SUPER Controversial Thread!!! (Not for the faint of heart)- Page 9

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 9/28/04 at 1:52am

I don't know if that was directed towards me at all, but I feel horrible now.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 9/28/04 at 1:57am

DGrant, i understand your frustration and agony over the matter of ignorant and bigoted Christains, and as you can see I've been with you this whole argument.

However, perhaps you can take it into consideration that, although it is your right, it does go to my heart and hurts me in a way when you so harshly criticize my faith. I completely understand where you are coming from, as I am fed up with "conservative 'we're better than you' Christains"...but I just needed to say to not stoop to their level. Because, whether you believe it is mythological or not, it *is* my faith.

But, as always, i think you're great.

Updated On: 9/28/04 at 01:57 AM

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 9/28/04 at 2:03am

Word, DGrant. And therein lies my hesitation in accepting organized religion.

Here's my controversial thought:

I don't believe that women (or I suppose men for that matter) should be allowed to have children (aside from those already living) if they are on social assistance. No way am I suggesting mandatory abortion. I'm saying birth control or abstinence, and foster care should a baby be produced while the parent is on welfare. While I believe in a woman's right to reproduce to an extent, I feel that it's selfish to yourself, your child and society to bring new children into the world when you can't support yourself independently.

(Wow, the only other time I've expressed that was in a leftist sociology class. It didn't go over too well.)

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 9/28/04 at 2:04am

I think that would solely depend on *why* she can't support herself.

Posted: 9/28/04 at 2:10am

Spider - quite honestly, that is directed outward into the world, not at any one person or group in particular.

Priest - I'm sorry if you have interpreted what I've said as 'stooping' to any level. I am only speaking the truth of what I think and feel.

As I said (and admitedly in words and tones that are hard and crude) I wonder if there is an awareness of how other people are supposed to live with this 'faith based life' that has been chosen by some.

You know, I'm just living the life I was given according to what I learn, think and feel. I have a vast background of awareness of the Christian philosophy because that's what I was fed. This whole 'sin of homosexuality' thing? It came about because the men in power realized that their strength was in numbers. Certainly, it wasn't going to do any good if all that sexual energy were wasted on not producing more people to be a part of the group. So, outlaw sex that doesn't procreate. Pretty simple. The Mormons even took it a step farther (because they realized they were playing 'catch-up') and made it OK to have many wives - spread that seed far and FAST.

In the end, it all boils down to how we're going to interpret the state of existense for ALL of us. I'm all for empirical knowledge, as that at least has some foundation in something verifiable. Certainly there are those who feel their 'faith-based' awareness is verifiable simply by common experience. But are we willing to vilify and deny rights to others based on this 'collective hunch'? Updated On: 9/28/04 at 02:10 AM

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 9/28/04 at 2:14am

DGrant, I am so sorry what Christians have done to you (about the suicide thing). I feel horrible about that. And I hate how a lot of Christians pick and choose verses out of the Bible for their own benefit. I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. That is what makes this country so great (even though people try to push their religion on others). But we both are common in a way to spread love to everyone and the love of Broadway will forever connect us. Luv ya DGrant.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 9/28/04 at 2:15am

True, but I think even if she can't support herself for reasons beyond her control (as opposed to "laziness"), the environment that one lives in while on social assistance isn't even close to acceptable for children to grow up in.

I can't speak for DGrant, but I *think* there needs to be a distinction made regarding the types of Christians that have tormented him. Personally, while I'm skeptical about fully devoting myself to an organized religion, I have no problems with people who do. The only time I've had issues with Christians (and Muslims...and Jews...etc.) is when they've used their religion to tell me I'm less of a human being because my lifestyle (of being agnostic), and those who have shoved their religion down my throat in a last ditch effort to save my tortured soul.

I think religion can be a beautiful thing when, as you said Spider, it promotes harmony and love, but unfortunately when the fundamentalists cast the first stone even though they are not without sin, issues arise, as DGrant has alluded to.

Updated On: 9/28/04 at 02:15 AM

Posted: 9/28/04 at 2:32am

Firstly, I must say that while I appreciate your concern and thoughts about my past, I can assure you that I live my life based on my own sense of personal responsibility. While the socialization I was exposed to caused me to have certain experiences, ultimately it is MY choices that determine my own experience of life. I would never want to intimate that I hold any group or religion responsible for my suicide attempt - it was simply MY inability, at that point in my life, to fully process the value and content of my life. No one else is in charge of that - just me.

There are two discussions that could be had here.

First, is having faith in a religion a good or bad thing for an individual? That discussion can be fascinating and relevant to each of our individual existences - and even though it can get heated, is usually about the passion of the subject matter.

Second, is faith-based ideology valid as a foundation for societal governance - and on that matter, I have no room for discussion. I was intrigued by the post that said it was impossible to avoid issues of faith when dealing with humans, as their philosophies will always in some way guide them. Quite honestly, that thought frightened me. It is the step toward the rationalization of legislating morality.

By the way, if it's not obvious, I would consider myself a Libertarian - if it wasn't so abhorant to me to identify with any 'group'

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 9/28/04 at 2:39am

First, is having faith in a religion a good or bad thing for an individual?

Good, as long as there's a tolerance and understanding for other beliefs and lifestyles that don't conform to your expectations. Is my short answer.

Second, is faith-based ideology valid as a foundation for societal governance...

It is in the sense that if the majority of Americans are Christians, and the idea of democracy is to represent the values of the majority. However, in doing this, we unjustly marginalize minority groups. Another short answer.

My brain is fried today. Sorry for this useless post. Let me sleep on it and be more coherent tomorrow. :-/

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/28/04 at 3:02am

Let's get this CLEAR:

1. Not ALL Christians, Jews, etc. believe that homosexuality is a sin--for the reasons that DGrant mentioned. For the fact the religious texts have been tampered with and even if they hadn't--their translations and adaptations over time are suspicious. You can read the following book for enlightenment on these possibilities:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/188636009X/103-7743353-9622242?v=glance

I also HIGHLY recommend the following book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0452273811/qid=1096354634/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-7743353-9622242

The fact is there are many churches who do not believe that being gay is a sin. The fact is not everyone on this planet gives a crap what the Bible says--and it isn't trashing your faith, it is merely the reality of the WORLD. And, if you want to function in it, you need to be aware that your way is not the only way.

2. You CAN NOT say that you truly have gay friends if you are essentially judging their sinning. You are not a friend if you can not respect the love in their life. You are not a friend if you can not support their right to marriage and equal protections. And, don't try to equate it to having a friend who lies or steals because that is bogus, and you know better.

3. And speaking of knowing better, you guys who are exposed to us gays should know better. And, it should be pointed that people have used their faith to defend racism and sexism and anti-semitism all throughout history, including this nation's history. I find that people who know better yet choose to use their faith as an excuse for homophobia/anti-gay bigotry even on the smallest of levels to be a sad, sad lot. You should question this issue--read more than just the current adaptation of the Bible--talk to someone else besides the pastor(s) at your church. If you truly study this issue (just reading those two books alone) and you still believe that being gay is a sin--fine. But, I seriously doubt that anyone who thinks outside of what they were raised and conditioned to believe would.

Believe what you believe because you taught yourself and challenged yourself--not because you were told to believe what you believe. Don't be faithful by rote.

Updated On: 9/28/04 at 03:02 AM

[amasis]

Posted: 9/28/04 at 3:17am

I remember when i was in first grade, we were sitting in our religion class (one day a week, we were separated into our various religious groups and we had a study session on it) when I had a very disturbing experience. We were speaking about other faiths, and my teacher was making a point that everyone who didn't follow the muslim teachings will all be punished. My best friend at the time was a Catholic, so I remember feeling very distressed hearing this. My hand shot up and I asked my teacher, "What if they don't know any better? What if a person is born into a Catholic family and is raised as one and is just never really exposed to Islam?" (Obviously not my exact wording, but I wasn't speaking in English anyway, so it doesn't matter ). My teacher just shook his head and said, basically, that it didn't matter: only Islam has the correct teaching - or some such nonsense. I told him this didn't make sense, and he told me not to question things I couldn't understand.

I always look back to this exchange as the moment when the seed of doubt regarding religions was first planted in my mind. It's been many many years now and I *still* remember how upset I was. How I was thinking that it just didn't *make sense*. And over the years, I have met people of other faiths who expressed the same sentiment of: "if you don't follow our teaching you're going to hell."

I know not all religious people think like this, and I can allow that religion definitely has a place in society. I am very spiritual, actually. I believe in a higher being. And I think for some people religion can be a useful way to channel their spirituality. I don't look down on people who do choose to be part of a certain faith. But it's when the blind faith regarding some sets of rules interferes with reason that it starts being very very dangerous. And in that sense religion has also done great harm in this world.

It's easy sometimes to just abandon reason and rely on a "definite authority" for guidance on how you're going to live your life. But which authority is the "right" one? The Old Testament? The New Testament? The Koran? Which translation of the chosen book are you going to follow? Even though there are exceptions, the majority of people are following the faith they do, not because they've studied every single religion that is out there, and have made a choice on what to follow. People mostly choose the book considered sacred by the community they are born into. And the thing is, depending on where you live, or depending on the sects/community the books are interpreted many different ways. In the Islamic faith alone, there are the ismailis, Ahmadiyah, Alawis, Yazidis, etc. Because of where I was born, I was never required to wear a veil -- or worse, a burka. But had I been born in a different place, I would have had this imposed on me; in fact I may not have been allowed to get an education, and I'm sure the local authority can find some religious reason supported by some quotes out of the Koran, to justify that. And this 'interpretation' differences are present in other faiths as well. Curious, isn't it, considering that all these rules were supposed to have come from one source, which is supposed to be the word of God? Updated On: 9/28/04 at 03:17 AM

Posted: 9/28/04 at 10:44am

After having slept a little bit, I was going to go back and at least edit out the profanity in my posts - but I have decided not to because it accurately represented the intensity of the emotion I was feeling at that point in time.

I will say I'm sorry to those whom this offends - but you might as well be shown that this is how I feel. Not that I can't have more rational discourse on the subject, but my feelings are very strong and run very deep.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 9/28/04 at 10:59am

don't you dare take out the profanity, g*dd*mmit!

and lest you think he's some kinda zealot, d and i have had wonderful conversations which i cherish. me. a practicing catholic. but then, i'm not trying to convert anybody...

Posted: 9/28/04 at 11:02am

papa - nice words - even the Catholic part It may be a stretch to consider me a zealot, BUT I am VERY zealous in my attitude on this subject.

[robbiej]

Posted: 9/28/04 at 11:06am

The problem with saying homosexuality is a sin is that, in reality, 'homosexuality' is a late-nineteenth century concept. It did not exist as we know it today. The idea of homosexuality as a condition, or disorder, or lifestyle was not an option, really, before the late 1800's. So trying to decipher what the Bible truly says about homosexuality is VERY difficult.

As with all books, it is a book of interpretation. 'Abusers of themselves with mankind' could be interpreted as 'homosexuality', but it could also mean 'rape'. It's a matter of interpretation.

Problem with so many of the rules in Leviticus is that they are obsolete. But why are they obsolete? Those tenets set down had to do with propogating the tribe. Keep oneself clean and healthy in order to make more Jews. Wasting your seed with another man is not a way to make another Jew. In historical context, it makes complete sense.

In the end, though, I still can't get around the fact that if this is such a greivous sin, why did Jesus have nothing to say about it?

Posted: 9/28/04 at 11:11am

Robbie - he may not have commented on it because he was too busy enjoying time with his 'beloved one,' John.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 9/28/04 at 11:12am

Damn you, DG, I was just about to go there, but you beat me to it!

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 9/28/04 at 11:15am

Jesus loves Boobs !!!!

Posted: 9/28/04 at 11:17am

Boobs - that's possibly the most disarmingly funny thing I've read on this board

[ckeaton]

Posted: 9/28/04 at 11:19am

Using computers to download porn is considered part of an "umbrella sin" as well...

Right now, I'm lusting after a Pesto Chicken Panini... am I going to hell daddy?

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 9/28/04 at 11:23am

DG...I think I'll have a bumper sticker made...what do you think???

[ckeaton]

Posted: 9/28/04 at 11:24am

bumpersticker, tee-shirts, mousepads, etc. a whole line.

[robbiej]

Posted: 9/28/04 at 11:25am

Hell, I'm gonna embroider it on a pillow for you, Boobs!

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 9/28/04 at 11:28am

You probably aren't joking, are you?

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 9/28/04 at 11:28am

Oh Robbiej..how do I love thee? Let me count the ways.

CKeaton...you'll get a cut of the merchandise too.