[Spliffdaddy]

who let the anti-religion nuts into the thread?

[lil'babykitten]

So.....have we gotten anywhere by the 15th page?

[StiZeven]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
who let the anti-religion nuts into the thread?

I find it hysterical (yet also a bit disturbing) that you'd call the un-religious people nuts instead of the religious fanatics - how ironic! Unless you were joking, then yes that would be funny.

[StiZeven]

Originally posted by ebuddy:

I do have one correction though...it's your God too.

...and HOW is THAT exactly so?!

[StiZeven]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
So.....have we gotten anywhere by the 15th page?

No lil'babykitten, and I am sure the ignorance, fear, assumptions, generalizations, and usual teachings of the religious bla bla bla rulebooks would continue in the same exact way if this thread were 800 pages long! Scary, isn't it?

[StiZeven]

Originally posted by Johnnyboysmac:
I would tend to agree with macvillage.net in that it is more of an American issue re legal and EQUAL rights for homosexuals than the world per se, insofar as the US is the alleged standard bearer of Western Democratic values of liberty, freedom and equality for ALL. And as he has pointed out, legal recognition has been in place for considerable time in some other countries, for eg Holland, always a huge bastion of social fairness, despite being a 'little' country.

Nonetheless, when it comes to such things as EQUALITY for ALL, the world generally appears to look to the US to set the standard of social justice and fairness.

Homosexuals polarize the issue as regards "throwing in religious persecution and insulsts" because they indeed DO feel persecuted by religious Christian fundamentalists in the main. Whether that has a postive or negative effect on their RIGHT to EQUAL legal recognition is a side issue.



I agree in the main that the attrocities committed by Christian man are not an indictment against 'God' or basic tenets of Christian or other religious faiths, which are basically about love, and tolerance, but an indictment against man, or more specifically and importantly mans interpretations of those religious faiths, and his actions as regards following those interpretations/beliefs. Separating the principles of a faith, from the ramifcations of it as it is practised by its followers is a difficult thing for most.

I believe a great many "folks opposed to the Christian principle are so fixated on it interests me," are not so opposed to the Christian or other religious principles, but the way those principles are interpretated and practicised by the fundamentalist far right, and the way that imposts upon their lives.

Historical fact teaches us the horrors of those interpretations from the middle ages; BUT we still see it today with the physical violence and terrorism from Islamic fundamentalist extremeists, and with the physcological violence wielded by the pen, political lobbying, social ostracization, reparative 'therapy', ECT shock treatment etc by the Right wing Christian fundamentalist extremeist against Homosexuals and others who do not fit in with their beliefs.



Somewhat surprisingly when it comes to Christian 'error' we appear to be very forgiving. We 'overlook' the historical attrocities of the Christian church, as 'errors' by men, even though they most assuredly were excercising their belief/faith in what they thought were the best interests of those they persecuted, tortured and killed.

If they were 'error's made by men, and not a failing of the principles of the faith, or an indictment against 'God', why do we somehow assume that todays Christian fundamentalist extremeist is any less fallable and dangerous than his predecessors?

In the present day we allow the church to handle internally the abuse of children by priests; - where is the appropriate action of the civil courts? We allow Christian right wing fundamentalists to spread fear, personal beliefs/biblical interpretations as 'fact' almost without question.

And as I mentioned earlier, why is it we pillory 'regular/peaceful' Islamic fundamentalist extremists, and 'excuse' the equally fanatical and potentially dangerous Christian fundamentalist extremeist?

I would opinion that as StiZeven points out, religious 'conditioning' is a part of our culture and upbringing for many; with it comes the dangerous ability for that faith to be misused by man, in ways that are detrimental to the society as a whole.

Sadly, we seem to see alternative faiths as 'bad' and Christianity as 'good'.

Inherently, BOTH are GOOD, however the misuse of any religion inevitably leads to reprehensible acts being committed against others, whether by legal/politcal/social means to deny gay folks equality under law, or the more extreme forms of violence as perpetrated by your local, socially disadvantaged, grudge ridden, religious fundamentalist fanatic carrying out acts of terror in the name of their slant on religous faith.

Cheers

Johnboi...

Johnboi for president!

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by StiZeven:
I find it hysterical (yet also a bit disturbing) that you'd call the un-religious people nuts instead of the religious fanatics - how ironic! Unless you were joking, then yes that would be funny.

Dude, there is no difference between a religious nut and an anti-religion nut.

They both believe in God - but one is mad at God.

[StiZeven]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Dude, there is no difference between a religious nut and an anti-religion nut.

They both believe in God - but one is mad at God.

'mad at god'? Does this not sound at all silly to you? And you're calling someone else a nut? Sorry, but I've not read any posts by any un-religious nuts. Just posts by people like me who have little or no religious beliefs. If you think people who have little or no religious beliefs are nuts, than you've got a problem. Religion is an option, it's a personal thing, and you're free to believe whatever you wish, as I am free not to.

EDIT - Typos.

[Spliffdaddy]

I have no religious beliefs and my opinions typically reflect that fact.

You mention religion at every turn - as if you have an interest in it.

[StiZeven]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I have no religious beliefs and my opinions typically reflect that fact.

You mention religion at every turn - as if you have an interest in it.

Yes I have, and as stated a few posts back, many believe that it is religion that dictates the way people feel or how they were taught to feel about homosexuality. That is why religion is touched on with each post. Also, you can't be mad at a god if you don't believe in one - or have a different idea of what 'god' might be. If I am angry at anyone, I am angry with the church (from whichever religion), their negative preaching (when touching on homosexuality) and the people who actually buy into it.

[Johnnyboysmac]

originally posted by ebuddy:
Johnny, you must know the above venemous attacks on Christianity do not make you more acceptable than those who engage venemous attacks on Homosexuality.

ebuddy, it was not my design or intent to make a vehement, or as you put it, venomous attack upon Christianity, nor to appear either acceptable or unacceptable as the case may be.

My concern, and point, is the missuse of religious faith, be it Christian or otherwise, to support the interpretation of that faith by particular individuals or groups, and the ramifications of their actions towards others either singularly, or society as a whole, when that particular interpretation/belief is carried out in ways that are harmful (sometimes in the extreme) to those towards whom it is directed, no matter how 'righteous' the perpertrator of those actions may deem him, herself, or they to be.

If it seemed otherwise, I apologise for my seemingly inadequate means of written expression in getting my thoughts across clearly.

I fellowship with Christians from many denominations almost daily and ironically not once have we been instructed to fashion improvised munitions for use on innocent civilians.

I'm not aware of any organised overt acts of physical Christian violence against others, agreed, and apologise if that was unintentionally infered, however that was not the point I was endeavouring to make.

The point being that whether it be by the pen etc, from shall we say more moderate fundamentalist extremists of the Christian persuassion, or by violence as perpetrated by religious fundamentalist extremist terrorists, it is an interpretation of religious faith that when acted upon causes discrimination, physcological and in the terrorist case, extreme physical violence against innocent people who do not share their particluar beliefs.

originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Dude, there is no difference between a religious nut and an anti-religion nut.

They both believe in God - but one is mad at God.

Spliffdaddy, as you have not addressed this directly to me, but nonetheless it seems to be so, as I recall you making a similar point towards my comments a while back in this thread, I am happy to address your concerns once more.

I am not mad at God, be it him, her, the concept, God the Father, the Son and/or the Holy Ghost. Neither am I anti-religous per se.

However I have a certain suspicion and deep seated questioning of those of whatever religous persuassion that interpret religous faith/scriptures, be it the Bible or the Koran, and then proceed in a manner in support of those interpretations/beliefs that has offensive, discrimantory or violent ramifications for those who do not share those beliefs, as I have outlined above.

I would think that any individual with a modicum of common sense would see the dangers inherent in the missuse of religious faith, and as previously stated, whilst we focus on the 'errors' of Islam, we are IMV unjustifiably tolerant at times of the far right Christian Fundamentalist despite their having an apparently more peaceful, at least in a physical sense, but nonetheless dangerous agenda that as history has soundly proven, to be harmful to a great many people.

I note with interest the way you seemingly sit on the apparent sidelines in this debate, interjecting with the odd jibe or two!

Good on you, keeps the pot boiling, but I cant help but feel there's things you'd like to express, but either you lack the confidence perhaps, or don't have the time to write, or whatever, but you strike me as someone who has a lot more to say than what he is saying.

Goodness, now, you wouldn't be a clossetted homosexual would you?

Heheh, just had to make a joke there for comic relief - heh watch out, Dcolten will have words with you :-)

Cheers

Johnboi...

[zigzag]

Religion, and Christianity in particular, is a pervasive factor in American life. It's almost impossible to discuss social issues without considering it on some level. You might as well talk about bicycle racing without mentioning Lance Armstrong.

Where public attitudes towards homosexuality are concerned, anyone who suggests that Christianity doesn't play a role is simply playing dumb. It's not a prerequisite to opposing homosexuality, and there are Christians who don't oppose homosexuality (indeed, there are many gay Christians), but the fact remains that it influences a lot of attitudes and there are a lot of people who would oppose homosexuality no matter what the research shows simply because the Bible (according to their interpretation) tells them to. Some people, myself included, think this is misguided. Saying so doesn't make us "anti-God" or "anti-religious" - it makes us "anti-using-the-Bible-to-justify-unjust-discrimination-or-worse."

[BRussell]

When it comes to both abortion and homosexuality, two of the biggies for conservative christians, I can't find anything in the Bible that clearly condemns it. In Genesis 19, God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah because the people want to "know" some angels. It's not at all clear that it's a condemnation of homosexuality. It could be a condemnation of rape. Or of messing with angels.

There's a pretty clear rule against homosexuality in Leviticus, but there are a bazillion Mosaic laws, including the permission of slavery, sacrificing animals, killing a person who swears, not getting a haircut, eating kosher food, etc., and virtually none of them are followed by Christians today. Why pick the one about homosexuality and none of the others?

There's also a passage in Romans criticizing pagans, which includes a condemnation of homosexual sex. But Jesus was never recorded saying anything about homosexuality. And what is clear is that Jesus was a radical inclusion-ist.

I'd be interested in ebuddy or dcolton explaining to me how their religion is so against homosexuality. I just have this feeling that some individuals are against it, and they then use their religion to justify their individual beliefs.

(The Bible has even less to say about abortion, and so I'd also be interested in why that's such a big christian issue. But maybe that can be saved for a different thread. )

[ebuddy]

I'd be interested in ebuddy or dcolton explaining to me how their religion is so against homosexuality.

I'm thinking the word "homosexual" did not come to be 'til what...late 1860's?

I just have this feeling that some individuals are against it, and they then use their religion to justify their individual beliefs.

right, so why waste time answering your questions? For the sake of argument though, give me those Biblical passages you think I might use to refute homosexuality. I'd like to add that some require a lack of faith to justify their individual beliefs, desires, and actions.

Arguably, one trait that separates man from animal is a code of ethics if you will, a set of moral absolutes not exclusive to Christianity or religion. Are there moral absolutes? By what do you gauge these standards? By what authority?

I might also remind you that the wage of ONE sin is death. There are many passages that condemn not what you are, but what you do. I'm sure you'd agree that heterosexuals are just as capable of sexual impurity as homosexuals and would probably be judged accordingly right? Jesus definitely spoke of sexual immorality, but what is that? Is it exclusive to heterosexuals?

The Bible has even less to say about abortion, and so I'd also be interested in why that's such a big christian issue. But maybe that can be saved for a different thread.

Probably should be, but we'll give you a taste;
Psalms 127:3-5; "Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is His reward..."

Psalm 128
Isaiah 45:18
Gen 1:28
Psalms 739:15-16

BTW, I'm glad you are reading the Bible.