OK, I’ll buy it- thanks for listening- you are a scholar & a Gentleman. I’m a big defender of the Bible here, but even i don’t think someone should just sit down & read it cover-to-cover. Read “Isaac Asimovs Guide to the Bible”, with a KJV next to you. When ol’ Isaac is talking about a section that intriques you, read it from the Bible, etc etc. That way you can appreciate the Bible from a NON-religous viewpoint, also.
astro
Perhaps we could perform a thought experiment to verify at least one of the societal norms I mentioned. If patriarchal structures are most threatened by homosexuality, it would stand to reason that those societies would repress homosexual expression the most.
Well, what have we here? Let’s look at Mexico and Japan, two extremely patriarchal societies. Any free expression of homosexual attitudes there? A recent article in Science News amused me most highly. It turns out that the most virulently homophobic men were precisely those that experienced the greatest degree of arousal when shown movies containing male pornography. I find this fact to be telling beyond measure.
But enough of these parlour tricks…
Danielinthewolvesden, I gave this a lot of thought last night and I may have to admit that the homosexuality issue was a convenient ploy to demonstrate my sig line.
There is an issue that I have with all Christian faiths that rankles me to the core and is a better proof than what I used previously. Dr. Lao’s quotation of Nietzsche may have been more to the point than I realized at the time. I include it here for the sake of cogencey. (Thank you Dr. Lao.)
“It was Christianity which first painted the devil on the worlds walls; It was Christianity which first brought sin into the world. Belief in the cure which it offered has now been shaken to it’s deepest roots; but belief in the sickness which it taught and propagated continues to exists.”
Friedrich Nietzsche
One aspect of the Christian faith that I am entirely unable to accept is the notion that man is inherently a sinful creature. It smacks of being judged guilty until proven innocent and flies in the face of rational thought. This sort of automatic self justification by which Christianity imposes itself upon others as the sole route to redemption is repugnant. As the quote says, “…belief in the sickness which it taught…” continues to pervade society with much ill effect. The imposition of intrinsic sinfulness required such contrivances as Purgatory and smacks of a snake oil salesman’s marketing techniques.
I can no more believe in the inherent sinfulness of man as I might believe in a malevolent universe. This sort of adversarial relationship with the surrounding world breeds a disharmony which I find to be schistic and dichotomous. That unity with the world can only be achieved through intervention seems disingenous and reeks of artifice. Perhaps this is the most vivid symptom of the disease that it’s trying to cure. The church has commited a sin (presumption of guilt/sin) in order to combat sin. This harkens back to Soviet Russia, where you were guilty of some crime, they just hadn’t gotten around to arresting you yet.
Again Danielinthewolvesden, if your Celtic church does not adhere to the doctrine of inherent sinfulness, please be so kind as to correct me on this point. I would like to leave you with a religious thought problem. It is one that goes to the very roots of my argument here.
What of all the people who lived blameless and faultless lives before the advent of Jesus Christ? Are they to be denied admission into Heaven solely because of their misfortune to have been born prior to the advent of the Messiah? Most Christians begin to splutter a bit when they try to explain this historical conundrum to me. I have received but one straight answer that I shall share after everyone else has had a go at this one.
PS: Daniel, the Bible that I am trying to wade through is “The Oxford Annotated Bible”. I find it to be superb, in that it returns to ancient Greek or Hebrew whenever there is the least question as to definition.
Zenster: Celtic Christianity is non-judgemental. We accept that other faiths, besides Christianity, have validity. So, if you are a good person, you can go to heaven. Now, whether there is one BIG “Heaven”, which includes the “happy hunting grounds”, Asgard, Elysium, the Christian Heaven, etc, etc, or whether these are separate “heavens”, one for each Faith, has not be defined- I think most of us simply admit we do not know. We do not accept “original sin”, per se, altho many do argue that Mans very nature is sinful- but that is a bit different (ie you can overcome it, but temptation is always there). So “virtuous heathens” go to THEIR “just reward”. We feel we have a “better path”, as we are allowed to repent thru JC, but even tho we feel our path is better- it is not the ONLY path. Some feel that if a child dies so early that he/she has not had a chance to make valid moral choices, that that child is given “another go”, ie a sort of re-incarnation. But whatever- that child is not consigned to everlasting Hell.
In general- there is no “everlasting hell”- Hell is where you get one last chance to repent. Mostly, it is not a place of torture, but it certainly is unpleasant.
I am sorry, but Nietzsche was completely wrong. There was 'sin" before Christianity- Judaism, Mitraism & Zorastrianism all had sin, and were pre-Christian. The “devil” is also pre-Christian- showing up in late Judaism & Zorastrianism, etc. The Moslem religion-(post Christian, true), also has sin & the devil.
Celtic Christianity is not the only branch with these beliefs, either. But it is the only one I know enuf about to make statements about.
I heard that especially young children who die automatically become angels – POOF! Where precisely is the line between “you die, you become an angel” and “you die, you’re old enough to be consigned to Hell for your sinful nature”? I’ve never been told that.
Danielinthewolvesden, your church does inded seem to be a bit more enlightened than most. However, the principal issue has yet to be resolved. That the church would presume a sinful nature of all men is, to me, a sin in and of itself (however much the concept of sin predates the church). This is the bottom line (as it were) for my sig. This, “ends justifies the means”, attitude of sinning in order to fight sin is hypocritical. It casts further doubt on other tenets of the church as well.
I suppose that we are at the point where can continue to butt heads or agree to disagree. Personally, I am just glad that we live in a nation that allows for disagreement. By the way, I was wondering what your response to the second thought problem about pre-Christ days would be.
On another topic, did you see the Frontline documentary titled, “From Jesus to Christ”, about the life of Jesus and his church? It was one of the finest works dealing with this heavily freighted issue that I have ever seen.
I agree. Enough tricks. You have asserted that there is a correlation so strong in the patriarchal=anti-homosexual / matriarchal=anti-incest relationship that it is recognized and accepted into the paradigm of sociological thought as a “well known sociological norm(s)”
I have questioned this assertion and asked for a peer reviewed cite or two to support your statement. If it is one of the “well known sociological norms” there should be myriad studies you can point me to that will confirm this assertion.
While your gedanken experiment is amusing, it is not persuasive and it does nothing to buttress your claim. If this relationship is indeed widely recognized as one of a number of “well known sociological norms” please provide some cites for peer reviewed studies (preferably modern) confirming this relationship.
astro, whereas you are not obliged to rush into the breach with data that refutes my own positions, I find it funny that you have not even been able to confound the rather simple thought problems that I have posited.
I am currently pursuing cites to properly support these positions, yet I wonder if you have any ability to refute these selfsame points. I understand that I am the only one obliged to establish my logic. However, the stances that I have taken are not ones that defy all reason.
I’m just curious as to what you stand for…
By a “sinful nature” we do not mean that mankind has commited a sin, or that someone, being sinless, would then have some 'original sin" chalked up against him. What we/I mean is that Man is naturally TEMPTED by sin. That without some sort of moral training or upbringing, many will sin. Any given person is not “naturally sinful”, by any means. It is just easier to do wrong than it is to do right.
**Zenster **:
I don’t have a philosophical problem with your sig. I don’t agree with what I have gleaned from this thread so far, that fundamentalists are intollerant and Christianity seeks tolerance. Although Churches certainly claim to desire tolerance it seems to me that most of them are seeking is followers, that is- power.
I am not a Christian so I am unoffended. I’m not arguing that your concept is wrong, I am attacking your apparent belief that you have supported the idea here logically. I guess that I need to ask again what your purpose here is. I have been assuming that you were debating the point. I will wait for an answer before I continue. If you wish, an answer to my married Protestant clergy query would be nice.
I am willing to believe that you haven’t met anyone who missed Junior High School for manny years. Do you contend that all of them learned, understood, and retained a familiarity with these obscure concepts?
BTW- I wasn’t arguing the nature vs nurture cause of homosexuality. As I understand it, while the evidence is leaning toward nature, there is still plenty of doubt. I am willing to stipulate that it isn’t inborn for the sake of this argument. I still don’t see how fundamentalists are causing it.
A last note about one of your parlor tricks.
I couldn’t find anything relating to homophobic men being aroused by gay porn on the ScienceNews search engine but I presume that you are refering to the University of Georgia study. Here is a news release by the American Psychological Association concerning the study. It notes that there is an equally plausible counter-theory explaining the male tumescence.
It’s nice to have all the facts before you gush exuberantly about your magnificent argument.
( That second link is lifted from our long lost brother, Otto. )
Thanks for the post 2sense. I too, am unable to find the article in Science News. For the life of me, I cannot imagine where else I would have read it. What is most curious is that the article that I read made no mention of the “anxiety” factor. I appreciate you providing the link.
Evidently, you do not grasp the gist of my argument about fundamentalist homes and the incidence of homosexuality. I am merely stating that a fundamentalist home may in fact provide a potential setting for homosexual activity when that is the exact opposite intention.
I am not so much trying to establish a causal factor as to point out how a rigidly enforced code may in fact encourage the exact opposite result. If you have followed my substitution of original sin in that same equation, I hope that things might be a little more clear.
I, personally have a tough time with the hypocrisy that I too often find with so many of the “Christian” faiths that I encounter. That is the major point here, and I see that hypocrisy best expressed in my sig line.
I am slightly amused that no one who disputes the points that I have posited has bothered to refute the thought problems that I have advanced. Again, no one is under any obligation to do so. I just find it amusing, that’s all. As soon as I get some cites I will post them.
I thought you were going to do this, and am still hoping you will.
Umm, zenster, are you there?