|
Look at it this way, just last month we had a promenent "Christian" leader come out and say that the earthquake in Hati was God interfereing in the affairs of men. Now most of us are intelligent enough to understand what causes earthquakes and that they are natural phenomenon. However, in 4000 BCE men were not that educated in the ways of the world. Therefore it was much more belivable to them that an earthquake that dammed up the River Jordan and stopped it's flow for several hours was the work of God. In fact, according to the gospel of David (me) God most likely did not interfere as much as the Bible says that he did, and when he did it was in much more subtle ways.
I do completely agree with the idea that the books explain natural phenomena as the work of God. I can accept the possibility of God's interference, but as you say, in more subtle ways. And so it is nearly impossible to verify with concrete proof. So I prefer to operate under the belief that God created the world according to the laws of physics that He wrote, and let us go under our own autonomy. Then he sat back to observe how we turned out without His interference.
|
What I truly wish, is that religious people would be happy with their religion stop fighting and leave all homosexuals, liberals, atheists, and everyone else alone and live with peace of their belief in a beautiful paradise and a wonderful savior that they have who is personnaly interested in them.
I also wish that liberal extremists would stop antagonizing them stop limiting religious freedom, stop insulting religious individuals, stop calling them stupid and uneducated.
Frankly if people would stop trying to jab at each other constantly we'd have a whole lot less problems. Let religious people bask in the peace of their salvation (whichever religion you belong too), and let all others just be happy with their own freedom.
What I truly wish, is that religious people would be happy with their religion stop fighting and leave all homosexuals, liberals, atheists, and everyone else alone and live with peace of their belief in a beautiful paradise and a wonderful savior that they have who is personnaly interested in them.
I also wish that liberal extremists would stop antagonizing them stop limiting religious freedom, stop insulting religious individuals, stop calling them stupid and uneducated.
Frankly if people would stop trying to jab at each other constantly we'd have a whole lot less problems. Let religious people bask in the peace of their salvation (whichever religion you belong too), and let all others just be happy with their own freedom.
Well said...my sentiments exactly.
|
What I truly wish, is that religious people would be happy with their religion stop fighting and leave all homosexuals, liberals, atheists, and everyone else alone and live with peace of their belief in a beautiful paradise and a wonderful savior that they have who is personnaly interested in them.
I also wish that liberal extremists would stop antagonizing them stop limiting religious freedom, stop insulting religious individuals, stop calling them stupid and uneducated.
Frankly if people would stop trying to jab at each other constantly we'd have a whole lot less problems. Let religious people bask in the peace of their salvation (whichever religion you belong too), and let all others just be happy with their own freedom.
This needs to be in a campaign speech.
Stop marklaring with everyone elses' marklar.
What I truly wish, is that religious people would be happy with their religion stop fighting and leave all homosexuals, liberals, atheists, and everyone else alone and live with peace of their belief in a beautiful paradise and a wonderful savior that they have who is personnaly interested in them.
I also wish that liberal extremists would stop antagonizing them stop limiting religious freedom, stop insulting religious individuals, stop calling them stupid and uneducated.
Frankly if people would stop trying to jab at each other constantly we'd have a whole lot less problems. Let religious people bask in the peace of their salvation (whichever religion you belong too), and let all others just be happy with their own freedom.
Agreed, Jeremy. Well said.
|
|
What I truly wish, is that religious people would be happy with their religion stop fighting and leave all homosexuals, liberals, atheists, and everyone else alone and live with peace of their belief in a beautiful paradise and a wonderful savior that they have who is personnaly interested in them.
I also wish that liberal extremists would stop antagonizing them stop limiting religious freedom, stop insulting religious individuals, stop calling them stupid and uneducated.
Frankly if people would stop trying to jab at each other constantly we'd have a whole lot less problems. Let religious people bask in the peace of their salvation (whichever religion you belong too), and let all others just be happy with their own freedom.
Totally.
|
|
What I truly wish, is that religious people would be happy with their religion stop fighting and leave all homosexuals, liberals, atheists, and everyone else alone and live with peace of their belief in a beautiful paradise and a wonderful savior that they have who is personnaly interested in them.
I also wish that liberal extremists would stop antagonizing them stop limiting religious freedom, stop insulting religious individuals, stop calling them stupid and uneducated.
Frankly if people would stop trying to jab at each other constantly we'd have a whole lot less problems. Let religious people bask in the peace of their salvation (whichever religion you belong too), and let all others just be happy with their own freedom.
I would love for this to happen, but it's not. Evangelicals in particular are required to confront non-believers...it's a part of their religion. Would it be nice if it ended? Yeah. Will it end? Not until science gets to the point that it can prove that god doesn't exist.
Or maybe just 'Now get on with your lives' would do the trick. :P
|
|
I would love for this to happen, but it's not. Evangelicals in particular are required to confront non-believers...it's a part of their religion. Would it be nice if it ended? Yeah. Will it end? Not until science gets to the point that it can prove that god doesn't exist.What I truly wish, is that religious people would be happy with their religion stop fighting and leave all homosexuals, liberals, atheists, and everyone else alone and live with peace of their belief in a beautiful paradise and a wonderful savior that they have who is personally interested in them.
I also wish that liberal extremists would stop antagonizing them stop limiting religious freedom, stop insulting religious individuals, stop calling them stupid and uneducated.
Frankly if people would stop trying to jab at each other constantly we'd have a whole lot less problems. Let religious people bask in the peace of their salvation (whichever religion you belong too), and let all others just be happy with their own freedom.
There is a big difference with personal outreach evangelism and interfering in peoples lives. While yeah it does annoy me when the Jehovah's witnesses and/or the mormons show up at my door, I'm polite and show my disinterest plainly. But I do not begrudge them doing it. I understand trying to reach out to people is part of their beliefs and I know it comes from a good place. As in I know they believe I am not "saved" and they want to save me. That's all fine. But trying to pass anti - sodomy laws, and legal bans of same sex marriage well that's different. That's trying to dictate how people live their lives and they have no business to do so. Yes they may disagree with it and that's fine they have that right but they have no right to try and force their view on me. I also strongly oppose laws that try to force legalized gay marriage into churches. Like in the UK a bill went before their parliament to try and force churches to cater to same sex ceremonies. I opposed it and was glad to see it shot down. I have no right to enforce my views onto religion.
Heh. I hold my black cat in my arms and bid them good afternoon....they're just in time to participate in the virginal sacrifice.
"Hey...where are you guys going? Guys....Guys?"
:P
I also strongly oppose laws that try to force legalized gay marriage into churches.
Do you also oppose the attempt to relocate the North American continent to the surface of the sun by using a whole lot of hot air balloons? Because it's about as real. The notion that we want to force churches to marry people against their will is as absurd as the notion that being gay is about wanting to rape children.
I also strongly oppose laws that try to force legalized gay marriage into churches.Do you also oppose the attempt to relocate the North American continent to the surface of the sun by using a whole lot of hot air balloons? Because it's about as real.
Gadzooks! They're on to me!
I prefer to operate under the belief that God created the world according to the laws of physics that He wrote, and let us go under our own autonomy. Then he sat back to observe how we turned out without His interference.
So you're a Deist, like Jefferson and Franklin and Paine? Interesting... I'd thought they were mostly gone.
|
|
So you're a Deist, like Jefferson and Franklin and Paine? Interesting... I'd thought they were mostly gone.
Precisely. I was brainwashed Roman Catholic growing up, but getting dragged to church every week broke me out of that. I never really paid it much attention until after I enlisted and expanded my mind a bit. My wife actually labeled me when I explained my beliefs to her. It just makes the most sense to me given the evidence.
|
|
I prefer to operate under the belief that God created the world according to the laws of physics that He wrote, and let us go under our own autonomy. Then he sat back to observe how we turned out without His interference.So you're a Deist, like Jefferson and Franklin and Paine? Interesting... I'd thought they were mostly gone.
Nah, they're still around. My dad and all his brothers self-describe as Deists. I was raised sort of Deist / agnostic.
|
|
My grandmother's probably spinning in her grave, with the way politics are going. It's a bit ironic that right now, Barry Goldwater seems like more of a candidate that she'd be able to get behind than a lot of the others out there, considering that she protested against his running for president in the sixties.
Hindsight's a b%@~!, innit?
My grandmother's probably spinning in her grave, with the way politics are going. It's a bit ironic that right now, Barry Goldwater seems like more of a candidate that she'd be able to get behind than a lot of the others out there, considering that she protested against his running for president in the sixties.
Hindsight's a b%&~!, innit?
LOL!
|
|
I also strongly oppose laws that try to force legalized gay marriage into churches.Do you also oppose the attempt to relocate the North American continent to the surface of the sun by using a whole lot of hot air balloons? Because it's about as real. The notion that we want to force churches to marry people against their will is as absurd as the notion that being gay is about wanting to rape children.
Ummm... well as a gay man myself the very thought of trying to force churches to do anything is rather antithetical to my line of thinking. But I also recognize their are exetremists in every group and I have heard of such a group. It was a fringe group with probably like 5 people but it was there.
|
|
Nah, they're still around. My dad and all his brothers self-describe as Deists. I was raised sort of Deist / agnostic.I prefer to operate under the belief that God created the world according to the laws of physics that He wrote, and let us go under our own autonomy. Then he sat back to observe how we turned out without His interference.So you're a Deist, like Jefferson and Franklin and Paine? Interesting... I'd thought they were mostly gone.
Yep, I am a Mormon Deist.
Edit: Although, hve a sightly different view then most Deists. I believe that God wants to play a role in our lives, but we have to ask him for that help. One of my favorite religious paintings show Jeasus knocking at a door that has no handle on the outside. My belief is that God will only "interfere" in our lives if we open the door and allow him in.
Yep, I a a Mormon Deist.
I don't think I've come across a self-professed Mormon Deist before. Is there an official name to that and how does that reconcile with being LDS? Is there anything else that you do that deviates from secular LDS practices?
|
|
Yep, I a a Mormon Deist.I don't think I've come across a self-professed Mormon Deist before. Is there an official name to that and how does that reconcile with being LDS? Is there anything else that you do that deviates from secular LDS practices?
I think my edit above explains a lot of what I believe. However, I reconcile it by reading the teachings of Joseph Smith and then looking at what we currently know about things like planet formation. Clear back in the 1800's Joseph Smith was teaching that planest formed not out of nothing, as most religions of the time taught, but that they coallesed out of dust clouds that formed around new stars. He included dinosaurs as part of the creation and said that the seven days of creation were not literal days but were undisclosed periods of time where the natural forces God put into play went about doing what they needed to dd for the earth to form and life to appear.
Edit: Essentially what the LDS Church teaches is that all truth comes from God. Therefore if we have a scientific principle, like plate tectonics, that we know to be true, then those are God's laws. And since God is perfect he must work within the bounds of his on laws in order to remain God.
Ummm... well as a gay man myself the very thought of trying to force churches to do anything is rather antithetical to my line of thinking.
Nobody is trying to force churches to marry anybody. We do in fact force them to do other things, and we should celebrate the fact. We force them not to perform human sacrifices, for example. Calling an organization a church should not exempt it from compliance with the civil law.
But I also recognize their are exetremists in every group and I have heard of such a group. It was a fringe group with probably like 5 people but it was there.
Even if these people actually exist, which I doubt, treating concerns about five nutters as somehow morally or reasonably equivalent to, for example, the world's largest anti-gay hate group (headquartered in the Vatican) is just as absurd as continental levitation by means of hot air balloon.
There's such a thing as being so open-minded one's brain falls out. If we validate antigay hysteria we are not helping our cause, but helping theirs.
|
|
Ummm... well as a gay man myself the very thought of trying to force churches to do anything is rather antithetical to my line of thinking.Nobody is trying to force churches to marry anybody. We do in fact force them to do other things, and we should celebrate the fact. We force them not to perform human sacrifices, for example. Calling an organization a church should not exempt it from compliance with the civil law.
But I also recognize their are exetremists in every group and I have heard of such a group. It was a fringe group with probably like 5 people but it was there.Even if these people actually exist, which I doubt, treating concerns about five nutters as somehow morally or reasonably equivalent to, for example, the world's largest anti-gay hate group (headquartered in the Vatican) is just as absurd as continental levitation by means of hot air balloon.
There's such a thing as being so open-minded one's brain falls out. If we validate antigay hysteria we are not helping our cause, but helping theirs.
Ok first off marginalizing people is not a good way to win people to your argument. Do I disagree with a lot of what the catholic church says yes. Do I think their intentions are purposefully evil trying to screw people over on purpose, No I don't. I think most of these type of catholics are nice people just slightly misinformed, or misguided. Maybe you should try to understand your opposition instead of just puely attacking, thats how wars are started.
Ok first off marginalizing people is not a good way to win people to your argument. Do I disagree with a lot of what the catholic church says yes. Do I think their intentions are purposefully evil trying to screw people over on purpose, No I don't. I think most of these type of catholics are nice people just slightly misinformed, or misguided. Maybe you should try to understand your opposition instead of just puely attacking, thats how wars are started.
Accuracy in reporting is not marginalizing. The fact that I do understand the opposition's position ("Homosexuality is a moral evil and we must fight every step to legitimize it.") is why I'm so down on it. That they tart this up with any number of absurd phantoms to frighten the flock is only an additional strike against them.
The Catholic hierarchy can clean its act up at any time, and in fact being an absolute dictatorship it can do so with no notice or consultation whatsoever, but has pledged again and again to do nothing of the sort. And they do so to the dismay of plenty of decent Catholics, I might add.
Ummm... well as a gay man myself the very thought of trying to force churches to do anything is rather antithetical to my line of thinking.Nobody is trying to force churches to marry anybody. We do in fact force them to do other things, and we should celebrate the fact. We force them not to perform human sacrifices, for example. Calling an organization a church should not exempt it from compliance with the civil law.
But I also recognize their are exetremists in every group and I have heard of such a group. It was a fringe group with probably like 5 people but it was there.Even if these people actually exist, which I doubt, treating concerns about five nutters as somehow morally or reasonably equivalent to, for example, the world's largest anti-gay hate group (headquartered in the Vatican) is just as absurd as continental levitation by means of hot air balloon.
There's such a thing as being so open-minded one's brain falls out. If we validate antigay hysteria we are not helping our cause, but helping theirs.
But, that is incorrect because they do not hate gays. They believe it is wrong according to the Bible but that does not make it hate.
Good job of libeling the Catholic Church there.
But, that is incorrect because they do not hate gays. They believe it is wrong according to the Bible but that does not make it hate.Good job of libeling the Catholic Church there.
Yes, calling something a moral evil is an expression of love. I can't see where one might get hate from that. Clearly I just made it up.
In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
In fact, I didn't just make it up. I hacked their servers and put it on their webpage. Right on the website of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Is there no limit to my perfidy?
But, that is incorrect because they do not hate gays. They believe it is wrong according to the Bible but that does not make it hate.Good job of libeling the Catholic Church there.
Yes, calling something a moral evil is an expression of love. I can't see where one might get hate from that. Clearly I just made it up.
In fact, I didn't just make it up. I hacked their servers and put it on their webpage. Right on the website of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Is there no limit to my perfidy?
In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
Again, you libeled as there is no indication of hate. it is morally wrong by the church as I stated above but there is no hate.
You fail again.
Or to reiterate, if you actually read the link it goes into detail about good, evil, and neutral.
Basically, good helps you get into heaven (giving alms to the poor, dying to save another from suffering, etc.), evil is behavior that will keep you from going to heaven (fornication, adultery, lying, homosexual relations), and neutral has no bearing on whether or not you go to heaven (you part your heair on the left side or breathe or put both feetin your pants at the same time instead of one at a time, etc).
It meets the definition of evil because they believe it will prevent you from entering heaven. That is not hate. It also matches having sex outside of marriage (of which homosexual "sex" would be a subset). That does not define hate. It defines an action they wish to oppose as a church because they believe it denies one entrance into heaven and they wish to see as many as possible enter heaven because they seek to love all people.
Edit note: my rambling about good and evil wasn't explained in that detail within the link. The link went into detail in a carefully thought out matter however. My description was basically a statement of why they take action as they do.
Again, you libeled as there is no indication of hate. it is morally wrong by the church as I stated above but there is no hate.Yes, calling something a moral evil is an expression of love. I can't see where one might get hate from that. Clearly I just made it up.
But, that is incorrect because they do not hate gays. They believe it is wrong according to the Bible but that does not make it hate.Good job of libeling the Catholic Church there.
Wait... what? You just re-stated the point he just made. I'm so confused...
Just keep it civil, guys. I don't want to have to bust out the shark.
Again, you libeled as there is no indication of hate. it is morally wrong by the church as I stated above but there is no hate.Yes, calling something a moral evil is an expression of love. I can't see where one might get hate from that. Clearly I just made it up.
But, that is incorrect because they do not hate gays. They believe it is wrong according to the Bible but that does not make it hate.Good job of libeling the Catholic Church there.
Wait... what? You just re-stated the point he just made. I'm so confused...
Just keep it civil, guys. I don't want to have to bust out the shark.
Holy crap! You have a shark? Is that thing loaded?
|
|
Ok first off marginalizing people is not a good way to win people to your argument. Do I disagree with a lot of what the catholic church says yes. Do I think their intentions are purposefully evil trying to screw people over on purpose, No I don't. I think most of these type of catholics are nice people just slightly misinformed, or misguided. Maybe you should try to understand your opposition instead of just puely attacking, thats how wars are started.Accuracy in reporting is not marginalizing. The fact that I do understand the opposition's position ("Homosexuality is a moral evil and we must fight every step to legitimize it.") is why I'm so down on it. That they tart this up with any number of absurd phantoms to frighten the flock is only an additional strike against them.
The Catholic hierarchy can clean its act up at any time, and in fact being an absolute dictatorship it can do so with no notice or consultation whatsoever, but has pledged again and again to do nothing of the sort. And they do so to the dismay of plenty of decent Catholics, I might add.
Just because a particular group disagrees with you does not mean they are all close minded bigots who refuse to see reason. In fact I count many catholics as friends and some of them were the type that believed homosexuality was wrong. However over the years I've known them, their opinion has changed. I won't take credit for such a change in position but I would like to think that those many double dates with them and me and my husband may have been a crontributing factor.
Wait... what? You just re-stated the point he just made. I'm so confused...
I think the Thing from Beyond is the one who is confused.
Just because a particular group disagrees with you does not mean they are all close minded bigots who refuse to see reason.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the subject, doesn't it? If one disagreed with me on the proposition that the Holocaust was a very bad thing I'd find it pretty much impossible to believe such a person was anything but a disgusting bigot. At that point, I no longer particularly care if they're capable of seeing reason or not. I simply want nothing to do with them. If a group makes such a doctrine its official policy, its members have the options of leaving the group, protesting and working for change from within, or accepting it and bearing the burden of so doing. I know a few Catholics who take the second option. Most stay silent.
In fact I count many catholics as friends and some of them were the type that believed homosexuality is wrong. However over the years I've known them, their opinion has changed.
Yes but that doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm saying. The Catholic church's official doctrine is homophobic. So is its holy book, but the church reserves the right to itself to ignore that at will. Furthermore it is not content to confine its homophobia to its own ranks, but wishes to see it enforced as state policy on everyone. If this doesn't make it a homophobic hate group, what would? Fred Phelps does exactly the same thing, only he goes and protests funerals instead of preaching in stadiums. What's the difference? They even work from the same playbook.
Henry Rollins on homosexuality and Catholicism. No flames please.
That was great.
|
|
Henry Rollins on homosexuality and Catholicism. No flames please.That was great.
It's Henry Rollins, what did you expect?
Holocaust
Yes!!
|
|
Just because a particular group disagrees with you does not mean they are all close minded bigots who refuse to see reason.Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the subject, doesn't it? If one disagreed with me on the proposition that the Holocaust was a very bad thing I'd find it pretty much impossible to believe such a person was anything but a disgusting bigot. At that point, I no longer particularly care if they're capable of seeing reason or not. I simply want nothing to do with them. If a group makes such a doctrine its official policy, its members have the options of leaving the group, protesting and working for change from within, or accepting it and bearing the burden of so doing. I know a few Catholics who take the second option. Most stay silent.
Yes but that doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm saying. The Catholic church's official doctrine is homophobic. So is its holy book, but the church reserves the right to itself to ignore that at will. Furthermore it is not content to confine its homophobia to its own ranks, but wishes to see it enforced as state policy on everyone. If this doesn't make it a homophobic hate group, what would? Fred Phelps does exactly the same thing, only he goes and protests funerals instead of preaching in stadiums. What's the difference? They even work from the same playbook.
In fact I count many catholics as friends and some of them were the type that believed homosexuality is wrong. However over the years I've known them, their opinion has changed.
No I just thought you were generalizing catholics while yes there will always be closed minded individuals not all of them are.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Henry Rollins on homosexuality and Catholicism. No flames please.
That's actually a pretty responsible attitude toward the whole affair, imo. It's as unreasonable to expect the Catholic church to change its teachings to fit some non-communicants' behavior as it is for the church to expect non-communicants to change their behavior to fit its teachings. Best for each party to go its own way in peace since they can't continue in agreement.
No I just thought you were generalizing catholics while yes there will always be closed minded individuals not all of them are.
That's actually a pretty responsible attitude toward the whole affair, imo. It's as unreasonable to expect the Catholic church to change its teachings to fit some non-communicants' behavior as it is for the church to expect non-communicants to change their behavior to fit its teachings. Best for each party to go its own way in peace since they can't continue in agreement.
It's also more or less everything the marriage equality movement wants. Catholicism already accepts, in the US and some other countries, that people who get divorced are legally entitled to be remarried even if the church forbids the ceremony to itself. They can just go elsewhere, or grease the priest's palm.
Civil marriage and religious marriage are unconnected except insofar as clergy are accepted by the state as legally capable of signing the papers. But judges and anybody else the state cares to designate can do the same just as well. In many states the only thing you need to do is declare yourself so capable. Virtually all states will accept a Universal Life Church ordination, which you can get through the mail and amounts to the same thing, as granting the same capacity.
Henry Rollins on homosexuality and Catholicism. No flames please.That's actually a pretty responsible attitude toward the whole affair, imo. It's as unreasonable to expect the Catholic church to change its teachings to fit some non-communicants' behavior as it is for the church to expect non-communicants to change their behavior to fit its teachings. Best for each party to go its own way in peace since they can't continue in agreement.
The problem then crops up when these views start affecting legislation, like it does in the Virginia case (and, unfortunately, elsewhere too) and people are being denied the same job-protection under the law as everyone else, because of something the church (whether Catholic or other) sees as "wrong."
It's Henry Rollins, what did you expect?Henry Rollins on homosexuality and Catholicism. No flames please.That was great.
Thanks for the link; posted that sucker to my profile. Hank's a straight shooter.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
it is [unreasonable] for the church to expect non-communicants to change their behavior to fit its teachings.
Excerpted from my earlier post. You might be missing this part of what I was saying. I don't think we're disagreeing on this point; I was merely claiming that the inverse is also true.