Homophobia

[Jun]

Thank goodness we have a constitutional right to be a salad-bar Christian or a salad-bar Republican/Democrat or a salad-bar atheist or a salad-bar.....take your pick. We are free, aren't we!!

No "goodness" was involved to thank. There is nothing in Atheism to be "salad bar" about. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. Not much there to pick and choose from.

 

 

I have to agree. A "Salad bar" Christian is a "half-arsed believer" I'd say. Picking and choosing bits to suit, can it still be Christianity that you follow?

[Dave]

I have to agree. A "Salad bar" Christian is a "half-arsed believer" I'd say. Picking and choosing bits to suit, can it still be Christianity that you follow?

The liberal and fundamentalist christians, or any other religion, does that. Most of what they actually say or do isn't even in the books they worship. The thing that gets me is; why bother? Just dump the god stuff and get on with life. It's a waste of time worshiping gods you know aren't there.

[currentchristian]

According to Merriam-Webster (m-w.com), "homophobia" is the "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."

 

I've never understood the "fear of" bit.

 

Does it mean a genuine FEAR as in say, someone with arachnophobia being scared to death of spiders?

 

Does someone with this "homophobia" relapse into fits and spasms when a gay person is nearby? Or do they have panic attacks and start frothing at the mouth? Do they run the other way?

 

Would homophobia be the result of a traumatising encounter with a gay person in early childhood?

 

Good question about the "fear of" piece. There are some who indeed fear gay people as though they were germs/bacteria that might somehow infect others, especially their children. For these people, it's a virus, a disease, and they are OC about it.

 

Have you heard of the "gay panic defense"? (Read about it here.) Gay panic has been used in court to explain why the "red-blooded American man" freaked out and beat to death the gay man who showed some interest in him. Oh, yes, believe it or not. Instead of a, "Well, that's very flattering, but I am not gay and, therefore, I am not interested in you in that way," they beat the poor guy to death. The last time a heterosexual woman expressed interest in me I was flattered; I walked on air for about a day; but I sure wasn't interested and I sure didn't get a case of "straight panic" and hit her over the head with a ballbat.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

Thank goodness we have a constitutional right to be a salad-bar Christian or a salad-bar Republican/Democrat or a salad-bar atheist or a salad-bar.....take your pick. We are free, aren't we!!

No "goodness" was involved to thank. There is nothing in Atheism to be "salad bar" about. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. Not much there to pick and choose from.

 

There are as many kinds of atheists as there are theists. We all rather enjoy the salad bar. Reasoning creatures that we are, I'm glad we have all these choices. Life is rich.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

I have to agree. A "Salad bar" Christian is a "half-arsed believer" I'd say. Picking and choosing bits to suit, can it still be Christianity that you follow?

The liberal and fundamentalist christians, or any other religion, does that. Most of what they actually say or do isn't even in the books they worship. The thing that gets me is; why bother? Just dump the god stuff and get on with life. It's a waste of time worshiping gods you know aren't there.

 

I would assert that they should dump the worship of a book. I don't think they "know" their gods aren't there. I think they believe they are, just as firmly as you believe they are not. I'm thrilled that we live at a time in a country in which they can believe there is a god and you can believe there is not a god and no one gets thrown into a lion's den or an Inquisitor's torture chamber for it.

 

-CC in MA

[neverclear5]

I would assert that they should dump the worship of a book. I don't think they "know" their gods aren't there. I think they believe they are, just as firmly as you believe they are not. I'm thrilled that we live at a time in a country in which they can believe there is a god and you can believe there is not a god and no one gets thrown into a lion's den or an Inquisitor's torture chamber for it.

 

-CC in MA

 

 

yes wonderful an all that, but if you believe in god, just not the god of the bible, then surely you're agnostic not christian right. I mean, even if you only believe the words of christ, he sadi he was not there to replace the old testament so whatever's in there is supported by him.

[currentchristian]

I would assert that they should dump the worship of a book. I don't think they "know" their gods aren't there. I think they believe they are, just as firmly as you believe they are not. I'm thrilled that we live at a time in a country in which they can believe there is a god and you can believe there is not a god and no one gets thrown into a lion's den or an Inquisitor's torture chamber for it.

 

-CC in MA

 

yes wonderful an all that, but if you believe in god, just not the god of the bible, then surely you're agnostic not christian right. I mean, even if you only believe the words of christ, he sadi he was not there to replace the old testament so whatever's in there is supported by him.

 

I embrace a view that is reasonable to me: Jesus (Yeshua of Nazareth) was an ambassador from the Source. I am in Christ and Christ is in me.

 

The rest is detail, and much of that detail is beside the point.

 

-CC in MA

[Vigile]

I would assert that they should dump the worship of a book. I don't think they "know" their gods aren't there. I think they believe they are, just as firmly as you believe they are not.

 

Isn't it all just self-indulgent clap then? You choose the nicey-nice verses because you find some sort of spirtual something in them, yet if you choose to believe in a loving god you are confronted with the ugly realities of this world. You just can't juxtapose a loving god against the type of "creation" that you are faced with. Even if you can explain away starvation, wars, disease, et al, you are left with the cruel nature of nature where the strongest survive and the most brutal are the kings of the jungle. You can argue that god is not ominipotent and not in control, but he (I'm assuming in your mind) created a much harsher system than just the average human would contrive had a human the creative capabilities of a god. In the end it seems that all you are left with after analyzing all this is that you get a buzz when you meditate on scripture, which I happen to find intellectually dishonest and disingenuous towards those who suffer tremendiously in this world. I for one find it difficult to swallow that one would actually worship a god that created this world. It's somehow like choosing to be friends with Idi Amin because he belongs to your tribe and treats you well while you are at the same time in full knowledge of what he has been doing to the other tribes. As you say, you have that right and I wouldn't want to stop you.

[neverclear5]

I embrace a view that is reasonable to me: Jesus (Yeshua of Nazareth) was an ambassador from the Source. I am in Christ and Christ is in me.

 

The rest is detail, and much of that detail is beside the point.

 

-CC in MA

 

 

Say acceptable. Or perhaps believable. It's not reasonable in any way and without even the bible as a (very shakey) source of proof what are you basing this on??

 

Let me guess, you had a very personal experiance where god told you that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Rather like every real believer in every religion since the dawn of time. Oh, maybe its just a feeling you get.

 

Sorry mate, but you're just a vegetarian in a leather jacket.

[currentchristian]

I would assert that they should dump the worship of a book. I don't think they "know" their gods aren't there. I think they believe they are, just as firmly as you believe they are not.

 

Isn't it all just self-indulgent clap then? You choose the nicey-nice verses because you find some sort of spirtual something in them, yet if you choose to believe in a loving god you are confronted with the ugly realities of this world. You just can't juxtapose a loving god against the type of "creation" that you are faced with. Even if you can explain away starvation, wars, disease, et al, you are left with the cruel nature of nature where the strongest survive and the most brutal are the kings of the jungle. You can argue that god is not ominipotent and not in control, but he (I'm assuming in your mind) created a much harsher system than just the average human would contrive had a human the creative capabilities of a god. In the end it seems that all you are left with after analyzing all this is that you get a buzz when you meditate on scripture, which I happen to find intellectually dishonest and disingenuous towards those who suffer tremendiously in this world. I for one find it difficult to swallow that one would actually worship a god that created this world. It's somehow like choosing to be friends with Idi Amin because he belongs to your tribe and treats you well while you are at the same time in full knowledge of what he has been doing to the other tribes. As you say, you have that right and I wouldn't want to stop you.

 

What that we do is not self-indulgent? Eating ice cream is self-indulgent. Having a pet is self-indulgent. Taking a warm bath is self-indulgent. Don't we all choose the "nicey-nice" as opposed to the "meanie-mean" about who we hang out with, how we want others to behave around us, what we want life to be about? And, yes, I do "get a buzz" when I meditate on scripture. I also get a buzz with the tete-a-tete of this discussion board and playing with my cat. There is nothing wrong with "getting a buzz," as long as my buzz doesn't harm another. Right?

 

I acknowledge the horror on earth, but I also acknowledge the beauty of the natural and artificial worlds. We have mountains and valleys, snow and fall colors, streams and wildlife. We enjoy beautiful skyscrapers, bridges, houses of worship, art museums. There is much to love about this life and this world. I believe that "all good things are from above," and, therefore, the "bad things" are not. Their source is not "from above." Just my view, respectfully submitted.

 

-CC in MA

[Vigile]

Yeah CC, this is what I don't get though. You seem to get it, which is why I have a hard time getting you. I don't mean to come across as judgemental as the truth is I'm just having a difficult time understanding your position. You see, the self-indulgent activities of eating ice cream, etc... are not intellectually dishonest whereas your belief in a loving god seems to be. Anyway, I don't want to steal your ice cream.

[neverclear5]

cc, do you believe there's a god, jesus was his son and also part of him? Do you believe he could do miracles, god is omnipotent, omnipresent and benevalent, and that you will live with them forever in heaven? I would have thought they'd be the main sticking points of christianity.

[currentchristian]

I embrace a view that is reasonable to me: Jesus (Yeshua of Nazareth) was an ambassador from the Source. I am in Christ and Christ is in me.

 

The rest is detail, and much of that detail is beside the point.

 

-CC in MA

 

 

Say acceptable. Or perhaps believable. It's not reasonable in any way and without even the bible as a (very shakey) source of proof what are you basing this on??

 

Let me guess, you had a very personal experiance where god told you that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Rather like every real believer in every religion since the dawn of time. Oh, maybe its just a feeling you get.

 

Sorry mate, but you're just a vegetarian in a leather jacket.

 

Please notice that I did not say "reasonable" or "reasonable to everyone," but "reasonable to me." Surely you are not suggesting that we have mind and word police in this country? Can't we just be free to be ourselves?

 

I have had no "very personal experience" with a god or with God or with a goddess or an angel or anything else otherworldly. And I definitely do not think I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I can, in fact, say to you that you may be right. Can you say to me that I may be right? That would be a very good defintion of a freethinker -- someone who can admit s/he may be wrong and another may be right.

 

I'm not a vegetarian, either. But I get what you were saying.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

Yeah CC, this is what I don't get though. You seem to get it, which is why I have a hard time getting you. I don't mean to come across as judgemental as the truth is I'm just having a difficult time understanding your position. You see, the self-indulgent activities of eating ice cream, etc... are not intellectually dishonest whereas your belief in a loving god seems to be. Anyway, I don't want to steal your ice cream.

 

Thanks for not stealing my ice cream! I literally just finished off some Edy's slow churned caramel chocolate swirl! Yummy.

 

I don't understand your difficult time. I don't have a difficult time understanding your atheism or accepting it as intellectually honest. Am I just more open-minded, free-spirited, and understanding that you are?

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

cc, do you believe there's a god, jesus was his son and also part of him? Do you believe he could do miracles, god is omnipotent, omnipresent and benevalent, and that you will live with them forever in heaven? I would have thought they'd be the main sticking points of christianity.

 

I don't like such strict definitions, dogmas, creeds, etc. My creed is that I try to avoid creeds. But I'll answer your questions:

 

Do you believe there's a god? Yes

 

Jesus was his son and also part of him? Yes

 

Do you believe he could do miracles? Yes

 

God is omnipotent? No. God cannot violate our right to make our own choices.

 

God is omnipresent? Yes, potentially. But I prefer he leave me alone when I'm in the bathroom or engaged in other private behavior.

 

Benevolent? Yes, but this benevolence cannot violate the prime directive: freedom of choice.

 

You will live with them forever in heaven? I don't know where I'll live forever, but it will be with Christ. On this earth would be nice. On another planet would be nice. In a galaxy far, far away would be nice. Combing the Universal Archives so I can really, really see what happened in history would be nice.

 

Again, I don't want to get too creedal here. And dogmatism is for puppies. But this is how I see things at 11:01 a.m. on this, the 8th of December, anno domini 2006.

 

-CC in MA

[Dave]

There are as many kinds of atheists as there are theists.

Nope. Just one kind of Atheist; one that lacks a belief in gods. Anything after that would be a personal opinion and not part of the definition of Atheism. It's a simple, default, position. No statement necessary.

[Dave]

I would assert that they should dump the worship of a book.

Yet it is the worship of that book that is their only source of info on their god.

[Lycorth]

Seriously wondering here - no sarcasm intended...

 

My creed is that I try to avoid creeds.

 

Very admirable, but no Xian. Jebus told you what you are to believe in the NT. How can you call yourself a Xian and be non-creedal?

 

God is omnipotent? No. God cannot violate our right to make our own choices.

 

How does being all-powerful (ie, omnipotence) have anything to do with the concept of "free wlll"? An omnipotent god can certainly choose to leave you alone, can't it?

 

Benevolent? Yes, but this benevolence cannot violate the prime directive: freedom of choice.

 

There is no Babblical basis for that. Why do you think so?

[neverclear5]

I don't like such strict definitions, dogmas, creeds, etc. My creed is that I try to avoid creeds. But I'll answer your questions:

 

 

I know. And I salute you for it! The point is, christianity is a strict creed full of dogma. There's commandments in the bible that you just can't get away from unless you don't think that the bible is the word of god. You seem to believe this and that it really is just a vague recollection of a guy who was great and was the son of god but this belief that he is the son of god comes only from reading the bible! If I'm wrong about your belief here stop me, but there seems to be a circular thing going on here. You can see how irrational it is right?

 

On a seperate note, I think in real life we would be able to be friends and have lots of fun mocking vegetarians in leather jackets on the bus together!

[currentchristian]

I would assert that they should dump the worship of a book.

Yet it is the worship of that book that is their only source of info on their god.

 

I see what you mean, Dave. But one can have respect for, learn from, be inspired by, and believe in the God revealed in a book without worshipping that book as the "sole rule of faith," that is the "inerrent, infallible, authoritative Word of God." I'm not suggesting anyone abandon the Book, just stop worshipping it and apply more thinking and reasoning to one's interpretation of it, and -- this is the big one -- don't be so afraid of finding something wrong with or in it!

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

Seriously wondering here - no sarcasm intended...

 

My creed is that I try to avoid creeds.

 

Very admirable, but no Xian. Jebus told you what you are to believe in the NT. How can you call yourself a Xian and be non-creedal?

 

God is omnipotent? No. God cannot violate our right to make our own choices.

 

How does being all-powerful (ie, omnipotence) have anything to do with the concept of "free wlll"? An omnipotent god can certainly choose to leave you alone, can't it?

 

Benevolent? Yes, but this benevolence cannot violate the prime directive: freedom of choice.

 

There is no Babblical basis for that. Why do you think so?

 

No sarcasm taken! The New Testament does indeed, in my view, reveal the fundamental teachings of Jesus. The Gnostic writings provide solid information, too, as do many of the early writings that did not make it into the canon. It is my belief in Jesus as Messiah/Christ that makes me Christian. I accept much that one would find in the ancient post-biblical creeds of Christianity, but I'm not going to tie them around my neck and make holy writ of them. It just wouldn't fit my nature.

 

I think you got what I mean, but said it better than I, in terms of omnipotence. Yes, God is omnipotent (a non-biblical word like omniscient and omnipresent), but God (it seems) has chosen to leave us alone to a large degree and God has chosen to allow us to do what we want -- even if it is evil. I can choose tonight to consume eight beers and drive after that. It's a very poor choice, but I can make it, and someone might suffer the consequences as a result. I might even survive with my life while someone else doesn't. That's what I mean. It's evil, horrible, wrong, unfair, unjust, but that is how this world is ... right now. (I'm a teetotaler, so I won't make this choice, obviously, but I could.)

 

God's goodness, therefore, is (temporarily) bound by our free choice. Seems to me.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

I don't like such strict definitions, dogmas, creeds, etc. My creed is that I try to avoid creeds. But I'll answer your questions:

 

 

I know. And I salute you for it! The point is, christianity is a strict creed full of dogma. There's commandments in the bible that you just can't get away from unless you don't think that the bible is the word of god. You seem to believe this and that it really is just a vague recollection of a guy who was great and was the son of god but this belief that he is the son of god comes only from reading the bible! If I'm wrong about your belief here stop me, but there seems to be a circular thing going on here. You can see how irrational it is right?

 

On a seperate note, I think in real life we would be able to be friends and have lots of fun mocking vegetarians in leather jackets on the bus together!

 

There could be some circular reasoning, let me think about it as we ride the bus together!

 

I'd like to know more about when the Bible began to be called "the word of God." Naming it "the word of God" distorts its purpose, seems to me.

 

-CC in MA

[Dave]

I would assert that they should dump the worship of a book.

Yet it is the worship of that book that is their only source of info on their god.

I see what you mean, Dave. But one can have respect for, learn from, be inspired by, and believe in the God revealed in a book without worshipping that book as the "sole rule of faith," that is the "inerrent, infallible, authoritative Word of God."

The point you keep bypassing is that the god therein does not exist. There is no god revealed in any book. There are far better things to be inspired by and believe in than a book that talks about mythical gods, stoning children to death, and advocating slavery. Our society has moved past the antiquated "morals" of that book. It's time to dump it and the myths it encourages.

I'm not suggesting anyone abandon the Book,

I AM! The whole freaking world would be better off without it.

just stop worshipping it and apply more thinking and reasoning to one's interpretation of it, and -- this is the big one -- don't be so afraid of finding something wrong with or in it!

I applied reasoning and thinking to the book and the only logical conclusion was to toss it into the trash bin of history. I found something wrong with it - the whole damn thing.

[currentchristian]

I would assert that they should dump the worship of a book.

Yet it is the worship of that book that is their only source of info on their god.

I see what you mean, Dave. But one can have respect for, learn from, be inspired by, and believe in the God revealed in a book without worshipping that book as the "sole rule of faith," that is the "inerrent, infallible, authoritative Word of God."

The point you keep bypassing is that the god therein does not exist. There is no god revealed in any book. There are far better things to be inspired by and believe in than a book that talks about mythical gods, stoning children to death, and advocating slavery. Our society has moved past the antiquated "morals" of that book. It's time to dump it and the myths it encourages.

I'm not suggesting anyone abandon the Book,

I AM! The whole freaking world would be better off without it.

just stop worshipping it and apply more thinking and reasoning to one's interpretation of it, and -- this is the big one -- don't be so afraid of finding something wrong with or in it!

I applied reasoning and thinking to the book and the only logical conclusion was to toss it into the trash bin of history. I found something wrong with it - the whole damn thing.

 

I respect your conclusion. My conclusion is a different one. My cornerstone premise is that there is Something or Someone out there, revealed in the universe, in nature, in life. That foundational concept I embrace without it being informed or defined by anything in any book or religious scripture. That's bedrock (not the Flintstone's town!) to me. From that point, nature, philosophy, and religion add details and personalities.

 

-CC in MA

[Jella]

If it weren't for Jesus I probably wouldn't have tried so hard for all these years to have faith. He was the only character that I did find to be worth believing in. I haven't read the Bible in it's entirety, but I did go to Bible study, and for some reason he was, in my mind that hippy that went against the establishment. Maybe as a gay man I felt I could identity with him. When they preached of his love and his notion of to not judge it was what I wanted to hear.