The Rampant, Irresponsible Religion Thread

[Jan]

Jan, as someone who grew up with parents who attended church, with regard to homosexuality, I'm not sure. I don't know if 2,000 years ago there was an Elton John or a Liberace. The Greeks did have great plays, so maybe they just didn't like the dramatic arts.

Dramatic arts? I don't understand-plays are part of the dramatic arts. As far as I know, the greek culture was accepting of homosexuality.

I was brought up and educated Catholic. One of the first 'issues' I had with the church was when I found out that my father, a Lutheran, had to literally sign away any right to any input into our religious upbringing in order to be allowed to marry my mother. I don't know how he felt about it, but I resented it on his behalf. My mother did too, I think, because while she enforced our churchgoing until high school, she encouraged us if we showed an interest in other ways.

Jan

[David Panzer]

Jan, I only mentioned the Greeks and their plays since that's the only ancient drama I know of. I didn't mean to imply that the greeks weren't keen on homosexuality. I was referring to those who wrote the bible, specifically those israelites back then who wrote what the christian bible calls the old testament, and the apostles who wrote the new testament. From what I know of, they didn't have any plays at all. Or if the other cultures that existed amongst the Israelites (The Philistines, Babylonians, Assyrians, Hittites and other peoples who ended in -ites) had plays, maybe the Israelites didn't enjoy them

[Jan]

Ah, thanks for the explanation. I'm aftraid I'm at work and didn't think it through to being about the people who wrote the bible.

Jan

[Dr Maturin]

<<I was brought up and educated Catholic. One of the first 'issues' I had with the church was when I found out that my father, a Lutheran, had to literally sign away any right to any input into our religious upbringing in order to be allowed to marry my mother. I don't know how he felt about it, but I resented it on his behalf. My mother did too, I think, because while she enforced our churchgoing until high school, she encouraged us if we showed an interest in other ways.>>

This is the major problem the Catholic Church has...it micromanages everything. The bureaucracy is ridiculous. I don't think spiritual life should be about doing what this or that priest says. I attended a non-denominational Christian school and when I'd bring up my ideas about Genesis, they were flabbergasted. I never said anything blasphemous or sacrilegious, but they just didn't like the fact that I had a new idea. Now my dad?he was a real Bible scholar?he would come up with ideas, too, but sadly, followers these days by and large simply subscribe to what priests and preachers teach without any of their own research.

[Capt.Montoya]

Something that no one has mentioned and must be said:

Pope John Paul II did not condemn homosexuality. Quite the opposite, he is the one Pope that did ask for respect for homosexuals and said that if God gave them that inclination it should be respected and they should not be shunned away from the Church.
Add this one to the many corrections and apologies he made for the sins past of the Catholic Church.
This is hardly the attitude of "the most conservative pope in at least 60 years" that Towelmaster said he was. The Pope was very conservative in the issue of women and the clergy and in the prohibition against contraception, but he wasn't that much of a conservative.

Sorry that I can't provide a direct quote or even tell you at what time in the past few years he said that being gay was okay. But the fact is that Shr'eshhh was completely wrong in implying that all Christian religions consider gays an abomination.
There is however a footnote to that: the Pope asked that homosexuals be celibate to be in the Church. The condemnation against anal sex has not been lifted.

The Catholic mandate against the use of condoms is not what's spreading AIDS in Africa, and it undid nothing. For the most part there is a male culture in Africa that not only shuns the use of condoms, in some countries men demand "dry sex" (to the best of my understanding that means that the women should not lubricate) which increases the risk of STD infections.
Actually if the Catholic doctrine took root in Africa and was followed to the letter it would stop the spread of AIDS as people would be first celibate and then faithful in their marriage... but I'm not that naive to believe that would happen.

You should also know that Catholic doctrine does accept some "birth control" methods (so called "natural" pregnancy avoidance methods, such as the Billings ovulation method and the rythm method). Actually when you marry as a Catholic you are told that it is your Christian duty to not have more children than you can afford. That the Billings method failure rate is high is beyond the point of this discussion IMO. Actually that failure rate may be one of the reasons why it is acceptable, since Catholic doctrine says that each and every copulation act should be open to conception.

But let me give you some additional facts: I know many Catholic couples that use forbidden contraception methods, I know Catholic women that had a therapeutic abortion, and since their abortion was due to health reasons they can get absolution and do not remain excommunicated. The Catholic Church however will not accept abortion as a population control method, and I entirely agree with that stance. There are many ways to prevent pregnancy to need abortion, in this I disagree with the Church's stance that all artificial pregnancy prevention methods are evil.

I actually think that condoms should be advertised in countries with a Catholic/Christian majority with the slogan: "if you're gonna sin anyway you might as well sin safely."

Jan: You are right in that Catholicism only accepts marriage to someone outside the Church (no matter what their religion is actually) if they agree to raise the children exclusively as Catholics. Whether that is so wrong I don't know, but I accept that it can cause grief in a family as in your case.
Not meaning to intrude in your personal life, but your mother could have chosen to marry as a Lutheran. AFAIK she would have been excommunicated by the Catholic Church, but not because of it be out of communion in the Lutheran Church.

BTW: marriage by Church and State are actually truly separate in many countries, a religious marriage just before a priest is not legal, and a civil marriage by a justice of the peace (or equivalent civil servant) is not recognized by the Church.
If only all countries had this distinction well made and enforced we might not even be having a discussion about whether gay marriage should be accepted. If the state defined marriage simply as a civil contract, no matter the sex, religions could either accept it or not and they could keep going on performing their religious unions.

Z'h'dD, the Catholic Church doesn't micromanage everything, and the doctrine doesn't say that you should always obey whatever a priest says, you are supposed to obey the word of God. The priest is only considered a conduit for the word of God, and if that priest were to deviate from the doctrine (heresy) he would be excommunicated.
I agree with you that most of the people that subscribe to a religion are just followers, but this is not a problem of Catholicism or even of Christianism alone.
I do however lay part of the blame on the religions themselves, for having an education (i.e. Cathechism lessons, or Sunday school) that only teaches precepts and dogmas without having the pupils think of the principles and reasoning behind.

[Dauriel]

My 2 cents worth

Interesting thread, so I thought I'd give my opinion.

I think I will remember Pope John Paul II as a compassionate and influential world figure. He was a man of peace and tried to work with leaders to make the world a better place. He was beloved by Catholics and Non-Catholics alike. He was also bound by the doctrines of the church he led, and stuck to his beliefs.

That being said, just some things about me so that I may be understood. My family is Luthern. While growing up, I went to many different services from Catholic to Baptist to Methodist to "fringe" groups. I am now non-religious, but spiritual. I believe in a creator. My partner is a semi-practicing Catholic. And I am gay. I respect all religions, honor all beliefs, and I am bound by none ot them. I've read the Bible and find it interesting in parts and incomprehensible in other parts. I also realize it's the most edited book and most interpeted book in existence.

One of the greatest gifts we all have is free will. It allows everyone to come up with their own beliefs. A religion may declare homosexuality wrong and evil. The Bible may state this in certain texts. This is all fine, because I don't share those beliefs. Notice I didn't say wrong or right.. I just don't share the beliefs. If someone tells me I am going to Hell just because I love another man, I reply "You may believe whatever you like." I don't believe in Hell and I don't share their beliefs. But I will respect the ideas behind their beliefs and not belittle them (other than my making fun of my sweetie and his Catholic guilt).

Do religions have problems? Sure! Are wars caused by differences in religions? Sure! But at the same time other organizations have problems. Wars are also fought for other reasons.

One solution may be to respect one another's beliefs and try to be good to one another.

Anyway, one man's opinion. Your mileage may vary...

[Dr Maturin]

Interesting thread, so I thought I'd give my opinion.

I think I will remember Pope John Paul II as a compassionate and influential world figure. He was a man of peace and tried to work with leaders to make the world a better place. He was beloved by Catholics and Non-Catholics alike. He was also bound by the doctrines of the church he led, and stuck to his beliefs.

That being said, just some things about me so that I may be understood. My family is Luthern. While growing up, I went to many different services from Catholic to Baptist to Methodist to "fringe" groups. I am now non-religious, but spiritual. I believe in a creator. My partner is a semi-practicing Catholic. And I am gay. I respect all religions, honor all beliefs, and I am bound by none ot them. I've read the Bible and find it interesting in parts and incomprehensible in other parts. I also realize it's the most edited book and most interpeted book in existence.

One of the greatest gifts we all have is free will. It allows everyone to come up with their own beliefs. A religion may declare homosexuality wrong and evil. The Bible may state this in certain texts. This is all fine, because I don't share those beliefs. Notice I didn't say wrong or right.. I just don't share the beliefs. If someone tells me I am going to Hell just because I love another man, I reply "You may believe whatever you like." I don't believe in Hell and I don't share their beliefs. But I will respect the ideas behind their beliefs and not belittle them (other than my making fun of my sweetie and his Catholic guilt).

Do religions have problems? Sure! Are wars caused by differences in religions? Sure! But at the same time other organizations have problems. Wars are also fought for other reasons.

One solution may be to respect one another's beliefs and try to be good to one another.

Anyway, one man's opinion. Your mileage may vary...

Well said. I believe you have the right to be gay just as I had the right to be a fornicator before I was married. Depending upon what one believes, we will be held accountable for our actions. My being a fornicator is no better than taking part in homosexual activity, as outlined by the Bible. Just as sinning by having pre-marital sex is no better than having sex without a condom.

[Jan]

Welcome, Dauriel (in case I didn't say that before)! That was an excellent post, thanks.

Just to throw a question out to the group...(I warned you about my favorite question..<g>)

Why should anything that does not do any harm to anybody be considered a sin? That's assuming that you believe it is, of course.

My answer: It shouldn't...ever. In my book, the only sin is to deliberately harm another unnecessarily. Now, granted, I'm still a little fuzzy on some details, like where cruelty to animals would fall (though I do think that's wrong) but for me the key words would be 'deliberate' and 'unnecessarily'.

Does anybody have any other definitions of sin besides this one and 'Because I believe what my religion has defined it as.'?

Jan

[WorkerCaste]

Why should anything that does not do any harm to anybody be considered a sin? That's assuming that you believe it is, of course.

Just to play the devil's advocate (although in this case it's really reversed ) I would argue that spiritual harm is as important, if not more so given the eternal soul, than physical harm, and that part of the role played by religions is to keep you from spiritual harm which you may not recognise or comprehend.

That said, and before people get the wrong idea, please understand that with regard to the things under discussion, sexuality, birth control, etc. I personally do not believe any harm is being done.

[Dr Maturin]

<<I've worked with a gay person at one of my previous jobs.>>

Ha ha! A gay person. There are many homosexuals at the plant I work at. They're just people. Hell, the assistant plant manager is a lesbian and some loser guy is a an ex-con. When you work with the common folk, you see that there are demographics within demographics.

[David Panzer]

Z'ha'Dum- If you read my post where you quoted that one line in particular, you would have seen it wasn't a problem for me at all. I didn't even know one of my co-workers was gay, until the conversation turned that way. He was the one who said it first. I never brought the topic up to him at all. After he told me, I joked that my rear is exit only. He laughed whilst he said "Don't worry, You're not my type". I laughed, and continued on with lunch. Later on, I was confused as to what my reaction should have been. A sigh of relief or feel like I've been rejected.

Those few minutes never changed the fact that he was one of the few people there that actually got their work done in a reasonable amount of time. What one does in their bedroom at home has no merit or basis for job performance. I was trying to get that point across in that post, as well as adding some levity to the topic in general. Besides, having to type out "homosexual" does get a bit tiring, so using "gay person" isn't the same thing as the well-known derogatory terms.

[colonyearth]

Besides, having to type out "homosexual" does get a bit tiring,

Tell me about it, besides, as a said "gay person" I hate the actual term "homosexual." Most of my friends do as well. We prefer "gay." Homosexual just sounds.........stupid, and I'm far from that.

so using "gay person" isn't the same thing as the well-known derogatory terms.

Like such as we have reclaimed! "Queer" "Fag" "Faggot" "Peter-Puffer" "Fudge Packer" "Cocksucker" "Big Mo" "Sister" "Salami Stuffer" "Homo"...etc, etc.

I could go on and on. None of these terms offends me when said by anyone who means no harm by them, whether they be gay, straight, or purple. If it's said in jest or fun, in commonality as a fellow human, in anecdotal ways, it matters not to me. I proudly go by any of them.

If said in hatred, or anger, or prejudice? I still proudly go by any of them...I just feel really sorry for the person speaking...since they're an uneducated, unenlightened moron of a person...and that's really just sad.

CE

[AaronB]

Tell me about it, besides, as a said "gay person" I hate the actual term "homosexual." Most of my friends do as well. We prefer "gay." Homosexual just sounds.........stupid, and I'm far from that.



Like such as we have reclaimed! "Queer" "Fag" "Faggot" "Peter-Puffer" "Fudge Packer" "Cocksucker" "Big Mo" "Sister" "Salami Stuffer" "Homo"...etc, etc.

I could go on and on. None of these terms offends me when said by anyone who means no harm by them, whether they be gay, straight, or purple. If it's said in jest or fun, in commonality as a fellow human, in anecdotal ways, it matters not to me. I proudly go by any of them.

If said in hatred, or anger, or prejudice? I still proudly go by any of them...I just feel really sorry for the person speaking...since they're an uneducated, unenlightened moron of a person...and that's really just sad.

CE

It is interesting to see how groups take that was was supposed to belittle them and turn them into "badges of honor". I am a big history buff (I majored in Jewish History) and I have seen this every time that the Jews have been forced to wear something to mark themselves as Jewish, they have turned them into something that is prideful.

CE Of course your litany of insults reminded me of the scene in Roxanne where Steve Martin rattles off all of the jokes about big noses.

[Dauriel]

If said in hatred, or anger, or prejudice? I still proudly go by any of them...I just feel really sorry for the person speaking...since they're an uneducated, unenlightened moron of a person...and that's really just sad.

CE

I have a friend who, when called a name, will point and say something like "Idiot" or "Moron" or something unprintable. When confronted he'll say
"Oh I thought we were pointing out the obvious."

[Capt.Montoya]

{...}
I could go on and on. None of these terms offends me when said by anyone who means no harm by them, whether they be gay, straight, or purple.
{...}

CE

But what if they be green??