|
|
|
|
Here’s a little reality check…..
http://www.alternet.org/sex/136610/young_and_gay_in_the_bible_belt%3A_%27my_mom_came_at_me_with_a_butcher_knife%21%27/
:-/
I had to come back to say that though this was just a reminder of what is still going on I do not believe we need institutional support to over come this kind of behaviour. Our actions are a personal decision that can not be forced. Just as we can not legislate morality, stupid is as stupid does, people who have spent a life time not thinking for them selves probably never will!
[Updated on: Thu, 16 April 2009 14:22]
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, arich, isn't it horrible! It is difficult to believe that such things are done, such attitudes held, by real live people.
They are certainly very uncommon here in Bristol, England. But my fundamentalist friend, who found it harder to 'come out' to me as a fundamentalist than I did to 'come out' to him as gay - my fundamentalist friend is still quite willing to say I am going to go to hell. And to say it to my face and although he knows I haven't had sex with a man for nearly fifty years!
My response when I am forced to make one is to speak against all religious beliefs, but I don't think I'm getting very far! As an attempt to convert the world to atheism it doesn't rate.
But have you a better response?
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dogma of any kind as I have said many time is I think the bane of human kind’s existence.
Hehe the only thing I’m dogmatic about is Love.
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Macky
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
|
|
|
Religion, like alcohol, often is used abusively. People have to be kinder and more loving. I wish religions stressed that aspect more strongly.
Also, it is interesting what different religions consider right and wrong. I guess it depends on culture. Here's an interesting quote from Pg 63 "Beyond Opinion" by Ravi Zacharius.
"All the terminology in the Qur'an is allegedly "revealed" by Allah, whereby he has broken his treaty with non-Muslims forever and has made the shedding of their blood legitimate. There are no absolutes with him. He has prepared a desired place for those who do his bidding but with no certainty. In this place, they would have their full share of sexual pleasures, including alternative lifestyles and beautiful virgins specially created for the enjoyment of his slaves, as well as young handsome boys who will remain perpetually fresh and young, shining like pearls."
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daffey44
|
 |
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: March 2004
Messages: 23
|
|
|
I read the "Young and Gay in the Bible Belt" commentary. The problem is that some people have no perspective.
My daughter is gay. She moved to Canada, married her companion, and gave us a grandchild that we (living in southern California) rarely see.
My son is straight. He has stage 4 lung cancer. The cancer has been arrested but cannot be eliminated. He faces weekly maintenance chemotherapy for the rest of his (possibly long, possibly not long) life.
To my wife and me, our reaction to our daughter's homosexuality is "so what?" and to our son's condition is "Oh, my God!!"
Of course, part of our acceptance of our daughter's wife derives from our religion. Reform Judaism (the largest branch of Judaism in North America) supports full civil rights for gays, including same-gender marriages. The Central Conference of American Rabbis even developed a religious marriage ceremony -- yes, MARRIAGE and not merely commitment -- for same-gender Jewish couples.
Thus, care should be taken to avoid generalized condemnation of religions for homophobia. Some religions are indeed problems, but not all are guilty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
This illustrates yet again the difference between faith (good) and religion (depends upon the motives of the clergy).
All one can work for is changing times. One cannot rub an idiot's nose in his dirt with any more success than one can with a puppy. It doesn't work with puppies (I've trained many), and it doesn't work with idiots either.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Macky
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
|
|
|
I don't think the problem is inherent to organized religion. It's when people abusively use religion for their own agenda (usually controlling people)that the problems crop up.
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Certainly with christianity the religion's purpose appears to be to control those who subscribe to the underlying faith. This control is total, from bedchamber to workplace.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Macky
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
|
|
|
To a certain extent you are right. Christianity has been victim to a lot of abuse. But we do not condemn the concept of a city because there tends to be a lot of crime in the city. We do not abolish all government because governments make bad laws. Obviously people organized into an institution can do either good or evil with greater efficiency. In my book organized religions are just such human institutions. They change with the times. In the long run, their benefits outweigh their depravities or they perish.
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Timmy, I think 'faith' is always believing something without sufficient reason and if I am right about that then it is a bad thing. We shouldn't believe things without sufficient reason.
The problem with religions of the book is that they are prevented from correcting the mistakes of their predecessors because the book has been written down and is unchangeable.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Sufficient reason is a desire to believe. It does not have to be proven in order to be believed in.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Tell me the good done by this cult, please?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> This illustrates yet again the difference between faith (good) and religion (depends upon the motives of the clergy).
Not at all sure I'd agree with that. What is - IMO - wholly good is direct spiritual experience. "Faith" is, I think, about believing a particular codification is relevant to that primary experience, and I have pretty mixed views on that ... certainly, I think any connection must be at a symbolic / mytho-poeic level rather than a logical one. "Religion" I'd see as a name for a relative identity as much as anything: varying with time and place (in the same way as I'd identify as living in "the UK" if abroad, "London" if in the UK, "Tottenham" if in London, I would variously identify as "Christian", "non-mainstream", "broadly Quaker in outlook", "not formally a 'Friend'" ).
Things with power structures - and they can be good or evil or commonly a mix of the two - I'd call "sects", "denominations" or perhaps "churches" if I were feeling kind ... though normally I'd duck the issue.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Macky
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
|
|
|
Well, there is the doctrinal good practiced that is explained in the Britannica excerpt below. But even more important is the ideal of “the good” that Christianity (among other religions) inspires. This ideal makes some people do super nice things. If you read the letters of Mother Theresa of Calcutta, you see someone who has no faith, yet is empowered to do good works through the ideal of goodness that organized religions can impart. Faith is a wonderful thing to have but I think organized religion does much more in the good works department. (Not to say it is innocent of any evil.)
“Institutional benevolence to the poor, the sick, orphans, and other people in need has been characteristic of the Christian church from its beginnings. The church’s charitable activities have involved organized assistance, supported by the contributions of the entire community and rendered by dedicated persons. Protestant churches continued the works of institutional benevolence after their separation from the Roman church. Institutional assistance to the needy is a legacy from the church to modern governments.”
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/507284/Roman-Catholicism/43705/Charitable-activities
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
Certainly with christianity the religion's purpose appears to be to control those who subscribe to the underlying faith. This control is total, from bedchamber to workplace.
ALL religions control the adherent's behaviour. That is the meaning of 'religion'. A religion should be judged not by what it demands of those who accept its prescriptions but of what it does and does not demand of those who don't - be they adherents or not.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
acam wrote:
The problem with religions of the book is that they are prevented from correcting the mistakes of their predecessors because the book has been written down and is unchangeable.
This is not true of all religions. It is axiomatic in Judaism, for example, that we do not live our lives according to what is written in the Bible, but as the rabbis of each generation have explained and interpreted what is written there. (This is explicitly required by Deuteronomy 17:8-11.) This has permitted much change and 'updating' throughout the ages. I may not speak for Christianity because I am not a Christian.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, NW, after many years of wondering about spirit and spiritual I am unable to identify what it is. It seems to me as absurd as the musical banks in Erewhon. However hard I try to find it in me I can't. So I have come to the conclusion it is a fraud and that I no more have a spirit than I have a soul. (Of course I understand its metaphorical use well enough.)
If great music makes me want to cry I suppose the feeling I have is what other people call spiritual, but there seems to be to be no connexion between that feeling and the amazing list of other things which seem to get ascribed to spirituality.
Does anyone here think they can identify spirituality for me?
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Timmy, are you seriously saying that wanting to believe something is a sufficient reason to believe it?
Isn't that the equivalent of saying self-delusion is good? Isn't believing something because you want to the end of the distinction between truth and falsehood? Or is it that you think you can believe something while knowing it to be false?
I hope I can't. If I believed something and then discovered it to be false I'd immediately stop believing it. That's what happens when someone succeeds in correcting your mistakes - as I am trying to do for you, now!
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear JFR, surely you see that what you wrote supports what I say. Each new generation of Rabbis "explains" and "interprets" what is written in the unchangeable book.
So when the book says black is white the rabbis have to explain it away and if they can do that then they bring either themselves or their book into disrepute - hence the resurgence of fundamentalism which claims to eschew interpretation and go back to the fundamental 'truth' of the book.
And all they are doing is arguing about the words.
But what they ought to be doing is learning and teaching how to make moral judgments and how to act on them. And in my view that can be done better directly and without the distraction of the book.
The book gets in the way when it is wrong - and as we know it can be wrong it isn't much help as a support when it is right. There is surely no doubt that the difference between right and wrong is not what some person (divine or not) said or wrote.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The spirit or my spirituality is what moved me to post this article, so much moves us that can not be describe by science as of yet, yet there are many theories. I personal think that there is much in nature and the nature of human kind that we sometimes call super natural or metaphysical simply because we do not have the words to describe every thing that exists yet.
My belief in deity is my own based on what and who I am at this point in time. I do not want any one of you to be me or I you. None of us knows everything, and honestly the more I think we come to know, LOL I think the more we all may be shocked by what the immutable truth is, what ever that is. For now Love is my God just as God is love. But then life for me is bliss hahaha what a wonderful ignorance. IMHO
:-*
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
The basis of faith in some form of deity is that one believes because one chooses to believe, n something that is not provable.
That in itself is harmless, probably even positive for those who choose that path.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Macky
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
|
|
|
Faith leads to self control.
Tradition, like in enclosed orthodox communities, can lead to an imposed societal control. People trade their freedom for the benefits provided by such communities.
Organized religion, like in the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, does not control its adherents. It merely prescribes an ideal. How could it control, absent a stasi-like police force?
Organized Religion makes it possible to do greater good. Individuals abuse organized religion to control adherents and non-adherents alike, i.e. the divine right of kings. If people experience more bad from an organized religion than good, the organization will be abandoned and die on the vine. So I support all organized religions because, their very existence is testament to the fact that they accomplish more good than evil.
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Macky
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
|
|
|
Quakers are cool! They let the local gay church meet in their facilities, for free.
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Macky
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
|
|
|
I like this way of describing spirituality. And science, as described in books like "The Quantum Enigma", at least point us to how truly ignorant we are. Anthony has no basis for his claim that there is no spirit other than there is no proof that it exists. In fact, there is no proof that it does not exist and thus it should not be discounted from scientific study.
I don't know that spirituality is guided so much by faith as by desire. I have very little faith when it comes to the supernatural, but I have a great desire for it to be real. At the core, I feel that we are spiritual to the extent that it serves a utilitarian purpose for us. Being ignorant and curious, spirituality is a great help for me, even if it just gives me a straw man to shoot at until I gain knowledge. All this is quite apart from my views on organized religion, however. I judge that as an institution. Spirituality emanates from a desire within.
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Macky
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
|
|
|
Timmy,
I agree 100%. It's pragmatic. If someone's life is happier because they believe, what right does anyone have to tell them they are wrong?
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Macky
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
|
|
|
JFR,
I am a Roman Catholic and I see change in interpretation of both the original Book and its corollaries encoded in doctrine. Interpretation changes constantly, as the church accommodates its prescriptions to an ever changing world.
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Macky
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
|
|
|
"But what they ought to be doing is learning and teaching how to make moral judgments and how to act on them. And in my view that can be done better directly and without the distraction of the book."
I have always found this to be a strong argument. It's strong, because for the person who says it, it is undeniably true. People like you have no need of religion because you have the insight and self discipline built in from the strength of your character. But you should realize that people come in all dimensions. Many need something more concrete and outside of themselves. They need to be taught to a certain extent, just like you are trying to teach that belief in the super natural is folly. Even if it is folly (and I'm am not saying it is), the crutch should not be denied to those who need it.
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
acam wrote:
(snip)
>
> Does anyone here think they can identify spirituality for me?
Not exactly - spirituality and direct spiritual experience comes in many flavours. I know about the mystical variety, and fall back on William Wordsworth to express it far better than I could ever hope to:
And I have felt
A presence that disturbs me with the joy
Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man;
But there's undoubtedly at least one version of spirituality which is distinctly not mystical (assuming that he actually existed, Jesus strikes me as being such) ... I can just about recognise it in some people when I run my nose into it, but that's about as far as I go.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Where it then goes wrong is that an initial well meaning person starts to interpret that faith, and then others surround it with rules.
Sometimes the rules are a simple sensible formula for a decent life. At other times those rules cause harm to others. I cite christian missionaries and evangelists as harm doers here.
By no means all non evangelical religions are free from doing harm, but they do not have one major component which causes harm to the unbeliever.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, NW, thank you for trying but I don't get it. The feelings I sometimes get from the beauties of nature or music or even from some stories are diffuse and I don't understand them. Perhaps I don't feel as other people; perhaps I do and am just less willing to accept other people's ways of explaining those feelings.
My father used to mention the effect on him of a football crowd all singing together and Imagine that was the way some people are affected by the sort of worship I would call Happy-clappy.
But as what I feel is so vague I don't think I could ever depend on those feelings as a reason for action.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Anthony,
I am going to respond to some of the things that you wrote, but afterwards I do not intend continuing this discussion - at least, not here.
surely you see that what you wrote supports what I say.
I do not. The example of Judaism refutes what you say, and the continuation of your argument (below) shows that you have not understood.
Each new generation of Rabbis "explains" and "interprets" what is written in the unchangeable book.
Not only 'explains' but also changes - completely and utterly. Laws have been abolished, new laws have been created. The "Book" is only a basis. Like any book once written it is unchangeable; that does not mean that the religion is unchanging.
So when the book says black is white the rabbis have to explain it away and if they can do that then they bring either themselves or their book into disrepute
Why on earth should any attempt to explain bring anyone or anything into disrepute? I think that you do not understand the process. This is not surprising, because you do not have the experience.
hence the resurgence of fundamentalism which claims to eschew interpretation and go back to the fundamental 'truth' of the book.
Anthony, this seems to be nonsensical: are you saying that because over the ages changes are made and laws updated that this is a return to fundamentalism????
And all they are doing is arguing about the words.
Wrong! They are innovating and renovating and changing and updating. Jews today do not live their lives as did Jews 2000 years ago.
But what they ought to be doing is learning and teaching how to make moral judgments and how to act on them. And in my view that can be done better directly and without the distraction of the book.
Firstly, that is exactly what Judaism is about. (A Jew is not judged by what he believes but by how he lives his life.) Secondly, I cannot see how basing one's ethical teachings on a book can possibly detract from the results of the exercise. Ethics should be judged on what they preach, not on how the ethic was reached.
The book gets in the way when it is wrong - and as we know it can be wrong
I am surprised to hear this coming from someone such as yourself, a professed atheist. If the Book was written by people it reflects the mores and customs of its time. Only in that sense is it 'wrong'.
I shan't continue this discussion between the two of us here unless others want us to.
Hugs,
J F R
[Updated on: Sun, 19 April 2009 07:35]
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the reply, JFR, maybe I'll respond - I may indeed have misunderstood you but I think you have not understood me fully either.
But we are unlikely, either of us, to bring about much change in the other's religious views so in a way it is likely to be fruitless.
Maybe it would be a waste of your time.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
acam wrote:
Maybe it would be a waste of your time.
Anthony, how could discussion with you ever be a waste of time? 
Hugs
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
