Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Feral]

My own religion holds that the universe is the results of the actions of gods. I do not see any real theological difference between the idea that the universe was created by this or that god and the idea that the universe was created by a random accident. The dry cosmologies of the mathematicians are really just poorly written renditions of liturgy; the liturgy of my faith is really just a flowery and over-written suggestion of what the mathematicians say is so -- order is implicit in chaos.

[theangelopenshereyes]

Hey dude hate to break it to you but I dont think many people still believe that the sun orbits the earth.
And I prefur the idea of a God created earth than our existances just being a random accident.

[Feral]

LOL. I will probably have the occasion to quote the revised version as well some time... I agree with it entirely, with but one exception. If a person is going to insist (as but one example) that the world is little over 6,000 years old, and if they insist upon doing so in a university environment, there are simply going to be at least some people who form a remarkably negative opinion of that person's intelligence and sanity. There is no getting around it. The evangelicals would have it that, because this (and dozens of other examples) is a religious belief of theirs, such negative opinions are 'insensitive' at best and (as is quite commonly claimed) 'persecution.'

Now, certainly I have no hard feelings at all toward evangelicals, but a person who whole-heartedly believes that the planet is 6,000 years old or who believes that it floats stationary in space with the sun revolving around it is a moron. If the evangelicals insist upon calling that "religious bias" or "intellectual condescension" then so be it.

[Mogul]

OK, I shall correct the sentence:

Nobody has hard feelings towards evangelical Christians because of who they are, but because of what they think, say and do to other people.

 

[Feral]

I shall be quoting you now, you know. This is a very nicely formed example.

There is but one possible problem with it -- as with some Gay-identity advocates, it is not at all uncommon for cultural attributes like what one thinks, says, and does to be claimed as a portion of one's identity, as part of who one is. Many Gays take considerable offence at the idea that there is nothing at all wrong with who they are, but plenty wrong with what they say, think, and do because of who they are.

It remains a fact in many situations that from, time to time, "you’re told that much of what you believe religiously is not just wrong, but worthy of mockery." This applies to beliefs that are not religiously based as well. Not all people agree. Indeed, sometimes the level of disagreement is very high. When two persons have strongly-held beliefs that contradict each other there will, of course, arise occasions where one shall tell the other that he is just plain wrong.

In a material world, something which is demonstrably untrue is just not true, no matter what religious ornamentation has been applied to the religious belief. Sometimes the appearance of such untruths in conversation are worthy of compassion and sympathy, sometimes they are worthy of discussion and debate, and sometimes there is nothing left but mockery. If I say the sky is blue and you say the sky is green (and a solid sphere), then one of us is an idiot. You will have to excuse me if I lack the humility to assume it is me.

[Mogul]

I was reading an article on the Internet and I think it might be interesting to you guys as well. Here are some excerpts:

secular university faculties are dominated by liberals who treat conservative students, particularly evangelical Christians, with intellectual condescension or worse.

[..]

The other survey, by the San Francisco-based Institute for Jewish and Community Research, confirmed those findings but also found what the institute’s director and chief pollster, Gary Tobin, called an “explosive” statistic: 53 percent of its sample of 1,200 college and university faculty members said they have “unfavorable” feelings toward evangelical Christians.

Tobin asked professors at all kinds of colleges – public and private, secular and religious, two-year and four-year – to rate their feelings toward various religious groups, from very warm or favorable to very cool or unfavorable. He said he designed the question primarily to gauge anti-Semitism but found that professors expressed positive feelings toward Jews, Buddhists, Roman Catholics and most other religious groups.

The only groups that elicited highly negative responses were evangelical Christians and Mormons.

“When we ask questions like this, we’re asking the respondent to say how they feel about an entire group of people, and whatever image they have of that entire group comes through,” Tobin said. “There is no question this is revealing bias and prejudice.”

Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, disagreed. What the poll reflects, he said, is “a political and cultural resistance, not a form of religious bias.”

Emphases mine. 

Tobin, the pollster, acknowledged that his survey did not measure how professors act, only how they feel. But he said the levels of disapproval are high enough to raise questions about how evangelical Christians are treated.

“If a majority of faculty said they did not feel warmly about Muslims or Jews or Latinos or African Americans, there would be an outcry. No one would attempt to justify or explain those feelings. No one would say, ‘The reason they feel this way is because they don’t like the politics of blacks or the politics of Jews.’ That would be unthinkable,” Tobin said.

Mr Tobin is wrong. Nobody has hard feelings towards evangelical Christians because of who they are, but because of what they think, say and do. This is quite a difference: Being a white person is not particularly objectionable, but being a white person who believes that black people are inferior, telling this to everybody and acting accordingly will most certainly subject one to ridicule and hatred from fellow citizens, yes.

[Athrael]

By Faith they claim their right to persecute. They will tell you point blank that they do not have an agenda, they have a "Faith". That is more powerful and more dangerous than having an Agenda.

I would rather they had an agenda, a real agenda than a "faith".

A few Christians; Phelps, Robertson, Falwell (Ministers and "leaders" of churches) may have an Agenda, the rest are followers who, based on their Faith, follow... these men. Yes mostly blindly and not just on the gay scriptures, but on a wide variety of others which in many cases are the sure path to hell .

Thus by their faith they must save us from "sin" They must save societies from "sin" and promote the facade of morality. This is their faith, and it will not be shaken or retrained - and if we dare to shake it or dare to even suggest retraining they we are persecuting their Faith - not their agenda. It is a self supporting structure which no amount of logic or reasoning or science can shake or change.

Agenda's can be changed, can be shook up.  Here in the USA the political "agenda" of Conservatives stands upon the backs of certain "moral" issues, Gays, Abortion and now Stem Cell Research. Even though faced with other more pressing topics, War in Iraq, the War on Terrorism, the Economy, the $4.00 price tag on Gasoline, the Conservatives fall back to gaining votes by pressing their moral position on Abortion, Gays and Stem Cell Research.

They are very much like Islamic extremist. Granted  they are not strapping on bombs and walking into gay clubs to self detonate (yet), but the same drives of "faith" are there, the same "illogical, faith based" reasoning that governs the Islamic Suicide bomber governs the persecution of the Gays.

When it comes to the persecution of the gays by the churches, it is done without thought, it is committed on a visceral level where their faith that they are doing 'God's work' is the driving force.

Unlike the GLBT "agenda" to politically and socially gain acceptance and tolerance which is not so much "faith driven" but driven by a sense of equality. The GLBT "agenda" is most often rationally thought out and argued,  re-argued, and argued again. The old Arguments of the GLBT side to not reach a point where "God said so" as the ultimate argument  - that is purely a faith-based argument. Argue with the 'religious' and no matter how logical, rational, scripture based or factually based the argument that God love Gays is, you reach a point where the religious will argue "Because God said so".

To give credit to those who earned it, there are a growing number of denominations which are adopting a more tolerant stance on the "gay question". In as much as the arguments against the old interpretations of the bible are being heard. Although the more "traditional" churches will turn around and call them the Church of the False Prophet, which is based loosely on an interpretation of End Day Prophecies. Again faith rears its ugly little head as an "argument" against in this case GLBT.

To understand the differences I put the definitions of both Faith and Agenda below.

Finally, being in the U.S. as you are, how can you keep a straight face when you say the Christians in the U.S., whether pseudo-neo-Bushian Christians, or the more "traditional, faith-based" ones are not operating on the basis of a cruel, despicable agenda? Their agenda is simple: "Drive them all back into their closet. Once they're all in there, let's throw away the key and say we did it for God."

The problem is that they do believe that they are doing these things for God - not based on rational reasoning of an agenda, but based on faith.

Agenda:
1 : a list or outline of things to be considered or done <agendas of faculty meetings>
2 : an underlying often ideological plan or program <a political agenda>
- agen·da·less /-d&-l&s/ adjective


Faith:
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b  (1) : fidelity to one's promises  (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

[Vizier]

....Christians do not have an Agenda, they have a Faith - a strong and powerful, if sometimes myth-placed faith in the irrational and illogical. ....

Have to disagree with you there, Athrael. There is a very powerful agenda at the basis of Christianity, especially that version espoused by the Catholic church, the most powerful and farthest-reaching organization within that faith structure known as religion. Sadly, at one point healthy dissent arose and spawned several offshoots which have since the "Reformation" themselves become not much more than evil and often poor clones of the original.  Reduced to a few sentences, the entire Christian faith is based on lies, historical sleight of hand, misperception, superstitions and cunning "rebranding" of pagan customs and traditions into "Christian celebrations."

My personal views on the topic of faith run more in line with the following (selected few) thoughts of well-known thinking men:

• In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point. --Friedrich Nietzsche
• A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
• Faith... must be enforced by reason... when faith becomes blind it dies. -- Mohandas Gandhi
• I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. -- Mohandas Gandhi
• One man's theology is another man's belly laugh. -- Robert A. Heinlein
• Religion is the idol of the mob; it adores everything it does not understand. -- Frederick II
• The Bible is literature, not dogma. -- George Santayana

The list could go on quite a bit longer, but I think you catch my drift. To say there is no agenda in the minds of most people running the "Christian" show is somewhat naive, I fear. There are spiritualists in the world who may have faith in some things, but the minute one of the "organized, faith-based" institutions or any type of dogma is involved, all spirituality, goodwill and rational thought go out the window.

Finally, being in the U.S. as you are, how can you keep a straight face when you say the Christians in the U.S., whether pseudo-neo-Bushian Christians, or the more "traditional, faith-based" ones are not operating on the basis of a cruel, despicable agenda? Their agenda is simple: "Drive them all back into their closet. Once they're all in there, let's throw away the key and say we did it for God."

[Athrael]

Fear is the underpinning emotion that is usually expressed in one of two ways. - flight or fight.

There is good cause to think it is fear.

"We let gays marry it will destroy the institution of marriage'"

"Gays can turn you gay."

on and on the clips and phrases go. They are afraid that we are thinking of them "that way" or that we will in fact reach out touch them.  It is becoming accepted by psychologists that the homophobic are afraid that they are gay and express hatred of gays as a fear that they may be gay too.

WASHINGTON--Aug. 1--Heterosexual men who say they hate gays are likely to have homosexual leanings themselves, a new study suggests. "These guys despise in others what they see in themselves," said Henry E. Adams, research professor of psychology at the University of Georgia at Athens, who conducted the research.

  http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/homophobic.html

People do not attack rats, leeches and the rest out of mere hatred, it is a fear of these that causes the loathing. People may not fear the creature itself but the potential for disease, the potential of a venomous bite.

The path to hatred is first fear.  Fear is the great murderer of logic, rationality, compassion and love.

As for other religions. I added the main three which are abusive to the extreme, however the other religions also have some tendency to regulate us to a second class, deny us "rights" etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Hinduism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Buddhism

They both have guidelines on what they allow homosexuals to do, The Hindi have gone so far to make us a third gender, that third gender is in essence a third class citizen. 

Granted they are not about to beat our heads in for being gay, but there is a strong sense that even they view us as less than they and most likely there is a bit of fear there too.

[Mogul]

Gays are feared, we terrify people - in our mere existence we are terrorists.  There is something about us that pulls at some deep part of "straight" people causing them to fear for their lives. They will, out of that fear, pull in every weapon at their disposal, presently Christianity is but one weapon on a long list or potential weapons that is used most often in "Christianized" nations. Go elsewhere and it is Judaism, Islam, Worship of the Sun/moon  - what ever form religion takes.

This is hardly true... If they would fear us, they would run away. Instead, they hit us with basebal bats, metal rods, stones, boots, fists -- anything awaylable. Sometimes a look suffices to provoke a fiercefull attack on a homosexual, or just saying that someone is a homosexual. They don't attack us because of somethink we make to them (e.g. sexual approaches, touching), no, they strive to extinguish us simply because of who we are. That's hate, pure and simple. That's the same kind of hatefull disgust many people experience towards rats, cockroaches and leeches. The moment they see one, they attack with murderous intent. That's what we are to them -- varmints, to be extinguished.

As a matter of fact, I must state that there are significant differences between religions. Whereas Islam, Judaism and much of Christianity regard homosexuality as an "abomination" worth capital punishment (with some concessions to modern times), Buddhism and Hinduism do not focus on the issue at all. There is something anti-sexual, anti-joy with Islam, Judaism and Christianity, which makes them unique. Acknowledged, the despise of the homosexual is not limited to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic world, but outside of the 3-monoteistic cultural sphere this despise rarely takes violent shape. Why is it so? Because the monoteistic religions are deeply patriarchalic in their nature, they are based on power exercised by a mighty father upon the rest of the family. The God is always mighty and revengeful, and he endorses violence in a multitude of occasions. Clearly, when such a God is worshipped, his behaviour is learned to be worth of imitation. Those believers who keep closely to the Old Testament, not only believe that gays are an abomination, they also are greate fans of the corporal punishment, which makes the children to grow up violent and abusive. I am sure that Jesus would be against this, but his teachings are only a minor part in the entire "Christian" ideology.

Remembering the unjustice is essential, not that much for the purposes of revenge, but for purposes of awareness. Shall we forget what straight people (mostly "religious" straight people) have done to us, and continue to do, we come into danger of thinking ourself safe. There is much of the easy-going attitude on the side of Gay people, who are happy when a Cardinal says they are solely "immoral". The "past" tends to come back in form of the future, over and over again. The Jews of 1920 thought they survived the medieval pogroms which were "past" now, and were then taken by surprise when the Nazi slaughterings began.

There are many good things about Christianity, but homophilia is not among its virtues. And yes, justice has healed many wounds -- ask any victim.

[Athrael]

I worry about pointing out the flaws in others, it is always mistaken as a hunting season having been opened.

Yes we can list the flaws and fatalities and the injustices visited upon our people, But to seek retribution for these crimes - - - Is there satisfaction in that or would old deep wounds be opened up again? I wonder if in the mere listing if the scabs of healing wounds will not be ripped off.

It took centuries before the Catholic Church apologized for the Inquisition expect much longer for apologies to the GLBT.

As for rounding up the haters and getting "justice served" did that work well for the Jews post-WWII when Nazi members were rounded up and tried for crimes against humanity?  Sure it made a strong case of Zionism, it made even a few find a career in Nazi-hunting, but by and large were old wound healed or where they left ripped wide open and bleeding? Did it bring back the dead, did it undo the injustice? Did it send a clear message which changed the hearts of men around the world making the Jews a people beloved by all?

No, unfortunately it mostly had the opposite effect and it created more hatred in the end, even so far as to make Denial of the Holocaust a growing movement in the world today a little easier.

Let the past remain where it is, in the past. Instead of Focusing on the flaws of others we need to focus on not repeating the past and the flaws of others. Turn our attention and our faces toward the future and work toward making our future better. We can not change other people, we can only change ourselves. Persecuting and hunting down the wrong-doers tends to not work.


Christians do not have an Agenda, they have a Faith - a strong and powerful, if sometimes myth-placed faith in the irrational and illogical. There are those of us who spend a great deal of time working within Christianity to point out the options when it comes to homosexuality, the flaws of the "gay passages" the flaws in interpretation, translation and application of such passages upon modern homosexuals within the context of Modern Christianity. To no avail, their faith sustains even the most harmful and idiotic of things. Thus we still have some arguing that Evolution is "bad" because it contradicts a lovely poem that described a creation in two chapters to lay the foundation for the grist of the Bible - the relationship between God and Man.

We are talking about a people who, where Divorce is a death sentence (mind for women only) and is a sin, have justified and adapted the Divorce passages to suit their needs. We are talking about a people who lift capitalism on a pillar even those Jesus Himself had a HUGE problem with money, and the rich. In other words they have taken pure ideas and have molded them and remade them to fit their wants and needs as they see fit.

Gays are feared, we terrify people - in our mere existence we are terrorists.  There is something about us that pulls at some deep part of "straight" people causing them to fear for their lives. They will, out of that fear, pull in every weapon at their disposal, presently Christianity is but one weapon on a long list or potential weapons that is used most often in "Christianized" nations. Go elsewhere and it is Judaism, Islam, Worship of the Sun/moon  - what ever form religion takes.

We can be assured that it was that fear that caused those "gay admonishments" to be included in sacred writings. That only means that fear of us has been around far, far longer than we can suppose.

Its not religion we are against, we are up against a unmovable force, one that is irrational and runs deeper than any other emotion in humans - Fear.

[Mogul]

If we are condemning our enemies for inciting murder, we shall ourselves stick to our own high standards, and not incite murder in turn.

I for my part would be glad, if the fellows were brought before any orderly court and sentenced on grounds of existing criminal codes -- be sure, they would not walk out as free men.

[Vizier]

In the light of yet another Christian outburst inciting popular hatred towards gay, this time by Cardinal J?nis Puj?ts, Head of the Latvian Catholic Church in Riga, I was wondering if we should adopt the tactics of those who desire our elimination: namely whilst they constantly hark on about a so-called Gay Agenda, we should begin to articulate our opposition to The Christian Agenda...Comments upon this and alternative suggestions for The Christian Agenda against homosexuals would be welcome.

Your idea will find appeal with the more radical among us. Sadly, I have to agree with and exceed the reply by Mogul. There is no one single Christian agenda, but rather a mix of agendas bearing great similarity. Heading this massive onslaught against us in the Western Hemisphere is doubtlessly the new Pope, Benedict XV., who is utterly homophobic and deserves (in my humble opinion) a slow, tortured death, preferably using some of those methods once so joyously used by the Catholic church to put us, thieves and witches to death - first, a nice stretch on the rack, then burn him slowly at the stake in St. Peter's Square in Rome.

After we have done in Benedict, it will be time to turn on other leaders - George W. Bush for one. That idiot, whose chief crime against humanity is his ultra-low IQ and his general lack of common sense and compassion, should be sent on a mission to Baghdad with Cheney. Hopefully, both will be kidnapped by militant factions there and then held by them for ransom. As the U.S. government is so proud of repeatedly telling the world at large, it does not negotiate with terrorists, they will be forced to say "Sorry George and Dicky" and the world will be rid of two of its worst scoundrels once and for all. Bush has through his own utterances and by surrounding himself with "neo-Christian" zealots transformed a liberal country into a bastion of repression and conservativism. Many gays in the U.S. who felt the clouds were about to lift under Clinton and that full acceptance was "just around the corner" are now aware that they are actually systematically being herded back into the closet. Sadly, the Americans are no source of joy in our cause either anymore.

I moved back to Germany for this very reason, but even here there are periodic rumblings of homophobia and occasional bouts of violence and bashing, especially in the former East German states where skinheads and neo-Nazis are enjoying a (hopefully temporary) surge in popularity among the younger crowd.

  As for your Cardinal, he is probably little more than a Catholic toady, with all of his rantings and ravings signifying nothing more than "Yoo-hoo, Benedict! Honey! Look! I'm a good Cardinal and am doing what you want me to! Yoo-hoo!" Of course, this is of little comfort to those who suffer for because of his words.  Hence, I feel it right that your people should take whatever actions they deem necessary to silence this man; failing that, it becomes clear that our cause becomes more urgent with each passing day.

This post has been modified under protest by the original author due to unnecessary concerns by certain board members about my wishes for the speedy demise of several world leaders herein mentioned. My wishes remain intact, but the more acidic language used has been removed - again, under the severest protest.

[Mogul]

[..] we should begin to articulate our opposition to The Christian Agenda [..]

Ah, there is probably as much (or as little) of the Christian Agenda as there is a Gay one. Actually the Christians themselves would hardly ever agree on one agenda. I think that greate many of those "Christians" are Christians by name only, and that Jesus of Nazareth was teaching something very different from what was sold as "Christian belief" to the illeterates for millenia. Let's face it: Most of the evils in the "Christian" part of this world were caused not by erroneous teachings of this man, but by those who have patched together a religion from an ancient jewish history book and letters by some apostels with stained credibility. The Catholic Church, and many of the others, have actually no right to call themself Christian organizations, on contrary -- they are utterly un-Christian in their attitudes.

This being said, I must agree that even the "true-Christians" agenda is not my cup of tea. But who cares? If people are seeking God for their own without harming anybody, that's nobody else's business. Those "true Christians" are a rare species, however, but they exist.

To avoid irritations on the part of decent "true-Christians", I would suggest we concentrate on "religious fundamentalists" Agenda. This thing actually exists crossing all theological borders -- all those un-Christians, Jewish and Islamic scholars demonstrate rare unity, when it comes to Gay-bashing. Their Agenda is to silence the freethinkers, eradicate civil freedoms and sexual self-determination of human beings, and to re-inforce patriarchal family structures. All of the stuff is pure power politics, nothing really divine in this. May the masses and the simple priests still believe in God and values, many of the bishops and senior mullahs are among the most corrupt individuals this planet has ever tolerated. I wonder whether someone has ever counted how often the pope and the Catholic bishops have spoken out against murder and violence against gays, and how often they have spoken out against equal rights for gays. The statistics would be very telling.

I cannot think of a single case when two wrongs made a right....

Bashing faithfull Christians would be indeed wrong -- they do not harm anybody. Exposing those criminals who act in disguise of faith is entirely justified, though... We should be accurate in reporting and measuring the guilt: the misdeeds of the Catholic Church are not equivocal with misdeeds of the Catholics. Keeping this in mind, there will be no wrongdoing to the faithful believers, or am I wrong?

[Athrael]

I cannot think of a single case when two wrongs made a right....