Christianity

[FerSureMaybe]

I've noticed that a lot of people on this site have a lot of resentment toward the Christian religion. I guess I can see that. I mean, I have a lot of resentment toward some Christians, because they fully don't take the stances they should. I can't blame them for being against homosexuality, as it is in the Bible, and a lot of them don't talk to God they way they should about stuff they question, but I don't agree with the "Oh, you're gay? You're going to hell forever and ever" position that a lot of them tend to take. And I don't think a lot of Christians minister the way they should either. I saw on an support vid on youtube a bunch of "Christians" with the comments "You will burn in hell" "Haha. You fag, God's damning you to hell." "God made Adam and Eve." So on, and so forth. I left a bunch of them comment replies about how that is no where near the appropriate way to minister to anyone, and God would not be cool with them calling anyone a derogatory name on the internet.

Only one of them replied with "It's my right to if it's a sin."

So, I understand that a lot of people, especially those who aren't heterosexual, have a problem with Christianity.

But see, the problem I have here is that I'm a Christian. I've never once told anyone they were going to hell, unless they flat out asked me, and I explained my personal opinions to them in the most polite way I could. It's just really upsetting being on a site that's supposed to be about tolerance to some degree and seeing people blame a religion for the problems. There's plenty of people that aren't Christians that are close-minded.

We're not all bad...really.

[Azrael]

Darling. I know this fully well. I think you're a great kid, and it's also noteworthy that the book of leviticus(the one most refer to when condemning homosxuality) is one of the most debated in the bible. That said I consiider myself a Pagan and have nothing but love for honorable peace loving souls regardless of which spiritual perspective they align themselves with. I used to have a lot of resentment towards western religions for all the wars waged and the blood spilled over human history, but here is the realization I've come to.
In order to find peace, one must be peace.
Nothing but love for you, truly.
:bibounce: :cool: :bigrin: :angel: :grouphug: :bounce: :compuser: :stanico: :rotate: :wiggle2: :yinyang: :bdaygrin: :shades: :stoned: :santa: :frog: :paw:

[TaylorMade]

I've noticed that a lot of people on this site have a lot of resentment toward the Christian religion. I guess I can see that. I mean, I have a lot of resentment toward some Christians, because they fully don't take the stances they should. I can't blame them for being against homosexuality, as it is in the Bible, and a lot of them don't talk to God they way they should about stuff they question, but I don't agree with the "Oh, you're gay? You're going to hell forever and ever" position that a lot of them tend to take. And I don't think a lot of Christians minister the way they should either. I saw on an support vid on youtube a bunch of "Christians" with the comments "You will burn in hell" "Haha. You fag, God's damning you to hell." "God made Adam and Eve." So on, and so forth. I left a bunch of them comment replies about how that is no where near the appropriate way to minister to anyone, and God would not be cool with them calling anyone a derogatory name on the internet.

Only one of them replied with "It's my right to if it's a sin."

So, I understand that a lot of people, especially those who aren't heterosexual, have a problem with Christianity.

But see, the problem I have here is that I'm a Christian. I've never once told anyone they were going to hell, unless they flat out asked me, and I explained my personal opinions to them in the most polite way I could. It's just really upsetting being on a site that's supposed to be about tolerance to some degree and seeing people blame a religion for the problems. There's plenty of people that aren't Christians that are close-minded.

We're not all bad...really.

Amen, FerSure.

Sorry, that's also how I feel sometimes on this forum. Some people at my church know I'm bi (including my pastor!), and well, while I know they may not always agree (or even be sure of how they feel), they have been no less than gracious. I've learned to live and let live as I've grown personally and spiritually. I do my best, I show love to others, but won't back down from anyone.

But, that was a needed topic, Fer.

*Taylor*

[mistymockingbird]

K, well, I should probably not be answering this when I'm already tired and emotional, but here we go.

I was raised Southern Baptist, in the south. Went to church three times during the week. Twice on Sundays and on Wednesday nights for choir practice and bible study. I went to church camp in the summer. I taught Vacation Bible School when I was older. I was a leader in my youth group. That documentary Jesus Camp? Not that far off from the world I grew up around. (Except that I never could for the life of me memorize the pledge to the Christian flag or to the Bible.)

My spiritual path detoured from the Southern Baptist way when I was in high school. For more reasons than I have space to list here. I went to a Lutheran church for a minute, then pretty much gave up on organized religion. I started studying in earnest on my own. Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto, Confucius, Edgar Casey, Scientology, Islam, Judaism, and deeper study of Christianity. I've got book upon booked stacked in my apartment to this day.

My spirituality is what grounds me. I may have strayed from the church. I may believe in things like reincarnation and karma. I may believe that there is truth outside of what is written in the King James Bible. I may take the Bible seriously, but not literally. But at my very essence, what has remained, is an unwavering faith in Jesus. That I can not fully explain. But after all, isn't that the very definition of faith?

For years, I dodged questions about my beliefs. Secure in them. But not wanting to get into the discussion. Because I had (and still do) my own issues with "church". I was reticent to take on the label of Christian. Because didn't want to be lumped in with the crazy, narrow minded Jesus freaks. (And I know I don't have to convince anyone here that those folks exist. :) )
I do enjoy learning about the beliefs of others. Because it forces me to examine my own. I crave those conversations, I'm just fairly selective about entering into them.

Then I started having real discussions about spirituality with my brother. Who is a pastor. Ordained by the Southern Baptist church although he's thrown his hands up at them as well. He's currently in Liberia doing mission work. His fourth trip there. He and his wife have a teenage daughter they adopted from Liberia. And what I found, was that he was much more progressive than I'd given him credit for. I'd written him off as a Bible toting do-gooder off to save the third world when we have issues in our own country that need to be taken care of. I was so wrong. And it made me think. It made me realize that I wasn't the only one listening to the sermon on Sunday and questioning everything.

It made me think about my own life. I've always said that I wanted nothing more than to make someone else think about how they live their own life, by letting them see how I live mine. I'm pretty open about everything. But I still hid the fact that I considered myself a Christian. I joke that I've been out as a bisexual but closeted as a Christian for years. So I have vowed to change that. Its still something that is very private to me, my spirituality. I don't feel the need to preach on the street corners. But I am making an active effort to rework my vocabulary so that my belief system is clear to those who know me. I still have issues with church. I still have issues with people who behave one way on Sunday and behave differently the rest of the week. But I'm seeking out the like minded. The folks that are open to the discussions. The folks who will admit to the possibility of more than one truth. That are open to accepting the fact that God made us the way we are and that none of us is perfect. But that we are who we are supposed to be. And that we all have something to learn and something to teach.

So fer darlin. I hear ya. And I wish that things were different. But you reap what you sow. I for one, intend to quietly do what I can to be different from the mindless zealots. To be a Christian in the way I believe God intended us to be.

[FerSureMaybe]

Amen, FerSure.

Sorry, that's also how I feel sometimes on this forum. Some people at my church know I'm bi (including my pastor!), and well, while I know they may not always agree (or even be sure of how they feel), they have been no less than gracious. I've learned to live and let live as I've grown personally and spiritually. I do my best, I show love to others, but won't back down from anyone.

But, that was a needed topic, Fer.

*Taylor*

Yea, I guess I just got a little sad seeing so many people take hits at my religion. Christianty is perceived so wrong. My best friend is gay, and he told me that I changed his whole view on what Christians were.

Too many Christians try to put out an image that they're perfect and that they've never made a mistake. Why? So that when someone makes a mistake, they can point the finger without looking like a hypocrit. But in reality, we're not perfect. That's the whole point of it in the first place. And I really wish that more Christians would go back to their roots, to drop all of the extra unneccessary topics, and just go back to loving and living by example rather than finger-pointing and playing god by damning others.

I curse. I lust. I overindulge. I covet. I sin. We're not perfect. Not even close, and we need to show the world that.

I read an article in Alternative Press (http://www.altpress.com) . It was by a guy that was a pastor at a church called Revolution (http://revolutionchurch.com). They had out advertisements for the church that said "As Christians, we're sorry for being judgemental, self-righteous bastards-" The whole article was basically about how Christians needed to stop arguing politics, how it'd be better to stop focusing on political issues and visit a local AIDS clinic to stay with a man during his last days. I really think it's true, that politics should not be the focus of the religion.

If anyone wants to read that, it's Alternative Press issue 225-April 2007. You can get it from their website, I do believe, or you can check out the list of stores on the site that sells the magazine and see if they still have an April issue out for sale.

Anyway, I've finished my ramble.

[FerSureMaybe]

Then I started having real discussions about spirituality with my brother. Who is a pastor. Ordained by the Southern Baptist church although he's thrown his hands up at them as well. He's currently in Liberia doing mission work. His fourth trip there. He and his wife have a teenage daughter they adopted from Liberia. And what I found, was that he was much more progressive than I'd given him credit for. I'd written him off as a Bible toting do-gooder off to save the third world when we have issues in our own country that need to be taken care of. I was so wrong. And it made me think. It made me realize that I wasn't the only one listening to the sermon on Sunday and questioning everything.


There's some aspects of my mother's faith that I don't believe in, but she's always said something that I still believe in.

If God didn't want us to questions, then why did He give us inquiring minds? Why did He give us the ability to question Him? Because He wanted us to, otherwise we wouldn't be able to.

[12voltman59]

FerSure--I am most likely one of those who you thought about when you created this thread--I do have my problems with "Christianity"--I was raised a Christian of sorts having been raised Roman Catholic and my final years of high school were spent in a private school affiliated with the Southern Baptists--(memories are coming back of those days as I am about to attend the 30th anniversary of graduating from that school)

I really do not have any problem at all on how, what, where, when, why anyone cares to worship ---that is one of the great things about this country---people are (generally) free to worship as they see fit in this country--(excluding pagans/wiccans until relatively recently--banned from free worship by laws influenced and enacted by good Christians of course)

I think that contemporary "Christianity"--- like the forms of Islam we are having difficulties with today---are bastadized forms of the religon---I don't find much of the real spirit of Christ in much of what gets passed off as "Christianity" today--that is one reason I always put quotation marks around the word---it is "Christian" in name only as far as I am concerned....

As I said in the post about gay adoption---it is fine that "Christians" take part in politics and want to try to put their stamp on things--that is the way politics works in our country--but I basically disagree with just about every stance they take on just about every issue ranging from abortion, gay rights, stem cell research and much more--so for me--it really does not have much to do with "religion" --it has to do with "Christians" just being one more player at the table in the high stakes poker game we call our politics and governance--

It is their policies that they would use the levers of power to impose upon us all that is my issue with "Christianity"---and it is unacceptable to me to allow their agendas to win the day----

And as I said in the other post---if you are going to play the game of down and dirty politics---great--be prepared to win some things and to lose some things and to take your lumps when ya do lose--and don't hide under God's apron strings as cover holding out that everything you do and say is somehow ordained as being right because its your interpretation of "what God" wants and such---to me the most presumptive thing we can do as humans and is one big sin (if there really is such a thing as sin)--other than committing murder--- is for man to presume to know the mind of God----

And yes, contrary to the "Christian" spin to the contrary---we do have, at leat ostensibly, "seperation of church and state" in this country.

To me---that not only means that everyone has the right to worship their religious beliefs as they see fit free of any entanglement with government--it also means those of us who chose not to worship in any formal way and such have that freedom too and we should not have to suffer laws that are based upon religious edicts and beliefs.

Contrary to another bit of "Christian" spin--one can lead a very moral life that is secular in nature--- in my humble opinon--a secular humanist way of looking at the world and living life can be far more moral than one based upon religious beliefs....

[FerSureMaybe]

FerSure--...beliefs....


I felt a bit attacked by that, and I really hope that wasn't what you were trying to do.

[elian]

So why would he be mad at you for being happy, and following what your heart tells you?

I'm actually UU - but it's funny you say that - because that is the one thing that God has consistently tried to drill into my head - "Follow your heart" .. it's harder to do than you might think.. at least for me.

[boner_lishus]

Sorry, I just had to add my 2 cents. To begin with, I need to lay a base here. First of all, being anything sexually different from the "norm" is a result of bad genes somewhere along the road. Genes that just didn't quite develop like they should have. We were originally created male and female and anything else is a deviation. That being said....GOD didn't create us originally to be anything else. But because of the Fall, things happen over time(I can go into greater depth if you are interested). Even if you look in Leviticus or the New Testament at anything that Paul or Peter said or for that fact any of the Epistles...its not the person GOD hates or dislikes...it is the "acts" that GOD finds an abomination...Biblically, being "born" and having thoughts "outside of the norm" is like someone being born handicapped in someway such as having no arms or only one leg or whatever. It is a handicap no matter how you look at it and GOD expects us to live accordingly...which HE emphatically states that anything done between same sexes is not HIS idea of coolness and there are consequences.
Contrary to a lot of hype, GOD didn't decide to make me a Bi or someone else with Downes Syndrome or someone else handicapped in some way. It happens and HE's there to help us work thru it however we can. But ignorance in all the splinter groups keep developing and perpetuating these rifts. I have to admit that fear plays a big factor in it all. Theres lots more to this than I have time to go into....Some of you may not like what I said as you "carry" this perceived lifestyle around like a cross...Well, poor Poo Poo. There are certainly worse things that can occur in our lives. Being Bi or gay is our own thing...if we go about boasting of what we are then whatever comes from that we certainly probably deserve good or bad. Unfortunately, 90% of all the press shows on TV at these Pride days are of the deviant people I consider perverse not the everyday guys and gals that make up part of our solid society. The old addage, "GOD loves the sinner, but hates the sin" is absolutely true. In the end...thats what matters. :male: :male:

[elian]

Sorry, I just had to add my 2 cents. To begin with, I need to lay a base here. First of all, being anything sexually different from the "norm" is a result of bad genes somewhere along the road. Genes that just didn't quite develop like they should have. We were originally created male and female and anything else is a deviation. --snip-- That being said....GOD didn't create us originally to be anything else. . The old addage, "GOD loves the sinner, but hates the sin" is absolutely true. In the end...thats what matters. :male: :male:

OK well - when I used to call out to God and cry at night and say "Lord, why did you make me this way?" - the answers I got ranged from the intellectual "I had to so you would understand" to simply "I'm sorry" at the really low points. And why when I thought of suicide a voice in my head said "I'm already lost one son - please, I don't want to lose another" I'm not sure.

God gave me the painful gift of an open mind boner. With time I did eventually learn the lesson God wanted me to learn by questioning my own orientation. I got to understand what it meant to be on the outside of normal looking in. I got to understand that unless you walk in someone else's shoes you will never REALLY understand what it's like.

It was painful as hell to be different - to have to HIDE those feelings, to live in fear - your faith is your own and nobody should take that away - but is it too much to ask for his other children to not be so presumptuous about it?

What I eventually realized is that what I REALLY wanted wasn't necessarily the physical sexual contact with another man - but the unconditional love of a father - something I really didn't have growing up around abusive drunk assholes - and don't really have today either.

Why SOME Christians think a person would CHOOSE to sacrifice their life, liberty, family, health, personal processions and status in the community just to "choose" to be gay I'll never understand - but then again .. God gave me "the gift".

If I could do it all over again - would I go back and choose to be different? No. Because now that I know what it means to value diversity I'm certain that if I DIDN'T have those circumstances I would've ended up some white and/or redneck conservative a!@#ole .. not something I would cherish in the broader universal view.

[elian]

OK well - when I used to call out to God and cry at night and say "Lord, why did you make me this way?" - the answers I got ranged from the intellectual "I had to so you would understand" to simply "I'm sorry" at the

Maybe I should also explain that I firmly believe that what we choose to have to confront here on Earth isn't always a one-way street ..it's not God single-handedly passing out edicts from on-high but an agreement we are an active participant in before we get here.

So it is quite possible that God and I together decided that I need to learn "to understand" this issue so that my soul would grow.

[vittoria]

only thing i can say is theres a lot of misrepresentation on all sides of the surface

if people actually followed what the bible says--we'd ALL be getting 'stoned' ( and not in a good way either...)

so here's what i suggest..

theres 2 laws that were allegedly given to replace the "mosaic law" given in leviticus... which is why i think this convo is moot

if ANYONE read the bible... or fkkn paid attention, "The 'Lord" our "Saviour'" by means of (H)is death was supposed to be the END of the Mosaic Law... he said "do unto others .." was one... and "love thy neighbor" were the two laws we are under now...

"the 'Lord ' our ' Saviour'" was the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law because he was the first man to complete it... that is to live without sin--to follow the law perfectly... as a Perfect sacrifice for Adamic sin(equivalent exchange for those who believe in alchemy...very much similar to biblical 'eye for an eye" since animals are not the same as humans and they were used in temple sacrifices for certain sins..a perfect man 'lost' perfect life, and it would have to take a perfect man to gain it back...)

that is ... if anyone actually read the bible

so it really makes no difference... if you have a dOOd in the first century saying "you can tell my followers by the love they show" and you dont see certain people giving that love, they arent belonging to that man, plain and simple... regardless of what they say...(the whole scripture about "not all saying ' lord, lord, didnt we do all these things in your name' will inherit god's kingdom") ...

but, thats if anyone read that book...

now heres what I believe...

screw it all... do what you can to be good to each other... and let the god or goddess of your choice deal with the moronic jackasses....leave the fools to their devices and mind your own business... since it seems like no one can mind their own anymore ~~~just because someone has a complaint about something doesnt mean you have to respond all the damn time.... i mean damn some people are on this planet to just run their mouths cause they have nothing else better to do and their lives lack meaning...

i agree with Azrael, in order to have peace one must be peace~~but we knew that, right?


"Any idiot can face a crisis---Its the day to day living that wears you out"
~~~Chekhov

[FerSureMaybe]

If homosexuality is genetic (which is apparently prooved), and we were all designed in such a way that the prostate is pleasurable by means of anal sex, then are all Christians just living a lie? (Granted this applys to male on male but still...)

I can't understand it. I was always taught when I went to church that God loves everyone, helps you out in times of need. So why would he be mad at you for being happy, and following what your heart tells you?


That's not what I intended this forum topic to be about. I was in no way using my beliefs to attack homosexuality, because I don't believe that it's wrong, and I'm sorry if I came off that way. I was simply saying that I can understand that aspect of Christianity from a Christian who just takes the Bible word for word and never questions, not that many Christians even read it(as Vitt said). And I in no way think that I'm living a lie, and I've made that point several times that males are designed for it to be pleasurable, so it really makes no sense that it would be "wrong". And God did give us a mind for questioning. I think He intended us to question. And it's good that you're asking those questions. And I really never thought He would be mad. I can't see a God that did love us so much that He sent His own son, damning anyone to hell for wanting to be happy. I always thought that the true sins were the sins that hurt other people. Murder obviously hurts someone. Stealing hurts someone. But loving someone with the same genital configuration (That sounded nerdy.)? Who does that hurt?

I really just intended this forum topic as a way of letting people know that not all Christians are presumtuous, that not all Christians are walking around saying "Me and bubba hate queers, cuz they just aint right", and that not all of us hate people that stray from the norm. I guess I'm sick of the Christian image. I guess I'm sick of a religion with 2 commands, one of whch was to love everyone, hating people and slamming their supposed flaws down their throat with the promise of eternal hellfire. I wish more Christians would actually talk to God, and truly listen. They'd be really suprised at what they heard, I think.

[Mozlie]

I am a very religious person, but sometimes I think the "beliefs" of any given religion, including my own, are a bit outdated and need to move with the modern world.

Examples of what I mean are:

I am catholic and therefore told that I am not allowed to use contraception during intercourse. However, this belief was made when there weren't as many STD's around at the time like there are now.

Secondly, apparently abortion is wrong. But how is it justifiable that a 9 yr old girl who is being sexually abused becomes pregnant by an older man, to tell her she isn't allowed an abortion and she is to give birth to her child. My opinion that is wrong.

I think the whole subject of homosexuality/bisexuality is a bit of a taboo to the church. I don't think the church wishes to accept that god may have made some people attracted to the same sex. They see it as being something "wrong" and they do not want the church tarnished by people like us. But as nev_payne said above, there has been research into the "nature or nurture" topic, and I think it has been proven that it is nature (correct me if I'm wrong) lol

I think anything to do with religion is going to cause differences in opinion as does the whole politic talk. But I accept all people for who they are, what their beliefs are and think we are all entitled to be happy!!

Also please note that these are just my opinions and not intended to offend anyone :)

Rant over!! :bigrin:

[free2peek]

I don't know if this will help or not but here it goes. I have done extensive studies on religion and philosophy. I have degrees in both and went to seminary on top of that. I have studied and translated both Hebrew and Greek and have never found a single thing that said that homosexuality is a sin. Now i am not talking about an English translated bible translated by someone for their own political agenda, but the actual original text. There is absolutely nothing about it being a sin and I challenge anyone to come to me with original text that says it is. It does not exist.

Second the idea of heaven and hell, there is nothing in Hebrew text that even remotely comes close to the idea of heaven and hell nor any reference to a devil. That came much later when Greek mythology was mixed into the pot of religion. Heaven, Hell, and the devil are Greek ideas.

Third the Christian church did not become organized, most likely, until about 7 to 10 years after Jesus death and it had nothing to do with believing in Jesus or not, it had to do with war. The Hebrews, or Jews, wanted to revolt against the tyrant government or the Romans. The Christians did not want to revolt. They wanted to stay unified with Rome and thus the creation and separation of the temple and Church.

So what does this all mean? Well a lot of people have a problem with Christianity because many, not all, don't have a single clue about what the scripture or text actually says. They rely on someone to tell them and then they get a politically motivated answer to their religious inquiries. For example John 14:6 says "I am the way and the truth and the life. Right? Wrong. The word for "A" and "The" are the same word in Koine Greek. Koine Greek is the Greek that was spoken and written in that time period. So John 14:6 Can be translated as, I am "A" way and "A" truth and "A" life. This is a correct and justifiable translation. This challenges every aspect of Christianity and its dogma. Now There are other roads that lead to salvation, Jesus is just one of them. Now to stay on track, its hard to want to love someone when they treat you like crap, use God as their justification and have absolutely no clue to what they are talking about. Gandhi said and I quote "I would be a Christian if it was not for Christians." Its not the religion or the message, cuz its a great message, that pushes people away its the people themselves. Now I am not saying that if you are Christian you are one of these people but you must admit that the church is plagued with them. The church is filled with Pharisee's of modern day. I believe that if Jesus came back today, walked into a church, he would overturn the donation table and call them a brewed of vipers, just like he did at Temple.

In short, study and translate for yourself. Don't leave it up to someone behind the pulpit because all you will get is their agenda. Its the Church that leaves a negative impression on people not the message.

"Before you point out the speck in your brothers eye take the plank from your own" Matthew 7:5 and Luke 6:42

[Johnny Reb]

I've noticed that a lot of people on this site have a lot of resentment toward the Christian religion. I guess I can see that. I mean, I have a lot of resentment toward some Christians, because they fully don't take the stances they should. I can't blame them for being against homosexuality, as it is in the Bible, and a lot of them don't talk to God they way they should about stuff they question, but I don't agree with the "Oh, you're gay? You're going to hell forever and ever" position that a lot of them tend to take. And I don't think a lot of Christians minister the way they should either. I saw on an support vid on youtube a bunch of "Christians" with the comments "You will burn in hell" "Haha. You fag, God's damning you to hell." "God made Adam and Eve." So on, and so forth. I left a bunch of them comment replies about how that is no where near the appropriate way to minister to anyone, and God would not be cool with them calling anyone a derogatory name on the internet.

Only one of them replied with "It's my right to if it's a sin."

So, I understand that a lot of people, especially those who aren't heterosexual, have a problem with Christianity.

But see, the problem I have here is that I'm a Christian. I've never once told anyone they were going to hell, unless they flat out asked me, and I explained my personal opinions to them in the most polite way I could. It's just really upsetting being on a site that's supposed to be about tolerance to some degree and seeing people blame a religion for the problems. There's plenty of people that aren't Christians that are close-minded.

We're not all bad...really.

FerSure

I consider myself Christian. I was raised in the church, and as a teen got caught up in fanatical Pentecostalism. Right now I am leaving that sect and moving into Catholicism, giving myself a greater peace of mind. My g/f and I also are both bi. We are not judgemental of people who have ssa (same sex attraction). We also know that we can choose to act or not act on our ssa, just as we can our opposite sex attraction. For me, sexuality is rooted both in nature and in personal choice.

Homosexuality is treated differently than other "sins" in most of the conservative church. Homosexuals are shunned, mocked, ridiculed, the whole nine yards, but divorcees are not. Christ himself said that divorce was not to occur under any circumstances except adultry, and the Bible says God hates divorce. It is no less "sinful" than homosexuality. Pretty hypocritical for them to speak of the "sanctity of marriage" when they don't take marriage vows seriously.

I only have to point to people like Ted Haggard, the megachruch pastor who had a secret homosexual affair and it became a huge scandle when he was found out. I wonder if he had admitted this to his church, would they have made him resign as pastor...no wonder then that people in the church don't discuss their same sex attractions. Why couldn't he be allowed to admit what he was feeling, and at least allowed to see a counselor, if he and his church felt it was so wrong? Why couldn't he be allowed to admit is feelings?

[Johnny Reb]

I don't know if this will help or not but here it goes. I have done extensive studies on religion and philosophy. I have degrees in both and went to seminary on top of that. I have studied and translated both Hebrew and Greek and have never found a single thing that said that homosexuality is a sin.

"Before you point out the speck in your brothers eye take the plank from your own" Matthew 7:5 and Luke 6:42

What seminary did you go to? Do you mind sharing?

[TaylorMade]

Yea, I guess I just got a little sad seeing so many people take hits at my religion. Christianty is perceived so wrong. My best friend is gay, and he told me that I changed his whole view on what Christians were.

Too many Christians try to put out an image that they're perfect and that they've never made a mistake. Why? So that when someone makes a mistake, they can point the finger without looking like a hypocrit. But in reality, we're not perfect. That's the whole point of it in the first place. And I really wish that more Christians would go back to their roots, to drop all of the extra unneccessary topics, and just go back to loving and living by example rather than finger-pointing and playing god by damning others.

<snip>


This is the crux of the whole thing. Well half of it, I think.

Christianity holds that we are ALL destined for hell one way or another, and that w/ Christ, we're not going to hell, but we ALL are still sinners. To point at me and then to say I'm not in a postion to point out where YOU fall short isn't just not fair, it's claiming to know how God works, when. . .you're just as bad as I am. And that's not what God intended. There are wrong things, no question, but to point it out w/o admitting that you are just as liable to sin- - THAT'S hypocracy, in my estimation.

Second point: I think we get all wrapped up in the rules and regulations and forget - -it's a relationship. Humans (mostly) were formed to seek a relationship with something bigger. "Religon" codifies this relationship and makes it rule-bound-man reaching for God, but Christianity in it's purest form is about taking the hand God stretched out to you. That's what I've learned in this time. I'm not really religous. I'm a human being seeking relationship and communion with her Creator/Father. I'm a flawed woman whose God is reaching to catch her.

And when you're reaching for God, it's hard to point fingers at someone else.

One final thought - - I've always believed we all want the same thing (a better world, happy kids, successful relationships, a chicken in every pot, an envronmentally friendly car in every garage :cutelaugh ) but it's the getting there that causes the problems.

*Taylor*

[bidesign]

Wow, I am impressed by the high standard of most of these posts! Some very good points made.

I might suggest that it would help the Christians in this forum to read "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" - even the abridged version to help put the creation of Christianity in perspective. The Bible is a collection of various scriptures. The scriptures chosen for inclusion in the official Bible of the time were ones that the editors agreed with and ones that reflected the laws of the time. Everything else was stored or destroyed or lost in the various sackings of Rome and Constantinople (and elsewhere).

Since that time, various popes have "retranslated" or adjusted passages or added or elimated words or passages to reflect their beliefs and/or agendas. Unfortunately, a lot of the influential popes were raving mysogynists, closet who-knows-what and generally pretty mean-spirited individuals. Therefor the anti woman, anti gay slant of modern Chritianity.

The Jewish religion is the basis for both Christianity and Islam. Various aspects of the Pagan religions have ben adopted over time as well, especially in the timing of various church holidays and celebrations --how better to convince pagans to convert?

It is important to understand religion in the context of history. Today's emphasis on "the end times" or whatever the christian right (read fundamentalists) calls it has been done so many times thoughout history that it is just sad. The reason for so many early conversions to Christianity was that armageddon was supposed to occur within a couple generations after Christ's death and Christianity was the only religion of the time that offered a possiblility of rewards in the afterlife. (something fundamentalist Islam has embraced to extremes). Everyone has their own end time. It's a metaphor you idiots! (sorry, I felt a rant coming on and I couldn't stop it in time). Forgive me.

Anyway, have to get back to work. Bi for now.

[biChris_m]

[QUOTE=free2peek]I don't know if this will help or not but here it goes. I have done extensive studies on religion and philosophy. I have degrees in both and went to seminary on top of that. I have studied and translated both Hebrew and Greek and have never found a single thing that said that homosexuality is a sin. Now i am not talking about an English translated bible translated by someone for their own political agenda, but the actual original text. There is absolutely nothing about it being a sin and I challenge anyone to come to me with original text that says it is. It does not exist........


Thanks, this has got to be the most enlightening comment on this issue.

[ForbiddenWindow]

I find peace of mind very relaxing. The only true thing about christianity is that if you have given your heart to Jesus Christ and consider him your saviour then you shal be rewarded with greater riches than gold.

I find these debates intriguing where such closed minded Christians have no
concept of what God favours most which is somewhere stated in the Bible.

Love the Lord Thy God with all your heart mind and soul.
And Love Thy neighbour as yourself.

I believe these two commandments are one of the greatest treasures that we have from ancient teachings in scripture. The rest of the bible is a guide to inner peace and sincerity and to humbleness.

As a fellow Christian, I love thine enemy and the wicked to showthemselves to the path of righteousness. Its all about love and what we can do not for ourselves but for others to humble thyself in the sight of the Lord.

As there should be only one translation of the bible as it was ment to be, other translations have no meaning but seperates Christianity from itself. If one can seperate from what you believe in. Isnt that doing the opposite of what your striving for?

I hope these thoughts can cheer everybody who reads this.
FW.

[Skater Boy]

Erm... IMO its more important to be A GOOD PERSON than it is to believe in "GOD". After all there are so many religions, ALL claiming that their God is "The One", who is to say which one is right? IMHO it DOESN'T MATTER if you believe in God (of ANY kind) or not. If you have taken care to lead a good life (and by that I mean treating others with respect, love and honesty, etc) then IF there IS such a thing as Heaven, I'm sure God will see fit to send you there when you die. I'd like to think that "God" is not so petty-minded that he would say "Sorry, you're a Buddhist" or "Sorry, you're an Atheist" therefore you aren't worthy of entering heaven.

Its all about being a good person, and religion is totally secondary to me.

If I had a dime for every so-called "religious person" that misinterpreted the Scriptures, used religion as a demagogic tool, or preached intolerance, then I would surely be a rich man.

No... I much prefer science and philosophy to religion.

But no offense to any wannabe preachers.

[biwords]

I'm not a Christian, but I do get tired of the continual, and mostly ignorant attacks on Christianity, not only on this site but almost everywhere one looks.

Azrael, which 'Western religions' do you have in mind? Judaism is not quite a Western religion, and Islam certainly isn't. You're not referring to European paganism, I don't think, so that would only leave Christianity to bear the West's rap for "all the wars waged and the blood spilled over human history". Fact is, though, most of that blood has been spilled by non-Christians, and much of it by non-Westerners. So I'm at a bit of a loss to understand you -- though I agree with your conclusion that "in order to find peace, one must be peace".

Volty interrupted his summer vacation to state that "we should not have to suffer laws that are based upon religious edicts and beliefs". You can't mean that literally, volt, since our laws against murder and stealing and such all derive from religious edicts and beliefs -- there weren't many secular humanists in, say, the 12th century. You added that "in my humble opinion--a secular humanist way of looking at the world and living life can be far more moral than one based upon religious beliefs...." and Fer rightly understood that as an attack. First of all, I wouldn't call that a 'humble' opinion, though I'm pretty much a secular humanist myself. (That's not the same thing as an athiest, of course). Also, I don't think that my way of looking at the world and living life is 'far more moral' than Fer's. I don't think that Bertrand Russell's way of looking at the world was 'far more moral' than C.S. Lewis's. And I have to say that for every self-righteous Christian I've met, I've probably met three self-righteous athiests.

to be continued....

[Azrael]

Perhaps I should have said the major three, so poor usage on my part.
I was mostly referring to the crusades, and the inquisition in particular. A good deal of that gripe is including, but not limited to Christianity. Also, I'm an opponent of Zionism and Jewish Nationalism which is used to justify the continued oppression of the Palestinian people, as well as the fledgling US installed democracy in Lebanon.

"Western religion refers to religions that are based on Abrahamic monotheism and derive from the Middle Eastern milieu including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In particular, the term "Western religion" often refers to Christianity, the religion most commonly associated with western nations.'
Taken from the ol' wiki.
I think the real enemy here is hard line fundamentalist interpretation of spiritual ideas and concepts. That includes Neo-pagans, to be sure :)

[Vuarra]

Not a Christian, studied a lot of Christianity though, and Free2peek has it closest.

There is a saying in Itailian, and I'm going to eff it up completely, but it goes something like "traduttore, traditore", or if you're not quite up on your Italian, it's more like this: "The translator is a traitor."

Unless you read Aramaic, or ancient Greek, or Hebrew, you'll never understand what is really meant by the original writers. All you'll get is someone's spin on it.

I think that the more religious you seem to be to people, the more you have to fear from those people. I know many deeply spiritual people, and they don't preach.

My two cents, I'm not here to preach :)

[biwords]

...nev payne writes: "So why would [God] be mad at you for being happy, and following what your heart tells you?". Well, I guess it depends on what makes you happy and following what your heart tells you. What if your heart tells you to exterminate inferior races, and doing so makes you happy? In other words, while many arguments can be offered in defence of homosexuality, the mere fact that some people want it isn't one of them, and doesn't show that God (if He exists) would be bound to approve of it.

Free2peek suggests that the English translators of the Bible (does he mean King James's committee? or the earlier English translators that committee borrowed from?) basically falsified the translation of Leviticus to serve a "political agenda". I would be interested to know what evidence he has of this. He makes a number of interesting claims, but again, one would want to see the evidence. It doesn't all hang on whether there is a Hebrew word for "homosexuality" and for "sin".

Further, Free2 suggests that because Heaven, Hell and the devil are Greek ideas, they have no place in Christianity. I don't understand this at all. It sounds like a variant of the radical-Protestant idea that 'if it's not clearly in The Book, it's not Christianity'. But that idea is itself post-Biblical. In fact, compared with Greek religious ideas, it's a Johnny-come-lately.

Free2 then suggests that the Christian church had "nothing to do with believing in Jesus or not, it had to do with war" -- which makes the early martyrs look like a bunch of chumps, doesn't it? After all, they thought they were dying for their faith, not for some intra-Jewish political squabble with Rome.

Then there's the notion that John 14:6 'can be' translated to mean that Jesis is not THE way, but simply A way. Talk about a politically motivated translation! Again, if any number of other ways -- Scientology, wicca, stamp collecting, whatever -- would do just as well, it's hard to explain all those martyrs. "Hmnn....I can take the Christian way, and be thrown to the lions, or I can take the pagan way, and be safe and prosperous and still get to Heaven. Um, can I have till next week to think about this?".

Free2 approvingly quotes Gandhi's witticism that "I would be a Christian if it was not for Christians." But it seems that nothing in the bloody history of Hindu-Islamic relations prevented him from being a Hindu. Go figure.

To be continued....

[biwords]

Meanwhile, bidesign calls Christians "idiots" (another humble opinion?) for not realizing that everything in Christianity is a metaphor. The fact that fallible human beings made decisions about which books to include in the Bible proves to him that the whole thing was a put-up job, complete with redneck Popes forging manuscripts. However, it's only Protestants who make the Bible the sole authority for Christian revelation. The Catholics have always said that the Bible was a product of the Church. The question for them is whether God assisted them in making the right decisions or not. If you think He did, you're a Catholic. If He didn't, then the whole structure falls down - as the Pope would be the first to admit.

Finally, Skater Boy: "I much prefer science and philosophy to religion". With respect, this is a little like saying "I prefer mauve to the letter 'Q'". These are all different inventions, intended to do different things. Religion will not tell you why water boils, and science will not tell you what ultimately underlay the Big Bang. There have always been religious scientists -- people who believe (and surely bisexuals should be the first to see the point!) that 'it doesn't have to be either/or'.

[Azrael]

Religion will not tell you why water boils, and science will not tell you what ultimately underlay the Big Bang. There have always been religious scientists -- people who believe (and surely bisexuals should be the first to see the point!) that 'it doesn't have to be either/or'.
I actually agree with this fully. My Grandfather was a Nuclear Physicist and a devout Catholic his entire life.
Although not Christian myself, I love going to a Latin mass with my father. Something so beautiful about the Catholic tradition in that regard.

[Skater Boy]

Finally, Skater Boy: "I much prefer science and philosophy to religion". With respect, this is a little like saying "I prefer mauve to the letter 'Q'". These are all different inventions, intended to do different things. Religion will not tell you why water boils, and science will not tell you what ultimately underlay the Big Bang. There have always been religious scientists -- people who believe (and surely bisexuals should be the first to see the point!) that 'it doesn't have to be either/or'.

Oh, yeah, you're right... it certainly doesn't have to be either/or. But I CHOOSE to place my faith in what can be proven through methodical research, determined through rational logic, or learned from personal experience. I guess FOR ME, the existance of "God" has never been completely proven, nor determined by logic, nor can I say I have had any particularly religious experiences. Yup, religion, science and philosophy ARE different inventions, and thats the thing I like. But if I were asked whether "God made the Earth in 7 days", I would probably look at the scientific facts to draw my conclusions rather than consulting a religious leader. I guess I would trust judgements made by a "religious scientist" like any other, but ONLY if his conclusions were based on FACTS and not FAITH.

The icing on the cake is the DOGMA that many religions (NOT JUST CHRISTIANITY) employ. And "Thou shalt this... Thou shalt that..." I prefer to make my own moral decisions, thankyou. Especially when "The Pope" says that contraception, abortion and homosexuality are wrong.

But hey, I wasn't having a go at Christianity in particular... I was Christened and raised as a Roman Catholic, went to Catholic schools for most of my life, and have been to church more times than I care to remember...

[innaminka]

First, let me state - I am a total sceptic re religion.

The initial write asked what do we think about Christianity?
Christianity is beautiful, like the core of all religions. Christianity is based on the tenet of "love" - real love and helping others.
For peopl needing a spirituality in their lives, it provides a wonderful base.

Like all spirituality, the problem is " organised" religion - that is the establishment of a priestly class.
The most powerful person is the one who says, "God (or whoever) talks to me. He doesn't talk to you. I'll tell you what he says!"
Which causes the rise of politics within the religion. Fact: Jesus' brother James and other disciples split violently (and I mean violently) within a few years of the crucifixion over access to the new religion. It didn't even last 10 years.

We all know the horrors that organised religions of all ilk have brought upon humanity - Christianity is up there with the best of them, but it is not the religion's fault per se - itis caused by people using religion.

And ever will be.

[free2peek]

Wow. Only religion and politics can stir it up.

First let me say i mean no disrespect to anyone and their faith.

Biwords remember that the initial question was about Christianity. So its not an attack on Christians. I do suggest you check out some historical literature from the Roman time period. There are many historical accounts of Jesus from a non Hebrew/Christian point of view. They all have similar accounts of what was going on politically and yes the split between the Church and Temple was because of the Jewish Roman war that started about seven years after Jesus Death. Check your history.

Also: Their are words and concepts in Hebrew that are about homosexuality. No where does it condemn it. How do you think we get the word sodomy?

Also your comments about violence and the west. The west has caused a lot of blood shed and so has the church. So have a lot of other religions but just because they did it too does not make it right. Thats like saying they got to do why can't we. We get the word Assassin from the word hasheesh and hasheesh is an Arabic word. Young men would go the mountain tops get high and then fight in the name of God to the death. This is in Hebrew text.

Your comments about about religion and its intermingling with each other. Little history fact, all religion births new religion. They are all inner twined. Father Abraham had many sons, many sons said father Abraham. Come on sing with me.

The point I was trying to make is know your history facts as well. Learn to translate, not literally but the meaning of the message yourself. You don't need a person in a pulpit telling you, what are you a cow, "Moo"? I believe that Jesus and his teachings are beautiful. I wish everyone, myself included, could live my life that way. But I will not go as far to say that the Church is not sick. And I can understand why people have distasteful feelings about Christianity. Many people use religion to further their own agendas. Don't take their word for it. Find out for yourself.

"The thing you teach best is the thing you most need to learn"

[darkeyes]

Fer baby, contrary to popular belief I actually have nothing against Christianity save for the simple fact I do not believe in either God or the fact the Christ was the son of God or God come to earth or is our saviour or any other such claims. Nor do I believe in the claims of any other religion. We are born, we live, we die, end of story in my opinion.

My quibble such as it is, apart from the fact that I do not belive, is more with the organised branches of all religions not merely Christianity and the people who run them and try and make us conform to whatever it is they wish us 2 believe in. I have no quibble with the personal religious beliefs of most people and try and respect their right to their belief. All I ask in return is that I be allowed my right not to believe...

[biwords]

Also, I'm an opponent of Zionism and Jewish Nationalism which is used to justify the continued oppression of the Palestinian people

Yada yada yada.....

Az, if you're an "opponent of Zionism" that can only mean, in practice, one of two things: that you want to see Israeli Jews killed or expelled from historic Palestine, or that you want to see them made subjects of an Arab government erected on Israel's ashes. If you know anything about the history of Jews under Arab rule, you will know that at best it has meant second-class citizenship and and worst, persecution and death.

More to the point, there is no way that the existence of Israel can be undone except through nuclear war, involving the deaths of millions of people on both sides. How can you reconcile support for such a goal with your declaration that 'to be at peace', you have decided to 'be peace'?

I could understand you saying, "It's really a pity that Israel was created, I don't think that was fair to the Arabs of Palestine". That would still be highly debateable, but wanting to undo the creation of Israel (what else can 'opponent of Zionism' mean?), if taken seriously, requires a genocidal mentality.

Finally, I don't understand why Jewish nationalism is bad but Arab nationalism is good -- particularly since many "Palestinians" were in fact immigrants from neighbouring Arab countries, who moved to Palestine to share in the economic boom that Zionism helped create. In other words, I don't understand how an Arab who moved to Palestine in 1915 becomes a 'native', while a Jew who moved there in 1910 is a "colonialist European settler-invader'. Sounds awfully like racism to me.

How much have you actually read about this?

[FalconAngel]

Not a Christian, studied a lot of Christianity though, and Free2peek has it closest.

There is a saying in Itailian, and I'm going to eff it up completely, but it goes something like "traduttore, traditore", or if you're not quite up on your Italian, it's more like this: "The translator is a traitor."

Unless you read Aramaic, or ancient Greek, or Hebrew, you'll never understand what is really meant by the original writers. All you'll get is someone's spin on it.

I think that the more religious you seem to be to people, the more you have to fear from those people. I know many deeply spiritual people, and they don't preach.

My two cents, I'm not here to preach :)

Christianity in and of itself isn't the problem. The problem is the leadership within Christianity. Because of that, the religion has a long and infamous history of war and persecution, even going so far as to enact war on it's own followers.

Vuarra is very close to the money on it. What Christians read today in the Bible is really a translation from sanscrit to Aramaic to Hebrew to Latin to English (to all of the remaining languages they have translated it into). Ever tried to read stereo instructions that have been translated from Japanese to English? It doesn't translate well; and that's with a professional translator translating it.
Now imagine getting a translation of ANYTHING from someone who's linguistic knowledge is limited by their ethnocentrism and incomplete knowledge of the original language. A linguistic train wreck in the making. That is the modern Bible. People interpret it literally when what they are reading is wildly different from the original because of poor original translations.

Now while many of the folks here are bashing Christians for their views on sexuality, there are an equally large number of members who are opposed to Christianity on religious reasons. No one likes to be persecuted because of their religion. As a Pagan, I can attest to that. Yet even us Pagans know that many Christians are not the problem, but a small overly vocal minority.
But, as I said earlier, it isn't the religion that is the problem; it is the leadership's behavior using the religion and it's more gullible followers to achieve evil goals.

Still, because of it's violent history, the Church still has a lot to answer for.

[biwords]

The Bible was originally written in Sanskrit? Is that what they teach in Odinism school? lol

As for English translations, they weren't from the Latin, in general: even King James's translators had Greek and Hebrew, and of course modern translators work in a very scholarly manner from the original languages.

Actually, Paganism has a lot to answer for: gladiatorial shows, for example. Human sacrifice. Und so weiter (as they say in Sanskrit).

[Azrael]

Yada yada yada.....

Az, if you're an "opponent of Zionism" that can only mean, in practice, one of two things: that you want to see Israeli Jews killed or expelled from historic Palestine, or that you want to see them made subjects of an Arab government erected on Israel's ashes. If you know anything about the history of Jews under Arab rule, you will know that at best it has meant second-class citizenship and and worst, persecution and death.

More to the point, there is no way that the existence of Israel can be undone except through nuclear war, involving the deaths of millions of people on both sides. How can you reconcile support for such a goal with your declaration that 'to be at peace', you have decided to 'be peace'?

I could understand you saying, "It's really a pity that Israel was created, I don't think that was fair to the Arabs of Palestine". That would still be highly debateable, but wanting to undo the creation of Israel (what else can 'opponent of Zionism' mean?), if taken seriously, requires a genocidal mentality.

Finally, I don't understand why Jewish nationalism is bad but Arab nationalism is good -- particularly since many "Palestinians" were in fact immigrants from neighbouring Arab countries, who moved to Palestine to share in the economic boom that Zionism helped create. In other words, I don't understand how an Arab who moved to Palestine in 1915 becomes a 'native', while a Jew who moved there in 1910 is a "colonialist European settler-invader'. Sounds awfully like racism to me.

How much have you actually read about this?

I do not support genocide of any kind. I do however find Israel to be a hostile regime. Am I saying they should be eradicated? Not at all. I do however find the settlements in the west bank and the gaza strip repugnant. Also, there are a great many Jews, both here in America and in Israel who speak out against the brutality of the Lukudniks and the supposedly more "centrist' Kadima Party. I have no problem with Israel, except this: to criticize Israel amounts to political heresy in the states. Why won't Israel honor the agreed upon borders of the 1967 war? Why do they refuse to have any form of peaceful dialogue with their neighboring countries?
I don't really favor Nationalism of any kind, arab, jewish, or otherwise. However, Israel gets away with murder because of unwavering American support. That's not racist, merely observant. Don't assume I'm shooting my mouth off. I have my reasons for being where I'm at.
Oh, I bet you thought it was real cool how Israel laid waste to Lebanon, a soverign nation for 30 days with the full support of our Presidential figurehead. Infrastructure destroyed, Beirut in ruins, vast ecological crises. Ya :eek:

[FerSureMaybe]

I never meant for everyone to fight.

I just kind of wanted to point out that while this is a community of bisexuals, that's not the only thing that everyone is. There's pagans, Christians, wiccans, blacks, whites, asians, americans, europeans, e-t-c-dot.

I wanted to point out that for a group of people that wants tolerance for themselves, we need to be tolerant of others, religion included.

But, I am really glad that it stirred up some interesting conversation, but I really don't want two people, especially two of my favorite people (biwords/az) warring. Calm down, fellas. :tong:

And the person that said that people needed to be their own translators (I think it was free2 something), thank you. That's what I was trying to say. If you're a Christian, and you have questions, take them to God. He does tend to answer, in some way or another. (And that goes for any religion, take it to your god or goddess or gods/goddesses or earth or tom from myspace...)

Like when I was confused and upset with myseslf for liking girls. I saw the most beautiful sunset-pinnk, purple, and blue. None of the golds that are usually there. And it wasn't at the time when the sun is too far gone for gold to not be there. And I just kind of smiled. And had this peace about it all. It might sound cheesey to some, but oh well.

So, I encourage you all to continue these excellent conversations that you're having. They're very exciting, intriguing, and thought-provoking.

I also agree with the comment on it being outdated, which is why I again reiterate my point of continuing to question things that you have questions about, if it is your religion. I mean, if the Bible were written today, what would be in there? Would "Thou shalt not myspace" be the 11th commandment? Oh boy, I'm in trouble... :tong:

And the stamp collecting comment was so funny, biwords.

[Azrael]

But, I am really glad that it stirred up some interesting conversation, but I really don't want two people, especially two of my favorite people (biwords/az) warring. Calm down, fellas. :tong:


Point taken, luv. No offense intended to anyone.

[FerSureMaybe]

Oh, yeah, you're right... it certainly doesn't have to be either/or. But I CHOOSE to place my faith in what can be proven through methodical research, determined through rational logic, or learned from personal experience. I guess FOR ME, the existance of "God" has never been completely proven, nor determined by logic, nor can I say I have had any particularly religious experiences. Yup, religion, science and philosophy ARE different inventions, and thats the thing I like. But if I were asked whether "God made the Earth in 7 days", I would probably look at the scientific facts to draw my conclusions rather than consulting a religious leader. I guess I would trust judgements made by a "religious scientist" like any other, but ONLY if his conclusions were based on FACTS and not FAITH.

The icing on the cake is the DOGMA that many religions (NOT JUST CHRISTIANITY) employ. And "Thou shalt this... Thou shalt that..." I prefer to make my own moral decisions, thankyou. Especially when "The Pope" says that contraception, abortion and homosexuality are wrong.

But hey, I wasn't having a go at Christianity in particular... I was Christened and raised as a Roman Catholic, went to Catholic schools for most of my life, and have been to church more times than I care to remember...

There is actual scientific evidence that the earth could've been formed instantaneously.

[darkeyes]

Yada yada yada.....

Az, if you're an "opponent of Zionism" that can only mean, in practice, one of two things: that you want to see Israeli Jews killed or expelled from historic Palestine, or that you want to see them made subjects of an Arab government erected on Israel's ashes. If you know anything about the history of Jews under Arab rule, you will know that at best it has meant second-class citizenship and and worst, persecution and death.

More to the point, there is no way that the existence of Israel can be undone except through nuclear war, involving the deaths of millions of people on both sides. How can you reconcile support for such a goal with your declaration that 'to be at peace', you have decided to 'be peace'?

I could understand you saying, "It's really a pity that Israel was created, I don't think that was fair to the Arabs of Palestine". That would still be highly debateable, but wanting to undo the creation of Israel (what else can 'opponent of Zionism' mean?), if taken seriously, requires a genocidal mentality.

Finally, I don't understand why Jewish nationalism is bad but Arab nationalism is good -- particularly since many "Palestinians" were in fact immigrants from neighbouring Arab countries, who moved to Palestine to share in the economic boom that Zionism helped create. In other words, I don't understand how an Arab who moved to Palestine in 1915 becomes a 'native', while a Jew who moved there in 1910 is a "colonialist European settler-invader'. Sounds awfully like racism to me.

How much have you actually read about this?
Many Jews themselves are enemies of zionism... Modern Zionism as a creed bears the hallmarks of what I think u hate..genocide...fascism. Zionist are an itolerant lot who cannot bear the thought of anyone but themselves having any say in the running of the Israeli state, and have so many of the tendencies that their former Nazi oppressors bore. Bein anti zionism an zionist duz not mean peeps who necessarily wish 2 c the destruction of lsrael , though I agree it is debateable whether as a state it should ever have been allowed to be born, wot it means is now that Israel exists it hasta stop bein run so tardly an appallingly unfriendly to an work wiv its neighbours an not bombin the the hell outa them wenever they feel like with or without gud reason.

Bein anti Zionist is not the same as being anti Jewish. It is anti a creed which is very questionable. I am certainly not anti Jewish, I am critical of the Israeli state its set up its morality and its bully boy mentality, but not anti per se. I am however anti zionist, but that does not make me a friend of arab extremism or any other anti.

And just to pick up on 1 little things u sed...Israel is hardly a paragon of virtue when it comes to giving equal rights to its arab citizens... Israel is in reality an Apartheid state where Jeishness is above all ithers and being anything other, even Christian and white makes you something less and allows you less than full acceptance within Israeli society.

Arab states can be and are in many ways just what you say Wordsie, but we have to be open the the fact that Israel is itself a racist state, and as such should be abhorrent to any right minded anti racist.

[darkeyes]

I never meant for everyone to fight.

I just kind of wanted to point out that while this is a community of bisexuals, that's not the only thing that everyone is. There's pagans, Christians, wiccans, blacks, whites, asians, americans, europeans, e-t-c-dot.

I wanted to point out that for a group of people that wants tolerance for themselves, we need to be tolerant of others, religion included.

But, I am really glad that it stirred up some interesting conversation, but I really don't want two people, especially two of my favorite people (biwords/az) warring. Calm down, fellas. :tong:

And the person that said that people needed to be their own translators (I think it was free2 something), thank you. That's what I was trying to say. If you're a Christian, and you have questions, take them to God. He does tend to answer, in some way or another. (And that goes for any religion, take it to your god or goddess or gods/goddesses or earth or tom from myspace...)

Like when I was confused and upset with myseslf for liking girls. I saw the most beautiful sunset-pinnk, purple, and blue. None of the golds that are usually there. And it wasn't at the time when the sun is too far gone for gold to not be there. And I just kind of smiled. And had this peace about it all. It might sound cheesey to some, but oh well.

So, I encourage you all to continue these excellent conversations that you're having. They're very exciting, intriguing, and thought-provoking.

I also agree with the comment on it being outdated, which is why I again reiterate my point of continuing to question things that you have questions about, if it is your religion. I mean, if the Bible were written today, what would be in there? Would "Thou shalt not myspace" be the 11th commandment? Oh boy, I'm in trouble... :tong:

And the stamp collecting comment was so funny, biwords.Fer...debating disagreein an tryin 2 open minds aint necessarily fitin... its wot makes humanity progress.. wivout debate..wivout arguin we wud still b down in Africa sumwer climbin trees an eatin nanas..(or wetever). (an mayb thats no bad thing seein state of the world...)

[elian]

Although I have integrated a lot of different traditions the closest label you could put on me would probably be Gnostic - I personally believe that:

a) the greatest blasphemy that was put upon humanity in religion was the idea that we are separated and isolated from the divine

b) that we are somehow outside of the consciousness of divine creation

c) that we need some sort of human intermediary in a position of absolute authority to interpret God's will.

A belief like that makes people think they are broken before they even get started, makes a great excuse for not taking personal responsibility and it gives rise to all sorts of strange moral behaviors such as:

"Let me just sweep these hazardous volatile chemicals under the rug - we won't have to pay cleanup costs and nobody will notice that everything that drinks the water in this area will suffer tremendous effects of ill health for generations to come."

When I look around and I see the beauty of the divine consciousness manifesting itself - celebrating life and discovering itself like a child seeing a kitten for the first time it is just awesome.

Look at a flower, or a snowflake under a microscope and tell me that there is not some order to the universe. Look at the network of roads we have built out of the window of an airplane and tell me we aren't all connected.

Universes upon universes - both macro and micro exist in this place..and if this is what exists in the physical realm - imagine what exists in the spiritual?

If you like reading I would recommend Bishop John Shelby Spong's "A New Christianity for a New World"

Anyway - take care!
-E

[jem_is_bi]

I enjoyed reading all the posts about Christianity. All aspects of how our religious beliefs affect our lives and views on Christianity were presented very well and included input for those that have invested significant time in historical and philosophic scholarship.
While, this provided me with a better perspective about the religious beliefs of us as a community, nothing changed my love/hate opinion of all religions. Religious beliefs seem to inspire both the very best and very worst behavior by humans as individuals, organizations, and states. I treasure my religious heritage for incorporating ethics and morality into the way I think and act. Yet, I dislike the zealous way organized religion promotes their views, condemn, degrade and punish nonbelievers. I know the two aspects of my view are a contradictory.
For the future, I wish religions would evolve in a way that enhanced only the best that religion has to offer. However, I suspect it is impossible to zealously promote individual morality and religious belief, while accepting limits on the zeal that is used to promote universal belief of a particular religion.

Also, if religion did not exist, I suspect I would still complain about how people exhibit the very best and very worst behaviors.

JEM

[Skater Boy]

There is actual scientific evidence that the earth could've been formed instantaneously.

Perhaps so, FerSureMaybe. But is there scientific evidence that this "instantaneous formation" was instigated by a higher being called "God" (aka. Jesus' Dad, or whatever name you want to give him)?

Love the profile ad, btw... its like, "NO, I won't be your 18 year old FuckToy, and YES, I am a bitch..." lol, I think I should change mine to something like that...

[AdamKadmon43]

It has generally been my experience that Christians as individuals are, for the most part, fairly decent and harmless people, but as a group they really suck (and they can be very dangerous).

I am quite content to have them believe whatever they choose to believe, and to live their life in whatever manner they choose to live it, but I am reasonably certain that a great deal of them would happily string me up from the nearest oak tree for the way I live my life ..... if they had the political power to do so.

Adam

"Where are we going, and why am I in this hand-basket?"

[Skater Boy]

Love the profile ad, btw... its like, "NO, I won't be your 18 year old FuckToy, and YES, I am a bitch..." lol, I think I should change mine to something like that...

Ohhh, you changed it! The old one had real "attitude", lol.

[TaylorMade]

It has generally been my experience that Christians as individuals are, for the most part, fairly decent and harmless people, but as a group they really suck (and they can be very dangerous).

I am quite content to have them believe whatever they choose to believe, and to live their life in whatever manner they choose to live it, but I am reasonably certain that a great deal of them would happily string me up from the nearest oak tree for the way I live my life ..... if they had the political power to do so.

Adam

"Where are we going, and why am I in this hand-basket?"


Wouldn't that be true of most people, religious or not? I've found that we don't need religion to be jackasses in large groups. In some cases, it doesn't hurt, but it's not required.

The best quote on this concept is from the movie Men in Black (1997): "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it. "

*Taylor*

[AdamKadmon43]

You are probably right.... between religion and nationalism and materialism, we are all pretty much screwed up.

[biwords]

I do not support genocide of any kind. I do however find Israel to be a hostile regime. Am I saying they should be eradicated? Not at all. I do however find the settlements in the west bank and the gaza strip repugnant. Also, there are a great many Jews, both here in America and in Israel who speak out against the brutality of the Lukudniks and the supposedly more "centrist' Kadima Party. I have no problem with Israel, except this: to criticize Israel amounts to political heresy in the states. Why won't Israel honor the agreed upon borders of the 1967 war? Why do they refuse to have any form of peaceful dialogue with their neighboring countries?
...Oh, I bet you thought it was real cool how Israel laid waste to Lebanon, a soverign nation for 30 days with the full support of our Presidential figurehead. Infrastructure destroyed, Beirut in ruins, vast ecological crises. Ya :eek:

Life is too short to spend much time arguing about the Mideast conflict, but a few points here deserve a brief response. First of all, there are NO "agreed-upon borders of the 1967 war", a phrase that scarcely makes sense. Azrael is probably referring to the 1949 armistice borders, which were not accepted by any Arab state until Jimmy Carter bribed Anwar Sadat into accepting them in 1978. The 1967 war occurred because Egypt blockaded Israel (an act of war) and, with Syria, massed armies around Israel and announced that its extermination would follow within days. Of course, Egypt and Syria lost the war and lost territory (as did Jordan, which joined Egypt and Syria late in the game). Israel held the territory, not annexing it (except for East Jerusalem) but holding it pending the signing of a peace treaty. So, there were NO agreed-on 1967 borders, and Israel's willingness to negotiate a peace treaty has been consistent (though not, of course, on terms which will result in its disappearance).

Next, Azrael takes the discussion personal by saying that I must have found the Lebanese war "cool". Then he opens another thread saying that he doesn't want to fight. I haven't attacked his character; he's attacked mine. I'm sorry for that, because he's basically very likeable and the insinuation that I take pleasure in civilian deaths really isn't worthy of him.

Fran's arguments are standard euromarxist boilerplate and honestly, I have no interest in debating with someone who equates Israelis and Nazis. That doesn't come up to the minimum standard of rationality required for serious discussion. Again, I like Fran very much and am sad rather than angry to see her go on in this way.

Finally, I note that both Azrael and Fran were concerned to make clear that they're not anti-Jewish. I never said they were. They are, however, repeating slogans and charges that were crafted by Jew-baiters, and there is nothing in what they've written here to which plain Jew-baiters like Osama or the president of Iran would take serious exception. Nor is there anything in Azrael's or Fran's comments to suggest that either of them has ever made an effort to read and understand anything not written from a radical anti-Zionist perspective. And I find that sad as well.

Thanks, Fer, for the kind words, of course you didn't intend to open up this Pandora's box!

[Azrael]

Meh, I'll just have to respectfully beg to differ. It's really not that big a deal. My purpose was not to start a pissing contest, as this is a HIGHLY debatable matter.

Oh, one more thing "On June 19, 1967, the National Unity Government [of Israel] voted unanimously to return the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria in return for peace agreements. The Golans would have to be demilitarized and special arrangement would be negotiated for the Straits of Tiran. The government also resolved to open negotiations with King Hussein of Jordan regarding the Eastern border'

You are correct to imply that what has been stuck to is the green line of 1949, however, to this day the Golan Heights have not been returned. I can see we're not going to agree on this, so let's quit wasting our time. For real. I'm bored with this.

[FalconAngel]

The Bible was originally written in Sanskrit? Is that what they teach in Odinism school? lol

As for English translations, they weren't from the Latin, in general: even King James's translators had Greek and Hebrew, and of course modern translators work in a very scholarly manner from the original languages.

Actually, Paganism has a lot to answer for: gladiatorial shows, for example. Human sacrifice. Und so weiter (as they say in Sanskrit).

The first books were written in Sanscrit, but, my bad, I forgot about the Greek translations in there, just before Latin.

And you are wrong about Paganism being for the Gladiatorial games. That was all because of politics from the Roman Senate wanting to distract the populace, much like the way that sports has been allowed to dominate our society so much.

As far as human sacrifices, one needs to look at the context of those sacrifices; while I do not excuse them, not all of them were involuntary. (watch The Wicker Man - the first one, not the remake)
And as far as needing to answer for crimes against Humanity, let's look at the Church (not condemning, just pointing out) Three Crusades (aggressive incursions into the Middle East, the 30 years war (Catholics vs Protestants) The Malious Malefecorum (a witch hunter's guide as it were), Persecution of Jews and Pagans starting almost immediately after Constantine (newly converted to Christianity) became Emperor of Rome, The Spanish Inquisition....The list goes on and on.

Most historically educated Pagans know the history, good and bad, and can admit to it. The Church, however wants to whitewash their history of violence and most of the "born-agains" will never admit that their religious history is anything but pure and innocent, or that those actions were justified in some obscure, indeciferable way.

As I have said before, this is not ALL Christians, but the very vocal, overzealous minority as well as the vocal and powerful members of their leadership.

[FalconAngel]

There's pagans, Christians, wiccans, blacks, whites, asians, americans, europeans, e-t-c-dot.


Just one minor correction, for understanding purposes only. All Wiccans are Pagan but not all Pagans are Wiccan. Kind of like All Catholics are Christian but not all Christians are Catholic.

No biggie, but a lot of non-Pagans make that error. It is common when one is not a member of the religion and may not have enough Pagan friends to help them learn the differences. :D

[the mage]

I have no issues with gawd, its his fan club I have problems with.

Religion is just another corporation.

Spirituality keeps us sane.

Theres no one listening to that voice in your head.
Its there to fill the void.

[TaylorMade]

I have no issues with gawd, its his fan club I have problems with.

Religion is just another corporation.

Spirituality keeps us sane.

Theres no one listening to that voice in your head.
Its there to fill the void.

You sure it's his fan club, because you seem to have problems with His name.

But that could be just me.

*Taylor*

[darkeyes]

The state of Israel and those who run it Wordsie.. not the same thing as all Israelis. an me likes u 2...

[The Cheshire Cat]

Darn, darn, darn...now look what ya all have gone and done. I suddenly have the urge to study Greek and Sanscrit, read the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire and study the philosophy of religion (well, maybe skip the philosophy of religion as it fairly made my brain bleed) Now, how in the hell am I going to get any work done doing all that!! :tong: Anyways-interesting thread folks. :bigrin:

[darkeyes]

Life is too short to spend much time arguing about the Mideast conflict, but a few points here deserve a brief response. First of all, there are NO "agreed-upon borders of the 1967 war", a phrase that scarcely makes sense. Azrael is probably referring to the 1949 armistice borders, which were not accepted by any Arab state until Jimmy Carter bribed Anwar Sadat into accepting them in 1978. The 1967 war occurred because Egypt blockaded Israel (an act of war) and, with Syria, massed armies around Israel and announced that its extermination would follow within days. Of course, Egypt and Syria lost the war and lost territory (as did Jordan, which joined Egypt and Syria late in the game). Israel held the territory, not annexing it (except for East Jerusalem) but holding it pending the signing of a peace treaty. So, there were NO agreed-on 1967 borders, and Israel's willingness to negotiate a peace treaty has been consistent (though not, of course, on terms which will result in its disappearance).

Next, Azrael takes the discussion personal by saying that I must have found the Lebanese war "cool". Then he opens another thread saying that he doesn't want to fight. I haven't attacked his character; he's attacked mine. I'm sorry for that, because he's basically very likeable and the insinuation that I take pleasure in civilian deaths really isn't worthy of him.

Fran's arguments are standard euromarxist boilerplate and honestly, I have no interest in debating with someone who equates Israelis and Nazis. That doesn't come up to the minimum standard of rationality required for serious discussion. Again, I like Fran very much and am sad rather than angry to see her go on in this way.

Finally, I note that both Azrael and Fran were concerned to make clear that they're not anti-Jewish. I never said they were. They are, however, repeating slogans and charges that were crafted by Jew-baiters, and there is nothing in what they've written here to which plain Jew-baiters like Osama or the president of Iran would take serious exception. Nor is there anything in Azrael's or Fran's comments to suggest that either of them has ever made an effort to read and understand anything not written from a radical anti-Zionist perspective. And I find that sad as well.

Thanks, Fer, for the kind words, of course you didn't intend to open up this Pandora's box!
I base my arguments on my knowledge as I see it of the actions of Israel the state against children, against women, against arabs against any, weter journalists included, who do not like the actions of the Israeli military and governemnt... they are nor standard euromarxist babble Wordsie but observations of the operation of te Israeli state from afar certainly, probably like yourself and most of the rest of the world. I could also argue, that many of the statements made by people who are pro Israeli are precisely the statements against arabs that you accuse me of making against Israelis. I do not argue about people as individuals save those who have real power and abuse it, and those who run states, and ultimately the state itself. Ordinary people are ordinary people for the most part and but pawns in the games of the state and those who run it/ They are lied to, misled and cajoled by the mode of religious fervour or of patriotism or of ideology to accept whatever the state and those who run it say. I do not accept what people who run states say, I do not accept the word of the state, my own or any other. I do not like or accept the modus operandi of arab states any more than I do of israel, as they are a corrupt and bigotted in their make up as any. I do not like the way that the US and its allies try to run the world, I do not like the religious fervour and bigotry of Iran, the fascism of Mugabe and Zimbabwe, and I could go on ad infinitum. I do not like the monarchy in my own country which holds us back from being a true democracy.

I am a critic of the nation state, any nation state which is in my opinion wrong, which is corrupt and is dishonest and deprives any or all of its people true democratic and human rights, andd which endeavours to prevent the peoples of other nations living in peace or depriving them in the case of Israel, their own state. I have nothing against the people of other nations, and nothing I have ever said can be held against me in this regard. I have warned throughout forums of fascism, racism and other evils and the reaction which I believe will come to our own kind. Gay and bisexual people. I am vigliant against fascism and nzism wherevr I see it, my own country in the first instance and anywhere else I think I see it make strides. Never accuse me of using the language of jew-baters. I use the language of humanity against bigotry wherever I see it.

I have and shall again defend jewish people against nazis, and I shall defenbd arabs againbst nazis similarly, and moslems and buddhist and chtistians and any other human being who ius under threat from a state or an organisation or indeed an individual. I find your charge ludicrous in the extreme and sweetie, fucking offensive!

[FerSureMaybe]

Haha. I was just listing for the sake of argument, but thank you.

I have no idea how this turned into arguing about Israelis...but ok, that's cool.

And no skate, it doesn't prove that something did it. Nothing can prove that there is a God. That's the whole point of faith to begin with, but it does possibly prove that the earth was created near instaneously, thus disproving parts of evolution. Also in that regard, the skeletons of the people we "evolved from" are so different. People in the Bible lived to be hundreds of years old. Who's to say what would have happened to their skeletons due to gravity over that amount of time? But hey, just theories.
Oh, and I still have plenty of attitude. :cool:

[Azrael]

Never accuse me of using the language of jew-baters. I use the language of humanity against bigotry wherever I see it.

I have and shall again defend jewish people against nazis, and I shall defenbd arabs againbst nazis similarly, and moslems and buddhist and chtistians and any other human being who ius under threat from a state or an organisation or indeed an individual. I find your charge ludicrous in the extreme and sweetie, fucking offensive!
Exactly. GO FRAN :bowdown:

[Azrael]

I have no idea how this turned into arguing about Israelis...but ok, that's cool.

Yeah, sorry 'bout that ;)

[biwords]

I find your charge ludicrous in the extreme and sweetie, fucking offensive!

Well, Fran, I find comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany offensive, and OF COURSE they are the standard rhetorical stock-in-trade of Jew-baiters. If you don't want to be associated with them, don't use their metaphors.

So let's cut to the chase. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the state of Israel is guilty of all that you say it is. The fact is, though, that millions of Israelis are not going to allow their country to become another Zimbabwe, i.e. they are not going to submit to Arab rule, period. They will die, and take many with them, to prevent that. Many of them came originally from Arab countries and do not want to again find themselves living under the Islamic equivalent of Jim Crow laws (best-case scenario) or exterminated en masse (most likely scenario, should they ever lose a war). That being so, do you have any suggestions for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict? Denunciation is easy.

[absolutely_true]

I've noticed that a lot of people on this site have a lot of resentment toward the Christian religion. I guess I can see that. I mean, I have a lot of resentment toward some Christians, because they fully don't take the stances they should. I can't blame them for being against homosexuality, as it is in the Bible, and a lot of them don't talk to God they way they should about stuff they question, but I don't agree with the "Oh, you're gay? You're going to hell forever and ever" position that a lot of them tend to take. And I don't think a lot of Christians minister the way they should either. I saw on an support vid on youtube a bunch of "Christians" with the comments "You will burn in hell" "Haha. You fag, God's damning you to hell." "God made Adam and Eve." So on, and so forth. I left a bunch of them comment replies about how that is no where near the appropriate way to minister to anyone, and God would not be cool with them calling anyone a derogatory name on the internet.

Only one of them replied with "It's my right to if it's a sin."

So, I understand that a lot of people, especially those who aren't heterosexual, have a problem with Christianity.

But see, the problem I have here is that I'm a Christian. I've never once told anyone they were going to hell, unless they flat out asked me, and I explained my personal opinions to them in the most polite way I could. It's just really upsetting being on a site that's supposed to be about tolerance to some degree and seeing people blame a religion for the problems. There's plenty of people that aren't Christians that are close-minded.

We're not all bad...really.

I grew up in a Christian family, pentecostal. Homosexuality is not accepted under any circumstances. And it's just something I've learned to accept. Many Christians when they know what I am are cool. They have their beliefs and I have mine. It's when I meet the Christians that automatically begin there talk of how me of all people should know what is waiting for me after death, they say it as if it's a fact, because the word says it. The Word. That's what usually make me get upset, when anybody tries to tell me that their faith is fact and they don't understand why I don't get it! All I want is to believe what I believe. I love talking with Christians, going over details in the Bible and discussing there meanings. Unfortunately too many other Christians don't follow this path, they don't show the love that Jesus Christ wants them the show their neighbors. Where is the Love?

[darkeyes]

Well, Fran, I find comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany offensive, and OF COURSE they are the standard rhetorical stock-in-trade of Jew-baiters. If you don't want to be associated with them, don't use their metaphors.

So let's cut to the chase. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the state of Israel is guilty of all that you say it is. The fact is, though, that millions of Israelis are not going to allow their country to become another Zimbabwe, i.e. they are not going to submit to Arab rule, period. They will die, and take many with them, to prevent that. Many of them came originally from Arab countries and do not want to again find themselves living under the Islamic equivalent of Jim Crow laws (best-case scenario) or exterminated en masse (most likely scenario, should they ever lose a war). That being so, do you have any suggestions for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict? Denunciation is easy.
I dont give a bugger what u think is offensive Wordsie. I think u calling me a jew bater is offensive for that is what u have done, dont couch it up in nice cushy language you ahve and I am bloody seething about it.. Any who have read anything I have ever written knows this claim is bollocks.

Any who is unable to understand the difference between one's dislike of the actions of a state and the understanding and concern of one for its people is either thick, a fool or makes these claims for his or her own agenda.. I loathe many things my own state has done yet I cannot be called anti British. I hate the Nationalist policies of the new Scottish government but by no stretch of imagination can I be called anti Scottish. I do not spread personal antogonism to human beings based on race creed or religion. I argue with the philosophy. The creed itself. This is not bating anyone, but is the stuff of debate.

I understand the problems Jews have had and why they wish to have their own state. But I do not believe they have their right to abuse their neighbours in just the way that they were themselves in the past. I know that arab hatred for Israel exists and that is appalling but much of the hatred Israel has brought upon itself, just as the actions of arab states and organisations have on arabs themselves.

Never confuse criticism of nations as criticism of their peoples.. and in my case never ever hatred or dislike. Whatever a nation does which I believe is morally wrong then I will say so and act as I feel fit in opposition. I loathe and hate the governments of many arab states, and detest the oppression they inflict upon their own and other peoples, and their abuse of basic human rights. The fact is that neither Israel or the arab states really wish for peace at present and certainly most of the palestinian groups are just as bad and worse.

I do not know the answer to the Arab Israeli conflict, but I do know that both sides have to stop killing each other and begin to respect the values and beliefs of the other side and the right of each side to self determination survival and the creation of a democratic palestinian state. In the end talking and negotiating in good faith has to ultimately be the way, but both sides have to belive it first.The US has a huge responsibility here because it uses Israel as a surrogate and without American finance and supply Israel would be far less powerful than it is. If the US government had the will I am convinced that far more progress to peace could be made. But no 1 has a pat answer sadly. I wish it were otherwise.

Sure we in Europe seem to have a different viewpoint on this conflict. It isnt marxist particularly whatever you say, but based on our knowledge and understanding of the conflict. Are we so wrong? Are you sure you are so right? Is Israel so guiltless? Many Jewish people in the UK and Europe are seriously concerned about what Israel gets up to....just as you are about what the arabs do. The difference between you and I isnt my blindness to arab guilt, for I am certainly not that, but yours to the rights of Israel at the expense of all others.

Offended about being called a Jew bater or using the words of jew baters? of course I am, who wouldnt be when patently having done no such thing.

[biwords]

Um, Fran, I know you're not a Jew-baiter and I'm sorry you thought otherwise. I said (and meant) only that arguments like "Israelis now treat Palestinians the way Nazis treated Jews" are routinely made by Jew-baiters -- it doesn't take long to find this stuff on the Net -- and have increasingly entered and coloured the discourse among well-meaning liberal-left people like yourself, especially in Europe. Of course, Jew-baiting has never been exclusively a right-wing phenomenon, either. Believe me, if I wanted to call you a Jew-baiter, I would have.

By the way, where are the gas chambers where Israel is killing millions of Palestinians? And why, during the recent Hamas-Fatah battles, did Palestinian refugees seeking safety attempt to cross the border into Israel? Did European Jews ever flee to the Nazis for safety? One could go on, but the absurdity of the comparison is obvious enough.

[biwords]

Oh, and by the way, where did I say that Israel was guiltless? This is the realm of international relations, not a comic book -- no one's guiltless. But to say "I oppose Zionism" as Azrael did (as distinct from, say, "I oppose the settlement policy of the Likud government") means "I oppose the existence of a Jewish nation-state". If that's not what Azrael meant, he can clarify his meaning.

Of course, people who grant the right of every nation-state to exist EXCEPT the Jewish one are presumptively guilty of racism, and are often in fact racists. After all, it's not as though other nations have behaved any better than Israel. Most have behaved worse. To Americans, in particular, I say "If you're against seizing land won in war, return the land that Jimmy Polk stole from the Mexicans". In fact, to both Americans and Canadians I say, "If you think that it's wrong to live on occupied land, regardless of the circumstances in which the occupation arose, why haven't you left the Americas and gone back where you came from?".

[vittoria]

Oh, and by the way, where did I say that Israel was guiltless? This is the realm of international relations, not a comic book -- no one's guiltless. But to say "I oppose Zionism" as Azrael did (as distinct from, say, "I oppose the settlement policy of the Likud government") means "I oppose the existence of a Jewish nation-state". If that's not what Azrael meant, he can clarify his meaning.

Of course, people who grant the right of every nation-state to exist EXCEPT the Jewish one are presumptively guilty of racism, and are often in fact racists. After all, it's not as though other nations have behaved any better than Israel. Most have behaved worse. To Americans, in particular, I say "If you're against seizing land won in war, return the land that Jimmy Polk stole from the Mexicans". In fact, to both Americans and Canadians I say, "If you think that it's wrong to live on occupied land, regardless of the circumstances in which the occupation arose, why haven't you left the Americas and gone back where you came from?".



:offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic:

okay... now that THAT is done... i think the topic was about CHRISTIANITY and not Semitic views, nationalism, and the like...

I feel SO BAD that my liege lord (good band BTW) brought his opinion of Zionism to the fore for everyone to pounce upon like carrion to rotted flesh... but still :offtopic:

and to be certain, discussing Christianity without discussing its Hebrew roots is like discussing ketchup without the tomatoes...

i believe the topic was the viablity of Christians to accept us as bisexuals..

and its seems now that its whether or not us as bisexuals can accept anyone else...

astonishing how this has twisted and turned!!


Hey Jude, don't make it bad.
Take a sad song and make it better.
Remember to let her into your heart,
Then you can start to make it better.

Hey Jude, don't be afraid.
You were made to go out and get her.
The minute you let her under your skin,
Then you begin to make it better.

And anytime you feel the pain, hey Jude, refrain,
Don't carry the world upon your shoulders.
For well you know that it's a fool who plays it cool
By making his world a little colder.

Hey Jude, don't let me down.
You have found her, now go and get her.
Remember to let her into your heart,
Then you can start to make it better.

So let it out and let it in, hey Jude, begin,
You're waiting for someone to perform with.
And don't you know that it's just you, hey Jude, you'll do,
The movement you need is on your shoulder.

Hey Jude, don't make it bad.
Take a sad song and make it better.
Remember to let her under your skin,
Then you'll begin to make it
Better better better better better better, oh.

Na Na Na Na Na Na, Na Na Na, hey Jude...

[FerSureMaybe]

It went from two of my favorite people fighting-Azrael and Biwords

to two of my favorite people still fighting-Biwords and Franny Pack.



So, as another poster said "where is the love?"

[biwords]

Fer, you're right. As Taylor said above: "I've always believed we all want the same thing (a better world, happy kids, successful relationships, a chicken in every pot, an envronmentally friendly car in every garage) but it's the getting there that causes the problems".

So.......... :grouphug:

I'm beating my sword into a plowshare as of this moment. Not that I know what a plowshare is -- I'm a city boy.

[swbell3]

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies[1]) is an adage that Mike Godwin formulated in 1990. The law states:[2]

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Just sayin,
The Phreak :male:

[coyotedude]

biwords, my friend... the entire tenor of your argument is that Israel is guiltless. Perhaps you have not uttered those exact words, but it's disingenuous for you to pretend the flow of your argument is otherwise.

When you accuse those critical of Israeli policy of being Jew-baiters or racists, you are in fact arguing that Israel should be held to a lesser standard than other nations. That is as troubling as holding Israel to a higher standard, which the Arab states are notorious for. You are practicing the very hypocrisy which you point out in others.

Mind you, it would be helpful for those critical of Israel to put themselves in Israeli shoes for a moment. When your neighbors try over and over again to run you out of town by force, you tend to be a bit skittish. (Slight understatement.) No one wants rockets dropped on their heads from over the border or bombs set off in their cities. Not Israelis, and sure as hell not me.

There is no question that Israelis -- human beings -- have extremely good reason to be afraid. But there is also no question that because of that fear, Israelis and the Israeli government have made their own mistakes and committed their own sins. And it is neither racist nor wrong to observe that simple fact.

I will not hold Israel to any lesser or greater standard than I hold any other nation, including -- especially -- my own.

Perhaps it is because I have family from the "rez" and have seen the despair firsthand of lives without hope in my own family that I feel a certain sympathy for ordinary flesh-and-blood Palestinians. After all, like us Indian folks, Palestinians aren't even supposed to exist. According to your own words:


...particularly since many "Palestinians" were in fact immigrants from neighbouring Arab countries, who moved to Palestine to share in the economic boom that Zionism helped create. In other words, I don't understand how an Arab who moved to Palestine in 1915 becomes a 'native', while a Jew who moved there in 1910 is a "colonialist European settler-invader'.

As if Palestine before 1910 was depopulated, a raw land devoid of human habitation, ready to be civilized and turned from its savage past. Hmmm... I think I was taught that in school about the so-called "New World".

You're right. It does sound awfully like racism to me.

Of course, people who grant the right of every nation-state to exist EXCEPT the Palestinian one are presumptively guilty of racism, and are often in fact racists....

Sigh

Peace

[biwords]

When you accuse those critical of Israeli policy of being Jew-baiters or racists, you are in fact arguing that Israel should be held to a lesser standard than other nations...Israelis and the Israeli government have made their own mistakes and committed their own sins. And it is neither racist nor wrong to observe that simple fact.

...After all, like us Indian folks, Palestinians aren't even supposed to exist...
Of course, people who grant the right of every nation-state to exist EXCEPT the Palestinian one are presumptively guilty of racism, and are often in fact racists....

Coyote, I'm afraid that in trying to divine the assumptions behind what I wrote, you've read things into it that just aren't there.

1. I explicitly said that it was not racism to criticize this or that Israeli policy. It is wholesale "opposition to Zionism" -- that is, to Israel's right to exist as such, that's what the phrase means -- that is a staple of Jew-baiters on both the right and left. (I mean, of people whom we could probably all agree ARE Jew-baiters). Ditto the inane "Israelis are the new Nazis" arguments. Those who are not racists -- like Azrael or Fran -- should therefore be scrupulous about avoiding that sort of rhetoric. In Europe, especially, we can see how it has seeped into discourse and ultimately prepared people to accept the elimination (alone of all nations) of the Jewish state.

2. Where did I say that the Palestinians shouldn't have a state of their own? I said only that the abolition of Israel to make way for it is a non-starter, not least because it could only be achieved by the deaths of millions. When, for example, people argue for an unlimited "right of return of Palestinian refugees" to Israel proper, they are arguing for a policy that, as a practical matter, could not be implemented without resulting in civil war within Israel, accompanied or followed by war between Israel and the Arab states. In the last ditch, such a war would very likely go nuclear. Not a good solution.

[coyotedude]

I've noticed that a lot of people on this site have a lot of resentment toward the Christian religion. I guess I can see that. I mean, I have a lot of resentment toward some Christians, because they fully don't take the stances they should. I can't blame them for being against homosexuality, as it is in the Bible, and a lot of them don't talk to God they way they should about stuff they question, but I don't agree with the "Oh, you're gay? You're going to hell forever and ever" position that a lot of them tend to take. And I don't think a lot of Christians minister the way they should either. I saw on an support vid on youtube a bunch of "Christians" with the comments "You will burn in hell" "Haha. You fag, God's damning you to hell." "God made Adam and Eve." So on, and so forth. I left a bunch of them comment replies about how that is no where near the appropriate way to minister to anyone, and God would not be cool with them calling anyone a derogatory name on the internet.

Only one of them replied with "It's my right to if it's a sin."

So, I understand that a lot of people, especially those who aren't heterosexual, have a problem with Christianity.

But see, the problem I have here is that I'm a Christian. I've never once told anyone they were going to hell, unless they flat out asked me, and I explained my personal opinions to them in the most polite way I could. It's just really upsetting being on a site that's supposed to be about tolerance to some degree and seeing people blame a religion for the problems. There's plenty of people that aren't Christians that are close-minded.

We're not all bad...really.

And FerSure, I apologize to you for going off-topic in my prior post. But dang, I love a good knock-down, drag-out, bare knuckles political slugfest on occasion! So I also thank you as well for posting something that could be hijacked.... ;)

I am both sad and angry when someone (in any religion) tries to use God as an excuse to hate. Somehow, I don't think that Jesus Christ died on the cross for his followers two thousand years later to march around with signs declaring that "God hates fags."

Wasn't it Christ who said "turn the other cheek"? Or how about "Let him without sin cast the first stone"? Indeed, too many folks -- today and throughout history -- have claimed to be Christian without ever grasping the central tenet of Christ's mission: love. Unfortunately, that makes it harder for those folks who truly are struggling to follow Christ's path in their everyday lives.

Now, in my own view of the world, I differentiate between religion and spirituality. To me, religion is a human institution, while spirituality comes from, well, the spirit. (Go figure.) As a human institution, religion shares many of the strengths and weaknesses of human beings. Spirituality is our actual connection to the sacred.

Now, some folks may use Christ as their DSL hook-up, while others prefer the Buddha as their cable modem. Then there's the competing wireless services offered by Moses and Muhammed, and a whole host of Hindu ISPs. And of course there are heathens such as myself who are quite happy with our dial-up service.

Okay, maybe that analogy didn't work. But still.... we're all trying the best that we can. What more can we do?

Peace

[coyotedude]

Coyote, I'm afraid that in trying to divine the assumptions behind what I wrote, you've read things into it that just aren't there.

1. I explicitly said that it was not racism to criticize this or that Israeli policy. It is wholesale "opposition to Zionism" -- that is, to Israel's right to exist as such, that's what the phrase means -- that is a staple of Jew-baiters on both the right and left. (I mean, of people whom we could probably all agree ARE Jew-baiters). Those who are not racists -- like Azrael or Fran -- should therefore be scrupulous about avoiding that sort of rhetoric. In Europe, especially, we can see how it has seeped into discourse and ultimately prepared people to accept the elimination (alone of all nations) of the Jewish state.

2. Where did I say that the Palestinians shouldn't have a state of their own? I said only that the abolition of Israel to make way for it is a non-starter, not least because it could only be achieved by the deaths of millions. When people argue for an unlimited "right of return of Palestinian refugees" to Israel proper, they are arguing for a policy that, as a practical matter, could not be implemented without resulting in civil war within Israel, accompanied or followed by war between Israel and the Arab states. In the last ditch, such a war would very likely go nuclear. Not a good solution.

Ah, no, nuclear war is NOT a good thing. No, no, no.

The reality that I think neither Israelis nor Palestinians truly want to accept is that neither is going away. Israelis can't just wish the Palestinians away to the Arab states, and Palestinians can't just wish the Israelis into the sea. Both sides want victory -- but victory is unattainable for either side. In the end, the only just and lasting resolution is peaceful coexistence.

But to achieve peace.... well, there was a window open in the 90's, perhaps. But I fear it'll take another generation for another such window to appear, with no guarantees that the leaders of the future will be any wiser than the leaders of the present.

And on that depressing note, I'm going to bed....

Peace

[biwords]

Depressing, perhaps, but I think you're being realistic.

Good Lord, I see I've hit 500 posts. After only four months. I really do have to get a life.

[free2peek]

Greetings,

Lets’ get some history correct. Israel did not come into existence, as we know it today, until 1948. After WWII when the United States and United Nations both recognized it as a nation. After WWII most of the European nations did not want the unsettled Jews to take up residence in their countries so they had them moved to what we know today as Israel. To this day the U.S. and U.N. financially and militarily support Israel. This is why Arabic people see Jews as unwanted settlers.

Zionism is an international political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel.[1] Formally organized in the late 19th century, the movement was successful in establishing the State of Israel in 1948, as the world's first and only modern Jewish State. It continues primarily as support for the state and government of Israel and its continuing status as a homeland for the Jewish people.[2] Described as a "diaspora nationalism,"[3] its proponents, regard it as a national liberation movement whose aim is the self-determination of the Jewish people.[4] Opposition to Zionism has arisen on a number of grounds, ranging from religious objections to competing claims of nationalism to political dissent that considers the ideology either immoral or impractical.[5]

While Zionism is based in part upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, where the concept of Jewish nationhood is thought to have first evolved somewhere between 1200 BCE and the late Second Temple era,[6][7] the modern movement was mainly secular, beginning largely as a response by European Jewry to rampant antisemitism across the continent.[8] At first one of several Jewish political movements offering alternative responses to the position of Jews in Europe, Zionism gradually gained more support, and the Holocaust accelerated Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel.


There has always been a claim on that land, “land of milk and honey”. Remember there were 13 tribes of Judah. Ok before you say there were only 12 not true. There were 12 sons, daddy’s tribe makes 13. So Daddy has his tribe and has 12 sons. Each son grows up and has his own tribe. And let’s remember these are desert people, So daddy, Father Abraham, believes in Jehovah and raises his kids to believe in Jah as well. But as time goes by all the tribes want daddy’s land after he died. Abraham didn’t have a will so all 12 sons go to court and fight over his land. Ok not really but this is about what happened. They wanted daddy’s land and began to fight over it. They all said Jah wants them to have it. And thus you get different religions that all surround the same one God. In truth they all have rightful claim to it. Its sad that people can’t share.

What we know of as the Christian Bible was written in Hebrew and Koine Greek. Not Sanskrit. Sanskrit is Hindu text and it had its high point at around 500 bc plus or minus some years and was spoken and used with high class Hindus. Hinduism is based on a class/rank system of beliefs. Yes Sanskrit can be dated back to around 1700 bc with the Rigveda but so do Hebrew and Arabic. The Sanskrit had an impact on the Greek/Roman culture. During Jesus time people were speaking Koine Greek, the common mans Greek for the common person of that time. This is why you see the idea of heaven, hell, and a devil. It all goes back to the class/rank system. You see the influence of Sanskrit on Hebrew beliefs. Before this the Hebrews had no concept of heaven, hell, or a devil. When we refer to the Christian Bible we are talking about specific books. Not all texts that were around, but certain specific books. These were written in Hebrew and Greek. Yes there are a lot of other writings around at the time that are of Arabic, Sanskrit, and so on but they do not make up what is known as the Bible. I’m not saying they are not important because they are very important. The books that were written in Greek like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and so on, the writers of those books were not alive when Jesus walked around. They were disciples of disciples of disciples and so on. Big myth that they were written by the disciples that walked, prayed, and studied with Jesus.

About human sacrifice, lets remember the Hebrews were slaves, for a long time, to the Egyptians. The Egyptians performed human sacrifice. You don’t think that rubbed off on the Hebrews at all? Hosea 13:2 says: Now they sin more and more; they make idols for themselves from their silver, cleverly fashioned images, all of them the work of craftsmen. It is said of these people, "They offer human sacrifice and kiss the calf-idols." So clearly the concept of human sacrifice did not come from Sanskrit. Again Hebrew and Arabic can be dated about the same or older than Sanskrit and Sanskrit was used by high class Hindus not country livin desert people.

Hebrews 13:1-2
1 Keep on loving each other as brothers. 2Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it.

[darkeyes]

Um, Fran, I know you're not a Jew-baiter and I'm sorry you thought otherwise. I said (and meant) only that arguments like "Israelis now treat Palestinians the way Nazis treated Jews" are routinely made by Jew-baiters -- it doesn't take long to find this stuff on the Net -- and have increasingly entered and coloured the discourse among well-meaning liberal-left people like yourself, especially in Europe. Of course, Jew-baiting has never been exclusively a right-wing phenomenon, either. Believe me, if I wanted to call you a Jew-baiter, I would have.

By the way, where are the gas chambers where Israel is killing millions of Palestinians? And why, during the recent Hamas-Fatah battles, did Palestinian refugees seeking safety attempt to cross the border into Israel? Did European Jews ever flee to the Nazis for safety? One could go on, but the absurdity of the comparison is obvious enough.There are other ways other than gas chambers.. as such I do not speak of a holocaust but I do speak of a viscious suppression of palestinians in particular and of other minorities and an intolerance to the will of mighty Israel. And I know it isnt an exclusively right wing phenomenon, but is more so now than in the past. Comparison is there whether you like it or not. Repression is repression from weherevr it comes. Arabs are not innocent of it either, as is almost every government on the planet. No 1 is innocent when it comes to the middle east. A major problem is the west and the US in particular seem to put more emphaisis on Israel as the nice guy in the middle east which it quite plainly is not!

[darkeyes]

And Fer baby, Im sorry if Wordsie, Az and I have hijacked your thread..didn mean baby..but jus luff 2 argue spesh wen me believes in the right of me cause! But for you...me shut me gob! Wordsie and I know wer we stand an we aint gonna agree...maybe we shud start a new thread Wordsie if ya wanna keep argifyin... kissie 2 u an bigga more pash 1 2 Fer! :tong:

[canuckotter]

And no skate, it doesn't prove that something did it. Nothing can prove that there is a God. That's the whole point of faith to begin with, but it does possibly prove that the earth was created near instaneously, thus disproving parts of evolution. Also in that regard, the skeletons of the people we "evolved from" are so different. People in the Bible lived to be hundreds of years old. Who's to say what would have happened to their skeletons due to gravity over that amount of time? But hey, just theories.
Oh, and I still have plenty of attitude. :cool:
I could argue with you on this for hours, hon... but since it's not particularly related to the topic at hand, I won't. :)

[FerSureMaybe]

I hate that when I decide to reply to someone, I don't bother to remember their name, and I'm too danged lazy to go back and look, but I fully agree with the fact that Jesus didn't die on the cross so that Christians that put up an image of perfection could go around with signs saying "God hates fags". That's why I can't stand a lot of Christians myself, but then I see a lot of people, some of them that replied on this post, that do as they really should do, and I'm so glad to see some Christians that are still decent people.

There's really just a lot of times I want to grab some people and whack 'em in the head with a stick, and say, "this isn't how it should be."

But I also know, that some people will do as others tell them they should do within the religion, just like when I went on a mission trip to Mexico and they told one of the ladies that went with us that she shouldn't have her tounge pieced and so she took it out, and myself and another girls set there while everyone else in the room clapped with out hands in our lap. Some people will just listen and listen and never once look up and say "hold up! this doesn't seem right. Is this right, God?" I guess I'm not so surprised, because I used to be one of those people. I'm glad I came to my senses before I based my whole life on things that came from people rather than from God.

Haha. I tend to ramble.

[12voltman59]

In several posts I was accused of making attacks on Christians--I don 't think so--I was merely making comment upon some aspects of what passes as christianity today--and as far as attacks coming from Christians on others are concerned--oh no--they don't do that do they?????

My comment in the post about one being just as capable of living a "good life" if not a "good christian" comes from a situation I once found myself in thanks to a Christian---a minister at a church I attended told me that I would go to hell for even thinking that people it was possible for people to be good unless they gave themselves totally up to God and that people who were "secular humanists" were being tricked by the devil and such--therefore they were all doomed to hell----

I guess that wasn't an attack by him on those who did not believe as he did---just a criticism, right???

[CountryLover]

I base my faith on this simple commandment from Jesus.

"love one another"

Love is an action verb, and if we truly LIVED that commandment, this would be a very different world.

Some day.....

[AdamKadmon43]

Good luck with that one.

[TaylorMade]

In several posts I was accused of making attacks on Christians--I don 't think so--I was merely making comment upon some aspects of what passes as christianity today--and as far as attacks coming from Christians on others are concerned--oh no--they don't do that do they?????

My comment in the post about one being just as capable of living a "good life" if not a "good christian" comes from a situation I once found myself in thanks to a Christian---a minister at a church I attended told me that I would go to hell for even thinking that people it was possible for people to be good unless they gave themselves totally up to God and that people who were "secular humanists" were being tricked by the devil and such--therefore they were all doomed to hell----

I guess that wasn't an attack by him on those who did not believe as he did---just a criticism, right???

I agree- -yes, you don't have to be Christian to be a good person.

But what I think what we're getting at is... do Christians here do that? As far as I can tell, we don't. Though (not to be mean) I do have to say -- you were at a church, of course they're not going to be kind to secular humanism. It's ideologically and philosophically oil and water. It's like expecting someone to say something nice about the Yankees among a bunch of Sox fans. It's just not going to happen.

At the heart of it, Christians believe we were born in sin and need Christ to remedy that and make us better people - - though we STILL fall WAY short of that. As for me, I'm just a flawed woman who loves the God who loved her first and wants to do her best for Him.

*Taylor*

[elian]

Yeah Taylor, you're right.

UU's are supposed to respect ALL faith traditions - and that means taking a big step and making room for others. For a long time all I wanted "Christians" to do was give the same respect to my right to my own religious views as I (think) I do to theirs. But if the Christian view is that there IS only one way to God then how can I ask them to make an exemption in their faith?

I don't like religious intolerance in ANY form - I wouldn't mind "prayer circles" at school if they were afforded the same right to be there as say a "magick circle" - because to me both of those things are a form of praying..when we pray we concentrate our spiritual energy and try to reach out, connect to God and affect some change either within or external to ourselves.

Since "magick circles" make some Christians uncomfortable and "prayer circles" make some new agers uncomfortable I'd just as soon have both of them out of schools - or at least not a part of what is officially being taught in the curriculum.

Of course, if faith helps kids through moral dilemmas I'm all for that too - and I DO think that morals are important..I dunno.

[AdamKadmon43]

I am never real certain what Christians mean when they start talking about all that "born in sin, and need Christ to get them out of it " stuff. Aways sounds like some monumental guilt trip that some one has drilled into their heads for who knows what reasons.

Adam

[TaylorMade]

I am never real certain what Christians mean when they start talking about all that "born in sin, and need Christ to get them out of it " stuff. Aways sounds like some monumental guilt trip that some one has drilled into their heads for who knows what reasons.

Adam

It's not as much guilt as acknowledgment of the less savory parts of human nature and tying them to a cause and remedy. All religions do this to a degree.

*Taylor*

[biwords]

It's not as much guilt as acknowledgment of the less savory parts of human nature and tying them to a cause and remedy...*Taylor*

Perfectly put. Bravo!

C.S. Lewis deals very well with this in Mere Christianity. But he wasn't as concise as you, Taylor!

[FerSureMaybe]

There's a lot of things that are drilled into the heads of Christians. And there's a lot of Christians that don't think for themselves when it comes to basing their whole lives around something. I used to be one of those people. But I'm really glad that I realized one day that I had my own brain that God gave me to ask questions with.

Otherwise, I wouldn't be here. :)

[canuckotter]

At the heart of it, Christians believe we were born in sin and need Christ to remedy that and make us better people - - though we STILL fall WAY short of that.

Not all Christians believe that. We're people, with all the failings and quirks and goofiness that go along with being a whole person. All God asks is that we make an honest effort to better ourselves; and Christ merely serves as an example of what we can and should work towards. No more, no less.

Basically, it comes down to free will: We've got it, like it or not, which means that God cannot come down and make us better people, even if we ask him. It's up to us. All he can do is offer some friendly advice.

[biwords]

Not all Christians believe that. We're people, with all the failings and quirks and goofiness that go along with being a whole person. All God asks is that we make an honest effort to better ourselves; and Christ merely serves as an example of what we can and should work towards. No more, no less.

And yet you have that nagging Biblical quotation "Be ye perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect" (quoting from memory here). Even granting that the old (King James-era) meaning of "perfect" was often closer to the modern "complete", it still sounds pretty daunting. Does, say, the New International Version really say "Just give it the old college try"?

[darkeyes]

It's not as much guilt as acknowledgment of the less savory parts of human nature and tying them to a cause and remedy. All religions do this to a degree.

*Taylor*
An ther Taylor lies the rub...wot is unsavoury 2 1 aint necessarily 2 the next person... an all religions an all people have so many differences that its not an easy matta 2 work out the cause an remedy....

[TaylorMade]

An ther Taylor lies the rub...wot is unsavoury 2 1 aint necessarily 2 the next person... an all religions an all people have so many differences that its not an easy matta 2 work out the cause an remedy....

You mean things like abuse, lying, and murder? I'm sure there are things we ALL find unsavory.

What I am saying is: Religon (Hell, you don't even need to belive in a God for this to make sense) seeks to solve the remedy of the "Why do we do that?" and offer a "this is how we can make things better".

*Taylor*

[biwords]

An ther Taylor lies the rub...wot is unsavoury 2 1 aint necessarily 2 the next person... an all religions an all people have so many differences that its not an easy matta 2 work out the cause an remedy....

In one of C.S. Lewis's books (I think it may be The Abolition of Man, a very short but magnificent work) he includes an appendix of quotations drawn from the world's various faith traditions and shows how in fact there's a pretty strong consensus about what's unsavoury and what isn't. Also, St. Paul somewhere says something like "the thing which I want to do I do not do, and the thing which I do not want to do, I do". So the mere gap between what we want to be and what we are is itself a significant problem of human nature, and the doctrine of the Fall (whatever you think of it otherwise) is an attempt to address that.

[darkeyes]

You mean things like abuse, lying, and murder? I'm sure there are things we ALL find unsavory.

What I am saying is: Religon (Hell, you don't even need to belive in a God for this to make sense) seeks to solve the remedy of the "Why do we do that?" and offer a "this is how we can make things better".

*Taylor*
No. I mean sex and sexuality, socialism, which churches have denounced in the past fascism, which they have supported and a myriad of perfectly normal activities which they cant agree on from contraception to religious belief itself. And even the unholy of unholies, non belief.

But while I may agree on what you list above, many so called religious people do it all the time, and churches and other religious organisations of all faiths thesmselves have never been above a bit of murder, lying, thievery and skullduggery throughout the ages.

But I am a simple girl and so know naught of any of this...

[biwords]

churches and other religious organisations of all faiths thesmselves have never been above a bit of murder, lying, thievery and skullduggery throughout the ages.

Very true, but when they do so, they are departing from their own core principles. Whereas when other movements (Nazism, Communism etc.) kill millions, it is in explicit fulfilment of their core principles.

[lubaloy]

Obligatory Disclaimer: This post is addressed to no one in particular.

I don't believe I've ever seen so much irony stuffed into one thread anywhere.

Of course, in light of its premise (i.e., the OP), this result should come as no surprise.

[darkeyes]

Very true, but when they do so, they are departing from their own core principles. Whereas when other movements (Nazism, Communism etc.) kill millions, it is in explicit fulfilment of their core principles.
Fascism is a creed which by definition must kill people. Communism is not and it is sad, that in its name, Stalin and Mao and others have wrecked its true spirit. Communism was not responsible, or socialism, but evil men and their cronies. But the spirit still lives pure and the day will dawn when the dictatorship of the proletariat becomes a reality. If I did not believe that I would not be socialist pacifist and idealist. Contrary to popular belief socialism and communism are not the same, but the former merely a stepping stone to achieve the latter.

[biwords]

Fascism is a creed which by definition must kill people. Communism is not and it is sad, that in its name, Stalin and Mao and others have wrecked its true spirit.

Interestingly, the idea of original sin ties in here. Was it simply bad luck that Communism ended up in the hands of people like Stalin and Mao? Or was there some defect in the ideology that made it inevitable that it would do so? Or is there some radical defect in human nature that guarantees either that absolute power, when it exists, will fall into the hands of evil people? or that even relatively good people, if given that power, will be (as the Catholic Lord Acton famously said) "corrupted absolutely"?

[Skater Boy]

Fascism is a creed which by definition must kill people. Communism is not and it is sad, that in its name, Stalin and Mao and others have wrecked its true spirit. Communism was not responsible, or socialism, but evil men and their cronies. But the spirit still lives pure and the day will dawn when the dictatorship of the proletariat becomes a reality. If I did not believe that I would not be socialist pacifist and idealist. Contrary to popular belief socialism and communism are not the same, but the former merely a stepping stone to achieve the latter.

You sound like my German Physicist chum. But whilst money exists, there will ALWAYS be financial inequality. and if you get rid of money, what do you replace it with? I have yet to hear of a viable solution to the problem.

[darkeyes]

Interestingly, the idea of original sin ties in here. Was it simply bad luck that Communism ended up in the hands of people like Stalin and Mao? Or was there some defect in the ideology that made it inevitable that it would do so? Or is there some radical defect in human nature that guarantees either that absolute power, when it exists, will fall into the hands of evil people? or that even relatively good people, if given that power, will be (as the Catholic Lord Acton famously said) "corrupted absolutely"?
No Wordsie I dont think so. No more than any other ideology after revolutions where the intelligentsia run the show especially when that revolution was undertaken by an essentially peasant society. But then its something we can argue about forever is it not?

[darkeyes]

You sound like my German Physicist chum. But whilst money exists, there will ALWAYS be financial inequality. and if you get rid of money, what do you replace it with? I have yet to hear of a viable solution to the problem.
Just one who believes in her own kind unlike some....

[Snowblind1]

We're not all bad...really.
Fuck, it's been years; but....

I used to be a christian; but there's tons of passages in the bible which actively condemn homosexuality.

Oh, but jesus's death means the end of the old covenent and the old law?

But Paul condemned homosexuality in (if memory serves; too lazy to look it up) Romans, Thessolonians and it is mentioned in Revelations as well.

I reach the point in my spirituality a long time back that I came to the conclusion that any god who is willing to condemn people to hell simply because of who they love is not a just and moral god and is someone who should be opposed.

And that was before it occured to me to think about all of the immoral and outright evil things jehovah pulled in the old testament (killing sodom and gomorrah, telling the isrealite army to go in and essentially commit genocide against the canaanites).

The god of the bible, if he literally exists, is one petty, vindictive and outright evil motherfucker.

[TaylorMade]

If you want to oppose God, fine. . .

But I'm relatively sure that's not what FerSure intended when she started this thread.

*Taylor*

[elian]

Sure, I sometimes get angry with God - because he DOES lie - usually when he believes it to be in our best interest (sort of like the Wizard in the Wizard of Oz.. "Pay no attention to what goes on behind the curtain!!" ).

When I get angry with him , that's usually about the same time when I get the impression of the words "FIVE YEAR OLD" written across my mind.

I have trouble trusting folks, and much to his dismay God is also included in that sentiment - no offense to him .. it was conditioned in me from an early age. What helped was when I stopped thinking of my relationship with God as parent/child and started thinking about it in terms of husband/wife (platonic mostly). The idea that God isn't looking down AT me FORCING me to do something vs. actively working in a partnership makes all the difference in the world to me personally.

He grumbles about it, but as long as my general direction and purpose meander along with his idea of how his universe should work he's usually forgiving and accommodating.

It's funny though - his relationship with the feminine aspect of the divine is more like that of a couple that has been married for too long. If pressed about he'll acknowledge she exists..but he acts like she's a big nag or something.

Anyway - live and let live - I think FerSure had a good point and I don't mean any ill will toward anyone.

[Snowblind1]

If you want to oppose God, fine. . .

It's not like there's only one...
:)

[TaylorMade]

It's not like there's only one...
:)

You named only one in your post.

*Taylor*

[FerSureMaybe]

There's a soap box calling my name.
"Alexes..."
"Alexes...."

No, box, not today.

I'll leave it at *sigh* :(

I give up.

[Skater Boy]

Just one who believes in her own kind unlike some....

Ouch! Sounds like an accusation! I prefer to think of myself as a "free-thinking individual" instead of a member of any class or social group. If I start subscribing to the views/beliefs/ideologies of any particular group, I soon get bored. Equality is A MYTH, and and anyone who tells you otherwise is A LIAR. Its a "survival of the fittest" world...

[canuckotter]

And yet you have that nagging Biblical quotation "Be ye perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect" (quoting from memory here). Even granting that the old (King James-era) meaning of "perfect" was often closer to the modern "complete", it still sounds pretty daunting. Does, say, the New International Version really say "Just give it the old college try"?
Don't think so. But that only matters if you think the Bible is exactly perfect. Not all branches of Christianity hold that the Bible is perfect. In fact, there's some philosophising along the idea that the Bible is deliberately imperfect as a way of forcing people to think.



Also, St. Paul somewhere says something like "the thing which I want to do I do not do, and the thing which I do not want to do, I do". So the mere gap between what we want to be and what we are is itself a significant problem of human nature, and the doctrine of the Fall (whatever you think of it otherwise) is an attempt to address that.
So you never actually want to be a good person? Interesting.

(Er... please take that in the context of me playing Devil's Advocate...)

[tootsie_too]

I'm pretty lucky, in having grown up in a very open Christian community which admits that the bible is a collection of stories written by men-who are fully admitted to be fallable and who likely twisted things in their own way of thinking. The Untied Church of Christ often called Congregationalism (not to be confused with the Church of Christ which is much more conservitive) is a very open and accepting church. We are encouraged to take on the bible, read it, and come to our own conclusions. They got some press recently for their "contraversial" commercials that dealt with race and sexuality and people not being accepted in other churches.

Churches in the UCC are congregationalist and the members vote on the by-laws but the head organization promotes becoming an "open and affirming" church, which is a promise to be an open, safe and welcoming community for people who fall on the gay/lesbian/bi/trangendered area of life. My entire family-including my mother who works as a christian educator in the church-were huge backers and I got up to talk to the whole community.

Yes, there are parts of the bible that say homosexual behavior is wrong, but there are parts that also say that people should be stoned, and that sometimes it's okay to beat your wife...one of the largest commandments is that Sunday should be kept holy always, which it's not anymore.

I don't think being christian and not being totally straight are mutually exclusive any more than I think being christian and being a scientist is mutually exclusive. I think it really depends on how a community treats it.

But then I'm of the belief that not loving your neighbor as yourself isn't christian at all.

[biwords]

[QUOTE=canuckotter]Don't think so. But that only matters if you think the Bible is exactly perfect. Not all branches of Christianity hold that the Bible is perfect. In fact, there's some philosophising along the idea that the Bible is deliberately imperfect as a way of forcing people to think.

------Not a very plausible explanation. It's like the early Creationists saying that dinosaurs never existed, but that God planted things that looked like bones in the earth to test believers' faith. (Yes, this argument was really made)

[darkeyes]

Ouch! Sounds like an accusation! I prefer to think of myself as a "free-thinking individual" instead of a member of any class or social group. If I start subscribing to the views/beliefs/ideologies of any particular group, I soon get bored. Equality is A MYTH, and and anyone who tells you otherwise is A LIAR. Its a "survival of the fittest" world...
The dream of equality is a dream..no myth..if u wish to live forever in world where dog eats dog so be it... I choose to try and change it to enable the weak to live free and equal with the strong... so I am a liar..but at least I am not a selfish arsehole...

[Skater Boy]

The dream of equality is a dream..no myth..if u wish to live forever in world where dog eats dog so be it... I choose to try and change it to enable the weak to live free and equal with the strong... so I am a liar..but at least I am not a selfish arsehole...

I wouldn't consider you "a liar" Fran, just unrealistic. Nature DIDN'T create everyone equal. I agree, it would be nice if everyone WERE equal, but the reality of that implication is more complex to execute than some people think, and those who attempt it usually end up getting it wrong.

I look forward to the day when such a utopian society exists, but until then I live in the REAL world.

And thanks for calling me a selfish arsehole (even though you know very little about me). I won't stoop to the level of name-calling. But its always fun to discuss these social issues...

[darkeyes]

I consider that you called me a liar, and for that I called you an arsehole. Whatever you say Skater, I believe in true equality with a passion, and think it achievable someday, maybe not in my lifetime, but someday.. and if you believe my dream unrealistic... ok.. then any who think like you are selfish aresholes.

I do live in the real world..I just try and make it better in my own small way as a part of the greater plan to that utopia.

So we both name called..lets call it quits... have a kiss an a huggle an drag your jaw back up off the floor.. xo :tong:

[biwords]

I believe in true equality with a passion, and think it achievable someday...and if you believe my dream unrealistic... ok.. then any who think like you are selfish aresholes. :tong:

Um, or maybe some people's life experience just doesn't dispose them to believe that equality is achievable? even if they might like it otherwise?

[Skater Boy]

So we both name called..lets call it quits... have a kiss an a huggle an drag your jaw back up off the floor.. xo :tong:

Agreed. Although I'm NOT actually OPPOSED to attempting to achieve this "Utopia". But its just that its in reality its VERY hard to make real, and some would say perhaps even impossible. You seem to to have great faith in your beliefs though, maybe you should consider a career in politics...

Anyway, enough. No hard feelings.

SB x

[darkeyes]

Um, or maybe some people's life experience just doesn't dispose them to believe that equality is achievable? even if they might like it otherwise?
Me knows that Wordsie..me daft not stupid... is ne thin important in life easy?

[darkeyes]

Agreed. Although I'm NOT actually OPPOSED to attempting to achieve this "Utopia". But its just that its in reality its VERY hard to make real, and some would say perhaps even impossible. You seem to to have great faith in your beliefs though, maybe you should consider a career in politics...

Anyway, enough. No hard feelings.

SB xLuff lotsa selfish arseholes Skater... we all r 2 sum degree... no hard feelins ever intended..jus agitated tempa took ova! :tong:

Go inta politics? God no ta! Totally unsuited to me temperament! Much more useful livin as me dus! Me has sum integrity! :bigrin:

[Skater Boy]

Um, or maybe some people's life experience just doesn't dispose them to believe that equality is achievable? even if they might like it otherwise?


Biwords, on SOME levels all are equal. But on others, we are most certainly NOT. One person posesses more intellectual capacity than the next, one person is better endowed than the next, one person has skills others lack, etc, etc, etc. And these "advantages" make success easier for him/her.

So on a SPIRITUAL level, we MIGHT be able to be considered equal. But on other planes, there are differences between us which mean in reality we are not. These differences are bestowed upon us by nature in many cases, and whilst they (and manhood's current ideologies) persist, this "Utopia" will be difficult.

I would love to live in a society of true equality (I think I would be better off under that system). But I just can't see it happening in the near future. However, I do respect the views of those who have more faith in equality than I do, and hope for everyone's sake that this Utopia is achievable.

[biwords]

Biwords, on SOME levels all are equal. But on others, we are most certainly NOT. One person posesses more intellectual capacity than the next, one person is better endowed than the next, one person has skills others lack, etc, etc, etc. And these "advantages" make success easier for him/her.

So on a SPIRITUAL level, we MIGHT be able to be considered equal. But on other planes, there are differences between us which mean in reality we are not. These differences are bestowed upon us by nature in many cases, and whilst they (and manhood's current ideologies) persist, this "Utopia" will be difficult.

I would love to live in a society of true equality (I think I would be better off under that system). But I just can't see it happening in the near future. However, I do respect the views of those who have more faith in equality than I do, and hope for everyone's sake that this Utopia is achievable.

I don't think we disagree, except that I fear the attempts of others to build their Utopias...from the French Revolutionary Terror to Pol Pot, the historical record isn't encouraging.

[darkeyes]

Me takes it back Skater...yas not so selfish afta all... :tong:

[darkeyes]

Its not wot the record says but wether it is rite 2 make the attempt... Marx expected the revolution to take place in Britain wiva strong industrial base and workin class an b an example 2 the world. All otha attempts have been in esentially peasant societies... wether he is rite time may tell.. I think he prob wos.. but its jus theory. Times hav changed so reely we none of us know for sure...jus I believe in his dream.

[Skater Boy]

Its not wot the record says but wether it is rite 2 make the attempt... Marx expected the revolution to take place in Britain wiva strong industrial base and workin class an b an example 2 the world. All otha attempts have been in esentially peasant societies... wether he is rite time may tell.. I think he prob wos.. but its jus theory. Times hav changed so reely we none of us know for sure...jus I believe in his dream.

Fran IS right in a way. Many of those who have used Marxist principles to try and establish their own "Utopias" (if that is the correct word) were NOT really acting in the true spirit of Marxism. Marx himself is reported to have seen some things that were done under the influence of his work, and said: "If this is Marxism, then I am NOT a Marxist". Its all too easy to take something that is quite powerful and use it wrongly, or to suit your own needs. The main problem that I have with Marxism is that whilst Marx is very good at pointing out the PROBLEMS associated Capitalism, he is NOT as good at coming up with realistic SOLUTIONS to those problems. I for one do not agree with his "Communist Manifesto".

But I'm told the Marxism is still alive and well these days. Whether Marx would recognise it or not is another matter. This website my physicist buddy's Holy Bible:

http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/en_index.html

I did send them an email once with a bunch of questions, some of which were concerned with Utopianism. Half of them they declined to answer, and in a very belittling way, I might add. Most of the rest they answered in such a complex and cryptic fashion that it was hard to make sense of what they had said. The only clear and definite answer I got was that these modern-day "Marxists" are NOT very keen on ANY form of religion.

[biwords]

Its not wot the record says but wether it is rite 2 make the attempt... Marx expected the revolution to take place in Britain wiva strong industrial base and workin class an b an example 2 the world. All otha attempts have been in esentially peasant societies... wether he is rite time may tell.. I think he prob wos.. but its jus theory. Times hav changed so reely we none of us know for sure...jus I believe in his dream.

Fair enough. But so far, the revolution hasn't happened in industrial society because that society provides enough people with enough goodies to remove any revolutionary ardor they might have had. I don't see that changing. Orwell was wrong; Aldous Huxley, in Brave New World, was right.

[darkeyes]

Fair enough. But so far, the revolution hasn't happened in industrial society because that society provides enough people with enough goodies to remove any revolutionary ardor they might have had. I don't see that changing. Orwell was wrong; Aldous Huxley, in Brave New World, was right.
Not sure yas rite bout Orwell an Huxley Wordsie..jus need ta hav kwik look round at the cams wich take photos of us everywer we go summat like 300 times a day here, our footprints bein traced every time we use a hole in the wall, or use our placcie....its arguable....

In ne case..ther enough shite goin on in even the most prosperous societies to make the natives restless!!!

Aaaah babes..the angst we go through while dreamin of our perfect world.... an the pain as we try an achieve it!! :(

[AdamKadmon43]

:tongue:
Quite a thread you have started here, Fer..... Bet you never thought at the outset that it would take so many twists and turns, and wind it's way down so many roads.

But that is good. In fact, I think that it is totally GREAT. There have been, for the most part, a great deal of provocative and interesting posts by some very intelligent and astute people, and I have enjoyed them very much. Makes me feel quite proud of my bisexual brothers and sisters.

Just one last comment to make: Just because I do not profess any particular religious beliefs does not entitle me to criticize or condemn those who do. I try to respect those beliefs as long as they do not threaten my own personal existence. And when I say negative things about Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) it is not a personal attack on the believer, it is simply questioning the argument. (there were a few cases of Argumentum Ad Hominem in all this that should not have been presented).

All that having been said, I shall go cook my self some dinner and think about more mundane things.

Adam

[darkeyes]

An that Adam is how it shud b... mind u sum peeps get a lil hot unda colla sumtimes.... hot tempered peeps.... not me of course..me perfectly placid an luffly..... neva get hot unda colla. Well not much... tee hee:bigrin:

[FerSureMaybe]

:tongue:
Quite a thread you have started here, Fer..... Bet you never thought at the outset that it would take so many twists and turns, and wind it's way down so many roads.

But that is good. In fact, I think that it is totally GREAT. There have been, for the most part, a great deal of provocative and interesting posts by some very intelligent and astute people, and I have enjoyed them very much. Makes me feel quite proud of my bisexual brothers and sisters.

Just one last comment to make: Just because I do not profess any particular religious beliefs does not entitle me to criticize or condemn those who do. I try to respect those beliefs as long as they do not threaten my own personal existence. And when I say negative things about Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) it is not a personal attack on the believer, it is simply questioning the argument. (there were a few cases of Argumentum Ad Hominem in all this that should not have been presented).

All that having been said, I shall go cook my self some dinner and think about more mundane things.

Adam

And <3z for Adam.

[Azrael]

If i remember correctly, my original purpose was to say, got nothin but love 4 u n me many Christian friends. I started something I shouldn't have there, but it doesn't really matter now. Let's just try to focus on the positive energy here ;)

[biwords]

Hear, hear, Adam and Azrael. (Gosh, those two names together sound Biblical: and Adam said unto Azrael.....).

Fran, you are most definitely luffly, but placid? :)