an atheist, I believe nearly everyone is deserving of respect and understanding. As an X religious person, you get to hate all sorts of people.

[Boozy]

I hope you don't offended when I say that whole thing is absurd and ridiculous.

So you don't understand the concept of loving someone even if you hate something they do?

[Fashion Lad!]

Some religions teach us to hate the sin and not the sinner. But a lot of people have a hard time disguising between the two.

Most religions do teach us to love one another, but I don't know if accept is part of that. You can love someone but not like them. That's what my mom says about my brother.

Mostly though, I think people use religion as an excuse for hate when they do hate. I've not seen a religion teach anyone to hate, but I haven't studied them all.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

So you don't understand the concept of loving someone even if you hate something they do?

At least not when that 'something they do' is an integral and inherent part of them as a person. We aren't talking "I love jimmy but he belches sometimes" we're talking "I love Jimmy but his name starts with J and he has a penis"

And after a certain point, when *some* religious people go all preachy 'save you from your evil ways' they just come off as arrogant jerks with good intentions. Good intentions ruined by disgusting methodology and nosiness...

Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for those who can practice their beliefs without foisting them on one another. It's just that some seem to think that their beliefs are some sort of mandate to stop everyone from doing things some dick with a funny hat doesn't like.

[Boozy]

For the record, I don't agree with the "Love the sinner, hate the sin" approach to homosexuality, since I don't believe that homosexuality is a sin.

But I did want to challenge Flyn when he said the notion was "absurd and ridiculous". If one truly believes that homosexuality is a sin, then I don't see anything illogical about it.

Flyn also jumps to the conclusion that homosexuality is the defining part of a homosexual person. That's not true. I'm not defined by my heterosexuality. I am also other things; I am a whole person, defined by the totality of my characteristics.

To many Christians, the only defining characteristic of a person is their soul, and they do not acknowledge that a soul can be homosexual. Only bodies can be straight or gay. Therefore, for anyone who agrees with that premise, it is not illogical to "love the sinner and hate the sin".

[radiocerk]

But if (insert deity here) decided tomorrow that heterosexuality was a sin, and all the homosexuals are going to heaven, could you just decide to be attracted to people of the same gender? If religions want to believe that you can just decide to be straight (for most religions), non-dependent on psych meds (for Scientologists), not inclined to eat bacon (for Jews) *all right, I'm stretching on that one* can you just "decide" to be able to follow the tenets of that religion. Or are some people born homosexual, are some people suffering a chemical imbalance that needs medication to function, can some people just not live without their bacon, sausage, and ham?

[IDrinkaRum]

And that's the beauty of free will: You can choose if you want to stay with the religion you're with or explore new and different avenues for you to express religion (or you can even start your own religion like the Jews, the Christians, L. Ron Hubbard, etc.).

[RootedPhoenix]

But if (insert deity here) decided tomorrow that heterosexuality was a sin, and all the homosexuals are going to heaven, could you just decide to be attracted to people of the same gender?

No. I would choose what I did, though. I don't just go out and have sex with any guy I'm attracted to. I still make choices, even though I might want to chase those guys a lot more than I let on.

I've chosen not to have sex at all; some other people choose only certain people to have sex with.

If I'm going to hell for my attraction to guys with this different system, then I'm going to hell. My attraction to guys isn't any more of a switch than anyone else's is.

So you don't understand the concept of loving someone even if you hate something they do?

I have homosexual friends, and have for a long time. They don't always like what I do, and I don't always like what they do. These are the very same people I take my problems to, because we've all done our best to love each other and find our common ground.

Flyn also jumps to the conclusion that homosexuality is the defining part of a homosexual person. That's not true. I'm not defined by my heterosexuality. I am also other things; I am a whole person, defined by the totality of my characteristics.

I agree, Boozy. I am a musician, a heterosexual female, and LDS. Are any one of those things the only thing to define me?

I always thought I was a human being first, and so was everybody else. It doesn't matter who does what and where to whom. We all have inherent value simply for existing.

I think that if anyone is using any religion to justify hateful acts, he or she has got it horribly wrong.

[BroomJockey]

I agree, Boozy. I am a musician, a heterosexual female, and LDS. Are any one of those things the only thing to define me?

I always thought I was a human being first, and so was everybody else. It doesn't matter who does what and where to whom. We all have inherent value simply for existing.

No, not any one of those things defines you, but how much can we take away and still have you be you? If we took out the part of you that's LDS, and informed by your LDS, are you still you? What if we took out the part of you that's musical? What if we turned you in to a guy? You're still a person, and still have value, but you're not YOU any more. It's like people who get in to relationships for what the other person could be, not what they are. And those generally don't go well.

(General speaking now) Your orientation doesn't define you, but it's a part of you, and every part of you influences the other parts of you, and while you can hate the actions of someone, homosexuality isn't an action, it's a characteristic. And if you hate homosexuality, I'm sorry to tell you, you hate the person who's homosexual. If you only hate same-sex intercourse, fine, that's an action. But it's constantly homosexuality that is condemned. The characteristic of being attracted to the same gender. That's not an action. And as far as I'm concerned, you can't hate part of a person, but accept the whole rest of the person. It's too conflicted, since there's no way to know how the part you hate is informing the rest of the person's being.

[RootedPhoenix]

But it's constantly homosexuality that is condemned. The characteristic of being attracted to the same gender. That's not an action. And as far as I'm concerned, you can't hate part of a person, but accept the whole rest of the person. It's too conflicted, since there's no way to know how the part you hate is informing the rest of the person's being.

Now that you say that, I see that that's what Ive been doing. (Making that distinction, that is) Specific actions are what I don't like, but being homosexual isn't a choice.

Thanks for the vocabulary to say what I hadn't figured out how to articulate.

[smileyeagle1021]

No, not any one of those things defines you, but how much can we take away and still have you be you? If we took out the part of you that's LDS, and informed by your LDS, are you still you? What if we took out the part of you that's musical? What if we turned you in to a guy? You're still a person, and still have value, but you're not YOU any more. It's like people who get in to relationships for what the other person could be, not what they are. And those generally don't go well.

Thank you Broom... reminds me of a discussion I had with a coworker... he asked why a value of a person was now being determined by what they do in the bedroom... surely a homosexual has more to define themselves by... and I point blank told him "I view myself as gay in the same way you view yourself as LDS... neither defines us, but take either away from us and we are fundamentally changed... the idea that you can judge my person without including the fact that I'm gay is just as flawed a prospect as saying I could judge you person without including the fact that you are LDS."

[Gravekeeper]

I think I'm still the only Buddhist around, so, er, Buddha Protip Time(tm)

Buddhism has the simplest little rule that I always keep in mind:

Is what you're saying or doing causing suffering without benefit? Yes? Than it is immoral.

End of story.

No one is exempt and no is any more or any less deserving of the consideration. There is no Big List Of Rules you will be sent to eternal Hell for.

The stupidest part about all this is Jesus's original teachings are similar to Buddha's. They also both used similar styles of teaching. To the point where there's some speculation Jesus actually encountered Buddhist monks at some point. Which is very possible as they were in some of the same city's.

Yet Jesus's original teachings have been so twisted and adapted for personal gain over the centuries that its all messed up now in modern Christianity to be honest.

The reason you don't see militant Buddhism is because it is not a violent philosophy ( Though none technically of them should be if people actually practiced what they preached ) and it is not exactly a missionary philosophy. That's the flaw right there. A lot of the big religions grew up not only with the Us vs Them attitude but also with the We'll MAKE You Us Whether You Like It Or Not.

Its this "If you don't believe what I do my god will fist you with a coat rack in the afterlife" attitude that's kind of the problem.

MY GOD CAN TOTALLY BEAT UP YOUR GOD. ;p

[Amethyst Hunter]

"If you don't believe what I do my god will fist you with a coat rack in the afterlife"

(where's the laughing icon when you need it!?)

I was going to say I've always thought of it as a matter of "My god's dick is bigger than your god's dick" (since so many religions are patriarchal-based and full of misogyny), but this works well too. XD

[HYHYBT]

To use a blatant example, the most common reason I've seen cited by gay people as to their fear of coming out is not of how God would treat them, but how the people in their lives would react.

Well yeah, God knows everything already so what's the point in hoping *he* won't find out?

afterall the Lord smote a whole bunch of folks for that very thing.

I'd be very interested in hearing about this: the closest I've ever found was the destruction of a city where they tried to gang-rape angels, which obviously is completely different than consensual sex between people who have promised their lives to each other.

More to the topic: I fell out of the habit of going to church more than ten years ago because of scheduling: getting off work at 1AM or later Saturday night wasn't conducive to getting up Sunday morning. Lately I've been missing it and wanting to find one, and, though there's practically a church every 100 yards around here, there are none within 20 miles that wouldn't turn on me were I to momentarily not hide my beliefs, especially about who they think "true" Christians have to hate. And really, what's the point of going to church if, while there, you have to be dishonest about what you believe?