Voil;

Just a question - not an indictment, but is believing in the bible as being what it claims to be "Religious Dogma"?

Spider, you can't even see obsticles, how could you expect to see beyond them.

According to the Christian faith, none can be saved but through faith in Jesus. Consider the Jews, being slaughtered by the Hitler Regime; Do you ever contemplate that Hitler could have done a better job. Maybe all he needed to do was create a very oppressive and discriminatory policy against them until they really wanted to become Christian. Then he could have set up state funded religious "conversion camps" and those who succeded in finishing would gladly wear the banner of EX-JEW.

This is an appeal to what logic might still exist within the OCD that encompasses you.

You have this deeply ingrained religious notion that homosexuality is a choice. Religion is a CHOICE and millions died before they would denounce it. How deeply ingrained does a choice have to be - before it's no longer optional.

There is only one reason why homosexuals would EVER want willingly submit to any tactics, designed to 'convert' them.

It's because they aren't considered 'Normal'. Many are not even accepted by their own parents or family. Some of those who are accepted, fear that their family will be rebuked by society for supporting them, and so they leave, they hide. For them, family gatherings are lies. They bring a 'friend' to Thanksgiving dinner or they spend holidays separated from that which is suppose to give us our greatest comfort.

They can't even be honest enough in public to admit what they are. Growing up, they often have no peers to relate to. Everything they see on TV, in the movies, read in books is contrary to what they feel. OF COURSE they're going to wonder what's wrong with them. Frustration, to the point of rage, misunderstood, misguided and no one to relate to.

But who, what, is normal?

Hey my reply posted all by itself - maybe I was done?????

No not yet -

summary - Spider if part of the 'normal' equation included homosexuality, none of them would ever seek to be 'converted'.

Your religion, your beliefs are a CHOICE - why not try converting to Judaism? I mean really Spider, what's the difference - you just have to want it and if being Christian meant you were oppressed by society, denounced by your loved ones, and riduculed and violated by the public at large - wouldn't it be an easier path to just convert and leave Jesus behind?

Spidercmb,

You wrote:
'... The Christians I know would treat a homosexual as good as or better than they would treat a straight person...'

Did you ask Chistians or homosexuals?


Let's look at it from another angle:

You consider yourself a Christian, as other individuals consider themselves homosexuals.

It is a fundamental and legitimate part of your identity, I presume, just as is the case for homosexuals.

It could be said that being Christian to you is a fundamental human expression of faith, as a physiological need to 'belong' and feel relevant, let's say.

Much the same, homosexuals, whom break through the religios and social oppression, do it out of a fundamental expression of the sexual dimension of human being.

As you know, a lot of people believe that religion, religious dogma, religious fundamentalism is to them, akin to 'sin' in your world.

Yet, and legitimately so, every instance where your religion or dogma, or beilefs, or status as Christian(s) is perceived by you, to be under attack on these forums (much like the sensation a homosexual would feel for each one of your 'sinful' accusation towards homosexuality) you would jump into action to 'correct' the attackers of their illegitimate and undeserving acts, regardless of their beliefs or culture, or personal experience.

Well so it is with you beliefs 'spider'. One's legitimate biological and sexual nature, is certainly as legitimate a fundamental human right, as your right to worship and hold those discriminatory beliefs you cherish?!?!?! If I am going to defend YOUR right to discriminate through your to worship, I am at the very least going to counter balnce it with my fellow brother and sister to express their legitimate sexual nature IN SPITE of your discriminatory 'worship' judgment,

If you have the right to hold as a belief and declare from a fictitious book, that the natural, and biological sexual nature of a particular group of fellow humans is a 'sin' (pure fiction in the real world),
That gives the equal right to someone else to hold as a belief a declare you the equivalent of a 'sinner' in their world.

And if you have the right to fight off any such accusations to defend your legitimate 'right' of worship, can we not agree that other legitimate human beings have the absolute and correlate right to refute your alleged 'sinful' (wrong to their ears) accusations, which to them is just as illigitimate on your part, as would be an attack to you as a fundamentalist christian ?!?!?

This is not black and white.
This is not '... the bible says (according to me and some of my friends) therefore...'.

And it is certainly not as simple as this sophistic double talk of '... we judge the sin of homosexuality, but not the sinner...'

Redykeulous,

"You have this deeply ingrained religious notion that homosexuality is a choice. "

Homosexuality isn't a choice. I have said this before. You guys don't like attacking what I really believe, so you set up strawman arguments and attack them instead. Next time, actually discuss what I believe or leave me the hell out of your silly discussion.

Wed 10/17/07 03:18 PM
Spider quoted and commented:

"Redykeulous,

"You have this deeply ingrained religious notion that homosexuality is a choice. "

Homosexuality isn't a choice. I have said this before. You guys don't like attacking what I really believe, so you set up strawman arguments and attack them instead. Next time, actually discuss what I believe or leave me the hell out of your silly discussion. "

I afraid you don't see the Redykeulous side; Spider you believe homosexuality is sin solely based on verse in the Bible. You base a personal belief not by a personal interaction with a homosexual but instead judge them based on what you read. By action of automatically judging people is not what Jesus preaches: "Love thy neighbor as you would love yourself."

Eljay,

You wrote:
'...Just a question - not an indictment, but is believing in the bible as being what it claims to be "Religious Dogma"?'

That is a bit of a non question, no offense intended.

The bible's claim is entirely subjective and dependent upon the understanding and interpretation of the subject reading it.

If that were the sole premise, which it is not, a book, among other books, that people freely consult for inspiration, reflection or meditation, a personnal and private gesture, it migh very well be a productive process. It is the relationship many have with the bible by the way.

But it isn't a free, personnal and private introspective process to the largest proportion of 'religious devouts'.

Enters dogma. The 'official' and therefore 'bias' interepretation of a given church, or given religion. Not free, not private nor introspective a process in the slightest.

I've encountered people defining themselves under a new 'label'. Thay referred to themsleves as 'intellectual Christians'. That was a refreshing twist, as I listened to their comments and takes on the different 'official' positions of the church. Pardon me, but these people took, or gave themsleves permission to kick the living daylights out of church dogma. It made sense, it was inspiring, it was stripped of all judgment, it lifted one's spirit, and celebrated and claimed to integrate in their lives, some of my muslim and buddhist friends that were around during our 'soirées' together. Almost forgot, out of 15, 4 were homosexuals. And the whole group sincerely and authentically beat the 'tihs' out of this 'sin', and 'sinner' homosexuality dogma BS. The Muslim as much, as the Christian contingents (Buddhists have no issue with it), conceded that their respective churches were responsible for social and intellectual genocide against humanity.

So I don't know if it answers your question 'Eljay', but taking a 2000 year old book at its word, or adopting the line of a particular church dogma, and defending in spite of your intelectual or moral integrity, for the primitive egotistical need for answers, is at the very best a profoundly irresponsible attitude, and at worst, unconsciously perpetuating a social and intellectual genocide.

Spider:
"Homosexuality isn't a choice. I have said this before"

You say this, but then you continue to believe that homosexuals can be converted. In fact that they want to be. I'm only trying to make you understand that we ALL just want to get progress through this life with the fewest number of obsticles we can. For a homosexual the greatest number of obsticles, currenty extends from their very nature. Remove those obsticles and they will be as happy and well adjusted and the rest of "normal society".

THANKS Fitness, you always seem to say so much without a lot of words. I admire that in people. As they say, we always tend to admire qualities in others that we wish we possessed.

Redykeulous,

They can be converted, but only the ones who want to be converted. Those who are happier living in sin, will always be happier living in sin.

Fitnessfanatic said:
=============================================================
By action of automatically judging people is not what Jesus preaches: "Love thy neighbor as you would love yourself."
=============================================================

If my neighbors house was on fire at 2:00 AM, how loving would it be for me to allow it to burn down with them in it, because I didn't want to wake them?

I think it's cute that you try to tell me what Jesus taught. It always makes me laugh. Non-Christians break the Bible down into little jigolistic phrases and then cry "cherry picking" when a Christian quotes a verse you don't like.

Spider "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"


Honestly Spider I pray to God that He gives you gay children so that that the love of your children will conquer your hate.

Fitnessfanatic,

If all my kids were homosexual, it wouldn't change my mind about homosexuality. My beliefs don't change with the wind, I don't go with the flow. But I would bet you have no idea how I would treat a homosexual, do you? You know why? You judge me without getting to know me. Why is it that every thread I post in turns into a discussion about me? And the freaky thing is that I'm told what I believe and how I treat people by people who have never met me or made an attempt to get to know me.

Spider wrote:
“Why is it that every thread I post in turns into a discussion about me?”

Karma Law Four — Wherever you go, there you are.

Karma Law Five — Whenever there is something wrong, there is something wrong in me.

Just a thought.

Voil;

Okey - let me refraise my question. Before I do - I have another quote from you that I just want a little clarity on, so I can understand the nature of your objections.

"If you have the right to hold as a belief and declare from a fictitious book, that the natural, and biological sexual nature of a particular group of fellow humans is a 'sin' (pure fiction in the real world),
That gives the equal right to someone else to hold as a belief a declare you the equivalent of a 'sinner' in their world."

It is the "fictitious book" part that gets me wondering. By making this statement - you are essentially accusing the authors of the books (within the book) as liars. None of them claims their writings to be fictitious, and many go out of their way to claim that what they've written comes from witnessing the events. When we read the New Testament - Jesus claims to be the Word of God. I take this to mean that he is relating to us the very words that God intended us to hear. So, by natural conclusion - you are calling Jesus a liar. So his claim to be the way, the truth, and the light is false. However - you claim to have the truth. For you know what parts of the bible make sense, and which don't. Why then, didn't God have you edit the bible so that we can all benefit by your knowing the truth. I know that Spider, Feral, Rapunzel, Miguel, myself, and many other are curious to know what we should believe in the bible, and what we should ignore.

Okey - so that may sound like an attack - it isn't really. I understand that you have a hard time with some of the bible, and you're okay with other parts of it - and that it being a "ficticious book" is an opinion, rather than a fact you can support - but that is not how you worded it. Therefore - I simply followed through the logical reasoning one would come to had you actually stated this phrase as fact. Therefore - I now come back to my origional question concerning "religious dogma".
Does reading the bible and taking it's claim to be the word of God as the truth - constitute "religious Dogma"? Or are you refering to the particular religious institutions who's translations and understanding contradict what you believe the bible is saying? For instance - a specific: Catholics believe that Homosexuality is a sinful act. Whereas certain Methodist congregations do not. Are Catholics now following "religious dogma" because they take the bible literally on the matter - while Methodists are not because they don't? This is the clarification I am curious about when you say those that hold to "religious dogma". I just ask this question - because as a believer, I do not always comprehend exactly what "religious dogma" is being refered to when it is used negatively, or derogatoraly - and I value your responses as being well thought out, and not just based on being mad at God.

Di;

you said

"According to the Christian faith, none can be saved but through faith in Jesus. Consider the Jews, being slaughtered by the Hitler Regime; Do you ever contemplate that Hitler could have done a better job. Maybe all he needed to do was create a very oppressive and discriminatory policy against them until they really wanted to become Christian. Then he could have set up state funded religious "conversion camps" and those who succeded in finishing would gladly wear the banner of EX-JEW."

I just felt compeled to respond to this. Hitlers actions had nothing to do with what Jews believed, but rather their heritage. He considered them a weak species within the human race, and by utilizing the Darwinian principle of evolution - that "only the strong survive" as it were, he devised his "Final solution". His intent was never to increase the spread of Christianity by elimination the Jews. He felt the same way about Homosexuals that he did about Jews. They too were part of the final solution. so - it was sort of a bad analogy I guess.

Spider, didn't you know you are personally resposible for the hate and stupidity of other self-labelled Christian individuals we've met?

Hahahaha.

(Apologies to other intelligent, non-hating Christians.)

---
The limitations of cultural dominant dogmas are often easier to see than the limitations of under-dog dogmas.

Wed 10/17/07 10:31 PM
Fitnessfanatic,

If all my kids were homosexual, it wouldn't change my mind about homosexuality. My beliefs don't change with the wind, I don't go with the flow. But I would bet you have no idea how I would treat a homosexual, do you?

Hmm let me repeat what you wrote:
"If my neighbors house was on fire at 2:00 AM, how loving would it be for me to allow it to burn down with them in it, because I didn't want to wake them?"

Why did you use the extreme word "fire" in this post about homosexuality? Most people's problem with homosexuality is their own perception of gays and lesbians. It is far from the dire image of a house burning down at 2:00 am. Maybe you think it's because they're damn for God making them gay and your concern is to save them from the "fires" of hell. If that's the the case then you have some sort of superiority complex.

Honestly Spider in the Bible it says that only Jesus can save people. "Judge not least be judge yourself."

Eljay

WARNING!!!

THIS IS A LONG POST. But I think it addresses your question. Ironically, I just didn't have time to 'condense' it!!!

Hope it forwards our exchange nonetheless.

Here we go:

DOGMA SIMPLY PUT,
… could be said to be a fundamental element of religion, and can be confused to be a fundamental element of faith by extension. In this falsehood, lies our debate.

I would assign the term "dogma" to those theological ‘tenets’ or doctrine of a specific religion.

Those tenets, in order to be part of a church dogma, must first be well demonstrated and accepted by ‘faithful believers’ as the truth of their church, and must be reasonably constructed around the specific and agreed upon ‘revelations’ of the particular religion.

While faith is absolutely necessary for religion or dogma, religion and dogma are far from necessary nor necessarily useful to faith.

Religious dogma, or church doctrine, becomes the official line of the given religion or church, which cannot be doubted, revisited or disputed. THAT IS THE KEY ISSUE I HAVE WITH DOGMA.

The pre-existing condition of religious dogma, which some consider essential, or conditional even, to fuel their beliefs, is the absence of doubt in the dogma.

So much so , that a person whom no longer accepts the ‘dogma’ of his/her given religion, is said to enter a period of personal doubt. Fellow church members will treat this as a weakness to be corrected, on the way to full restoration to doubtless dogma (not restoration of faith).

It is said that one whom believes in religious dogma has no experience of the concept of dogma.
One believes the dogma (body of beliefs) to be the truth, and no longer the ‘dogma’.
A lot like the person whom believes in a superstition, the superstition no longer lives as a superstitious (fictitious fabrication), but as the truth.

The perversion of faith, or believing, is people’s obsession to substantiate either; this need that it be TRUE above all.

By definition, neither require proof or proving. Only the 'ego' requires comforting from not knowing though proof. The undisputable, doubtless, and ‘infallibility’ nature and pretension of ‘dogma’, degrades and perverts the pure and powerful essence of faith, and believing.

If I have to justify, or prove, or otherwise substantiate, I am no longer in the domain of faith or believing.

If one NEEDS some form of ‘proof’ first, in order to have faith or believe, anything!, I suggest very humbly that we are not talking about faith, nor are we talking about believing.

It matters less that you use the bible or the phone book. What matters is that one has faith in life and his fellow human being. If the bible does that for people, fine! Faith matters, and not the bible, nor the dogma. They are just accessories for some.

WHY DO I SENSE THIS MATTERS AT THIS TIME:

For the longest time it seems, I saw religion as harmless ‘nonsense’ (TO ME).

Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence I figured, but, since no one holds THE truth, I have a right to my nonsense, and others have a right to theirs. Where’s the harm?

September 11th changed all that for me. ‘Revealed faith’ taking the form of 'human weapons' seeking revenge, is not harmless nonsense. We have all witnessed it can be lethally dangerous nonsense.

Bush’s retaliation taking the form of a ‘crusade’ against an ‘axis of evil’, isn’t a Rambo movie, it is lethally dangerous corrolate move.

September 11th wasn't the start though. It was a move. But a move which woke something up in my sleeping conscience. What is the source of this escalation of madness??? Religion, the pink elephant in the room, was no longer harmless a I had held it all those. When the religious dogma at its core perverts beliefs into absolute thruths, religion becomes downright dangerous.

Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness.

Dangerous because it gives ‘fundamentalist believers’ this false courage to die for their faith, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. (Fundamentalist Muslims willing to die individually; Christians, more pampered, through the proxy of their military: ‘we support the war, becomes automatically confused with ‘we support our soldiers’. How disgusting of those cowards).

Dangerous, because it teaches enmity to others labeled only by a difference of inherited tradition. The ‘we-good’ ‘them-bad’ syndrome. The division of everything and everyone into ‘good’ or ‘bad’ as interpreted through the ‘fundamentalist’ ‘good and true’ beliefs of each dogmatic camp.

And dangerous, because ‘moderates’, whether they believe or not, have all bought into a weird respect, or politically correct ‘zombie’ behavior, which uniquely protects religion from serious criticism.
There was an unspoken agreement where each Church managed and sanctioned ‘their’ respective fundamentalists. It is unfortunately no longer the case. The fundamentalist have ‘escaped’!!!

Not all faithful believers are ‘fundamentalist’, to the contrary, most have a pragmatic and lucid relationship to their faith, distinct from their church. Very distinct from the potentially dangerous delusional state of fundamentalists.

Delusional behavior is not covered by freedom of worship. Racism, bigotry, hate-mongering and unlawful discrimination, is never to be tolerated much less protected by the cover of faith, belief, religious dogma and doctrines.

Let's now stop being so damned unconscious and irresponsible, and denounce the nonsense!



SO WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE?

Simple: It is faith, - or it is fact! Never both!!!

That’s it! Faith is not fact, and fact is not faith. No perversion, no manipulation, no sophistic illusions please.

Anyone pretending, alleging, alluding, cajoling, trying to convince, deceiving, manipulating, arguing, crusading, evangeli(king), selling, or RIGHTEOUSLY AND UNILATERALLY DECLARING IT TRUE ABOVE ALL, is to be denounced for his/her delusion.

Anyone whishing to share and discuss his or her faith and beliefs, is doing so with integrity,
... when being responsible for the FACT that FAITH does not require FACT or PROOF in order to exist as TRUE FAITH!

Riddle: true faith, not true fact. But it is a fact that it is true faith.

A conversation between two ‘believers’ of the same faith or religious dogma might have minor disagreements, but will agree that they both believe the same fundamental concepts to be true for themselves.

Not so in a conversation between a ‘believer’ of a particular dogma, and a non-believer, or a ‘believer’ of a substantially different religious dogma.

The missing link being absence of faith in ‘revelations’ in one case, non-believer, and faith in a different body or dogma, founded on different ‘revelations’ for the other.
With respect to the bible and the Christian god, and scriptures and all, faith in the divine revelations is the starting point. The pre-requisite in sharing the faith, the beliefs, the dogma et all.

St-Thomas of Aquinas, I believe, did some great work on the subject of theological dogma through his ‘Summa Theologica’ , back in the ’dark ages’ to calm the religious fundamentalists of the times.

He basically offered an explanation for the nature of the relationship between 'faith in revelation', and 'non-faith in revelation':
"If our brother believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of ‘proving’ the articles of faith based on revelation. No amount of reasoning your belief will be of any help. It is not reasonable to your brother, and it is strictly founded on faith. On the other hand, nothing stops the conversation to keep explore faith itself".
One may have faith, while someone else may not, but it would be senseless to deny faith itself.

CONCLUSION

Faith and believing are not fact based.

Questioning our own faith. Doubting it most of the time. Not confusing it for the TRUTH, but rather what is true for me very personally, while allowing what is true for someone else very personally.

Believing is only so without knowing. If you know, NO NEED TO BELIEVE.
Religion and religious dogma: TO TAKE DOUBT AND QUESTIONING OUT OF FAITH AND BELIEVING IS A PERVERSION.

Faith is not a McDonald franchise.

We may refer to religion, dogmas, churches, rituals, and myths, but let’s all focus our spirit and explore and discuss the powerful mystery of human faith, and our capacity to believe.

Fitnessfanatic,

"Honestly Spider in the Bible it says that only Jesus can save people. "Judge not least be judge yourself." "

Thanks again for telling me what the Bible says.

The problem you don't get is that if someone asks the question "Is homosexuality a sin", I can and will answer yes. That has nothing to do with saving anyone, it's answering a question. There are several homosexuals who post in the forums, ask them if I have ever contacted them to tell them that homosexuality is a sin. I don't do that, ever. But if someone asks for my opinion, I'll give it.

AIDS isnt a disease its a cure.
the lifestyle promotes multiple partners and all other manner of perversions which leads to medical problems, this being only one.
as for whether its in the genes, who cares? dont make any difference as far as bible law goes. we all have temptations... whether or not we act on them is the big choice.

"AIDS isnt a disease its a cure.
the lifestyle promotes multiple partners and all other manner of perversions which leads to medical problems, this being only one.
as for whether its in the genes, who cares? dont make any difference as far as bible law goes. we all have temptations... whether or not we act on them is the big choice. "
---------------------------------------------------------------

OK, Rambill, if this is what you truly believe, please explain how someone like Amanda Blake(Miss Kitty from Gunsmoke) or the ii year old boy who contacted AIDS thru his dentist's unsanitary conditions several years ago is justified. And these are FAR from the only two cases like that, just two of the most well-publicised ones.