Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

First openly gay bishop

LGBT Religion

  • Please log in to reply
261 replies to this topic

#221 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 08 August 2003 - 02:29 AM

Saul writes...


Quote

Yes-but IMO, this is all based on fairy tales. Instead of looking at imaginary beings and fables, we should look at the more positive parts of ourselves as human beings

Saul, I give you Mother Teresa. She was not an imaginary being. And the hundreds, nay thousands of those people out there, who's names we will never know, who labor long and selflessly to do good 'in the name of'

Please don't get me wrong Saul, I was raised Roman Catholic, but as I like to put it, "fortuantely it never took', and I walk my own Tao now..but I refuse to deny the good that various religions have wrought, just as I will not blind myself to the evils done in their names as well...but to condem all for the actions of some is wrong IMO...

I have no problem agreeing to disagree


Quote

These same abusers can also mold the minds of the impressionable to do horrific things in the name of their gods .

Yes they can, but as the Sisko has said, so can many other instutions. The ability to mold minds into doing horriffic things is not in anywise limited to religions... Man ( not as in gender, but as in over all mankind)  likes making excuses for his monsterous acts...religion is often just a convientent scapegoat, just as has been..duty to counrty, for the greater good, etc

#222 Blondie

Blondie

    The Peroxide Jihad

  • Dead account
  • 687 posts

Posted 08 August 2003 - 02:59 AM

Not that I'm the most spiritual person on Earth, but I do try hard to be good.  Christ boiled it down to "Love God and love your neighbor."  I believe that in my heart.

I also believe that religion does more good than harm.  Sure, we've all heard the nasty stories of what my church...Roman Catholic...has done.  That's history, it happened, and there's nothing anyone can do to change it.  We focus on the assholes...the ones who give other priests and ministers a bad name.  But how many times do we hear of the good things the Church has done: the hospitals, the schools, etc.  Or how about all the times priests have had to take the burden of their parishioners on their own shoulders?  Once I got it through my head that my marriage was a travesty, I ran to my priest and told him everything.  I bawled my eyes out for over four hours as I told him every cruel thing my husband did to me physically, mentally, sexually...on down the line.  I told him about the filandering on my husband's part. I know my priest; there's no way he could not have had a huge amount of empathy for me and my situation.

The support he and several of the older church matrons gave me got me through.  Without him and them, I would have went back to Brent and somewhere down the line wound up killing myself and going to the real Hell.  That scenario justified the role of the priest and the church in my eyes because he told me there was no rule in the book that said I had to endure this, I was a child of God and that God wanted the best for me in all things.   Does he approve of my lifestyle now?  No, of course not.  But he loves me still, and so does He.

Edited to remove personal info put in due to lapse of judgement.

Edited by TrancesHuggyPillow, 08 August 2003 - 03:10 AM.

The ditz FKA TrancesHuggyPillow

#223 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 08 August 2003 - 03:59 AM

Quote

The stakes are FAR higher. Live a faulty life now, and your "afterlife" may be an eternity of torment. This is a humongous millstone around a person's neck.

If I may interject, one could also consider "the opinion of posterity" or "the future of humanity" to be a sufficent reason to take certain actions that affect your existence beyond your lifespan, so to speak.  

In any event, I really can't see the problem with guilt.  It allows us to maintain our ethics, which are in turn necessary to keep us from destroying everything around us.  If you think that we destroy now, imagine a world where there was no guilt, no remorse.  The destruction that is attributed to guilt is not from guilt and remorse, but from the failure of guilt to operate evenly.  Release people from responsibility and contemplation of the results of their actions and you harm humanity more than you could ever dream of.  

Do you jump for joy because you are released from obligations that you feel to be onerous and useless?  What if everyone shed their onerous obligations when they felt that they could not comprehend  the ends to which they were pointed, or even disputed the direction  they were taking?  Responsibilities are frequently annoying and difficult to comprehend without some idea of what the result of those actions will be.  

A concept of the Inferno or Heaven might seem childish and superstitious to some, but to a population that lives it's life doing things that they'd rather not do, it's a blessing.  It's a goal that can be visualized, or something to be avoided.  Heaven is most likely not a place where you are issued a harp and Hell is probably not literally on fire, but those images do stand in for the far more complex realities of what happens to you and all of us when we make good decisions and poor ones.  In that way, heaven is likely infinitely better than you'd imagine and Hell infinitely worse, not because they are places to go, but because they are condition we reach or even create through our action or inaction.  

Hell is only a burden for people who'd rather not do the things required to avoid ending up in that state.  Nevertheless, denial of Hell as a place or concept does not affect the reality of a situation.  Bad decisions make for bad ends, and denying the effect of a cause does not make the effect any less real simply because you don't like it.  Hell, whatever it is, would not cease to exist if you don't believe in it and given the power of belief, I often wonder if it that very power that is what makes such states a reality.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#224 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 08 August 2003 - 09:40 AM

Vapor Trails, on Aug 7 2003, 07:55 PM, said:

Here's another thought on religion that should raise the blood pressure of some folks a few notches...
Now you're just flattering yourself.  :p
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#225 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 08 August 2003 - 09:57 AM

More on the appointment.

In the last three paragraphs, Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, weighs in.

#226 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,300 posts

Posted 08 August 2003 - 09:58 AM

My last post, and slightly on topic.

I have had a deep admiration all of my life for ministerial workers of all sorts.  I appreciate those who believe that God called them to serve Him, and others.  I appreciate those who spend their lives searching the sacred texts for guidance - and who share their findings with others to help them get along in life.

I appreciate the fact that there are people in the world whose primary job it is is to think about the human condition, and how to make it better - one person at a time.   I appreciate those who have as their life work sharing the burdens of others, exhorting others to betterment of themselves and the larger society.

Without prejudice against any one religion or denomination - I appreciate those who do this.  I always thought it was cool that ministers get that little card to put in their dashboard windows - telling traffic officers not to ticket them because they are making house calls.  I appreciate THAT ministers all over make housecalls!  And accept phone calls no matter what time of day.  And listen to people bellyache all day long about stuff they KNOW that they shouldn't be doing... etc... :)

In that respect - I have no real problem with the ordination of a gay bishop, beyond the abuse of the theology of the church in which he bishops.  I hope that the church has strong theology to stand on to support this move.  

I see the value to human society of religion.  I'm looking forward to the day when, as Martin Luther suggested, we are each our own clergy.

QT

Edited by QueenTiye, 08 August 2003 - 11:48 AM.

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#227 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 08 August 2003 - 12:20 PM

^ Very well said QT!!!
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#228 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,501 posts

Posted 08 August 2003 - 12:49 PM

Quote

Islam as a religion does not advocate, approve or condone in anyway what they did.

This is both true and false. :wacko: The more-educated Muslims, those who aren't quite so much out for revenge and destruction of all non-Islamic people (but prefer to interpret their own beliefs toward the good of humanity), didn't advocate, approve, condone 9/11. However, Islam has turned out to be as much a spectrum of beliefs as Christianity (with all its sects) has become. It's inaccurate to say that Islam is a religion of peace; it's a religion of complete surrender to God (and some believe what other people teach them that God has said, like in the madrassahs, where kids are raised being taught the Koran in a very biased way, made worse by the fact that Arabic may not be their native language, so they have no idea that the teaching is wrong; they're taught to memorize, not read and think for themselves). Some Muslims choose to be peaceful. However, Islam was often spread by the sword, in battle, with invasions. That's why we got to see a lot of the side that rejoiced in 9/11.
"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/

#229 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 08 August 2003 - 05:36 PM

prolog, on Aug 8 2003, 07:57 AM, said:

More on the appointment.

In the last three paragraphs, Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, weighs in.
Hmmm..interesting point of view:

Quote

"It seems to me rather sad, and rather revealing, that when it comes to sex we suddenly become much less intelligent about our reading of the Bible," Williams told the BBC late last year.

"If the Bible is very clear -- as I think it is -- that a heterosexual indulging in homosexual activity for the sake of variety and gratification is not following the will of God, does that automatically say that that is the only sort of homosexual activity there could ever be?

"My own personal conclusion is that I can see a case for acknowledging faithful same-sex relationships," he added.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#230 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 08 August 2003 - 06:31 PM

Rhea, on Aug 8 2003, 04:36 PM, said:

Quote

a heterosexual indulging in homosexual activity for the sake of variety and gratification is not following the will of God
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHahahahahahaaaaaaa!

Perhaps he should review the meaning of "heterosexual". How could he talk as if this absurd situation is even possible? It's like debating whether or not it's God's will for non-astronauts to travel in space, or for people with lungs and not gills to breathe under water.

It looks like the words of a bisexual who's trying to deny that and call himself/herself a heterosexual, as if his/her being sexually attracted to people from the same sex didn't mean anything.

I'm reminded of a televangelist I saw once talking about the life of Jesus. He was talking about Jesus having felt all the same temptations as any other mortal man, but having been different in resisting them. And he listed them: "He was tempted by theft, he was tempted by violence, he was tempted by laziness, he was tempted by homosexuality, he was tempted by greed..." Thus the preacher proved that he himself is "tempted by homosexuality" (i.e., either a homosexual or a bisexual in fact, but not admitting it), because it's impossible to think everyone feels something that you don't feel yourself.

The more I hear from religious leaders about sex, the more they sound like they're driven to project onto others their own personal problems and issues about sex.

Edited by Delvo, 08 August 2003 - 07:05 PM.


#231 NeuralClone

NeuralClone
  • Islander
  • 23,092 posts

Posted 08 August 2003 - 06:49 PM

Nevermind.

Edited by The Sisko, 08 August 2003 - 06:51 PM.

"My sexuality's not the most interesting thing about me."
— Cosima Niehaus, Orphan Black, "Governed By Sound Reason and True Religion"

#232 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 08 August 2003 - 09:28 PM

Delvo, on Aug 8 2003, 03:31 PM, said:

Rhea, on Aug 8 2003, 04:36 PM, said:

Quote

a heterosexual indulging in homosexual activity for the sake of variety and gratification is not following the will of God
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHahahahahahaaaaaaa!

Perhaps he should review the meaning of "heterosexual". How could he talk as if this absurd situation is even possible? It's like debating whether or not it's God's will for non-astronauts to travel in space, or for people with lungs and not gills to breathe under water.
Um, perhaps you do not know much about Middle Eastern men, and the old Testement is written to be law in that part of the world.

Here is the sexual philosophy of some men there - "Women are for breeding, young men are for pleasure"

So the Archbishop is not so off the beam as you may think.

And to me he is also saying if homosexuals are in a loving committed relationship it is very different than someone on the prowl for their pleasure only.
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#233 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 08 August 2003 - 09:30 PM

Delvo, on Aug 8 2003, 04:31 PM, said:

Perhaps he should review the meaning of "heterosexual". How could he talk as if this absurd situation is even possible? It's like debating whether or not it's God's will for non-astronauts to travel in space, or for people with lungs and not gills to breathe under water.

It looks like the words of a bisexual who's trying to deny that and call himself/herself a heterosexual, as if his/her being sexually attracted to people from the same sex didn't mean anything.

I'm reminded of a televangelist I saw once talking about the life of Jesus. He was talking about Jesus having felt all the same temptations as any other mortal man, but having been different in resisting them. And he listed them: "He was tempted by theft, he was tempted by violence, he was tempted by laziness, he was tempted by homosexuality, he was tempted by greed..." Thus the preacher proved that he himself is "tempted by homosexuality" (i.e., either a homosexual or a bisexual in fact, but not admitting it), because it's impossible to think everyone feels something that you don't feel yourself.

The more I hear from religious leaders about sex, the more they sound like they're driven to project onto others their own personal problems and issues about sex.
Hey, he may be off the beam but at least he's trying - and he's obviously given it some thought.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#234 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 08 August 2003 - 09:32 PM

Quote

And to me he is also saying if homosexuals are in a loving committed relationship it is very different than someone on the prowl for their pleasure only.

And remarkably consistent, since the Church feels the same way about heterosexual promiscuity as well.

Edited by Rhea, 08 August 2003 - 09:33 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#235 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 08 August 2003 - 10:20 PM

Delvo, on Aug 8 2003, 06:31 PM, said:

I'm reminded of a televangelist I saw once talking about the life of Jesus. He was talking about Jesus having felt all the same temptations as any other mortal man, but having been different in resisting them. And he listed them: "He was tempted by theft, he was tempted by violence, he was tempted by laziness, he was tempted by homosexuality, he was tempted by greed..." Thus the preacher proved that he himself is "tempted by homosexuality" (i.e., either a homosexual or a bisexual in fact, but not admitting it), because it's impossible to think everyone feels something that you don't feel yourself.
I don't follow your logic. The idea is that Jesus was tempted in every way that humans are tempted; this being the only way he could relate to the temptations that humans face. So, if you accept that premise, logically one of the temptations Jesus would have faced is the temptation to engage in homosexual activity. I don't understand how making such a statement "proves" anything about the person making the statement.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#236 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 08 August 2003 - 10:25 PM

GiGi, on Aug 8 2003, 08:28 PM, said:

Here is the sexual philosophy of some men there - "Women are for breeding, young men are for pleasure"
The men who see it that way are, by definition, not heterosexual, though. He talked about HETEROsexuals doing something that disproves HETEROsexuality.

#237 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 08 August 2003 - 10:30 PM

Drew, on Aug 8 2003, 09:20 PM, said:

The idea is that Jesus was tempted in every way that humans are tempted; this being the only way he could relate to the temptations that humans face. So, if you accept that premise, logically one of the temptations Jesus would have faced is the temptation to engage in homosexual activity.
Only if you figure that that urge is one that everybody experiences. The preacher I'm talking about specified that he was talking about temptations that we "ALL" experience. And obviously anybody who says that all human beings experience a given feeling or thought must experience it himself/herself, because otherwise (s)he'd know with absolute certainty that there are people who don't, being one of them himself/herself.

#238 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 08 August 2003 - 10:35 PM

Delvo, on Aug 8 2003, 07:25 PM, said:

The men who see it that way are, by definition, not heterosexual, though. He talked about HETEROsexuals doing something that disproves HETEROsexuality.
They don't see it that way.  They are just being men in that culture.

I don't even know if they make the same verbal distinctions as we do.
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#239 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 08 August 2003 - 10:45 PM

Delvo, on Aug 8 2003, 10:30 PM, said:

Only if you figure that that urge is one that everybody experiences. The preacher I'm talking about specified that he was talking about temptations that we "ALL" experience.
By "all" I'm sure he meant temptations that humanity experiences; that humanity as a unit experiences these temptations. That's the only logical explanation.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#240 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 08 August 2003 - 10:50 PM

GiGi, on Aug 8 2003, 09:35 PM, said:

I don't even know if they make the same verbal distinctions as we do.
It wouldn't matter if they did or didn't. English words don't depend on foreign ones for their meanings. And heterosexuality is sexual attraction only to members of the OPPOSITE sex. Yes, there are people who can be turned on by both sexes, but there's a word for that too, in English, and it's not heterosexual. It's bisexual. It's not about what any culture does or doesn't accept. It's just what the words mean. If you fit the description that defines one word and not the other one, then you can't be accurately referred to by the other word whose definition does not describe you! I really can't imagine what's making this so difficult for you.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Religion

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users