The Scary "Let's Talk About Religion" Thread

[3peanuts]

I've read your post very carefully, and I am happy La created this thread (thanks ).



I've said in the intro thread I'm Buddhist. This is the end of a long trip, trying to find a dimension. Buddhism has always been present in my life. Last January I just held out a hand and "grabbed" it.



I've been Catholic (as the majority here in Italy) for most of my life, and I still appreciate a lot of Catholic philosophy, even if it doesn't belong to me anymore. I was raised by nuns and over-religious people. And being not accepted by my religous community for beeing gay certainly didn't help me to feel at ease. I've been said I was a demon when I was a child because I was too intelligent, I've been said I was a demon several times in my life (coming out issues), and you can imagine how this could feel. I know that Catholic idea is "apparently" soft about homosexuality: nobody, even a good-old fashioned priest will tell you that he/she rejects you. But when they say you must negate your physical needs, that you have to regret for your loving feelings, that you will go to hell if you don't feel sorry for your abominable situation, well it doesn't seem to me an acceptance. I didn't leave Roman Catholic Church for this, there are deeper reasons, even deeper than homosexuality, but I really feel comfortable now, because my "type" of Buddhism is very openminded on this issue. And it helps, a lot, to feel, as I'm trying to become, responsible of my life, not giving to any God or goddes power on my destiny, just to me and my willingness to respect myself.

"Cunning linguist" GG

Keynes was right

[Gatito Grande]

Just about anytime you're w/ a group of bright, articulate (to say nothing of Out, Loud & Proud ) people, you're sure to find a bunch of ex- or "recovering" Catholics.



At the same time, among any large group of practicing Catholics, you're sure to find some who are queer, Queer, QUEER. (I'm of this second group, of the Episcopalian Anglo-Catholic variety).



Why is this? It's because Catholicism (broadly defined), has two faces: a stern and/or neurotically-repressed moralistic side , and an expansive, effusive and, above all, sensual, theological side.



Too many queers (esp. closet cases) are living schizophrenically pulled between both sides. Others, like members of Dignity (RC) or Integrity (Episcopalians), know that the moralistic side is a crock, having nothing to do w/ the Gospel, and everything to do w/ patriarchal power-structures (which are often *in*, though not *of*, The Church). We Happy Queer Catholics have plugged into the Real Ethic of Jesus---Love, Justice, Kindness, Mercy (and sex, sex, sex!---within relationships built on the previous 4)---and are free to enjoy the faboo theology of Resurrection and Eating God, w/ all those delicious smells and bells, without the papal/patriarchal crap.



Former Catholics (and current Agnostics, Buddhists, U-Us, etc.), you're perfectly justified in leaving all the homo- (and *women*-) hating behind. But some of us have learned to separate the Holy from the Unholy w/in Catholicism---at first personally, and eventually, like leaven, all the way through.



GG For all Kittens so inclined to pray: please say 'em for the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire this weekend. They are on the verge of electing the Anglican Communion's (70+ million world-wide) first Out Gay Bishop. A miracle if ever there was one! Out







ETA:HALLELUJAH!!!

New Hampshire *did* elect the first gay bishop!



Here's a link to the story:

ecusa.anglican.org/ens/2003-125.html



Congrats to Canon Gene Robinson, his partner Mark, his kids Jamee and Ella, the faithful of the Diocese of New Hampshire, and the Whole God-Blessed World! Woo Hoo!

Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 6/7/03 11:15 am

[3peanuts]

Yeah the sensual thing has always been kinda interesting for me, you know ecstasy=orgasm, and eating God's body and drinking his blood, that was one of the main reasons I sticked to Cath. until yesterday (metaphoric yesterday). But my religous feelings are now oriented to something different: there is a side in Cath. that I find very archaic. I studied a lot of religions and I know where all Cath. dogmas come from (even the real, pagan, origin of them): I felt it was too far from my sense of religion, so I left.



Nevertheless, what you just wrote about homos and R. C. Church is too damn true. Even tho' I always thought Saint John and Jesus...well you know, kind of Gilgamesh/Enkidu gay thing...



No offense intended for Cath. people out there, it's just my (and a number of biblists') opinion and interpretation. *peace*

"Cunning linguist" GG

Keynes was right

[MellindraX]

I'm glad to have found this thread, gives me a bit of an opportunity to rant (me, rant? Never!). Religion is kind of a big thing for me, not because of events in my life or anything like that, but just because it fascinates me. Ok, my story of religion.

I was born into a "Catholic" family. My mother was raised very religiously, church every Sunday and the whole nine-yards. My father... I don't really know. His family isn't religious to any degree, really. All I know was that he converted to Catholicism to let my mom have a wedding in the church.

I think it was a reaction or something to her very religious upbringing, but we never really did the whole religion thing. I still can't remember what the ten commandments are. We went to church on Christmas and Easter, if we had time, and didn't feel any particularly strong aversion to going that day. Maybe.

Even still, for my entire young life I did consider myself Catholic, and had a vague concept of there being a higher power watching over. I never really thought about it though.

The ironic thing is what happened to my belief when I moved into the Bible Belt. You would think that it would be strengthened, right? Wrong.

Instead, I became an atheist! I find it ironic, anyway...

I don't really know why it happened in that one year in hell (death to Tupelo...it must buuuuurn), but I think it's because I was so surrounded by religion that it was the first time I ever really thought about it. Which is why it finally occured to me how illogical it seemed (to me, anyway).

Since then, I've been atheist, and it's been a good time.

That was my story of religious change, now for a bit about religious thoughts/opinions (you poor things).

Somewhere in this thread someone said (general, I know. I read this thread over a period of about a week, forgive me) mentioned they think that it's nausiating that people need religion as a reason to do good things. Or, for other cases as I've observed, bad things.

Human nature is selfish and greedy. There's no denying this. One of religions original purposes was to create a reason for people not to be selfish or greedy, but to try to actually help one another, by creating rules to follow. The rules were followed because of the reason that religion was actually created, being that real life sucked so hard people needed something good to look forward to (aka afterlife). So be a good person or more of real life!

The reason that people use it for bad things is not because they need a reason. They would do whatever they're doing with or without religion. Religion just gives them a very handy, very flexible, excuse.

Um... ok, I'm forgetting something. But that's all I can remember I wanted to say for now =b

It is my solace, my home, the place where my walls crumble and fall away, because no one can know who I truly am. Thank goodness for the Internet, preserver of sanity! -Unknown

[HallowedAbyss]

I've found most ideas of religion to be sorta...a farce. Maybe it's because I live in the one and only bible belt, and am surrounded by the ideas of Christianity.



I don't understand, how someone could embrace the idea of completely putting faith in something they never see, and that's intangible. That goes for all religions really, and I think it's a bit insane.... So many people have faith in a 'higher power' of sorts, but none in themselves. That seems oddly depressing to me somehow...it's saying "I put myself in your hands, you control me, and I am just a pawn". Maybe that's just how I see it..



Organized religions plain out spook me. For some reason, all religions that include mass worship make me think of cults. But I've always thought there to be a fine line between true belief and fanatic obsession.



Well, this did start out with a point, and now I've rambled..sorry if I've offended or plain out bored anyone.

"Look into my eyes and see, that you've fufilled every dream and fantasy, your the Queen of my reality."

[tommo]

Quote:

---

I don't understand, how someone could embrace the idea of completely putting faith in something they never see, and that's intangible.

---

Well, no offence taken here, and definitely none intended, but what you've just pointed out is the basic tenet of faith. Remember the story of Doubting Thomas? Well, for a lot of people who subscribe to a particular religion, and I'll talk about Christianity here, because it's what I'm most familiar with, then faith is what underpins your belief system.



I have to confess to being a little concerned about the point you make that asserts to people being "pawns". I don't believe, for myself, that I'm God's pawn. I'm an individual with self-control and, as such, don't believe that God directs everything I do. For me, my religion is more of a community-based set of beliefs than what you see as a "cult". Again, that notion concerns me. I'm sure the nice old ladies who gather for coffee after church every Sunday aren't part of a cult, heh. But perhaps I'm naive; I really couldn't say.



For me, the idea of religion is about having faith in a belief system that, essentially, brings people together. I'm by no means religious; I don't consider myself a very devoted Catholic at all, but I do go to church and I do get involved with some of the functions there, because it makes me feel good about being me. In the same way that helping a friend out makes me feel good about being me, I think it's rather the ideas surrounding religion, rather than the religion itself that I find most attractive.



Do I have faith in something intangible? Yes, I do. I also believe that people have souls, even though no doctor in the world could extract one through surgery. In the same way that I also believe people have emotions; intangible and non-corporeal emotions. But very real.



I'm sorry that your experiences with religion haven't been positive. I can't begin to imagine how you must feel if you're surrounded by ideas that conflict with you as a person. Like I said, I'm a Catholic but there are a hundred and one reasons why, rationally, I shouldn't adhere to the religious beliefs that I do.

Quote:

---

But I've always thought there to be a fine line between true belief and fanatic obsession.

---

You're right. I don't doubt that there is. And who can say when we cross that line? That's a tough question, and one which I'm sure I'm not qualified to answer in any way.

"Cheese falls apart. It crumbles apart so much. You can't ever put it back the way it was. I'm sorry, it's just...you know, it takes time to eat Cheshire cheese. You can't just go for coffee and crackers and expect cheesey goodness..." ~ Cheesetropy

[BBOvenGuy]

I went to college in the middle of the Bible Belt, and tried to be something of a Fundamentalist for several years when I was married - but I'm feeling much better now.



The problem I have with conservative Christianity is that to me it seems to be based on a logical contradiction. The Christian message is that "salvation" is impossible through human means, but God offers it as a free gift for everyone who will accept it. The conservative churches claim to accept this doctrine, but then they turn it on its head. "You can't be saved by following rules and regulations," they say, "but if you want to be sure you've really accepted God's free gift, here are some rules and regulations that will show you whether or not you have."



The Bible itself explains the danger of centering your beliefs around following rules and regulations. In Ephesians 2:8-9, Paul writes, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God - not the result of works, so that no one may boast." Basing "salvation" on how well you follow rules and regulations inevitably leads to a culture where certain groups emerge as being "better" than others, and large groups of people end up being excluded for one reason or another - and if you look at conservative Christianity, that's exactly what you see.



The expression of the Christian message that has worked best for me personally comes from Thomas Merton, a 20th century Catholic monk who also studied a lot of Buddhist teachings. The way I understand Merton's depiction is this - We are all made in the image of God. Inside each of us is a perfect true self that knows God and wants to be exactly the way God made us. But that true self is blocked by a "false self" of egocentric desires - some people would call that "original sin." The way to be "saved" is to forsake the "false self" of ego and open yourself so that God can show you your true self. It's not something that happens all at once, and it's not something that can ever be completed in this lifetime. In some ways it's similar to Buddhism, except that in Buddhism the false self is forsaken in favor of "no self" or "the Void."



And what are these egocentric desires of the false self? Here's where the Fundamentalists can jump in and start making up lists, rules and regulations - but personally, I don't think I can point out anybody's egocentric desires but my own, and I'm sure I don't even know all of mine. And that's scary - it can be frightening to think that you don't even know all your own faults, let alone anybody else's.



And that's the appeal of rules and regulations - they relieve you of the burden of thinking. If the pressure of self-examination and being honest with yourself is too much for you to handle, a handy checklist of rules to follow can ease a lot of your burden. But it's a lazy way out that doesn't always work and leaves you vulnerable to your own pride.

"The first task of anyone, lest you get canceled, is to entertain people, because they ain't there for message." - Dick Wolf

[maudmac]

HallowedAbyss, you know I'm right there with you smooshed into the very buckle of the Bible Belt. I wasn't raised any religion at all, but I soaked up enough from people around me, like kids at school who insisted that their mamas were certain I was going to burn in eternal hellfire for not going to church. Because the preacher said so. Because the Bible told him so. And the Bible is the absolute word of God, of course. Uh-huh.



I can speak from experience about the kind of damage that can do to young people. To hear (probably daily) that you're doomed to damnation for all of eternity? Because you don't go to church? Or because you might like other girls? Or because you...anything?



If that kind of religion or that kind of Christianity is helpful to some folks, if it helps them lead happier, more fulfilling lives, that's wonderful and I'm happy for them. But I know a whole lot of people, especially young people, who've been driven nearly to the ends of their ropes by being surrounded by that.



My exploration of different religions besides Christianity was brought about by the same doubts and questions you're having now. If you're interested, Beliefnet is a pretty good site to get a grasp of the tenets of the major world religions. But, if you're not interested in religion, don't let anyone make you feel like you ought to be. If it doesn't make sense to you to put your faith somewhere other than yourself, don't do it. Have faith in you. You know what's right for you, you feel what makes you happiest. And I really do think that's a lot more important than what any particular religion might try to tell you is important.

---

Pussy crack corn...and I don't care! -- Margaret Cho

[La]

Quote:

---

But, if you're not interested in religion, don't let anyone make you feel like you ought to be. If it doesn't make sense to you to put your faith somewhere other than yourself, don't do it. Have faith in you. You know what's right for you, you feel what makes you happiest. And I really do think that's a lot more important than what any particular religion might try to tell you is important.

---

well said, maudmac, I agree completely. And if being super-religious makes sense to you, that's awesome too.

~La



-But they are-are naked!

-Naturally! It's much too dangerous to jump through fire with your clothes on!"

~Lord Summerisle to Sergeant Howie in The Wicker Man, in regards to women jumping over a bonfire during on May Day

[adrileans]

HMMM...



So many things to say about this particular topic.

First of all I've read the replies and I respect them cause they're all valid points. That's all I'm gonna say about them cause don't wanna offend anyone with so my ramblings, not that I have anything to say bad about them. because I don't.



Anyways let me get on with my point (and I promise there is one.) What I do believe: I am a Christian a Roman Catholic to be exact and I just want to say I love my religion. But as much as I love it there are some things that I don't agree with I mean sometimes when the priest is up there talking about say single parents and how there needs to be two parents a mom and a dad. I just sit in there and think I'm sorry but that's not true. A family is what people themselves make of it. Not just a mom and dad, ot could be just a mom or a dad or two moms or two dads (y'all get what I mean). Back to my point there are so many things that I disagree with, with my religion but as much as I do. I also believe in it, not for the sake of believing in something higher than myself but because there are people that I know and things that have happened in my life to believe. So there's my rambling I hope it makes sense.



Adri.

[HallowedAbyss]

Quite a various amount of replies...Not to sure what to reply to them, because everything that's in regard to my post, has been said.



So I suppose my random thoughts can be left to rest.

"Look into my eyes and see, that you've fufilled every dream and fantasy, your the Queen of my reality."

[kitkat3NY]

Hi,



I've been a Christian all my life. I grew up in a Pentecostal church, where I went to church on a few week nights, Friday nights was youth night and Sunday I spent all day in church. That lasted until I was about 15yrs old. Then I just started going to church on Sunday mornings as oppose to living in church.



Right now I'm 28rys old and I feel a little abandon by the church, not Christ though. I always grew up w/ them telling me that being gay was an abomination to God and gays would not enter the kingdom of heaven.



I just came out about 9mths ago and it's really tough for me. My family keeps telling me I'm full of demons and I'm going to hell, but I don't belive that. I think that sometimes Christians pick and choose and twist the Bible to what they want it to say. And the Bible also leaves out a lot of information. They also forget that the scriptures were inspired by God, they aren't exactly God's words, and they have to remember the oppressed times they were written in.



I am a Christian and I know Jesus loves me and I do worship him. I don't judge though, I think that's where Christian fall short and discourage others from believing because they are so rigid and judgmental.



When the subject of being gay comes up, they keep throwing Sodom and Gomorra (sp) at me. The Bible never said that Sodom was destroyed because of the people being gay, it was because of the evilness that they were doing and their disobedience. Maybe some were gay and maybe they weren't but they use this event and blow it up, they really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to this issue. I ask them to show me where in the Bible it says that gays are going to hell and they can't give me an exact scripture just more talk, talk.



So to sum up all of this, I am a Christian and I do believe in Jesus Christ, heaven and hell, and I know I'm not full of demons (like my mom loves to condemn me of) I'm full of the Lord.

Edited by: Warduke at: 6/16/03 12:06 pm

[Gatito Grande]

Amen and Hallelujah, kitkat3NY! I always think it's a miracle when someone comes through a bad so-called "Christian" up-bringing (w/ constant unwanted reminders) w/ their faith in the Prince of Peace intact.





This is for HallowedAbyss. I hope you don't feel like an outsider in this thread---your viewpoint is a valid one. I guess that when I read this statement of yours, though

Quote:

---

I don't understand, how someone could embrace the idea of completely putting faith in something they never see, and that's intangible

---

I thought, don't we *all* put our faith in intangibles *all the time*? To turn on the light switch is to place your faith in something you can't see. I put my faith in American electoral democracy in the last Presidential election, and we know how that turned out!



No, it seems like, w/ our puny human brains, the question is not whether to place faith in an intangible, only which one? I choose to believe that Love is the Greatest Power in the Universe. It may be untrue---may even be a "farce"---but it seems quite a bit better than many of the other intangibles out there. (The American Way? S/he who dies w/ the most toys, wins? Looking out for Number One?)



While I may not have agreed w/ his conclusions (his theology), I still think that Bob Dylan was basically correct:"It might be the Devil, or it might be the Lord, but you got to serve somebody."



GG Love his music, but Bobby D may have had them mixed-up . . . Out



Edited, as I may have accidentally mischaracterized someone else's comments.

Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 6/17/03 12:36 pm

[3peanuts]

What about serving yourself? Yourself as a part of the Law, as we "fucking buddhists" use to do...



Hey just quoting from Bjork there!

"Cunning linguist" GG

Keynes was right

[Gatito Grande]

But as a "fucking Buddhist" isn't that self an illusion?



Seriously, 3p, I think that the Buddhist "No Self" is just another intangible to put your faith in, no more or less True than the Christian "God." (Which is OK by me! )



GG As long as you *don't* put your faith in American Electoral Democracy . . . Out

[tommo]

Sigh.



I wasn't picking on anyone. Just for the record. I was attempting to air my views, in an honest and straightforward manner. I do hope that comment wasn't directed towards me.

Tara: Nobody messes with my cheese. ~ Bargaincheese Part 2

[3peanuts]

There are a lot of types of Buddhism, GG. The Theravada one (Dalai Lama, Richard Gere...) is much similar to the occidental pov. My faith is different: there is an ocean between a personificated trascendental God and a immanent not identified in a person Law. And being a Daughter of God is quite different from being God, i.e. I believe I'm not a part of the Whole, I am the Whole and the Whole is me.



Still, quite different.

"Cunning linguist" GG

Keynes was right

[darkmagicwillow]

As reported in an article in the Asia Times, Americans are far more religious than Europeans:

Fifty-three percent of Americans say that religion is very important in their lives, compared with 16 percent, 14 percent and 13 percent respectively of the British, French and Germans, according to a 1997 University of Michigan survey.

What causes this difference in national character? And does it have anything to do with the faster decline of birth rates in Europe as the author of the article claims it does?

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[Gatito Grande]

DMW, a major reason for the difference in religiousity between the U.S. and Western Europe, is that 250-350 years ago, some of the most religious Brits and Germans (less so French) left their mother countries for the British American colonies, fleeing persecution for places like Pennsylvania (w/ its official religious liberty per Wm. Penn's charter), or the de facto freedom of the frontier.



This emigration of the "most religious" both contributed to the explicitly religious character of (U.S. of) American culture, as well as left their home countries less (relatively) religious by their absence. More problematically, the historical memories of their persecution, contributed to a "victim mentality" still so evident among U.S. (conservative) Christians today.



Despite the hegemony of a faith group like the Southern Baptists (largest Protestant denomination in the U.S.), many of its members have the attitude that they could be burned at the stake at any moment---without constant, militant vigilance towards the wicked "Godless" (whether Catholics, Jews, Muslims, atheists, and---most pernicious of all---those heinous "liberals" who claim the same Gospel as themselves).



GG In the U.S., the Age of Reason was largely limited to engineering better machinery for making those profits God had predestined for the Elect. Out



ETA: Oh, I forgot. Besides the victim mentality, the other phenomenon of these persecuted minorities emigrating to America, is the subsequent place that the U.S. took in their theologies. Among conservative American Christians, it is *extremely common* that the U.S. is given a privileged place: favored by God, most faithful to God, playing the leading (Earthly) role for the forces of God in the End Times.



One Southern Baptist put it thusly (paraphrased):

"Of all the places in the Universe, the Earth is most important to the Will of God. Of all the places on Earth, America is most important to the Will of God. Of all the religions in America, Protestantism is most important to the Will of God. And of all the segments of Protestantism, the Southern Baptists are most important to the Will of God. Therefore, as go the Southern Baptists, so goes the Will of God."

Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 7/14/03 12:03 pm

[maudmac]

Someone said that?!? It's like they're saying they are God.



GG! This is "The Scary 'Let's Talk About Religion' Thread," and you've gone and turned it into "The Scary Religions Thread."



Seriously, though, are there some religions that are frightening? I'm really quite terrified of a lot of the things people will do in the name of some higher power or another, for the sake of their religion. But are there some religions or denominations or cults or sects or whatever that folks find frightening in and of themselves? I can think of lots of tenets from various religions that I disagree with and lots of practices common in various religions that I abhor, but I can't think of one right now that I'd say I think is frightening, just by its nature.



Speaking of cults, I've seen that bumper sticker that says "Religions Are Just Cults With More Members." How valid is that? Because that does make sense to me. I don't see any difference between a group of a dozen, hundred, or thousand people with a set of beliefs and a group of millions or more with a set of beliefs. Wouldn't all the major world religions have been classified as "cults" when they were in their infancy? Why then are religions respected while cults are maligned?

---

Pussy crack corn...and I don't care! -- Margaret Cho

[Gatito Grande]

FYI, maudmac, in the scholarly study of religion, one in fact does not say "cult" (because of its obvious bias). One says "New Religious Movements."



GG Finds any non-ultimately Universalist (in terms of salvation) religion inherently scary Out

[32flavors]

Hello everyone.



Just found and read this thread and I have about a 100 things I'd like to say, all mixed up but I'll try to be brief and clear..



I was not raised with any particular religion, but I have an aunt who is a catholic nun and I've always thought the world of her, and because of that I really respect people who are able to commit to that extent. I myself have been all over the place trying to find something to make me glow the way she does.



I always seem to end up with one conclusion : definition is a really, really big part of this quest. Really cutting to the bone of things, ex : the difference between faith and religion.. And, yes, to me there is a difference. One might say it's two sides of the same thing, and it CAN be, when it is at it's best. I think faith is the personal part of it, the feeling, the sense that there is something out there that responds to something inside you, it trancends, it can't really be grasped or defined, you just sense it sometimes.

Religion on the other hand is an attemp to do just that : grasp and define, trying to give this free flowing, all consuming feeling a form, a shape that'll make it easier for people to relate, because it really is the big scary questions that religion deals with.

The theology part is usually quite harmless, it's when politics and culture start to interfere it get's messy, when people start hitting each other on the head with bible quotes and 'my

god-is-better-than-your-god' attitudes. Or in other words, I don't have a problem with god, I have a problem with church.



It always makes me think of Kant and his 'Das Ding an sich' and 'das Ding für Uns' ('the thing in itself' and 'the thing to us'.

My translation, may not be perfect, but there you go).. It's about perception. Things excist in (or for) themselves and as we percive them we bring in our entire context, our lives and experiences and therefore two peolpe can percive the same thing totally different. And I think that is also the case with religion and faith, that there is a essence in itself that also excist in us, in our hearts, souls, whatever, and religion is 'us', people as a race breaking our collective backs trying to grasp and get closer to, percive, this essence.... Does that make any sense, at all, or am I just completely missing the point here??



Oh and about Sodom and Gomorrah ... one question: Then what happens?? Yeah,ok, wrath of god, fire and brimstone and Lot's wife getting salty, but then what?? Lot and his daugthers go up into the mountains, he get's drunk and then he get's his daugthers pregnant. And no wrath of god there. My point?? I'll tell you, if you conclude from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah that being gay is bad, then what could you conclude - following the same lines of logic - conclude from the rest ??



Ok, this ran long, sorry..



- Diana

-----------------------------------------------------------

"I never tried to give my life meaning / by demeaning you / and I would like to state for the record / I did everything that I could do / I'm not saying that I am a saint / I just don't wanna live that way / I will never be a saint / but I will always say / squint your eyes and look closer" Ani DiFranco

[gspiggott]

You know I'm probably way too frivolous to be posting in this thread but I can't help myself. I've read the whole bible more than once and it actually reminds me of Buffy. Great start, then it has all kinds of drama , poetry and interesting characters.When it's lagging a bit a new character comes on the scene who is very compassionate and thoughtful. Then the compassionate character is shoved out of the way after a brutal death by a johnny come lately who tells every one else what to do all the time and is treated as the Most Important Person Ever. By the time Revelations rolls around it's impossible to make sense of the plot ,and frankly the ending of the bible is a bit of a letdown. IMHO.I've always wondered why the right wing is so big on St. Paul since a lot of traditional scholars thought he was gay.I hate that it was okay to send the concubine out to be raped to death but the man was protected from the Sodom and Gomorrah townies.Like most religions there's room for improvement, and we don't pay much attention to those biblical passages about the treatment of slaves anymore. But I find some of the bible beautiful. oh and ,David and Jonathan-total HoYay.Wading back to the shallow end of the pool now.

[3peanuts]

Great interpretation...

I have theories on the Bible, too. Although I've been raised as a Cath I've always felt it was more a normal book then the base text to my religion.

Don't tell mama what is written in the Bible: it's much worse than she thinks and much worse than the naughty things she thinks you do.

My personal experience...mama was blown away when I told her about Lot...

"Cunning linguist" GG

Keynes was right

[gspiggott]

There's always Oscar Wilde on the Bible,"It begins in a garden and ends in Revelation."

[darkmagicwillow]

It's interesting to read through the Torah then the various Gospels (I always liked the Gospel of Thomas) and finally the letters (I think the Orthodox do better than the Catholics as they add St Cyril) to see how the concepts of deity have changed so dramatically.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[Diebrock]

DMW wrote:

Quote:

---

What causes this difference in national character?

---

DMW, I found an article about Religion/Christianity in Europe from Time Magazine that may be of interest to you.



And I also want to add something to GG's explanation. Not only the most religious but the most radical and fundamentalistic (but maybe that's the same) left. I think, that is the only explanation as to why European protestant churches (at least that is what I read) accept homosexuality, abortion, living together/having children without being married, sexual equality and so on with relative ease (I know that I'm generalizing), while a lot of the American protestant churches (their intolerance) seem to me worse than the Catholic church.

It took me years to understand that about the US, since I (totally unreligious, but living in a traditionally protestant corner of a traditionally mostly catholic Bundesland/state) only knew the general constellation of: Protestant church=moderate/ tolerant and Catholic church=conservative/trying to force their outdated morals onto everyone whether catholic or not.

Quote:

---

(On why to not include a mention of god in the preamble of the EU constitution)

"Many of Europe's values -- respect for human life, the desire to protect the weak and the oppressed, equal treatment of women, the commitment to the rule of law -- arose in the course of a long history in which the influence of Christianity was very significant," wrote former French Prime Minister Michel Rocard recently. " But Europe also found a productive balance between church and state. Public powers should not depend or refer to any religious authority."

---

Amen. Religion should be private.

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[Gatito Grande]

Diebrock, perhaps you mean sectarian dogma should be private? Because I can't agree on your broader injunction.



In most cases, "religion" describes a belief system that has dogma (cosmologies, eschatology, soteriology---"where we come from, where we're going, and what it all means---and frequently theology "The Ultimate behind/within it all"), but it also has ethics. It is this latter, that I think emphatically should be *public*: but with the proviso that they are Good Ethics!



For an example of this, look no further than Martin Luther King, Jr. He brought social ethics that were distinctly religious to the American Body Politic---and they were the best thing to happen to the U.S. since Lincoln (who also had a religious social ethic, though typically a more pragmatic one).



Almost all the great liberation movements have had a religious drive to them (at least in the U.S.): ending slavery, extending the vote to women, the move for racial equality. I would argue that the only reason that gay rights has not usually been grouped w/ these religious movements ("evangelical," small 'e'), has been the stereotypical, bogus "Sin of Sodom" canard. But slowly, this is giving way---even in the Bad Ol' U.S. of A.!



Well, anymore along this line, and I'll have to move this post to the "Scarier Rel & Homo" thread. Suffice it to say that meaningful religious values have been one of the greatest forces behind positive social change (depending on how one defines religion---does Marxism qualify?---maybe the only force).



GG And these changes, glacially, are even affecting the Roman Catholic Church Out

[Diebrock]

Forgive me if this is incoherent, but it's after 1 am and I should really be asleep.



Nope, I meant that religion should be a private thing. God has no business in politics in a country that claims to adhere to the seperation of church and state.



Good ethics? And who decides? There are a lot of people that would like part of their good ethics to become a new amendment: namely that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

Ethics depend on morals. And morals are different in different cultures and religions.



I'm not sure what you mean with social ethics. Could you please elaborate?



I don't think we really disagree. But I think you argue from a historical point of view, meaning that the roots of most of our "guidelines" such as the Human Rights, for instance, lie in religion.

And I say that once we had these non-religious, universal rights declared, religious ethics just got in the way. See your point about equality for gays being denied because of religious morals when every human being should have the same rights.

There is no doubt that our ethics reflect our Christian roots. There is no doubt that the Enlightenment could not stand alone without it's Christian background. I'm not disputing that.

You say that "slowly, this (gay rights) is giving way". You're probably right. But fact is we as a society are already there and now have to wait for the church to catch up. Legal abortion, legal homosexual sex, registered partnerships.. these things came about by fighting against the church morals (upheld by politicians).

I think ethics can be seen independently from religion, nowadays (in some states in Germany, if you don't want to attend religion class in school, you have to take ethics), Personally, I have my own set of ethics that are in no way religiously motivated (unless you want to count the Christian background of Europe, but then we are back to the historical POV).

Quote:

---

Almost all the great liberation movements have had a religious drive to them (at least in the U.S.):

---

But I thought that almost everything in the US has a religious drive to it. That was what started this discussion in the first place, right?



I have been trying to think of liberation movements here and have to say that I can't think of one that had primarily a religious drive. They were socialistic movements, if anything.

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[MOUSE]

Some big changes have hit Australian people this past week. The Uniting Church has made a very brave move, and voted to allow the ordination of practising homosexuals.

There was a large debate held, and that was the outcome. Some said that at least 3000 people would immediately leave the church.

And today, Fred Nile, a minister in the church, and an out spoken campaigner against gay men and women, has quit the church. He said it was in protest to the church's decision.

And I say YAY!!!!!!!! Definately a move in the right direction.