Homosexuality

[Papa Manual]

Right,

I've just read this on the BBC and I was quite shocked that the Pope would say such things knowing that it would be reported on so widely. Likening climate change to homosexuality in it's danger to the world....? It may be his (and a good deal of other Catholics) opinion that all gays should burn in hell, but support seems to be running thinner for Catholics and their views in the last ten years or so. Curiously enough, a good number of the clergymen whose hands inappropriately, yet 'accidentally', slipped down the pants of choir boys in the south west of the US, still seem to be working. This is despite a very long and well publicised court case and corresponding out of court settlement. Hypocrisy.

Also, some of the comments that readers had posted surprised me a little.

I was interested what younger members of society thought about the matters in that article, whether they believe in god and the bible or not.

It would be nice to keep this constructive rather than letting it descend into a brawl .

Jon

[ben_travis]

"up the gays"

on a more sensible note, people who follow faith as 'strongly' as the pope really do agitate me. their views are dated, the modern world is changing constantly, and people like this need to be stripped of their powers and reduced to tears in a barrage of bukkake.

Just a simple view, however if it were to be implemented, i believe the pope would go into hiding pretty quickly and as such we wouldnt have to listen to his drivel.

NOTE: i havent read the bbc article yet, i am about to and my views above are strictly contextual humour.

[M-i-t-c-h]

Could be worse Watch that!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b007c...ily_in_America/

I personally like it when they call princess diana a "fag enabler".....

Edited December 23, 2008 by M-i-t-c-h

[Elliot]

"up the gays"

on a more sensible note, people who follow faith as 'strongly' as the pope really do agitate me. their views are dated, the modern world is changing constantly, and people like this need to be stripped of their powers and reduced to tears in a barrage of bukkake.

Just a simple view, however if it were to be implemented, i believe the pope would go into hiding pretty quickly and as such we wouldnt have to listen to his drivel.

NOTE: i havent read the bbc article yet, i am about to and my views above are strictly contextual humour.

Agitated? Is that right? The word bothers me for some reason!

Anyway, the guy I work for is a devout Christian, goes on the odd pilgrimage, also goes to Christian retreats and is the nicest most supporting guy I have met. I think (as ever) it depends on the individual and their interpretation. I think as time progresses more moderate views will be espoused simply to cater for the masses more. Makes you wonder if we'll see a "Is Religion dying a death" thread on tf in a generation or two!

Edited December 23, 2008 by Elliot

[Papa Manual]

I think religion is dying a death, just not fast enough.

Yeah Mitch, I've seen that particular Louis Theroux documentary. It's great. Silly f**kers.

[Simon]

Could be worse Watch that!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b007c...ily_in_America/

I personally like it when they call princess diana a "fag enabler".....

f**k me, that program wound me up no end! I mean seriously, what kind of c'unts were they! The drink that those people threw should of had a rock in it and killed that f**king child, maybe then they'd be like, oh wait, what are we doing to our family, putting our kids at danger like this. The kids don't have an option to go, they have no idea what the f**k they are going to as demonstrated when Louis questioned the 2. Thing is, even if it the child did die from hate towards them, they'd all just be like "gods wrath". If your daughter/son dies you don't just go, "meh, god intended it that way", f**king morons.

Argh.

[ben_travis]

Agitated? Is that right?

Anyway, the guy I work for is a devout Christian, goes on the odd pilgrimage, also goes to Christian retreats and is the nicest most supporting guy I have met. I think (as ever) it depends on the individual and their interpretation. I think as time progresses more moderate views will be espoused simply to cater for the masses more. Makes you wonder if we'll see a "Is Religion dying a death" thread on tf in a generation or two!

yes! it is right!

I am all for people believing in religion, i personally have not really thought about it long enough to answer any questions related to religion. What i meant in my post by 'strongly' is regarding those that try to force religion on a non-believer. Every religion has these stereotypes and these are the people that agitate me.

I went to sunday school when I was younger, then I (not my parents) made the conscious decision that i did not want to go, and that i would rather play football on a sunday. Since then I have not thought about god / religion at all, until I get dragged into a debate / conversation about it. I had a catholic girlfriend, who was apparently a devoted catholic.....she certainly did not abide by half of the 'rules' that they are meant to. However she never forced her religion on me.

I have met man people who have tried to force me to believe, questioning my beliefs, putting me down because i do not believe. Telling me that i havent lived because i do not believe. This grates me.

As I said previously - "up the gays" - i have no 'beef' against homosexuals (my uncle is gay, does not bother me in the slightest). In the same hand i can hold religion. I do not believe people should be forced to follow a religion, however should they decide that they wish to - as long as they do not think that because they are religious they are on a higher level (as a person) then me then all is fine.

EDIT: that Louis theroux program was extremely intriguing, however the god awful people he met are exactly the kind of people who 'agitate' me.

Edited December 23, 2008 by ben_travis

[Dr. Nick Riviera]

Well let's get this out of the way before less informed parties rant on the subject, anyone who takes the bible as god's word is an idiot. this isn't a direct attack on religion, it's a direct attack on people who cannot think for themselves.

let's notch up some facts;

There are many proven mistranslations in there.

It's a story.

For hundreds of years there were no hard copies of the bible, the stories were passed down by word of mouth only, ever played chinese whispers? imagine that over centuries with an entire book.

It's a 2000 year old story.

There are many books which have been removed from the bible by past popes/cardinals as they contradict with their own opinions.

and finally, it's a story

Now I deem the catholic church a fairly easy target, so we'll skirt around it for now and have a look at people in general.

Many non religious people find homosexuality objectionable as well, religion doesn't always mean bigotry. Case in point, how many people can you think of that would be unhappy about being near men kissing, but more than happy to watch two lesbians at it? you get idiots everywhere, so just bear that in mind before you go and knobble a priest.

Now you could argue that homosexuality is found objectionable by the church as 'every sperm is sacred', but having sex with a man is purely pleasure based, whereas every heterosexual couple 'procreates' after a few too many reds at communion but It boils down to people who believe they are right, Racists believe that they are superior to everyone with different coloured skin etc.

It's highly unlikely that there will be another inquisition, or that gays will be hung in the street on a large scale by the Catholic church, they have guilt to spread, it's the fundamental basis of their faith, 'feel bad about everything you enjoy and you can go to heaven'.

But it just brings me back to my original point, if you life your life believing an old mistranslated story is the word of god, then you're a bit of a fool... but without the fundamentalism, they'd find something else to latch onto and spout as truth, most of them end up in politics.

------------------

edit:

I was writing that for half an hour, eek.

that louis theroux docu is based on ONE family, please don't make the mistake of tarring all christians with that brush. not all of them are that ugly.

[Krisboats]

yes! it is right!

I am all for people believing in religion, i personally have not really thought about it long enough to answer any questions related to religion. What i meant in my post by 'strongly' is regarding those that try to force religion on a non-believer. Every religion has these stereotypes and these are the people that agitate me.

I went to sunday school when I was younger, then I (not my parents) made the conscious decision that i did not want to go, and that i would rather play football on a sunday. Since then I have not thought about god / religion at all, until I get dragged into a debate / conversation about it. I had a catholic girlfriend, who was apparently a devoted catholic.....she certainly did not abide by half of the 'rules' that they are meant to. However she never forced her religion on me.

I have met man people who have tried to force me to believe, questioning my beliefs, putting me down because i do not believe. Telling me that i havent lived because i do not believe. This grates me.

As I said previously - "up the gays" - i have no 'beef' against homosexuals (my uncle is gay, does not bother me in the slightest). In the same hand i can hold religion. I do not believe people should be forced to follow a religion, however should they decide that they wish to - as long as they do not think that because they are religious they are on a higher level (as a person) then me then all is fine.

EDIT: that Louis theroux program was extremely intriguing, however the god awful people he met are exactly the kind of people who 'agitate' me.

Key point there. These people are the people i feel the world would be better without. I would much prefer people to be dedicated to bettering the world we live in in a positive way rather than believing in a giant bloke in the sky. Nobody knows whether its true or not and personally i'm inclined to believe the latter but being a reasonable and sensible person i'm not going to rule out the idea of a god entirely because there is the remotest chance it could be true. The religious fanatics can't appreciate the fact that there might not be though and as such they are irrational by nature. I find irrational people to be entirely untrustworthy.

I think people can believe what they want so long as it doesn't encroach on others in a negative way and so long as they appreciate people will believe different things when theres no evidence of anything in place.

The true nuts who don't believe in evolution are idiots full stop and should be removed from the world through their own stupidity at some point by a little thing called natural selection.... ironically they probably refuse to believe in that either.

[Dr. Nick Riviera]

DINOSAUR SKELETONS WERE PUT HERE TO TEST US.

[Papa Manual]

Zeitgeist?

[Krisboats]

Many non religious people find homosexuality objectionable as well, religion doesn't always mean bigotry. Case in point, how many people can you think of that would be unhappy about being near men kissing, but more than happy to watch two lesbians at it? you get idiots everywhere, so just bear that in mind before you go and knobble a priest.

That's purely a personal taste thing though. I'd love to be sat next to a giant chocolate bar, but i wouldn't like to be sat next to the same quantity of brussel sprouts or bile.

DINOSAUR SKELETONS WERE PUT HERE TO TEST US.

Ha ha, i nearly fell off my chair laughing when i heard that one.

[eskimo]

?

[Dr. Nick Riviera]

I think you missed the point there Ted, topics like this keep the discussion going.

[1a2bcio8]

I think religion is dying a death, just not fast enough.

Yeah Mitch, I've seen that particular Louis Theroux documentary. It's great. Silly f**kers.

I'd like to make the point that not all religion is Christianity or Islam. And for that matter, even those religions do not neccesarily define people as conservatives or chauvinists. Religion can be a great thing for helping one connect with ones reality if understood in a certain way. Specifically, it is effective (and more accurate) to think of religion in mythological terms. What I mean by myth is a description of events (real or otherwise) that help connect one, on a mystical, sociological, cosmological and psychological, with the world. The trouble is that people don't understand that the sociological, cosmological and personal are always changing - they are relative and suitable to a certain time but not so for all time. A good example of this is cosmology, which is clearly very different now to what it was 2000 years ago. Specifically, we no longer consider either the world to be flat or the universe/solar system to be concentric to the earth. Yet a confusion of the concentric idea as something absolute (received doctrine), allowed for the Chruch to burn Galileo at the stake for (correctly) claiming the solar system as heliocentric (circling the sun). In a differing sense, this is true for the sociological and psychological elements. At certain points in time, certain behaviours have been useful but situations change over time. My bib was useful when I was one year old but it would only be useful now in limiting who would eat at a restraunt with me - which isn't really that useful to me. But then I question if homosexuality and its supression would have ever really been useful? Perhaps in terms of groups containing a low popluation or even perhaps groups that want to expand in terms of gaining/maintaining power, it was useful? Regardless, such things don't concern us now and so instead of adopting principles that may have been useful then, we should instead realise what is most suitable to this time. Basically, Christianity (in part) could have continued to be more useful if it have updated itself accoriding to changes of time. However, it is clearly true that individuals DO update it on a personal level, despite traditional doctrine. Many christians do not have a problem with homosexuality. Some homosexuals are even Christian. Thus, although in the 'official sense', Christian doctrines can remain very similar or the same to their origin, they are changed regardless. So in other words, Christianity* isn't wholly bad and neither is Islam. Even more importantly, other religions such as Buddhism are willing to update their doctrine (although not all sects but Buddhism is a lot more diverse than Christianity). Interestingly though, a lot of the cosmology, sociology and psychology from 2500 years ago is still appropriate today.

So, religion isn't ALL bad, it just depends on the way it's used. Specifically, in certaion respects, it just needs to be organic with time. The only part that stays the same (not neccesarily in the way its taught or represented) is the mystical. This part is really the peak or crux of what religion is about but yet which most people of religion don't attempt. The transcending of relativities into that which is the prinicple of everything. That's a whole different topic though.

*if by "Christianity" we mean the people that practice it rather than just the traditional doctrine

Apologies about the organisation/incoherrence of my post but my mental health isn't too great at the moment and I really struggled to get my thoughts down.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Ben Rowlands

[Ash-Kennard]

HAHHAA THE POPE HATES GAYS

GOD HATES ME, WHAT SHOULD I DOOOOOO?

[Elliot]

Interesting stuff

So your saying Relgion needs to adapt to current times in order to remain relevant and so remain followed? That would follow that more recent religions would have more relevance. But to take an example at random (!) scientology is pretty recent (70s ish?) and yet it views are often backward (when they are not also insideout and upsidedown). This would suggest to me that the liklihood of religion to survive is more than just its ability to connect with present times.

I don't think religion is going to die a death anytime soon. The human conidition of sentiance is as it has always been. Part of that is a bent towards religion. I dont think thats going away anytime soon.

[Papa Manual]

I'd like to make the point that not all religion is Christianity or Islam.

That's a very good point. I didn't intend to encompass all religions.

I'll read the rest of your post properly when I'm not at work. Hope things aren't getting you too down man.

[1a2bcio8]

So your saying Relgion needs to adapt to current times in order to remain relevant and so remain followed? That would follow that more recent religions would have more relevance. But to take an example at random (!) scientology is pretty recent (70s ish?) and yet it views are often backward (when they are not also insideout and upsidedown). This would suggest to me that the liklihood of religion to survive is more than just its ability to connect with present times.

I don't think religion is going to die a death anytime soon. The human conidition of sentiance is as it has always been. Part of that is a bent towards religion. I dont think thats going away anytime soon.

I am saying that about religion, in the sense of cosmology, sociology and psychology.

I don't think a religions origin in time neccesarily says anything about its relevance. Hubbard was quoted saying that the way to make money is to start a religion and thus he did. He wasn't motivated out of mystical realisation but instead out $$$. There have been plenty of religions that would better be described as cults (more ideological) because they miss the mystical part. The important question then in trying to decipher religion from cult is, "does it have at its centre, mysticism?". Scientology just sounds like the cult of sci-fi to me.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Ben Rowlands

[Tomm]

Specifically, it is effective (and more accurate) to think of religion in mythological terms.

Agreed, that's definitely true - it's the only way that the bible can make sense to logical people. However, my impression of most Christians (or at least, the most vocal ones - like the Pope) is that everything in the bible is taken completely at face value. Which is why people arguing about the exact meaning of words which were written hundreds of years ago and passed on by Chinese whispers (as Dr Nick has pointed out) seems so daft to most people.

More to the point though, who really cares what the Catholic church think? They've proved themselves time and time again to be out of touch with reality, I really don't think the Pope deserves any more of our attention.

[Elliot]

...

Ok, let me see if I get you this time!

So your saying that those in positions of power in religions need to be more forward thinking and adaptable to matters like homosexuality in order to remain relevant and so make the more modern thinking people more likely to ascribe to their views?

I don’t think people are that pragmatic, and I’m not sure people “pick” their religion in such a conscious manner. It would be cool though, you could have a website like “compare-prices.com” where you enter all the forwarding thinking parts of the religion that you would like and it comes up with a 5 star rating!

I think people will always just make up/modify whatever shit they want to believe in. That’s why religion changes and why organised religion will always be transient. Religion won’t die, just whatever organisation behind it.

[1a2bcio8]

Agreed, that's definitely true - it's the only way that the bible can make sense to logical people. However, my impression of most Christians (or at least, the most vocal ones - like the Pope) is that everything in the bible is taken completely at face value. Which is why people arguing about the exact meaning of words which were written hundreds of years ago and passed on by Chinese whispers (as Dr Nick has pointed out) seems so daft to most people.

More to the point though, who really cares what the Catholic church think? They've proved themselves time and time again to be out of touch with reality, I really don't think the Pope deserves any more of our attention.

The chinese whispers idea I think is very valid especially when we consider how gentle and kind Jesus was supposed to be relative to how a lot of Christianity has been written down.

[Boswell]

.

Edited January 23, 2009 by I like #!

[1a2bcio8]

Ok, let me see if I get you this time!

So your saying that those in positions of power in religions need to be more forward thinking and adaptable to matters like homosexuality in order to remain relevant and so make the more modern thinking people more likely to ascribe to their views?

I don’t think people are that pragmatic, and I’m not sure people “pick” their religion in such a conscious manner. It would be cool though, you could have a website like “compare-prices.com” where you enter all the forwarding thinking parts of the religion that you would like and it comes up with a 5 star rating!

I think people will always just make up/modify whatever shit they want to believe in. That’s why religion changes and why organised religion will always be transient. Religion won’t die, just whatever organisation behind it.

Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying but also that to do so is not to get subscribers so much but is simply to continue with the original motivations of the reason for constructing a religion - to help people connect with reality although subscribers are a natural consequence to something that resonates. Centring around a mystical element, we have the related cosmological, sociological and psychological whose expressions should mimick up to date understanding (science, social science, philosophy, etc.) or feelings simply because then they emobody what is most useful. Useful essentially meaning that which allows us to see things as they are, so to speak, but also that which makes us most happy, which is clearly what everyone is after. Being that we don't have to worry about the population being undersized, then homosexuality isn't a problem. In fact, perhaps we should be promoting it given our current situation! We would all be happier if we didn't have to worry about overpopulation. Homoism is on its way.

I think in a way people can chose religions though. I consider myself agnostic in terms of believing in a diety of some sort but I look at the different religions and am willing to take from each what makes sense to me. Although I consider myself a mystic (albeit a not very developed one) so my approach will differ to people who mostly take on the other three parts of religion. But still I think that taking parts from each religion makes the most sense as it avoids the dangers of becoming dogmatic. Dogmatism is the end of intelligence and reason because that's the point people KNOW they've got it right. No point in searching further. I prefer to be perpetually confused because at least then I'm more open. I'm off on a tangent now though

I would agree with your last point and I think this illustrates the point that religions aren't as centralized as we might think. The people of a religion and not the preists or 'officials' are the ones that really control it - although only so much in that they realise it.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Ben Rowlands

[Elliot]

I think in a way people can chose religions though. I consider myself agnostic in terms of believing in a diety of some sort but I look at the different religions and am willing to take from each what makes sense to me. Although I consider myself a mystic (albeit a not very developed one) so my approach will differ to people who mostly take on the other three parts of religion. But still I think that taking parts from each religion makes the most sense as it avoids the dangers of becoming dogmatic. Dogmatism is the end of intelligence and reason because that's the point people KNOW they've got it right. No point in searching further. I prefer to be perpetually confused because at least then I'm more open. I'm off on a tangent now though

Ooooh! that makes me feel uneasy! I have a few friends that seem to cherry pic from each religion/theology what ever aspects suit them the most, tarrod cards from here, dream catchers from there, prayer beads from somewhere else. Something about the concept bothers me (not in a personal way though ). It feels a little too close to just making up whatever you to beleive in and, to me, that smacks a little too much of believing because you want to believe rather than because it is what you believe.

Anyway, I'm expressing my own missgivings, they are by no means justified!

Edit - I'm off to the climbing wall, so I'll catch up with this thread later.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Elliot