Well, since we have one of THE hot-button issues going here with the Log Cabin Republicans-related thread, I thought I'd stir the drink with one of the other emotion-laden topics.
In Hot Jock Talk is an Adam Vienatieri thread. In it, Redsoxbreath had a link to an organization that AV allegedly belongs to, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. For some bizarre reason, they felt it necessary to talk about homosexuality. We all know that all athletes are straight, right? so why bother. Here's the text (I couldn't get the link to work here):
Straight Answers Exposing The Myths & Facts About HOMOSEXUALITY
MYTH#1:Ten percent of the population is homosexual
FACT: Only one to three percent of the population is homosexual
MYTH#2:Homosexuals are born gay
FACT: There is no evidence to support this claim
MYTH#3:Homosexual relationships are no different than heterosexual ones
FACT: Homosexual male relationships are rarely monogamous & those involved
are more at risk for life threatening illness
73% of gay men had over 100 partners
58% of gay men had over 250 partners
41% of gay men had over 500 partners
26% of gay men had over 1,000 partners
MYTH#4:Aids is as much of a risk of heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals
FACT: The risk of contracting AIDS from a single act of unprotected
heterosexual intercourse is 1/715,000. The risk of contracting AIDS from a
single act of unprotected homosexual intercourse is 1/165.
MYTH#5: Homosexuals are normal, Healthy, everyday people
FACT: Many homosexuals have anonymous sexual encounters and sexual obsessions
MYTH #6: The Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality-only promiscuity
FACT: God clearly condemns any act of sex outside the heterosexual marriage
Leviticus 18:22, Matthew 19:4-6 & Romans 1:24-27
MYTH #7: Lesbian relationships are healthier than gay male relationships
FACT: Lesbian relationships are equally unhealthy, and life-threatening
MYTH#8: Homosexuality is unchangeable
FACT: There is freedom from homosexuality
Funny--or not--how they take that small grain of truth and make it an absolute, all the while ignoring myriad ills in hetero relationships (HEL-LO, Wilt Chamberlain wasn't celibate). So, after reading the FCA's beyond tired litany of gay wrongs, I had the old "I hate religion" buttons pushed. Again. Part of it is the fag-bashing I have to mentally process everytime I read one of those things ("I'm a good person, they're relying on stereotypes, I'm not like that at all" etc.). The other is I realize again how much I detest organized religion. I don't believe that a God/God exists, I don't buy the Jesus story in the slightest and so on.
So, how do the religious Outsporters reconcile the apparent prohibitions against homosexuality, the homophobic natures of some of the larger instituionalized churches and so on? NOTE: The subtext of this is not "If you are a religious gay man you are a closet-case/hypocrite/self-loathing twat", honest, I'm just curious how people intellectually reconcile such seeming opposites as homosexuality and the Judeo/Christian/Islamic faiths. Remember, play nice or those nasty moderators like M1 or Tarkus will step in!
[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
Full Version: Gays and Religion
First of all, in regard to their myth/facts where the hell is the proof? Outside of the Bible (and they forgot a verse.) We all know that 1 out of every 6 statistics is fake.
It's hard to reconcile the two. I couldn't. I attended a Jewish school that theoretically supported gay rights, but still refused to ordain open gays. But I did know some people who tried their damndest to reconcile the two. And they're probably still struggling.
I imagine if you're in a guilt free, gay friendly religious environment that creatively deletes passages, it's not as hard to accept religion and still be gay.
It's hard to reconcile the two. I couldn't. I attended a Jewish school that theoretically supported gay rights, but still refused to ordain open gays. But I did know some people who tried their damndest to reconcile the two. And they're probably still struggling.
I imagine if you're in a guilt free, gay friendly religious environment that creatively deletes passages, it's not as hard to accept religion and still be gay.
I, like you, Jim Allen, have a hard time reconciling the dichotomy of homosexuality and organized religion, but I keep in mind that there are millions who can, and somehow do, and many gays and lesbians who even choose the clergy as their profession.
I've simply stopped saying "huh?" about it, and prefer to think that these differences in belief systems are what makes the world interesting; the conflict, perhaps, is what makes the world spin on its axis.
This is not to say that I'd let any fool (or learned intello) tell me I'm wrong in my way of thinking or living; I can quote the Bible in my favour as much as they in theirs. (I'll admit that I'm a little sketchy on non-Christian philosophies.)
(Thanks, Moderators, for keeping this thread alive and not letting it get bogged down in semantics. )
I've simply stopped saying "huh?" about it, and prefer to think that these differences in belief systems are what makes the world interesting; the conflict, perhaps, is what makes the world spin on its axis.
This is not to say that I'd let any fool (or learned intello) tell me I'm wrong in my way of thinking or living; I can quote the Bible in my favour as much as they in theirs. (I'll admit that I'm a little sketchy on non-Christian philosophies.)
(Thanks, Moderators, for keeping this thread alive and not letting it get bogged down in semantics. )
One of the many things that troubles me about the fundamentalists is their selective quoting of the Bible. Granted, the Bible apparently condemns homosexuality in many translations, but it also condemns eating pork and shellfish. So the Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells, etc., crusade against homosexuality when shrimp and pork consuming is much more rampant in this country. Further, the author of the cited quotes is only writing what he heard God say, so I have serious doubts as to the authenticity of those quotes, even if the translations are accurate.
As for myself, I was sort of raised Catholic, but haven't gone faithfully to church for at least 20 years. I have also questioned the God existence thing for that long as well. But I do have (gay) friends who go to a gay friendly Christian church, and seem to reconcile homosexuality and religion, probably by giving the above cited quotes the weight and relevancy they deserve.
[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: pat125 ]
As for myself, I was sort of raised Catholic, but haven't gone faithfully to church for at least 20 years. I have also questioned the God existence thing for that long as well. But I do have (gay) friends who go to a gay friendly Christian church, and seem to reconcile homosexuality and religion, probably by giving the above cited quotes the weight and relevancy they deserve.
[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: pat125 ]
Perhaps Gov. Jesse Ventura was right. What was his controversial quote about religion? "A crutch for the weak-minded" or something?
I believe in no organized man-made religion. I'd like to think there is a higher power, but until there's proof I'm not going to follow any organized religion or contribute to them financially, and I don't want any government trying to force me to.
My ex is very religious and follows his Catholic faith to the max--goes to Mass every day, gives money, is a member of a secular order (they pray a lot, study, take various vows but are not priests, nuns, etc.), and on and on. He told me that because of the church's stance on sex (only allowed between a man and his wife) that he could no longer have sex with me.
So, you see, I was dumped for God. Top THAT, I dare you.
I believe in no organized man-made religion. I'd like to think there is a higher power, but until there's proof I'm not going to follow any organized religion or contribute to them financially, and I don't want any government trying to force me to.
My ex is very religious and follows his Catholic faith to the max--goes to Mass every day, gives money, is a member of a secular order (they pray a lot, study, take various vows but are not priests, nuns, etc.), and on and on. He told me that because of the church's stance on sex (only allowed between a man and his wife) that he could no longer have sex with me.
So, you see, I was dumped for God. Top THAT, I dare you.
Why in the f*** would anyone on this board, as enlightened as they are, give a shiite about what organized Jesus-freaks think? I mean, really! When was the last time you heard of a virgin that gave birth to a dude that walked on water and then raised the dead and then made food multiply out of virtually nothing?
The Jewish and Muslim faiths believe that God is God...all powerful, singular, and beyond our comprehension. Christian faiths believe in God as some kind of three-headed Hydra of a Daddy, a Son and some Spooky Ghost.
If Jesus ever came back from the dead (and he won't), he'd never stop vomiting over all the atrocities and abominations that are going on his name!
Ick!
The Jewish and Muslim faiths believe that God is God...all powerful, singular, and beyond our comprehension. Christian faiths believe in God as some kind of three-headed Hydra of a Daddy, a Son and some Spooky Ghost.
If Jesus ever came back from the dead (and he won't), he'd never stop vomiting over all the atrocities and abominations that are going on his name!
Ick!
Wow, and I thought I was anti-Christian. While Christian theology does have its intrinsic holes (the whole trinity thing does look a little fishy from the monotheistic point of view), I am sure there are several, perhaps even many, devout Christians on this board who do indeed care what their coreligionists think on a variety of subjects. While AU Tiger in LA's diatribe was not specifically targeted at an individual, I do think it could be a mite bit hurtful. I would hope we are enlightened enough on this board not to have to resort to vilifying other's beliefs to make our own more palatable.
Wow, you guys don't shy away from the tough questions, do you? I'll give it a stab, as long as you allow me a bit of an out here. I don't know if I can answer your questions in one post, or even a few dozen posts. But here are some preliminary thoughts ...
I am Catholic. I was born Catholic, and I will die Catholic. My parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and all generations for the last few centuries are/were Catholic. I went to Catholic schools from K-12. I was an altar boy for 4 years, including a stretch of about a year when I served 6:30 a.m. mass 5 days a week, and 8 a.m. mass on Saturdays. It's hard to understand just how much of a sense of identity being Catholic is unless you had a similar upbringing.
Despite all this, I stopped going to mass and denounced my religion when I was 13 - a combination of agnosticism and raging gay hormones. At 26, I had what most would call an epiphany. Please don't ask me to explain the "epiphany" part; it would probably take hours. Anyway, I also realized that if I were to make religion a part of my life again, it had to be in the Catholic Church. For me to pretend that I was anything other than Catholic would be like deciding at the age of 26 that I was French or Hungarian, instead of American.
I tried Dignity, but was so turned off I literally ran from it. Nope, had to be the "real McCoy" Catholic Church for me. I'm not denying that it was difficult resolving my sexuality with the oftentimes (but often not) homophobic Roman Catholic Church. I basically became the kind of Catholic that John Paul II warns against: a religious relativist. That doesn't sit too well with the Church hierarchy, who mandates that abortion, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, birth control, etc. are flat-out wrong, end of discussion. But I'll go to my grave believing that God has no problem with my being gay, and too bad if the RCC hierarchy disagrees. Although the higher-ups are undeniably homophobic, most of the priests I've talked to are quite gay-friendly (and yes, there are a lot of gay priests). Lay Catholics by and large seem to ignore the hierarchy's moral dictates on homosexuality as much as I do.
As for the argument that religion is for the weak, I'll tell you my grandmother's story. Her father died when she was 7. Her mother couldn't handle it, I guess, and committed suicide when my grandmother was 9. Imagine being orphaned at 9 years old in a 3rd-World country. Two of my grandmother's siblings didn't handle it too well. One committed suicide as well, and another became a hopeless drug addict. Grandma fared much better: she worked as a schoolteacher for 40 years, was happily married, and raised 6 kids who all turned out just fine (well, maybe 5 of six, but that's another story). If you ask Grandma what got her through an extremely difficult childhood, she'll tell you it was faith in God and the Catholic Church. Her two brothers who also made it OK will give the same answer. Their stories are hardly unique, and many who have gone through incredible hardship credit their perseverance to religion. If you want to call that weakness, well then, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Wow, didja make it through all that? You get a prize! (just kidding) A couple of parting thoughts: first, faith is a funny thing. If you have it, nothing will stamp it out of you. But if you don't believe in God, I don't know if there's any way to convince you otherwise. And despite all the guilt, self-hatred, and anger that I had to work through, I wouldn't trade my upbringing for anything. I love the Catholic Church with all my heart.
PS: Joe, I'm curious, was your ex a member of Opus Dei? It's a group I'm very familiar with. PM me if you want.
[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: BoSoxRudy ]
I am Catholic. I was born Catholic, and I will die Catholic. My parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and all generations for the last few centuries are/were Catholic. I went to Catholic schools from K-12. I was an altar boy for 4 years, including a stretch of about a year when I served 6:30 a.m. mass 5 days a week, and 8 a.m. mass on Saturdays. It's hard to understand just how much of a sense of identity being Catholic is unless you had a similar upbringing.
Despite all this, I stopped going to mass and denounced my religion when I was 13 - a combination of agnosticism and raging gay hormones. At 26, I had what most would call an epiphany. Please don't ask me to explain the "epiphany" part; it would probably take hours. Anyway, I also realized that if I were to make religion a part of my life again, it had to be in the Catholic Church. For me to pretend that I was anything other than Catholic would be like deciding at the age of 26 that I was French or Hungarian, instead of American.
I tried Dignity, but was so turned off I literally ran from it. Nope, had to be the "real McCoy" Catholic Church for me. I'm not denying that it was difficult resolving my sexuality with the oftentimes (but often not) homophobic Roman Catholic Church. I basically became the kind of Catholic that John Paul II warns against: a religious relativist. That doesn't sit too well with the Church hierarchy, who mandates that abortion, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, birth control, etc. are flat-out wrong, end of discussion. But I'll go to my grave believing that God has no problem with my being gay, and too bad if the RCC hierarchy disagrees. Although the higher-ups are undeniably homophobic, most of the priests I've talked to are quite gay-friendly (and yes, there are a lot of gay priests). Lay Catholics by and large seem to ignore the hierarchy's moral dictates on homosexuality as much as I do.
As for the argument that religion is for the weak, I'll tell you my grandmother's story. Her father died when she was 7. Her mother couldn't handle it, I guess, and committed suicide when my grandmother was 9. Imagine being orphaned at 9 years old in a 3rd-World country. Two of my grandmother's siblings didn't handle it too well. One committed suicide as well, and another became a hopeless drug addict. Grandma fared much better: she worked as a schoolteacher for 40 years, was happily married, and raised 6 kids who all turned out just fine (well, maybe 5 of six, but that's another story). If you ask Grandma what got her through an extremely difficult childhood, she'll tell you it was faith in God and the Catholic Church. Her two brothers who also made it OK will give the same answer. Their stories are hardly unique, and many who have gone through incredible hardship credit their perseverance to religion. If you want to call that weakness, well then, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Wow, didja make it through all that? You get a prize! (just kidding) A couple of parting thoughts: first, faith is a funny thing. If you have it, nothing will stamp it out of you. But if you don't believe in God, I don't know if there's any way to convince you otherwise. And despite all the guilt, self-hatred, and anger that I had to work through, I wouldn't trade my upbringing for anything. I love the Catholic Church with all my heart.
PS: Joe, I'm curious, was your ex a member of Opus Dei? It's a group I'm very familiar with. PM me if you want.
[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: BoSoxRudy ]
I've been reading quite a bit on different bulletin boards about this topic. The only thing I can say is that religeon is not something that you can learn, it is something that just sits there in your heart. One thing that has helped me in the religeon debate is the fact that the bible was written in a different language, and has been translated over and over and over and over again over the years. If you read a little bit on the net about it, you begin to realize that at a certain point in history the translations turned Homophobic, prior to that they were gay friendly. So I guess for me to be religeous I just take the bible for what it is, it is a story that is a guide on how to live your life. Learn about the general concepts, but don't get mired down in the exact translations. God seems to be about love, nothing more, just love. I think that's pretty dang cool.
Although the concept of a higher being is nice, until I see it I dont believe it. What gets me is that while I can understand how a person wants to believe in that, and i can respect that, most of what seems to come with it is ludicrous, in every religion. The thought that someone would throw out these rules of what to eat, when to eat, how to eat, when to have sex, when not to have sex, etc etc. Orthodox Jews have funny rules, Muslims have funny rules, Catholics please have so many rules that defy explanation. Unless there are hundreds of Gods, then somewhere someone just made up things as they went along. (no duh). If you want to believe in a god ok, but enough with the ridiculous rules.
And I have a problem with all these people thanking God, like he gets all the credit for the good things that happen but non of the bad stuff. My favorite was after the WTC tragedy they are going through the rubble and and pull out a girder in a shape of a cross. like its a sign that Gods there...hey man thanks for the twisted metal cross sign , that means alot in this pile of crap.
Although I do think God's a Yankee fan <grin>
And I have a problem with all these people thanking God, like he gets all the credit for the good things that happen but non of the bad stuff. My favorite was after the WTC tragedy they are going through the rubble and and pull out a girder in a shape of a cross. like its a sign that Gods there...hey man thanks for the twisted metal cross sign , that means alot in this pile of crap.
Although I do think God's a Yankee fan <grin>
Have to totally agree with bobcat here. I have been a practicing catholic for 23 years and will continue to be. My God is about love not hate. Things are lost in translations and the way people perceive what is meant. I attended Catholic School from k-8th and agree that i would never give that experience back. During some of the toughest times in my life i found myself sitting in a church getting in touch with my inner self and it was amazing how much i learned about myself. Plus like others here my experience with the Catholic church and gays has been wonderful. This past here alone the church that i attend held 2 baptism that were gay oriented, one was a lesbian couple and the other was a gay couple, very progressive and understanding.
I'm only going to post a couple of questions.
For the regulars on the Board, I've made my position on this particular issue well-known and I'll gladly discuss it in private with anyone (and everyone!) who cares.
But here they are:
(1) Did you notice that the vast bulk of gay men here (and elsewhere in my experience) that are most comfortable with reconciling the practice of an organized faith with their (homo)sexuality are ... ROMAN CATHOLIC?
(2) Did you notice that the one religion ... and I'm referring to an actual denomination rather than a particular person like Jerry Falwell ... the one religion that gay activists are most obsessed about, and spend the most time attacking, is ... ROMAN CATHOLIC?
Why are both of these true? And is the second true BECAUSE the first appears to be true?
For the regulars on the Board, I've made my position on this particular issue well-known and I'll gladly discuss it in private with anyone (and everyone!) who cares.
But here they are:
(1) Did you notice that the vast bulk of gay men here (and elsewhere in my experience) that are most comfortable with reconciling the practice of an organized faith with their (homo)sexuality are ... ROMAN CATHOLIC?
(2) Did you notice that the one religion ... and I'm referring to an actual denomination rather than a particular person like Jerry Falwell ... the one religion that gay activists are most obsessed about, and spend the most time attacking, is ... ROMAN CATHOLIC?
Why are both of these true? And is the second true BECAUSE the first appears to be true?
I remember reading the bible years ago and came across the passage that said, 'man should not lie down with the same.' Many straights use this line in the arguements. But I remember the line saying this AND '...with the same, consuming shellfish and wearing red dresses.' They never include the last part. That would eliminate all of us. I was taught sin is a sin with no degrees. So lets all go down together and have a party.
Okay, here's a non-Catholic Christian reporting in. Please forgive the length. (And I have to start with a little terminology primer: Christianity is the religion, Catholicism is a denomination within Christianity. I belong to a mainline Protestant denomination of Christianity.)
If we are to assume that Charlie's two statements are true (and I would argue with #1's premise about Catholics being more reconciled with their sexuality, more than with #2), then I think we can point to two things about Roman Catholicism: its sheer size and the cultural nature of growing up Catholic. As for the first point, the RC Church is the largest single denomination of the largest religion in the world. This means that demographically more gay men will come out of that background (no pun intended) than any other. Similarly, because it's so huge, it wields an enormous amount of cultural clout. (Who's going to bother railing against the possibly equally conservative Lutheran Church (Wisconsin Synod) when there are so freaking few of them?) As for the cultural nature of Catholicism, I cannot think of any other Christian denomination that stamps itself so entirely on a person's identity. This was more true in the past when Catholics in the U.S. kept more to themselves, via neighborhoods (ever heard of a Presbyterian neighborhood?), parochial schools, Catholic organization, etc. and, of course, church attendance and church activities (bingo?). But I think it still holds true today.
As for the Bible, IT IS NOT A BOOK!! It is not one single book with one single author (unless you ask an evangelical who believes that the author was God who literally gave dictation to the actual authors). It is a COLLECTION of books (the book of Genesis, the book of Matthew, etc.) originally written by MANY different people in two languages (Hebrew and Greek) over a time period of a thousand or so years. This is one of the reasons that the Bible is so self-contradictory; the different authors wrote from different perspectives and for different reasons.
Because of the complexity of the Bible, you can find passages to support pretty much anything, good or bad, if you look long enough and ignore the larger context. This is what people in power have done for ages. (We've recently seen the same thing done with the Koran by the Taliban types to keep women down.)
What really messed up Christianity was when it became the official religion of the Roman Empire and with that, virtually unlimited power. (Absolute power corrupts absolutely.) The church became so intertwined with the dominant power structure that it became an agent for the status quo and began to neglect Jesus's teachings. (BTW, Way cool guy, that Jesus!) But all sorts of abuses and atrocities began to be performed in his name.
As for me, this Christian refuses to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because the Christian message has been corrupted, does not mean it cannot be redeemed. That's why I'm a believer.
(Just don't expect me to start singing Kumbayah.)
[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Lots-of-us ]
If we are to assume that Charlie's two statements are true (and I would argue with #1's premise about Catholics being more reconciled with their sexuality, more than with #2), then I think we can point to two things about Roman Catholicism: its sheer size and the cultural nature of growing up Catholic. As for the first point, the RC Church is the largest single denomination of the largest religion in the world. This means that demographically more gay men will come out of that background (no pun intended) than any other. Similarly, because it's so huge, it wields an enormous amount of cultural clout. (Who's going to bother railing against the possibly equally conservative Lutheran Church (Wisconsin Synod) when there are so freaking few of them?) As for the cultural nature of Catholicism, I cannot think of any other Christian denomination that stamps itself so entirely on a person's identity. This was more true in the past when Catholics in the U.S. kept more to themselves, via neighborhoods (ever heard of a Presbyterian neighborhood?), parochial schools, Catholic organization, etc. and, of course, church attendance and church activities (bingo?). But I think it still holds true today.
As for the Bible, IT IS NOT A BOOK!! It is not one single book with one single author (unless you ask an evangelical who believes that the author was God who literally gave dictation to the actual authors). It is a COLLECTION of books (the book of Genesis, the book of Matthew, etc.) originally written by MANY different people in two languages (Hebrew and Greek) over a time period of a thousand or so years. This is one of the reasons that the Bible is so self-contradictory; the different authors wrote from different perspectives and for different reasons.
Because of the complexity of the Bible, you can find passages to support pretty much anything, good or bad, if you look long enough and ignore the larger context. This is what people in power have done for ages. (We've recently seen the same thing done with the Koran by the Taliban types to keep women down.)
What really messed up Christianity was when it became the official religion of the Roman Empire and with that, virtually unlimited power. (Absolute power corrupts absolutely.) The church became so intertwined with the dominant power structure that it became an agent for the status quo and began to neglect Jesus's teachings. (BTW, Way cool guy, that Jesus!) But all sorts of abuses and atrocities began to be performed in his name.
As for me, this Christian refuses to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because the Christian message has been corrupted, does not mean it cannot be redeemed. That's why I'm a believer.
(Just don't expect me to start singing Kumbayah.)
[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Lots-of-us ]
Religion is philosophy of the masses. Some people actively consider their existence and behavior, others are less original and explore existence via existing models (religion).
I'm a Quaker, not because it is a gay-friendly, but because it anticipates and expects human behavior and understanding to evolve as people better understand "the light." In other words, "the light" is perfect and people must update their attitudes and behavior based on ongoing revelations.
p.s.--I'm not speaking for all Quakers.
I'm a Quaker, not because it is a gay-friendly, but because it anticipates and expects human behavior and understanding to evolve as people better understand "the light." In other words, "the light" is perfect and people must update their attitudes and behavior based on ongoing revelations.
p.s.--I'm not speaking for all Quakers.
interesting thread of discussion here, fellas. some of you may care to know, so I'll post my personal experience.
My parents were raised RC(atholic)and raised my b&s's likewise; after their divorce, we migrated to the Fransiscans (who're an interesting bunch, especially in the mid-70's).
Eventually, that gave way to the Evagelical Christian movement, and then to a "Bible Christian" which was for me a sort of watered-down version of the Evangelicals.
Since that time, 2 of my sibs have gone over to the Presbytarians because they enjoy the same sort of pomp that the RC's have. (They're older, and have more relevancy to the RC's so it's not suprising.) I have another sib who is Pagan, and yet further -- my youngest brother and I practice Siddha Yoga meditation. (over 10 years now, for me.) I came to this after finding a lot to disagree with in more Bible-centric theology.
the bottom line is simple:
all paths lead to God. God is love.
She wouldn't have it any other way.
[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: smrobbins65 ]
My parents were raised RC(atholic)and raised my b&s's likewise; after their divorce, we migrated to the Fransiscans (who're an interesting bunch, especially in the mid-70's).
Eventually, that gave way to the Evagelical Christian movement, and then to a "Bible Christian" which was for me a sort of watered-down version of the Evangelicals.
Since that time, 2 of my sibs have gone over to the Presbytarians because they enjoy the same sort of pomp that the RC's have. (They're older, and have more relevancy to the RC's so it's not suprising.) I have another sib who is Pagan, and yet further -- my youngest brother and I practice Siddha Yoga meditation. (over 10 years now, for me.) I came to this after finding a lot to disagree with in more Bible-centric theology.
the bottom line is simple:
all paths lead to God. God is love.
She wouldn't have it any other way.
[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: smrobbins65 ]
Another Catholic-raised here. Considered myself atheist starting early teens, but got back in touch with God after my divorce. (If Catholics are so against divorce it helped me get back LOL - I had given up on religion from early teens till my late 30's.) One of my brothers is a Priest, and instead of that getting me More interested, it did just the opposite. He's my brother. Seeing him play cards, smoking, swearing, joking with young guys all in the priesthood, and MOST of them, my Gaydar was going off ! turned me off much from the Catholic faith. I now go with the "two consenting adults" theory, and as long as you're not hurting anyone, who cares what you do in the bedroom. The other poster got it right, God is love, so if I love another man, what's wrong with that.
I went to Catholic school K-8, even winning the religious studies award upon graduation! But I never really believed-not in the bible stories or many of the rules of the church. And even it goes way beyond my being gay.
I have strong disagreements with the Catholic Church's stand on issues like abortion, birth control, school prayer and divorce, plus the never ending cover-ups of priests molesting children, the way annulments are issued, seemingly to the highest bidders.
And as a kid, I remember wondering why church was so boring! All the rituals and rigidness just turned me off big time.
I have strong disagreements with the Catholic Church's stand on issues like abortion, birth control, school prayer and divorce, plus the never ending cover-ups of priests molesting children, the way annulments are issued, seemingly to the highest bidders.
And as a kid, I remember wondering why church was so boring! All the rituals and rigidness just turned me off big time.
I once lived with a couple of recovering pentecostal bible college students. One of them told me that my "christianity had no content" while the other thought I was "VERY catholic". I don't really consider myself a practicing catholic now, though.
I think a lot of reconciling Christianity and gay sexuality has to do with your view of the bible. Adhering to the letter of scripture is a rather modern idea; prior to the 16th century, hardly anybody outside the Catholic clergy had read it. There are gays who try to work on justifying homosexuality within the text with all kinds of semantic arguments about the meanings of particular hebrew and greek words. Personally, I think their work is about as useful as the contortions southern baptists go through to prove the bible forbids drinking alcohol. e.g., Jesus turned the water at the marriage of Cana to grape juice, though why the old grape juice referred to in certain psalms is desirable is difficult to understand, i this case.
If you abandon literalism and try to focus on the message of Christ, it's not really that difficult. In essence, I believe he states somewhere (I'm no biblical scholar) that if you love God, and love your neighbor as yourself, that all the other commandments follow from that. There's no conflict with homosexuality there.
Another issue that you can talk about is that the books of the bible were written as God's message for a particular culture at a particular time. The prohibition against eating shellfish (could be poisonous because of toxic algal blooms) or pork (trichinosis), are examples of laws that had good practical reasons for them. What would his message be to us? Perhaps the prohibition on masturbation and homosexuality was intended to help the Hebrews grow fruitful and multiply, so they wouldn't be overwhelmed by more populous neighbors. I've always thought that if God were to come now he'd say "Well, you didn't pay attention to much else, but you sure got the being fruitful and multiplying part down. Now maybe you could tone down that fruitfulness a bit." And I've seen it argued that the prohibition against divorce may have been to protect women, who had little means of earning a living if thrown out by their husbands.
There is a pretty strong Christian tradition that any sex outside of a monogamous marriage is wrong, but that could be addressed by allowing gay marriage. There may even be historical precedent for male-male unions in the Catholic Church in the middle ages. Of course, the history of the Catholic Church is so long and byzantine that there's historical precedent for almost everything.
In any event, it's not like anybody is living without sin. After all, if you really want to avoid sin, you should probably give away practically all your posessions to the poor. Christ seemed far more bent out of shape about greed and hypocrisy in his time than sexual libertinism (for a wonderful view of how a modern Christ-figure might see our world, see Arcand's brilliant Jesus de Montreal).
And as Thumper has pointed out, adhering to the letter of the bible isn't something anybody does. There was a hilarious letter written to Dr. Laura on this subject. I've lost the whole thing, but one of my favorite parts was this:
"My Uncle labors in his garden on the Sabbath day and his wife wears clothes that are cross-threaded (cotton-poly blends). Do I have to get the whole town together to stone them? Can't we just burn down their house, like we do to people who sleep with their inlaws?"
I think a lot of reconciling Christianity and gay sexuality has to do with your view of the bible. Adhering to the letter of scripture is a rather modern idea; prior to the 16th century, hardly anybody outside the Catholic clergy had read it. There are gays who try to work on justifying homosexuality within the text with all kinds of semantic arguments about the meanings of particular hebrew and greek words. Personally, I think their work is about as useful as the contortions southern baptists go through to prove the bible forbids drinking alcohol. e.g., Jesus turned the water at the marriage of Cana to grape juice, though why the old grape juice referred to in certain psalms is desirable is difficult to understand, i this case.
If you abandon literalism and try to focus on the message of Christ, it's not really that difficult. In essence, I believe he states somewhere (I'm no biblical scholar) that if you love God, and love your neighbor as yourself, that all the other commandments follow from that. There's no conflict with homosexuality there.
Another issue that you can talk about is that the books of the bible were written as God's message for a particular culture at a particular time. The prohibition against eating shellfish (could be poisonous because of toxic algal blooms) or pork (trichinosis), are examples of laws that had good practical reasons for them. What would his message be to us? Perhaps the prohibition on masturbation and homosexuality was intended to help the Hebrews grow fruitful and multiply, so they wouldn't be overwhelmed by more populous neighbors. I've always thought that if God were to come now he'd say "Well, you didn't pay attention to much else, but you sure got the being fruitful and multiplying part down. Now maybe you could tone down that fruitfulness a bit." And I've seen it argued that the prohibition against divorce may have been to protect women, who had little means of earning a living if thrown out by their husbands.
There is a pretty strong Christian tradition that any sex outside of a monogamous marriage is wrong, but that could be addressed by allowing gay marriage. There may even be historical precedent for male-male unions in the Catholic Church in the middle ages. Of course, the history of the Catholic Church is so long and byzantine that there's historical precedent for almost everything.
In any event, it's not like anybody is living without sin. After all, if you really want to avoid sin, you should probably give away practically all your posessions to the poor. Christ seemed far more bent out of shape about greed and hypocrisy in his time than sexual libertinism (for a wonderful view of how a modern Christ-figure might see our world, see Arcand's brilliant Jesus de Montreal).
And as Thumper has pointed out, adhering to the letter of the bible isn't something anybody does. There was a hilarious letter written to Dr. Laura on this subject. I've lost the whole thing, but one of my favorite parts was this:
"My Uncle labors in his garden on the Sabbath day and his wife wears clothes that are cross-threaded (cotton-poly blends). Do I have to get the whole town together to stone them? Can't we just burn down their house, like we do to people who sleep with their inlaws?"
[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
PS: Joe, I'm curious, was your ex a member of Opus Dei? It's a group I'm very familiar with.
No. He's never mentioned them, and he's pretty much told me everything about his religious activity when he was younger, and of course he won't shut up about his current activity. (He went through a period where he wasn't going to church and all of that...after his mother died of breast cancer in 1993 is when he started getting back into it, and it's grown by leaps and bounds since then.)
By the way, I was also baptized a Catholic and went to Catholic schools. My mom had a rule: until we graduated high school, we had to go to church every Sunday. Of course, she wasn't herself going. But we had to. As soon as I graduated, I stopped going.
My relatives on my father's side of the family, for the most part, are very religious. A number of them (an aunt, a couple of cousins) became priests or nuns. Yet they are among the most hypocritical people on the face of the earth. They were condescending and treated my mom and us like dirt compared to the people on their side of the family. Needless to say, I almost never see them and have nothing to do with them now.
[quote]Originally posted by JC: And as Thumper has pointed out, adhering to the letter of the bible isn't something anybody does. There was a hilarious letter written to Dr. Laura on this subject. I've lost the whole thing, but one of my favorite parts was this:
"My Uncle labors in his garden on the Sabbath day and his wife wears clothes that are cross-threaded (cotton-poly blends). Do I have to get the whole town together to stone them? Can't we just burn down their house, like we do to people who sleep with their inlaws?"
This was written by Michael Moore, of "Roger and Me" fame.
PS: Joe, I'm curious, was your ex a member of Opus Dei? It's a group I'm very familiar with.
No. He's never mentioned them, and he's pretty much told me everything about his religious activity when he was younger, and of course he won't shut up about his current activity. (He went through a period where he wasn't going to church and all of that...after his mother died of breast cancer in 1993 is when he started getting back into it, and it's grown by leaps and bounds since then.)
By the way, I was also baptized a Catholic and went to Catholic schools. My mom had a rule: until we graduated high school, we had to go to church every Sunday. Of course, she wasn't herself going. But we had to. As soon as I graduated, I stopped going.
My relatives on my father's side of the family, for the most part, are very religious. A number of them (an aunt, a couple of cousins) became priests or nuns. Yet they are among the most hypocritical people on the face of the earth. They were condescending and treated my mom and us like dirt compared to the people on their side of the family. Needless to say, I almost never see them and have nothing to do with them now.
[quote]Originally posted by JC: And as Thumper has pointed out, adhering to the letter of the bible isn't something anybody does. There was a hilarious letter written to Dr. Laura on this subject. I've lost the whole thing, but one of my favorite parts was this:
"My Uncle labors in his garden on the Sabbath day and his wife wears clothes that are cross-threaded (cotton-poly blends). Do I have to get the whole town together to stone them? Can't we just burn down their house, like we do to people who sleep with their inlaws?"
This was written by Michael Moore, of "Roger and Me" fame.
As a Catholic, I do realize that having sex with another man is a sin, same thing with a guy having pre/extra marital sex with another woman. Homosexuality per se is not condemned by the Catholic Church; it's the homosexual acts. Some people think it's the same banana, tho.
[quote]God is love, so if I love another man, what's wrong with that.
Of course "God is love" is not sexual love.
[quote]God is love, so if I love another man, what's wrong with that.
Of course "God is love" is not sexual love.
Interesting topic and most controversial. Lots of good stuff to read, too. Thanks for taking the time guys to write in your opinions.
For me, organized religion is evil and I stopped pretending to be accepted by the Catholic Church or the Protestants' Church(es) or some other "church", synagogue, mosque, etc. I am with AUTiger on this one.
I also think as Christianity is more properly described as a subset of Judaism. And the Calvinist/Lutheran/Protestant/Puritan/blah, blah, blah, is a subset of the Catholic Church. Our country will always struggle with the separation of church and state until organized religion is banned from tax excempt status, preferentail treatment by Presidents, and its foothold in Congress. Religion is for the weak minded, in my opinion. Sorry, guys, I have felt that way for years. And I have always equated queers in religion as akin to the Jews licking Hitler's boots. Tax religions as long as they interfere in policy making decisions that affect the rest of us good citizens
For me, organized religion is evil and I stopped pretending to be accepted by the Catholic Church or the Protestants' Church(es) or some other "church", synagogue, mosque, etc. I am with AUTiger on this one.
I also think as Christianity is more properly described as a subset of Judaism. And the Calvinist/Lutheran/Protestant/Puritan/blah, blah, blah, is a subset of the Catholic Church. Our country will always struggle with the separation of church and state until organized religion is banned from tax excempt status, preferentail treatment by Presidents, and its foothold in Congress. Religion is for the weak minded, in my opinion. Sorry, guys, I have felt that way for years. And I have always equated queers in religion as akin to the Jews licking Hitler's boots. Tax religions as long as they interfere in policy making decisions that affect the rest of us good citizens
[quote]Originally posted by MichaelMaineFan:
Religion is for the weak minded, in my opinion...and I have always equated queers in religion as akin to the Jews licking Hitler's boots.
Michael, Michael, Michael! In the beginning of your post you thanked us all for putting up interesting thoughts, but I must say, I found these comments listed above to be most offensive. It seems to me you haven't really given the idea much reasonable thought, and have resorted to inflamatory speech. Read the above again, and tell me if you aren't hurting anybody's feelings.
These feelings getting hurt are not mine, but it behooves me as a member of the human race to point out to my fellow man when he is being unkind.
Icidentally, people do things in moments of fear that they would never dream of doing, ie "licking the boots" of a more powerful man.
Religion is for the weak minded, in my opinion...and I have always equated queers in religion as akin to the Jews licking Hitler's boots.
Michael, Michael, Michael! In the beginning of your post you thanked us all for putting up interesting thoughts, but I must say, I found these comments listed above to be most offensive. It seems to me you haven't really given the idea much reasonable thought, and have resorted to inflamatory speech. Read the above again, and tell me if you aren't hurting anybody's feelings.
These feelings getting hurt are not mine, but it behooves me as a member of the human race to point out to my fellow man when he is being unkind.
Icidentally, people do things in moments of fear that they would never dream of doing, ie "licking the boots" of a more powerful man.
[quote]Originally posted by gp43:
I think its more like a lot of weak minded people use or misuse religion to replace thinking and the use of their own brain.
I think that's a great, clarifying way to put it GP43. I always dislike when someone starts a statement with, "...well, the Bible says..."
It seems appropriate to say, "Well, what do YOU think?"
I think its more like a lot of weak minded people use or misuse religion to replace thinking and the use of their own brain.
I think that's a great, clarifying way to put it GP43. I always dislike when someone starts a statement with, "...well, the Bible says..."
It seems appropriate to say, "Well, what do YOU think?"
Excellent topic - kudos to everyone who's been so articulate without being offensive. I, too, was raised a Catholic. I went to Catholic school for grades k-8, was an altar boy for a couple of years, then went to a Jesuit university (what was I thinking?) I left the Church for many years because I felt the Church had left me, with messages of intolerance toward queers. A few years ago I started going again - not regularly, but on occasion. When my partner became ill I returned full time. I never prayed for him to get better, but I prayed for wisdom for the doctors, and for God to help me make the right decisions when I had to. Mostly I just sat there, I contemplated the past, I asked God to stay by my side in what I knew would be a dark future, and I absorbed an incredible love and strength that permeated my soul and allowed me to watch the horrible thing that was going on in my life. I still sit in church, I thank God for the wonderful things he has done for me, and I let him fill my soul with love, strength and serendipity. I don't sweat that other stuff - as someone else said, that's not religion, that's not God. God is love.
Well what I think MichealMaineFans comments were offensive. To me anyway. I am in no way weak minded. And it's nice to know someone is looking out for me. 30 minutes ago I got a call saying my mom came through her operation with no problem. 28 minutes ago I thanked God for that. And I must admit, when lying back in a recliner and watching the cancer drugs drip into my arm for a whole 7 months I did in fact have many private conversations with the dude upstairs. I guess I have what you would call faith. For I'm not a big fan of organized religion. It's all about money to them. I should know, Tulsa's in the middle of the bible thumping belt.
As far as being gay is a sin. Total rubish! You must remember the bible was written by humans. King James was a mega-bigot even though he slept with aunt Mary, queen of Scots. We are suppose to believe his interpetations? I'm not. God himself only gave us 10 laws to live by. Being gay or straight is not one of them. I think I'll stick with what God wrote and not the interpetations of mere mortals.
As far as being gay is a sin. Total rubish! You must remember the bible was written by humans. King James was a mega-bigot even though he slept with aunt Mary, queen of Scots. We are suppose to believe his interpetations? I'm not. God himself only gave us 10 laws to live by. Being gay or straight is not one of them. I think I'll stick with what God wrote and not the interpetations of mere mortals.
Despite growing up attending Catholic schools, the issue of religion became a very sore topic for me as I hit my mid-teens. (Which now seems like 40,000 yrs ago, but I digress...). You know how it is in parochial schools. You're taught to pray, read the bible and attend mass regularly. So that someday you'll marry, get a tiny house together and live happily ever after. Amen. Of course, the church's Little House on the Prairie mold doesn't always turn out that way.
Though I was raised Catholic and still (loosely) consider myself Catholic, I was increasingly put off by its stance on homosexuality. Like it was some sort of disease to be cured if one was only open-minded enough to see "the light" and seek redemption. In time I realized this was wrong, that being gay isn't a matter of choice. After all, it were a choice, why not "choose" to be straight and spare yourself the grief and drama that gays in society are often subjected to? The way some religions talk, you'd think there was a Columbia House for sexuality, where you mark off your preference and send in the card. We all know that's simply not the case.
I consider myself very lucky that, as I came out in my late teens, I met many wonderful gay & lesbian friends who taught me to embrace my sexuality as an important component of who I am. Not some dirty secret to be kept locked away. For all the generalizations made about gay people, here's one the religious fanatics choose to ignore: gay people are among the most loving, caring people you could ever meet. This, despite often being judged by critics who purport to leave judgment of their fellow man to some higher being.
I believe that if you're good to yourself and good to others, then that's all the religion you really need.
Though I was raised Catholic and still (loosely) consider myself Catholic, I was increasingly put off by its stance on homosexuality. Like it was some sort of disease to be cured if one was only open-minded enough to see "the light" and seek redemption. In time I realized this was wrong, that being gay isn't a matter of choice. After all, it were a choice, why not "choose" to be straight and spare yourself the grief and drama that gays in society are often subjected to? The way some religions talk, you'd think there was a Columbia House for sexuality, where you mark off your preference and send in the card. We all know that's simply not the case.
I consider myself very lucky that, as I came out in my late teens, I met many wonderful gay & lesbian friends who taught me to embrace my sexuality as an important component of who I am. Not some dirty secret to be kept locked away. For all the generalizations made about gay people, here's one the religious fanatics choose to ignore: gay people are among the most loving, caring people you could ever meet. This, despite often being judged by critics who purport to leave judgment of their fellow man to some higher being.
I believe that if you're good to yourself and good to others, then that's all the religion you really need.
Hey, Thumper. Good for you for pointing out how faith can be such a good support during tough times. That's certainly been true for me.
As for MichaelMaine... Given how "THE CHURCH" (Catholic, Protestant, or whatever) has treated gay people in the past, I'm not surprised that many gays (like MichaelMaine) reject religion entirely. It's a real shame. Those religious leaders who have targeted gays and lesbians for persecution had better hope that God is not a vindictive God, or they will have hell to pay. Literally.
(A minor point -- I believe the King James Version was commissioned by King James, not actually written by him.)
As for MichaelMaine... Given how "THE CHURCH" (Catholic, Protestant, or whatever) has treated gay people in the past, I'm not surprised that many gays (like MichaelMaine) reject religion entirely. It's a real shame. Those religious leaders who have targeted gays and lesbians for persecution had better hope that God is not a vindictive God, or they will have hell to pay. Literally.
(A minor point -- I believe the King James Version was commissioned by King James, not actually written by him.)
Two more minor points on King James. I believe Mary, Queen of Scots was his mother. Also, it is my understanding that he was gay or bisexual.
I don't believe that religion is for weak minded people. Of course, there are religious (and non-religious) people that are. But most of the religious people I know do not blindly follow their religion.
[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: pat125 ]
I don't believe that religion is for weak minded people. Of course, there are religious (and non-religious) people that are. But most of the religious people I know do not blindly follow their religion.
[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: pat125 ]
Sounds like the only gay kids who stayed with the RCC were the ones who ended up going to seminary, which is something I actually considered in my early teens. By 15, their homophobia and my mounting disbelief had driven me out, wanting no part of an outfit that would work so hard to make a devout, loving kid feel really bad about himself.
Like BoSoxRudy, an event later in life re-awakened my spirituality. So one Sunday I decided to attend mass at our local Big Gay Roman Catholic church... Whoa, dredged up some very heavy stuff, yikes, no thanks. Tried Dignity once, martyrdom's not my gig. Finally ended up with the Episcopals -- familiar liturgy, same outfits, smells and bells if you want 'em, even a cloistered monastery nearby, and get this -- NO freakin' POPE! Bingo! They also don't do the transubstantiation thing, which I never got anyway.
Interestingly, there isn't a Big Gay Episcopal parish in town -- we're just here, everywhere, in clergy and laity, couples, kids, part of the fabric, and recognized as such, which is one of my major problems with the RC's. Gay folks may be accepted and integrated at the grassroots level, but from what I've seen it's all very hush-hush. The party line is never questioned from the pulpit, and IMHO the party line deserves some serious scrutiny. So I still carry a resentment, because I still identify. Isn't that bizarre?
Anyway, the child molestation controversy that's come to light here in the Boston archdiocese is most sad and painful to observe. This is a very Catholic place, and now all around are whispers of bewilderment and betrayal.
[quote]Originally posted by Jordan:
gay people are among the most loving, caring people you could ever meet
You got that right, brother.
[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]
Like BoSoxRudy, an event later in life re-awakened my spirituality. So one Sunday I decided to attend mass at our local Big Gay Roman Catholic church... Whoa, dredged up some very heavy stuff, yikes, no thanks. Tried Dignity once, martyrdom's not my gig. Finally ended up with the Episcopals -- familiar liturgy, same outfits, smells and bells if you want 'em, even a cloistered monastery nearby, and get this -- NO freakin' POPE! Bingo! They also don't do the transubstantiation thing, which I never got anyway.
Interestingly, there isn't a Big Gay Episcopal parish in town -- we're just here, everywhere, in clergy and laity, couples, kids, part of the fabric, and recognized as such, which is one of my major problems with the RC's. Gay folks may be accepted and integrated at the grassroots level, but from what I've seen it's all very hush-hush. The party line is never questioned from the pulpit, and IMHO the party line deserves some serious scrutiny. So I still carry a resentment, because I still identify. Isn't that bizarre?
Anyway, the child molestation controversy that's come to light here in the Boston archdiocese is most sad and painful to observe. This is a very Catholic place, and now all around are whispers of bewilderment and betrayal.
[quote]Originally posted by Jordan:
gay people are among the most loving, caring people you could ever meet
You got that right, brother.
[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]
When ever I get sidled up to by some religous fundy in the local shopping plaza; the following usually suffices..
It never ceases to amaze me on how some people's perspective gets caught up in the minutae of detail.
To all those dickheads (metaphorically) who are so concerned about where I put my cock.
Try these babies on for size ...
1. Micah 6 ..He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
2. St Mark.12 ...And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
[29] And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
[30] And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
[31] And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Now you think it wouldn't be too hard to be good then would ya?
Oh yes, now don't get me started on Lot sleeping with his Daughters after Sodom and Gomorrah got burnt to the chrispy......
Now piss off, and go and be nice to someone for god sake..
Smoothboy.
P.S. God is a concept by which we measure our pain... (St) John the less than Divine...
[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: smoothboy99 ]
It never ceases to amaze me on how some people's perspective gets caught up in the minutae of detail.
To all those dickheads (metaphorically) who are so concerned about where I put my cock.
Try these babies on for size ...
1. Micah 6 ..He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
2. St Mark.12 ...And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
[29] And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
[30] And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
[31] And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Now you think it wouldn't be too hard to be good then would ya?
Oh yes, now don't get me started on Lot sleeping with his Daughters after Sodom and Gomorrah got burnt to the chrispy......
Now piss off, and go and be nice to someone for god sake..
Smoothboy.
P.S. God is a concept by which we measure our pain... (St) John the less than Divine...
[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: smoothboy99 ]
[quote]Originally posted by Lots-of-us:
As for me, this Christian refuses to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because the Christian message has been corrupted, does not mean it cannot be redeemed. That's why I'm a believer.
([ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Lots-of-us ]
I was raised Catholic -(12 yrs Catholic school)-now Protestant - I get strength & comfort from God & my church going. Its the relationship between God & you that's important - not the structure of your church. Churches are made up of flawed people trying to be better- with the help of a higher power.Some succeed better than others. But I'm not gonna quit just because they sometimes make mistakes.
As for me, this Christian refuses to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because the Christian message has been corrupted, does not mean it cannot be redeemed. That's why I'm a believer.
([ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Lots-of-us ]
I was raised Catholic -(12 yrs Catholic school)-now Protestant - I get strength & comfort from God & my church going. Its the relationship between God & you that's important - not the structure of your church. Churches are made up of flawed people trying to be better- with the help of a higher power.Some succeed better than others. But I'm not gonna quit just because they sometimes make mistakes.
"My true religion is kindness" - The Dalai Lama
The above statement should suffice, but since we're all contributing some personal background and opinion....
I was also raised Catholic and was quite intense and devout about my faith. I was the kid who had read the Bible twice by age 11 and used to stump the priests with questions. I was convinced I would become a priest myself. In fact, I was convinced I would be the Pope (!). My religion, however, did not inhibit my sexual development. I realized I was gay very young and by age 12 had already started to "experiment" with two of my friends. I felt some conflict with Catholicism about being gay, but seemed to intuitively realize that I was not "sinning".
By my freshman year in college I was still a dedicated Catholic and although I couldn't make it to 7:00 AM mass daily because I was also a swimmer and had AM practice, I did go everyday during Lent because by that time the season had ended. My sophpmore year I met a guy (gay) who exposed me to his beliefs which were derived from Eastern Philosphy, primarily Buddhism. Everything changed in about one hour. It was like lightning striking. I let go of all the tenents of Catholicism that I was suspicious of: guilt, fear, sin - and never looked back.
That was 16 years ago and today I don't practice any religion but consider myself profoundly spiritual. I practice yoga and meditate everyday (except Sunday for yoga - my own little joke). I don't believe in sin, hell, the devil, judgement, "fear of God", etc., and I'm much more at peace than I ever was as a Catholic.
Religion doesn't work for me, but it's not for me to condemn it for others. It seems to work for others who have posted on this board. To me, the important part of "living" is self-examination, self-creation and self-expression. As souls we are all here to remember and continuously create who we are. There is no "wrong" in self-creation. Our existence is perfect in it's entirety. We are God. We are one. At once. We can not be anything less.
The above statement should suffice, but since we're all contributing some personal background and opinion....
I was also raised Catholic and was quite intense and devout about my faith. I was the kid who had read the Bible twice by age 11 and used to stump the priests with questions. I was convinced I would become a priest myself. In fact, I was convinced I would be the Pope (!). My religion, however, did not inhibit my sexual development. I realized I was gay very young and by age 12 had already started to "experiment" with two of my friends. I felt some conflict with Catholicism about being gay, but seemed to intuitively realize that I was not "sinning".
By my freshman year in college I was still a dedicated Catholic and although I couldn't make it to 7:00 AM mass daily because I was also a swimmer and had AM practice, I did go everyday during Lent because by that time the season had ended. My sophpmore year I met a guy (gay) who exposed me to his beliefs which were derived from Eastern Philosphy, primarily Buddhism. Everything changed in about one hour. It was like lightning striking. I let go of all the tenents of Catholicism that I was suspicious of: guilt, fear, sin - and never looked back.
That was 16 years ago and today I don't practice any religion but consider myself profoundly spiritual. I practice yoga and meditate everyday (except Sunday for yoga - my own little joke). I don't believe in sin, hell, the devil, judgement, "fear of God", etc., and I'm much more at peace than I ever was as a Catholic.
Religion doesn't work for me, but it's not for me to condemn it for others. It seems to work for others who have posted on this board. To me, the important part of "living" is self-examination, self-creation and self-expression. As souls we are all here to remember and continuously create who we are. There is no "wrong" in self-creation. Our existence is perfect in it's entirety. We are God. We are one. At once. We can not be anything less.
[quote]Originally posted by michaelmainefan:
For me, organized religion is evil ...
Our country will always struggle with the separation of church and state until organized religion is banned from tax excempt status, preferentail treatment by Presidents, and its foothold in Congress. Religion is for the weak minded, in my opinion. Sorry, guys, I have felt that way for years. And I have always equated queers in religion as akin to the Jews licking Hitler's boots. Tax religions as long as they interfere in policy making decisions that affect the rest of us good citizens
Right on ... this country would be much better off without those closed minded religious types ... we need more people with this kind of 'open attitude' running things!
For me, organized religion is evil ...
Our country will always struggle with the separation of church and state until organized religion is banned from tax excempt status, preferentail treatment by Presidents, and its foothold in Congress. Religion is for the weak minded, in my opinion. Sorry, guys, I have felt that way for years. And I have always equated queers in religion as akin to the Jews licking Hitler's boots. Tax religions as long as they interfere in policy making decisions that affect the rest of us good citizens
Right on ... this country would be much better off without those closed minded religious types ... we need more people with this kind of 'open attitude' running things!
[quote]Originally posted by Jupiter:
[ As souls we are all here to remember and continuously create who we are. There is no "wrong" in self-creation. Our existence is perfect in it's entirety. We are God. We are one. At once. We can not be anything less.[/QB]
I seriously wonder how you would explain it if someone tortured or killed a family member of yours. - " There is no wrong in self creation" -( even if it hurts others gravely?) I don't have all the answers & I don't expect you to but how do you explain evil deeds done to other people?
[ As souls we are all here to remember and continuously create who we are. There is no "wrong" in self-creation. Our existence is perfect in it's entirety. We are God. We are one. At once. We can not be anything less.[/QB]
I seriously wonder how you would explain it if someone tortured or killed a family member of yours. - " There is no wrong in self creation" -( even if it hurts others gravely?) I don't have all the answers & I don't expect you to but how do you explain evil deeds done to other people?
[quote]Originally posted by copman:
I seriously wonder how you would explain it if someone tortured or killed a family member of yours. - " There is no wrong in self creation" -( even if it hurts others gravely?) I don't have all the answers & I don't expect you to but how do you explain evil deeds done to other people?
You mean like the sort of things done by Christians to non-believers in the Crusades?
I seriously wonder how you would explain it if someone tortured or killed a family member of yours. - " There is no wrong in self creation" -( even if it hurts others gravely?) I don't have all the answers & I don't expect you to but how do you explain evil deeds done to other people?
You mean like the sort of things done by Christians to non-believers in the Crusades?
[quote]Originally posted by twin58:
You mean like the sort of things done by Christians to non-believers in the Crusades?
Yep - WRONG THEN _ WRONG NOW!
You mean like the sort of things done by Christians to non-believers in the Crusades?
Yep - WRONG THEN _ WRONG NOW!
I think that alot of the opinions I've read on this topic are as narrow in scope as some of the alleged Christian beliefs. I profess Christianity as my faith, and I think that too many people get caught up in pointing fingers at one another. Whether a Christian believes homosexuality is right or wrong is their conflict or business; however, one truth remains. As Christians we are supposed to love one another and not judge. It isn't any man's decision who enters heaven or hell -- it's only God's. I know many Christians who believe monogamous gay marriages are acceptable in the Christian faith.
As for believing in God showing weakness of mind, that is just as narrow minded a comment as I think I've ever heard. So many people want to judge what they don't understand, and obviously, if you profess atheism, then you don't understand. I certainly don't pass judgment on others for their beliefs. If you don't believe in God, fine, that's your business. However, don't disparage others because you think it's pointless. I can't prove that air exists other than by breathing it. I can't see it, but I know it's there. It's the same with God. So, please, try to refrain from disparaging all Christians because of the act of some who don't necessarily act out of love towards others. It boils down to showing ignorance, and I believe the world has enough of that to spare without conjuring up more.
As for believing in God showing weakness of mind, that is just as narrow minded a comment as I think I've ever heard. So many people want to judge what they don't understand, and obviously, if you profess atheism, then you don't understand. I certainly don't pass judgment on others for their beliefs. If you don't believe in God, fine, that's your business. However, don't disparage others because you think it's pointless. I can't prove that air exists other than by breathing it. I can't see it, but I know it's there. It's the same with God. So, please, try to refrain from disparaging all Christians because of the act of some who don't necessarily act out of love towards others. It boils down to showing ignorance, and I believe the world has enough of that to spare without conjuring up more.
[quote]Originally posted by UGAMan:
If you don't believe in God, fine, that's your business. However, don't disparage others because you think it's pointless. I can't prove that air exists other than by breathing it. I can't see it, but I know it's there. It's the same with God.
Isn't there scientific evidence regarding the existence of air? Where's the scientific evidence of the existence of God?
If you don't believe in God, fine, that's your business. However, don't disparage others because you think it's pointless. I can't prove that air exists other than by breathing it. I can't see it, but I know it's there. It's the same with God.
Isn't there scientific evidence regarding the existence of air? Where's the scientific evidence of the existence of God?
That's great that scientific evidence proves that air exists. History proves Jesus existed. We can't prove or disprove God. I had this discussion last night. No matter what you attribute the existence of man and this world, something had to create both as they didn't create themselves. Science cannot ultimately explain the existence of either because it has no explanation for origins other than some primordial soup, which is a tentative explanation at best. Therefore, I see no reason not to acknowledge the existence of God on a logical level. There comes a point in science where science fails to provide answers. Besides, science is man made. It is quite fallible regardless of the fact that we think it isn't. However, it comes closest to explaining what we don't understand in logical terms. So, for every logical, scientific theory, I can retort some christian theory. Neither are wrong, and it's quite likely both are correct. That's where open mindedness comes in. I can see both sides, and I don't necessarily reject either. In all, since Jesus has been proven to exist by historical, empirical evidence, I don't think it's so illogical or weak-minded to acknowledge the existence of God.
[quote]That's great that scientific evidence proves that air exists. History proves Jesus existed.
Do you have a source for that? If there's archealogical or written proof of Jesus' existence, then I haven't heard of it. No reputable person in either the fields of archaeology or history without a vested interest in the existence of Jesus would make that claim. The adoption of Christianity by Rome and its subsequent proliferation do NOT indicate that Jesus actually existed.
I've just spent 45 minutes searching for stuff on Google and even some Christian scholars basically say "Well, no of course, he wasn't a real person, but that's not important, his teachings are". The 4 books of the Bible that are supposedly chronicles of his life are strewn with contradictions; there's no record in the Roman's archive talking of Jesus of Judea or Nazareth or wherever he's supposed have been born. And so on. Here's a good article on the subject.
It's one thing to claim that Jesus' teaching guide one's life and that the church that grew up around him provides a place of solace and community; it's quite another to insist that science has "proven he existed". It's done no such thing and in fact, quite the opposite. It's been looking for hundreds, no, thousands of years and apart from some writings of dubious origin that are easily shredded with their own contradictions, not one iota of "proof" has shown up.
[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
Do you have a source for that? If there's archealogical or written proof of Jesus' existence, then I haven't heard of it. No reputable person in either the fields of archaeology or history without a vested interest in the existence of Jesus would make that claim. The adoption of Christianity by Rome and its subsequent proliferation do NOT indicate that Jesus actually existed.
I've just spent 45 minutes searching for stuff on Google and even some Christian scholars basically say "Well, no of course, he wasn't a real person, but that's not important, his teachings are". The 4 books of the Bible that are supposedly chronicles of his life are strewn with contradictions; there's no record in the Roman's archive talking of Jesus of Judea or Nazareth or wherever he's supposed have been born. And so on. Here's a good article on the subject.
It's one thing to claim that Jesus' teaching guide one's life and that the church that grew up around him provides a place of solace and community; it's quite another to insist that science has "proven he existed". It's done no such thing and in fact, quite the opposite. It's been looking for hundreds, no, thousands of years and apart from some writings of dubious origin that are easily shredded with their own contradictions, not one iota of "proof" has shown up.
[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
How come often those who live their lives not believing in God, always want to talk to God on their deathbeds.
I find it interesting that the Moslems, Christians, and Jews all acknowledge Jesus, but they differ in their beliefs of what role he played. To the Jews, he was a rabbi, to the Moslems a prophet, and to Christians the son of God. Now, how do you account for three different religions acknowledging the existence of a man named Jesus?
As for Christians saying he isn't a real person, I'd have to question their beliefs. You can't have Christianity without Christ -- it's kinda implied from the word. These people are quite the iconoclasts of their beliefs; however, I haven't read such articles, causing me to reserve any further judgment on them. My point isn't whether you believe or don't believe. My point is that you shouldn't make ignorant comments that those who believe do so out of weakness. I guarantee you there is nothing remotely weak-minded about me. Sure, some people believe because they don't anything else, but that isn't me.
My argument isn't that I'm trying to make anyone believe or disbelieve in God. My argument stems from some ignorant comments from people who think their knowledge is superior because they don't believe in God. I just say that we shouldn't think so narrow in scope when considering the possiblities, and we certainly shouldn't discredit anyone for their beliefs. So, you are supremely entitled to believe as you choose, but don't disparage what you quite obviously don't understand. You would expect heterosexuals to do the same for you regarding your sexual persuasion. What's the differentce?
As for Christians saying he isn't a real person, I'd have to question their beliefs. You can't have Christianity without Christ -- it's kinda implied from the word. These people are quite the iconoclasts of their beliefs; however, I haven't read such articles, causing me to reserve any further judgment on them. My point isn't whether you believe or don't believe. My point is that you shouldn't make ignorant comments that those who believe do so out of weakness. I guarantee you there is nothing remotely weak-minded about me. Sure, some people believe because they don't anything else, but that isn't me.
My argument isn't that I'm trying to make anyone believe or disbelieve in God. My argument stems from some ignorant comments from people who think their knowledge is superior because they don't believe in God. I just say that we shouldn't think so narrow in scope when considering the possiblities, and we certainly shouldn't discredit anyone for their beliefs. So, you are supremely entitled to believe as you choose, but don't disparage what you quite obviously don't understand. You would expect heterosexuals to do the same for you regarding your sexual persuasion. What's the differentce?
If you believe something in your heart, you don't need to worry about what others think. Why get into arguments about religion and trivial facts; if someone can't feel a higher power from love, music, friends, memories, regrets, dreams of the future, dealing with tragedies, or from enjoying sex, they are seriously lacking, I feel sorry for them.
[quote]How come often those who live their lives not believing in God, always want to talk to God on their deathbeds
It's insurance for the soul. We've been told so often that we'll burn in hell if we don't believe in God that people hedge their bets. A friend of a friend once asked me why I didn't go to church. "I don't believe that God exists". But you'll burn in hell! "Uh, no. Hell doesn't exist either. Well, except for Sartre's famous line: 'Hell is other people', if that's what you mean". But why don't you go just in case? "Ah ha!" I thought; if you remove the threat of hell, I'd be willing to bet my entire years salary that vast numbers of people wouldn't bother with religion. It's like a protection racket for the after life. [quote]Now, how do you account for three different religions acknowledging the existence of a man named Jesus?
Because Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, much as they'd hate the idea. They're working from the same basic text. Islam/Mohammedism didn't appear until roughly 600 AD, 300 years or so after Rome officially adopted Christianity for myriad political reasons. Moslems are doing exactly what Christians have done: relying on texts of dubious authenticity written hundreds of years after the events described in them happened. I stick to my previous claim: there is not one shred of evidence, either from the archaelogicial or non-Biblical written record, that provides any basis for a "Jesus really lived" claim. [quote]My argument isn't that I'm trying to make anyone believe or disbelieve in God. My argument stems from some ignorant comments from people who think their knowledge is superior because they don't believe in God.
Yet you yourself admit that you haven't really studied the issue so why should we take what you write seriously? If you want to believe, fine, if religion brings peace and order to your life, that's excellent, but I think to try and engage the issue on an intellectual level then admit "however, I haven't read such articles" ie you don't really know the parameters of the debate, is kind of, well, silly. Your belief is just as uniformed as their "All believers are brainless sheep" type idiocy. [quote]So, you are supremely entitled to believe as you choose, but don't disparage what you quite obviously don't understand.
Ah, the classic defense against non-believers! I've read the Bible front to back twice, had a co-worker who was in seminary school (we'd debate over these kinds of issues for hours) and so on. It's easy and facile to deride others who don't share your belief but non-belief does not equal uninformed. I'd argue that non-believers have to be more informed; when presented with the 1000's upon 1000's of contradictions in the, say, Christian bible, it's amazing to hear the rationalizations that believers come up with. And there's a double standard at work here: in my book, the burden of proof is on the believer but somehow it's often the other way around. [quote]If you believe something in your heart, you don't need to worry about what others think. Why get into arguments about religion and trivial facts; if someone can't feel a higher power from love, music, friends, memories, regrets, dreams of the future, dealing with tragedies, or from enjoying sex, they are seriously lacking, I feel sorry for them.
And I feel sorry for people that need to rely on a farrago of myths (often borrowed from the pagans!!) to bring order to their lives; I don't begrudge them--anything that makes life easier to live is OK with me. And "trivial facts"???? I don't think the debate on whether Jesus really existed or not is "trivial"; if he didn't, then the Bible is based on myths and make-believe, not the Divinely Inspired Word of God. And if it's just a nice story told badly, why should that be used as the basis to live your life and more importantly here, to oppress people (ie Lev. 18:22 being used against homosexuals)?
[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
It's insurance for the soul. We've been told so often that we'll burn in hell if we don't believe in God that people hedge their bets. A friend of a friend once asked me why I didn't go to church. "I don't believe that God exists". But you'll burn in hell! "Uh, no. Hell doesn't exist either. Well, except for Sartre's famous line: 'Hell is other people', if that's what you mean". But why don't you go just in case? "Ah ha!" I thought; if you remove the threat of hell, I'd be willing to bet my entire years salary that vast numbers of people wouldn't bother with religion. It's like a protection racket for the after life. [quote]Now, how do you account for three different religions acknowledging the existence of a man named Jesus?
Because Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, much as they'd hate the idea. They're working from the same basic text. Islam/Mohammedism didn't appear until roughly 600 AD, 300 years or so after Rome officially adopted Christianity for myriad political reasons. Moslems are doing exactly what Christians have done: relying on texts of dubious authenticity written hundreds of years after the events described in them happened. I stick to my previous claim: there is not one shred of evidence, either from the archaelogicial or non-Biblical written record, that provides any basis for a "Jesus really lived" claim. [quote]My argument isn't that I'm trying to make anyone believe or disbelieve in God. My argument stems from some ignorant comments from people who think their knowledge is superior because they don't believe in God.
Yet you yourself admit that you haven't really studied the issue so why should we take what you write seriously? If you want to believe, fine, if religion brings peace and order to your life, that's excellent, but I think to try and engage the issue on an intellectual level then admit "however, I haven't read such articles" ie you don't really know the parameters of the debate, is kind of, well, silly. Your belief is just as uniformed as their "All believers are brainless sheep" type idiocy. [quote]So, you are supremely entitled to believe as you choose, but don't disparage what you quite obviously don't understand.
Ah, the classic defense against non-believers! I've read the Bible front to back twice, had a co-worker who was in seminary school (we'd debate over these kinds of issues for hours) and so on. It's easy and facile to deride others who don't share your belief but non-belief does not equal uninformed. I'd argue that non-believers have to be more informed; when presented with the 1000's upon 1000's of contradictions in the, say, Christian bible, it's amazing to hear the rationalizations that believers come up with. And there's a double standard at work here: in my book, the burden of proof is on the believer but somehow it's often the other way around. [quote]If you believe something in your heart, you don't need to worry about what others think. Why get into arguments about religion and trivial facts; if someone can't feel a higher power from love, music, friends, memories, regrets, dreams of the future, dealing with tragedies, or from enjoying sex, they are seriously lacking, I feel sorry for them.
And I feel sorry for people that need to rely on a farrago of myths (often borrowed from the pagans!!) to bring order to their lives; I don't begrudge them--anything that makes life easier to live is OK with me. And "trivial facts"???? I don't think the debate on whether Jesus really existed or not is "trivial"; if he didn't, then the Bible is based on myths and make-believe, not the Divinely Inspired Word of God. And if it's just a nice story told badly, why should that be used as the basis to live your life and more importantly here, to oppress people (ie Lev. 18:22 being used against homosexuals)?
[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
[quote]Originally posted by osufan:
If you believe something in your heart, you don't need to worry about what others think. Why get into arguments about religion and trivial facts; if someone can't feel a higher power from love, music, friends, memories, regrets, dreams of the future, dealing with tragedies, or from enjoying sex, they are seriously lacking, I feel sorry for them.
I think you're exactly right. It's pretty pointless to argue with each other once we enter the arena of "faith". There's no definitive proof in these matters - that is, in fact, why they are referred to as faith.
Although religion is ideally meant to be inclusive, like all labels/groups/denominations it always ends up being divisive. It creates an "us" and a "them". And we all know what happens then.
If you believe something in your heart, you don't need to worry about what others think. Why get into arguments about religion and trivial facts; if someone can't feel a higher power from love, music, friends, memories, regrets, dreams of the future, dealing with tragedies, or from enjoying sex, they are seriously lacking, I feel sorry for them.
I think you're exactly right. It's pretty pointless to argue with each other once we enter the arena of "faith". There's no definitive proof in these matters - that is, in fact, why they are referred to as faith.
Although religion is ideally meant to be inclusive, like all labels/groups/denominations it always ends up being divisive. It creates an "us" and a "them". And we all know what happens then.
Quite simply, I'm not arguing any longer about this point. I'm not ignorant in my beliefs, and I stand very strong in them. I can accept God logically, but that's really not the issue. The issue, which you continually ignore, is the fact that you're making ignorant comments. Blatantly, you ignored the fact that what you're doing is the same as when people ridicule us for being gay. You're acting the same as those bigots when you make such remarks as Christians are weak because they "need" something to believe in. You disparage and think it's ok; however, I bet you become really angry when you become the victim of discrimination. That's been my point this whole time, and you've ignored it, tending to focus on berating me and my beliefs. I think you need to turn that mirror at yourself for a while and assess what you're doing. You're acting out in the same manner that you hate being the victim of.
Jim Allen: "Ah, the classic defense against non-believers! I've read the Bible front to back twice, had a co-worker who was in seminary school (we'd debate over these kinds of issues for hours) and so on. It's easy and facile to deride others who don't share your belief but non-belief does not equal uninformed. I'd argue that non-believers have to be more informed; when presented with the 1000's upon 1000's of contradictions in the, say, Christian bible, it's amazing to hear the rationalizations that believers come up with. And there's a double standard at work here: in my book, the burden of proof is on the believer but somehow it's often the other way around."
I'm sorry, but I'd still argue that those without faith cannot possibly understand those who have it. Understanding faith isn't just a matter of reading the Bible and whatever intellectual treatments of it. I have gone through long stretches of my life when I was an atheist. I simply could not understand how people believed in God and why religion could be so important to them. But things changed, and I discovered faith in God. I know from personal experience that during my atheist days, there was no way I understood faith, despite how much I tried to.
I'm sorry, but I'd still argue that those without faith cannot possibly understand those who have it. Understanding faith isn't just a matter of reading the Bible and whatever intellectual treatments of it. I have gone through long stretches of my life when I was an atheist. I simply could not understand how people believed in God and why religion could be so important to them. But things changed, and I discovered faith in God. I know from personal experience that during my atheist days, there was no way I understood faith, despite how much I tried to.
I'm not an athiest, but I have a pretty good friend who is. He's a professor of biology and a tireless researcher and his work has definitely influenced his view of life. We've talked at length about the existence of God and the soul, and he just has a very difficult time believing anything that can't be proven scientifically.
I don't share his opinion, but I have to say he is one of the nicest, most decent people I know. He's actually from France but lives in the U.S. now. He has a younger brother whom he loves dearly back in France. Once during one of our "discussions", he posed a hypothetical question to me, asking whether I would be willing to undergo a high risk medical procedure such as donating some kind of organ to an ill sibling even if the chances of survival were 50% at best. I said that I would be willing to do that without hesitation.
He said that he would be willing to do the same thing, but that the difference between us was that I believed that my soul would continue on while he belived he would become a pile of dust - nothing more. He then asked me if that made him a more righteous, more moral person because he was willing to sacrifice his life for someone else without any "reward" waiting for him while I was willing to do the same while believing that greater things awaited me anyway.
An interesting point to ponder........ Are those among us who don't "believe", but still conduct their lives with kindness and respect for others actually "better" people because they've chosen to live this way without any "reward in heaven"?
I don't share his opinion, but I have to say he is one of the nicest, most decent people I know. He's actually from France but lives in the U.S. now. He has a younger brother whom he loves dearly back in France. Once during one of our "discussions", he posed a hypothetical question to me, asking whether I would be willing to undergo a high risk medical procedure such as donating some kind of organ to an ill sibling even if the chances of survival were 50% at best. I said that I would be willing to do that without hesitation.
He said that he would be willing to do the same thing, but that the difference between us was that I believed that my soul would continue on while he belived he would become a pile of dust - nothing more. He then asked me if that made him a more righteous, more moral person because he was willing to sacrifice his life for someone else without any "reward" waiting for him while I was willing to do the same while believing that greater things awaited me anyway.
An interesting point to ponder........ Are those among us who don't "believe", but still conduct their lives with kindness and respect for others actually "better" people because they've chosen to live this way without any "reward in heaven"?
[quote]Originally posted by Jupiter:
An interesting point to ponder........ Are those among us who don't "believe", but still conduct their lives with kindness and respect for others actually "better" people because they've chosen to live this way without any "reward in heaven"?
Jupiter, come on, I can't believe you choose good over evil, or giving over selfishness, because you hope to go to Heaven. I have no idea if I'm going to Heaven of not, and it's certainly not my motivation for doing good (although, Catholic school boy fears die hard; the notion of "I'm going to Hell" has dissuaded me from many a mischievous deed
). The reason a person, regardless of faith, does good things instead of bad, treats others with kindness instead of hate, and thinks of others as much as if not more than him/herself is that it is, in the end, a better and happier way to spend one's time on Earth.
An interesting point to ponder........ Are those among us who don't "believe", but still conduct their lives with kindness and respect for others actually "better" people because they've chosen to live this way without any "reward in heaven"?
Jupiter, come on, I can't believe you choose good over evil, or giving over selfishness, because you hope to go to Heaven. I have no idea if I'm going to Heaven of not, and it's certainly not my motivation for doing good (although, Catholic school boy fears die hard; the notion of "I'm going to Hell" has dissuaded me from many a mischievous deed
). The reason a person, regardless of faith, does good things instead of bad, treats others with kindness instead of hate, and thinks of others as much as if not more than him/herself is that it is, in the end, a better and happier way to spend one's time on Earth.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.