If your church says that white people are superior to everyone else, it's wrong.

[yardwork]

If you go to a church where the pastor preaches that white people are superior to everyone else, and tells you that as a white person you deserve to rule the world, and tells you that people with other skin colors are inferior, then your pastor is wrong, your church is wrong, and they are misusing religion to promote bigotry.

If you go to a church where the pastor preaches that your religion is superior to everyone else's, and tells you that your church is the only real church, and that God only cares about members of your church and says that everyone else's religion is inferior, then your pastor is wrong, your church is wrong, and they are misusing religion to promote bigotry.

See where I'm going with this?

[Deep13]

1. Misusing religion? I think out-group hostility is its purpose.

Anyway, that is its effect.

If your religion says that supernatural forces in the universe care about you personally, that is factually wrong.

[FredScuttle]

2. What about happy white people?

n/t

[Donnachaidh]

3. no -- I don't see where you are going with this

When I did attend church, there were prayers said that claimed we were the *one true apostolic church*. And it was part of the tradition.

That being said, they NEVER claimed they were *better* than others, especially when race was involved. I think you're making a huge leap here, trying to connect the two. And I don't see your point - unless it's to blast all religions as racist.

Which is actually it's own form of bigotry, against other religions. Tarring them all with the same brush, so to speak. :shrug:

[yardwork]

4. Some posters on DU are stating that their church requires them to be homophobic.

I am not tarring all religions with any brush. I know many religious people who are not homophobic.

My thread is a response to those who justify homophobia on the basis of their church's teachings.

[Midlodemocrat]

5. No church based on the true teachings of Christ would say that.

Therein lies the hypocrisy. People who claim that their church requires them to be homophobic are bigots. I'm Catholic. I'm not homophobic. If I were to claim that the church requires me to be homophobic, I would just be using that as an excuse for my own bigotry.

[yardwork]

7. I agree and that is the point of my thread here.

Anyone can claim that "their church" requires them to be a bigot, but truly moral people recognize that any human institution is prone to human failings.

[uriel1972]

10. but who gets to decide what is the 'true' teachings?

the danger of the bible is that it can be used to justify all sorts of behaviour that we find unacceptable. No, not just justified, but mandated.

[Midlodemocrat]

12. There is nothing in the New Testament about Jesus condemning

homosexuals. He does, however, condemn adultery and divorce.

[Deep13]

16. Paul's letter to the Romans...

...which predates all of the canonical gospels.

[Midlodemocrat]

19. Most Biblical scholars believe that Paul's teachings were less about

the words of Christ than about the words of Paul. I happen to agree with this.

[yardwork]

23. Many Biblical scholars believe that Paul was a self-loathing closet case.

I happen to believe that as well.

[Deep13]

30. .

:spray:

[Deep13]

25. Certainly, since there were no "words of Christ."

They were written decades after the fact to give a face and a name to the purely spiritual son-of-god of Paul's thinking and to use details of of the human Christ's life to be the basis of a liturgical calender.

Nevertheless, the historic details of Christianity are less important than what people make of them today. Clearly, most practicing Christians see the entire NT and even the OT as the basis of their religion. The doctrine laid out in Paul's letters are the basis of Nicene Christianity. It is said that Christianity could have existed without Jesus, but not without Paul. Indeed, that seems to be what actually happened. Whether or not the human Jesus was based on an actual person is almost irrelevant since the details of his life, derivative as they were, were certainly added later.

Modern Christians rely on both the Epistles and the OT as a basis for excluding homosexuals, oppressing women, being obsessively repressive about sexuality generally as well as tolerating cruelties of all descriptions. The fact that liberal Christians choose to ignore Biblical directives to keep women quiet, ostracize gays, or to have faith in god-chosen secular leaders owes more to their intrinsic humanity than it does to their Christianity.

[uriel1972]

17. I was drawing a wider net

both in terms of behaviour not just homosexuality such as not allowing women to teach in church etc, but also in the NT as a whole not just the reported words of Jesus sorry if I didn't make that clear

[Midlodemocrat]

20. You weren't unclear. My point is that the actual

words of Christ don't condemn homosexuality, nor do they prohibit women from preaching. Those are the words of men, not Christ.

Who found the rock at the tomb ajar? Women.

Who wiped the face of Jesus as he carried the cross? Veronica.

If one actually reads the words of Jesus, and not the words of others in the Bible, Jesus preached about social justice, acceptance, etc., He was not about condemning.

[uriel1972]

27. Don't get me wrong while I have some issues with the words of Jesus

I'm not saying he condemned anyone that's why I said the NT as a whole. The role of women in the gospels is strong. Not quite so in the rest of the NT

[Deep13]

15. So your view on the true teachings of Christ is right.

The opposing view is wrong. How can you tell? What are your criteria? Conservatives would say and point to Biblical verses that say Christ did not come to enable "sin." The fact is you are choosing to disregard the parts that stand for things you don't like.

Isn't it kind of silly to talk about the true teachings of Christ anyway when he is a purely mythological person anyway?

[uriel1972]

6. once you start using terms like god's law and natural law

you set the scene for persecution of anyone you don't happen to like and feel all holy about it at the same time.

[yardwork]

8. I agree and that is my point.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. religion unlike sexual orientation and race/gender is a choice. thank you for pointing that out

[Der Blaue Engel]

11. And bigotry is a choice

Amen, lioness. :thumbsup:

[Deep13]

18. Yes, and what is more...

...even if sexual orientation were somehow a choice, it is not an assertion of fact the way theology is. In other words, being gay does not damn heterosexuals by implication. On the other hand, failure to accept Christ after being aware of the NT is grounds for damnation just as failure to accept Islam is after being aware of the Koran.

[NMMNG]

13. I do, and you're right

Religion as justification for bigotry--of any kind--is wrong. Period. I've had it up to here with this use of "deeply held religious beliefs" as an excuse for the most heinous, hateful tripe. If you're a bigot then own up to it like an adult. Don't hide behind your religion. It's no longer an acceptable excuse.

[ecstatic]

14. What if it's not said, but the church is all white/black

They say church time is the most segregated hour in America. hehe

[Greenwood]

21. Obama's Church has said some pretty offensive.....

things with promoting only black rhetoric.

Anytime ANY race is excluded I find it offensive.

[yardwork]

22. To clarify, this thread is in response to a poster who said

"Being called a bigot for following the tenets of one's church is offensive." This poster has stated that his religion says that homosexuality is wrong. He says that he can't help but follow the tenets of "his" church, and therefore it is unfair to call him a bigot, even though he openly posts on DU that he believe that homosexuality is morally wrong.

My point is that anyone can justify any kind of behavior (and history is full of examples) on the basis of "their" religion. That doesn't make it right.

People have routinely justified genocide, torture, and murder of millions on the basis of "their" churches' teachings.

[uriel1972]

24. bigot and a coward for not standing up to his pastor nt

[yardwork]

28. He's also an ex-DUer effective this past hour.

[CyberPieHole]

26. I think most if not all churches say they are the only "true church".

Churches peddle exclusivity: If you are not in our church (and a member in good standing) you are not going to heaven. That's my opinion.

[redqueen]

29. Said this in another thread... personal philosophies aside...

unless and until *most* major churches stop condoning bigotry based on sexual preference, there's no denfending this shit. None.

[Igel]

31. I knew of a church once that violated every rule, and disconfirmed your conclusion.

Welcome to imperfect syllogisms.

They say homosexuality was wrong; however, they also said that since Jesus was tempted like everybody else, he was also tempted. In other words, they had no problem with saying Jesus was bi. They accepted gays on the same conditions they accepted everybody else: Shack up and let everybody know it, you're out on your ear. Since they defined marriage as Jesus did, they ruled out homosexual marriage, so there was no valid condition under which homosexual sex was not sinful.

They were also into Anglo-Israel. Descendants of Jacob and all that. They sort of assumed there was something special about his line that made it somehow more godly--right or wrong inference, that was the assumption. And they taught that line should rule--it's as God intended in prophecy, possessing the gates of their enemies and all that--as the ethnos' birthright. But with the birthrate came responsibility, so they were presumably held to a higher standard and therefore must be more humble.

The in/out-group hostility business goes for ideology and partisanship as well. I think that many repub POVs are wrong, but leave open the possibility that my views are wrong. Yet the level of hubris in some political quarters, both right and left, at least matches--if not exceeds--the arrogance from a church that is obviously completely out of bounds in your view. In other words, it's not the arrogance and haughtiness, the abuse and active bigotry, it's the thoughts that are the crimes: There are good thoughts that lead to abuse and hate, and there are bad thoughts that don't lead to abuse and hate (but since they sound bad, well, they must be bad).

Tighten your logic and look at not just a few thoughts, but how they actually play out. Think. Critique. Consider that there might exist nuance, instead of over-simplistic Manichaean dualities.

[Chovexani]

36. That church fails.

They say homosexuality was wrong

Fail.

Try again.

[IndianaJones]

32. my church is the gridiron...my gospel the point spread. nt.

[sampsonblk]

35. Colts by 15 on Sunday-Amen

[sampsonblk]

33. How do you know the pastor is wrong?

Who is to say that God doesn't play favorites? The majority of the bible is colored by the idea that God favors the Jews. Its difficult to be christian and not accept that. Its there in black and white.

So if he can favor the Jews, why not others?

[IndianaJones]

34. because its not real. nt.