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).
Thread
Posts in chronological order
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.
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.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: [/QUOTENAME]please don't kill me. this is just what i've learned. :)[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
sspeaking of debates,Ive one tomorrow and tuesday
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: [/QUOTENAME]please don't kill me. this is just what i've learned. :)[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Excellent post! Excellent.
I love it all, but this is the best - "God didn't create people - people created God."
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.
[/QUOTE]
Excellent post! Excellent.
I love it all, but this is the best - "God didn't create people - people created God."
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. :)
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. :)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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?
[/QUOTE]
It makes me sick. That's all I can say about this.
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?
[/QUOTE]
It makes me sick. That's all I can say about this.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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. :)[/QUOTE]
No prob! I thought this thread was dead anyway...glad to see it's not. I'm glad you didn't take offence to anything I said, as I said I was just trying to open horizons.
I'm actually very familiar with the Epic of Gilgamesh...it's one of the discussion section peices I teach for Western Civ. Yes, there are things in the Bible that are historically accurate (archeological evidence sugguests a great flood actually did occur in the region at about the right time for this to have been the "world wide" flood of the bible story). It's the interpretation of some of the events that has always bugged me personally. Yes there is the obvious "great bolts of fire from the sky" that we obviously know today as lightning, but that's not what I mean. Most of what gets me is that all of this stuff was written (and especially the stuff after Jesus was alive) hundreds of years postdate, and it's all written a way to sugguest the the writer was actually taking down events with a pad and paper...something I highly doubt. Any other sources are highly suspect in this writing style, because too much of the author is involved in it, spinning things the way he or she wants them to be remembered (I did a paper on collective memory and wrting's influence on it as an undergrad...it's actually fascinating to look at). So much of the faith is based on these events that I find it impossible not to question them, and since most faiths argue that you either have faith and trust it or you don't, then I guess I don't have it.
I know that I'm looking forward to your responses on this issue
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. :)[/QUOTE]
No prob! I thought this thread was dead anyway...glad to see it's not. I'm glad you didn't take offence to anything I said, as I said I was just trying to open horizons.
I'm actually very familiar with the Epic of Gilgamesh...it's one of the discussion section peices I teach for Western Civ. Yes, there are things in the Bible that are historically accurate (archeological evidence sugguests a great flood actually did occur in the region at about the right time for this to have been the "world wide" flood of the bible story). It's the interpretation of some of the events that has always bugged me personally. Yes there is the obvious "great bolts of fire from the sky" that we obviously know today as lightning, but that's not what I mean. Most of what gets me is that all of this stuff was written (and especially the stuff after Jesus was alive) hundreds of years postdate, and it's all written a way to sugguest the the writer was actually taking down events with a pad and paper...something I highly doubt. Any other sources are highly suspect in this writing style, because too much of the author is involved in it, spinning things the way he or she wants them to be remembered (I did a paper on collective memory and wrting's influence on it as an undergrad...it's actually fascinating to look at). So much of the faith is based on these events that I find it impossible not to question them, and since most faiths argue that you either have faith and trust it or you don't, then I guess I don't have it.
I know that I'm looking forward to your responses on this issue
Well, I think that the problem is that Religion and the Church have very little in common. Church is an organisation which makes people behave the way they should behave according to the clericalist's opinion, and by the way their opinion is far from original statements of the religion they are thought to belong.
I suppose that Christianity originally taught people to avoid radicalism (I mean not religious R., but attitude to everyday events and all aspects of everyday life, |though religious R. could be referred to the "common" R.|), but the official Church inverted it. And, I suppose, this is the way it happened:
1) at it's beginning Christianity could be spread by people who understood it in the manner they shouldn't do that (or even didn't understand it at all hehe - it's so realistic); so as a result the first changes in the statements were made.
2) then somebody made a beginning of misusing the religion for his own profit/
3) and finally the church itself starded to work for it's own profit
As a result, the God which probably was meant to be the good in us, turned out to be an allmighty tyran, whose orders should be obeyed but not discussed.
People, who were meant to enjoy their lives and to try not to cause pain to other human beings, turned out to be tyrans (but not allmighty :) ) who could do everything they wanted if they did it in the name of the God, or just weak creatures who had to thank God even for their unhappiness. That was made to make people NOT TO STRUGGLE for their happiness, BUT TO OBEY. And this church policy continues even now. How do you think when feudalism died? No it's still alive in form of CLERICAL MENTAL FEUDALISM. It means that you can do only what you are made and allowed to do. So we can say that RELIGION IS UNWANTED BY THE CHURCH because RELIGION IS A BELIEF and BELIEF IS FREEDOM and FREEDOM IS PROHIBITED.
As an example, the church is against of sexual life if the person is unmarried. But traditionally it was not a rule but a piece of advice and it was made to prevent people from negative effects of substituting love with all its aspects by vulgar f**ng.
Do you see the difference? The Churhch WASN'T MEAHT TO LOVE PEOPLE AND TO HELP THEM. So there is no surprise in what the official branches of christianity say.
Sorry if I explained it in hardly understandable way - my English is the reason for it. And I am very tired, so there may be some stupid mistakes - please dont pay attention to them, ok?
I suppose that Christianity originally taught people to avoid radicalism (I mean not religious R., but attitude to everyday events and all aspects of everyday life, |though religious R. could be referred to the "common" R.|), but the official Church inverted it. And, I suppose, this is the way it happened:
1) at it's beginning Christianity could be spread by people who understood it in the manner they shouldn't do that (or even didn't understand it at all hehe - it's so realistic); so as a result the first changes in the statements were made.
2) then somebody made a beginning of misusing the religion for his own profit/
3) and finally the church itself starded to work for it's own profit
As a result, the God which probably was meant to be the good in us, turned out to be an allmighty tyran, whose orders should be obeyed but not discussed.
People, who were meant to enjoy their lives and to try not to cause pain to other human beings, turned out to be tyrans (but not allmighty :) ) who could do everything they wanted if they did it in the name of the God, or just weak creatures who had to thank God even for their unhappiness. That was made to make people NOT TO STRUGGLE for their happiness, BUT TO OBEY. And this church policy continues even now. How do you think when feudalism died? No it's still alive in form of CLERICAL MENTAL FEUDALISM. It means that you can do only what you are made and allowed to do. So we can say that RELIGION IS UNWANTED BY THE CHURCH because RELIGION IS A BELIEF and BELIEF IS FREEDOM and FREEDOM IS PROHIBITED.
As an example, the church is against of sexual life if the person is unmarried. But traditionally it was not a rule but a piece of advice and it was made to prevent people from negative effects of substituting love with all its aspects by vulgar f**ng.
Do you see the difference? The Churhch WASN'T MEAHT TO LOVE PEOPLE AND TO HELP THEM. So there is no surprise in what the official branches of christianity say.
Sorry if I explained it in hardly understandable way - my English is the reason for it. And I am very tired, so there may be some stupid mistakes - please dont pay attention to them, ok?
To all gay people:
1) Don't become Catholic.
2) In the event that you are already Catholic, convert to another religion that is tolerant of your homosexuality.
3) If you are Catholic, and you refuse to convert, I really don't care what happens to your sex life. It's your loss.
Problem solved.
1) Don't become Catholic.
2) In the event that you are already Catholic, convert to another religion that is tolerant of your homosexuality.
3) If you are Catholic, and you refuse to convert, I really don't care what happens to your sex life. It's your loss.
Problem solved.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]eedodededededea wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Well, I think that the problem is that Religion and the Church have very little in common. Church is an organisation which makes people behave the way they should behave according to the clericalist's opinion, and by the way their opinion is far from original statements of the religion they are thought to belong.
I suppose that Christianity originally taught people to avoid radicalism (I mean not religious R., but attitude to everyday events and all aspects of everyday life, |though religious R. could be referred to the "common" R.|), but the official Church inverted it. And, I suppose, this is the way it happened:
1) at it's beginning Christianity could be spread by people who understood it in the manner they shouldn't do that (or even didn't understand it at all hehe - it's so realistic); so as a result the first changes in the statements were made.
2) then somebody made a beginning of misusing the religion for his own profit/
3) and finally the church itself starded to work for it's own profit
As a result, the God which probably was meant to be the good in us, turned out to be an allmighty tyran, whose orders should be obeyed but not discussed.
People, who were meant to enjoy their lives and to try not to cause pain to other human beings, turned out to be tyrans (but not allmighty :) ) who could do everything they wanted if they did it in the name of the God, or just weak creatures who had to thank God even for their unhappiness. That was made to make people NOT TO STRUGGLE for their happiness, BUT TO OBEY. And this church policy continues even now. How do you think when feudalism died? No it's still alive in form of CLERICAL MENTAL FEUDALISM. It means that you can do only what you are made and allowed to do. So we can say that RELIGION IS UNWANTED BY THE CHURCH because RELIGION IS A BELIEF and BELIEF IS FREEDOM and FREEDOM IS PROHIBITED.
As an example, the church is against of sexual life if the person is unmarried. But traditionally it was not a rule but a piece of advice and it was made to prevent people from negative effects of substituting love with all its aspects by vulgar f**ng.
Do you see the difference? The Churhch WASN'T MEAHT TO LOVE PEOPLE AND TO HELP THEM. So there is no surprise in what the official branches of christianity say.
Sorry if I explained it in hardly understandable way - my English is the reason for it. And I am very tired, so there may be some stupid mistakes - please dont pay attention to them, ok?[/QUOTE]
Good points!
I suppose that Christianity originally taught people to avoid radicalism (I mean not religious R., but attitude to everyday events and all aspects of everyday life, |though religious R. could be referred to the "common" R.|), but the official Church inverted it. And, I suppose, this is the way it happened:
1) at it's beginning Christianity could be spread by people who understood it in the manner they shouldn't do that (or even didn't understand it at all hehe - it's so realistic); so as a result the first changes in the statements were made.
2) then somebody made a beginning of misusing the religion for his own profit/
3) and finally the church itself starded to work for it's own profit
As a result, the God which probably was meant to be the good in us, turned out to be an allmighty tyran, whose orders should be obeyed but not discussed.
People, who were meant to enjoy their lives and to try not to cause pain to other human beings, turned out to be tyrans (but not allmighty :) ) who could do everything they wanted if they did it in the name of the God, or just weak creatures who had to thank God even for their unhappiness. That was made to make people NOT TO STRUGGLE for their happiness, BUT TO OBEY. And this church policy continues even now. How do you think when feudalism died? No it's still alive in form of CLERICAL MENTAL FEUDALISM. It means that you can do only what you are made and allowed to do. So we can say that RELIGION IS UNWANTED BY THE CHURCH because RELIGION IS A BELIEF and BELIEF IS FREEDOM and FREEDOM IS PROHIBITED.
As an example, the church is against of sexual life if the person is unmarried. But traditionally it was not a rule but a piece of advice and it was made to prevent people from negative effects of substituting love with all its aspects by vulgar f**ng.
Do you see the difference? The Churhch WASN'T MEAHT TO LOVE PEOPLE AND TO HELP THEM. So there is no surprise in what the official branches of christianity say.
Sorry if I explained it in hardly understandable way - my English is the reason for it. And I am very tired, so there may be some stupid mistakes - please dont pay attention to them, ok?[/QUOTE]
Good points!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]eedodededededea wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Well, I think that the problem is that Religion and the Church have very little in common. Church is an organisation which makes people behave the way they should behave according to the clericalist's opinion, and by the way their opinion is far from original statements of the religion they are thought to belong.
I suppose that Christianity originally taught people to avoid radicalism (I mean not religious R., but attitude to everyday events and all aspects of everyday life, |though religious R. could be referred to the "common" R.|), but the official Church inverted it. And, I suppose, this is the way it happened:
1) at it's beginning Christianity could be spread by people who understood it in the manner they shouldn't do that (or even didn't understand it at all hehe - it's so realistic); so as a result the first changes in the statements were made.
2) then somebody made a beginning of misusing the religion for his own profit/
3) and finally the church itself starded to work for it's own profit
As a result, the God which probably was meant to be the good in us, turned out to be an allmighty tyran, whose orders should be obeyed but not discussed.
People, who were meant to enjoy their lives and to try not to cause pain to other human beings, turned out to be tyrans (but not allmighty :) ) who could do everything they wanted if they did it in the name of the God, or just weak creatures who had to thank God even for their unhappiness. That was made to make people NOT TO STRUGGLE for their happiness, BUT TO OBEY. And this church policy continues even now. How do you think when feudalism died? No it's still alive in form of CLERICAL MENTAL FEUDALISM. It means that you can do only what you are made and allowed to do. So we can say that RELIGION IS UNWANTED BY THE CHURCH because RELIGION IS A BELIEF and BELIEF IS FREEDOM and FREEDOM IS PROHIBITED.
As an example, the church is against of sexual life if the person is unmarried. But traditionally it was not a rule but a piece of advice and it was made to prevent people from negative effects of substituting love with all its aspects by vulgar f**ng.
Do you see the difference? The Churhch WASN'T MEAHT TO LOVE PEOPLE AND TO HELP THEM. So there is no surprise in what the official branches of christianity say.
Sorry if I explained it in hardly understandable way - my English is the reason for it. And I am very tired, so there may be some stupid mistakes - please dont pay attention to them, ok?[/QUOTE]
this one is quite insulting, but oh well. uhm... lemme see... you can't really say that God is a tyrant or whatever, since you're not IN the religion. let's not use God as a term. let's use Supreme Being, because it's not only Catholics/Christians who have a God. Okay. so, if people did create God, then how were people created? they can't just come out of nowhere. but anyway, going back to the topic, "the church wasn't meant to love the people and to help them." The church, my dear friend, is Jesus' creation. it's his "spouse", as some people call her. It's a religious institution. so in one way or another, religion and church are related.
sorry, just tell me if i didn't make sense. :)
I suppose that Christianity originally taught people to avoid radicalism (I mean not religious R., but attitude to everyday events and all aspects of everyday life, |though religious R. could be referred to the "common" R.|), but the official Church inverted it. And, I suppose, this is the way it happened:
1) at it's beginning Christianity could be spread by people who understood it in the manner they shouldn't do that (or even didn't understand it at all hehe - it's so realistic); so as a result the first changes in the statements were made.
2) then somebody made a beginning of misusing the religion for his own profit/
3) and finally the church itself starded to work for it's own profit
As a result, the God which probably was meant to be the good in us, turned out to be an allmighty tyran, whose orders should be obeyed but not discussed.
People, who were meant to enjoy their lives and to try not to cause pain to other human beings, turned out to be tyrans (but not allmighty :) ) who could do everything they wanted if they did it in the name of the God, or just weak creatures who had to thank God even for their unhappiness. That was made to make people NOT TO STRUGGLE for their happiness, BUT TO OBEY. And this church policy continues even now. How do you think when feudalism died? No it's still alive in form of CLERICAL MENTAL FEUDALISM. It means that you can do only what you are made and allowed to do. So we can say that RELIGION IS UNWANTED BY THE CHURCH because RELIGION IS A BELIEF and BELIEF IS FREEDOM and FREEDOM IS PROHIBITED.
As an example, the church is against of sexual life if the person is unmarried. But traditionally it was not a rule but a piece of advice and it was made to prevent people from negative effects of substituting love with all its aspects by vulgar f**ng.
Do you see the difference? The Churhch WASN'T MEAHT TO LOVE PEOPLE AND TO HELP THEM. So there is no surprise in what the official branches of christianity say.
Sorry if I explained it in hardly understandable way - my English is the reason for it. And I am very tired, so there may be some stupid mistakes - please dont pay attention to them, ok?[/QUOTE]
this one is quite insulting, but oh well. uhm... lemme see... you can't really say that God is a tyrant or whatever, since you're not IN the religion. let's not use God as a term. let's use Supreme Being, because it's not only Catholics/Christians who have a God. Okay. so, if people did create God, then how were people created? they can't just come out of nowhere. but anyway, going back to the topic, "the church wasn't meant to love the people and to help them." The church, my dear friend, is Jesus' creation. it's his "spouse", as some people call her. It's a religious institution. so in one way or another, religion and church are related.
sorry, just tell me if i didn't make sense. :)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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. :)[/QUOTE]
No prob! I thought this thread was dead anyway...glad to see it's not. I'm glad you didn't take offence to anything I said, as I said I was just trying to open horizons.
I'm actually very familiar with the Epic of Gilgamesh...it's one of the discussion section peices I teach for Western Civ. Yes, there are things in the Bible that are historically accurate (archeological evidence sugguests a great flood actually did occur in the region at about the right time for this to have been the "world wide" flood of the bible story). It's the interpretation of some of the events that has always bugged me personally. Yes there is the obvious "great bolts of fire from the sky" that we obviously know today as lightning, but that's not what I mean. Most of what gets me is that all of this stuff was written (and especially the stuff after Jesus was alive) hundreds of years postdate, and it's all written a way to sugguest the the writer was actually taking down events with a pad and paper...something I highly doubt. Any other sources are highly suspect in this writing style, because too much of the author is involved in it, spinning things the way he or she wants them to be remembered (I did a paper on collective memory and wrting's influence on it as an undergrad...it's actually fascinating to look at). So much of the faith is based on these events that I find it impossible not to question them, and since most faiths argue that you either have faith and trust it or you don't, then I guess I don't have it.
I know that I'm looking forward to your responses on this issue[/QUOTE]
let's see... how do i explain this... uhm... from what i know, the epic of gilgamesh-bible similarity is proving either events, and you're right about the collective memory thing. spin doctors might be involved or something like that. but based from what i know, the bible's account of the whole history of the world was passed down from genration to generation or something like that. this part was in the old testament. the events written during Jesus' time were authored by his apostles, so it is given that the stuff in the new testament were written in first person view. there are a lot of books in the new testament because the different disciples have different point of views.
wait... does this answer your question about it now? :) i hope you get what i mean...
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. :)[/QUOTE]
No prob! I thought this thread was dead anyway...glad to see it's not. I'm glad you didn't take offence to anything I said, as I said I was just trying to open horizons.
I'm actually very familiar with the Epic of Gilgamesh...it's one of the discussion section peices I teach for Western Civ. Yes, there are things in the Bible that are historically accurate (archeological evidence sugguests a great flood actually did occur in the region at about the right time for this to have been the "world wide" flood of the bible story). It's the interpretation of some of the events that has always bugged me personally. Yes there is the obvious "great bolts of fire from the sky" that we obviously know today as lightning, but that's not what I mean. Most of what gets me is that all of this stuff was written (and especially the stuff after Jesus was alive) hundreds of years postdate, and it's all written a way to sugguest the the writer was actually taking down events with a pad and paper...something I highly doubt. Any other sources are highly suspect in this writing style, because too much of the author is involved in it, spinning things the way he or she wants them to be remembered (I did a paper on collective memory and wrting's influence on it as an undergrad...it's actually fascinating to look at). So much of the faith is based on these events that I find it impossible not to question them, and since most faiths argue that you either have faith and trust it or you don't, then I guess I don't have it.
I know that I'm looking forward to your responses on this issue[/QUOTE]
let's see... how do i explain this... uhm... from what i know, the epic of gilgamesh-bible similarity is proving either events, and you're right about the collective memory thing. spin doctors might be involved or something like that. but based from what i know, the bible's account of the whole history of the world was passed down from genration to generation or something like that. this part was in the old testament. the events written during Jesus' time were authored by his apostles, so it is given that the stuff in the new testament were written in first person view. there are a lot of books in the new testament because the different disciples have different point of views.
wait... does this answer your question about it now? :) i hope you get what i mean...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]To all gay people:
1) Don't become Catholic.
2) In the event that you are already Catholic, convert to another religion that is tolerant of your homosexuality.
3) If you are Catholic, and you refuse to convert, I really don't care what happens to your sex life. It's your loss.
Problem solved.[/QUOTE]
common misconception: gays ARE tolerated by Catholics. it's just this bishop who shows too much of his intolerance. it's just" unnatural" to be gay because God didn't create Adam and Steve, or Ashley and Eve.
sorry if you find my post weird.
1) Don't become Catholic.
2) In the event that you are already Catholic, convert to another religion that is tolerant of your homosexuality.
3) If you are Catholic, and you refuse to convert, I really don't care what happens to your sex life. It's your loss.
Problem solved.[/QUOTE]
common misconception: gays ARE tolerated by Catholics. it's just this bishop who shows too much of his intolerance. it's just" unnatural" to be gay because God didn't create Adam and Steve, or Ashley and Eve.
sorry if you find my post weird.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]To all gay people:
1) Don't become Catholic.
2) In the event that you are already Catholic, convert to another religion that is tolerant of your homosexuality.
3) If you are Catholic, and you refuse to convert, I really don't care what happens to your sex life. It's your loss.
Problem solved.[/QUOTE]
common misconception: gays ARE tolerated by Catholics. it's just this bishop who shows too much of his intolerance. it's just" unnatural" to be gay because God didn't create Adam and Steve, or Ashley and Eve.
sorry if you find my post weird. [/QUOTE]
This is true, gays are often tolerated within the Catholic community. However, they may develop cognitive dissonances due to following canonical rulings from overseas.
1) Don't become Catholic.
2) In the event that you are already Catholic, convert to another religion that is tolerant of your homosexuality.
3) If you are Catholic, and you refuse to convert, I really don't care what happens to your sex life. It's your loss.
Problem solved.[/QUOTE]
common misconception: gays ARE tolerated by Catholics. it's just this bishop who shows too much of his intolerance. it's just" unnatural" to be gay because God didn't create Adam and Steve, or Ashley and Eve.
sorry if you find my post weird. [/QUOTE]
This is true, gays are often tolerated within the Catholic community. However, they may develop cognitive dissonances due to following canonical rulings from overseas.