Well thats good then i hope all Gays and Lesbains that love the Lord and belive in Crist's Sacrifice get into heaven  

you also find that Sodom and Gamora were destroyed because of same sex relationships. there are others like the passage that says since men have rejected God he at times turns them to the things not convenient for the flesh, wich physically you can see man and woman were made for each other. i really believe same sex relationships are not natural and wrong. I don't hate the people involved, but I do see it as a sin.
 
I won't throw anyone out for it here as long as it is not forcibly brought up all the time. I see this as bein' a shame to society and our country.  
 
Hondo

Understand one thing about Christianity.
 
No matter how many time you may faulter, 'god' will forgive you if you ask for that forgiveness. In Christianity, 'god' understands that we are human, are not perfect, and will faulter to the pattern of our choice preferences; therefore he will forgive those who ask for forgiveness.
 
This is not a choice matter of one's sexual orientation. This is a matter of choices one makes in life, which includes acceptance and forgiveness.
 
This is a far better choice than someother religions where you are forced to believe or are killed for the choices you make.

Quote from Soda on Feb 14^th, 2008, 7:55pm:

 
Dont look at History so one sided.
These events did not spontaneously started, and most of them are reactionary responces to events that fell upon Christian communities. Before Christianity (and still to this day), Jews were the pick-on group of day. I'm just going to take one these, forI know the historical facts that has occurred at the time. Unfortunately, I am related to this historical event, for my blood and genetic linage  goes back to the Spanish Crown and the family that protects it until 1863.
 
(Excuse me if I'm off by a few years, as I'm doing this off the top of my head and not researching it from the net.)
 
The Spanish Inquisition and in part, the Crusades, were started about 70 years before, when A Muslim Emperor (who some said had syphillis on the brain), decided to end all peaceful trade with the Western European cultures and attack them out right in 1420. Millions died at his hand. But technology for what it was for its day- news of such attacks, and the attacks themselves did not take over all of Europe until 1430-1440. By the time it reached Spain, it was mid 1450's. It was also at this time that Spain was reunifying into a nation, instead of a cluster of nation states. It this time, No other country was unified. Final unification came from the marriage of King Ferdinand of Leon & Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castillino in 1470's
 
But at the same time, the mulsim hordes were attacking at the spanish gates. The Catholic Church came to Spain seeking refuge from Muslims, and as such granted powers to the Royal family if they were to help them in battle. This little war lasted for decades, part of which was the Spanish Inquisiton. It ended with the Marriage of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. The rest is history.
 
So to say that the Spanish Inquistion was something that the Spanards decided to get upand do on their own, is wrong. Spain was not yet a unfied country. And the Muslim Moors came in to attack, so Spain was the only country to repell the attacks, and enacted the Inquisition as a defense and loyalty mechanism. Once Spain repelled them back out of their borders, other countries/nation-stated joined in and sent the muslms back the Arabian sub-continent.
 
Like I said- dont look at history so 1 sided. Do the reseach, dig deeper into the events, and understand what happened. And consider that this is a guy who's ancestors were part of the Spanish Inquistion and Spanish Royal history. Sometimes things happen because some old feeling from 100 years before gets brought up and somebody strikes first, and things continue from there.

Thanks so much for discussing this with me.  I'm finding this most interesting and exciting.  I never quite grasped how slow information would travel earlier in history, so sometimes I don't take these things into consideration.  Putting that aside, it can be said that the Christians of these eras did not have to be so brutal, nor did they need to execute or imprison people.  For example, rather than burning the witches in the Salem witch trials, could they not have simply exiled them?
 
Also, if the faith is what matters (rather than the individual church/denomination), then how are people able to reconcile their different interpretations?  That doesn't seem to happen, and as such, different groups get quite angry towards each other.  The wouldjesusdiscriminate.com website is a good example: some people interpret the Bible as being non-discriminatory towards homosexuals, while other people choose to interpret the Bible as demanding punishment towards homosexuals.  Also, I have noticed that Christians will fight among themselves over other theological issues, such as the right to divorce (Henry the 8th of England is a good example of this), the concept of the Holy Trinity (whether the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are one unified entity or three separate entities; compare Catholicism to Protestantism), and political aspects (depending upon whether the church interprets the Bible as being supportive of left-wing or right-wing politics; compare, for example, George Bush's interpretations to, for example again, Hugo Chavez's interpretations).  How can they argue and disrespect each other, if in the end they are all equal brothers in Christ?

Quote from Fernando on Feb 15^th, 2008, 12:38am:

 
No, it is not like that everywhere, at least in religious context. This point that Soda raises - that many interpretations of Christianity are hopelessly unable to reconcile with others and resort to confrontation and violence - is the primary flaw that prevents me from having any interest in being any of those forms of Christian. I evaluate by its results what the real priorities of a belief system are and what worth lies in it. Something that only seems to turn out to be good for petty squabbling, fearmongering, and abuse as a tool for exerting power is not worthy of consideration.
 
This is why I found something to be unique in Buddhism. Although there are so many different forms, the understanding shared between them all is that they all seek the same goal, simply through different means. As such, there really aren't many "my way is the only right one" conflicts between different branches. The goal of Buddhism is to actually pursue its stated goal, not to be a tool for controlling others. The different branches and forms have no need to fight with one another for control.
 
The "Chinese Buddhists killing Tibetian Buddhists" is thing is also misleading. The Chinese government is communist, not theocratic, and has no trace of any real Buddhist influence anywhere in its motivations or methods. Their illegitimate invasion of Tibet and the current terrorist and tyrannical acts they commit there are political, not about Buddhists killing other Buddhists over beliefs.
 
Quote from Fernando on Feb 15^th, 2008, 12:38am:

 
Actually, he'd probably say that each and every one of those books is right because they all have something good in 'em. The only reason people even need to ask which one is "right" and which one is "wrong" is that so many people just don't feel like taking ten seconds of genuine thought get over their fat bloated egos to try and see things from another point of view.

Quote from Fernando on Feb 15^th, 2008, 12:38am:

This paints a very bleak picture of religion.  If religion begets death, then I believe that life would be best if everyone were atheist.
 
Quote from Fernando on Feb 15^th, 2008, 12:38am:

So, what you're saying is that God identifies no religious text as wholly correct?  How are we, as His children, meant to identify which laws to live by?  For example, Bible has either been protected by Holy means and is wholly true, or it has not and it has become corrupted.  From what you've said, the latter is more likely true.  I've seen first hand what happens with human communication, and I could understand if the Bible had been written based on distorted stories and 'Chinese whispers'.  It's possible that nobody on this planet is living life correctly, in which case Heaven is likely to be a very lonely place.
 
Quote from Fernando on Feb 15^th, 2008, 12:38am:

But who determines who is mad?  Look at L. Ron Hubbard, the original leader of the Scientologist church.  All accounts I've read indicate that he was quite crazy in his elder years (at least!), to the point of refusing to see doctors, despite numerous illnesses and even a broken limb.  Yet, Scientologists who reach an OT level will swear that he and his works are inerrant.
 
Quote from Fernando on Feb 15^th, 2008, 12:38am:

But what if history is rewritten, or badly recorded in the first place.  Revisionism has happened, and will continue to happen.
 
Quote from Fernando on Feb 15^th, 2008, 12:38am:

That is a fairly reasonable way to live; one cannot help but live life as best they can, and 'isolate' themselves to friends and family that they enjoy.  However, I am faced with a different situation.  Some people will try their hardest to interfere with others.  Whether they are simply trying to 'spread their faith', or murdering people in the name of some deity, these people cannot be avoided.  For example, one group where I live, the Australian Christian Lobby, has successfully pressed both major Australian political parties into refusing same-sex marriage.  This lobby has crossed a line here, and put their feet in my cake (so to speak).  How can I live comfortably, when my basic human rights are being denied, and my sexuality is being discriminated against, all in the name of (someone's perception of) God?  A similar thing happened at the Acorn Cafe, and now I am banned from there, simply for petitioning the administration for fairness in their rules.  They strangely identified my petitioning at unfair criticism, and even called my avatar 'odd', but that's beside the point.  I've been discriminated against yet again, in the name of a God.  I've even had Christians knocking on my door to tell me the evils of homosexuality (once every month or so), and leaving notes and tracts in my letterbox (I usually get one or two a week).
 
I live my life like you live yours: I have my circle of friends and family, and I try to not involve myself in the affairs of others.  However, people (usually Christian, but others too) consistently trespass into my life with apparent malice.  How can I cope with that?
 
Quote from Winston on Feb 16^th, 2008, 2:37am:

That's what I am perceiving from the realm of Abrahamic religion.  It's a shame, because in general the primary teachings seem to be quite decent ('love your neighbour', 'do not murder', 'do not steal', 'love your parents', and so on).
 
Quote from Winston on Feb 16^th, 2008, 2:37am:

That sounds quite nice, and worth considering.  I'll have to read more about Buddhism.  Unfortunately, were I to take it up, it would undoubtedly be used as another lever against me, to prove how 'sinful' my life is.
 
Quote from Fernando on Feb 17^th, 2008, 10:04pm:

I tend to agree with Winston here.  These people seem to be less of a religion, and more of a puppet being used to promote the themes of the Chinese Government.  Their leadership appears to have been appointed into their roles by the Chinese Government, rather than their peers in their religion.  This makes me think twice about their authenticity.
 
Quote from Fernando on Feb 17^th, 2008, 10:04pm:

I'd like to read this book too.  Why does He not provide answers, if people are asking for them?
 
Now, referring this all back to the topic at hand, I do not see how I am supposed to refuse the man that I love and join a Christian church, taking a chance that the denomination I pick is correct.  That would be heartless, and I could never do such a thing.  That's why I cannot understand why people cannot be more tolerant of the concept of homosexuality, or Wicca, or Hinduism, or abortion.  If the teachings of God are so convoluted, so debatable, so ill-defined and so diluted, then how can anyone take one particular interpretation and adhere to it so adamantly?  They've taking a shapeless hunk of ore (with so many possibilities), and fashioned into a sword and shield, which they violently wield against people who dare point out the ambiguity of it all.  How can they do that?
 
It's left me in tears, more than once.

This is quite interesting... thanks for discussing it with my Fernando.
 
Quote from Fernando on Feb 20^th, 2008, 12:02pm:

This is true, to a degree.  This is also why I'm such a firm believer in tolerance.  Intolerance only results in hurt feelings and unnecessary conflict, which could so easily be avoided.  Eternal happiness may await some of us, but some happiness here and now too will not hurt us.
 
Quote from Fernando on Feb 20^th, 2008, 12:02pm:

I understand what you are saying, and this is true of many situations in history, but there are a few cases that fall outside that scope.  I'll cover two that I'm familiar with:

• The witch hunts... lots of innocent people were burnt or drowned for merely practicing a different belief.  Whether someone else considers that belief to be the work of Satan or not is not really relevant.  Neo-pagans made no deliberate aggression towards Christianity; but Christianity made a deliberate aggression towards them.  So long as Neo-pagans are not hurting anyone, and they're tolerant of everyone else, I can't see the problem.
  
• The current political situation with homosexuals... lots of innocent people are having basic human rights denied for merely falling in love with someone of the same gender.  Whether someone else considers that love to be the work of Satan or not is not really relevant.  Homosexuals made no deliberate aggression towards Christianity; but Christianity made a deliberate aggression towards them.  So long as homosexuals are not hurting anyone, and they're tolerant of everyone else, I can't see the problem.

 
Quote from Fernando on Feb 20^th, 2008, 12:02pm:

True.  But, following your 'home' metaphor, if the person in question were quietly sitting outside on the pavement, the homeowner would have no right to harm or abuse them.  Likewise, if someone wants to do something that harms nobody, yet is contrary to a religious belief, the religious have no right to harm, abuse, disadvantage or murder them.
 
Quote from Fernando on Feb 20^th, 2008, 12:02pm:

That's understandable, and even admirable, but isn't it a bit like the "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" concept?  Although it's a lot more extreme, I do remember reading of a politician, and his party was involved in some particularly nasty business.  Whenever someone tried to bring this nasty business to his attention, he would deliberately go out of his way to avoid learning what horrible things were happening.  Even though he didn't know exactly what bad things were happening, he did know that something terrible was occurring, and he chose to ignore it.  However, he supported his government, and quite vehemently too.  Does this still not make him guilty, even to some extent?
 
So, I now have a few outstanding questions.

• If religion is so ill-defined and debatable, how can someone so avidly defend their own self-perceived interpretation, despite the ambiguity that God has provided?
  
• Why have churches been so historically violent, if peaceful solutions to the problems they perceive could have been found (such as merely exiling witches, rather than burning them)?
  
• Why are churches so vigilant in attacking groups who are guilty of nothing but offending the church's own perception of morality?

Can anyone answer these questions for me please?  Hondo, Nyperold, I'd be very grateful to hear your ideas.  Thanks for your time.

Quote from Hondo I. Sackett on Feb 20^th, 2008, 11:05pm:

 
That depends on whether or not you buy into the - pardon my opinion - crude concept that heaven is a literal afterlife, and worse, that it may be reached only in one particular way. That makes very little sense to me, considering.
 
Quote from Hondo I. Sackett on Feb 20^th, 2008, 11:05pm:

 
Then all Christendom is "wrong" and corrupt. Any Christianity you practice has already been redefined in the past to suit something for someone - that's how it got to where it is today.

Quote from Soda on Feb 21^st, 2008, 12:56am:

 
Check out Paradise Lost, by John Milton.

Quote from Winston on Feb 21^st, 2008, 5:14pm:

I always perceived Christianity as a religion and a faith, as the words mean practically the same thing to me.  But if what you say is true, then from my (mostly) detached point of view, calling Christianity a faith and not a religion seems a little... well... demeaning to all the other religions/faiths on the planet (no offence to anyone here).  If anything, the only concept that I would consider that could be called a faith and not a religion is Atheism, because its adherents have faith that no deity/deities exists, while their beliefs classically defy (and therefore contradict) the very concept of religion.
 
Quote from Winston on Feb 21^st, 2008, 5:14pm:

I'm not sure what I'm really looking for either, I am sorry to say.  I have been unhappy with myself, with the exception being my boyfriend (I'm very happy with him! ).  I've been particularly unhappy with my own mind, body and soul, for a very long time.  I know that some of my woes cannot be helped, but others can...
 
I suppose that my main purpose at the moment is to gain insight into, particularly, the Christian ideology and culture.  I don't know if you've noticed, but since my return to CnDRR fandom mid last year, I have had multiple clashes with various members of the fandom, all of whom happen to be Christians.  Indeed, people of the Christian faith make up a large percentage of the fandom.  If I am to 'integrate' to any great degree, I'll need to learn to understand their way of life, their culture and their reasoning.  Some degree of apathy is required.  I tried to do that at the Acorn Cafe, and Gabe was very helpful in answering a lot of my questions, but my dialogue there got cut short.  I introduced this topic here, as an attempt at reconciling two different schools of thought, and a means of growing a greater understanding of Christianity.  I have spent a lot of time reading, but I can think of no better way to understand the feelings of Christians than to interact and ask questions.  I know that may seem a rather clinical and detached method, but I am hoping to learn many new things, and (if possible) make some friends along the way.
 
Quote from Winston on Feb 21^st, 2008, 5:14pm:

That is also true, to a degree.  I have seen religion causing a lot of problems in the world, and my brain wants me to distance myself from it, but something in my heart tells another story.  I seek a greater awareness, some form of enlightenment, and a greater understanding of the world.  My mind tells me that some religions cannot possibly provide me with that, but again my heart argues that other religions may.
 
Quote from Winston on Feb 21^st, 2008, 5:14pm:

Wicca is a very fascinating religion.  I have read up on it, and what you say is mostly true, although I did read an article (in the last edition of Australian Witchcraft magazine, before it went out of print) pointing out that Gardnerian Wicca teaches that heterosexual couplings are ideal and valued more than homosexual ones (to the point where many of their covens reject homosexuals).  The theory behind this concept is outlined in their own statement: "Ritual is important but fellowship is more so; we practice gender magic, rather than sex magic as such; everything in Gardnerian is arranged male to female, female to male."  However, conversely, Alexandrian Wicca teaches that all forms of mutual love and pleasure between adults is 'of the Goddess', so to speak, and revelling in such is like a tribute to Her.  By this concept, they value homosexual couplings to be equal to heterosexual ones.  Perhaps my understanding of this is somehow skewed, especially considering that I read about these over a year ago, but that is what I understand of these two particular branches of Wicca.
 
As you said, there is a great stigma attached to Wicca and other Neo-pagan religions.  Considering what I have learnt of Christianity, many Christians may only consider a homosexual Wiccan to be proof that homosexuality is inherently evil, as witchcraft (mistakenly and erroneously synonymous with Wicca in the minds of many) and homosexuality are expressly declared sinful in the Bible.  “Misery loves company”, as the old saying goes.  I am not one to want to reinforce stereotypes I perceive as negative (and as such you’ll never see me in a Croc Dundee hat, nor will I say “G’day mate!” ), but conversely, I am not one to lie about (or even veil) my true feelings.  If I feel or know something, and the circumstances are appropriate, I will come out and say it.  And I expect the same of everyone else, of course!  But that would leave me with a rather difficult conundrum, and one not easily resolved.
 
I might do a little more reading into Wicca, particularly the non-denominational ‘solitary’ path of which I have heard much.  Thanks for that guidance, Winston.  I really appreciate it.  Although, I would be grateful of any other advice that anyone else may have.

Quote from Fernando on Feb 22^nd, 2008, 9:10pm:

An interesting idea, although off-topic.  Okay, so, if I understand what you're saying correctly, I'll recap.  You're saying that someone who is particularly hateful of themselves is, in essence, hateful of humankind.  These people cannot find faith in God, nor can they find love, nor can they find faith in others.  In addition, these people cannot expect to find love returned for their hate (reaping what they sow).  So how are they meant to climb out of this chasm of self-loathing?  Other people won't help them, and presumably God only helps the faithful.  That only leaves themselves, and I don't see how they could give themselves support.

Quote from Hondo I. Sackett on Feb 25^th, 2008, 10:40pm:

 
The will to change is essential, yes. But I don't think faith in God, much less a faith in a vicarious atonement through shed blood, is the only way to go about things.
 
I've made some very dramatic changes in my life and my mind, and it didn't take God to do it. It was much simpler than that - just took me making a decision and then putting forth the effort behind it to follow through. And, whattya know... Turns out, sometimes a little hard work can change the world!
 
I suppose that religious might refer to that as the principle of "God helps those who help themselves" or something. I don't really know, or worry, about that. I just know that some things are the right things to do, so I do 'em, and they seem to turn out alright in the end because I believed I could pull it off.
 
Quote from Hondo I. Sackett on Feb 25^th, 2008, 10:40pm:

 
I understand what you're getting at, but I just can't see that as either an accurate, or honest, distinction to make.
 
First, it's just an attempt at redefining the word "religion" in a way that's convenient to serve your idea of a unique status - notice all the qualifying traits you tacked onto the word in order to try and separate your perception of your belief system from what you want the word "religion" to cover!
 
Second, doing that doesn't even work, because there are many other religions in which faith is the basis of salvation and good works ultimately are not consequential. Many Muslims believe that a faith in God is what guarantees salvation - good works are an integral teaching going along with that, because the philosophy is that good works reflect a person's desire to work out god's will, but they are not in themselves what gives you salvation. As a Buddhist, too, I can tell you that good works and following rules ultimately are not the determinant of Buddhism's goals. The goal being sought is a better life, a healthier mind and body, and ultimately, enlightenment. As I see it, there's no set of "you must do this" absolutes in that process. This is done through examination and understanding leading to the shaping of a better self and eventually the final erasure of the boundaries of 'self' at all. In some schools of Buddhism, faith is seen as the principle fueling force used to accomplish this. The list goes on and on - I would say that many, maybe even most, religions are at their core just as much about faith being necessary to achieve their goals, and blindly doing good works as being pointless, as Christianity is. It's partly a matter of interpretation, of course, but there's plenty of religions besides Christianity that can have a "faith is all it takes" outlook.
 
So, going by that narrowed definition of religion, all of those beliefs are also just "faiths" and not religions, and the special distinctive status you were looking to claim for Christianity is gone. Where, in the end, do those kind of wordgames get anyone? I'd rather just call things what they are instead of trying to make them seem different by picking and choosing words to make it imply one thing is something other than what it is.

I will also add that Belief in God (a god, any god) is just that. A Belief.
You dont have to be Jewish, Muslim or Christian to believe in god; the founding forefathers of the United Stated, though they came from such roots stated above, were 'Deists'. And as Diests, they lived their own lives as they saw fit, not worrying about what has to be done as far as the church was concerened, but what was right for themselves and their community. This nation is built on this belief, though we faulter as a nation at times.

Ah, Christianity. One of the most interesting religions out there, in my opinion. It's not my bag (I'm a Shintoist) but if it fits your vibes, then go with it.