Religion

[JohnnyV]

Hi all,

Is anyone on this website religious? What religions? How do you reconcile sexual deviance with your faith?

J

[Mmmarie]

I'm a Pagan, witch, shaman, Druid type. "All acts of love and pleasure are my rituals", speaks the Goddess in the Great Charge. So no conflict here.
:three:
Mmmarie

[MikeW]

Yes.
Anglican.
God made me who I am and what I am. You'll have to ask him why.

[APMountianMan]

I can't help thinking this question is asked tongue in cheek. "reconcile sexual deviance with your faith ?" Hmmm... that is so funny that I don't know where to start, but let's talk about some of the headlines of faith:

Abraham sleeps with his wife's maid and is called the father of the faith -- great example.

Lot sleeps with his own two daughters and is proclaimed a man of faith

Jacob marries two sisters, and is renamed Israel

David loves a man more than any woman, and then kills a man to have sex with a woman, and is called the apple of God's eye

David's son Solomon is reputed to have had over 500 wives and is called the wisest man in the world

And I could go on, but what's the point?

Sheesh, what does one's sexual perference have to do with one's faith? I say there is nothing to reconcile. You can have both faith and sex, as the examples above imply. But for Godsake, don't kill anyone over it!

:cool:

[Michael623]

Unity Church of Christianity. We don't believe we are born with sin but are born in a Christ like state. No reconciliation needed. Namaste!

[smokey]

I am in no praticular order an agnostic pagan christian buddhist bahai...and what I mean by that is that there are stances in all of those that I throughly agree with and stances I throughly disagree with so I cannot commit myself to any one of them whole heartidly though I have a strong affinity with buddhism. As for reconcilling my faiths and my sexuality...unless I wanna get in your pants, its nobodies business who I fuck.

[Driver 8]

I'm Anglican too. In the words of that great theologian Dolly Parton, "Folks say if God had meant us to fly, he'd have given us wings. Well, look what he did give us!"

[moonlitwish]

Paganism as a rule, has no rules about who you can screw....so no reconciliation needed :) Actually, If I hadn't stumbled upon my spiritual path, I probably would have continued repressing my sexuality. I grew up in a very closeminded household....I can't imagine telling my parents yet. Geez, I didn't even tell my husband until 3 mos. before we got married. Kinda figured we should go into it in all honesty. Turns out, he's cool with my 'deviant' religion as well as my sexuality. hehe
Too bad not everybody is as lucky.
Blessings!

[JohnnyV]

Ap Mountain,

I asked the question a little tongue in cheek, but mostly seriously. I was just curious if anyone else ever had to face a difficult situation, where you feel tied to a faith but the community of believers calls your sexuality deviant.

In my case, I'm Catholic and I go to church every Sunday. Personally, I don't think anything in the Bible truly condemns me for my sexual practices, especially because I've looked closely at all the different passages that are usually misinterpreted to condemn homosexuals.

But I guess I have more of an issue with it than other folks, because I do feel awkward when the Pope and other Catholic leaders lead these anti-gay crusades. I haven't yet figured out how to reconcile myself to the institution. For me, the best I can do is to separate my faith from the institutions themselves, and say that the church belongs to God, but these anti-gay crusaders are following selfish earthly ambitions and are distorting things.

In the end, the dilemma drives me to be more outspoken in my religious life and to fight against intolerance by using Scripture.

J

[Ratchick]

(Ducks for cover)

I am an Athiest. No excuses needed. I was born like this, evolution made me. Nothing to feel giulty about.

Hugs,
RC

[Aphrodite]

Hi all,

Is anyone on this website religious? What religions? How do you reconcile sexual deviance with your faith?

Roman Catholic. As far as I'm concerned I don't need to reconcile it. My first male lover was a priest.

[12voltman59]

For most of my life-I have been "a searcher." I was born and raised Roman Catholic, but very early on--I just could not accept many of the teachings of the Church, so I began to explore other religions and belief systems.

I have run the gamet from fundamentalist Christianity, paganism/wiccan, Zen Buddhisim, Native American spirituality and a few more.

From all of my searching--I do believe there is a super conciousness--there are many names that have been given to this--chiefly--GOD.

I only use that term because it is what is the mostly widely accepted term.

I don't believe that "God" is an old man in a white robe, with white hair and beard and sits upon his throne high in heaven smoting and smiting those who do not adore him.

God is not male or female, but a bit of both and God is not all good, but also has the dual nature we call evil.

We were not born with sin and we are not seperate from God--the essential essense of God is found in each one of us and in everything that exists in all of the universes.

I do believe the verse in the Bible that tells us "God made man in his image" but that image has nothing to do at all with our physical bodies--it has to do with what we really are--our non-physical nature or what is called the "soul."

To me--this is why it should not matter what gender our body is or the gender of who it is we love---just that we do love.

Having an orgasm with someone we are really connected with not only physically but mentally is one of the times that we are most in touch with that part of God that is contained within us.

It is possible to find other ways to get close to that spirit through other means such as meditation, yoga, and spiritual practices such as doing a Native American sweat lodge.

Well--my views may be unorthodox and I am sure that many will not agree with me--that's cool. It is what works for me---go find your own way. You don't need me or a man in robes or wearing a cheap suit with a bad haircut or anyone else to tell you about God or not.

[laidback]

Methodist but my faith is in God not man. I defy anyone to find anywhere in the Bible where Jesus or God discusses sexuality and preference. The Apostles did but not Christ. He cared only for your soul and your true faith in God. That is the essence of Christianity. Belief that Jesus is the Son of God and faith in both. Anything beyond that is another persons interpretation, not God's through Christ. I f you do not believe in something you will believe anything.

[wanderingrichard]

johnny, thanx for bringing this up in a much nicer way than i think i could have.. i've often wondered the same thing..

was raised christian [ methodist] gave that up and tried the b'hai bullah faith.. that didnt leave me with the anchor i felt i needed either, tho i did dearly love thier teachings.. then i found the spirituality of the southwestern native americans and, bang! that put my feet on solid ground.. it taught me to find the acceptance of my self first within the world, which was what i was always looking for and never knew it, then it taught me harmony with my surroundings, and well, thats not always easy to maintain..

so, thats how i reconcile myself with my sexuality

[Brian]

I am a Pastafarian, http://www.venganza.org/.

- Drew :paw:

[JohnnyV]

Drew,

That website is hysterical. I'm glad they gave Dover credit for scratching off one more haven for the Intellligent Design people.

But to those who are generally opposed to all religion in favor of science, I have one follow-up: Doesn't science contribute as much to homophobia and biphobia as religion?

It was science that gave us the clinical terms to describe homosexuality as a psychic disorder for over 100 years.

Darwinism, when trickling down to pop culture, gives countless homophobes the fuel to say that same-sex love is "unnatural."

A bigoted camp of archaeologists and historians still argue that Greece, Rome, and African empires collapsed because homosexuality weakened their capacity to govern.

The medical community, in pathologizing AIDs, has often said that gays are more prone to infection because "their parts were not designed by nature for the kind of sex they have." A good example, though I respect this man's work intensely, is the Medhelp form on STDs on http://www.medhelp.org. The doctor is knowledgeable and seasoned, but obviously has a distorted view of what two men do together. And he seems to get his ideas from science, not religion.

Anyway, these are just some thoughts I had. Just in case some people opposed religion because they felt it threatened their sexual identity, I wanted to point out that they also have to fight the same struggles with science. I'm sure most people who favor science over religion do so for intellectual, not personal, reasons, but I thought I'd offer some food for thought.

J

[OralBradley]

:bibounce: :male: I have never felt the necessity to create an evil god that will punish me forever for being me.

[Ratchick]

I am a Pastafarian, http://www.venganza.org/.

- Drew :paw:

ROFL
Thanks Drew.
-RC

[Trevor]

After trying all 34 flavors... I settled on Zen Buddhisim.

Trevor

[Iowabiguy]

I was raised in a conservative Catholic family. I slowly left that over a number of years and by my early twenties considered myself an atheist. Since then, I have explored many religious faiths and still do but I have settled on Liberal Christian. I am able to continue to explore what that means to me and incorporate other religious thoughts at the Unitarian Church I attend.
I would say that it has been within this congregation that I have found accepting people and am coming at to more people all the time as bisexual. I feel that it is very important to find a religious community that not only speaks that it accepts people regardless of their sexual orientation but really reaches out to make those people feel welcome.
Being a Liberal Christian Unitarian Universalist means that my sexuality is something to be honored respected and taken for what it is: a gift from God. I am what I am because I must be who I am.

[JohnnyV]

Iowa Bi Guy & Everyone Else,

Thanks for posting with such insightful details about religion. It's always so eye-opening to read such different angles on spirituality, from a community of people who share our unique sexual perspective. Iowa Bi Guy's post got me thinking particularly about what it means to be a "liberal Christian." Iowa, can you say anything more about that?

Best to all,
J :bibounce:

[OralBradley]

I'm reading "The Loss of Faith." It's a very good book in which the author (a Stanford guy) posits that there is no such thing a a Liberal" Muslim or any other religion.

[BiBiologist]

Good posts! I am especially impressed and in tune with those of APMountainMan, voltman, and Iowabiguy. I feel I was lucky to have been raised Unitarian, so never felt at odds with my religious community and never have had the need to go looking for anything else. I disagree with Johnny in that science has done as much as religion to fuel homophobia. Darwinism trickled down to popular culture isn't science, and unlike fundamentalists of all religions, scientists, who are after all, human beings with opinions, continue to test theories and correct errors that previous scientists have made. Science is an iterative process over time and not an unchangeable doctrine. I love the idea of being both spiritual and scientific, using my observations and experiences in nature to guide my feeling about the greater truths of the universe. I saw a great bumper sticker recently: "Spiritual people inspire me, Religious people scare me."

[12voltman59]

Discussing science--science represents our best attempts to explain and make sense of the physical world we inhabit and while science does fall short of its goal of trying to explain that physical world--scientists readily admit they do not have all of the answers--in fact most scientists I either know personally or have read their writings or in interviews they do on science documentaries tend to adhere to the adage: "the more we know, the more we know that we don't know.."

I do not understand why science and religion have to be an either or proposition---both have their places in humankind's desire to make sense of what is, whether that "what is" is the physical realm or of those beyond.

Just like the need to eat, breathe, and procreate--humans do seem to have an innate need to try to understand the nature of things.

Assuming the tradional model of God as big father in the sky is right---why would he give us the degree of intelligence he has given us only to say to us: "my children--do not use those skills and knowledge--just be ignorant dolts and worship me---don't use knowledge like stem cell research to try to make your pathetic lives better--just wait until you die and it will be alright unless of course I have already condemmed most of you to eternal damnation because I made you to usually be your own worst enemies so you will chose damnation..."

I also do not understand why--if heaven is this place that is already perfection beyond all visions of imaging--why is heaven going to be reconsituted in a physical place (here on Earth) that one day will cease to exist--you do know that even our universe has a time clock on it--the universe that we see is going to end--it may be a few trillon or billion years off--but it will come to an end and our little blue ball along with its solar furnace --SOL--our solar system's star, will die long before that taking out not only Earth but the rest of our solar neighbors.

Of course we could have other scenarios take place long before our sun dies out--a huge asteroid could hit us next week or in ten minutes from now, a relatively nearby star could go supernova and zap us with a huge and fatal burst of gamma radiation that wipes out everything within a few thousand light years, taking us out and we would never knew what hit us.

It hardly seems to be good place to set up New Heaven--because according to God's own rules--that's the way things go in this physical universe--but then again--I guess God can change his mind and change the rules---I do think God does have a sense of humor afterall.....

[JohnnyV]

Darwinism trickled down to popular culture isn't science, and unlike fundamentalists of all religions, scientists, who are after all, human beings with opinions, continue to test theories and correct errors that previous scientists have made. Science is an iterative process over time and not an unchangeable doctrine.

That's fair enough to science, but not quite fair when it comes to religion. Religious doctrine evolves. Its evolution is stormy and violent (as the evolution of science can be as well, if you can remember the effects of eugenics and the discovery of nuclear energy, for example).

Depending on one's religion, there is often a sacred text presumed to have originated in a higher source in a distant, remote ancient period. Because of that many religious people (the type who scare you and most normal people) try to approach their beliefs as a timeless, unchanging philosophy. But of course languages change -- Israelis speak a very different Hebrew and nobody speaks Aramaic or the ancient Greek of the New Testament anymore. With changing language, the whole theology and epistemology of interpreting the text has to change as well. It can grow more or less tolerant; for instance John Boswell discovered over 500 same-sex marriages consecrated by the Vatican in the medieval period.

When you say that science as it trickles down to popular culture isn't science, then I would also add carefully that spirituality when it trickles down to a bumper sticker isn't spiritual; it's commercialized and superficial. Many of the "spiritual" books in the self-help section of a bookstore, which I have read voluminously, are as hollow as the columns written by "dating experts" who use Darwin to explain why men find blonde women attractive, etc.

I would focus on a common problem among scientists and clergy, rather than trying to excuse one or elevate the other. Both fields claim, repeatedly, that there is some redemptive check on their possible fallibilities -- scientists claim that other scientists will correct their own errors, while priests will usually concede that they are human and claim they will bow to an exegetical point about scripture if it supersedes what they have been saying. But in truth, they have ways of controlling institutions so that their doctrines hold sway until a revolutionary break in thought occurs. I know many, many young scientists who have to slave in their supervisors' laboratories for decades before being able to break ranks and reveal their own findings (many never do break ranks.) Clergy are often put in the same position.

As a Catholic, I grew up comfortable with Darwinism because the popes of that era had decreed that evolution and creation did not negate each other. I regret that the new Pope may be backpedaling and reimposing a strict interpretation of Genesis on us. I believe in the theory of evolution and don't support things like Intelligent Design, obviously.

Lastly, I would say that masses of bigoted people will twist around science or religion to justify their prejudices. It's impossible to say which thing has contributed more to homophobia, science or religion, except to say that both forms of thought project authority and therefore give a veneer of legitimacy to cruel ideas, when people can distort them. In that sense, the valid attempts of both to enrich and improve people's lives can backfire and become the source of suffering.

Neither science nor religion can ever be eliminated, so I am equally dismayed by a bumper sticker that says "I hate science" and "Religious people scare me."

Religion has to be accountable for the Crusades, Nero's Coliseum, African slavery, witchcraft trials, much of segregation, part of the Holocaust, and untold wars and massacres over ridiculous things. I give it no free pass on those.

But don't go putting science on a pedestal and throwing out religion too quickly. Science has to be accountable for the nuclear scare, a huge part of our environmental degradation, nerve gas, electric shock torture, cluster bombs, anthrax, eugenics, much of racism from Thomas Jefferson's time onward, theories of homosexuality as "hormonal imbalance," and a great deal of sexism by men who claim that women are "biologically" hardwired to be one way or the other. If religion gets no free pass, then science can't claim that all those things are the fault of being misunderstood. Naturally Christians will always claim that their crimes were the result of being misunderstood. Both apologist reactions are stale and insufficient.

J

[JohnnyV]

Oh, one more little FYI--

A few weeks ago, Charles Socarides died. He was the doctor in the 1960s who fought tooth and nail against the movement to de-pathologize homosexual attraction. After homosexuality was removed from the list of psychiatric disorders, Socarides spent 30 years leading a fringe scientific movement to "cure" gay and bisexual men. He was not religious.

His son ended up gay and cautiously repudiated Socarides' claims.

J

[BiBiologist]

No argument Johnny--I agree with most of what you are saying. I hope it wasn't sounding like I was putting science on a pedestal and throwing out religion. Not my intent. As I said, I love the idea of being both spiritual and scientific. What I think the person quoted on the bumper sticker meant by a religious person is someone who believes so strictly and fervently in their own religion that they use it to condemn others who don't believe as they do. Intolerence, whether practiced by religious people or scientists is the problem, not religion or science as practices, both of which hold great truths.

[Driver 8]

It seems to me that science is often more influenced by the surrounding culture than many practitioners realize - and, in turn, that what non-scientists think of as "science" is often filtered through many layers of cultural assumptions.

I do think that the scientific process gradually leads to an increasingly accurate picture of the world - and I don't think believing in scientific results is analagous to religious faith, as some do.

But there is a history, in science, of researchers finding what they expect to find - especially when prejudices are strong and evidence is scanty or ambiguous. I highly recommend Stephen Jay Gould's book, The Mismeasure Of Man, to anyone who's interested in this phenomenon. He describes how scientists "proved" the inferiority of non-whites and shows how their research was flawed, probably unconsciously. (So the scientific method can be self-correcting - but at any given moment, it may not have self-corrected ...)

For an example of the distortion of science ... I'm tempted to talk about that idiotic "ain't no bisexuals, nope, not one" study that the New York Times hyped recently. (Shoddy experiment, written up in a vague way that glossed over important points - but picked up on by every news source in sight because it concluded something people already believed.)

But since I bet everyone here knows all about that, I'll just recommend Carol Tavris's The Mismeasure of Woman, which discusses things like journalists ignoring the bulk of existing research to give headlines to exciting new studies that confirm existing prejudices ... and then say nothing when the new studies are debunked. Enjoyable, sharply-written books, both of them.

[JohnnyV]

Driver 8,

The New York Times study disproving bisexuality was a great example of scientific failure. They gaged male responses to porn and found that every male (out of something like 100) only became erect to one kind of porn, either straight or gay. It was ridiculous, and I agree with you about the newspapers picking up on it.

Another great example was the Simon LeVay brain study in 1992, when LeVay found that the hypothalamus on 19 gay corpses was on average smaller than the hypothalamus on 38 straight corpses. (The hypothalamus is part of the brain.) Within two weeks, even against LeVay's urgings, the Times ran a story that gay men had smaller brains, and the gay movement started popping champagne bottles to claim they had found the gay gene.

I think this habit of handpicking one's evidence may have come largely from the religious tradition of exegesis. Look at how homophobes took 2,000 pages of Biblical text and claimed that homosexuality was a sin from, literally, about six small references, most of which don't imply that it's a sin anyway. In fact, one of the famous quotes in Paul's letter to the Corinthians is that "homosexuals" will not enter Heaven, along with adulterers, murderers, thieves, and drunkards. The original Greek word is "pornoi" meaning "whores of either gender." It became "homosexual" because when King James was ruling England, those who translated the letter into English wanted to take a subtle jab at him, and they chose the word "effeminate."

Science and religion are so different in their methodologies that they can't always be compared; but I think the types of logical errors are remarkably similar, where someone takes a small indicator and ignores everything else.

J

[Driver 8]

The original Greek word is "pornoi" meaning "whores of either gender." It became "homosexual" because when King James was ruling England, those who translated the letter into English wanted to take a subtle jab at him, and they chose the word "effeminate."


A lot of New Testament "clobber verses" used to condemn same-sex behavior seem pretty wobbly to me. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, for example, St. Paul gives a long list of sinners who "will not inherit God's kingdom." Two of them are "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai," and linguists agree it's not clear how to translate them - they appear in very few other texts, and there's just not enough context to know what they mean.

"Malakoi" was sometimes applied to very heterosexual men and might mean "weak." "Arsenokoitai" is some kind of sexual sin, but there are manuscripts that condemn a man's committing it with his wife - which would seem to rule out same-sex behavior to me.

These phrases were interpreted as referring to masturbation up until the twentieth century, when masturbation stopped being considered quite so awful. As far as I can tell, theologians just stopped translating it as "masturbators" and started translating it as "homosexuals" without a lick of evidence. (The KJV has "abusers of themselves with mankind.")

(I should add that I speak here as a student of Greek, not as a doctor of theology.)

In my personal opinion - even if the translation were correct, I would respectfully consider St. Paul to be incorrect. The central belief of Christianity is that humankind is imperfect, fallen and sinful, incapable of earning salvation on our own merits; but through the sacrifice of Christ, we can be saved. All that is necessary for salvation is to accept the grace that we have been offered.

Now, Christ did not expect Christians to stop with the minimum - he asked for very high standards of behavior - but that is separate from the question of salvation. Furthermore, it seems to me that Christ did not ask people to follow arbitrary rules. He asked us to treat others with respect, to care for the weak, to be humble. It is hard for me to see Him being incensed about behavior that harms no one.

P.S. I realize there are many here who do not share these beliefs, and I hope you'll take this as an explanation of Christian theology rather than an attack on those who do not believe it.

[wanderingrichard]

Johnny,
thanx again for putting to voice and script my almost exact sentiments. as you and many others have seen, i tend to rant off topic when it comes to issues like this.. [ note; thankfully such a charged issue hasn't turned ugly like one before it did.]

Driver,
sorry, i put very little stock in NYT, in fact after seeing how stilited it's editorial contents usually are, i don't even read it.. i do thank you tho, for the lead on the books. i have a recent past G/f -/domestic partner who was very abused when she was young by both men and women, has pretty much been bi her whole life as a result, and is still struggling to understand herself.. i think those will help.

will continue to sit back and watch this great discussion with much interest. i'm learning that , smart as i think am, i forget that i tend to discount others opinions and life experiences, and sometimes it's best to keep quiet and learn something, rather than opening my mouth and erasing all doubt as to my foolishness.
Rich

[JohnnyV]

Driver 8,

I feel like celebrating. At last there is another student of Greek with whom I can speak of these things!! For over 8 years I've been struggling with these very verses and have always lacked someone to talk to about it.

Below are some of my thoughts, admittedly quite theological and possibly too arcane for many folks on the forum. But hey, I feel like taking advantage of this rare opportunity to share religious insights with a kindred soul.


[QUOTE=Driver 8]A lot of New Testament "clobber verses" used to condemn same-sex behavior seem pretty wobbly to me. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, for example, St. Paul gives a long list of sinners who "will not inherit God's kingdom." Two of them are "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai," and linguists agree it's not clear how to translate them - they appear in very few other texts, and there's just not enough context to know what they mean. [/QUOTE}

Part of the problem is that Paul's command of Greek is not entirely clear. A lot of the Greek words he uses are questionable, as are their implications because of the problem with Greek prepositions and particles. In Romans, Paul's possible allusion to lesbianism says that women were doing things with each other "kata physin" which could mean according to nature or against nature. The same goes for the later reference when he says that God punished men by causing them to burn with desire for each other and turn away from women. It's not clear whether God is punishing the entire community by disrupting the all-important ties of marriage, or whether he is punishing individual men. Either way, it is hard to conclude anything from the strange fact that God implanted same-sex desire in the men, rather than God finding out that men were attracted to each other because of a force outside of God.

As one of the few queer defenders of St. Paul, I would agree with you about his likely errors in judgment, and also add that Paul often leaves a space open to be corrected. At one point he states that these are his opinions. He was a fascinating man who struggled eternally over his own free will. I have always maintained, for instance, that the conversion narrative in Acts 9 does not describe a complete transformation of Paul from the oppressor who goaded the crowd to stone Stephen, into a spotless apostle speaking unconditionally for Christ.

I agree with you. In fact Paul says in Romans that "love is the fulfillment of the law" and that punctilious attention to "nomos" (human law) is what actually led him to sin and will cause spiritual death to people. That's why I can't see how so many homophobic Christians rely on Paul's letters to justify their political agenda. Paul himself said not to rely strictly on his words, he said to follow "the spirit, not the letter" of the law. Agape, or his word for love, was supposed to be higher than either pistis (faith) or elpis (hope), so the abstract and unspecified, unconditional concept of emotional affection was effectively meant, even by Paul, to trump all other earthly moral concepts.

I concur about not wanting to imply an attack against non-Christians. I respect people of all faiths, including atheists. My earlier statements about science were merely to point out that the struggle for bisexual rights will always necessitate a certain practical skepticism about the healing power of science.

J

[tatooedpunk]

I am agnostic i hate how religion has caused so much hatred,murder,war and mistrust in society.I wish all bigotry was condemned to history and we all just shook hands and got along

[moonlitwish]

I wish all bigotry was condemned to history and we all just shook hands and got along
ME TOO!!
It's a shame that otherwise good people will let one err in judgement, or one fanatical belief in something rework their entire life making them unable to just get along with the others they have to share this planet with. I say either get along or go pick another planet to wrack with your miserable attitudes!

[nightwatcher]

I was raised in a conservative Catholic family. I slowly left that over a number of years and by my early twenties considered myself an atheist. Since then, I have explored many religious faiths and still do but I have settled on Liberal Christian. I am able to continue to explore what that means to me and incorporate other religious thoughts at the Unitarian Church I attend.
I would say that it has been within this congregation that I have found accepting people and am coming at to more people all the time as bisexual. I feel that it is very important to find a religious community that not only speaks that it accepts people regardless of their sexual orientation but really reaches out to make those people feel welcome.
Being a Liberal Christian Unitarian Universalist means that my sexuality is something to be honored respected and taken for what it is: a gift from God. I am what I am because I must be who I am.


Hello Iowabiguy,

I am a practicing Catholic right now. Have not told anyone about my sexuality. Unlike yourself, I feel very belonging to my church and actively participate in it. God will take of things for me, not Man , I tell myself, and try to focus on using my life as a worship to God instead of focusing the doctrines that Man has created and try to follow them. A bit of escapism, but I love my people, so I'm unwilling to drift away for now.

That's the way I'm handling it, for now, at least.

nw

[JohnnyV]

I am agnostic i hate how religion has caused so much hatred,murder,war and mistrust in society.I wish all bigotry was condemned to history and we all just shook hands and got along


No argument from me, religion is probably the biggest war criminal of all. Unfortunately, though, I believe in one. And I figure that even if a few people reject religion as a concept, the majority of the world won't. So for me (not for everyone) the best course of action is to remain among the faithful, and try hard to make religion a better force in society, from within.

J

[bigregory]

I am my own god.
I hope to hell this dont come back and haunt me when i die.
Raised a catholic (confirmed) i should be ok.
As for going to hell it cant be, Im here now
Dont believe me watch the news
We should all follow the 10 BIG rules,(not sure about the neighbor wife one)
Just follow the golden rule and all will be well..... :yinyang:

[Iowabiguy]

I am dismayed when people use the word "Christian" to try to describe all of us. I am a very Liberal Christian. If being a Christian is what Pat Robertson calls a Christian, then I wouldn't be a Christian but... I will not cannot and shall not Ever let the Religious Right steal the definition of Christian and throw it on me like a dirty old coat.
I am of the belief of such Jesus Seminar writers as Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and Bishop Spong.
Jesus, IMO, taught three things; love, acceptance, and forgiveness. I am a follower of that message. It is an incredibly difficult standard to live up to and I fail often but I keep trying.
Liberal Christianity to me is a freeing non-literal interpretation of the Bible that is not only open to reason but inspiration. Some of the stories within the Bible just resonate so well with me; the Good Samaritan, the prodigal son, the woman at the well, the parable of the mustard seed, the man possessed by Legion.
There was a lot of politics that went into the formation of the Bible as we know it and God knows there are plenty of flaws to be found in it. I however have chosen to concentrate on the things that I find useful, uplifting and/or thought-provoking. I have been known to throw around verses in the past to show people the errors of the Bible but I just don't find that very helpful anymore. (Maybe I haven't been prosletized recently.) I prefer to not throw the baby out with the bath water and see the Bible as a tool. Created by inspired humans to be true but when all is said and done it is just a book that I choose to use for inspiration and Jesus was just a great inspired God-filled man whom I admire and wish to emulate.

[APMountianMan]

When we speak of religion, in this cause those that are of Judaic origins, I would purpose that we first differentiate between examination of related texts (exegesis and hermeneutics), doctrine (accepted teaching), and apologetics (formal arguments justifying accepted teaching); and then move to understanding the nature of certainty, truth, and faith.

The problem I see in the delineation of information, whether it be by religion or science, is that what the majority of readers receive would not be what the researchers would state from the data discovered.

I speak hear in theological terms, so allow me if you will to discuss the rules of interpretation of a text. The three rules are:

1. Understand the writer and the writer's culture,

2. Understand what the writer was trying to say to the writer's culture at the time of the writing,

3. and lastly, after understanding the above two, determine if the passage has any meaning to those reading it today.

This is the tricky stuff that doctrine is built of, and because we can't know for sure what the original writer meant we use content, context, tradition and historical supporting texts to better understand the meaning of particular texts.

Because this is far from hard science, we must at times defend the doctrines presented; thus we have apologetics.

When we speak of any particular church or religions' stance on an issue, we must first see that stance through the eyes of those proclaiming the doctrine. What do they hope to accomplish by proclaiming the doctrine? What are they truly basing the doctrine upon? Is it past teachings? Cultural tradition? Church tradition? The related texts? Personal conviction? All doctrine is not created equally!

Of matters of certainty, truth, and faith, here we see science's influence on the church and doctrine. During medieval times, the only authority that could offer certainty concerning things of life and death was the church -- in particular the Roman Catholic Church. But science began to eat away at the authority of the church when it asked one simple question: Does the sun truly revolve around the earth, or does the earth revolve around the sun.

Most of us know the outcome of this question on a practical level but have not considered it on a spiritual level. Why did the church fight the scientific findings so harshly? Because those finding challenged the established doctrine that man was the center of the universe. And it challenged the church's hold on having the power of absolute certainty. Without the power to grant certainty of life and death, (the keys to heaven and hell, if you will), what authority did the church really have? The fall back position was that of Truth.

In the face of scientific Fact, (that is to say observable experiences that could be repeated time and time again), the church used its position to proclaim the Truth. What is the Truth? The truth is the teaching that has been faithfully related from one appointed person to another -- thus the power of apostolic secession. "We know these things to be true because they have been taught from time immemorial."

Science's response was to continue to show the repeatability of its conclusions, while asking the church to "Show us a man raised from the dead, and then show us again, and then we will acknowledge your teachings."

In face of the growing body of evidence that science called Facts and Proofs, Truth needed support and that brought us to Faith. Faith tells us, in essence, to suspend disbelief. It also tells us to leave the studious tasks of interpreting the related texts to those who have more "authority" in these matters. "Just take it on faith, brother."

In a world where, for the most part, only the clergy can read and the clergy are as altruistic and honorable as Plato's Philosopher King, perhaps it would make sense to tell the faithful not to worry themselves about reading the related texts and seeing for themselves if the texts rang true; but in real world such words only demonstrate the struggle to suppress freedom and keep power and control in the hands of a few. As much as it is insisted that the origins of what we call Christianity and the Church are rooted in Jesus who was called Christ, so must it also be acknowledged that Christianity and the Church are rooted in Constantine who was called Caesar.

This exercise was done so that the reader could better understand the context of my next comment. The very reason that there is no reconciliation needed between your sexual practices and your faith is because your faith is your own. You have the power to believe or not to believe, and no one can tell you that what you believe is incorrect. No one, not even the Pope.

As for religion and their leaders, you can also choose to be bound those covenants. But again, this is your choice. But remember, even if you choose to be bound by a covenant, even the Roman Catholic Covenant, there is no certainty in the teachings.

One last thing, a careful reading of the writings concerning Jesus and the later writings of Paul will reveal that there are two very different teachings within the writings, with two different philosophies concerning the coming of the Kingdom of God. Jesus would not have built what we today called the church. Jesus believed that the Kingdom of God is in you. It is in you. So, tell me, if the Kingdom of God is in you, to what do you have to reconcile but to yourself?


:cool:

P.S. Johnny, hope this clearifies my first post for you.

[laidback]

Ok, I would like to address the issue of people dying for religion and religion being a mass murderer, criminal, etc. The religious wars in Europe were horrible but they were less about religion and more about greed and power. The leaders, men, not men of God, cynically used religious differences to justify their actions. The people, being in no position to resist for the most part, went along with it. I will grant that a few did kill in the belief that their religion was the only true belief and that others deserved to die. But no where in the Bible did it say to kill those that disagreed with your beliefs but rather attempt to persude them to change with faith, love and compassion. Unlike todays Islamo-fascists, who do have the support for killing in the Kuran, the Bible was at odds with the actions. And the number of deaths was relatively small compared to the slaughters of just Stalin. Add Hitler and the Japanese during their wars and the deaths dwarf any of the religious wars. The 30 years War and the 100 years wars were about hegemony of Europe not about religion. Else how can you explain why Protestants fought Protestants and catholics fought catholics during this period also? Sorry, another rant! lol
I have very much enjoyed the postings on this topic. It has been enlightening and entertaining and I thank those that have shared with the rest of us.

[APMountianMan]

But no where in the Bible did it say to kill those that disagreed with your beliefs but rather attempt to persude them to change with faith, love and compassion.

I would disagree with this statement. In fact, the Bible does honor those that killed others that were not of like mind. Look at the Fall of Jericho. We are told, "They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it -- men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys." (Joshua 6:21) The conclusion given is not that the LORD showed displeasure at the people for committing such grievous sin, but that "the LORD was with Joshua, and his fame spread throughout the land.” (Joshua 6:27) The Bible clearly condones this behavior. (Deuteronomy20). We even see this glorification in the New Testament writings of the letter to the Hebrews: By faith the walls of Jericho fell… and what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson….who through faith conquered kingdoms… and routed foreign armies…” (Hebrews 11)

The Bible has been used to justify religious war because it does justify religious war. Over and over again the Hebrews conquer enemies in the name of God. The concept that one should love their enemies was a new concept that came with Jesus of Nazareth and may have been a chief reason why he was killed. A messiah that claimed that the best way to conquer your enemy is by loving them was not as welcomed as one that proclaimed that the Israelites should rise up and defeat their oppressors with the sword. It was why Pilate could “find no fault in the man.” Jesus was preaching something that Pilate felt was no threat to the Roman Empire.

The Zealots of Jesus’ day would have seen his popularity as a sell out, and his teachings as heretical. They would have seen the teachings as moving the people of Israel towards integration with the world around them. Such teachings were punishable by death.

After the death of Jesus, the old war and final victory stories of the Old Testament were resurrected with new clothing. These stories pictured a conquering Jesus subduing his enemies with a sword and imposing his will on all of creation. From these stories, those of the Old Testament, and the recognition of men like Constantine (as mentioned in an earlier post) that people will be loyal to the death if they believe that they are fighting for a Holy cause, men have found their justification for waging war.

The problem with all of this is that when people believe they are dying for a slice of heaven there is no way to stop the movement. Constantine learned that lesson and conformed the world to those who would rather die than to turn their allegiance to Rome. What lesson does that have for us today?


:cool:

[*foxy_roxy*]

I am a non-practising Roman Catholic, and although I do not go to Church every Sunday, as I should, I still feel very connected to my faith. The phase 'Christian' that has been used in this thread has many times been used in the incorrect way. Many people see themselves as Christians even when they have never been Christened, merely because it is the majority religion in their country/state etc, however I feel this is an incorrect way of using it. All people are the children of God in Christianity, however there are many other religions which may be followed in this world, why call yourself Christian because that is all you know, you dont call yourself a Buddhist unless you are one, why call yourself a Christian and not mean it?!
I feel sometimes that my bi-sexuality goes against my religion, as it is a unity between man and woman, not man/man or woman/woman, however God made all of the people on this Earth, and also in His image, why, if it was wrong was I created to like both forms, male and female? There is a reason behind everything in the Universe, we must each find our own reason for being and until then enjoy each day to the full, not worrying about what other people think of us, and we must each do what is morally right.

[*foxy_roxy*]

[QUOTE=APMountianMan]I would disagree with this statement. In fact, the Bible does honor those that killed others that were not of like mind. Look at the Fall of Jericho. We are told, "They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it -- men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys." (Joshua 6:21) The conclusion given is not that the LORD showed displeasure at the people for committing such grievous sin, but that "the LORD was with Joshua, and his fame spread throughout the land.” (Joshua 6:27) The Bible clearly condones this behavior. (Deuteronomy20). We even see this glorification in the New Testament writings of the letter to the Hebrews: By faith the walls of Jericho fell… and what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson….who through faith conquered kingdoms… and routed foreign armies…” (Hebrews 11)




I agree, because even when Moses came down from the mountain with the Commandments, the people around him were having orgys and such, and God sided with Moses when he killed all those who were doing wrong. Many times in the Bible God has chosen to kill because of displeasure with certain acts, or whole communities

[APMountianMan]

I...why call yourself Christian because that is all you know, you dont call yourself a Buddhist unless you are one, why call yourself a Christian and not mean it?!

I feel sometimes that my bi-sexuality goes against my religion, as it is a unity between man and woman, not man/man or woman/woman, however God made all of the people on this Earth, and also in His image, why, if it was wrong was I created to like both forms, male and female? There is a reason behind everything in the Universe, we must each find our own reason for being and until then enjoy each day to the full, not worrying about what other people think of us, and we must each do what is morally right.

Foxy, the problem here is that even those calling themselves Christian (literally, Follower of Christ) can't agree on what being Christian means. You speak of the outward symbol of being christened as the sign that you are a Christian but that is only one symbol of one sect of the Christian movement.

Some believe that the outward sign is baptism, some that it is being anointed with oil, some that it is embodied in a word of confession, still others believe it is speaking with tongues, and yet others believe that it is manifested in a radical change of behavior, and then there are those that it is purely a unseen change of heart. All of these have a basis in the historical texts.

So how do you tell who is Christian or not, or who has the right to say they are a Christian or not?

Can I say I am a Christian because I believe, as Jesus said, that you should "do onto others as you would have others do onto you?" Or does that make me a Confucian because Confucius said, "Do not do anything to others that you would not have done to you?" After all, Confucius spoke the words 500 years before Jesus was born. Could Jesus have been a follower of Confucius? Certainly, their teachings have a lot in common.

My heart goes out to your struggle. In studying the Biblical texts, I clearly see that there is a plurality of the Godhead. I do not mean that there is only a tri-fold personality to the Godhead but many more. But let us look at only the tri-fold personality. Even there we have two males and a female. Most scholars would agree that the Holy Spirit is feminine, and is related to the Biblical concept of the Spirit of Wisdom, which is always associated with the feminine. Also, the Holy Spirit is that creative force that gives birth to the world, and aids Mary in the conception of the holy child.

I say this only to make this point, God is at the very least bisexual, and may be truly poly-sexual. How else can God create in his/her image both male and female? God has no problem recognizing both male and female identities within his/herself personality, why do we? This of course goes back to one of my original questions, to whom do you have to reconcile yourself to but yourself?

And yes, these are the thoughts of a heretic!

:cool:

[moonlitwish]

The phase 'Christian' that has been used in this thread has many times been used in the incorrect way. Many people see themselves as Christians even when they have never been Christened, merely because it is the majority religion in their country/state etc, however I feel this is an incorrect way of using it.

I was never Christened, but I was baptized. Does that still make me a Christian, even though I follow the teachings of another faith?

[APMountianMan]

I was never Christened, but I was baptized. Does that still make me a Christian, even though I follow the teachings of another faith?


Here is that problem again, what does it mean to be a Christian? The answer is both internal and external. Some would say you are a Christian because you were baptized. Others would say because you state that you follow the teachings of another faith that you have renounced Christ and are not Christian.

What is interesting is that the related texts speak of an early Christian ritual of being baptized for the dead. What this implies is that a person doesn't have to believe in Christ but only to be baptized into Christ, and that the person can be baptized in absentia. Here the ritual is more important than the belief. In this view, it doesn't matter what teachings you follow; because you were baptized into Christ you are Christian.

Then there are the texts that speak of the requirement of confessing Christ. By those standards, would you be Christian?

JohnnyV in an earlier post speaks to the spirit of faith. He is correct. Paul speaks about the contradictions of law and faith. At times he says to follow the law is to denounce faith, but then speaks of rules to live by. How wonderfully confused Paul was! How he so emulates the human condition even today!


:cool:

[laidback]

I do agree the Bible talks about God and wars and killing. But those are the words of men written after the event to explain why they did what they did. I do not see the hand of God here and the same with Moses. The Old Testament is replete with God directing so and so to do such and such. I do not believe that literally. I believe it was men who wanted it to appear they had the blessing of God to do what they did. If you look at the US Civil War, both sides believed God fought with them but how is that possible? Nearly every war since Christianity had men on both sides believing God was on their side, again, not possible or they would not have fought or both sides would have won. You are confusing the words and deeds of men with works of God. Even before Christianity, the anciet peoples had the same or similar Gods they prayed to for success. And one side always lost so do gods or God really make their presence felt? I think not.Thats how I see it, sorry to disagree.

[laidback]

LOL one other point...nearly every major religion has an equivalent to the 10 Commandments. Christianity is not unique there. So, perhaps Moses just thought about what it would take to live a good life and be a good person. The Commandments are a very common sense approach to living a good life as a good person. And the Golden rule is not one of the 10 Commandments but an excellent philosophy to live by.

[APMountianMan]

I do agree the Bible talks about God and wars and killing. But those are the words of men written after the event to explain why they did what they did. I do not see the hand of God here and the same with Moses. The Old Testament is replete with God directing so and so to do such and such. I do not believe that literally. I believe it was men who wanted it to appear they had the blessing of God to do what they did. If you look at the US Civil War, both sides believed God fought with them but how is that possible? Nearly every war since Christianity had men on both sides believing God was on their side, again, not possible or they would not have fought or both sides would have won. You are confusing the words and deeds of men with works of God. Even before Christianity, the anciet peoples had the same or similar Gods they prayed to for success. And one side always lost so do gods or God really make their presence felt? I think not.Thats how I see it, sorry to disagree.


Not sure to what you are disagree.

:cool:

[JohnnyV]

Hi all,

I wanted to thank everyone for such a wonderful discussion. I have wanted to share these thoughts with other bisexuals for years and never found a good venue in which to do it.

Since I am just coming out of Sunday mass and one theme for this week was "listening" as symbolized by Samuel's choice to listen to God's message, I want to do as Richard said, and try hard to hear what everyone is saying, not only in the surface meaning of their posts but also in their underlying connotations.

I have a few thoughts in response to everyone.

First, to Richard, thank you very much for your vote of confidence. I have no complaints about you wandering off topic. I enjoy all your posts.

Second, to tattooed punk and moonlitwish, it sounds like you have made up your minds about faith and I respect that. The important thing to do, as it fits in with my spiritual reflections today, is to listen to yourself and to whatever higher spirit you think structures the world. If your decision is to move away from organized religion, then it is that much more important to spend a lot of time thinking about things, and trying to find some counterbalance against the normal human errors that affect everyone. The most dangerous thing to do when moving away from organized religion is to place what Blake called "mind-forged manacles" on yourself, imprisoning yourself in a solipsistic prison where you can't really see or understand the perspectives or others, and you lose sight of your own mistakes.

Third, to bigregory, I'm not sure if I know much about Hell, either here or elsewhere. Most of the sacred Jewish writings make scant references to it, and the Christian sense of Hell is almost totally warped by the last-minute addition of Revelations and Paul's adaptations of Christ's preachings. I defer to Isaiah here as in almost everything, when he says "the worm never dies," which I take to mean that consciousness continues after the body dies. But I have no firm beliefs about the nature of the afterlife or whether eternal punishments/rewards are based on people's actions in this life. Anyway, from your post, I would infer that you have a sense of humor about these issues, which is wonderful, but you also are secretly ambivalent about the nature of divine justice. I would argue that this isn't Hell at all; we inhabit a beautiful world full of love and caring. I may be unlike many other Christians, but I look to Christ as an inspiration to find beauty in the world I inhabit, and to create happiness among others. So where there is war or disease or cruelty, I have to act to the best of my abilities by protesting, promoting knowledge, and instilling a sense of mutual tolerance in other people. I don't worry so much about going to Heaven or Hell.

Fourth, to Iowabiguy, why do you live in Iowa? Move to New York so I can hang out with you. I agree completely that an extremist wing of one political party has hijacked the label of Christianity and something has to be done about it. I also try to hold people on the Left accountable for sometimes misunderstanding what leads people to religion. For instance, I think Drew's post about the Giant Spaghetti Monster is hysterical -- I laughed my ass off -- but while I accept that kind of discussion from the Left, I know it can't be the only thing the Left offers. I feel the need to supplement those liberal sentiments with other kinds of liberalism that make peace with most people's inner attraction to spirituality and faith. People do not become religious because they are hateful, self-righteous, brainwashed, or ignorant. They do so, usually, out of a sincere desire to live well and contribute positively to the world around them. Whether religion actually aids them in finding that goodness is of course a whole other question -- I'd argue that religion derails that instinct more often than honing it. But the quest shall continue.

Fifth, to AP Mountain Man, I would say that your inner spirit is torn between what I call the two Christianities: the Christianity of moral purity and the Christianity of individualized ethics. I would simply say that I am on the same crucible. While I like to make the golden rule the basic dictate of my life, I also know that Christ and Paul both talked specifically about the purity of the human body, and I can't help but reflect a lot on what the limits of sexual freedom are. For a long time, I adhered to your version of Christianity and said that my sexual behavior had nothing to do with God. But I was married, and eventually I had a revelation that yes, my body did belong to a higher power, and if that higher power (through Scripture or through my own inclination) told me that my actions were unholy, I did need to change them. If I were single and in a relationship with a male, I would have probably felt the same thing about my desire to cheat on him with women. I don't think it's homosexuality that Christ and Paul decried, it was more the idea of causing harm to other people (the image of Christ) in the way that you use your body for pleasure. Other than that, I think we could have a much longer discussion about the nature of Scripture, who has the authority to interpret it, and how capable individuals are of building up their own belief system. I wouldn't mind that, though I think it will be a discussion in which the basic tenets of Protestantism and Catholicism go at it about the debates they've had for centuries. Finally, I don't view Constantine as the founder of Christianity. Theologians before and after him did not always agree with what he said, and there have been as many countercultural movements from within the Catholic Church as there have been pro-government crusades. You'll have to make some allowances for my idealism about Catholic idealism, since I am a true Jesuit and feel a brotherhood with liberation theology.

Sixth, to Laidback, there's a reason why I say I give "no free pass" to the so-called Christians who have slaughtered so many people around the world. The body count is daunting, and much higher, over two thousand years, than any other faith or political system could compete with. Recently, for instance, I read Todorov's and Bartolome de las Casas' chronicles of the Christianization of the New World in the sixteenth century, when 70 million Indians from Canada to Argentina were killed in the name of God. I also read, a few weeks ago, Rene Girard's The Scapegoat, in which he revealed church documents from fourteenth-century France -- during the Plague, the French executed every single Jew they found, a Holocause more total than the German one. I count the Holocaust as a Christian atrocity, since Hitler used Christian beliefs to justify his genocide and Protestants and Catholics both collaborated with it. The Korean War and the Vietnam War, two of the most violent manifestations of the Cold War, were also deeply rooted in American Christianity; Nixon was a Quaker supposedly guided by faith, and it was during the Korean War that they added "one nation under God" to the pledge of allegiance to contrast American Christians against Soviet atheists. From Constantine on, the Christian body count is so staggering I literally want to vomit when I think about it. No, these atrocities were not merely about greed. Obviously I do not believe God wanted these things to happen, but religion was a central force propelling people to do what they wanted to do. And it was ironically not the violent Old Testament that caused the most killing -- it was the pacifistic New Testament, because when John says "to sacrifice the flesh to the spirit" Christians convinced themselves that (1) someone else was the true aggressor and (2) killing is a sacrifice of flesh to a higher spirit. The bad faith of that logic is far deadlier than simply embracing the violence of a holy war. And when you refer to Islamo-fascists, I am emboldened to continue my fight against Christian denial of Christian atrocities. Al Qaeda killed far fewer people than Bush has caused to be killed in his invasions, when you combine the death tolls in Afghanistan and Iraq (you can't count Hussein as a fundamentalist because he was a moderate and primarily secular leader.) The death toll is in front of us, and still growing, and Christians who don't wake up about their religion's bloodthirst only enable more bloodshed and disgrace to Christ's legacy.

Seventh, to Foxy Roxy, I don't think you have to attend mass to feel connected with your faith. I think that your thought process in trying to understand how bisexuality fits in with your faith is well-directed. I hope you continue thinking about these things and looking for inner peace. I have always believed, deep down inside, that bisexuals have a stronger spiritual side because we are able to connect physically with others irregardless of their bodily form. I am happy to see that this thread has confirmed that idea.

Best to everyone!

J

[APMountianMan]

Fifth, to AP Mountain Man, I would say that your inner spirit is torn between what I call the two Christianities: the Christianity of moral purity and the Christianity of individualized ethics. I would simply say that I am on the same crucible. While I like to make the golden rule the basic dictate of my life, I also know that Christ and Paul both talked specifically about the purity of the human body, and I can't help but reflect a lot on what the limits of sexual freedom are. For a long time, I adhered to your version of Christianity and said that my sexual behavior had nothing to do with God. But I was married, and eventually I had a revelation that yes, my body did belong to a higher power, and if that higher power (through Scripture or through my own inclination) told me that my actions were unholy, I did need to change them. If I were single and in a relationship with a male, I would have probably felt the same thing about my desire to cheat on him with women. I don't think it's homosexuality that Christ and Paul decried, it was more the idea of causing harm to other people (the image of Christ) in the way that you use your body for pleasure. Other than that, I think we could have a much longer discussion about the nature of Scripture, who has the authority to interpret it, and how capable individuals are of building up their own belief system. I wouldn't mind that, though I think it will be a discussion in which the basic tenets of Protestantism and Catholicism go at it about the debates they've had for centuries. Finally, I don't view Constantine as the founder of Christianity. Theologians before and after him did not always agree with what he said, and there have been as many countercultural movements from within the Catholic Church as there have been pro-government crusades. You'll have to make some allowances for my idealism about Catholic idealism, since I am a true Jesuit and feel a brotherhood with liberation theology.
J


Somehow, with all I have written here I am still misunderstood. If you believe a thing evil, the related text states, then it is evil to you. But it is not that thing that is evil but sin that dwells in your mind.

I am not in conflict; my spirit is not torn but whole. I have never suggested lying for sexual gratification. I believe that as a man speaks so is he. So, I say speak the truth. I am married and my wife and I speak truthfully to each other about these issues. How wonderful it is to commune on this level! And yes, to share ourselves, when appropriate, mind, body, and spirit.

If you read my post carefully you will see that I have made no judgments but have only presented comments for reflection.

I would also challenge the notion that Christ spoke against homosexuality. I would challenge also the notion that the words of Paul, in the original language, within the original cultural content, spoke against a committed loving relationship between members of the same sex. That is not true. What we call homosexuality did not exist, as we know it today. Here we seem to agree.

Also, I see no prohibition in Scripture against having multiple loving, committed relationships, except that a bishop will only have one wife; and this is not a commandment but an opinion of the writer. But even this does not mean others cannot have more than one wife. And, of course this does not breakdown this Scripture into cultural and chronological context.

I will also agree that the prime disagreement here concerns who has the authority to interpret Scripture. So we will leave that discussion for another day.

Finally, I never stated that Constantine was the founder of Christianity. What I said was that Christianity and the Church we know today are as much rooted in Constantine as it is in Jesus. Will you deny this as truth? Will you deny that the rites that are practices and the days observed are more rooted in pagan rites than in Judaic rites?

Let us not be deceived concerning these matters. As a Jesuit, I expect that you are a also a seeker of truth.




:cool:

[JohnnyV]

AP Mountain Men,

Pax omnibus. There's a great line from "The Believer" in which the main character alludes to people "who won't take yes for an answer." You weren't misunderstood at all. And I wasn't telling you that anything you did was wrong, as far as I could tell. I was sharing my beliefs and what I have gone through in trying to discover myself and what is right for me. I only referred to a conflict between the two Christianities because that the religion's doctrines themselves are contradictory, not you or me or anyone. Nobody who follows Christianity can ever be fully integrated because the religion itself contains so many conflicting points that only a truly higher power could resolve. I also didn't intend to imply that you lie to your wife; nor did I ever lie to my wife; I was simply telling you how I confronted the same contradictions in Christianity and came up with a compromise I could live with. To quote the classic breakup speech, "really, this isn't about you, I love you." It's about the faith itself.

J

[APMountianMan]

:angel: Hugs

[JohnnyV]

KISSES AND MUCH MUCH RESPECT.

:tongue: :bowdown:

LOVE TO ALL.

:grouphug:

[usedbear1950]

I was raised as a Catholic. I attended Catholic grammar and High schools. When I asked the priest and nuns questions about religion and faith I was basically ignored. I saw these clerics fail greatly at what some call christian charity. I decided at a young age to do my own version of a comparative religion course.
I was chosen by text book publising company to read and comment on their history books while I was in grammar school. That coupled with my reading about religion was an amazing education. Another variable in the equation is that I grew up in NYC, Manhattan. I was exposed to different cultures from childhood.
I had always had a problem with original sin and the nature of Christ. In the begining I thought that these were separate questions, in the end I have found out that they are not.
Shakespheare call this protoplasmic mass we inhabit as, "this mortal coil..." I was fascinated with the description of Christ as he fasted in the desert and his words while on the cross. In a nut shell here is what I found, for me anyway, that original sin is this mortal coil. In Exodus when God bans Adam & Eve from the Garden of Eden, ...they KNEW that they were naked..." Not that they saw they were naked, they had always been naked. The fig leaf was the churches reaction to original sin. In the desert the devil gives Christ some severe temptation. On the cross he asks his Father to take this burden from him. All of this told me two things: 1) that this body with all its needs and desires is our burden and 2) that while Christ was in a human body he was human.
None of this has made me a better Catholic because to this day no cleric will entertain the premise even only for purposes of conjecture.
Therefore my religion is more closely related to a Chinese menu (some from column A and some from column B) than any established religion. My choice from these columns is not based on expediency but on serious thought. I try to apply the same give and take arguement that rabbi's give in the mishna & gemara.
Then there is the zen influence that by when you come upon the right direction you will know intrinsically because it is in accord with nature.
However with all that thought process I went through I think that pastafarianism may speak to my italian heritage.
:2cents: :paw: :upside: :smoke:

[laidback]

I really don't know how to respond to JohhnyV at this point. I am amazed at how you twist history to meet your left wing bias in everything and wondered how long this would take to become a blast against the right wing in the US. 70 million Indians died mostly from disease and certainly not in the name of God becuase the first Europeans here were not very Christian people. they were criminals and the dregs of society for the most part escaping from Europe. Did the treat Indians badly? yes they did. Did the Indians treat people badly? Yes they did. Theywere brutal against enemy tribes. North Korea and Vietnam were American Chritian wars? That is laughable in the extreme. The last time i looked at history of Korea the North Koreans invaded South korea and killed hundreds of thousands of them. The US with the aid of the UN fought back. And it stareted under a Democratic presidency...but let's not let fatcs intrude. Vietnam the last I read about it was started in a very small way under a Republican president,Eisenhour, but was truly accelerated under gasp 2 democratic presidents kennedy and Johnson. It continued under Nixon but was also ended by Nixon. I fail to see how his Quaker upbringing made it a Christian war. Your accounting of the deaths around the world by Christians is at odds with the facts. You ignore the millions of Chinese dead under Japan and in the centuries before the west even set foot in China. The Mongols killed untold millions more throughtout Asia and the middle east and Eastern europe. How many millions died in India before the British took it over? How many people were Killed by Moslems as they spread from the Middle east? Inconvenient facts to you I am sure. As Saddam, how can you say he is not to be counted? How many Sunnis died in his reign of terror versus Shiites? If that wasnt based on his religions then no one has died from religion in the world. Saddam as moderate is also laughable. I am sure the Kurds would disagree with that. Did the French kill and mistreat Jews? Certainly as did the Italians and especially the Spanish. But you continue to miss my point that these were the acts of men hiding behind religion to excuse what they did. To say that the Catholics and Protestants did nothing to stop the Holocaust is again innaccurate and there was a very active anti nazi underground in Germany divided between communists and Protestants and Catholics and Jews.. Hundreds of priests and ministers were killed or imprisoned for speaking out against it. But again lets not let facts intrude on your leftist viewpoint of Christianity. See what you told tattooed punk and moonlitwish about a mind-forged manacle. It applies to you too.
I am sure you will dismiss my position as an ignorant conservative and that is your perogative.

[JohnnyV]

Laidback,

I'm a Christian. But I am not afraid of criticizing what Christians have done. Many of the facts you cite are still the subject of historical debate, so I hesitate to split hairs. Based on the research I have done, which is extensive but obviously not exhaustive, I stand by the facts that I wrote to you. I wrote them, by the way, with the intention of furthering respectful discussion, and I meant no disrespect to conservatives. If you look at what I wrote to Iowabiguy, you can see that I am not afraid of criticizing the Left.

I bid you peace, my peace I bid you.

J

[Michael623]

Namaste

[APMountianMan]

I really don't know how to respond to JohhnyV at this point. I am amazed at how you twist history to meet your left wing bias in everything and wondered how long this would take to become a blast against the right wing in the US. 70 million Indians died mostly from disease and certainly not in the name of God becuase the first Europeans here were not very Christian people. they were criminals and the dregs of society for the most part escaping from Europe. Did the treat Indians badly? yes they did. Did the Indians treat people badly? Yes they did. Theywere brutal against enemy tribes. North Korea and Vietnam were American Chritian wars? That is laughable in the extreme. The last time i looked at history of Korea the North Koreans invaded South korea and killed hundreds of thousands of them. The US with the aid of the UN fought back. And it stareted under a Democratic presidency...but let's not let fatcs intrude. Vietnam the last I read about it was started in a very small way under a Republican president,Eisenhour, but was truly accelerated under gasp 2 democratic presidents kennedy and Johnson. It continued under Nixon but was also ended by Nixon. I fail to see how his Quaker upbringing made it a Christian war. Your accounting of the deaths around the world by Christians is at odds with the facts. You ignore the millions of Chinese dead under Japan and in the centuries before the west even set foot in China. The Mongols killed untold millions more throughtout Asia and the middle east and Eastern europe. How many millions died in India before the British took it over? How many people were Killed by Moslems as they spread from the Middle east? Inconvenient facts to you I am sure. As Saddam, how can you say he is not to be counted? How many Sunnis died in his reign of terror versus Shiites? If that wasnt based on his religions then no one has died from religion in the world. Saddam as moderate is also laughable. I am sure the Kurds would disagree with that. Did the French kill and mistreat Jews? Certainly as did the Italians and especially the Spanish. But you continue to miss my point that these were the acts of men hiding behind religion to excuse what they did. To say that the Catholics and Protestants did nothing to stop the Holocaust is again innaccurate and there was a very active anti nazi underground in Germany divided between communists and Protestants and Catholics and Jews.. Hundreds of priests and ministers were killed or imprisoned for speaking out against it. But again lets not let facts intrude on your leftist viewpoint of Christianity. See what you told tattooed punk and moonlitwish about a mind-forged manacle. It applies to you too.
I am sure you will dismiss my position as an ignorant conservative and that is your perogative.

Your point, if I may paraphrase, that the victor in war will always proclaim that God was on the side of their cause is historically correct. We both seem to understand that men launch wars in the name of God when God may have no desire for war. It is, however, rare that any people go to war without seeking the blessing of the divine. In this it could be said that most war is divinely ordained. Even when the Hebrews did not institute war and war was waged against them they saw this as a sign or punishment of God for their sins. I understand the intellectual argument that men do evil in the name of God, but it seems to me that God should have the power to stop such abuses of his name. This is why I do not believe that God is an external being. I speak now as the heretic.

To me the calling an action sin is fundamentally no different than saying I do this wrong in the name of God. Whatever good is done is done by the person. Whatever wrong is done is done by the person. Where then is God and sin?

What I see is that the Law, or man's spiritual constructs within a social context, causes the destruction of peace in the world. Do I mean that we should have a lawless state? Of course not. What I do mean is that the great battle is not with each other but within each person, but that this battle is projected outwardly in the terms of religious rhetoric that unleashes hatred and war in the world. I am not advocating a state without religion but the spread of spirituality in its purest form.

Men have killed each other for time immemorial over objections of lifestyle and the desire to have another’s property, and called it holy war. Was that not really what the Israelite war against the Hitties et al was about, an objection over the lifestyle of the Hitties and a desire to have the land that the Hitties occupied? What war was not land and ideology based? Do we not today observe hatred toward people that others believe have strange customs? Is not the gay marriage debate a debate of ideology? What do gays do in the bedroom? That is too strange to think about. Let’s make a law against it.

I can no more defend the religious rights’ war against the GLBT communities any more than I could defend the radical lefts’ war against religious freedom. Both far right and far left are intolerant. The spirit that will bring us together and allow freedom and peace in the world is not somewhere in the middle but above the fray. That spirit will allow each person to reflect on his or her own persona, accept him or herself, and thereby accept others for who they are without discourse or rancor. By this I mean that the true war is not political or religious, but spiritual. God, if he or she does exist, is within each of us. Therefore all hatred and war is God driven, and done in the name of God. That being true, it is also true that all peace, acts of kindness, and love are God ordained. The choice is ours of which we will partake.


:cool:

[laidback]

Thank you AP for seeing my point. PEOPLE proclaim wars in God's name not God. I agree with your post totally. The left is in a war against religion and has been for some time. The radical right has also been conducting a war againat others also. neither is right. I know many in here see me as a hard core right winger and that is fine if you do. It doesn/t make me one just because you think I am. I do not support Pat Robertson or jerry Falwell any more than I support the radical Ted Kennedy or Dean. I believe that people make choices based on their own foibles but then conduct themselves in the name of something. Be it God, Allah, Tao or Confucious. That is wrong but to ascribe what they do to religion is also wrong. If they were truly religious they wouldn't do what they do. Greed, jealousy and avarice are what motivates people to do evil. They cloak it in religion but it is not religious.
Thanks again AP. I appreciate your clarity against my fumbling. LOL

[APMountianMan]

I believe that people make choices based on their own foibles but then conduct themselves in the name of something. "

foibles" Some words just make me smile! You're welcome Laidback. I understand completely.

:cool:

[usedbear1950]

It is not God, Adonai, Allah, Tao, Confusious, Zeus, Thor, Buddha, etc. who I have a problem with. It's the used car salesmen who profess to speak for him. There is no difference between Stalin and Torquemada or Al Qaida and the KKK.
And please don't defend the Catholic Church's lack of action during the Holacaust. The not so pious Pope Pious was more concerned about the Vatican than Christian principles. Not unlike the French and their beloved Paris.
Didn't the multiple destuctions of the temple in Jerusalem indicate to us that God was trying to tell us that building don't matter. People matter.
If religion uses the name of God to promote their killing and thievery then that is the definition of blasphemy, profanity and debauchery.
There is nothing that will deter my belief in God and there is nothing that will force me to join ANY religion.
We should all refrain from the conservative/liberal labeling. It does not promote discussion, as is the intention of JohnnyV, just arguement.

Love each other and in that act you will praise God.

[JohnnyV]

Thanks, Used Bear.

:)

[laidback]

I am not defending the Catholic church during the Holocaust. I wish people would read what I type. I agree the Pope did little or nothing to stop Hitler. But individual priests did and they paid the price so do not belittle their efforts.

[Iowabiguy]

[QUOTE=JohnnyV]

Fourth, to Iowabiguy, why do you live in Iowa? Move to New York so I can hang out with you. I agree completely that an extremist wing of one political party has hijacked the label of Christianity and something has to be done about it. I also try to hold people on the Left accountable for sometimes misunderstanding what leads people to religion. For instance, I think Drew's post about the Giant Spaghetti Monster is hysterical -- I laughed my ass off -- but while I accept that kind of discussion from the Left, I know it can't be the only thing the Left offers. I feel the need to supplement those liberal sentiments with other kinds of liberalism that make peace with most people's inner attraction to spirituality and faith. People do not become religious because they are hateful, self-righteous, brainwashed, or ignorant. They do so, usually, out of a sincere desire to live well and contribute positively to the world around them. Whether religion actually aids them in finding that goodness is of course a whole other question -- I'd argue that religion derails that instinct more often than honing it. But the quest shall continue.

Johnny,
You mentioned in another post that you gave the Left a hard time as well as the Right. I agree that you give the Right some much deserved crap but I did not find this to be much of a slam at all.
I really think that those of the Left who are hardcore Humanists who denounce all spirituality in favor of science do not understand that human need for Spirituality. The reason Unitarian Universalism has grown so much in the last ten years or so is because there has been an effort to incorporate spirituality into its message. People want and need to feel that their is something bigger than themselves; whatever it may be called. Spirit of Life, Collective Conciousness, the Over-Soul, Mother Earth, God, The Goddess or whatever you feel comfortable with.
I believe that a heart-felt search for truth and meaning is what we are commanded to do in this life and if that is religion then it is not only a helpful path but one that results primarily in doing good for oneself and the wider community.

[JohnnyV]

I am not defending the Catholic church during the Holocaust. I wish people would read what I type. I agree the Pope did little or nothing to stop Hitler. But individual priests did and they paid the price so do not belittle their efforts.


Against all my better judgment, I am going to reply to this, and if you turn this into a right-wing/left-wing dogfight I'll just hold my peace from then on. I understand what Usedbear was getting at, because it is similar (I think) to my motives for posting the earlier point about Christian collaboration with Hitler. Hitler has become so much the symbol of total evil that historians have scrambled to write Holocaust history so that tons of other groups are distanced from how he came to power. For instance, Hitler won second place in a national election and after the chancellor died, he advanced legally to a leadership position in the Weimar Republic. But historians have tried very hard not to emphasize the fact that Hitler came to power through democracy; instead they want to focus on his dictatorial governance later in the 1930s, in order to contrast "democracy" as a blameless foil to "fascism." Mind you, I am not defending Hitler or saying that democracy should be thrown out forever; I'm merely pointing out that "evil" atrocities often have ties to concepts or systems that we like to embrace as good.

Okay, so to my main point here: Historians have worked to overcome their war guilt about the Holocaust, largely by circulating this idea that Hitler was anti-Christian as well as anti-Jewish. So many historical accounts have focused on the fact that he imprisoned some Catholic dissidents in concentration camps early in his tenure. And the stories of clergy who sheltered Jews during the crackdowns or Kristallnacht fit nicely into the story. Yes, of course, there were some clergy who did do these feats of decency -- mind you, I don't consider this sainthood, since it seems like something that any humane person would do during such extremism. In the middle of a pogrom, I wouldn't expect to be glorified by history simply because I let six Jews sleep in my basement for three weeks and then sent them on their way to safety.

My main objection to this version of history is that it skirts the central truth about the Third Reich's religious rhetoric. The Nazis did appeal to religious ideas. If you watch "Triumph of the Will" much of Hitler's rhetoric is about German martyrdom, and the symbolism comes almost directly from the "suffering servant" story in Isaiah. The SS based its structure on St. Ignatius Loyola's model of the original Jesuits [I say this even as I identify with the Jesuits] and the concentration camps, according to one camp of researchers, seem to have been based originally on the infrastructure used to form missionary schools to convert American Indians. Kristallnacht occurred after Hitler gave a martyr's burial to a German killed by one Jew in Paris, and the ceremony used plentiful Christian symbols to try to appropriate Christian sanctimony into the swastika.

The "Reich" that Hitler was trying to revive with his nostalgia was the Holy Roman Empire, which had earlier claimed to seat Christendom in Germany. Yes, his party also used the theories of Nietzsche (badly, I might add, since Nietzsche criticized ideas like theirs), but the mass of Germans who had to go along with the Nazi plan, in order for it to work, had to hear a religious justification. Religion was one tool of many that made it possible for so many millions of people to sacrifice their own happiness for a national cause that would end up condemning them eternally in the history books. You can't call it greed, since those farmer families knew they had little personal gain from sacrificing their sons on foreign battlefields.

And despite the heroic attempts by a few clergy to resist the Holocaust, overwhelmingly churches were involved in Hitler's political ideas. They blessed the Nazi troops and often helped to identify Jews to authorities. When women heiled Hitler, they swore fealty to the three K's, which were in German: children, kitchen, and church.

The post-Holocaust Christian fantasy that Hitler was an atheistic aberration, possibly implanted by Satan, and that tens of millions of German churchgoers had nothing to do with the devastation of that war, is simply dangerous, in my view, because it allows Christians to believe that their religion has an innate safeguard, and as long as they go to church, they won't be responsible for any devastation wrought by their own government. That is really all I meant by my original posts, Laidback. Because I AM Christian, I hold people of my faith to very high standards. The Third Reich does not make me proud because a few people of my faith tried to stop it; it makes me incredibly ashamed because so many more of my faith did nothing or helped to make it happen.

In the end, this simply motivates me to take a more outspoken position against distorted Christian rhetoric in my own country which resembles the rhetoric used in Germany. Unfortunately, this may mean getting politically specific, since the right-wing homophobes' rhetoric is also tied into our country's foreign policy, and that is largely all centered in the fundamentalist/conservative branches of Christianity rather than the liberal ones.

Okay, so does this mean that Christianity is evil and therefore everyone should stop worshipping any god? No way. I would never imply anything like that. I actually take what Christ preached seriously, so I feel it's my duty to speak up and take action. And I do. I go to protests when I disagree with foreign policy and as a writer, I write columns that attack warlike fundamentalist rhetoric. I have been active in a movement to counter the Christian Right's anti-gay campaigns.

I hope that clears it up, Laidback. If you look at what you wrote and what I and many others wrote, you'll see that we are all thinking very similar things but just wording it diffferently. And since you (and maybe everyone these days) are a little sensitive about the liberal/conservative schism, the labels are making it seem as though there's a huge difference of opinion when there really isn't.

If all else fails and you still hate my "left-wing bias" just tell yourself: people with your right-wing beliefs hold the whole United States in their power right now and liberals are effectively disenfranchised. So what I say is practically pointless (though I say it anyway.) With the power of your camp comes responsibility -- you will have to answer to what happens in the years to come, more than I, because that's what happens when you win an argument, as your camp has.

Blessings,
J

:angel:

[Michael623]

Haven't we gotten a little bit off the mark on the original question?

[laidback]

LOL ok truce...but I would be inteested Johnny in your viewpoint on the illegal war in Serbia conducted by the Clinton Administration and whether you feel that was a christian assault on Serbia. You may respond to me via a PM if you wish and we can take it out of this forum.

[SaulOhio]

Drew,
But to those who are generally opposed to all religion in favor of science, I have one follow-up: Doesn't science contribute as much to homophobia and biphobia as religion?

It was science that gave us the clinical terms to describe homosexuality as a psychic disorder for over 100 years.

I am atheist, also. I see nothing in science that says anything about alternative sexual preferences being "wrong" or a disorder. In fact, observation of animals, both in captivity and the wild shows numerous examples of homosexual behavior. The early work defining homosexuality as a disorder were partly pseudoscience presented as sophistry to support existing prejudices, and some of it was probably simly mistakes made in any new science.

[rumple4skin]

I was raised Roman Catholic. I cannot claim to belong to any organized religion at this point. I guess I could not have reconciled the religion of my youth with my current outlook on things because I was told either I believed or I did not. The root of the problem for me was that while I thought there were great lessons in the bible and other religious writings I did not believe that they were “the word of GOD”. I have looked into different religions. I find things in all of them that I like and don’t like. Now I take a more spiritual approach to things and that works well for me. Have enjoyed reading the other posts on this thread. Thanks for asking the question J.

[biron]

Ok well here goes - I have a science and arts background!! lol!!

I was brought up a Baptist and undertook adult baptism at the age of 18 - but by the time I was 20 I was a Hindu and living in an Ashram!!! lol!! :) .

Now I attend a Church Of England community locally (after a break of five years - although I first went there in 1989 - and actually returned "by accident" just last Sunday [13th February '06] but was made SO welcome by old friends that I shall be returning).

I'm happy to describe myself as a "Christian" - and certainly don't view my sexuality as a "deviance"!!! I am what I am and I believe that my God knows and accepts that as a fact about the "real me".

Science has several theories about evolution and a paper that I wrote at college way back at the beginning of the 1970's that earned me a good grade would now be laughed at and gain me an "F" for failed!!! lol!

The "beginning" of time/space/Creation/big bang - whatever - is also a series of theories and also not provable (at least not as yet).

The problem with understanding here is the difference between "Religion/Theology" on the one hand and "Faith" on the other.

Science AND most religions are "down" on any form of homosexuality. But this is to do with the bigoted attitude of the people concerned not the fault of either "Science" or "Religion".

Group psychology is at work within Church groups - support - shared beliefs etc. and if it makes life's rocky road any easier to cope with and causes no harm or offence to other people where is the harm in it? :)

I have a VERY strong belief in the "interior" life - of "natural highs" through meditation etc. I hope it makes me a calmer and more loving human being - can that be a "wrong" thing?

Byron :)

[sammie19]

What deviance?? What faith?

[huneypot]

Im a buddhist.
fo anyone who knows lilltle about this i ave written the following

Buddhists perceive the ultimate reality of life equally within all human beings, and accordingly respect the dignity of all people. As one begins to recognize this, one understands that one must awaken others to the dignity of their own lives. One's belief urges one to teach and help others awaken to the ultimate reality existing within so that they can create truly happy lives. In that way one is helping others attain Buddhahood. Those who truly strive for the sake of others are called "bodhisattvas." The power, which infuses them with the desire to help others, is the impartial and infinite compassion of the Buddha called jihi.

The two goals of Buddhism, then, are the attainment of Buddhahood and the fulfillment of the requirements of the bodhisattva. Interestingly, they are restated in Immanuel Kant's idea that self-perfection and other people's happiness are at once the purposes and obligations of human beings, unconsciously echoing principles expounded at least 2,300 years before Kant's time. This shows that a universal teaching can and will reappear in entirely different cultural mediums.

No clear definition of Buddhism can be readily given. There are many explanations about what Buddhism is, presented from many different angles. Therefore, an attempt to formulate an explanation, which is understandable and satisfactory to everyone, is a virtual impossibility.

Buddhists believe in the soul, the spirit, the Buddha within.................... sexuality is merely a part of the body "guesthouse" that we are given in this life ...............
therefore i have no problem with the intertwinment of my sexuality and my faith

hope i havn't bored the arse off u all :)

[Qetesh]

Wiccan. (sort of Pagan). Basically nature loving (not in a tree hugging kinda way, LOL). Take everyone for who they are, we are all equal. Love life and live it to the full! Could be why I'm so open minded....

Q x

[PeterH]

Hi everybody,

Having read this thread, long after it was started, I feel an urge to post.
First of all: Johnny, thank you for starting this interesting discussion. It gave rise to very interesting discussion.

My own religious views
My own religious belief is theistic: I do believe in some sort of God, but am hesitant to identify with any specific religion. I was brought up as a protestant and afterwards have studied Gaiasophy, agnosticism, Judaism, Buddhism.
I actually was an agnostic from age 20 to age 32 (roughly), and was an adherent of what I would call of scientism, accepting only scientific knowledge and found any religious issue undecidable. At around age 30, while doing a PhD, I personally ran aground and accepted the failing of my scientistic belief system. I started looking for alternatives and called myself a fundamental somethingist for a while. that meant that I believed in something, without actually knowing what it was. I experimented with religious techniques and studied religious concepts, and finally became very happy with good old prayer, which to me worked better than meditation in certain ways. Then I decided that since prayer worked for me, and since i was praying to someone, that must mean there is some sort of God. And that's how I became a theist.

My most important discovery in this whole search has a bearings on a major issue in this thread, i think. It was that, although I need to find my own answers, I cannot decide that my answers are truths, unless I discuss them with others first. My definition of truth is that what people agree on. If I discuss something with somebody, and we disagree, I cannot claim to hold the truth. This doctrine is very common in science, where peer review is a demand for any paper to get published and I feel it is a very strong point in science.
More relevant to this discussion, I feel that it is a weak point in religion. People tend to think that if they believe in the tenets of their religion, they are unconditionally right, they hold the eternal truth. And of course, once you hold the truth, the step to extreme acts is very small indeed. This and the power of religions to unite people, make them very susceptible to being abused for the wrong purposes.


:offtopic: Taking a little sidestep
I think that religions can learn something from science, and ought to open their doctrines up to debate, it is essential, especially in our multicultural society.
I also feel that it is time for Christianity to change, and my reason for that lies in history of Christianity itself.
If one looks at Christianity, It started at the time of the Roman empire, at a time that east met west, as a result of the conquests of Rome. This led to a lot of cultural mixing. Old views were contrasted with new ones. Religious ideas from Greece, Rome, Judea and countries further to the east mixed. And what is Christianity? It is a religion that was able to integrate these ideas into one new belief system, taking the best of all worlds and transforming it into something new. Later, when the world was Christianized, pagan aspects were integrated in the religion (think of the Christmas tree), to make the new religion more palatable to the new believers.
What do we see today? Christianity meets Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and some older more nature oriented religions (...and, in my view, science, think of the evolution debate). We see the frictions betwen these systems, see how people start to challenge the old beliefs, start to embrace new ones. We see people challenging old rules about which lifestyles are acceptable, and which are taboo. In other words, we see debates springing up that touch on the very roots of our religious beliefs.
In my view, the situation we are faced with today is very similar to that of 2000 years ago, and I feel the solution will be similar as well. A new religion might arise from the old ones, or the old ones will adapt and integrate and absorb the new ideas, functioning as a religious melting pot. I see this as a form of religious evolutions. The more flexible ones will survive, the obsolete ones will loose support and become marginalized

I see this as the way ahead, were it not for one strange counterexample: Judaism. Jews have lived in exile for almost 2000 years, living in societies where other religions dominated, but still were able to keep their own religious identity, and in fact are now back in their religious homeland, a truly remarkable feat.


Getting back to the main point
So what has all this to do with bisexuality?
As may be clear from the statements made above, I see religion as something fluid, and therefor feel that it is necessary to incorporate bisexuality into religion. I am not too worried by others who condemn it on basis of doctrine, but I would like to discuss the issue with people who are willing to listen. I haven't really gotten to the point where I can integrate my bisexuality with my religious views, but I am definitely on the way. One way of doing this, was by posting the threads 'does anyone share these views on bisexuality', 'Uncertain about bisexuality and morals' and 'the science of bisexuality', which were very useful in comparing my own views with others.
I thank all who posted here for taking the time to add their bit to the interesting discussion and look forward to new contributions.

Peter

[mike9753]

Hi Folks:
I have not read this entire forum, but I will share my thoughts. I was born into a very Catholic home. My mother was a "super-duper Catholic". She went to Mass every day, said novenas all the time and was a smart, wonderful, Irish woman. I hope I can be one tenth as good a person as she.

But my faith in God is different. My thinking has evolved to the understanding that the traditions and rites of religion are more for the those who need it. While I believe in God, I am not at all sure that I believe in religions. I have studied many over the years: Christianity, Islam, Buddism, Hinduism, and others and many have some fundamental things in common. For instance, I believe that Mohammed was such a good man, that had he been a Catholic, he might have been considered a saint! There are many fundamental truths in Islam, that are common to Christianity and other great religions that to me, it is a wonder that we battle and shed blood over religious differences. I lived in the Middle East for 4 years and know of many wonderfully good people who I consider to be my friends to this day. Christianity does not have the market cornered on good people by any means.

I am not thrilled with how rich the Roman Catholic Church seems to be. I think all that wealth could be spread around to help many more people. But fundamentally, when it comes to basic, core beliefs, I do think that they are pretty much on target. But no religion, as far as I am concerned has it all right. No religion is free from the need to perpetualte itself and that is religion's greatest flaw.

I am of the opinion that religion should last as long as it is needed, but not longer. The theology that each religion espouses may be significant enough to last, but the religious institutions themselves need to see themselves as having a built-in obsolescence.

So for me and my sexuality, and how I reslove the seemingly different views of behavior, it's fairly simple. I adhere to a few principles:

1. Do the right thing, no matter what the cost.
2. Do no harm to others (like the Hippocratic Oath).
3. Keep it simple, Stupid. (I am too simple to have multiple emotional/sexual affairs).
4. Give myself to my partner - commit to her because I love her.
5. Respect others and treat them as I'd like them to treat me.
6. Be kind to others, because it's much easier to be kind than to be mean.
7. Believe in my fellow humans and expect that they will believe in me (at least on average).
8. Be honest with myself and with others.
9. Learn what I can from whoever I can - everyone has something to teach me.
10. Flush the toilet after I go.

Religion (the strict adherence to religious dogma and behavioral proscriptions) is for those who need it. I have my own set of principles, so I don't need what religion has to offer. So I pick and chose. For instance, I get great satisfaction out of going to Mass.

Did this confuse anyone? It's clear to me, so if I was confusing, please let me know.

Mike

[innaminka]

I started to lose "faith" (no pun intened) in organised religion somewhere in late Primary school.
By the time I went to college, I just didn't. For some obscure reason my first marraige was in a church, but .....I don't know why.

I honestly just think organised religion is a farce of political shapechanging.
This is not to denigrate the wonderful work that members of most churches do in our community: I wish I was so selfless.

Personally I have no religion: this is it baby, this life. Make of it what you will.

I admire people who have strong personal faith of any description, but cannot but abhor the way a small minority of many religions use their faith as an excuse to release their hatereds and psychopathic illnesses.

[darkeyes]

1. I aint religious. 2. I def aint deviant! Im me. Tel me wot the hell sexual deviance is??

[f.bi2]

This is probably a little late but I wanted to reply to such an interesting thread.

I'm glad to see others have travelled the road of religion hunting. I was baptised Anglican, brought up and confirmed catholic, practised Hindu in my late teens. I stayed an atheist until three years ago when I read an English version of the Koran, and found I agreed with a lot of the teachings. However I have always believed in spirits and communicating with them through mediums which is a deviance of many faiths and frowned upon by many in the Christian community, I think more so than homosexuality.

So after that journey.... I am a spiritualist Christian, we believe in one God and many beliefs. Our sermons contain readings from the bible and the Koran.

:tong:

[glantern954]

I believe that organized religion was developed strictly to control people. Although I don't consider it right for myself, I see where it has positive and useful applications for some people.

[Driver 8]

I believe that organized religion was developed strictly to control people. Although I don't consider it right for myself, I see where it has positive and useful applications for some people.
... people who benefit from being controlled? ;)