Forums > Personal > Check this out

forum rss feed
Author

AspiringPhilosophe user not visiting Queenzone.com
AspiringPhilosophe
Royalty: 1711 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Nov 06, 09:47 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

For all of those intelligent people here to like to debate things, check this out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15719974/
Basically, it's a "new policy for gay outreach" by the Catholic Church. Personally, I think it's terrible, but that's just me. What does anyone else think?



Formerly MHG
magicalfreddiemercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
magicalfreddiemercury
Deity: 2693 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Nov 06, 09:58 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It's ridiculous. They would have been better off not discussing it at all. They haven't changed their 'policy', they've simply made it more condescending.

The only good part I saw, was this -

"To be a Catholic is a challenge," said Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., chairman of the bishops' doctrine committee. "To be a Catholic requires a certain choice."

It's so rare to see the words "catholic" and "choice" in the same sentence. Guess what my choice is where catholicism is concerned.


"The others don't like my interviews. And frankly, I don't care much for theirs." ~ Freddie Mercury



AspiringPhilosophe user not visiting Queenzone.com
AspiringPhilosophe
Royalty: 1711 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Nov 06, 11:38 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

It's ridiculous. They would have been better off not discussing it at all. They haven't changed their 'policy', they've simply made it more condescending.

The only good part I saw, was this -

"To be a Catholic is a challenge," said Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., chairman of the bishops' doctrine committee. "To be a Catholic requires a certain choice."

It's so rare to see the words "catholic" and "choice" in the same sentence. Guess what my choice is where catholicism is concerned.


*laughes* I think I've got a guess!! :-)
I just thought the best part about this whole thing (for those of us clear thinkers out there) is that they are trying so hard to make their condescention sound like it's not. It almost works, if you don't really think about what they mean by what they are saying. It's just so funny to me to watch them try and cover their hate with pretty words.


Formerly MHG
The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18639 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Nov 06, 11:42 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

In this day and age, anyone with brains knows that an institution does not have to dictate what their values and beliefs are supposed to be. This is ridiculous. It's pathetic. It's unnecessary. It's obsolete. They said you need to examine your conscience to see if you're worthy of holy communion... yeah, right. It's as if a governing group of people has some kind of authority over people, and that communion represents the blood of someone's death (rather than that person's life and philosophies, which should be the point of interest). Guess what, folks? The authority is there only if you believe it is.

Why in the world would any gay person choose to be catholic (I refuse to capitalize that word, as if capitalizing should add some kind of sacredness to it), if they can equally choose to live a seccular life without the restrictions, judgementality, bigotry, and segregation as dictated by the church? But if they want some kind of spiritual life that involves church in some way, then like anything else in life, there are alternatives. There are plenty of united churches that would accept them exactly for who they are, without telling them that they need to conform to beliefs or a lifestyle that may not be in their best interest. In Canada, most united churches regularly perform gay marriage. Theologically, the united church still has a ways to go, but socially, they are completely with it. The united church has contributed to much worldwide social justice, especially with their endorsement of fair trade products. They have also donated millions to AIDS research. Good on them!

The catholic church is completely unnecessary in today's world. It has been unnecessary since the enlightenment. It has made no progress since then (unless we count the spanish inquisition as atttemped progress), so it has slowly fallen into obscurity. Sure, people can come here and post a few positive things the church has done in the last few centuries, but I guarantee you, there are ten negative things for every positive thing.

If there are people in this world who feel the need to be controlled by ancient religious doctrine, and don't seem to care that the doctrine has little moral ground in today's complex world, then great. The catholic church is exactly what they need. But it speaks volumes about their self-esteem, and their need to be controlled by something other than themselves. The church condemns people who think for themselves, calling it "selfish self-doctrine", or something like that, as if thinking for yourself (relativism) is a bad thing. For catholics specifically, they condemn free thought by calling it "cafeteria catholicism". Like any other topic, I find simple peace in the fact that people can choose whether or not to swallow this garbage. Even most catholics I know barely follow the doctrines of the church. But since this topic is about US catholics, then I guess it's worth noting that the baptists have much more control than the catholics there, as far as I know. But that's a whole other topic of discussion!

I've wasted enough time on this post. This topic should turn out to be interesting.


"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca
Mr.Jingles user not visiting Queenzone.com
Mr.Jingles
Deity: 10532 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Nov 06, 12:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

LMAO!

Does this mean that it's OK for gay people to beat off in front of each other as long as they don't have intercourse or any sort of sexual physical contact?


[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brandon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]... and now the "best you can offer is Mr. Jingles? HA! He's... just pathetic.[/QUOTE]
Micrówave user not visiting Queenzone.com
Delilah, on Medium Power
Micrówave
Deity: 7037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Nov 06, 12:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

The catholic church is completely unnecessary in today's world. It has been unnecessary since the enlightenment. It has made no progress since then (unless we count the spanish inquisition as atttemped progress), so it has slowly fallen into obscurity. Sure, people can come here and post a few positive things the church has done in the last few centuries, but I guarantee you, there are ten negative things for every positive thing.


That can be said about every religion. It sounds to me like you have a little bias towards the Catholic religion. (I capitalize it.) Usually when the Baptists or Unitists come to my door it takes 'em about 10 seconds before they specifically start attacking the Catholic faith. Scare tactics. That's what the Baptists and Unitists are using now.

My parents were Catholic, and so were their parents, and so on. Do I go to church on Sundays? No, I think God watches football too.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

There are plenty of united churches that would accept them exactly for who they are, without telling them that they need to conform to beliefs or a lifestyle that may not be in their best interest. In Canada, most united churches regularly perform gay marriage. Theologically, the united church still has a ways to go, but socially, they are completely with it. The united church has contributed to much worldwide social justice, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH especially with their endorsement of fair trade products. They have also donated millions to AIDS research. Good on them!


1. It takes no formal education to become a "brother" or "father" in your Unity church. And they choose what they want to preach. I live near Waco, Texas. Sounds pretty familiar.

2. You follow a group of people that have never taken any higher education on the stuff they preach?

3. Proove the AIDS donations. The Unity churches don't have 1/100th the money the Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc. have. I doubt they've donated the millions you say. I don't doubt the millions the Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc have donated.

But then, haven't Queen fans donated millions to Aids research? (The Terence Higgins Trust)

Instead of trying to incite a religious argument, SIR GH, you've just stooped to a lower level that I thought you were above. I could change the word Catholic to any other religion in your post and it would apply as well. It's not just the Catholics!!! But then, apparently all you can do is insult a specific group.

BACK TO THE TOPIC:

After all that, I still tend to find anything the Vatican does lately to be about 200 years behind or just completely ridiculous. This one is just par for the course.

It's the GAYS fault. They've tired of being in the closet, so instead they want to be in our face. We want to teach our kids from day one that a man loving another man is OK. So we have TV shows about them, Congressional hearings, marches, etc.

When was the last time there was a Hetero Parade or a Hetero Debate or some kind of bill introduced into congress regarding Hetero acts? And WHY does there have to be a gay guy involved whenever a TV show about building a house comes on now? Every time, every show!!!

It's time we stop having a Members Only clubhouse for the gays. I don't think your sexual preference deserves special treatment, but apparently the Gays do.


The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18639 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Nov 06, 13:46 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

¼Microwave wrote:

It sounds to me like you have a little bias towards the Catholic religion.


No, not at all. Yes, I could have easily mentioned other religions, cults, or whatever... but the topic of discussion right now is catholicism, so I'm focusing on them. Even so, I don't think anyone can deny that of all the organized religious institutions in the world, there isn't one that is nearly as powerful and influential on people's minds as the catholic church. That's also why I'm singling them out over the others at the moment.

1. It takes no formal education to become a "brother" or "father" in your Unity church. And they choose what they want to preach. I live near Waco, Texas. Sounds pretty familiar.

2. You follow a group of people that have never taken any higher education on the stuff they preach?


I think you are confusing "unity" with "united". They are very, very different things, my friend. United church ministers (at least in Canada) are required to go through years of formal education, most of which is learning about biblical criticism and history. They are taught exactly how, when, and why scripture was written, and how and when the creeds came to be - thus they know that the majority of it isn't everlasting historical fact. Generally, they are taught not to share this information with their parishes, because if they did, the united church (and then surely other denominations) would die even quicker than they are now. Many denominations don't require their preachers to have such education, and thus they preach whatever they want, like you said - and it's usually historically misinformed babble that the average church-going person can't argue against, because they haven't read the books and learned for themselves. And for the record, I don't follow the united church, or any church.

3. Proove the AIDS donations. The Unity churches don't have 1/100th the money the Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc. have. I doubt they've donated the millions you say. I don't doubt the millions the Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc have donated.


Once again, you're confusing "unity" with "united". If you're interested, you can contact the "United Church of Canada" and ask them how much money they have donated towards AIDS to date. It is plenty. As for the catholic church, I recall the last pope urging Africa not to use condoms, because they allegedly have holes in them. That doesn't sound like an institution who cares about fighting AIDS, but rather one who is pushing their own theological and social agenda. I don't doubt that many denominations have helped out with AIDS. I'm well aware that many church groups are socially aware, and care about helping the third world. Based on the history I'm aware of, I don't think the catholic church is interested in helping out with AIDS, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

It's the GAYS fault. They've tired of being in the closet, so instead they want to be in our face.

It's time we stop having a Members Only clubhouse for the gays. I don't think your sexual preference deserves special treatment, but apparently the Gays do.


Those are pretty generalized statements. The "in your face" gays are the minority. But with regards to that portion of the gay population, I do agree with you.



"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca
AspiringPhilosophe user not visiting Queenzone.com
AspiringPhilosophe
Royalty: 1711 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Nov 06, 16:32 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Ha! I knew this was going to get interesting!! And I also knew I'd attract Bob and Dan to this thread by posting it :-P
Question for Microwave, though...you seem like a fairly intelligent person. Why do you have to go off on personal attacks? It doesn't help your argument, and merely succeeds in making you look stupid. Maybe you didn't mean some of the stuff directed at Bob as a personal attack, but it sure reads that way. You may want to take some deep breaths before you start typing things when topics get your dander up.
Does it surprise anyone the Catholic Church is behind the times? I mean, come on! They are just having a hard time accepting the fact that society has progressed to become far more tolerant than they are, because heaven forbid they teach tolerance. They've built themselves on excusivity...you are either one of us or one of them. Defining yourself in that way doesn't mesh well with toleration for everyone. (And yes, this goes for anyone...catholics, baptists, the amish, mormans...pick your superstition) When you define yourself that way, you are bound to be intolerant to someone.
Again, at Microwave...yes there are flamboyant, in your face gays out there. Believe me, I've known some. And they can be a lot of fun to be around, but that's not what we are talking about here. We aren't talking about giving them their own exclusive clique...they already have one that society (mainly religion) has assigned to them: Deformed. Degenerate. Damned. Granted some gay activists take it too far, but that can be found in any group. That label that society has placed on them is precisely what they are fighting against! They don't want to be defined by their sexuality! They want to be normal, just like everyone else, with the same rights and responsibilities that the rest of us enjoy. All they are fighting for is the chance to get rid of that label and be equal with everyone else.


Formerly MHG
Micrówave user not visiting Queenzone.com
Delilah, on Medium Power
Micrówave
Deity: 7037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Nov 06, 17:53 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

I think you are confusing "unity" with "united". They are very, very different things, my friend.


Yes, I was confusing them. Thanks for clarification, I do not know the "United" one. I got pseudo-forced into attending a Unity Church once, Wow! What a bunch of whacks!!! And that's coming from a Catholic!!!


and please, when I say "you've just stooped to a lower level that I thought you were above" that wasn't an insult. Maybe I just worded it poorly. I actually enjoy the conversations we "intellegent" QZoners have. (You know who you are!!!)



Micrówave user not visiting Queenzone.com
Delilah, on Medium Power
Micrówave
Deity: 7037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Nov 06, 17:58 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:


Question for Microwave, though...you seem like a fairly intelligent person. Why do you have to go off on personal attacks? It doesn't help your argument, and merely succeeds in making you look stupid. Maybe you didn't mean some of the stuff directed at Bob as a personal attack, but it sure reads that way. You may want to take some deep breaths before you start typing things when topics get your dander up.


IT WASN'T PERSONAL AT ALL. IS IT WRONG FOR ME TO PASSIONATELY DEFEND RELIGION AND POLITICS? SORRY IF I COME OFF THAT WAY, BUT I JUST SAY WHAT'S ON MY MIND.

Again, at Microwave...yes there are flamboyant, in your face gays out there. Believe me, I've known some. And they can be a lot of fun to be around, but that's not what we are talking about here. We aren't talking about giving them their own exclusive clique...they already have one that society (mainly religion) has assigned to them: Deformed. Degenerate. Damned. Granted some gay activists take it too far, but that can be found in any group. That label that society has placed on them is precisely what they are fighting against! They don't want to be defined by their sexuality! They want to be normal, just like everyone else, with the same rights and responsibilities that the rest of us enjoy. All they are fighting for is the chance to get rid of that label and be equal with everyone else.


Point taken. But if they don't want to be defined, then why should they be allowed the rights of a married couple? Why can't my insurance policy cover YOU, CMU History Girl, if I want to call you my "partner". That's not fair to my family or yours, is it?



Micrówave user not visiting Queenzone.com
Delilah, on Medium Power
Micrówave
Deity: 7037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Nov 06, 18:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Remember a couple of years ago when the Episcopalians (spelled wrong, I know) "came out" and said they would allow gay priest "as long as they didn't show signs of their sexuallity for four years"?

I wonder who got the job of testing candidates?

Just goes to show, the bedroom is the last place for religion. But the TV is NOT the place for gays! Get your own channel, dammit! GTV or Fudge Television or something...

AspiringPhilosophe user not visiting Queenzone.com
AspiringPhilosophe
Royalty: 1711 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Nov 06, 19:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

¼Microwave wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:


Question for Microwave, though...you seem like a fairly intelligent person. Why do you have to go off on personal attacks? It doesn't help your argument, and merely succeeds in making you look stupid. Maybe you didn't mean some of the stuff directed at Bob as a personal attack, but it sure reads that way. You may want to take some deep breaths before you start typing things when topics get your dander up.


IT WASN'T PERSONAL AT ALL. IS IT WRONG FOR ME TO PASSIONATELY DEFEND RELIGION AND POLITICS? SORRY IF I COME OFF THAT WAY, BUT I JUST SAY WHAT'S ON MY MIND.

Again, at Microwave...yes there are flamboyant, in your face gays out there. Believe me, I've known some. And they can be a lot of fun to be around, but that's not what we are talking about here. We aren't talking about giving them their own exclusive clique...they already have one that society (mainly religion) has assigned to them: Deformed. Degenerate. Damned. Granted some gay activists take it too far, but that can be found in any group. That label that society has placed on them is precisely what they are fighting against! They don't want to be defined by their sexuality! They want to be normal, just like everyone else, with the same rights and responsibilities that the rest of us enjoy. All they are fighting for is the chance to get rid of that label and be equal with everyone else.


Point taken. But if they don't want to be defined, then why should they be allowed the rights of a married couple? Why can't my insurance policy cover YOU, CMU History Girl, if I want to call you my "partner". That's not fair to my family or yours, is it?



Please don't think I was insulting you, I wasn't. Your response just came off as alittle hot under the collar is all. Passion is good, but too much of it can be damaging.
I didn't say that Gay people don't want to be defined...they just don't want to be defined on the basis of their sexuality. We don't define hetero couples that way. We define them as a couple, as a married unit, or whatever. Gays can't be defined that way, they can only be defined as deviant. That's the lable they want to get rid of. And, coincidently, men and women who aren't married but live together CAN have insurance policies together. Those gay marriage bans that just passed in a bunch of states (including, unfortunatly mine...but give it twenty years and we'll reverse that) have actually wound up hurting non married heterosexual couples more than gays, who couldn't get married in the first place. Now it's the cohabitors who can't get the same rights as married couples, and a lot of times they are avoiding marriages for good reasons.


Formerly MHG
The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18639 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Nov 06, 02:29 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

¼Microwave wrote:

Yes, I was confusing them. Thanks for clarification, I do not know the "United" one. I got pseudo-forced into attending a Unity Church once, Wow! What a bunch of whacks!!! And that's coming from a Catholic!!!

and please, when I say "you've just stooped to a lower level that I thought you were above" that wasn't an insult. Maybe I just worded it poorly. I actually enjoy the conversations we "intellegent" QZoners have. (You know who you are!!!)


S'all good! :)


"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca
eenaweena. user not visiting Queenzone.com
eenaweena.
Deity: 2355 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Nov 06, 09:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

i'm a catholic myself, but i don't wholly agree with what these bishops are saying. i may be sinning right now. but oh well. i just think that we shouldn't really "follow" what the bishop says because the only thing that we should believe and follow is what the pope says. obviously, the pope had nothing to do with the whole... gay out reach thing.

here's what i learned in philo class: it is unnatural for man to have an intimate relationship with a man of the same gender because... well, God didn't make Adam and Steve. i agree with the whole... adam and steve thing but it doesn't mean that i'm a gay basher or something. i just let them be. i actually find them cool.

the thing i do not agree about the bishop's statement is that catholicism is a choice. i don't think that the gays should be told to stop practicing the faith and all because after all, they're catholics, but they just violated the whole metaphysical state of man. it can't be helped that they prefer men or something, i understand that. but you know... it's just hard to explain this part.

someone said something about the catholics being against birth control, and i have the reasons why.

1.) God created sex to be done inside marriage. children are born out of love. so if you use contraceptives and all that stuff, it's like you're stopping the natural flow of things and that you've changed God's plans.

2.) contraceptives are used to protect people during sex. most of the time, people who use contraceptives are people who do "it" outside of marriage, so they can do "it" all they want and not get preggy and all. the point is, no one should even be doing "it" outside of marriage, because it's more or less taking away each others virginities, and soit's better to do "it" with someone you trust and love, not just with someone you had a fling with.

please don't kill me. this is just what i've learned. :)

AspiringPhilosophe user not visiting Queenzone.com
AspiringPhilosophe
Royalty: 1711 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Nov 06, 09:44 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

In the interest of broadening some horizons, I have to respond to your "learnings". Please don't read this as insulting, and I'm sure you probably did learn it this way. But, one thing that most education (and particularly religion) isn't good at is that there are several different sides to every "fact":
1.) God created sex to be done inside marriage. children are born out of love. so if you use contraceptives and all that stuff, it's like you're stopping the natural flow of things and that you've changed God's plans.
OK, beyond the obvious you have to believe in the existance of God to make this statement work, there are at least two flaws in it. First, marriage was originally a civil arrangement, not a religious one. Going back to the Roman Empire (trust me on this stuff, I teach Western Civ at the University level), marriage was never a religious function. There was no ceremony...it was all political and social. And it remained that way, even through the rise of Christianity. When Charlamagne, who did so much for spreading Christianity in Europe, was in power, there wasn't a fixed religious ceremony for married couples either. It wasn't until about 800CE when the church started stretching it's legs that it hijacked marriage as a religious event. They did this to improve the morality of the people; they believed it was too easy to dissolve marriages. So, if marriage as a religious concept didn't exist until around 800CE, there is no way it could have been commanded by God when he created the bible. The idea that he created it is based on some passages that are very vague and were interpreted in a post-religious marriage climate. The second problem here, that you are changing God's plan if you use birth control...how can that be proven? Can't it also be argued that if you use birth control, then that was God's plan for you? (And don't give me this "The Popes said God was against it" crap...men never has and never will be able to speak for God, no matter who they are).




Formerly MHG
AspiringPhilosophe user not visiting Queenzone.com
AspiringPhilosophe
Royalty: 1711 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Nov 06, 09:51 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

2.) contraceptives are used to protect people during sex. most of the time, people who use contraceptives are people who do "it" outside of marriage, so they can do "it" all they want and not get preggy and all. the point is, no one should even be doing "it" outside of marriage, because it's more or less taking away each others virginities, and soit's better to do "it" with someone you trust and love, not just with someone you had a fling with.

OK, you are falling victim to several generalizations here. First, contraceptives are used mainly for pregnancy prevention, and some of them (condoms for example) are used for STD protection as well. But the main function of things like birth control pills is to prevent pregnancy. There are MANY MILLIONS of married couples who use birth control or condoms within sex in the marriage environment, simply to control the number of children they are having. Look at Italy, for crying out loud! They have the lowest birthrate in Europe, and yet the entire country is Catholic. That either means they aren't having any sex at all, or they are using contraceptives....I'll leave you to decide which one is right here. Unless you want to be like one of those couples that has 10 kids or more, ALL married couples use contraceptives at some point in their lives together, and personally I think it's irresponsible of the church to promote couples to have that many children....children that you can't afford to raise and it wreaks havoc on the mother's body after about kid number 5.
Second, taking away someone's virginity is something that can only happen once. So, people who are having sex outside of marriage aren't generally taking away the viriginity of the other person involved...most of the time it's already gone. Guys in particular, though the view is out there that they are all looking for virgins, generally don't want to sleep with them, because they have a tendency to get clingy and attatched in a way that the guys don't want.
Third, who says that love and trust is neccessarily bound up with marriage? I've known plenty of married couples who had absolutely NO love and NO trust between them, and I've also known plenty of couples who have had that between them without being married. If love and trust is the ultimate quality you need, then a piece of paper saying you are married doesn't need to be present.



Formerly MHG
The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18639 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Nov 06, 15:38 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote:

please don't kill me. this is just what i've learned. :)


Just because you've "learned" it doesn't mean it's true. All you said is traditional religious rhetoric. They've got you believing you're "sinning" because you expressed your opinion. I really feel sorry for you, and anyone else who lives with that kind of fear. "Sin" only exists if you believe it exists, which it doesn't. Sin is something the church created centuries ago to control people, so that they wouldn't think for themselves. And look... it worked on you.

You can't use the idea of "God" as an argument for anything. God isn't a proven entity. You can't talk about God the same way you talk about Brian May or Tom Cruise - because they surely exist. God or any other supernatural idea is a figment of people's imaginations until their existence is proven. That's the same thing as using Humpty Dumpty, Bugs Bunny, or the boogieman as the basis of an argument.

The issues around homosexual people are real issues that need real dialogue. Saying "God wanted it this way" is not a viable argument. It is ancient religious dogma spoken as if there is some kind of truth to it.

And besides, who says that every person in this world is required to have sex to have children? The world's population is increasing by 2 people every second, so we don't need any more people to be having straight sex to have kids. Sex wasn't created by God or whoever. People were having sex tens of thousands of years before people started practicing any kind of religion. How else did people reproduce 20,000 years ago? Religion has only been around for a few thousand years. God didn't create people - people created God.

There was a time in history when we knew very little about our existence, and we needed *something* to explain everything we didn't understand. It's really as simple as that. Over time, we've learned how this world works, one thing at a time. We've just about hit a point where science has rendered most of God's "jobs" to be an idea of the past. For example, we once thought that we got sick because we had demons, which people believed was curable by praying. We believed that God controlled the weather. Now we have medications which can cure anybody, and we know about different kinds of winds, the water cycle, etc.

You really need to stop automatically believing people at church and school when they talk about religion or history. They never give you the full story, or the opportunity to think for yourself, or from another point of view. Remember, there is ALWAYS an alternative to what someone tells you. Don't just believe it because a priest or teacher says it's true. Listen to what they say, seek other opinions, and then decide for yourself what you think is best.



"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca
magicalfreddiemercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
magicalfreddiemercury
Deity: 2693 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Nov 06, 16:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote:

please don't kill me. this is just what i've learned. :)


Just because you've "learned" it doesn't mean it's true. All you said is traditional religious rhetoric. They've got you believing you're "sinning" because you expressed your opinion. I really feel sorry for you, and anyone else who lives with that kind of fear. "Sin" only exists if you believe it exists. And it doesn't.

You can't use the idea of "God" as an argument for anything. God isn't a proven entity. You can't talk about God the same way you talk about Brian May or Tom Cruise - because they surely exist. God or any other supernatural idea is a figment of people's imaginations until their existence is proven. That's the same thing as using Humpty Dumpty, Bugs Bunny, or the boogieman as the basis of an argument.

The issues around homosexual people are real issues that need real dialogue. Saying "God wanted it this way" is not a viable argument. It is ancient religious dogma spoken as if there is some kind of truth to it.

And besides, who says that every person in this world is required to have sex to have children? The world's population is increasing by 2 people every second, so we don't need any more people to be having straight sex to have kids. Sex wasn't created by God or whoever. People were having sex tens of thousands of years before people started practicing any kind of religion. How else did people reproduce 20,000 years ago? Religion has only been around for a few thousand years. God didn't create people - people created God.

There was a time in history when we knew very little about our existence, and we needed *something* to explain everything we didn't understand. It's really as simple as that. Over time, we've learned how this world works, one thing at a time. We've just about hit a point where science has rendered most of God's "jobs" to be an idea of the past. For example, we once thought that we got sick because we had demons, which people believed was curable by praying. We believed that God controlled the weather. Now we have medications which can cure anybody, and we know about different kinds of winds, the water cycle, etc.

You really need to stop autimatically believeing people at church and school when they talk about religion or history. They never give you the full story, or the opportunity to think for yourself, or from another point of view. Remember, there is ALWAYS an alternative to what someone tells you. Don't just believe it because a priest or teacher says it's true. Listen to what they say, seek other opinions, and then decide for yourself what you think is best.



Excellent post! Excellent.

I love it all, but this is the best - "God didn't create people - people created God."



"The others don't like my interviews. And frankly, I don't care much for theirs." ~ Freddie Mercury



eenaweena. user not visiting Queenzone.com
eenaweena.
Deity: 2355 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 25 Nov 06, 10:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

to CMUHistoryGirl:

sorry for the late reply.

i get your point. it's surely being considered. but i didn't really say that i totally agree with what i've learned.. i mean, if that's what my post implied, then it's my bad. i'm just sharing what i know. i can't really say i totally agree with you, but i totally respect your opinion. i have to formulate my thoughts first to refute, but i only have 10 minutes left before my bedtime. no hard feelings taken. :)

to Sir GH:

your point has also been taken. i get it too. same thing with CMUHistoryGirl, i can't totally agree with what you're saying... and i sort of have to follow my faith. seeing that we're from different religious backgrounds, i guess to you, it's people created God, and that statement is backed up by historical proof. but did you know that some historical events proved that thebible was accurate? ex: the epic of gilgamesh. it mentioned some events in a war that happened in the middle east, back in the sumerian's time. just a random tidbit, but if you already knew it, then ignore it. but just the same, i respect your opinion on this whole controversy.

in fact, i respect both of your opinions. it's just that, i have limited time right now and i will fill you in on my... answers, if you can call it that.

sorry once again for the late reply, and for butting in. :)

thomasquinn 32989 user is on Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6257 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 25 Nov 06, 10:40 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

For all of those intelligent people here to like to debate things, check this out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15719974/
Basically, it's a "new policy for gay outreach" by the Catholic Church. Personally, I think it's terrible, but that's just me. What does anyone else think?


It makes me sick. That's all I can say about this.


Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus