Faith and Reason.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Instead of trying to justify it as a small percentage (when it absolutely is not, this man was ELECTED as the GOVERNOR of a state for a decade!), perhaps you should convince church leaders to actively speak out against such bullshit? They are consistently silent.

The episcopals ratified a sexually active gay bishop. That's not exactly silent.

[Mizango]

Not to mention that people tend to believe that the small % of people like those somehow speak for the entire Christian community as a whole; I think thats more pathetic.

What's really pathetic is when someone asks people like you to comment on what Huckabee said and none of you ever have anything to say to the contrary. We posted this in every single one of the 10 threads regarding religion between November and Today, February 27th, 2009.

Not one answer. Not one comment. Pathetic is in the eye of the beholder.

[Maxxthepenguin]

What's really pathetic is when someone asks people like you to comment on what Huckabee said and none of you ever have anything to say to the contrary. We posted this in every single one of the 10 threads regarding religion between November and Today, February 27th, 2009.

Not one answer. Not one comment. Pathetic is in the eye of the beholder.

I love BG forums as much as anyone... but bravery is not commenting on an internet forum.

[Khalil]

Problem is people do and honestly believe that their faith justifies it. Then again these are also (usually) the same folks that don't see the difference between radical Islamic terrorists and a devout, peaceful Muslim. I'm not sure if that is irony or just freakin' pathetic.

I've said it many times before, it is nuts like that whom give other Christians such a wonderful reputation.

The blind leading the blind or in this case, the radical leading the blind. I'm not really worried about idiots following his preachings, they'll believe anything.

[Neosutra]

You...didn't...just

God damn it. It's people like him that create the fucking people who HATE ALL RELIGION AND THINK THEY ARE UNFIT FOR ROLE MODELS LIKE SCIENTISTS or whatever the fucking argument is.

Not really. I dont assume the radicals represent the whole. I express a distaste for social religion based on the principle of wanting to live in a democractic society where people vote based on political issues, and not homo's having sex. I want to teach a science class without half my students thinking Im perverting them by telling them humans evolved. I dont hate religion because of the nut jobs (we would have nut jobs w/o religion), I hate religion for the simple fact that it gives false answers to the great questions of life, and lends people to making decisions based on superstition, rather than fact.

[Tristam]

The episcopals ratified a sexually active gay bishop. That's not exactly silent.

And the mormon church bankroll'd the prop 8 fiasco, I'm still unimpressed.

[Stiker]

What's really pathetic is when someone asks people like you to comment on what Huckabee said and none of you ever have anything to say to the contrary. We posted this in every single one of the 10 threads regarding religion between November and Today, February 27th, 2009.

Not one answer. Not one comment. Pathetic is in the eye of the beholder.

This is only the first time I've seen it personally, but since you asked I personally believe he is an idiot for saying such things. As far as gay rights are concerned, I believe our country is supposed to believe "all men are created equal." So if two dudes/chicks want to marry, I personally don't care -- it isn't like a gay marriage ban is going to convince someone to be straight.

I'm sure the next question that will be asked is my stance on homosexuality in relation to religion. Personally, I am of the belief that being gay is not a choice. I can't see someone willingly choosing to be a black sheep in today's society. I'll leave the whole "is that a sin" issue in God's hands; however, I do believe the greater sin is trying to treat gay folks like they are second class human beings. There is zero gray issue there, that goes directly against the Golden Rule that Jesus taught. Jesus also said "he without sin cast the first stone", so you won't see me yelling at a homosexual and calling them a sinner.

[Maxxthepenguin]

And the mormon church bankroll'd the prop 8 fiasco, I'm still unimpressed.

You asked for church leaders who spoke out against some of the retarded shit that churches have done. I gave you a great example.

Don't be a bitch and try to say that another one is still doing despicable things. That doesn't take away with the great steps that have been made.

[Tristam]

You asked for church leaders who spoke out against some of the retarded shit that churches have done. I gave you a great example.

Don't be a bitch.

I asked for church leaders, implying that I wanted a coordinated stance not just against bigotry, but religion in government, and all the other BS that people think is a "small percentage". you've given one feeble example that many episcopalians, including some of their leaders, are still rallying *against*. That is a far cry from convincing me that it is but a "small percentage."

You got called on a crappy example, don't be a bitch.

edit: and yeah, you can't talk about one good example and ignore the bad, we're discussing faith as a whole.

[Neosutra]

What great steps? And cut the insults Q.Q.

[Maxxthepenguin]

I asked for church leaders, implying that I wanted a coordinated stance not just against bigotry, but religion in government, and all the other BS that people think is a "small percentage". you've given one feeble example that many episcopalians, including some of their leaders, are still rallying *against*. That is a far cry from convincing me that it is but a "small percentage."

You got called on a crappy example, don't be a bitch.

So you want to find an enormous step that goes 100% towards your morals despite the fact that people in the church have different views than one and another. You basically will accept nothing less than fixing everything as significant.

Seriously.

Has anything ever in the history of anything ever done that?

edit: and yeah, you can't talk about one good example and ignore the bad, we're discussing faith as a whole.

We're talking about people of faith and you can't hold one group of people responsible for what another does. You wanted an example of church leaders speaking out. I gave you exactly that.

[Stiker]

I asked for church leaders, implying that I wanted a coordinated stance not just against bigotry, but religion in government, and all the other BS that people think is a "small percentage". you've given one feeble example that many episcopalians, including some of their leaders, are still rallying *against*. That is a far cry from convincing me that it is but a "small percentage."

You got called on a crappy example, don't be a bitch.

You do realize that some churches (I can only speak for Catholic and Methodist here since I know them for sure) do say that homosexuals should not be excluded from the church right?

Granted, they still say you can't act on it; however, it has to start somewhere. Also, it should be noted that the Methodist church considers issues of gay rights in our country a civil issue that should be dealt with by our government.

From our book of discipline:

Equal Rights Regardless of Sexual Orientation -– Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for homosexual persons. We see a clear issue of simple justice in protecting their rightful claims where they have shared material resources, pensions, guardian relationships, mutual powers of attorney, and other such lawful claims typically attendant to contractual relationships that involve shared contributions, responsibilities, and liabilities, and equal protection before the law. Moreover, we support efforts to stop violence and other forms of coercion against gays and lesbians. We also commit ourselves to social witness against the coercion and marginalization of former homosexuals. (Social Principles, Par. 66H)

[Rammses]

A progressive outlook on history is about as much a belief as a belief in Yahweh. If you've paid some attention, you'll notice that secularization as well as mysticism comes in waves. Waves inherently related to changes in political and cultural atmosphere.

Those waves and atmospheres tell us absolutely nothing if we don't analyze them. If we do, we will find causes in conditions; conditions not present in todays society; conditions not necessarily present in future society.

Science contradicts traditional religion. Religion has lost its credibility. If it's going to make a comeback I doubt it's in the form of theism. Erasing knowledge and manipulating history is not the trivial task it once was.

[Maxxthepenguin]

You do realize that some churches (I can only speak for Catholic and Methodist here since I know them for sure) do say that homosexuals should not be excluded from the church right?

Granted, they still say you can't act on it; however, it has to start somewhere. Also, it should be noted that the Methodist church considers issues of gay rights in our country a civil issue that should be dealt with by our government.

From our book of discipline:

But Mormons exist so that's all invalid?

Seriously, where is the logic in this?

[Tristam]

So you want to find an enormous step that goes 100% towards your morals despite the fact that people in the church have different views than one and another. You basically will accept nothing less than fixing everything as significant.

Seriously.

Has anything ever in the history of anything ever done that?



We're talking about people of faith and you can't hold one group of people responsible for what another does. You wanted an example of church leaders speaking out. I gave you exactly that.

No, I want church leaders to take reasonable steps to limit extremism within their own disciplines. What's so difficult about that? You gave one very contested step forward and ignored steps backward, you're cherry picking your argument. You want me to say "oh gee that's great that they have a gay clergy and some of them are ok, how progressive, I can ignore all the bad things that have happened recently."

I'm not holding one particular group responsible, I'm saying what people in this thread consider extremism is much more the norm than they think. This board is not a representative slice of america.

[Stiker]

But Mormons exist so that's all invalid?

Seriously, where is the logic in this?

I'm confused on what you are trying to say here. Can you explain a bit? Not sure what you are trying to address.

[Tristam]

But Mormons exist so that's all invalid?

Seriously, where is the logic in this?

No, it's not invalid, but you can't ignore other religions when we're discussing the social consequences of *FAITH*

[Maxxthepenguin]

No, it's not invalid, but you can't ignore other religions when we're discussing the social consequences of *FAITH*

It's more the social consequences of *PREJUDICE* that is taught by authority figures. Now, it's in the guise of faith, but nonetheless this kind of conservatism still going to be taught with or without religions.

Stiker, I was just expressing my frustration that to some, such things are invalidated as to social progress in religions because Mormons exist.

No, I want church leaders to take reasonable steps to limit extremism within their own disciplines. What's so difficult about that? You gave one very contested step forward and ignored steps backward, you're cherry picking your argument. You want me to say "oh gee that's great that they have a gay clergy and some of them are ok, how progressive, I can ignore all the bad things that have happened recently."

I'm not holding one particular group responsible, I'm saying what people in this thread consider extremism is much more the norm than they think. This board is not a representative slice of america.

No shit this board isn't a representative slice of America.

You haven't done surveys. You haven't gone and interviewed tons of Christians. You haven't tried to empathize with those who have the *PREJUDICE*. You are trying to say what you think is representative but let me make this clear: All of the social progress that has ever been tried to be done in Congress has been done by Christians. Most of the social progress in America is done due to Christians.

I'm not asking you to say that everything bad that people have done in the name of religion is ok because the Episcopals elected a gay bishop. What I am asking is for you to recognize that them doing so is a large step in the right direction, the direction you support, and that this is a case where the church leaders were not silent to social justice.

[Tristam]

You do realize that some churches (I can only speak for Catholic and Methodist here since I know them for sure) do say that homosexuals should not be excluded from the church right?

Granted, they still say you can't act on it; however, it has to start somewhere. Also, it should be noted that the Methodist church considers issues of gay rights in our country a civil issue that should be dealt with by our government.

From our book of discipline:

It's more nuanced than that, and I'm not trying to make this an argument about homosexuality and the Methodists (for the record, Methodists are only the second largest protestant denomenation, the largest being the very fundamental baptist). The following is also from the book of discipline

"Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals* are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church."

"We affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a woman...Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches." (From Social Principles, Par. 65C).


The overall point still stands, what people on this board consider extremism is much more representative of the social consequences of faith on society.

[Kaylia]

What a wonderfully ironic affirmation of faith.

Of course, out of context sentence is out of context.

You have to believe there is a reality that can be explained (consciously or not) if you want to do sciences . There is nothing wrong with this affirmation of faith, since it's at the base of scientific method.