Some thoughts on Easter Sunday

[smileyeagle1021]

Now then, if Catholics are such hardline homophobics, would he have done so? I think not.

So nice that they are so concerned for our welfare after we die, but so little concern for our rights while alive.

Now, the Catholic priest of Laramie (Father Roger?) is a wonderful example of someone ignoring church doctrine and doing what's right.

Exactly... as I've mentioned earlier, naming a few people who ignore church doctrine to do the right thing does not mean that the doctrine isn't inherently wrong.

[Hobbs]

Yes, I did see that. I also remember his father's statement in court when he said that Matthew was never alone at that fence because God was with him, and how the girl who found him decided God had wanted her to find him, because if she hadn't taken that route by chance, he wouldn't have been found for days. As for the other ministers, that's why I offered him[Father Roger?] as the "wonderful example..." as you so eloquently put it.

[AdminAssistant]

I saw a very good play a few weeks ago called the Laramie Project. Smiley, I would assume you know what it's about. The part that fascinated me was how quickly the local Catholic parish supported Matthew Shepard, and the priest even organized the vigil there. When Matthew died, he presided over the funeral mass. Now then, if Catholics are such hardline homophobics, would he have done so? I think not.

Then you, no doubt, also saw the scene where the Baptist minister and many other people in the town were quick to blame Matthew for his own death because 1) homosexuality is a sin, 2) he was HIV positive, and 3) he was a 'flamer' and pushed himself on everyone. Oh, and the killers weren't really bad people because one was Mormon and the other one was considering giving his soul to God.

Now, the Catholic priest of Laramie (Father Roger?) is a wonderful example of someone ignoring church doctrine and doing what's right. You also noticed that he said he didn't ask the Bishop's permission to hold a vigil for Matthew. He just did it.

[Hobbs]

Well, 'What it's like' is when we were referring to God's judgement. Now, in the true faith, all that Hell is, is a separation from God and divinity. That's all. Yes there are uses of hellfire and such in the Bible, but those are metaphors. For truly, if you don't believe, then you don't think the Bible is literal, do you?

The depiction of Hell as a place with fire didn't really appear until after Dante's Divine Comedy. Even there, fire is used only sparingly to punish the sinners. The bottom of Hell, where Satan resides, is a frozen lake; that part is more true to the traditional aspect of Hell. It's a place cut off from the Light of God. Judaism has a similar belief, although (to my knowledge) there is no separation between Heaven and Hell.

I saw a very good play a few weeks ago called the Laramie Project. Smiley, I would assume you know what it's about. The part that fascinated me was how quickly the local Catholic parish supported Matthew Shepard, and the priest even organized the vigil there. When Matthew died, he presided over the funeral mass. Now then, if Catholics are such hardline homophobics, would he have done so? I think not.

The Church teaches that all humans are God's children, that we are all brothers and sisters with the same Father. The term 'Catholic' is even defined as "Liberal, all-encompassing."

[smileyeagle1021]

I truly don't see what's wrong with "Love the sinner; hate the sin."

The problem is that things that are in no way evil or harmful have been labeled sin and good people are cast as sinners because a 2000 year old piece of fiction has a few versus saying that they're icky.
Love the sinner, hate the sin, implies that there is something wrong with the person that must be fixed, a disease to be cured if you will. And, frankly, this phrase is used mostly to describe homosexuality, which is NOT a disease nor should it be cured (because as we've already mentioned, it's NOT a disease).

Well, you can see it that way, but that's not what it's like at all

Then pray tell, what is it like?

Which Christian church are you talking about? Again, your inability to make distinction clouds the issue.

Shall we name names? OK, the Mormons have legislated their hatred into Utah state law, them and the Catholics, and Baptists and several smaller churches legislated their bias into California state law. In Maine even the Methodists, who claim to be an open and accepting faith, worked to overthrow equal rights. Sorry, saying "but look at that one church that isn't bigoted" does NOT negate the fact that the vast majority of churches are based on the teaching of "God hates fags and so should you."

I am saying that your bias is towards Christians as a whole, but Christians as a whole don't agree on the same things. Certain sects/denominations believe in what you say, but others do not. So to lump them all together would be unfair to the others.

Yet the majority of sects have no problem labeling me as a pedophile because there is a small number of gay people who do prefer children. Doesn't feel good does it? Guess what, if Christians can't take it they need to stop dishing it. As I've told my mother, it doesn't matter that you aren't a hateful bigot, by joining and supporting a church that supports bigotry you are performing a bigoted act. My own mother has funded the removal of my rights by being stupid enough to believe that her money donated to churches would go to good (part of why a condition of her continuing to borrow against my trust fund from my father is that she can make zero donations to any religious organization).

I'm not trying to be insulting or intentionally obtuse. I am trying to challange your faith, though. If your faith cannot stand up to a little prodding, a little honest inquiry, then perhaps there's something wrong with it.

Exactly the point I've made to my Mormon neighbors. Why are they so afraid of open availability of alcohol? Is your faith so week that you can't withstand the temptation to drink without the state forcing the issue by making it so difficult? Is your faith so week that you couldn't resist the temptation of smoking without the state charging the highest excise tax on cigarettes of any of the states in the region? Is your faith so week that you couldn't resist the temptation to view porn if it weren't nearly illegal to sell in the state? (That one we actually have an answer to compliments of the internet, and that answer is, yup, no spine whatsoever when it comes to porn). Is your faith so week that working with a gay person and seeing they aren't the vile creatures that your so called god says we are going to sway your from your belief?

Believe whatever the hell you want, but please stop forcing me to believe as well simply to make it easier for you.

[Ghel]

I don't have access to either of those, but wikipedia has a good article on "Exodus Decoded" which includes a long list of criticisms. The best documentaries I've seen regarding the exodus described how the majority of events (not the plague of firstborns, but everything else IIRC) can be explained without resorting to "God did it."

But if you don't care whether anybody believes what you do, it's a moot point.

[Hobbs]

Since this is faith and not fact, then why are you (and so many others) trying to convince anybody that it's true? What does it mean that something is "backed by the faith"? Since there's insufficient evidence for the existence of God, angels, or devils, then why are you talking about them as if their existence was a given?

I'm not trying to be insulting or intentionally obtuse. I am trying to challange your faith, though. If your faith cannot stand up to a little prodding, a little honest inquiry, then perhaps there's something wrong with it.

Again, I believe it's true. So I don't really care if you believe me or not. I was simply trying to give a little side addition to this, since Angelology/demonology are hobbies of mine.

"Backed by the faith" means exactly that. As for lack of evidence, I suggest the documentary "Exodus Decoded." It may explain it, it may not, but it does raise, in my opinion, compelling arguments. At least, it tries to explain a Biblical event by scientific means. Also look at the book "Act of God" by Graham Philips, a historian. Their claim that the Hkysos were in fact the ancient Hebrews is supported by the writings of Flavius Josephus in his book Contra Apion.

[Ghel]

That's the reason why it's called faith and not fact.

A lot of this is mysticism and Angelology etc, and isn't really backed by the faith.

Since this is faith and not fact, then why are you (and so many others) trying to convince anybody that it's true? What does it mean that something is "backed by the faith"? Since there's insufficient evidence for the existence of God, angels, or devils, then why are you talking about them as if their existence was a given?

I'm not trying to be insulting or intentionally obtuse. I am trying to challange your faith, though. If your faith cannot stand up to a little prodding, a little honest inquiry, then perhaps there's something wrong with it.

[Hobbs]

I thought Lucifer rebelled because:

1. He wanted to create things, but only God can create.

2. God showed the Angels the glory and goodness of Jesus and it scared some Angels and they left because they were intimidated.

Also, all the Fallen Angels can be forgiven as long as they ask for forgiveness.

In the Jewish tradition, the figure known as 'the Devil' was Satan (I forget if its a title or his actual name), and he acts more like...the prosecuter in a court of law. He brings up the case against man, as he doesn't see man as worthy of God's love. A lot of this is mysticism and Angelology etc, and isn't really backed by the faith. But the main consensus is, that due to his own vanity, Satan decided to rebel against God, feeling he could do better. A whole third of the Heavenly Host followed him in his rebellion, and he was cast into Perdition by his brother and former friend, the Archangel Michael.

[IDrinkaRum]

I thought Lucifer rebelled because:

1. He wanted to create things, but only God can create.

2. God showed the Angels the glory and goodness of Jesus and it scared some Angels and they left because they were intimidated.

Also, all the Fallen Angels can be forgiven as long as they ask for forgiveness.

[Hobbs]

What is there to make a distinction of? The Christian church is the body of believers who call themselves Christians. Or do you want me to name denominations?

I am saying that your bias is towards Christians as a whole, but Christians as a whole don't agree on the same things. Certain sects/denominations believe in what you say, but others do not. So to lump them all together would be unfair to the others. The way you word it (the Christian church) seems to imply the Roman Catholic faith (though when you refer to it, the 'c' in Church should be capitalized). So are you attacking the Roman Catholic Church, or some other group of Christians?

[cewfa]

What is there to make a distinction of? The Christian church is the body of believers who call themselves Christians. Or do you want me to name denominations?

[Hobbs]

That's the reason why it's called faith and not fact.

But you can't choose to believe something that you don't agree with.

Well, duh. If you don't agree with it, of course you won't choose to believe it.

[Ghel]

Getting back to the original question though, God knows and understands that because of this "Free Will" he's given us, not everyone will choose to believe. Some will require more proof or evidence. Because of this understanding, we have the opportunity for Salvation. We have the choice. Believe and goto Heaven or deny and goto Hell.

This bothers me, and here's why: there's about as much evidence for the existence of leprechauns as there is for the existence of the Christian God. It's insulting to tell someone that they will be punished for denying the existence of something that, as far as we can tell, doesn't exist.

Also, choosing to believe seems incorrect, to me. You might figure out what you believe. You might be swayed by evidence or arguments. But you can't choose to believe something that you don't agree with.

[Hobbs]

So then we're back to the angels not having the option to make decisions or choose. Then how did they rebel?

You're arguing semantics. Yes they have the physical ability to rebel, but they don't have the spiritual ability/justification. As I meant to explain in my analogy of replacing the President with a Chief of Staff; we have the ability (maybe) to do that, but regardless, even if we think we're right, it's still wrong because we're usurping lawful authority.


*By "we" I mean the hypothetical military coup.