Provorov won't support Gay Pride

[saucelife90]

He didn't speak out against them. He said he respects everyone and their choices. So what should he have to defend or answer questions about?

[DangerCat]

Ive always stood behind if you don't believe in LGBTQ+ should be allowed/promoted/legal because of your religious beliefs, you open yourself up to be questioned 100% on religious beliefs. From drinking, swearing, greed, sex without the goal of procreation, to eating shellfish, and mixing fabrics. You best have an answer to all the questions.

My personal stance on religion being a reason to be anti-gay, if you aren't following a lot of religious beliefs you are just hiding behind religion as your bigotry. Especially if you have sex without the goal of procreation, because that's the only thing in the bible that hints at anti-gay.

Also, love-thy-neighbour one ends with a statement that pretty much says "this is above all, even if your neighbour doesn't align with you".

I’m just going to stop you right here before anymore falsehoods about the scripture are spoken. First I will say I study the Holy Scriptures daily if not more so because I love God and of course by extension God’s word. Sex is not solely for procreation. It is an act of love, vulnerability and intimacy meant between one man and one woman. Yes procreation is a part of God’s design in sex and it is a good thing to procreate but to say someone Christian has sex only to procreate is something you most likely got from South Park. Shellfish. You need to understand there’s an Old Testament and a New Testament. They are not be be unhitched from one another for you cannot understand one without the other. However the Old Testament was God’s old covenant with Israel. The New Testament is the new covenant given to man with the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of the God-Man, the Lord Jesus Christ, who died for the sins of all who will believe in Him as Lord and who fulfilled all of God’s Law (the Old Testament) perfectly so we now have that perfection accounted to those who believe. Now if you had read into the New Testament you’d find that rather quickly we find out the God reveals to Peter (a Jew who had all the dietary restrictions you are alluding to) that all things are clean for him to eat under now the New Covenant. God’s moral law still is to be followed by Christians (although all will be held accountable for not following it hence why not only payment for our sins was needed but the perfect fulfillment of the law imputed to us by Jesus) the ceremonial, and sacrificial laws were signs pointing to the coming of Christ and have been fulfilled once for all time in Jesus. So unless your a practicing Jew who has rejected the promised messiah (Jesus) you no longer need to keep your dietary, sacrificial or ceremonial laws. Christians ought to live holy but they are still sinners who fail. But we have an “advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the Righteous.”(1 John 2:1) I can’t let someone slander God’s word with inaccurate statements about what it says. Don’t take what South Park or Richard Dawkins or anyone says who doesn’t really have half an idea of what the bible says. Read it yourself!

[2014olympicgold]

The Orthodox stance on it is the end goal is procreation. It's in everyone of the Orthodox websites where someone asks "can I join if I'm Gay" and they answer "no because sex is meant for procreation". This might be the Church just not wanting them to join though and finding one line in the bible and leaning on that. Now you seem to be more into it than me, but I looked up on Tuesday night a bunch of websites and it all said the same thing. I'm def standing on less of a leg without the sources now though so I do recognize that. The one I could re-find was from "Orthodoxwiki.org", saying "The Old Testament viewed sexual relations to be "normal" as those between a man and a woman with the express purpose of procreation. This view, thinking, and teaching continued to the New Testament as well with St. Paul writing the most extensively on this subject". My understanding is the thought of a child being procreated in a marriage is that God has blessed the marriage, so if you can't "create" a child, your marriage can't be blessed. The idea that the 2 people create "one flesh".

Shellfish i guess I got mixed up with Orthodox Judaism.

I apologize for insulting your religion, that wasn't meant as the point of the post. The point is, if you hide behind religion for a view on one thing, you are opening up to be questioned on everything else. I don't expect someone to be sin-less (that's not the point of religion), but you open yourself up to it. If the only practicing part of your faith is anti-LGBTQ+, then I find you not to be religious, just hiding behind it because you're afraid to admit you're just a bigot.

And again, you seem to be way more familiar with religion, so some of the stuff above might sound like I'm explaining too much, that's me talking to myself. The next thing is, from any arguments I've witnessed in the past is, there's a bagillion lines across multiple religious texts that contradict each other. Either it be translations can be argued, New vs Old testament, and updated views of the Churches to better align with the current world than what the Bible says (which on it's own, I've felt is odd, but good the Church updates dated views).

[Wonko]

Skinner!

[Stathound]

Religion is the mother of all illusions. You are the religion of your birth. Born in the middle east? You are Muslim. Born in North America you are some variation of Christian. it is an utter fabrication and the sooner mankind sheds these medieval shackles the better. Want to read some truly extraordinary books? Try, "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens or "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris. The Potable Atheist is a nice collection of works from everyone from Einstein, Twain, Spinoza, Hume, Darwin and many many more. Yes, by all means study religion. It is an important legacy of our history, but let us hope it will be history one day in the not to distant future.

[doulos]

Religion is the mother of all illusions. You are the religion of your birth. Born in the middle east? You are Muslim. Born in North America you are some variation of Christian. it is an utter fabrication and the sooner mankind sheds these medieval shackles the better. Want to read some truly extraordinary books? Try, "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens or "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris. The Potable Atheist is a nice collection of works from everyone from Einstein, Twain, Spinoza, Hume, Darwin and many many more. Yes, by all means study religion. It is an important legacy of our history, but let us hope it will be history one day in the not to distant future.

You know what made me lose my belief system entirely? Reading the Bible straight through front to back over the course of 6 months. I was a clergy member and worked in full time ministry. Reading the Bible cover to cover did far more damage to my core beliefs than anything Hitchens or Harris could say to me (though I appreciate some of their contributions as well)

[doulos]

He didn't speak out against them. He said he respects everyone and their choices. So what should he have to defend or answer questions about?

Well, first of all, there is the issue of it NOT being a choice for starters.

Second, he has made it clear that he actually does not SUPPORT their choices (even if it was a choice, which it generally is not) in his actions, but rather at best tolerates them. That's very different.

This is a clear case of someone's actions and someone's words being at odds with one another and he got called out on it.

[Rylant]

I’m just going to stop you right here before anymore falsehoods about the scripture are spoken. First I will say I study the Holy Scriptures daily if not more so because I love God and of course by extension God’s word. Sex is not solely for procreation. It is an act of love, vulnerability and intimacy meant between one man and one woman. Yes procreation is a part of God’s design in sex and it is a good thing to procreate but to say someone Christian has sex only to procreate is something you most likely got from South Park. Shellfish. You need to understand there’s an Old Testament and a New Testament. They are not be be unhitched from one another for you cannot understand one without the other. However the Old Testament was God’s old covenant with Israel. The New Testament is the new covenant given to man with the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of the God-Man, the Lord Jesus Christ, who died for the sins of all who will believe in Him as Lord and who fulfilled all of God’s Law (the Old Testament) perfectly so we now have that perfection accounted to those who believe. Now if you had read into the New Testament you’d find that rather quickly we find out the God reveals to Peter (a Jew who had all the dietary restrictions you are alluding to) that all things are clean for him to eat under now the New Covenant. God’s moral law still is to be followed by Christians (although all will be held accountable for not following it hence why not only payment for our sins was needed but the perfect fulfillment of the law imputed to us by Jesus) the ceremonial, and sacrificial laws were signs pointing to the coming of Christ and have been fulfilled once for all time in Jesus. So unless your a practicing Jew who has rejected the promised messiah (Jesus) you no longer need to keep your dietary, sacrificial or ceremonial laws. Christians ought to live holy but they are still sinners who fail. But we have an “advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the Righteous.”(1 John 2:1) I can’t let someone slander God’s word with inaccurate statements about what it says. Don’t take what South Park or Richard Dawkins or anyone says who doesn’t really have half an idea of what the bible says. Read it yourself!

I would ask, do you consider the possibility that the Bible was written in a time where the values of the people at the time is largely reflective of what is written? In the Old Testament, there is a lot of "fire and brimstone" mentality. Stone to death your daughter if she disrespects you, how you should treat your slaves, putting to death anybody who works on the Sabbath, etc. You suggest that the new covenant from the New Testament changes this mentality. I would ask you, so we now allow for all of these things which were previously not allowed, does it say somewhere in the New Testament that all of these archaic and barbaric practices are changing, however our view on homosexuality is not changing?

To me, the entire concept of "thou shall not kill" makes sense. You don't have to be religious to see the value in such a belief. Same with stealing. However, the concept that homosexuality is a sin, is baffling to me. These 2 people aren't hurting anybody and could have a fulfilling life contributing to society and be kind and loving and generous. Why is that a sin? It's so reflective of values of the people at the time that the Bible was written. There is absolutely no good reason, as to why that is sinful. I need more than "it's a sin because the Big Guy says so".

And I can't stress this point enough. Why has the religious community drawn such a line against homosexuality? I know people who have killed themselves because they were gay and couldn't take the stress of the pressure from their families and church. People are excommunicated for being gay, yet 50 percent of the congregation has at some point in their lives, divorced the person who they made an oath to God "until death do us part". Divorce is largely accepted in the religious community, but being attracted to somebody of the same sex, is not. I don't get it.

And people who are religious who refuse service in their line of work to people who are gay, is strange to me. How many thieves and murderers and takers of the Lord's name in vain, will you sell a loaf of bread to, but you can't sell a loaf of bread to a gay person? Why such a hard line on homosexuality? Kim Davis famously refused issuing marriage licenses to gay people on the grounds that it went against her religious beliefs, yet she had been divorced 3 times and had adulterous affairs leading to children out of wedlock more than once. How would she have responded if she had been refused a marriage license after her first divorce?

We have been able to get past lots of the barbaric teachings of the Bible, yet the religious community is unable to get past how to treat people with respect who are attracted to members of the same sex. Why? It makes no sense to me. Especially considering the overwhelming science data regarding homosexuality, yet many in the religious world still insist homosexuality is a choice. Religious people are notoriously so hard on homosexuality, but other religious transgressions are largely overlooked or even borderline, allowed. Truly, I don't get it.

Rylant

[2014olympicgold]

@Rylant

To me, the entire concept of "thou shall not kill" makes sense. You don't have to be religious to see the value in such a belief. Same with stealing. However, the concept that homosexuality is a sin, is baffling to me. These 2 people aren't hurting anybody and could have a fulfilling life contributing to society and be kind and loving and generous. Why is that a sin? It's so reflective of values of the people at the time that the Bible was written. There is absolutely no good reason, as to why that is sinful. I need more than "it's a sin because the Big Guy says so".

I could be wrong, but the original idea stems from lines that are roughly "Man shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it's an abomination". However this has been debated due to men raping their sons, and the translation from hebrew to english has been argued that it could be 10 different meanings than the obvious connection. The definitions from Man to Male differ from Women. Male is argued to be young boys, Man is adult men. Then "as one lies with" is up for debate too because some say it's sexual based, some say it's a place (can't be with a woman, in general).

The next is that the idea God blesses a marriage by giving them a child. And in the "traditional" sense, God can't bless a gay marriage. But you can debate that God gifts them children by other avenues. If you thank God for different things, you can argue God blesses marriages through adoption approval, or through the IVF procedure.

It's all easy to debate (not all male/female marriages deserve a child), but I think the above are slivers of the reasoning. It's a very odd topic using scripture that's been through tons of translations, twisted to the interpretation of the person translating it. It's easy to see how ones own views could influence how you translate something. It's like reading Shakespeare in highschool and the teacher asks the students "what do you think they mean" and you get 3 different slightly different answers. Game of telephone of 2,000+ years, twisted for peoples thinking.

[Rylant]

@Rylant


I could be wrong, but the original idea stems from lines that are roughly "Man shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it's an abomination". However this has been debated due to men raping their sons, and the translation from hebrew to english has been argued that it could be 10 different meanings than the obvious connection. The definitions from Man to Male differ from Women. Male is argued to be young boys, Man is adult men. Then "as one lies with" is up for debate too because some say it's sexual based, some say it's a place (can't be with a woman, in general).

The next is that the idea God blesses a marriage by giving them a child. And in the "traditional" sense, God can't bless a gay marriage. But you can debate that God gifts them children by other avenues. If you thank God for different things, you can argue God blesses marriages through adoption approval, or through the IVF procedure.

It's all easy to debate (not all male/female marriages deserve a child), but I think the above are slivers of the reasoning. It's a very odd topic using scripture that's been through tons of translations, twisted to the interpretation of the person translating it. It's easy to see how ones own views could influence how you translate something. It's like reading Shakespeare in highschool and the teacher asks the students "what do you think they mean" and you get 3 different slightly different answers. Game of telephone of 2,000+ years, twisted for peoples thinking.

Yes I definitely get your points. You can drive a truck through the holes in all of the flaws in those arguments, however. To your point, yes the Bible has been translated and interpreted differently. "Thou shall not kill". That's pretty clear what that means. Let's be real here, nowhere in the Bible does it say "Thou shall not be gay". People have interpreted passages to imply that. If you already personally feel that homosexuality is wrong because of years of indoctrination or because your mom and dad have told you that homosexuality is wrong, then it's not difficult to see why you easily are guided by the statement "Man shall not lie with a male as with a woman" to come to those conclusions. What if I say "All of my gay sex is done standing up, so I am not lying with him at all. That must be ok, right?"

And the entire idea of "God blesses 1 man and 1 woman because they can procreate" has it's flaws too. What if he can't impregnate a woman? Or if she can't have kids? Should they be allowed to marry? Or what about the married couple who flat out don't want to have kids? Should they be allowed to marry? What if one point, we scientifically figure out how a man can actually get another man pregnant, and they can have a baby together? Are we now blessing that marriage as the criteria of having a child is fixed? What about the people who don't want to get married at all? Shouldn't we force them to marry; Afterall, that's what God wants, isn't it?

Let's be real, the Bible was written at a time when there was 100 million people alive and the average life expectancy was 30 years. The entire concept of procreation was fundamental for ensuring the survival of the human race. This is simply not the case anymore. As a matter of fact, there is a lot of concern the other way in the sense that overpopulation is a concern. Do we not adapt our beliefs as our needs change? As I have said, slavery, violence, an eye for an eye mentality is all things that were very real in the Bible. Isn't this because that is what was a reality for the people of the time? Is it that the people of the time generally didn't like the concept of homosexuality, or is it that God doesn't like homosexuality? We have been able to get past all of the other barbaric things that we were instructed to do in the Bible because we have evolved to realize that humans can be better than that. Why do we still embrace the barbaric thought that homosexuality is bad? Aren't we better than that?

Rylant

[Axeman33]

Yes I definitely get your points. You can drive a truck through the holes in all of the flaws in those arguments, however. To your point, yes the Bible has been translated and interpreted differently. "Thou shall not kill". That's pretty clear what that means. Let's be real here, nowhere in the Bible does it say "Thou shall not be gay". People have interpreted passages to imply that. If you already personally feel that homosexuality is wrong because of years of indoctrination or because your mom and dad have told you that homosexuality is wrong, then it's not difficult to see why you easily are guided by the statement "Man shall not lie with a male as with a woman" to come to those conclusions. What if I say "All of my gay sex is done standing up, so I am not lying with him at all. That must be ok, right?"

And the entire idea of "God blesses 1 man and 1 woman because they can procreate" has it's flaws too. What if he can't impregnate a woman? Or if she can't have kids? Should they be allowed to marry? Or what about the married couple who flat out don't want to have kids? Should they be allowed to marry? What if one point, we scientifically figure out how a man can actually get another man pregnant, and they can have a baby together? Are we now blessing that marriage as the criteria of having a child is fixed? What about the people who don't want to get married at all? Shouldn't we force them to marry; Afterall, that's what God wants, isn't it?

Let's be real, the Bible was written at a time when there was 100 million people alive and the average life expectancy was 30 years. The entire concept of procreation was fundamental for ensuring the survival of the human race. This is simply not the case anymore. As a matter of fact, there is a lot of concern the other way in the sense that overpopulation is a concern. Do we not adapt our beliefs as our needs change? As I have said, slavery, violence, an eye for an eye mentality is all things that were very real in the Bible. Isn't this because that is what was a reality for the people of the time? Is it that the people of the time generally didn't like the concept of homosexuality, or is it that God doesn't like homosexuality? We have been able to get past all of the other barbaric things that we were instructed to do in the Bible because we have evolved to realize that humans can be better than that. Why do we still embrace the barbaric thought that homosexuality is bad? Aren't we better than that?

Rylant

You're also assuming the bible wasn't a piece of fiction, but that's a whole other argument/discussion.

[Rylant]

You're also assuming the bible wasn't a piece of fiction, but that's a whole other argument/discussion.

LOL. It's tough to come at this with an angle of "God doesn't exist, so you are wrong". I think it's pretty clear my thoughts on the subject. I have no problem with anybody who is religious, even though I don't think God is real. Some of my closest friends are religious and we get along just fine despite our differences. Where I have an issue with it, is when people use their religion as a way to excuse poor behaviour. If anybody ever said to me "According to my religion, it's ok for me to hit my wife when she gets out of line and you have no right to tell me otherwise", I would have a problem with that. Just being gay doesn't hurt anybody. The amount of abhorrent treatment that gay people have received throughout history, largely by the religious community, in the name of God, is shameful.

Rylant

[Axeman33]

George Carlin has some of the best takes on religion.

“Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!”

On Sun-worshiping:

"First of all, I can see the sun, okay? Unlike some other gods I could mention, I can actually see the sun. I’m big on that. If I can see something, I don’t know, it kind of helps the credibility along, you know? So everyday I can see the sun, as it gives me everything I need; heat, light, food, flowers in the park, reflections on the lake, an occasional skin cancer, but hey. At least there are no crucifixions, and we’re not setting people on fire simply because they don’t agree with us.

Sun worship is fairly simple. There’s no mystery, no miracles, no pageantry, no one asks for money, there are no songs to learn, and we don’t have a special building where we all gather once a week to compare clothing. And the best thing about the sun, it never tells me I’m unworthy. Doesn’t tell me I’m a bad person who needs to be saved. Hasn’t said an unkind word. Treats me fine. So, I worship the sun. But, I don’t pray to the sun. Know why? I wouldn’t presume on our friendship. It’s not polite."


You gotta love George Carlin LOL!

[saucelife90]

Well, first of all, there is the issue of it NOT being a choice for starters.

Second, he has made it clear that he actually does not SUPPORT their choices (even if it was a choice, which it generally is not) in his actions, but rather at best tolerates them. That's very different.

This is a clear case of someone's actions and someone's words being at odds with one another and he got called out on it.

First, you're right, it's not a choice. He said he still respects everyone.

Second, you're right. He made it clear he won't actively support them.

This is a clear case of people making a story out of a non-story. He's not out there with anti-LGBT signs, or slinging homophobic slurs.

[doulos]

First, you're right, it's not a choice. He said he still respects everyone.

Second, you're right. He made it clear he won't actively support them.

This is a clear case of people making a story out of a non-story. He's not out there with anti-LGBT signs, or slinging homophobic slurs.

He doesn't have to be out there with signs. He makes his stance on this extremely clear without doing so. Those who, through no choice of their own, have a sexual orientation that does not align with his own preferences, are not to be supported. He is loud and clear in his stance here and is getting rightly called out for it.