MY bad ... forgive my manners, please, jen ... I thought I had offered you a welcome too, but I see it went with a bunch of stuff I edited out of my film/veggie post. Truly sorry for my rudeness, but then it wasn't intentional. I hope you enjoy your visits to A2K, and make us a regular part of your webbing. And while some of the forums here are of the rough-and-tumble sort, there are plenty that don't involve anywhere as much heavy lifting ... You've just stumbled into a topic with a group that plays pretty hard
Look around at some of the many other forums here ... I think you'll find plenty of interest. Oh, and you might wanna click on the colored links down at the bottom of my posts ... particulary the FAQ and The Help Forum ... lots of good "How To" info there.
truth
Welcome, Jen. You wonder why a homosexual would want to belong to a religion that does not accept him/her or their homosexuality. I guess its because they believe that "true" Christianity" as THEY perceive DOES accept them in their totality. We should also keep in mind that the Old Testament (the home of Leviticus) is not a Christian document, or documents.
The Metropolitan Community Church was formed for gays who didn't feel accepted in, say, a Catholic cathedral. I somehow don't feel that because they have to go to confession in order to practice that faith that the fathers who administer the blessing is going to understand if he's told someone committed a gay act just as much as if someone had committed any act of sodomy. I have to agree with Frank that there is a lot of game playing with this acceptance thing. Jen should read the entire thread before commenting as I see us rehashing old material. She's said her piece and if you want to talk about acceptance, her opinion is not being accepted.
I agree with LW and Frank that you should either accept or reject your creed's teachings and not try to bend them to suit your preferences. A gay man can pray to the god he believes in, even if he is sitting in a cathedral that considers him a sinner. The issue arises only if he insists that the church accept him as he is and as unblemished.
A perfect example of what you are discussing is that something like 80% of US (professed) Catholics practice birth control, and not the natural kind, and yet consider themselves among the faithful and forgiven. This is an issue of conscience, of course, and can be argued that way endlessly.
Re the men being abominations while the women go uncastigated, might this have to do with the fact that men who have anal sex with other men sow their seed in a manner that cannot be fruitful, whereas women who have sexual relations with women are usually performing mutual masturbation and thus not "wasting" a precious resource?
Considering there are other ways for a man to have sex with a woman other than the conventional way and those other ways have been interpreted as sodomy it rather muddles the idea that sex is confined to planting a seed. All in all, the Bible is pretty vague about it's explanation and dogma. I agree with Frank that many of the clergy are in denial that the Bible is not the pristine document they believe it is and will rationalize all the contradictions, what modern society is beginning to realize is unfair and incongrous with the psychology of the individual.
The Catholic church does accept gays into the Preisthood -- the have all but admitted it. It's the celebacy that is the issue and the molestation which is not as prevelant as the news probably makes it seem. One can be gay and attend a Catholic church and confess. It really boils down to what one considers themselves to be as far as faith. The church gave the reason that they did not hand over the molestation offenders because sinners can be rehabilitated. That's the crux of the argument with society.
In the end, it is the belief in God that some need the structure of a church and faith to fortify that belief. Many others are still spiritual but may not believe in the God of the Bible.
truth
To what extent might the Church not have turned over to the civil authorities priests who have committed civil crimes because the Church considers itself above and apart from the worldly criminal system? If that is so, they should be consistent by supporting the separation of Church and State principle.
Kara, I profess that all humans pray to their own God in their own way in any place they are in (many places are far more spiritual and other places). This is regardless of what they think they believe
As I said many many posts ago in this topic, I think one can still be part of a church and disagree with the some portion of the entirety of the dogma and general strictures.
I understand that others disagree with me on this, including, of course, many churches. In roman catholicism, the changes developed around Vatican II were first argued about by people who stayed in the church while disagreeing on some aspects. Or tried to stay, in some cases.
That the old and new testaments aren't representative, word for word, of the beliefs of the "faithful" doesn't matter to many of the faithful. They believe in some general concept.
From a purist point of view, such as Frank's, one should get off the pot if it doesn't fit. That is fine with me, any purists should just do that.
As most here know, I am not among the faithful; though having gotten off of my own pot, I remember being there quite well.
truth
Yes, Osso. I'm quite confident that the Pope would like his faithful to treat Church doctrine as a monolithic entity: take it or leave it. But just about every Catholic I know accepts some miracles and descriptions of Heaven and Hell as real and others as fairy tales without suffering any cognitive dissonance. They all, however, would argue that they accept certain CENTRAL tenets of Church teaching.
truth
Roberta? I hope nobody will think that Nobody's real name is Roberta.
John
Ack, John, I thought that was an odd post for Roberta!!
No harm, I love you both. Whatever I said, I think I meant.
I don't know, this picking and choose what dogma one wants to endorse sounds like the scepticism of a scientist which doesn't seem to belong in the mix. I respect those who want to keep the parts of the Bible they agree with and throw out what they don't agree with but I wouldn't be able to do that. It has nothing to do with being a purist, it's matter of considering the document as a moral guide and whether or not one would be punished for not obeying all of its rules. According to the Bible and Jesus, violating these rules or laws are against God and it's unclear what is expected as far as redemption. Praying for forgiveness if one doesn't completely believe in the actions layed down in the Bible seems fruitless. Leaving it up to a clergyman to decide what's going to get me into Heaven according to their interpretation of the Bible is, in my book, ludicrous. So does this mean one should leave it up to themselves to decide right and wrong, and selectively accept or reject what the Bible and it's human ministry expects of them?
BTW, isn't the Catholic hierarchy in violation considering they recruit known homosexuals and then when a small percentage of them not only don't practice celebacy but molest underage children and doesn't that throw out any notion that it would be just about seperation of Church and state? I afree with JL that that is also being selective they want to change the meaning of seperation of Church and state except for anything that doesn't please them. Laws shouldn't be enacted to "please" anyone, they should be enacted to protect one individual or group doing damage to another individual or group.
It's separation of Church and State, not separation of clergy and parishioner
The question is, I believe, whether people should conform to the dictates of a religion, or should a religion's dictates be adapted as convenient to conform to the preferences of people. There is some intellectual honesty in the former, but nothing beyond sophistry in the latter.
So you all agree with Frank re the biblical word being "bible", none of it rejectable?
Frank Apisa wrote:The Bible specifically tells Christians that homosexual conduct is an abomination in the eyes of their god -- so much so that the god commands that people who engage in the practice should be put to death for it.
"They have forfeited their lives," is what the god of the Christians tells them.
I think it is wonderful that Christians have looked at that passage and concluded that the best guess that can be made about it -- is that it is a bunch of horseshit!
If they would open their eyes just a bit further, they would see that the best guess that can be made about the rest of the Bible is that much of the rest of it is also horseshit.
What they ought to do is to break away from Christianity. That is the ethical way of dealing with this.
Doing what they are doing is hypocrisy on a cosmic scale.
truth
I don't think it is important to belong to this or that "religion" as a "member". I take nsights from (Zen) Buddhism, (Vendanta) Hinduism) (Sufi) Islam, (Franciscan) Christianity and many other non-fundamentalist religions, but without joining up for the whole enchilada.
A fundamentalism Christian confessed to me the other day that he found it very difficult to refrain from sin. I responded that I find no difficulty in doing so--I simply do not believe in sin. I confessed, however, that I was not completely off the hook because I DO believe in stupidity, ignorance, civic and interpersonal irresponsibility, egotism, bigotry, sexism, and greed.
Moderation in the pursuit of vice is no virtue
