| AspiringPhilosophe 15.11.2006 09:47 |
For all of those intelligent people here to like to debate things, check this out: link Basically, it's a "new policy for gay outreach" by the Catholic Church. Personally, I think it's terrible, but that's just me. What does anyone else think? |
| magicalfreddiemercury 15.11.2006 09:58 |
It's ridiculous. They would have been better off not discussing it at all. They haven't changed their 'policy', they've simply made it more condescending. The only good part I saw, was this - "To be a Catholic is a challenge," said Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., chairman of the bishops' doctrine committee. "To be a Catholic requires a certain choice." It's so rare to see the words "catholic" and "choice" in the same sentence. Guess what my choice is where catholicism is concerned. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 15.11.2006 11:38 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: It's ridiculous. They would have been better off not discussing it at all. They haven't changed their 'policy', they've simply made it more condescending. The only good part I saw, was this - "To be a Catholic is a challenge," said Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., chairman of the bishops' doctrine committee. "To be a Catholic requires a certain choice." It's so rare to see the words "catholic" and "choice" in the same sentence. Guess what my choice is where catholicism is concerned.*laughes* I think I've got a guess!! :-) I just thought the best part about this whole thing (for those of us clear thinkers out there) is that they are trying so hard to make their condescention sound like it's not. It almost works, if you don't really think about what they mean by what they are saying. It's just so funny to me to watch them try and cover their hate with pretty words. |
| The Real Wizard 15.11.2006 11:42 |
In this day and age, anyone with brains knows that an institution does not have to dictate what their values and beliefs are supposed to be. This is ridiculous. It's pathetic. It's unnecessary. It's obsolete. They said you need to examine your conscience to see if you're worthy of holy communion... yeah, right. It's as if a governing group of people has some kind of authority over people, and that communion represents the blood of someone's death (rather than that person's life and philosophies, which should be the point of interest). Guess what, folks? The authority is there only if you believe it is. Why in the world would any gay person choose to be catholic (I refuse to capitalize that word, as if capitalizing should add some kind of sacredness to it), if they can equally choose to live a seccular life without the restrictions, judgementality, bigotry, and segregation as dictated by the church? But if they want some kind of spiritual life that involves church in some way, then like anything else in life, there are alternatives. There are plenty of united churches that would accept them exactly for who they are, without telling them that they need to conform to beliefs or a lifestyle that may not be in their best interest. In Canada, most united churches regularly perform gay marriage. Theologically, the united church still has a ways to go, but socially, they are completely with it. The united church has contributed to much worldwide social justice, especially with their endorsement of fair trade products. They have also donated millions to AIDS research. Good on them! The catholic church is completely unnecessary in today's world. It has been unnecessary since the enlightenment. It has made no progress since then (unless we count the spanish inquisition as atttemped progress), so it has slowly fallen into obscurity. Sure, people can come here and post a few positive things the church has done in the last few centuries, but I guarantee you, there are ten negative things for every positive thing. If there are people in this world who feel the need to be controlled by ancient religious doctrine, and don't seem to care that the doctrine has little moral ground in today's complex world, then great. The catholic church is exactly what they need. But it speaks volumes about their self-esteem, and their need to be controlled by something other than themselves. The church condemns people who think for themselves, calling it "selfish self-doctrine", or something like that, as if thinking for yourself (relativism) is a bad thing. For catholics specifically, they condemn free thought by calling it "cafeteria catholicism". Like any other topic, I find simple peace in the fact that people can choose whether or not to swallow this garbage. Even most catholics I know barely follow the doctrines of the church. But since this topic is about US catholics, then I guess it's worth noting that the baptists have much more control than the catholics there, as far as I know. But that's a whole other topic of discussion! I've wasted enough time on this post. This topic should turn out to be interesting. |
| Mr.Jingles 15.11.2006 12:08 |
LMAO! Does this mean that it's OK for gay people to beat off in front of each other as long as they don't have intercourse or any sort of sexual physical contact? |
| Micrówave 15.11.2006 12:27 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: The catholic church is completely unnecessary in today's world. It has been unnecessary since the enlightenment. It has made no progress since then (unless we count the spanish inquisition as atttemped progress), so it has slowly fallen into obscurity. Sure, people can come here and post a few positive things the church has done in the last few centuries, but I guarantee you, there are ten negative things for every positive thing.That can be said about every religion. It sounds to me like you have a little bias towards the Catholic religion. (I capitalize it.) Usually when the Baptists or Unitists come to my door it takes 'em about 10 seconds before they specifically start attacking the Catholic faith. Scare tactics. That's what the Baptists and Unitists are using now. My parents were Catholic, and so were their parents, and so on. Do I go to church on Sundays? No, I think God watches football too. Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: There are plenty of united churches that would accept them exactly for who they are, without telling them that they need to conform to beliefs or a lifestyle that may not be in their best interest. In Canada, most united churches regularly perform gay marriage. Theologically, the united church still has a ways to go, but socially, they are completely with it. The united church has contributed to much worldwide social justice, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH especially with their endorsement of fair trade products. They have also donated millions to AIDS research. Good on them!1. It takes no formal education to become a "brother" or "father" in your Unity church. And they choose what they want to preach. I live near Waco, Texas. Sounds pretty familiar. 2. You follow a group of people that have never taken any higher education on the stuff they preach? 3. Proove the AIDS donations. The Unity churches don't have 1/100th the money the Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc. have. I doubt they've donated the millions you say. I don't doubt the millions the Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc have donated. But then, haven't Queen fans donated millions to Aids research? (The Terence Higgins Trust) Instead of trying to incite a religious argument, SIR GH, you've just stooped to a lower level that I thought you were above. I could change the word Catholic to any other religion in your post and it would apply as well. It's not just the Catholics!!! But then, apparently all you can do is insult a specific group. BACK TO THE TOPIC: After all that, I still tend to find anything the Vatican does lately to be about 200 years behind or just completely ridiculous. This one is just par for the course. It's the GAYS fault. They've tired of being in the closet, so instead they want to be in our face. We want to teach our kids from day one that a man loving another man is OK. So we have TV shows about them, Congressional hearings, marches, etc. When was the last time there was a Hetero Parade or a Hetero Debate or some kind of bill introduced into congress regarding Hetero acts? And WHY does there have to be a gay guy involved whenever a TV show about building a house comes on now? Every time, every show!!! It's time we stop having a Members Only clubhouse for the gays. I don't think your sexual preference deserves special treatment, but apparently the Gays do. |
| The Real Wizard 15.11.2006 13:46 |
¼Microwave wrote: It sounds to me like you have a little bias towards the Catholic religion.No, not at all. Yes, I could have easily mentioned other religions, cults, or whatever... but the topic of discussion right now is catholicism, so I'm focusing on them. Even so, I don't think anyone can deny that of all the organized religious institutions in the world, there isn't one that is nearly as powerful and influential on people's minds as the catholic church. That's also why I'm singling them out over the others at the moment. 1. It takes no formal education to become a "brother" or "father" in your Unity church. And they choose what they want to preach. I live near Waco, Texas. Sounds pretty familiar. 2. You follow a group of people that have never taken any higher education on the stuff they preach?I think you are confusing "unity" with "united". They are very, very different things, my friend. United church ministers (at least in Canada) are required to go through years of formal education, most of which is learning about biblical criticism and history. They are taught exactly how, when, and why scripture was written, and how and when the creeds came to be - thus they know that the majority of it isn't everlasting historical fact. Generally, they are taught not to share this information with their parishes, because if they did, the united church (and then surely other denominations) would die even quicker than they are now. Many denominations don't require their preachers to have such education, and thus they preach whatever they want, like you said - and it's usually historically misinformed babble that the average church-going person can't argue against, because they haven't read the books and learned for themselves. And for the record, I don't follow the united church, or any church. 3. Proove the AIDS donations. The Unity churches don't have 1/100th the money the Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc. have. I doubt they've donated the millions you say. I don't doubt the millions the Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc have donated.Once again, you're confusing "unity" with "united". If you're interested, you can contact the "United Church of Canada" and ask them how much money they have donated towards AIDS to date. It is plenty. As for the catholic church, I recall the last pope urging Africa not to use condoms, because they allegedly have holes in them. That doesn't sound like an institution who cares about fighting AIDS, but rather one who is pushing their own theological and social agenda. I don't doubt that many denominations have helped out with AIDS. I'm well aware that many church groups are socially aware, and care about helping the third world. Based on the history I'm aware of, I don't think the catholic church is interested in helping out with AIDS, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. It's the GAYS fault. They've tired of being in the closet, so instead they want to be in our face. It's time we stop having a Members Only clubhouse for the gays. I don't think your sexual preference deserves special treatment, but apparently the Gays do.Those are pretty generalized statements. The "in your face" gays are the minority. But with regards to that portion of the gay population, I do agree with you. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 15.11.2006 16:32 |
Ha! I knew this was going to get interesting!! And I also knew I'd attract Bob and Dan to this thread by posting it :-P Question for Microwave, though...you seem like a fairly intelligent person. Why do you have to go off on personal attacks? It doesn't help your argument, and merely succeeds in making you look stupid. Maybe you didn't mean some of the stuff directed at Bob as a personal attack, but it sure reads that way. You may want to take some deep breaths before you start typing things when topics get your dander up. Does it surprise anyone the Catholic Church is behind the times? I mean, come on! They are just having a hard time accepting the fact that society has progressed to become far more tolerant than they are, because heaven forbid they teach tolerance. They've built themselves on excusivity...you are either one of us or one of them. Defining yourself in that way doesn't mesh well with toleration for everyone. (And yes, this goes for anyone...catholics, baptists, the amish, mormans...pick your superstition) When you define yourself that way, you are bound to be intolerant to someone. Again, at Microwave...yes there are flamboyant, in your face gays out there. Believe me, I've known some. And they can be a lot of fun to be around, but that's not what we are talking about here. We aren't talking about giving them their own exclusive clique...they already have one that society (mainly religion) has assigned to them: Deformed. Degenerate. Damned. Granted some gay activists take it too far, but that can be found in any group. That label that society has placed on them is precisely what they are fighting against! They don't want to be defined by their sexuality! They want to be normal, just like everyone else, with the same rights and responsibilities that the rest of us enjoy. All they are fighting for is the chance to get rid of that label and be equal with everyone else. |
| Micrówave 15.11.2006 17:53 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: I think you are confusing "unity" with "united". They are very, very different things, my friend. Yes, I was confusing them. Thanks for clarification, I do not know the "United" one. I got pseudo-forced into attending a Unity Church once, Wow! What a bunch of whacks!!! And that's coming from a Catholic!!! and please, when I say "you've just stooped to a lower level that I thought you were above" that wasn't an insult. Maybe I just worded it poorly. I actually enjoy the conversations we "intellegent" QZoners have. (You know who you are!!!) |
| Micrówave 15.11.2006 17:58 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Question for Microwave, though...you seem like a fairly intelligent person. Why do you have to go off on personal attacks? It doesn't help your argument, and merely succeeds in making you look stupid. Maybe you didn't mean some of the stuff directed at Bob as a personal attack, but it sure reads that way. You may want to take some deep breaths before you start typing things when topics get your dander up.IT WASN'T PERSONAL AT ALL. IS IT WRONG FOR ME TO PASSIONATELY DEFEND RELIGION AND POLITICS? SORRY IF I COME OFF THAT WAY, BUT I JUST SAY WHAT'S ON MY MIND. Again, at Microwave...yes there are flamboyant, in your face gays out there. Believe me, I've known some. And they can be a lot of fun to be around, but that's not what we are talking about here. We aren't talking about giving them their own exclusive clique...they already have one that society (mainly religion) has assigned to them: Deformed. Degenerate. Damned. Granted some gay activists take it too far, but that can be found in any group. That label that society has placed on them is precisely what they are fighting against! They don't want to be defined by their sexuality! They want to be normal, just like everyone else, with the same rights and responsibilities that the rest of us enjoy. All they are fighting for is the chance to get rid of that label and be equal with everyone else.Point taken. But if they don't want to be defined, then why should they be allowed the rights of a married couple? Why can't my insurance policy cover YOU, CMU History Girl, if I want to call you my "partner". That's not fair to my family or yours, is it? |
| deleted user 15.11.2006 18:49 |
I've been hearing about stuff like this for a while. I remember something about somebody banning gay people from the priesthood or something that I (quite clearly) didn't pay all that much attention to. I'm not going to call catholics "stupid" or anything, but I just don't understand some things - like the no birth control. I mean, we learned in health class that not all the little fishies make it anyway. From an ecological stand-point, it doesn't matter if gay people fuck or not. Either way, there is something there that is preventing little "bundles of joy" from entering the world on account of the persons who don't have the compulsion to engage in reproductive sex. And from the way the population is expanding (though not yet near capacity), you would think this "Bob" fellow wouldn't mind if some of the fishies didn't make it to the egg. Looking at it this way, the church would have been more "helpful to humanity" back when the population "needed" expanding (such as with a high mortality rate and death in general). But, today, condoms, masterbation, and gay sex seem - from an ecological point of view, an efficient population-control method (if increased to high enough levels to counteract those who choose to create new bundles-of-joy). The article says the church believes it's only a sin to act on these "impulses". But, as I see it, everyone uses things for purposes other than this "Bob" guy could have originally intended. Then again, his followers don't even know what he intended. Maybe he wanted free green jello every Saturday. Also, church programmes that claim they can "fix" a gay person. Which, to be honest scare the wits out of me, after learning how conditioning methods can be used to make animals STARVE themselves to death from fear of food. We just finished the "Conditioning" unit in Psychology and there are some very scary things people / animals can be conditioned to do. I haven't heard too much about counseling methods these "catholic" people use - but I've heard about them taking away things from the "afflicted" and such. In my opinion, that's the slimy version of torturing a "criminal" to a point where they'll "confess" anything. On a whole, I don't really care about catholics. I'm not trying to attack them. To be honest, I don't really care about THEM. I respect thier right to believe whatever they want, same with the wiccans, moonies, and athiests. Of course, if people are getting hurt physically or mentally, there is something there which goes beyond any theological tolerance. |
| Micrówave 15.11.2006 18:55 |
Remember a couple of years ago when the Episcopalians (spelled wrong, I know) "came out" and said they would allow gay priest "as long as they didn't show signs of their sexuallity for four years"? I wonder who got the job of testing candidates? Just goes to show, the bedroom is the last place for religion. But the TV is NOT the place for gays! Get your own channel, dammit! GTV or Fudge Television or something... |
| AspiringPhilosophe 15.11.2006 19:20 |
¼Microwave wrote:Please don't think I was insulting you, I wasn't. Your response just came off as alittle hot under the collar is all. Passion is good, but too much of it can be damaging.CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Question for Microwave, though...you seem like a fairly intelligent person. Why do you have to go off on personal attacks? It doesn't help your argument, and merely succeeds in making you look stupid. Maybe you didn't mean some of the stuff directed at Bob as a personal attack, but it sure reads that way. You may want to take some deep breaths before you start typing things when topics get your dander up.IT WASN'T PERSONAL AT ALL. IS IT WRONG FOR ME TO PASSIONATELY DEFEND RELIGION AND POLITICS? SORRY IF I COME OFF THAT WAY, BUT I JUST SAY WHAT'S ON MY MIND.Again, at Microwave...yes there are flamboyant, in your face gays out there. Believe me, I've known some. And they can be a lot of fun to be around, but that's not what we are talking about here. We aren't talking about giving them their own exclusive clique...they already have one that society (mainly religion) has assigned to them: Deformed. Degenerate. Damned. Granted some gay activists take it too far, but that can be found in any group. That label that society has placed on them is precisely what they are fighting against! They don't want to be defined by their sexuality! They want to be normal, just like everyone else, with the same rights and responsibilities that the rest of us enjoy. All they are fighting for is the chance to get rid of that label and be equal with everyone else.Point taken. But if they don't want to be defined, then why should they be allowed the rights of a married couple? Why can't my insurance policy cover YOU, CMU History Girl, if I want to call you my "partner". That's not fair to my family or yours, is it? I didn't say that Gay people don't want to be defined...they just don't want to be defined on the basis of their sexuality. We don't define hetero couples that way. We define them as a couple, as a married unit, or whatever. Gays can't be defined that way, they can only be defined as deviant. That's the lable they want to get rid of. And, coincidently, men and women who aren't married but live together CAN have insurance policies together. Those gay marriage bans that just passed in a bunch of states (including, unfortunatly mine...but give it twenty years and we'll reverse that) have actually wound up hurting non married heterosexual couples more than gays, who couldn't get married in the first place. Now it's the cohabitors who can't get the same rights as married couples, and a lot of times they are avoiding marriages for good reasons. |
| The Real Wizard 16.11.2006 02:29 |
¼Microwave wrote: Yes, I was confusing them. Thanks for clarification, I do not know the "United" one. I got pseudo-forced into attending a Unity Church once, Wow! What a bunch of whacks!!! And that's coming from a Catholic!!! and please, when I say "you've just stooped to a lower level that I thought you were above" that wasn't an insult. Maybe I just worded it poorly. I actually enjoy the conversations we "intellegent" QZoners have. (You know who you are!!!)S'all good! :) |
| eenaweena 16.11.2006 09:01 |
i'm a catholic myself, but i don't wholly agree with what these bishops are saying. i may be sinning right now. but oh well. i just think that we shouldn't really "follow" what the bishop says because the only thing that we should believe and follow is what the pope says. obviously, the pope had nothing to do with the whole... gay out reach thing. here's what i learned in philo class: it is unnatural for man to have an intimate relationship with a man of the same gender because... well, God didn't make Adam and Steve. i agree with the whole... adam and steve thing but it doesn't mean that i'm a gay basher or something. i just let them be. i actually find them cool. the thing i do not agree about the bishop's statement is that catholicism is a choice. i don't think that the gays should be told to stop practicing the faith and all because after all, they're catholics, but they just violated the whole metaphysical state of man. it can't be helped that they prefer men or something, i understand that. but you know... it's just hard to explain this part. someone said something about the catholics being against birth control, and i have the reasons why. 1.) God created sex to be done inside marriage. children are born out of love. so if you use contraceptives and all that stuff, it's like you're stopping the natural flow of things and that you've changed God's plans. 2.) contraceptives are used to protect people during sex. most of the time, people who use contraceptives are people who do "it" outside of marriage, so they can do "it" all they want and not get preggy and all. the point is, no one should even be doing "it" outside of marriage, because it's more or less taking away each others virginities, and soit's better to do "it" with someone you trust and love, not just with someone you had a fling with. please don't kill me. this is just what i've learned. :) |
| AspiringPhilosophe 16.11.2006 09:44 |
In the interest of broadening some horizons, I have to respond to your "learnings". Please don't read this as insulting, and I'm sure you probably did learn it this way. But, one thing that most education (and particularly religion) isn't good at is that there are several different sides to every "fact": 1.) God created sex to be done inside marriage. children are born out of love. so if you use contraceptives and all that stuff, it's like you're stopping the natural flow of things and that you've changed God's plans. OK, beyond the obvious you have to believe in the existance of God to make this statement work, there are at least two flaws in it. First, marriage was originally a civil arrangement, not a religious one. Going back to the Roman Empire (trust me on this stuff, I teach Western Civ at the University level), marriage was never a religious function. There was no ceremony...it was all political and social. And it remained that way, even through the rise of Christianity. When Charlamagne, who did so much for spreading Christianity in Europe, was in power, there wasn't a fixed religious ceremony for married couples either. It wasn't until about 800CE when the church started stretching it's legs that it hijacked marriage as a religious event. They did this to improve the morality of the people; they believed it was too easy to dissolve marriages. So, if marriage as a religious concept didn't exist until around 800CE, there is no way it could have been commanded by God when he created the bible. The idea that he created it is based on some passages that are very vague and were interpreted in a post-religious marriage climate. The second problem here, that you are changing God's plan if you use birth control...how can that be proven? Can't it also be argued that if you use birth control, then that was God's plan for you? (And don't give me this "The Popes said God was against it" crap...men never has and never will be able to speak for God, no matter who they are). |
| AspiringPhilosophe 16.11.2006 09:51 |
2.) contraceptives are used to protect people during sex. most of the time, people who use contraceptives are people who do "it" outside of marriage, so they can do "it" all they want and not get preggy and all. the point is, no one should even be doing "it" outside of marriage, because it's more or less taking away each others virginities, and soit's better to do "it" with someone you trust and love, not just with someone you had a fling with. OK, you are falling victim to several generalizations here. First, contraceptives are used mainly for pregnancy prevention, and some of them (condoms for example) are used for STD protection as well. But the main function of things like birth control pills is to prevent pregnancy. There are MANY MILLIONS of married couples who use birth control or condoms within sex in the marriage environment, simply to control the number of children they are having. Look at Italy, for crying out loud! They have the lowest birthrate in Europe, and yet the entire country is Catholic. That either means they aren't having any sex at all, or they are using contraceptives....I'll leave you to decide which one is right here. Unless you want to be like one of those couples that has 10 kids or more, ALL married couples use contraceptives at some point in their lives together, and personally I think it's irresponsible of the church to promote couples to have that many children....children that you can't afford to raise and it wreaks havoc on the mother's body after about kid number 5. Second, taking away someone's virginity is something that can only happen once. So, people who are having sex outside of marriage aren't generally taking away the viriginity of the other person involved...most of the time it's already gone. Guys in particular, though the view is out there that they are all looking for virgins, generally don't want to sleep with them, because they have a tendency to get clingy and attatched in a way that the guys don't want. Third, who says that love and trust is neccessarily bound up with marriage? I've known plenty of married couples who had absolutely NO love and NO trust between them, and I've also known plenty of couples who have had that between them without being married. If love and trust is the ultimate quality you need, then a piece of paper saying you are married doesn't need to be present. |
| The Real Wizard 19.11.2006 15:38 |
<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: please don't kill me. this is just what i've learned. :)Just because you've "learned" it doesn't mean it's true. All you said is traditional religious rhetoric. They've got you believing you're "sinning" because you expressed your opinion. I really feel sorry for you, and anyone else who lives with that kind of fear. "Sin" only exists if you believe it exists, which it doesn't. Sin is something the church created centuries ago to control people, so that they wouldn't think for themselves. And look... it worked on you. You can't use the idea of "God" as an argument for anything. God isn't a proven entity. You can't talk about God the same way you talk about Brian May or Tom Cruise - because they surely exist. God or any other supernatural idea is a figment of people's imaginations until their existence is proven. That's the same thing as using Humpty Dumpty, Bugs Bunny, or the boogieman as the basis of an argument. The issues around homosexual people are real issues that need real dialogue. Saying "God wanted it this way" is not a viable argument. It is ancient religious dogma spoken as if there is some kind of truth to it. And besides, who says that every person in this world is required to have sex to have children? The world's population is increasing by 2 people every second, so we don't need any more people to be having straight sex to have kids. Sex wasn't created by God or whoever. People were having sex tens of thousands of years before people started practicing any kind of religion. How else did people reproduce 20,000 years ago? Religion has only been around for a few thousand years. God didn't create people - people created God. There was a time in history when we knew very little about our existence, and we needed *something* to explain everything we didn't understand. It's really as simple as that. Over time, we've learned how this world works, one thing at a time. We've just about hit a point where science has rendered most of God's "jobs" to be an idea of the past. For example, we once thought that we got sick because we had demons, which people believed was curable by praying. We believed that God controlled the weather. Now we have medications which can cure anybody, and we know about different kinds of winds, the water cycle, etc. You really need to stop automatically believing people at church and school when they talk about religion or history. They never give you the full story, or the opportunity to think for yourself, or from another point of view. Remember, there is ALWAYS an alternative to what someone tells you. Don't just believe it because a priest or teacher says it's true. Listen to what they say, seek other opinions, and then decide for yourself what you think is best. |
| deleted user 19.11.2006 15:40 |
sspeaking of debates,Ive one tomorrow and tuesday |
| magicalfreddiemercury 19.11.2006 16:15 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Excellent post! Excellent.<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: please don't kill me. this is just what i've learned. :)Just because you've "learned" it doesn't mean it's true. All you said is traditional religious rhetoric. They've got you believing you're "sinning" because you expressed your opinion. I really feel sorry for you, and anyone else who lives with that kind of fear. "Sin" only exists if you believe it exists. And it doesn't. You can't use the idea of "God" as an argument for anything. God isn't a proven entity. You can't talk about God the same way you talk about Brian May or Tom Cruise - because they surely exist. God or any other supernatural idea is a figment of people's imaginations until their existence is proven. That's the same thing as using Humpty Dumpty, Bugs Bunny, or the boogieman as the basis of an argument. The issues around homosexual people are real issues that need real dialogue. Saying "God wanted it this way" is not a viable argument. It is ancient religious dogma spoken as if there is some kind of truth to it. And besides, who says that every person in this world is required to have sex to have children? The world's population is increasing by 2 people every second, so we don't need any more people to be having straight sex to have kids. Sex wasn't created by God or whoever. People were having sex tens of thousands of years before people started practicing any kind of religion. How else did people reproduce 20,000 years ago? Religion has only been around for a few thousand years. God didn't create people - people created God. There was a time in history when we knew very little about our existence, and we needed *something* to explain everything we didn't understand. It's really as simple as that. Over time, we've learned how this world works, one thing at a time. We've just about hit a point where science has rendered most of God's "jobs" to be an idea of the past. For example, we once thought that we got sick because we had demons, which people believed was curable by praying. We believed that God controlled the weather. Now we have medications which can cure anybody, and we know about different kinds of winds, the water cycle, etc. You really need to stop autimatically believeing people at church and school when they talk about religion or history. They never give you the full story, or the opportunity to think for yourself, or from another point of view. Remember, there is ALWAYS an alternative to what someone tells you. Don't just believe it because a priest or teacher says it's true. Listen to what they say, seek other opinions, and then decide for yourself what you think is best. I love it all, but this is the best - "God didn't create people - people created God." |
| eenaweena 25.11.2006 10:20 |
to CMUHistoryGirl: sorry for the late reply. i get your point. it's surely being considered. but i didn't really say that i totally agree with what i've learned.. i mean, if that's what my post implied, then it's my bad. i'm just sharing what i know. i can't really say i totally agree with you, but i totally respect your opinion. i have to formulate my thoughts first to refute, but i only have 10 minutes left before my bedtime. no hard feelings taken. :) to Sir GH: your point has also been taken. i get it too. same thing with CMUHistoryGirl, i can't totally agree with what you're saying... and i sort of have to follow my faith. seeing that we're from different religious backgrounds, i guess to you, it's people created God, and that statement is backed up by historical proof. but did you know that some historical events proved that thebible was accurate? ex: the epic of gilgamesh. it mentioned some events in a war that happened in the middle east, back in the sumerian's time. just a random tidbit, but if you already knew it, then ignore it. but just the same, i respect your opinion on this whole controversy. in fact, i respect both of your opinions. it's just that, i have limited time right now and i will fill you in on my... answers, if you can call it that. sorry once again for the late reply, and for butting in. :) |
| thomasquinn 32989 25.11.2006 10:40 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: For all of those intelligent people here to like to debate things, check this out: link Basically, it's a "new policy for gay outreach" by the Catholic Church. Personally, I think it's terrible, but that's just me. What does anyone else think?It makes me sick. That's all I can say about this. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 25.11.2006 13:02 |
<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: to CMUHistoryGirl: sorry for the late reply. i get your point. it's surely being considered. but i didn't really say that i totally agree with what i've learned.. i mean, if that's what my post implied, then it's my bad. i'm just sharing what i know. i can't really say i totally agree with you, but i totally respect your opinion. i have to formulate my thoughts first to refute, but i only have 10 minutes left before my bedtime. no hard feelings taken. :) to Sir GH: your point has also been taken. i get it too. same thing with CMUHistoryGirl, i can't totally agree with what you're saying... and i sort of have to follow my faith. seeing that we're from different religious backgrounds, i guess to you, it's people created God, and that statement is backed up by historical proof. but did you know that some historical events proved that thebible was accurate? ex: the epic of gilgamesh. it mentioned some events in a war that happened in the middle east, back in the sumerian's time. just a random tidbit, but if you already knew it, then ignore it. but just the same, i respect your opinion on this whole controversy. in fact, i respect both of your opinions. it's just that, i have limited time right now and i will fill you in on my... answers, if you can call it that. sorry once again for the late reply, and for butting in. :)No prob! I thought this thread was dead anyway...glad to see it's not. I'm glad you didn't take offence to anything I said, as I said I was just trying to open horizons. I'm actually very familiar with the Epic of Gilgamesh...it's one of the discussion section peices I teach for Western Civ. Yes, there are things in the Bible that are historically accurate (archeological evidence sugguests a great flood actually did occur in the region at about the right time for this to have been the "world wide" flood of the bible story). It's the interpretation of some of the events that has always bugged me personally. Yes there is the obvious "great bolts of fire from the sky" that we obviously know today as lightning, but that's not what I mean. Most of what gets me is that all of this stuff was written (and especially the stuff after Jesus was alive) hundreds of years postdate, and it's all written a way to sugguest the the writer was actually taking down events with a pad and paper...something I highly doubt. Any other sources are highly suspect in this writing style, because too much of the author is involved in it, spinning things the way he or she wants them to be remembered (I did a paper on collective memory and wrting's influence on it as an undergrad...it's actually fascinating to look at). So much of the faith is based on these events that I find it impossible not to question them, and since most faiths argue that you either have faith and trust it or you don't, then I guess I don't have it. I know that I'm looking forward to your responses on this issue |
| eedodededededea 25.11.2006 17:25 |
Well, I think that the problem is that Religion and the Church have very little in common. Church is an organisation which makes people behave the way they should behave according to the clericalist's opinion, and by the way their opinion is far from original statements of the religion they are thought to belong. I suppose that Christianity originally taught people to avoid radicalism (I mean not religious R., but attitude to everyday events and all aspects of everyday life, |though religious R. could be referred to the "common" R.|), but the official Church inverted it. And, I suppose, this is the way it happened: 1) at it's beginning Christianity could be spread by people who understood it in the manner they shouldn't do that (or even didn't understand it at all hehe - it's so realistic); so as a result the first changes in the statements were made. 2) then somebody made a beginning of misusing the religion for his own profit/ 3) and finally the church itself starded to work for it's own profit As a result, the God which probably was meant to be the good in us, turned out to be an allmighty tyran, whose orders should be obeyed but not discussed. People, who were meant to enjoy their lives and to try not to cause pain to other human beings, turned out to be tyrans (but not allmighty :) ) who could do everything they wanted if they did it in the name of the God, or just weak creatures who had to thank God even for their unhappiness. That was made to make people NOT TO STRUGGLE for their happiness, BUT TO OBEY. And this church policy continues even now. How do you think when feudalism died? No it's still alive in form of CLERICAL MENTAL FEUDALISM. It means that you can do only what you are made and allowed to do. So we can say that RELIGION IS UNWANTED BY THE CHURCH because RELIGION IS A BELIEF and BELIEF IS FREEDOM and FREEDOM IS PROHIBITED. As an example, the church is against of sexual life if the person is unmarried. But traditionally it was not a rule but a piece of advice and it was made to prevent people from negative effects of substituting love with all its aspects by vulgar f**ng. Do you see the difference? The Churhch WASN'T MEAHT TO LOVE PEOPLE AND TO HELP THEM. So there is no surprise in what the official branches of christianity say. Sorry if I explained it in hardly understandable way - my English is the reason for it. And I am very tired, so there may be some stupid mistakes - please dont pay attention to them, ok? |
| user name 25.11.2006 18:07 |
To all gay people: 1) Don't become Catholic. 2) In the event that you are already Catholic, convert to another religion that is tolerant of your homosexuality. 3) If you are Catholic, and you refuse to convert, I really don't care what happens to your sex life. It's your loss. Problem solved. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 25.11.2006 18:57 |
eedodededededea wrote: Well, I think that the problem is that Religion and the Church have very little in common. Church is an organisation which makes people behave the way they should behave according to the clericalist's opinion, and by the way their opinion is far from original statements of the religion they are thought to belong. I suppose that Christianity originally taught people to avoid radicalism (I mean not religious R., but attitude to everyday events and all aspects of everyday life, |though religious R. could be referred to the "common" R.|), but the official Church inverted it. And, I suppose, this is the way it happened: 1) at it's beginning Christianity could be spread by people who understood it in the manner they shouldn't do that (or even didn't understand it at all hehe - it's so realistic); so as a result the first changes in the statements were made. 2) then somebody made a beginning of misusing the religion for his own profit/ 3) and finally the church itself starded to work for it's own profit As a result, the God which probably was meant to be the good in us, turned out to be an allmighty tyran, whose orders should be obeyed but not discussed. People, who were meant to enjoy their lives and to try not to cause pain to other human beings, turned out to be tyrans (but not allmighty :) ) who could do everything they wanted if they did it in the name of the God, or just weak creatures who had to thank God even for their unhappiness. That was made to make people NOT TO STRUGGLE for their happiness, BUT TO OBEY. And this church policy continues even now. How do you think when feudalism died? No it's still alive in form of CLERICAL MENTAL FEUDALISM. It means that you can do only what you are made and allowed to do. So we can say that RELIGION IS UNWANTED BY THE CHURCH because RELIGION IS A BELIEF and BELIEF IS FREEDOM and FREEDOM IS PROHIBITED. As an example, the church is against of sexual life if the person is unmarried. But traditionally it was not a rule but a piece of advice and it was made to prevent people from negative effects of substituting love with all its aspects by vulgar f**ng. Do you see the difference? The Churhch WASN'T MEAHT TO LOVE PEOPLE AND TO HELP THEM. So there is no surprise in what the official branches of christianity say. Sorry if I explained it in hardly understandable way - my English is the reason for it. And I am very tired, so there may be some stupid mistakes - please dont pay attention to them, ok?Good points! |
| eenaweena 25.11.2006 21:37 |
eedodededededea wrote: Well, I think that the problem is that Religion and the Church have very little in common. Church is an organisation which makes people behave the way they should behave according to the clericalist's opinion, and by the way their opinion is far from original statements of the religion they are thought to belong. I suppose that Christianity originally taught people to avoid radicalism (I mean not religious R., but attitude to everyday events and all aspects of everyday life, |though religious R. could be referred to the "common" R.|), but the official Church inverted it. And, I suppose, this is the way it happened: 1) at it's beginning Christianity could be spread by people who understood it in the manner they shouldn't do that (or even didn't understand it at all hehe - it's so realistic); so as a result the first changes in the statements were made. 2) then somebody made a beginning of misusing the religion for his own profit/ 3) and finally the church itself starded to work for it's own profit As a result, the God which probably was meant to be the good in us, turned out to be an allmighty tyran, whose orders should be obeyed but not discussed. People, who were meant to enjoy their lives and to try not to cause pain to other human beings, turned out to be tyrans (but not allmighty :) ) who could do everything they wanted if they did it in the name of the God, or just weak creatures who had to thank God even for their unhappiness. That was made to make people NOT TO STRUGGLE for their happiness, BUT TO OBEY. And this church policy continues even now. How do you think when feudalism died? No it's still alive in form of CLERICAL MENTAL FEUDALISM. It means that you can do only what you are made and allowed to do. So we can say that RELIGION IS UNWANTED BY THE CHURCH because RELIGION IS A BELIEF and BELIEF IS FREEDOM and FREEDOM IS PROHIBITED. As an example, the church is against of sexual life if the person is unmarried. But traditionally it was not a rule but a piece of advice and it was made to prevent people from negative effects of substituting love with all its aspects by vulgar f**ng. Do you see the difference? The Churhch WASN'T MEAHT TO LOVE PEOPLE AND TO HELP THEM. So there is no surprise in what the official branches of christianity say. Sorry if I explained it in hardly understandable way - my English is the reason for it. And I am very tired, so there may be some stupid mistakes - please dont pay attention to them, ok?this one is quite insulting, but oh well. uhm... lemme see... you can't really say that God is a tyrant or whatever, since you're not IN the religion. let's not use God as a term. let's use Supreme Being, because it's not only Catholics/Christians who have a God. Okay. so, if people did create God, then how were people created? they can't just come out of nowhere. but anyway, going back to the topic, "the church wasn't meant to love the people and to help them." The church, my dear friend, is Jesus' creation. it's his "spouse", as some people call her. It's a religious institution. so in one way or another, religion and church are related. sorry, just tell me if i didn't make sense. :) |
| eenaweena 25.11.2006 21:49 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote:let's see... how do i explain this... uhm... from what i know, the epic of gilgamesh-bible similarity is proving either events, and you're right about the collective memory thing. spin doctors might be involved or something like that. but based from what i know, the bible's account of the whole history of the world was passed down from genration to generation or something like that. this part was in the old testament. the events written during Jesus' time were authored by his apostles, so it is given that the stuff in the new testament were written in first person view. there are a lot of books in the new testament because the different disciples have different point of views.<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: to CMUHistoryGirl: sorry for the late reply. i get your point. it's surely being considered. but i didn't really say that i totally agree with what i've learned.. i mean, if that's what my post implied, then it's my bad. i'm just sharing what i know. i can't really say i totally agree with you, but i totally respect your opinion. i have to formulate my thoughts first to refute, but i only have 10 minutes left before my bedtime. no hard feelings taken. :) to Sir GH: your point has also been taken. i get it too. same thing with CMUHistoryGirl, i can't totally agree with what you're saying... and i sort of have to follow my faith. seeing that we're from different religious backgrounds, i guess to you, it's people created God, and that statement is backed up by historical proof. but did you know that some historical events proved that thebible was accurate? ex: the epic of gilgamesh. it mentioned some events in a war that happened in the middle east, back in the sumerian's time. just a random tidbit, but if you already knew it, then ignore it. but just the same, i respect your opinion on this whole controversy. in fact, i respect both of your opinions. it's just that, i have limited time right now and i will fill you in on my... answers, if you can call it that. sorry once again for the late reply, and for butting in. :)No prob! I thought this thread was dead anyway...glad to see it's not. I'm glad you didn't take offence to anything I said, as I said I was just trying to open horizons. I'm actually very familiar with the Epic of Gilgamesh...it's one of the discussion section peices I teach for Western Civ. Yes, there are things in the Bible that are historically accurate (archeological evidence sugguests a great flood actually did occur in the region at about the right time for this to have been the "world wide" flood of the bible story). It's the interpretation of some of the events that has always bugged me personally. Yes there is the obvious "great bolts of fire from the sky" that we obviously know today as lightning, but that's not what I mean. Most of what gets me is that all of this stuff was written (and especially the stuff after Jesus was alive) hundreds of years postdate, and it's all written a way to sugguest the the writer was actually taking down events with a pad and paper...something I highly doubt. Any other sources are highly suspect in this writing style, because too much of the author is involved in it, spinning things the way he or she wants them to be remembered (I did a paper on collective memory and wrting's influence on it as an undergrad...it's actually fascinating to look at). So much of the faith is based on these events that I find it impossible not to question them, and since most faiths argue that you either have faith and trust it or you don't, then I guess I don't have it. I know that I'm looking forward to your responses on this issue wait... does this answer your question about it now? :) i hope you get what i mean... |
| eenaweena 25.11.2006 21:54 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: To all gay people: 1) Don't become Catholic. 2) In the event that you are already Catholic, convert to another religion that is tolerant of your homosexuality. 3) If you are Catholic, and you refuse to convert, I really don't care what happens to your sex life. It's your loss. Problem solved.common misconception: gays ARE tolerated by Catholics. it's just this bishop who shows too much of his intolerance. it's just" unnatural" to be gay because God didn't create Adam and Steve, or Ashley and Eve. sorry if you find my post weird. |
| user name 25.11.2006 23:34 |
<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote:This is true, gays are often tolerated within the Catholic community. However, they may develop cognitive dissonances due to following canonical rulings from overseas.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: To all gay people: 1) Don't become Catholic. 2) In the event that you are already Catholic, convert to another religion that is tolerant of your homosexuality. 3) If you are Catholic, and you refuse to convert, I really don't care what happens to your sex life. It's your loss. Problem solved.common misconception: gays ARE tolerated by Catholics. it's just this bishop who shows too much of his intolerance. it's just" unnatural" to be gay because God didn't create Adam and Steve, or Ashley and Eve. sorry if you find my post weird. |
| eedodededededea 26.11.2006 04:39 |
<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote:1) of course I didn't want this post to be insulting :)eedodededededea wrote: Well, I think that the problem is that Religion and the Church have very little in common. Church is an organisation which makes people...this one is quite insulting, but oh well. uhm... lemme see... you can't really say that God is a tyrant or whatever, since you're not IN the religion. let's not use God as a term. let's use Supreme Being, because it's not only Catholics/Christians who have a God. Okay. so, if people did create God, then how were people created? they can't just come out of nowhere. but anyway, going back to the topic, "the church wasn't meant to love the people and to help them." The church, my dear friend, is Jesus' creation. it's his "spouse", as some people call her. It's a religious institution. so in one way or another, religion and church are related. sorry, just tell me if i didn't make sense. :) 2) I do not reject (is this a right word?) a God as a really existing Supreme Being - mathematicians found out this year that the possibility of God's existance is equal to 62 or 68 % and I trust them :) 3) there are enough theories explaining how humanity appeared without God's help ( I say humanity, but not the universe) 4) i didn't say religion and church are not related - I said they have little in common |
| eedodededededea 26.11.2006 04:47 |
<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote:It's nearly what i wanted to say - Catholic community does NOT ALWAYS mean Official Catholic church.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: To all gay people: 1) Don't become Catholic. 2) In the event that you are already Catholic, convert to another religion that is tolerant of your homosexuality. 3) If you are Catholic, and you refuse to convert, I really don't care what happens to your sex life. It's your loss. Problem solved.common misconception: gays ARE tolerated by Catholics. it's just this bishop who shows too much of his intolerance. it's just" unnatural" to be gay because God didn't create Adam and Steve, or Ashley and Eve. sorry if you find my post weird. |
| eenaweena 26.11.2006 08:38 |
eedodededededea wrote:woops. sorry, i kinda misunderstood that part. my bad. -.-'<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote:1) of course I didn't want this post to be insulting :) 2) I do not reject (is this a right word?) a God as a really existing Supreme Being - mathematicians found out this year that the possibility of God's existance is equal to 62 or 68 % and I trust them :) 3) there are enough theories explaining how humanity appeared without God's help ( I say humanity, but not the universe) 4) i didn't say religion and church are not related - I said they have little in commoneedodededededea wrote: Well, I think that the problem is that Religion and the Church have very little in common. Church is an organisation which makes people...this one is quite insulting, but oh well. uhm... lemme see... you can't really say that God is a tyrant or whatever, since you're not IN the religion. let's not use God as a term. let's use Supreme Being, because it's not only Catholics/Christians who have a God. Okay. so, if people did create God, then how were people created? they can't just come out of nowhere. but anyway, going back to the topic, "the church wasn't meant to love the people and to help them." The church, my dear friend, is Jesus' creation. it's his "spouse", as some people call her. It's a religious institution. so in one way or another, religion and church are related. sorry, just tell me if i didn't make sense. :) |
| eenaweena 26.11.2006 08:41 |
oh! before i forget! i hopw that you guys don't see me as the "catholic extremist girl from QZ" after all the posts i made... i mean, if that was how you guys saw me. :) peace doods! :) |
| AspiringPhilosophe 26.11.2006 09:57 |
@ Fried Chicken Of course we don't. We are just having a debate, that's all. And Kudos to all of us for keeping civil and adult-like (something most politicans can't manage to do). Yes, there are parallels between the Old Testament and the Gilgamesh Epic...in fact those same parallels can be drawn with several other creation stories from other areas of the world. Gilgamesh is older than the Old Testament though, by about a thousand years. Which leaves open the question of, since the parallels are basically verbatim, is the Old Testament original, or was it copied from Gilgamesh? You are right about the Bible being passed down into the oral tradition before being written down, so was Gilgamesh. But, if you want to trust implicitly everything that the Old Testament says, that's where I have a problem. Have you ever played that game, telephone? Where one person whipsers something into another person's ear, and it goes around the cicle, until the last person has to share what they heard, and it's never anything like what the original message was. Same thing applies to things passed in the oral tradition, especially things passed down after hundreds of years. Events get dropped or added, or made bigger. As for the New Testament, it was written by several different people, and within the same story there are several different versions, depending on who you are reading. Plus, the hypocracies are just too much for me. I'm not neccessarily anti-religion, I hope I don't come across as the anti-religion QZer...I'm just anti-organized religion because I don't neccessarily think it's beneficial, and in most cases has caused much more harm than good. If someone wants to believe in God, fine...but don't shove it down my throat and at least try and do it with an open mind. In my experience (and this is only mine), the most religious people I've known were also the most hypocritical because they forgot the whole "Judge not lest ye be judged" thing. They also tended to be the most intolerant. I decided a long time ago that if I had to be that to be a Christian, then I was just fine not being one...at least my conscious is clean. |
| Donna13 26.11.2006 10:51 |
|
| eenaweena 27.11.2006 07:04 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: @ Fried Chicken Of course we don't. We are just having a debate, that's all. And Kudos to all of us for keeping civil and adult-like (something most politicans can't manage to do). Yes, there are parallels between the Old Testament and the Gilgamesh Epic...in fact those same parallels can be drawn with several other creation stories from other areas of the world. Gilgamesh is older than the Old Testament though, by about a thousand years. Which leaves open the question of, since the parallels are basically verbatim, is the Old Testament original, or was it copied from Gilgamesh? You are right about the Bible being passed down into the oral tradition before being written down, so was Gilgamesh. But, if you want to trust implicitly everything that the Old Testament says, that's where I have a problem. Have you ever played that game, telephone? Where one person whipsers something into another person's ear, and it goes around the cicle, until the last person has to share what they heard, and it's never anything like what the original message was. Same thing applies to things passed in the oral tradition, especially things passed down after hundreds of years. Events get dropped or added, or made bigger. As for the New Testament, it was written by several different people, and within the same story there are several different versions, depending on who you are reading. Plus, the hypocracies are just too much for me. I'm not neccessarily anti-religion, I hope I don't come across as the anti-religion QZer...I'm just anti-organized religion because I don't neccessarily think it's beneficial, and in most cases has caused much more harm than good. If someone wants to believe in God, fine...but don't shove it down my throat and at least try and do it with an open mind. In my experience (and this is only mine), the most religious people I've known were also the most hypocritical because they forgot the whole "Judge not lest ye be judged" thing. They also tended to be the most intolerant. I decided a long time ago that if I had to be that to be a Christian, then I was just fine not being one...at least my conscious is clean.First of all, thanks. :) ah... good point. but... i watched this discovery channel documentary on the... early asian civilizations (mesopotamia)... i think. oh yeah, it was! anyways, you said something about the bible copying the epic? no, they were both actually documented in people's heads at the same time. i don't have a specific answer for the spin doctors of the bible, but all they say is that whatever is written the bible is sacred and whatever people know can't be "spin doctor-ized" because God protected whatever he taught in the old testament. well, at least that's what i know. i get your point on the... anti-organized religion. i myself dislike those who are too preachy and they actually turn out to be hypocrites themselves. but you know, if someone shoves the whole religion thing down your throat, don't digest it. do you get what i mean? hehe... but anyway, not all organized religion people are THAT uptight. i bet you already knew taht, but anyway, here's my answer. :) you know, you don't NECESSARILY have to be christian to go to heaven. as long as you did good stuff and you followed the natural law, then you can go to heaven. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 27.11.2006 11:41 |
Another good reply by Fried Chicken. If you are really only 15, I'm tremendously happy that there is hope in the world for the next generation to have some form of brains! |
| eenaweena 28.11.2006 06:08 |
^again, thanks a bunch, CMU HistoryGirl! i really am only 15. :) |