|
Video Blogs
More Video
Navigation |
God Hates Fags (where we come from)I was taking a moment to mosey throught the "groups" section of the social networking tool, "Facebook" and stumbled across a link to the site godhatesfags.com and also one to godhatesamerica.com The gist is that they condemn western societies, America in-particular, for incurring God's wrath (of the sh*t scary with added venom variety) for sins such as condoning homosexuality (whether they actually do I suppose is debatable and subject to personal opinion). Anyhoo, I was aware of people having massively "far-right" views on the matter and that gay bashing is something of a legitimate sport to some people, but it never occured to me that these groups were quite so organised, especially in the USA (I did some reading around the sites (wikipedia etc), people like Fred Phelps reared their ugly heads once or twice). Has anyone encountered any of these people on a personal level? And so I'm wondering what your views are. Are you religious and how do you justify being gay and religious? Are you openly gay within your religious comminity or closeted, and in both cases, why? If your family is religious does this affect you and their tolerence of you, and how? Do you think religion has or ever has had a positive and worthwhile function in society, and is it relevent now or just an anachronistic security blanket? Blind faith and ID vs scientific theory...what do you think? Submitted by Belladonna (78 posts) on March 18, 2007 - 12:44pm. |
News, Reviews & Commentary on Lesbian and Bisexual women in Entertainment and the Media
wow...
you know, it's weird that you just opened this topic today...
I'm not a very religious person, although I do believe in God and I used to go to church almost every week. I've thought about this whole church vs homosexuality thing a lot lately, specially because one of my best friends is very religious and she even wanted to become a nun. She doesn't know that I'm gay, and we were just talking the other day about this, and I was just about to come out to her, but I didn't. I don't know why. Something held me back...
I feel that believing in God and trusting the church are two different things. God loves everyone. Period. And that's why all this crap about the church's intolerance hasn't made me lose my faith... I just stopped believing in the church.
clonchi
Please don't come out to your best friend until you know how she thinks about homosexuality?. I feel exactly like you. I don't believe in the church or any other person that doesn't accept human beings as God's creations.
I mean I believe and love God with all my heart but I don't want to be part of the haters. I would like to be in a group where people love and don't judge each other no matter what. I don't know if this religion exists.
thnx
Are there people who don't
Are there people who don't judge others? At all? Ever?
------------------------------------------------------------
~The blue sky reaches so far that none can escape it~
i was raised very christian
since i was raised in a christian family and even went to christian school as a child, i find that in my teen and early adult life i have surrounded myself with a lot of christian people, which does make it difficult being in the situation that i'm in (lesbian). i havent come out to any of my christian friends yet, except one, who took it well enough.
i'm not sure how this can be justified, if at all in the christian faith. i know that in the bible it says that homosexuality is wrong, and as my mom likes to say, if you're going to write off one thing the bible says, it seems a difficult task to truly believe the rest of it. i guess this is why i have considered myself to not be very religious since entering adolescence, when i seriously started considering the possibility that i was gay. then again, having been raised with such a way of thinking, it's quite difficult to suddenly try and deny everything i was brought up thinking. right now i'm just kind of living under the belief that there is a god, and neither myself nor anyone else can say anything more than that, because no one has that kind of authority.
as for christians in general, i think that they kind of see homosexuality as being equated with something like alchoholism, in a sense. they believe that it's bad, and that the temptation to partake in it is real, but that people should abstain from it because it only causes problems. the more liberal christians may associate with or even accept the homosexuality, but deep down i know that a lot of them think that we're going to hell. i guess that just has to deal with a belief system, and not necessarily an underlying hatred. like i said, growing up with this kind of thinking kind of helps me understand it a little more, even if i don't agree with it.
Just a note
For the record, a close reading of the bible shows that the various condemnations are about prostitution and pederasty. As for Soddom and Gommorrah theologians still debate what the actual sin was. Though, the growing number of (non-Catholic and some of them too, depending on where you're speaking of) Christians believe that it was inhospitality combined with Lot's offering of his daughter to be raped by the locals. As for the Old Testament, much of those laws were designed simply to encourage procreative sex and so are biased to that end. I mean, if you're passing law over a nation of people living in a desert at a time when the longevity of your religion, race, ethnicity et. al. is tenuous at best, you're going to want everyone to be having kids.
I mean, when you get down to it, homosexuality as an identity, not a sex act, has only existed for about 150 years. So all of those writings are condemning acts that had very different meanings to their societies than in our own. If you pay close attention to all of the writings there's a standing theme of the "passive" partner being taken advantage of, or of prostitution or some other implied lack of choice, there is nothing about a loving partnership.
Fred Phelps has been around
Fred Phelps has been around for quite some time, as has his godhatesfags website, but he never really achieved national notoriety until the past 2 yrs or so when his Westboro Baptist Church began “protesting” the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. How they equate these soldiers with homosexuality is beyond me, but logic and reason have never been the forté of people like Phelps.
It was the picketing of these funerals by WBC that led to the “Respect for Fallen Heroes Act”, passed here last year, which dictates that funeral demonstrations be held a respectable distance from the actual service. Also interesting is that before this legislation was passed, a group of veterans and bikers started the Patriot Guard – a group that attends the funerals of soldiers and provides a “shield” between the family/mourners and the WBC.
Personally, I’m not religious so I never had to reconcile that with being gay. While I believe organized religion serves a purpose, I feel it’s been horribly twisted and distorted here in the US. Religion is now more apt to divide people and engender hatred than it is to provide comfort, faith, or minister to the sick, poor, etc.
That said, I’m always surprised by people who stay closeted because of religion. I realize that many live in close familial circles and are subjected to the type of close scrutiny those relationships/religions demand, but I’d find it hard to live like that. I don’t know if there’s a heaven or hell (tho I’m dubious) – but what I do know is that God or whoever made me this way, and I’m here on earth now. Denying who I am seems intrinsically opposed to any kind of meaningful or satisfying life.Zara, just a side note...you
Zara, just a side note...you mentioned that you weren't sure how Fred Phelps and his followers equated fallen soldiers with homosexuality. It really boils down to a LOT of ignorance. People like Fred Phelps believe that AIDS is a disease that only afflicts homosexuals and they also believe that these fallen soldiers are our 'punishment' for the acceptance of the 'gay lifestyle' in general and in turn the spreading of AIDS. At least this is what I've heard/read on the reasoning.
*~...and this is where I want to live, right here between your hips~*
Thanks
...for the response. I guess what I meant was, I’ve read their rationale for picketing funerals (and why they think it relates to homosexuality) - just that it makes no sense. They might as well blame global warming on “acceptance” of gays.
And it’s ironic they see such a widespread acceptance of gays. I live in NY and I don’t see it – so just how homofriendly is Kansas?? I know Dorothy hails from there, but still...
Also, I HATE the term “gay lifestyle” (not from you – I know you put it in quotes), but in general. It’s enough to make a bitch go all kinds of crazy...
Little Slice of Fred
I forgot about this clip with Phelps, Jr. Very funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZPsTM-4qgg
I read about this ages back.
what religion?
Mainly Christianity
simply because it's the subject of the sites I visited, though I'm interested in the views of people from and regarding any religion....I wonder about Buddhism, or is that a philosophy(?).
still crazy after all these years
Buddhism vs. homosexuality
Buddhism, as the Middle Way, the path of compromise, seems so innocuous compared to other major religions that there are a substantial number of people who believe it is not one, but it is. There are more precepts and laws than most people realize. It is important to note that Buddhist scriptures differ from others because they lack even a single mention of homosexuality. The Buddha never preached on it, and thus there isn't a consenus on how homosexuality is to be viewed. The closest anyone can come to is a passage urging practitioners to refrain from sexual misconduct, but homosexual acts are not mentioned. There are a variety of opinions on it from leaders of various Buddhist sects, but these opinions vary widely, often conflicting, and have no scriptural basis.
"Better than a thousand useless words is one word that brings us peace."
--The Dhammapada
wow... you bit off a lot there.
First, those web sites actually belong to Fred Phelps, and his happy little family, don't they? In up to their necks at the deep end of the lunacy pool. I only ran into them in Philadelphia a couple years ago, protesting near the National Constitution Center and Liberty Bell Pavilion. I think it was during the Philadelphia Equality Forum week (they have gay pride in Philly, and also this week long summit of gay politics). They were surrounded by cheerful gay folk who humorously marched around them, effectively isolating them from folks there to receive awards. It went well I thought, but then, no one was being buried that day, which is the most offensive activity Phelpsies do - to shout obscenities at funerals.
I'm not religious, though for a brief time I joined the Unitarians. I was out, they were actively supportive, with the minister travelling from Philly to SF to marry a lesbian couple from the congregation. Go UU. I practice meditation inconsistently now, and read a lot of Buddhist inspired stuff. Pema Chodron, etc. I believe in something "God-like", and it's helped me over come some intense challenges.
Two siblings are 'free evangelical' as are their kids and their families. They've been very loving, and generally supportive of me. They gladly hand over their kids to go on vacations with me, invite me to stay over for holidays, and one even offered an organ for a transplant. Can't get too much more loving than that. Doesn't mean they are out joining PFlag. But it's family, you know. Also, at least my sister, they do not get on board with a lot of hatred toward the general gay community, and have not supported (in the last 10 years) various state initiatives (Washington) that would revoke gay rights. They and their positions have matured over the years. Now, I've been out to them for decades, a beloved cousin (died of AIDS) was out, they've met my partners, and we had a brother with mental health issues who was gay. The media has also become increasingly gay friendly over the years (not perfect - but MUCH better). This has all been informative and provided a balance for the religious position of some evangelical leaders. Some may also be the result of the "love the sinner but hate the sin" platitude I despise, but probably better than hate both. My sister said simply "I know too many gay people to go along with that" during the last big anti-gay petition here.
I think there is value in a "security blanket", if that is what one wants to call it. Personally, I think it is much, much more than that. It's a community, a frame work for values for living ones life, a support system for a marriage and the raising of children, caring for the elderly, supporting the weaker members of a community by pooling resources, etc. For some, obviously, it is a deeply heartfelt "faith" in God. When it's not being used as a justification for murder and mayhem, but instead as a basis for love and compassion, faith can be both personally sustaining in times of great affliction, and a source of social good. It was behind the abolition movement and was also used as a justification for slavery. It's as good or bad as people are individually.
Science vs. religion. It's the difference between interpreting religious guidance (in this case the Bible) in the context of history and metaphor, vs. a literal interpretation. To my mind, a faith that embraces a God who is infinitely complex, and actively present in the evolution of life on an ongoing basis, is much more exciting and passionate, bringing God into every minute of everyday. The literal interpretations, to me, seem to relegate God to the past, and ironically, fail to give God full credit for being amazing. I almost bought a photography book at the Grand Canyon National Park, called "A Different View", which I initially thought was a collection of photographs from the bottom of the canyon looking up. Maybe it was metaphorically - but these folks don't do that. It was a Creationist tract about the earth being 6000 years old. This is patently ridiculous in the face of science. To me, these people lack faith in god - as if the Bible were not literally true, line for line, it would call God's existence into question. And that must be terrifying for them, as well as unnecessary and sad.
I've written way too much. But interesting questions
Phelps
We've actually been doing some talking about Phelps and these sites in one of my classes at school. We were shown some of the pics and talked about the first amendment, and we kind of debated whether or not people should have the right to harass people with those signs, etc. Phelps is always hanging around my university, as well, and we tend to get out--gay and straight--to protest him.
Personally, I don't care about religion. My family is splintered when it comes to religion. My mother is religious (southern Baptist), but not psychotically so by any means. However, I know that she doesn't think being gay is right. Still, she is a "real southerner," i.e. she's nice to everyone to their face. She is not the kind to go off on gay people and tell them they are immoral, or to treat someone differently because they are gay. Still, I'm not out to my family and some others--definitely no one from my conservative, religious hometown--for reasons too complex to discuss here (if you're really that interested, I have a blog where I lay all that out, and it's linked in my profile). But it really has nothing to do with religion...I could care less what those people have to say.
My personal view about religion somewhat matches that of the philosopher Nietzsche. I think people use it as a crutch and as a way of not believing in themselves or their inner strength. Everything good has to be attributed to some outside force/source. I think about people thanking God at the Grammys and other awards shows...it's kind of like, "Okay, you didn't sing that song? Or was God moving your lips, working your vocal chords, helping you hit those notes?" Overly simplistic, yes, but that's how I joke about it. I definitely have a man-centered view of the world, so I see no real utility in religion. I tolerate people's religious views more than they tolerate my agnostic/borderline atheist views, certainly. But when I'm asked about my views, I don't hesitate to be straightforward. I also think religion is used as another separatist hate tool (and not just towards homosexuals), and I tell people that, too.
Make up your mind
I'm so over this crap about God hating gays. I was brought up a practising Roman Catholic and as I got older I had the choice of not going to church anymore which I don't now because my faith can be shown in better ways then going to church. (Has anyone ever heard the saying 'Going to church doesn't make you anymore Catholic then standing in a garage makes you a car') My parents aren't okay with me being gay but as it's a recent developement for them, I'm being patient. I was brought up with the belief that God loves us all and has plans for us all, yes this does sound like a load of crock but I believe we all have a purpose. Most importantly my point is: The Vatican have said a number of times that being gay is wrong and that God doesn't love us for being "inverts" but God made me the way that I am and I'm proud to be gay. Also if these dropkicks who quote the bible and put it on the internet were intellegent enough to read it thoroughly they would know, no where in the bible does it say that for a man to love another man or a woman to love another woman is wrong. It does condem anal sex (sodemy) but thats with everyone. No man can have anal sex with another man, a woman or an animal. It doesn't really affect me seeing as God made me a girl, so i don't have a penis haha. But for those who are afraid that if they're gay then God will stike you down, Stop and think. Some of the coolest people in the world are gay! Jodi Foster, Nathan Allen, Rosie O'Donnel and of course ELLEN DE GENERES! common, look at these fabulous people and think hey, I'm proud to be one of them and I pity the narrow-minded ignorant scared fool who is afraid of the things he doesn't understand so condemns us all to hell. make love not war! in this world of hate we should be encouraging love in all its forms not sculpting it with a blunt chisel we call "mainstream society" In the words of TUPAC:
"MAKE LOVE NOT WAR"
peace xXxXx
I have to be honest and
I have to be honest and say that, with the exception of my mother (who told me she could no longer look Jesus in the eye – one of my all time favorites, since there is no way in hell she’d be going to any so called paradise), I have never experienced any hate speech while hiding behind religion (to my face that is, have participated in forums where so called Christians logged on with the sole purpose of gay bashing… It never ceases to amaze me how people go out of their way to hurt others for something that has absolutely no relevance in their own life..)
Regarding religion, I do believe in a unifying power, I believe in the divine, which in my opinion has long parted from religion in general. In my opinion, religion is about power, is about control thru fear… I really do not mean to offend anyone else’s beliefs, I speak only from a very personal point of view, coming from a Roman Catholic background…. It saddens me to see how people hide behind a veil of false righteousness which they use to excuse them of the disrespects that are committed towards fellow human beings, etc, etc. I mean how many wars have been fought behind religion? How much hate speech is uttered whilst hiding behind religion? It always gets to me.. In South Africa, were I live, the civil union bill has just recently been passed, which for all legal purposes, suits me just fine, but what makes my tummy cramp is the fact that the only reason they did not amend the marriage act itself, was because religious groups kicked up such a fuss that instead of changing one word in an act, they drafted an entirely new bill..
Am sorry, that is more of a rant... It just hurts to be judged and “sent to hell” simply for being honest to yourself, and living your life in accordance with your own beliefs rather then in accordance with the rules and regulations / beliefs of organized groups..
"You and I wear the dangerous looseness of doom and find it becoming. Life, for eternal us, is now and now is much to busy being a little more than everything to seem anything, catastrophic included.."
Taken from Facebook....
From the Group: "Legalize Same-Sex Marriage"
If God didn't make homosexuals there wouldn't be any.
Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?
Will God judge me for loving or judge you for hating?
Christianiy does not teach hate
Your prejudice is your own. Don't blame God
And as an aside - I love being Canadian, nothing but support!
Hard to say
I'm a christian..Baptist to be exact and I do believe in God, I go to church almost every Sunday and I talk about my religion to other people even those who probably don't want to hear it, and I am out, but it's not like I go to church and announce it. If they ask, i'll tell them. No "sin" is greater than another other, and I don't let people look down on me or preach and tell me I'm going to hell. Love is a main theme taught thru the Bible, and as people have already said, to love someone is not wrong.. These people judging are committing a sin and they should think twice about what they say to others.
Preaching to people and encouraging them not to have sex until they're married is a good message..and maybe if same sex marriage was legal, I might have waited.. So as far as homosexuals being promiscuous, that's a false statement that doesn't reign tru to say that all of us engage in that..That's what the Bible is talking about, having sex with a lot of people...
Some religious people believe that to allow homosexuals to get married is to spit in the face of Marriage. Yet, what they need to understand is that over half of the country is unmarried, divorced, or something like that.. Homosexuals are not the cause of this..divorce is, affairs are, people havin 4 and 5 kids with 3 different people are..instead of attacking the people who actually want to be together, they need to handle the real problems instead of dancing over it.
In the old testiment it also says that a woman is basically property, she is to serve her husband, that people should get stoned to death when committing a crime, etc. these things are for those times when civilizations didn't have certain technology, medicine, drugs. is it really something that we can still abide by.. It's a sin to have tattoos, and piercings, I mean..like i said no sin is greater than another, so therefore, how many people will be going to hell for that?
It's hard for me in this day and age to believe everything the Bible says..I can't truly maintain a fine line from science and religion, and I fight with it nightly. If I had the choice, I probaly wouldn't go to church a lot, but my mom makes me (time to move out I kno) I just feel that I can't learn to be a better person surrounded by hypocrits.. I have built a realationship with God and I trust that he has made me who I am for a reason. When i first started realizing who I was, I fought it, i cried and I prayed..
My mom said that when u believe something and pray and ask to change God will change u..so I tried and I waited and I truly didn't want to be gay, I wanted to be normal, (what kind of normal i was taught in church) and I never changed, I was depressed and sick all the time, then I finally embraced who i was, and now my prayers are different..I thank God for allowing me to be who I am and happy and able to love. That's a message that more people need to be taught. God doesn't make mistakes.
~I got that remedy~
We're all referring to the same book, right?
Godhatesfags.com and godhatesamerica.com and the people who affiliate themselves with these messages have been condemned by the mainstream public, and in my view rightly so, as hateful individuals. But logically they never stray from what the bible says. How can it really be hate if it is in a book that so many people choose to live their lives by, and call themselves Christians and follow this gospel message from which their hate and their judgements are derived. If it is your religion then isn’t it your book too? So maybe it does not make any sense to criticize their reading of the book. We are all referring to the same book are we not? They quote directly from the good book and frequently paraphrase with detailed reference to books such as Romans and Leviticus. We are talking about seriously religious people (and what other kind is there? Because if you’re not serious about you religion then why do you bother at all?) they study the bible fanatically and quite clearly know what they are talking about. You can’t be selective, you can’t say that it says other than what is plainly on the page regardless of when it was written, and those who argue context must therefore accept that the words are outdated, must they not? The whole book is a collation of lesser narratives and how is it acceptable to take some at face value and some not, simply because it doesn’t suit your agenda? First Kings, First Corinthians, Leviticus, Romans; HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN. Full stop. It’s written all over the bible. If you subscribe, and by all means do, subscribe fully. Religion is the basis for the hatred of homosexuals in our culture so why are these people demonised for merely perpetuating what is so deeply embedded in our society? To my mind they are truly exposing mainstream religion for what it really is. Maybe it is because they damn not just one part of society, but a nation and a culture. Because they say that EVERYONE is going to hell. They make Christians look bad. Well their definition of the bible seems perfectly accurate to me. The atrocities, the smiting, prejudice, righteousness, injustice, it’s all there, read it. Perhaps “liberal Christianity” if such a thing exists dislikes them because they expose the rotten core of an outmoded tradition.
still crazy after all these years
ok
Yes, you can't say that the Bible says one thing and then skip over the rest of it..It's not about the fact they preach the good book, but the way they treat the people..That's why it's hate. No where in the Bible does it say to hate..or judge.
No, some of these people do not study the Bible frantically, some not even at all, they spew out parts of things that other people tell them and then form an argument from what they have been taught.
You talk about using certain passages and leavin out things for agenda..but we all do it. I'm not gonna say we all, but christians, and homosexuals do it too..
The most simple thing to do, that hasn't been done is to separate church and state. This is where the real problem at hand comes into play. In America we are granted freedom of religion, are we not, and in order to protect those, even if I do not agree with them, who don't have a religion or have different moral views (because isn't religion basically a code of morals and ethics on have to live your life) maybe that means elimination of all ties of religion in the government..bcuz the only argument against homosexuality (strong one) is religious. Those problems should be left out of the government and fought somewhere else.
~I got that remedy~
not necessarily the same book
I'm sure others here are waaay more qualified to talk about this than I am. I’m not Catholic, so whatever I know about the bible has been thru my own research, university classes, and discussions with others. Unlike many of my friends, I didn’t go to Catholic school and I wasn’t tortured by nuns.
With that disclaimer, I offer only this:
There are numerous versions of the bible, as well as numerous “Christian” denominations (Roman Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran, etc.). Since I wasn’t raised in the faith, I can't expound in great detail. But I know that even among the various Christian denominations, there’s disagreement on what the bible says, what god means, etc. That’s not even accounting for the fact that the original texts were written in Aramaic and Hebrew – all versions had to be translated. And they’ve all been edited over the years by many people, particularly popes. So, as far as accuracy or continuity, the bible, as text, leaves much to be desired.
People spend their entire lives trying to interpret the bible - the Torah and Talmud as well. If you’ve ever seen scholars - rabbis, for example - argue interpretation, it’s quite fascinating. They can spend days, weeks, arguing over the meaning of a given word.
You asked “How can it really be hate if it is in a book that so many people choose to live their lives by...”
Again, not being a theologian, it seems to me that the bible is full of hate. Just because it’s “written in the bible” doesn’t make it hate-free. The “good” book is full of wars, famines, murder, and stories of a vengeful god. Oh yeah, and an apocalypse.
Just because people believe fervently in the Bible, doesn’t make it “the word of god.” They may say they “live by the book,” but that doesn’t make their book right, much as they’d like it to be. (as a complete aside, I find it hard to believe that anyone really, literally, lives their life today “by the book.” I know the OT has tons of crazy laws/rules governing what people can eat, wear, plant, etc. With the possible exception of the Amish, I don’t know anyone that could live like that in today’s world. And the Amish thing was a joke, btw – pls don’t send me hate mail).
I also don’t think religion is the basis for homophobia in quite the way you state – I think it’s just a justification that people use. Yes, religion can perpetuate hatred of gays, but it’s not the actual basis for homophobia - religion can also spread love and acceptance of others. Hatred of others, esp those that are “different,” is part of human nature. I know homophobes that aren’t religious and religious people who aren’t homophobes . People only use the bible and religion as a way to justify their own fears and rationalize hatred. Now, that’s not to say that religious institutions aren’t homophobic – clearly they are. But I think homophobia – indeed all prejudice – probably precedes the rise of organized religion.
So, I don’t know which version of the bible Fred Phelps uses, nor do I care. Why should his interpretation of the bible, or anyone else's for that matter, take precedent over what I think and feel? If there is a god, I believe It to be a kind and loving one, so I’m not worried about fire or brimstone. IMO, it’s the kind of life we live that matters – what we do with our time here and how we treat others that’s important. And I think if there’s a god, It probably feels the same way. The fact that I’m gay, and that gays have been around since the dawn of time, is the only “proof” I need that there’s nothing wrong about me.
Heh – ok, on 2nd thought, there’s plenty wrong with me, but it doesn’t have to do with being gay.
First Kings, First
OT vs NT
Code3 - This is one reason I find organized religion and their attendant dogmas so arbitrary: I didn’t realize Catholics could just disregard the OT. I know they focus more on the NT, but didn’t know the OT was considered obsolete. Esp since so many people cite passages from Genesis and Leviticus (I think it’s Leviticus) to denounce homosexuality.
But my understanding is that there are parts of the NT that reference homosexuality as well. How open they are to interpretation, I don’t know. As I said, I know very little about the NT. But I don’t think homosexuality is wrong, no matter which book of the bible claims otherwise.
Btw, you said you that “the stuff out of the Old Testament is crazy” – I’m wondering if you feel the same about the NT? Should the NT be taken literally?
As an aside, I have to say I’m in awe of the whole confession rite. I think it’s the greatest loophole ever created. It gives Catholics the right to transgress in a myriad of ways, then just confess, say a bunch of prayers and do penance, thus safely ensuring their place in Heaven.
I’m not being sarcastic or bashing Catholics, btw - I really do find it a fascinating concept. In contrast, Jews only get one day a year to formally atone for their sins.
side note
zarathustra, you were talking about atoning for sins and i just think that it's funny, not haha, but funny that around midevial times, priests used to make the people buy basically a get out of jail free card..they would make them pay for their right into heaven.. they would tell them that they were basically the middle man and they could tell God to forgive their sins by basically paying a tax..if they didn't pay they would go to hell.. and it just makes me think, if that's all it takes, who wouldn't do it..
As far as confessions and all that, I just don't see the point in telling someone else all the things I've done wrong.. I was raisedand told that God knows everything you're doing and so therefore, I talk directly to him..
Where I was gettin at with that, and I think I said before is that, I have a relationship with God, I don't study the Bible everyday, bcuz people do spend too much time arguing over it and gettin told what it's supposed to mean. My wisdom comes from within, and I refuse to rely solely on what a book says and I'd rather go with my heart.
~I got that remedy~
Isn’t that pretty much a
Isn’t that pretty much a basic tenet of Catholicism? The priest as intermediary, a direct line, as it were, from the people to god? And the church has always taken money for its coffers – even when its parishoners struggled and went hungry, the churches were adorned with gold and silver. I think this was particularly egregious right when you mention, during the Middle Ages. I don’t know the whole history of tithing, tho I know it started with the Jews, but it seems like blatant extortion to me. Esp as we see it now on the rise in these “mega churches.” My understanding is that you *have* to tithe 10% of your earnings for membership. That on top of tax-exempt status?? Damn, what a scam...
paying to get out of hell is
paying to get out of hell is not a basic tenet of catholocism. it is a bastardization of confession. the idea with confession is that one feels truly remorseful for their acts and as such, asks for the forgiveness of God with the priest acting as intermediary. the use of money as atonement was something the catholics latched on to in their mad grab for financial stability. historically there are many reasons for that process. its hard to say anything fairly about religious matters at that point because the only form of christianity is an early catholocism.
mega-churches are protestant (lutheran, baptist, evangelical, et. al.), not catholic. the reasons for the gold and silver and what not were not simply as adornment. they were a rainy-day insurance, which, problematic as it seems, were quite necessary. in retrospect there is much talk of churches being beyond wealthy and all that, and thats a relatively modern phenomena. at that point in history the money was used not just for themselves (only a handful of truly wealthy churches, mostly arch-diocese and bishoprics and the holy-see) were cushy and wealthy. for most churches money was hard to come by and any way to gouge nobility was welcomed.
the whole snatching of money was largely done by the churches of/to the wealthy and was swallowed up, in turn, by various projects (the crusades, protection against local non-believers, statuaries for saints, good works to the poor, which, believe it or not, actually happened). very few churches which catered to the poor insisted on monetary returns when that was hard going on their parishoners.
Maybe i wasn't clear
Maybe I wasn’t clear in my post. I wasn’t necessarily making a direct connection between tithing and the priest as intermediary, or paying to get out of hell (Lann J made that reference). What I meant was that historically, it was a basic tenet of Catholicism that people couldn’t communicate directly with god, and that it was the priest’s function to act as their conduit. It’s probably less true today, tho – I don’t think most people believe that now.
Then I got into the whole tithing thing, which was a separate thought. Not related to priests necessarily, but to the church’s history of enriching itself at the expense of the people. Tho I’ve heard stories of the church insisting tithes had to be paid in order to get to heaven, but I don’t know for sure. And I’m too lazy to go look for links. Plus I don’t care that much.
Btw, when I referred to the gold and silver in churches, I was talking about in medieval times, per Lanna J’s post. I then compared that to today, what I see happening with these megachurches and their tithes, which we may just as well call fees. And yes, I realize megachurches aren’t Roman Catholic, but that doesn’t make much difference – it’s all organized religion to my mind, in this case Christianity.
I disagree that the church’s wealth is a relatively new phenomenon. The church’s history of amassing vast amounts of money, staging political power grabs, and extorting tithes is an old, old story.
As far as the confession loophole tho, my understanding is that yes, ideally you’re truly remorseful when you confess, but you don’t have to be. Then I think there’s some kind of loophole within the loophole, where even if you’re not really and truly sorry, you can still get into heaven if you confess anyway before you die.
Man, I wrote this really
Man, I wrote this really long, heartfelt reply and then the darn thing said I didn't have authorization to post. I don't have the energy to try and rewrite what I wrote. So, I'll do something I never do and be concise.
Yes, I do think the OT is crazy. What harm can be done by having sex with a girl on her period? Why would it be okay to penetrate one's vagina and not one's anus?
And I do believe the rules of the OT to be obsolete.
"having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross." Colossians 2: 14 New Testament
No, I don't really think the NT is crazy. Now, Revelations will pucker your butthole and I don't think Stephen King on acid could write anything like it. But otherwise, I find the NT comforting. I think that if people lived by the "rules" of the NT that they would be happy, peaceful people.
I would caution people not to clump Christianity and Catholism together. I beleive them to be two very different animals. I find Catholism to be more about rituals and confessing your sins to other sinners than about God and His Word. I think if you read His word you would find that you didn't have to say 10 hail marys every time you took His name in vain but just be genuinely regretful that you did so. I don't think it makes God feel any better that you regurgitate the same pre-written prayer every Sunday. I don't think you have to give up something you love for 40 days just to show your devotion to him, I think you show your devotion to Him with the little things 365 days a year and I think that's all He wants from you. I think he wants you to drink your Coke and be happy. Meh, I really don't have the energy for this right now.
Religion isn't the problem, it's the people who practice it (or more appropriately, don't practice it) that are the problem. One of the original questions of this thread was how where you received by Christians when you came out. Well, 100% of the people from my Southern Baptist church reacted lovingly. They all continued to love me and they all retained the roles they had previously played in my life (ie friend, mentor). These people are people who you will never catch saying the word "fag" or protesting funerals of homosexuals. I think the people that knew where the epitome of what Christianity stood for. People like Phelps do not grasp the concept of Christ and his teachings. After you asked me whether I thought the NT was crazy, I pulled out my Bible and read everything I had highlighted in the NT. Several passages spoke about not judging one another. If he were interested in being obiedant to God he would not be advocating the things he is. To me, Phelps is anything but a Christian. I don't see him and say "man, there's one of those crazy Christians." I just see him as a hate monger who wants to distort the facts for his own purposes. I don't think there's enough room in one's heart for Jesus and that kind of blind hate this man has for homosexuals.
I really hope this gets posted because I do not have the energy to cover all this a third time. Oh, and so much for being concise, eh?
a correction
I jus wanted to correct something u said.."I would caution people not to clump Christianity and Catholism together. I beleive them to be two very different animals."
Christianity is the main branch, so if your catholic, you're christian..its like..
CHRISTIANITY
Catholics.. Protestants...
jus wanted to make that clear
~I got that remedy~
I think religion is a
I think religion is a double-edged sword. Yes, it can provide comfort, faith, morals to people, but it also can and has been used as a way to control, manipulate, and dictate to the masses. I tend to be skeptical of organized religions. And the rise of the religious right in the US in recent years has only confirmed my fears. But I agree with a lot of what you said, esp about reflexively reciting prayers vs truly striving to be a better person.
I also agree with Lanna J. about the separation of church/state. Never have I seen a greater need to extricate religion from politics in the US. At least not in my lifetime. Sadly, I don’t see it happening anytime in the near future tho, unless the Dems manage to find a spine. And I’m doubtful of that happening soon as well.
And this was my attempt to be concise, btw, something I also find difficult at times. :)
With all due respect, but I
With all due respect, but I don't know how you can correct someone's opinion. I think the Catholic Church misses the WHOLE message of the Bible, therefore, I cannot classify them as being similar. I don't think the Catholic church is anymore a "branch" of Christianity than the Mormon religion is. I do understand where you feel that they are linked together. But that was kind of my point, I wish people wouldn't do that because I feel (once again just my opinion here) that the Catholic Church misses the mark. I wasn't really trying to state a fact, just an opinion. But once again, I could see where you feel the need to correct me :-)
well, all due respect to you
well, all due respect to you but actually whatever someone 's opinion is; fact remains that lanna j is correct in her facts.
Christianity means believing in christ. No matter what any individuals opinion is on the particulars of their believe system, any individual believing in christ is a christian.
To say otherwise is for sure "missing the mark".
Also it'seems a bit strange logic to state the catholic church doesn't "get" it and then be so positive about the new testament. I mean, they are the once who "wrote" the new testament.
As for the old testament and it's rules. research has actually found that, co-incedental or not, many of these silly rules can actually be a good thing. Such as rules on hygiene and food.
I won't pretend to know who
I won't pretend to know who society believes to have written the NT so I don't have anything to say about that.
If Catholics "got it" they wouldn't have all the ritualism and legalism that runs rampant throughout the Church. They wouldn't have a pope. They wouldn't have confession. They wouldn't have all those creepy statues and all the other ornamental stuff they have. No one would pay $25,000 for a grilled cheese sandwich that supposedly looks like the birth mother of Christ. They wouldn't have those chants that are the same for weddings, funerals, and baptisms. No one would have to remain celibate to prove their devotion to God. They wouldn't have you praying to Mary, Joseph, or Elvis. But hey, that's just my opinion.
And to my defense, nothing Lanna J quoted was a fact. It was all opinion. So, how can she correct it? Yes, it is true I would not like to be considered someone who is aligned with the Catholic Church soley because I believe in Christ. My Christ and their Christ are two different Christs, IMHO. Are democrats and republicans not different even though both parties believe in the Constitution?
Whether the rules of the OT are beneficial are not isn't the point (or it wasn't my point). They're old rules and you will not stand accountable for them one day. That's all. It's up to you if you want to have anal sex or have sex while on your period. And having intercourse while on your period can releive menstrual cramps. I do not think menstrual blood puts you at any more risk for diseases than coming into contact with vaginal fluid. Anal sex with a condom is not necessarily unhgyienic either.
I am not arguing your
I am not arguing your opinion, no matter how much I disagree with it because I don't have a direct line to god so I couldn't possibly say who's interpretation is correct. Yours or the catholic one. I was just pointing out a fact as to what falls under the heading christianity.
I would like to say that there is a difference between believing one's own interpretation and the arrogant dismissal of other peoples beliefs. The two don't have to go together. In my opinion that is where a lot of the problems start. When these two do get together.
It seems to me what is lacking in that union is the respect for the other. And isn't that what is the differnce between the acceptance or dismissal of gays by religious people? I mean, why you see different responses to gays even within one religion?
Just my interpretation ofcourse!
I see your point
I can see your point about Catholicism, I grew up Catholic but don't call myself Catholic any more because of two main reasons.
One is to do with some of the issues you raised ie. I believe they shouldn't have a pope at all, yet alone one that they treat as if he were God, they shouldn't be praying to Saints or anyone else except God/Jesus, they shouldn't treat priests with the authority of God either and they should confess directly to God rather than to the priest, and I didn't like the repetitiveness either.
The second reason is that I think dividing people up into different types of Christians (or "brand names" of Christianity as I call them) only creates further fighting and division amongst Christians.
Those are the two main reasons why I consider my religion to be "Christian" rather than "Catholic".
However I just want to offer you these points to consider when claiming that people who do call themselves "Catholic" and/or practice Catholicism aren't really Christians or "don't get it". Most people are born into their religion and therefore don't get a choice as to which type of Christian they are until they're older and able to change their mind, but because it's what they've grown up with, it makes it a lot harder for some to consider that their religion isn't perfect, and even harder for them to come to the position of not agreeing with it, because authoritive people (such as parents/family/priests) have told them their whole lives that their religion is "right". Then there are other factors that come into it such as they might not want to leave their church community even if there are some things they disagree with. And the other important thing is that you should consider the people as individuals, as I said I grew up Catholic, so over time I've meet some very lovely people who I would consider to be very Christian people even though they call themselves Catholic, and even though they do some things that I personally think are stupid (such as confessing to the priest instead of talking directly to God, etc) because that's the normal thing to do in their church, I wouldn't say that their intent to be good/loving people is any less than anyone elses' or that their faith in God/Jesus is any less than anyone elses'. It comes down to the individual person, many people who call themeselves Catholic even hold some of the ideas that you do such as disagreeing with having a pope or confessing to a priest, but still refer to themselves as Catholics because that's what they were baptised as and/or because they like the people at their church so they continue to attend a Catholic church, I think there is a big difference between Catholic people in general, as opposed to the institution of the Catholic Church. And as not judging others is an important theme of the bible, I don't think all Catholics should be judged as "not getting" Christianity just because we may feel that the way they practice their faith isn't how we'd feel comfortable doing it.
maybe u don't get it
so let me make this as clear as possible..CHRISTIANITY is the at the top. It is the basis of Cathlocism, Protestantism, and all the other churches that have broken away from Cathlocism..they have one common bind, they are all some form of CHRISTIANITY. that is not an opinion that is fact, it's in the history books, this is what I wanted to correct for you. Christianity and Cathlocism are not different, they are one in the same.
Just like there is Judism and Islam, Christianity is the other religion that believes in one God.
The catholic church was a first the only Christian church until a man named Martin Luther got fed up with the way the catholic priests were lying and cheating the church, he felt like some of the things catholics did were immoral and wrong so he started a so call branch church which became the protestant church..the protestant churches have now branched off into different "sects" as i'm lost for another term..ie Baptist, evangalist, etc.
I never said that you have to be aligned with the catholic church bcuz ur a christian.. that's why protestantism was created.
~I got that remedy~
You're right. I'm wrong.
You're right. I'm wrong.
Old Testament and Other Tales...
Once Jesus died on the cross and all of your sins were “atoned for” does this make them any less “sins”? Does this make all of the moral judgements in the Old Testament obsolete? Perhaps God gave his only son in order that all he had decreed before might be disregarded. Well actually he gave his son…and then took him back 30something years later to sit with him in heaven. More of a loan; not all that sacrificial. And to follow something “in this day and age” is just playing context games. I’m sure the author(s) meant for their opinions to be altered and misconstrued to fit this (or whatever) era. No, actually I’m sure that they meant what they said in their time, for their time and relevant to their time (That is why “The stuff out of the old testament is crazy” to us now.) and not to dignify someone’s work with its original meaning is clearly misrepresentation. Ambiguity is open to interpretation. Outright denunciation of an act is not, unless of course you are skewing it to suit you own agenda.
As for church-wealth, the new mega churches may be incredibly wealthy, but don’t forget that the renaissance took place in the shadow of a very wealthy church, with artists commissioned by and for the church (Michelangelo, DaVinci etc.). though whether we damn the church for restricting artists to religious art as enlightenment backlash and material “insurance” for hard times (as someone mentioned earlier) or we are thankful for their patronage of an artistic (and social) movement is debatable. Either way religion has long had financial and therefore social influence.
Zarathustra said that religion provides “comfort, faith and morals”, but religion doesn’t provide faith. Rather it IS faith. An unfaltering belief due to conviction without proof. And I certainly do not believe that it provides morals. Would you say that because of your religion that you are a more moral individual than I am? Morals are based on human decency and social consensus, religion is invariably the reactionary institution lagging behind or attempting to prevent zeitgeist shift eg. Sex before marriage, female priests, illegitimate pregnancy, homosexuality etc. I behave morally because I have a moral compass. Morality is about decency, it is not a reason to behave simply for fear of supernatural retribution. If that is the only reason a person is good then I am disgusted. And any social network can provide comfort, not just a group of people all with the same delusion. Have some faith in humanity without religion. Have faith in people living for this life not the next. Have faith in people dealing with the world without this crutch or security blanket. Because the net isn’t really there, if you fall, you fall. Religion or not, you will still hit the ground just as hard. “Isn’t it enough to see that the garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
The fact that most people are born into a religion is genuinely a shame (opinion). To be indoctrinated from birth without an option, with the potential to be ostracised for having beliefs dissimilar to those of peers, parents and social leaders is a cruel weight to put on a child’s shoulders. I would support an age of consent for religion.
still crazy after all these years
faith and morals
"Zarathustra said that religion provides “comfort, faith and morals”, but religion doesn’t provide faith. Rather it IS faith. An unfaltering belief due to conviction without proof. And I certainly do not believe that it provides morals. Would you say that because of your religion that you are a more moral individual than I am? Morals are based on human decency and social consensus, religion is invariably the reactionary institution lagging behind or attempting to prevent zeitgeist shift eg."
Perhaps I should’ve said that the relationship bet faith and religion is one of mutual interdependency. People “lose faith” all the time – part of the role of the church is to reinforce or buttress that faith.
However, morals and religion, at least IMO, are not mutually exclusive, but you don't need to be religious to be a moral person. And we all know of “religious” people who aren’t particularly moral. Whether I like the “morals” a given church or religion teaches, they still provides a foundation, a set of guidelines or morals for people to follow. But no religion or church has a monopoly on “morals.” There are plenty of us secular folk who develop our own moral and ethical guidelines, as you point out. And if you’ve read my previous posts on this thread, you can’t possibly think I believe religious people are more moral than anyone else.
But it’s kind of funny I’m now engaged in this whole conversation about religion and the church, something I really didn’t want to do. It’s hard enough talking religion with people you know. But in a forum like this? Damn near impossible. Heh. I initially posted here only because of Fred Phelps.
It’s all good, tho. If anyone can school me differently on my ideas, feel free to go ahead.
Morals??
Belladonna, I can't agree with you saying that religion doesn't provide morals because some of those morals that we all hold dear have been around and have religious history. I will say that some of those are common sense, but sometimes those are not the case. Wouldn't you say that thou shall not kill, or steal are some sort of moral belief? you may think that that's common sense, or as you put it, "human decency" yet most of what human decency is today came from religion whether you are religious or not, you have to notice that every single religion, polytheistic or monothestic has a code of values or morals.
I'm not saying that that's the only way you can be ethically and morally sound, but just that some of the moral codes i hold myself to today has come from my religious background
~I got that remedy~
Mutual Interdependency
It is not "mutual interdependency". Religion is faith. Faith is not religion. I have faith in tomorrow, I have faith in my friends and family. My faith is based on precedent. Religious faith has no precedent, no proof, it is a blind faith, and people base their lives on this blind faith. That is what worries me. Because religion “buttress[es]” blind faith. That same blind faith that in a worst case scenario could stop a cancer sufferer seeking medical attention because their faith that if God wills it then he will cure them, is so strong. The blind faith that tells people that their was is “THE way, the truth and the light” and so they can justify and rationalise demonstrations outside the funerals of soldiers, and wave their banners, and scorn a family who mourn their child, as “Santa worshippers” who deserve the bereavement. Phelps is an extreme but the fundamental premise of blind faith remains the same.
still crazy after all these years
hmmm....
Perhaps we’re just arguing semantics, since I think we agree on more things here than not. Religion is not faith, tho it requires an element of it, nor is faith religion. And of course it’s possible to have faith and not have religion. As with morals, faith and religion are not mutually exclusive, but are interdependent. I agree that religion requires “blind faith,” which is different than the kind of faith you have that tomorrow will come. And yes, people are often blinded b