Can anyone tell me about how religions (other than Christianity) look upon homosexuality?
I know–from my biblical studies–that Christianity is clearly against homosexuality. This, by no means, is meant to say that Christians are hateful towards homosexuals. Instead, I mean that Christian doctrine–the Bible–labels homosexuality as a sin. So, one cannot remain an active gay person and expect to be accepted into heaven. There is no debating that homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of the Christian God…
Anyways, I would like to know if any religions flat out accept homosexuals…
I, of course, am no homosexual… I am an agnostic (borderline atheist).
I know my answer is not what you’re seeking so I’m sorry to butt in between. It is not the business of any religion to view homosexuality this way or that way, it is entirely the business of the homosexual. “The laws in the constitution are there for protecting people’s rights and not their faith,” that’s because faith is based on a belief that could change today, therefore, a religion has no business stating what is right and what is wrong as regards homosexuality. And there is no such thing as a Christian God because if God is God then He’s all powerful, all seeing and present everywhere and if He created us then He must cherish all humanity whether they are good or bad, just like our parents love us whether we are good or bad. I’m not suggesting that homosexuality is bad or wrong, neither am I saying it’s right or good, I’m neutral. I feel that a homosexual is unfortunate to have encountered circumstances which made him so. What the hell does religion have to do with all this? Religion is propagated by the prophets to make humanity more humane and not to start playing with or interfering with people’s feelings and rights! Sorry! You don’t like my response, you didn’t have to read it.
Good response. I completely agree that with the separation of church and government religion has no place in deciding what is right and what is wrong. However, there are still many countries (some in the middle east, some in south america) where religion has great influence over moral issues and more. Furthermore, religion was the first form of government for many cultures and religion flat out told people this was wrong and that was wrong, and that one had no choice in many issues. Homosexuals in the Middle East don’t exist… they aren’t allowed to exist (I believe this is wrong).
The point of religion is to tell you how to live! How could it have no right to say what is and what is not right or wrong? The bible tells us it is wrong to steal, it tells us it is wrong to fornicate, it tells us it is wrong to commit adultery, and it tells us it is wrong to hate your neighbor… For religious fanatics there is no higher authority than their religion and its doctrine. I am definitly againts this belief (agnostic over here) but for many, religion dictates how they should live and what they should believe.
Also, of course there is a Christian god… we also have a Muslim god, an Israeli god, we have Native American gods, Hindi gods, etc. I am not arguing that there isn’t one god that is all powerful (though I certainly believe that there isn’t) but only that within the constructs of the doctrine of each religion that defines the existence of each god is there a moral issue with homesexuality.
By the way, if a single, solitary god existed, I do believe it would have many of the great qualities mankind admires; however, there would be no way that an all powerful god would allow the confusion about gods and doctrines all over the world…
Finally, not all parents love their children good or bad.
And the USA. Did Bush win the election or did his bible?
Of course they do! They may be frowned upon but they’re there.
But each individual is in charge of whether they go along with what their religion stipulates.
You’ll find that the God of Christians, Jews and Muslims is common to all three. Yahweh - the personal, single God of the great monotheistic religions is common to each.
Think about the conceptual separation that goes into your formulation of ‘all powerful’. You assume this means ‘A God who can do anything’. Why not be reasonable and think of it in terms of ‘A God who can do anything within the realms of possibility’?
After all, of course your version of ‘all powerful’ is going to run into problems. If God could do ‘anything’, he could make a stone too heavy for him to lift…but then his omnipotence would require him to be able to lift it…a paradox.
Yes, really… Christianity clearly defines homosexuality as sin:
ROMANS 1: 24-27 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Also 1 Corinthians pretty much states marriage is between man and woman. Lets not forget the sodomites either.
That biblical reference is one of many… very little room for interpretation there (unlike in the link you provided).
You have a point about BUSH… (even though I am a repub).
Yes, homosexuals exist in the middle east but they are strictly forbidden. In fact, they could be punished by death. You have a point though… i am often pray to making statements of absolutes.
While I agree that Yahweh (YHWH) is god of all three religions each has a point where the god branches off… for the jews it ends at god (no trinity of the holy spirit, son, father) I don’t know much about Islam; however, I was told that they do not have god the father–in the sense like the christian god is a loving daddy type. So, essentially, while they are common, each god serves a different purpose for each religion.
Finally, I never really gave much thought about an all powerful god within the realm of possibility… it’s an interesting idea. However, an all powerful god compared to say an all powerful king on earth would still have much the same effect… no one would be confused about the kings name: Allah, Yahweh, Zeus, Ra, etc. There is no confusion as to who was once ruler of the Romans: Julius Caesar. We know facts of him… a god would have much the same effect.
Where you say that, “Not all parents love their children good or bad,” you’re right, but when we talk about God, because God is also above the parents, so we assume that He is more and so where all parents may not love all their children, but we assume that God does. When we compare us as children, our parents’ and God’s, that is only an analogy. In essence, God is more than parents and so we expect that He loves us all, whether our parents do or not.
Also, the point of religion is not to tell or dictate how we should live, its only objective is to simply make known what would be the right behaviour or action, but it’s we who make the decision, right or wrong, religion has NO BUSINESS judging that. Religion’s work is over as soon as it makes something known, that’s all a religion’s work is limited to, after that, it must not interfere in anybody’s life.
I completely disagree with your position that religion’s only “objective is to simply make known what would be the right behavior or action…”
While that may be a key element of religion, many religions flat out make it punishable for people to disobey that religion’s commandments. If you kill and do not repent you will go to hell. If thou shalt worship idols, thou shalt be slain. If you commit adultery you can be stoned to death, etc., etc.
I agree with you that it should not be religion’s place to judge to whether or not we choose to live by its rules religion does make it clear there are consequences… oh, and ignorance of the laws does not buy you any points. In fact, the christian bible explicitly states that if you do not believe in Jesus Christ you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. That is a religious attempt to frighten all into conforming into the rules of that religion.
If we are made in the likeness of god (his image) than each of us represents what is within god: the potential for good, evil, hate, love, etc.
Furthermore, my quote below makes my position clear about god being “above the parents”… “If our fathers were our models for god… what does that tell you about god?” The answer? A lot!
Finally, are there any Buddhist, Hindi, Shinto ILP members that could provide some details on how homosexuality is perceived within their religions? Please note: the reason I ask is not to persecute religions, I am simply curious as to how other religions view that lifestyle/existense.
"According to a pamphlet produced by Al-Fatiha, there is a consensus among Islamic scholars that all humans are naturally heterosexual. Homosexuality is seen by scholars to be a sinful and perverted deviation from the norm. All Islamic schools of thought and jurisprudence consider gay acts to be unlawful. They differ in terms of penalty:
The Hanafite school (currently seen mainly in South and Eastern Asia) teaches that no physical punishment is warranted.
The Hanabalites, (widely followed in the Arab world) teach that severe punishment is warranted
The Sha’fischool of thought (also seen in the Arab world) requires a minimum of 4 adult male witnesses before a person can be found guilty of a homosexual act.
Al-Fatiha estimates that 4,000 homosexuals have been executed in Iran since their revolution in 1979. 10 public executions of homosexuals have been performed in Afghanistan by the Taliban army." religioustolerance.org/hom_isla.htm
What this all refers to is that “scholars” make judgement on the basis of tradition. That tradition is the means by which a religious group identify themselves. Once such traditions become common law, that is, also for people with other or no traditions, the whole thing becomes precarious. I can agree with a group saying that we (the group) do not tolerate homosexuals and prevent membership, but it is another issue if I make my own (especially restrictive) rules into common law.
Boy oh Boy oh Boy! What a long letter.
So you are saying that if religion is given the authority to stone, kill, etc., that is fine?
“Ignorance of the laws?” Which laws exactly are you talking about? There are no laws sent by God only guidelines.
We are not made in the likeness of God but God is made in our likeness, because God being so magnificent we could not identify with Him otherwise. If some prophet was wrong, why do I have to believe him?
Our fathers were not models for God, that’s why they are not perfect! And why do you just use father here? Couldn’t there be a mother God especially considering we are God’s children and he creates us and it’s only a mother who gives birth?
‘How a religion views that lifestyle?’ What a question! My dear, religion has NO AUTHORITY to view any lifestyle in any way.
All people who commit gross acts against homosexuals should be incarcerated (put behind bars) where with no ‘other sex’ contact they will learn to become homosexuals as people do in prisons. Then we should ask them upon their release, now, should you be severely punished? Should you be publicly executed? Should we excuse you and let you go? Should we just mind our own business and not interfere in your affairs?
Religions can say ANYTHING: including murder, stoning, sacrifice etc. That DOESN’T mean that I believe it is right (I completely believe that it is wrong). However, religion gives itself authority. With regards to Christianity, we can begin with reading the following:
Also, I apologize if I did not make it clear in my ‘long letter’ that I was talking about religious laws (do you really think I was talking about American laws?). While you may not agree with the religious laws of some group (I certainly do not agree with ANY religious groups) it still does not mean that this same group will not try–and succeed–to punish you for failing to live up to their rules. The Spanish Inquisition, under the assumption that if you did not believe in Christ you would be severely punished, did just so by torturing and executing Jews for not believing in Christ. Was it wrong? Of course! But how much authority did religion have then?
My dear Beena, religion STILL has the authority to view ANY lifestyle in ANY perspective it so desires. Again, I STRESS that I do not believe this is right, but it is so. Religion can, and does, punish you for not following the “guidelines”. That suggests they are not mere guidelines but are enforceable laws.
You do not need to believe in any prophet, let alone a prophet that was wrong. However, what proof do you have that this particular prophet was wrong? Also, the New Testament is pretty thick on the use of god as our father (even if a heavenly father). But god is often likened to a ‘dad’ figure. Also, god, is referred to as “Him” by the bible. Nearly all religions accept a masculine god. I DO NOT denouce a feminine god, I think it would another great invention (just like the biblical god). The quote is from a movie… I could just as well have used the word parents in place of the word fathers.
Finally, I do not appreciate your use of hyperbole: “Boy, oh boy, oh boy what a long letter” Please! There are certainly much longer texts within many, if not most, of the threads in ILP.
BOB… thanks so much for the Islamic references on homosexuality. Do you know if there are any present-day views on homosexuality from the Jewish perspective?
As a Sunni of the school of Abu-Hanifa, I’ve had the opportunity to view “deviants” in a much less puritanical manner than more extreme sects who like to hit people to set 'em straight. As Bob illustrates, the prescribed retributions by Shariah (Islamic Law) vary from sect to sect. The Arabs comprise a minority in the Muslim world, 18% of the total global Muslim population. They are a bit more “hands on” to giving the gays “attitude adjustments.” But this is a traditon of pre-Islamic Arabia, their culture managed to hang around and fuse with their idea of Islam. As a matter of fact, stoning as punishment for various crimes was taken from Jewish tribes in the peninsula, the Jews dropped it a while later but the Arab Muslims still use it today in some places (citation: Dr. Ismail Poonawala, expert on Islam, Arabic, Near Eastern Cultures and Languages, UCLA) Most non-Arabs do not follow this type of tradition found in Wahabbism for example. I thought this would be an important note to make since when most people in the U.S. think of Muslim, they think Palestine, Iraq, and bombs.
I’m going to blog it, email it and post it up any chance I get.
yeah no kidding, the election had nothing to do with SO called “moral” values.
Of course they do! They may be frowned upon but they’re there.
But each individual is in charge of whether they go along with what their religion stipulates.
my reply to this would’ve been slightly different… the god of christianity is the trinity of christ, god and the holy spirit, the god of muslims is allah, which may be yahweh and it may not.
I think it could be said that, in general, homosexuality has been frowned upon by most cultures and typically through their respective religions. There are exceptions. American indian culture saw the homosexual as a special kind of being, and most homosexuals in those indian cultures gravitated toward the role of shaman.
I would offer that, historically, there is a logical cultural prohibition against homosexual or any form of ‘deviant’ sexual practice. It’s called survival. As the hunter and gatherers began settling, the viability of any group often depended on sheer numbers. War with competing groups, famine, disease, and a host of other possible disasters could literally wipe out any particular group. The larger the population, the greater likelyhood of surviving a catastrophic event. With this as a constant background, any form of sexual contact should present the opportunity of increasing the numbers in the group. Any form of sexual contact that couldn’t result in procreation was, at the very least, not encouraged because it threatened the survival of the group. ‘Spilled seed’ as it were. It doesn’t take much to see how this ‘threat’ to the group worked its’ way into oral tradition and then into codified forms of religious allegory. Sexual practices for anything other than procreation is a man-made concept with a very logical practical root. I seriously question the idea that it is, in itself, ‘unnatural’. Either god forgot to program man correctly, or is playing a sadistic joke, and it doesn’t strike me as valid that nature is flawed simply because it sometimes fail’s to meet our social needs.
Hi Tentative… Thanks for your insighful comments. It brought me to the following idea which may be very unpopular (even though I am sure this is not an original idea). I started thinking about survival, about nature, about survival of the fittest, about natural selection, about Darwinism, and about evolution.
If evolution explains why homosexuality exists (meaning that homosexuals are born chemically desiring the same sex) wouldn’t this also suggest that homosexuals will not exist in the very distant future? Wouldn’t natural selection alone thin the herd?
Exclusively gay men would not be able to procreate suggesting that the genes that make them homosexual would end there. As for omnisexuals, they would procreate but their children would likely go one way (gay) or the other (straight) which would through natural selection prevent too many gay men and women from being born.
Or maybe we will all end up being omnisexuals, which would be one less thing to worry about).
After all, as the great Seinfeld puts it: “Not that there’s anything wrong with that!” Any thoughts?
not necessarily. There are a lot of recessive traits that for whatever reason haven’t died off, MD (muscular distrophy) that the people who have them usually can’t reproduce.
MD and homosexuality share that one thing in common.
Yet both continue to exist.
we could talk about other recessive genes that have continued to exist as well, light skin, blue eyes, etc. maybe eventually recessives will breed themselves out, but for now we still have them.
Possibly. At this point, we haven’t identified the gene(s) affecting sexual orientation, so we really don’t know the how’s and what’s of the issue. Until we do know and have a way of remediating this ‘aberration’, it will continue to be a social and religious problem.
This isn’t the only religious prohibition that can be linked to historical pragmatic neccessity. The prohibition against pork as an ‘unclean’ meat wasn’t god talking. It was man’s ability to see that pigs and trichinosis came as a package deal. Google up trichinosis and check out the results of this parasitic disease in humans. I wouldn’t eat ham either!
I think it is important to understand the cultural history of those who generated the ‘holy scripts’. Most of the do’s and don’ts attributed to the ‘word of God’ have nothing to do with God, and everything to do with man’s cultural heritage. This is why the literalists have so much trouble making the ‘word of God’ fit in today’s reality. Much of what made perfect sense in the middle east 3000 years ago has absolutely nothing to do with modern Europe or anyplace else for that matter.
aberration? are you sure you want to word it like that?
look at stephen hawkings aberration. He was born with MD, and had he been born normal chances are he wouldn’t have burned nearly as brightly.
our differences make us interesting, and to a certain extent the promise of gene therapy to make us all the same scares the bejeezus out of me.
Brave New World here we come.
this however is the factual truth. (about how the bible was made) I wonder however if you read the “is homosexuality against god’s will in the bible?” like you’d see that maybe they didn’t abher homosexuality so much in those days as promiscuity and rape.
Of course homosexuality is an aberration! The word simply means not of the norm. I’m not homosexual, but I’m certainly an aberration. You should know this by now.
The issue isn’t the ‘difference’, it is how it is looked upon. Do we disparage and shun homosexuality or celebrate it? That’s the question.
Any thoughts?