Glaswegian;1311982 wrote: Which ones?
:wah:
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
Glaswegian;1311976 wrote: It is not Tariq Ali, or Professor Morton Smith, or even me who asserts that Jesus had homosexual relations with a youth he raised from the dead in Bethany and also with a man in Gethsemane. Rather, these assertions were contained in a particular version of St. Mark's Gospel which was in existence as late as 200 AD.
A fuller account of Jesus's homosexual relation with the aforementioned youth is contained in a lecture given by the renowned biblical scholar, Professor Bart Ehrman. In that lecture Ehrman states:
'[Jesus and the disciples] came to Bethany and there was a woman there whose brother had died. She came and prostrated herself before Jesus and said to him: "Son of David, pity me". The disciples rebuked her, and Jesus in anger set out with her for the garden where the tomb was. Immediately a loud voice was heard from the tomb and Jesus approached and rolled the stone away from the entrance to the tomb. And going in where the young man was, he stretched out his hand and raised him up taking him by the hand. The young man looked on him and loved him, and began to beseech him that he might be with him. They came out of the tomb and went into the young man's house, for he was rich. After six days Jesus laid a charge on him, and when evening came the young man went to Jesus with a linen robe thrown over his naked body. And he stayed the night with him and Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God.'
Ehrman continues:
'In his book 'Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark', Professor Morton Smith concluded that the young man who came to Jesus at night engaged with Jesus in a secret nocturnal baptismal ritual that involved a naked baptism that united the person with Jesus in an ecstatic experience of the Kingdom of God, and that this was not a one time event. And that Jesus engaged in this kind of ritualistic practice in which he would baptise naked men and that there would be some kind of union with Jesus leading to this ecstatic experience of God's Kingdom.'
It is interesting to note that the Secret Gospel of Mark was adhered to by a Christian sect - viz. the Carpocratians - which was reviled by the early Church Father, Clement of Alexandria.
Ehrman states:
' wild, licentious activities. Their founder was Carpocrates who taught that since God created all things, all things should be held in common by everybody. Which meant that not only should you share your goods, you should also share your sexual partners. According to Clement of Alexandria, the Carpocratians engaged in nocturnal orgies as part of their worship services...'
Transcribed from the lecture series Lost Christianities by Bart D. Ehrman, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
~o0o~
According to the Secret Gospel of Mark, then, Jesus was a homosexual - and a promiscuous one at that. After all, he 'baptised' lots of men during the three years of his ministry.
If the founder of the religion which you adhere to, hoppy, was indeed a homosexual would this make you less anti-gay?
A fuller account of Jesus's homosexual relation with the aforementioned youth is contained in a lecture given by the renowned biblical scholar, Professor Bart Ehrman. In that lecture Ehrman states:
'[Jesus and the disciples] came to Bethany and there was a woman there whose brother had died. She came and prostrated herself before Jesus and said to him: "Son of David, pity me". The disciples rebuked her, and Jesus in anger set out with her for the garden where the tomb was. Immediately a loud voice was heard from the tomb and Jesus approached and rolled the stone away from the entrance to the tomb. And going in where the young man was, he stretched out his hand and raised him up taking him by the hand. The young man looked on him and loved him, and began to beseech him that he might be with him. They came out of the tomb and went into the young man's house, for he was rich. After six days Jesus laid a charge on him, and when evening came the young man went to Jesus with a linen robe thrown over his naked body. And he stayed the night with him and Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God.'
Ehrman continues:
'In his book 'Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark', Professor Morton Smith concluded that the young man who came to Jesus at night engaged with Jesus in a secret nocturnal baptismal ritual that involved a naked baptism that united the person with Jesus in an ecstatic experience of the Kingdom of God, and that this was not a one time event. And that Jesus engaged in this kind of ritualistic practice in which he would baptise naked men and that there would be some kind of union with Jesus leading to this ecstatic experience of God's Kingdom.'
It is interesting to note that the Secret Gospel of Mark was adhered to by a Christian sect - viz. the Carpocratians - which was reviled by the early Church Father, Clement of Alexandria.
Ehrman states:
' wild, licentious activities. Their founder was Carpocrates who taught that since God created all things, all things should be held in common by everybody. Which meant that not only should you share your goods, you should also share your sexual partners. According to Clement of Alexandria, the Carpocratians engaged in nocturnal orgies as part of their worship services...'
Transcribed from the lecture series Lost Christianities by Bart D. Ehrman, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
~o0o~
According to the Secret Gospel of Mark, then, Jesus was a homosexual - and a promiscuous one at that. After all, he 'baptised' lots of men during the three years of his ministry.
If the founder of the religion which you adhere to, hoppy, was indeed a homosexual would this make you less anti-gay?
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
Glaswegian;1312170 wrote: A fuller account of Jesus's homosexual relation with the aforementioned youth is contained in a lecture given by the renowned biblical scholar, Professor Bart Ehrman. In that lecture Ehrman states:
'[Jesus and the disciples] came to Bethany and there was a woman there whose brother had died. She came and prostrated herself before Jesus and said to him: "Son of David, pity me". The disciples rebuked her, and Jesus in anger set out with her for the garden where the tomb was. Immediately a loud voice was heard from the tomb and Jesus approached and rolled the stone away from the entrance to the tomb. And going in where the young man was, he stretched out his hand and raised him up taking him by the hand. The young man looked on him and loved him, and began to beseech him that he might be with him. They came out of the tomb and went into the young man's house, for he was rich. After six days Jesus laid a charge on him, and when evening came the young man went to Jesus with a linen robe thrown over his naked body. And he stayed the night with him and Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God.'
Ehrman continues:
'In his book 'Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark', Professor Morton Smith concluded that the young man who came to Jesus at night engaged with Jesus in a secret nocturnal baptismal ritual that involved a naked baptism that united the person with Jesus in an ecstatic experience of the Kingdom of God, and that this was not a one time event. And that Jesus engaged in this kind of ritualistic practice in which he would baptise naked men and that there would be some kind of union with Jesus leading to this ecstatic experience of God's Kingdom.'
It is interesting to note that the Secret Gospel of Mark was adhered to by a Christian sect - viz. the Carpocratians - which was reviled by the early Church Father, Clement of Alexandria.
Ehrman states:
' wild, licentious activities. Their founder was Carpocrates who taught that since God created all things, all things should be held in common by everybody. Which meant that not only should you share your goods, you should also share your sexual partners. According to Clement of Alexandria, the Carpocratians engaged in nocturnal orgies as part of their worship services...'
Transcribed from the lecture series Lost Christianities by Bart D. Ehrman, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
~o0o~
According to the Secret Gospel of Mark, then, Jesus was a homosexual - and a promiscuous one at that. After all, he 'baptised' lots of men during the three years of his ministry.
If the founder of the religion which you adhere to, hoppy, was indeed a homosexual would this make you less anti-gay?
No, it would not. I will always think the gay lifestyle repulsive and disgusting. However, as I mentioned on this site some time ago, a close relative of mine was found to be gay. I can't bring myself to hate this person. Said person is one of the kindest, politest individuals in my family. I tend to view homosexuality as an affliction one is born with. Like being born without all one's limbs. So, since this relative came out of the closet, I do look on gay people with a bit more compassion.
Religious sects are filled with some pretty disgusting individuals. I was born and raised Catholic. Since all the child abuse came to light, should I hate all Catholics? Should I hate all Pentecostals because of Jim Bakker? No, but I'll always hate what they do, especially if they do it in the name of religion.
As to me being less anti-gay, I wouldn't mix gays with non-gays in all situations.
'[Jesus and the disciples] came to Bethany and there was a woman there whose brother had died. She came and prostrated herself before Jesus and said to him: "Son of David, pity me". The disciples rebuked her, and Jesus in anger set out with her for the garden where the tomb was. Immediately a loud voice was heard from the tomb and Jesus approached and rolled the stone away from the entrance to the tomb. And going in where the young man was, he stretched out his hand and raised him up taking him by the hand. The young man looked on him and loved him, and began to beseech him that he might be with him. They came out of the tomb and went into the young man's house, for he was rich. After six days Jesus laid a charge on him, and when evening came the young man went to Jesus with a linen robe thrown over his naked body. And he stayed the night with him and Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God.'
Ehrman continues:
'In his book 'Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark', Professor Morton Smith concluded that the young man who came to Jesus at night engaged with Jesus in a secret nocturnal baptismal ritual that involved a naked baptism that united the person with Jesus in an ecstatic experience of the Kingdom of God, and that this was not a one time event. And that Jesus engaged in this kind of ritualistic practice in which he would baptise naked men and that there would be some kind of union with Jesus leading to this ecstatic experience of God's Kingdom.'
It is interesting to note that the Secret Gospel of Mark was adhered to by a Christian sect - viz. the Carpocratians - which was reviled by the early Church Father, Clement of Alexandria.
Ehrman states:
' wild, licentious activities. Their founder was Carpocrates who taught that since God created all things, all things should be held in common by everybody. Which meant that not only should you share your goods, you should also share your sexual partners. According to Clement of Alexandria, the Carpocratians engaged in nocturnal orgies as part of their worship services...'
Transcribed from the lecture series Lost Christianities by Bart D. Ehrman, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
~o0o~
According to the Secret Gospel of Mark, then, Jesus was a homosexual - and a promiscuous one at that. After all, he 'baptised' lots of men during the three years of his ministry.
If the founder of the religion which you adhere to, hoppy, was indeed a homosexual would this make you less anti-gay?
No, it would not. I will always think the gay lifestyle repulsive and disgusting. However, as I mentioned on this site some time ago, a close relative of mine was found to be gay. I can't bring myself to hate this person. Said person is one of the kindest, politest individuals in my family. I tend to view homosexuality as an affliction one is born with. Like being born without all one's limbs. So, since this relative came out of the closet, I do look on gay people with a bit more compassion.
Religious sects are filled with some pretty disgusting individuals. I was born and raised Catholic. Since all the child abuse came to light, should I hate all Catholics? Should I hate all Pentecostals because of Jim Bakker? No, but I'll always hate what they do, especially if they do it in the name of religion.
As to me being less anti-gay, I wouldn't mix gays with non-gays in all situations.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
hoppy;1312179 wrote: However, as I mentioned on this site some time ago, a close relative of mine was found to be gay. I can't bring myself to hate this person. Said person is one of the kindest, politest individuals in my family. I tend to view homosexuality as an affliction one is born with. Like being born without all one's limbs.
If you regard your relative's homosexuality as being innate then he - I assume your relative is male - can no more help being homosexual than he can help having a heart and lungs. So why not accept his homosexuality as something natural?
If you regard your relative's homosexuality as being innate then he - I assume your relative is male - can no more help being homosexual than he can help having a heart and lungs. So why not accept his homosexuality as something natural?
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
Glaswegian;1312190 wrote: If you regard your relative's homosexuality as being innate then he - I assume your relative is male - can no more help being homosexual than he can help having a heart and lungs. So why not accept his homosexuality as something natural?
I accept homosexuality as being something that can't be helped. If that is natural, then so be it. That does not mean I have to like it nor tolerate being around it. I don't especially buy into all this diversity crap. Perhaps my being a seperatist has something to do with my feelings. I prefer being with my own kind. White, straight Christian=good. White, straight, Christian conservative republican=better. White, straight, Christian conservative republican, red neck card carrying life NRA member=best. Horses like being with other horses. Deer with other deer. That's how it works.
I accept homosexuality as being something that can't be helped. If that is natural, then so be it. That does not mean I have to like it nor tolerate being around it. I don't especially buy into all this diversity crap. Perhaps my being a seperatist has something to do with my feelings. I prefer being with my own kind. White, straight Christian=good. White, straight, Christian conservative republican=better. White, straight, Christian conservative republican, red neck card carrying life NRA member=best. Horses like being with other horses. Deer with other deer. That's how it works.
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
Glaswegian;1312170 wrote: A fuller account of Jesus's homosexual relation with the aforementioned youth is contained in a lecture given by the renowned biblical scholar, Professor Bart Ehrman. In that lecture Ehrman states:
'[Jesus and the disciples] came to Bethany and there was a woman there whose brother had died. She came and prostrated herself before Jesus and said to him: "Son of David, pity me". The disciples rebuked her, and Jesus in anger set out with her for the garden where the tomb was. Immediately a loud voice was heard from the tomb and Jesus approached and rolled the stone away from the entrance to the tomb. And going in where the young man was, he stretched out his hand and raised him up taking him by the hand. The young man looked on him and loved him, and began to beseech him that he might be with him. They came out of the tomb and went into the young man's house, for he was rich. After six days Jesus laid a charge on him, and when evening came the young man went to Jesus with a linen robe thrown over his naked body. And he stayed the night with him and Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God.'
Ehrman continues:
'In his book 'Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark', Professor Morton Smith concluded that the young man who came to Jesus at night engaged with Jesus in a secret nocturnal baptismal ritual that involved a naked baptism that united the person with Jesus in an ecstatic experience of the Kingdom of God, and that this was not a one time event. And that Jesus engaged in this kind of ritualistic practice in which he would baptize naked men and that there would be some kind of union with Jesus leading to this ecstatic experience of God's Kingdom.'
It is interesting to note that the Secret Gospel of Mark was adhered to by a Christian sect - viz. the Carpocratians - which was reviled by the early Church Father, Clement of Alexandria.
Ehrman states:
' wild, licentious activities. Their founder was Carpocrates who taught that since God created all things, all things should be held in common by everybody. Which meant that not only should you share your goods, you should also share your sexual partners. According to Clement of Alexandria, the Carpocratians engaged in nocturnal orgies as part of their worship services...'
Transcribed from the lecture series Lost Christianities by Bart D. Ehrman, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
~o0o~
According to the Secret Gospel of Mark, then, Jesus was a homosexual - and a promiscuous one at that. After all, he 'baptised' lots of men during the three years of his ministry.
If the founder of the religion which you adhere to, hoppy, was indeed a homosexual would this make you less anti-gay?
I've read through this a few times and still can't find where it says Jesus had homosexual sex. He babtised men naked, to me might just be saying that he wanted the person being babtised free of all worldly things (including clothes) to enter into his relationship with God.
An ecstatic experience is not necessarily an orgasm. I've had estactic events that didn't include sex what so ever.
Did I miss something?
'[Jesus and the disciples] came to Bethany and there was a woman there whose brother had died. She came and prostrated herself before Jesus and said to him: "Son of David, pity me". The disciples rebuked her, and Jesus in anger set out with her for the garden where the tomb was. Immediately a loud voice was heard from the tomb and Jesus approached and rolled the stone away from the entrance to the tomb. And going in where the young man was, he stretched out his hand and raised him up taking him by the hand. The young man looked on him and loved him, and began to beseech him that he might be with him. They came out of the tomb and went into the young man's house, for he was rich. After six days Jesus laid a charge on him, and when evening came the young man went to Jesus with a linen robe thrown over his naked body. And he stayed the night with him and Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God.'
Ehrman continues:
'In his book 'Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark', Professor Morton Smith concluded that the young man who came to Jesus at night engaged with Jesus in a secret nocturnal baptismal ritual that involved a naked baptism that united the person with Jesus in an ecstatic experience of the Kingdom of God, and that this was not a one time event. And that Jesus engaged in this kind of ritualistic practice in which he would baptize naked men and that there would be some kind of union with Jesus leading to this ecstatic experience of God's Kingdom.'
It is interesting to note that the Secret Gospel of Mark was adhered to by a Christian sect - viz. the Carpocratians - which was reviled by the early Church Father, Clement of Alexandria.
Ehrman states:
' wild, licentious activities. Their founder was Carpocrates who taught that since God created all things, all things should be held in common by everybody. Which meant that not only should you share your goods, you should also share your sexual partners. According to Clement of Alexandria, the Carpocratians engaged in nocturnal orgies as part of their worship services...'
Transcribed from the lecture series Lost Christianities by Bart D. Ehrman, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
~o0o~
According to the Secret Gospel of Mark, then, Jesus was a homosexual - and a promiscuous one at that. After all, he 'baptised' lots of men during the three years of his ministry.
If the founder of the religion which you adhere to, hoppy, was indeed a homosexual would this make you less anti-gay?
I've read through this a few times and still can't find where it says Jesus had homosexual sex. He babtised men naked, to me might just be saying that he wanted the person being babtised free of all worldly things (including clothes) to enter into his relationship with God.
An ecstatic experience is not necessarily an orgasm. I've had estactic events that didn't include sex what so ever.
Did I miss something?
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
YZGI;1312216 wrote: I've read through this a few times and still can't find where it says Jesus had homosexual sex. He babtised men naked, to me might just be saying that he wanted the person being babtised free of all worldly things (including clothes) to enter into his relationship with God.
An ecstatic experience is not necessarily an orgasm. I've had estactic events that didn't include sex what so ever.
Did I miss something?
The next time you see a priest with his mouth around a choirboy's penis and he tells you that he is only using the boy's organ as a toothpick, don't believe him YZGI.
An ecstatic experience is not necessarily an orgasm. I've had estactic events that didn't include sex what so ever.
Did I miss something?
The next time you see a priest with his mouth around a choirboy's penis and he tells you that he is only using the boy's organ as a toothpick, don't believe him YZGI.
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
Glaswegian;1312239 wrote: The next time you see a priest with his mouth around a choirboy's penis and he tells you that he is only using the boy's organ as a toothpick, don't believe him YZGI.
Cill out dude, I wouldn't be even remotely considered religous. I just think everyone reads into things they want to believe and are blind to other outlooks. If Jesus is the Messiah I would think he was probably asexual more than anything so he wouldn't care less about a naked body of a man or woman. I know your saying he wasn't the Messiah so that by him recieving a naked male body suddenly makes him a ravaging gay having sex with everyone he babtizes. Now tell me that doesn't sound just as crazy. It's all in how you want to interpet, is all I'm saying.
Cill out dude, I wouldn't be even remotely considered religous. I just think everyone reads into things they want to believe and are blind to other outlooks. If Jesus is the Messiah I would think he was probably asexual more than anything so he wouldn't care less about a naked body of a man or woman. I know your saying he wasn't the Messiah so that by him recieving a naked male body suddenly makes him a ravaging gay having sex with everyone he babtizes. Now tell me that doesn't sound just as crazy. It's all in how you want to interpet, is all I'm saying.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
YZGI;1312248 wrote: If Jesus is the Messiah I would think he was probably asexual more than anything so he wouldn't care less about a naked body of a man or woman.
Why would the Messiah be any less carnal than you or I, YZGI?
I think many people have the same difficulty imagining Jesus having a shag as they do imagining Snow White having sex with the seven dwarfs. But that is only due to 2000 years of Christian brainwashing.
By the way, didn't one of the dwarfs have three legs?
Why would the Messiah be any less carnal than you or I, YZGI?
I think many people have the same difficulty imagining Jesus having a shag as they do imagining Snow White having sex with the seven dwarfs. But that is only due to 2000 years of Christian brainwashing.
By the way, didn't one of the dwarfs have three legs?
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
hoppy;1312215 wrote: I don't especially buy into all this diversity crap. Perhaps my being a seperatist has something to do with my feelings. I prefer being with my own kind. White, straight Christian=good. White, straight, Christian conservative republican=better. White, straight, Christian conservative republican, red neck card carrying life NRA member=best.
If you want to be a separatist then by all means be one, hoppy.
However, I think your position is dangerous and self-defeating in the long run. For I think separatism has a tendency to make one suspicious, fearful and intolerant of other races and cultures, and this is a recipe for conflict. I also think that it results in narrow-mindedness, backwardness and intellectual stagnation for any individual or group that embraces it.
For example, the backwardness of the Islamic world vis-a-vis the West has as much to do with the former's separatist and insular outlook as it does with its stone age religion. Consider this: Spain is just one of many countries which constitute the West. But each year Spain translates as many books into Spanish as the entire Arab world has translated into Arabic since the ninth century. (United Nations' Arab Human Development Report 2002)
The hostility felt by many Muslims toward Western culture is due in no small way to their narrow-minded and ignorant view of it.
If you want to be a separatist then by all means be one, hoppy.
However, I think your position is dangerous and self-defeating in the long run. For I think separatism has a tendency to make one suspicious, fearful and intolerant of other races and cultures, and this is a recipe for conflict. I also think that it results in narrow-mindedness, backwardness and intellectual stagnation for any individual or group that embraces it.
For example, the backwardness of the Islamic world vis-a-vis the West has as much to do with the former's separatist and insular outlook as it does with its stone age religion. Consider this: Spain is just one of many countries which constitute the West. But each year Spain translates as many books into Spanish as the entire Arab world has translated into Arabic since the ninth century. (United Nations' Arab Human Development Report 2002)
The hostility felt by many Muslims toward Western culture is due in no small way to their narrow-minded and ignorant view of it.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
YZGI;1312216 wrote: I've read through this a few times and still can't find where it says Jesus had homosexual sex. He babtised men naked, to me might just be saying that he wanted the person being babtised free of all worldly things (including clothes) to enter into his relationship with God.
An ecstatic experience is not necessarily an orgasm. I've had estactic events that didn't include sex what so ever.
Did I miss something?
On the subject of Jesus's homosexuality, YZGI - have you seen Mel Gibson's sadomasochistic fantasy The Passion Of The Christ?
I think anyone who fails to see the homoeroticism which drips from that film must be either blind or wet behind the ears.
I remember watching Gibson's film in a cinema several years ago and hearing sporadic tittering among the audience as they watched an effete, diaper-clad Jesus being manhandled and whipped by muscular men in leather trimming.
If you want an insightful analysis of The Passion Of The Christ then see Brian Flemming's marvellous documentary The God Who Wasn't There. Not only will you be enlightened - you will also laugh your head off.
The God Who Wasn't There can be accessed here: http://www.thegodmovie.com/
An ecstatic experience is not necessarily an orgasm. I've had estactic events that didn't include sex what so ever.
Did I miss something?
On the subject of Jesus's homosexuality, YZGI - have you seen Mel Gibson's sadomasochistic fantasy The Passion Of The Christ?
I think anyone who fails to see the homoeroticism which drips from that film must be either blind or wet behind the ears.
I remember watching Gibson's film in a cinema several years ago and hearing sporadic tittering among the audience as they watched an effete, diaper-clad Jesus being manhandled and whipped by muscular men in leather trimming.
If you want an insightful analysis of The Passion Of The Christ then see Brian Flemming's marvellous documentary The God Who Wasn't There. Not only will you be enlightened - you will also laugh your head off.
The God Who Wasn't There can be accessed here: http://www.thegodmovie.com/
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
hoppy;1312179 wrote: I will always think the gay lifestyle repulsive and disgusting.
I'm sure it hasn't escaped your notice, hoppy, that abhorrence for the gay lifestyle isn't always what it appears to be, and that very often it masks precisely the opposite sentiment. I've stated before in this forum that many (Christian) men who claim that homosexuality is 'repulsive and disgusting' are only pretending to be revolted by it, that their revulsion for it is only ostensible revulsion - pseudo revulsion - because they are really drawn to this form of sexual behaviour and would like to indulge in it themselves.
Remember Ted Haggard? - well, he exemplifies such a man. And I strongly suspect that the patriarch of the notorious 'God Hates Fags' clan is the same.
The man who adopts an anti-gay stance in order to conceal his homosexuality from himself and others was portrayed incisively in the film American Beauty. That film featured a male character who was middle-aged, conservative, patriotic and virulently anti-gay. However, his hatred of gay men and his determination to instil the same hatred for them in his son were nothing more than symptoms of his own repressed homosexuality, which breaks out towards the end of the film. The film is to be commended because it articulates a truth which we all recognise at some level: namely, that the hatred which such men feel for homosexuals has more to do with themselves than those it is directed towards.
I realise that your close relative's homosexuality has caused you pain, hoppy. But perhaps what really pains you is not so much his homosexuality as the courage he had to acknowledge it, the courage he had to come out - a courage which you find lacking in yourself?
I'm sure it hasn't escaped your notice, hoppy, that abhorrence for the gay lifestyle isn't always what it appears to be, and that very often it masks precisely the opposite sentiment. I've stated before in this forum that many (Christian) men who claim that homosexuality is 'repulsive and disgusting' are only pretending to be revolted by it, that their revulsion for it is only ostensible revulsion - pseudo revulsion - because they are really drawn to this form of sexual behaviour and would like to indulge in it themselves.
Remember Ted Haggard? - well, he exemplifies such a man. And I strongly suspect that the patriarch of the notorious 'God Hates Fags' clan is the same.
The man who adopts an anti-gay stance in order to conceal his homosexuality from himself and others was portrayed incisively in the film American Beauty. That film featured a male character who was middle-aged, conservative, patriotic and virulently anti-gay. However, his hatred of gay men and his determination to instil the same hatred for them in his son were nothing more than symptoms of his own repressed homosexuality, which breaks out towards the end of the film. The film is to be commended because it articulates a truth which we all recognise at some level: namely, that the hatred which such men feel for homosexuals has more to do with themselves than those it is directed towards.
I realise that your close relative's homosexuality has caused you pain, hoppy. But perhaps what really pains you is not so much his homosexuality as the courage he had to acknowledge it, the courage he had to come out - a courage which you find lacking in yourself?
-
Royd Fissure
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:04 am
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
Diarmaid MacCulloch seems okay with himself - heard a podcast of a lecture he gave, forget where it was, may have been the LSE. Excellent stuff. No I haven't seen his tv series, I don't know if it's been shown here but it sounds fascinating.
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
Glaswegian;1312575 wrote: I'm sure it hasn't escaped your notice, hoppy, that abhorrence for the gay lifestyle isn't always what it appears to be, and that very often it masks precisely the opposite sentiment. I've stated before in this forum that many (Christian) men who claim that homosexuality is 'repulsive and disgusting' are only pretending to be revolted by it, that their revulsion for it is only ostensible revulsion - pseudo revulsion - because they are really drawn to this form of sexual behaviour and would like to indulge in it themselves.
Remember Ted Haggard? - well, he exemplifies such a man. And I strongly suspect that the patriarch of the notorious 'God Hates Fags' clan is the same.
The man who adopts an anti-gay stance in order to conceal his homosexuality from himself and others was portrayed incisively in the film American Beauty. That film featured a male character who was middle-aged, conservative, patriotic and virulently anti-gay. However, his hatred of gay men and his determination to instil the same hatred for them in his son were nothing more than symptoms of his own repressed homosexuality, which breaks out towards the end of the film. The film is to be commended because it articulates a truth which we all recognise at some level: namely, that the hatred which such men feel for homosexuals has more to do with themselves than those it is directed towards.
I realise that your close relative's homosexuality has caused you pain, hoppy. But perhaps what really pains you is not so much his homosexuality as the courage he had to acknowledge it, the courage he had to come out - a courage which you find lacking in yourself?
I assure you, I have no homosexual interests or desires. And, it would be a mistake to question my courage in person.
Remember Ted Haggard? - well, he exemplifies such a man. And I strongly suspect that the patriarch of the notorious 'God Hates Fags' clan is the same.
The man who adopts an anti-gay stance in order to conceal his homosexuality from himself and others was portrayed incisively in the film American Beauty. That film featured a male character who was middle-aged, conservative, patriotic and virulently anti-gay. However, his hatred of gay men and his determination to instil the same hatred for them in his son were nothing more than symptoms of his own repressed homosexuality, which breaks out towards the end of the film. The film is to be commended because it articulates a truth which we all recognise at some level: namely, that the hatred which such men feel for homosexuals has more to do with themselves than those it is directed towards.
I realise that your close relative's homosexuality has caused you pain, hoppy. But perhaps what really pains you is not so much his homosexuality as the courage he had to acknowledge it, the courage he had to come out - a courage which you find lacking in yourself?
I assure you, I have no homosexual interests or desires. And, it would be a mistake to question my courage in person.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
hoppy;1312612 wrote: I assure you, I have no homosexual interests or desires.
That may be so.
However, these interests and desires you refer to are not always immediately apparent. They can manifest themselves in very subtle and covert ways. For example, there may be times when you find yourself pondering what would happen if you were sent to prison for some reason, and you were locked up in a cell with a dozen black men, and what they would do to you. Then you give a little shudder and go back to polishing your guns. Or perhaps when you go on a hunting trip you discover that you have somehow forgotten to pack a blanket or sleeping-bag, and you find yourself faced with the possibility of having to share one with a male companion. And so on...
On the subject of gay rednecks, hoppy - did you know that Randolph Scott was a homosexual?
That may be so.
However, these interests and desires you refer to are not always immediately apparent. They can manifest themselves in very subtle and covert ways. For example, there may be times when you find yourself pondering what would happen if you were sent to prison for some reason, and you were locked up in a cell with a dozen black men, and what they would do to you. Then you give a little shudder and go back to polishing your guns. Or perhaps when you go on a hunting trip you discover that you have somehow forgotten to pack a blanket or sleeping-bag, and you find yourself faced with the possibility of having to share one with a male companion. And so on...
On the subject of gay rednecks, hoppy - did you know that Randolph Scott was a homosexual?
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
Glaswegian;1312679 wrote: That may be so.
However, these interests and desires you refer to are not always immediately apparent. They can manifest themselves in very subtle and covert ways. For example, there may be times when you find yourself pondering what would happen if you were sent to prison for some reason, and you were locked up in a cell with a dozen black men, and what they would do to you. Then you give a little shudder and go back to polishing your guns. Or perhaps when you go on a hunting trip you discover that you have somehow forgotten to pack a blanket or sleeping-bag, and you find yourself faced with the possibility of having to share one with a male companion. And so on...
On the subject of gay rednecks, hoppy - did you know that Randolph Scott was a homosexual?
Give it up. There's no way I'm gonna stick my pride & joy up your wazoo.:yh_rotfl
However, these interests and desires you refer to are not always immediately apparent. They can manifest themselves in very subtle and covert ways. For example, there may be times when you find yourself pondering what would happen if you were sent to prison for some reason, and you were locked up in a cell with a dozen black men, and what they would do to you. Then you give a little shudder and go back to polishing your guns. Or perhaps when you go on a hunting trip you discover that you have somehow forgotten to pack a blanket or sleeping-bag, and you find yourself faced with the possibility of having to share one with a male companion. And so on...
On the subject of gay rednecks, hoppy - did you know that Randolph Scott was a homosexual?
Give it up. There's no way I'm gonna stick my pride & joy up your wazoo.:yh_rotfl
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
hoppy wrote: There's no way I'm gonna stick my pride & joy up your wazoo.:yh_rotfl
I see that you have started to allow this kind of homosexual fantasy freer access to your consciousness. This is a healthy sign.
Let me ask you a question regarding something you said earlier about homosexuality. Viz.
hoppy wrote: I tend to view homosexuality as an affliction one is born with.
If what you say here is correct - that homosexuality is something one is born with - then it is genetically determined.
So let me ask you this: How closely related are you to the homosexual relative you mentioned earlier in the thread? Is he your brother, uncle, cousin or nephew?
~o0o~
hoppy;1312179 wrote: Religious sects are filled with some pretty disgusting individuals. I was born and raised Catholic. Since all the child abuse came to light, should I hate all Catholics? Should I hate all Pentecostals because of Jim Bakker? No, but I'll always hate what they do, especially if they do it in the name of religion.
I'm sure you must find the following behaviour hateful.
'In November 2007 Bradford Crown Court was told that a devout Christian, a Nigerian keen to quote the Bible, had sealed the lips of his sons with safety pins to save them from the Devil. In addition the boys had been beaten with poles, a long stick and an electric cable. One boy was locked in a cupboard, the other forced to spend a night blindfolded and tied to a chair, with a safety pin through his tongue and bottom lip. The father filmed some of the cruelties using a camcorder so that a copy could be sent back to Nigeria. The family attended a Pentecostal church and the children were being brought up to be obedient and "to put their morality in order"'. Condensed report from The Times 14th November 2007 ('Father put pins through his sons' tongues "to save them from the Devil"'.)
Do you think the Devil exists, hoppy?
I see that you have started to allow this kind of homosexual fantasy freer access to your consciousness. This is a healthy sign.
Let me ask you a question regarding something you said earlier about homosexuality. Viz.
hoppy wrote: I tend to view homosexuality as an affliction one is born with.
If what you say here is correct - that homosexuality is something one is born with - then it is genetically determined.
So let me ask you this: How closely related are you to the homosexual relative you mentioned earlier in the thread? Is he your brother, uncle, cousin or nephew?
~o0o~
hoppy;1312179 wrote: Religious sects are filled with some pretty disgusting individuals. I was born and raised Catholic. Since all the child abuse came to light, should I hate all Catholics? Should I hate all Pentecostals because of Jim Bakker? No, but I'll always hate what they do, especially if they do it in the name of religion.
I'm sure you must find the following behaviour hateful.
'In November 2007 Bradford Crown Court was told that a devout Christian, a Nigerian keen to quote the Bible, had sealed the lips of his sons with safety pins to save them from the Devil. In addition the boys had been beaten with poles, a long stick and an electric cable. One boy was locked in a cupboard, the other forced to spend a night blindfolded and tied to a chair, with a safety pin through his tongue and bottom lip. The father filmed some of the cruelties using a camcorder so that a copy could be sent back to Nigeria. The family attended a Pentecostal church and the children were being brought up to be obedient and "to put their morality in order"'. Condensed report from The Times 14th November 2007 ('Father put pins through his sons' tongues "to save them from the Devil"'.)
Do you think the Devil exists, hoppy?
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
YOU are one sick 
. Bye bye.
. Bye bye.-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
hoppy;1312746 wrote: YOU are one sick . Bye bye.
Poor hoppy. What a sensitive little man you are!
But if that's the way you are, what can I do?
Anyway, let me leave you with a song which I'm sure you adore. Here it is:
I'LL BE SEEING YOU
I'll be seeing you in all the old familiar places
That this heart of mine embraces all day through
In that small cafe, the park across the way
The children's carousel, the chestnut trees, the wishing well
I'll be seeing you in every summer's day
In everything that's light and gay
I'll always think of you that way
I'll find you in the morning sun
And when the night is new
I'll be looking at the moon
But I'll be seeing you
~o0o~
Sung by Liberace
. Bye bye.Poor hoppy. What a sensitive little man you are!
But if that's the way you are, what can I do?
Anyway, let me leave you with a song which I'm sure you adore. Here it is:
I'LL BE SEEING YOU
I'll be seeing you in all the old familiar places
That this heart of mine embraces all day through
In that small cafe, the park across the way
The children's carousel, the chestnut trees, the wishing well
I'll be seeing you in every summer's day
In everything that's light and gay
I'll always think of you that way
I'll find you in the morning sun
And when the night is new
I'll be looking at the moon
But I'll be seeing you
~o0o~
Sung by Liberace
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
Glassy,
It's a sad fact that every human filters all that they perceive through their own filters, created and developed of their life by their experiences, upbringing and training.
From what I have seen of you through your posts, here, I am sorry for the life you must have led, that brought you to this obsession with God and religion.
If you remove your filtered goggles for a moment, you will likely see that humans are often warped and crazed, and religion is only one of the many facets of their miserable existence. It does not take religion to cause people to kill people, or beat children, or do any number of the things we see humans doing.
For some, it seems to stand out when we hear of a connection to a religion or a particular philosophy or political faction, but if you pay attention you will see that religion is more a result of the madness that infects humans than a cause.
And rest assured, brother, that the madness is something we humans have done to ourselves, not something sent our way by God, or any supernatural beastie.
It's a sad fact that every human filters all that they perceive through their own filters, created and developed of their life by their experiences, upbringing and training.
From what I have seen of you through your posts, here, I am sorry for the life you must have led, that brought you to this obsession with God and religion.
If you remove your filtered goggles for a moment, you will likely see that humans are often warped and crazed, and religion is only one of the many facets of their miserable existence. It does not take religion to cause people to kill people, or beat children, or do any number of the things we see humans doing.
For some, it seems to stand out when we hear of a connection to a religion or a particular philosophy or political faction, but if you pay attention you will see that religion is more a result of the madness that infects humans than a cause.
And rest assured, brother, that the madness is something we humans have done to ourselves, not something sent our way by God, or any supernatural beastie.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
hoppy;1312215 wrote: I accept homosexuality as being something that can't be helped. If that is natural, then so be it. That does not mean I have to like it nor tolerate being around it. I don't especially buy into all this diversity crap. Perhaps my being a seperatist has something to do with my feelings. I prefer being with my own kind. White, straight Christian=good. White, straight, Christian conservative republican=better. White, straight, Christian conservative republican, red neck card carrying life NRA member=best. Horses like being with other horses. Deer with other deer. That's how it works.
How do you feel about mules?
How do you feel about mules?
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
hoppy;1312215 wrote: I accept homosexuality as being something that can't be helped. If that is natural, then so be it. That does not mean I have to like it nor tolerate being around it. I don't especially buy into all this diversity crap. Perhaps my being a seperatist has something to do with my feelings. I prefer being with my own kind. White, straight Christian=good. White, straight, Christian conservative republican=better. White, straight, Christian conservative republican, red neck card carrying life NRA member=best. Horses like being with other horses. Deer with other deer. That's how it works.
What you are describing is a closed sysytem. It is finite. Nothing in, nothing out. It reminds me of the mindset of cults, those Amish sects and Mormon sects that seem warped in time. Tribal villages in third world countries.
That's fine - to each his own - as long as the closed, or isolated system doesn't become a vacuum.
What you describe as preferable to you is the Old Boys School, an old ruling class Americans adapted from Europe when they displaced the original Americans... who were mostly a matriarchal, non warring civilization. We are now observing the gradual implosion of this European mindset. . It's really sad for men my age and older - born in the 60s and before, Even though we watched the riots and demonstrations, it took years for change to be implemented. Even after laws were enacted, the schools of thought persisted. You can make a law, but you can't enforce it in private homes, can't control what people teach their children, hateful though it might be. Because they were raised in closed or isolated systems, these guys absolutely don't know how to function in a world that is not geared toward them, for them.
They're afraid.
What you are describing is a closed sysytem. It is finite. Nothing in, nothing out. It reminds me of the mindset of cults, those Amish sects and Mormon sects that seem warped in time. Tribal villages in third world countries.
That's fine - to each his own - as long as the closed, or isolated system doesn't become a vacuum.
What you describe as preferable to you is the Old Boys School, an old ruling class Americans adapted from Europe when they displaced the original Americans... who were mostly a matriarchal, non warring civilization. We are now observing the gradual implosion of this European mindset. . It's really sad for men my age and older - born in the 60s and before, Even though we watched the riots and demonstrations, it took years for change to be implemented. Even after laws were enacted, the schools of thought persisted. You can make a law, but you can't enforce it in private homes, can't control what people teach their children, hateful though it might be. Because they were raised in closed or isolated systems, these guys absolutely don't know how to function in a world that is not geared toward them, for them.
They're afraid.
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
Bevdee;1312852 wrote: How do you feel about mules?
Dunno. I never dated one.
Dunno. I never dated one.
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
I find it puzzling that you would choose to frequent a forum that is not Old Boys School, your preference. I like the influx of ideas, do not have my patriotic foundations rattled when someone from another country expresses an opinion about the US that does not mesh with US propoganda. We only know what they tell us, especially if we stay in our closed system. I find other cultures fascinating. I thought the discussion of Jesus' sexuality, before it got derailed, was fascinating. I mean, there's something missing there - a 40 year old virgin, a wanderer, kind of a rock star, travelled around with twelve other dudes. Virgin. ?? Maybe the English scholars that revamped the Bible found homosexuality unsavory, or didn't want to introduce that example in the closed system they were striving to maintain. Great example for the priesthood- maybe that's why parts of the Bible got chunked out?
If you're going to live a while, you might consider opening yourself to new ideas, not attacking them. The world is changing very rapidly. Learning new things could make the next 40 years interesting....
If you're going to live a while, you might consider opening yourself to new ideas, not attacking them. The world is changing very rapidly. Learning new things could make the next 40 years interesting....
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
Bevdee;1312861 wrote: I find it puzzling that you would choose to frequent a forum that is not Old Boys School, your preference. I like the influx of ideas, do not have my patriotic foundations rattled when someone from another country expresses an opinion about the US that does not mesh with US propoganda. We only know what they tell us, especially if we stay in our closed system. I find other cultures fascinating. I thought the discussion of Jesus' sexuality, before it got derailed, was fascinating. I mean, there's something missing there - a 40 year old virgin, a wanderer, kind of a rock star, travelled around with twelve other dudes. Virgin. ?? Maybe the English scholars that revamped the Bible found homosexuality unsavory, or didn't want to introduce that example in the closed system they were striving to maintain. Great example for the priesthood- maybe that's why parts of the Bible got chunked out?
If you're going to live a while, you might consider opening yourself to new ideas, not attacking them. The world is changing very rapidly. Learning new things could make the next 40 years interesting....
For me, there isn't much future time left. I've already seen as much of this changing world and new ideas as I can stomache and I don't really give a rat's butt about it. And, I don't find the manipulation of past events and beliefs through imaginative scenarios at all intriguing.
I frequent red neck forums because I share common interests with them. I come here mostly to pass time. I do enjoy reading some posters though. Ok?
If you're going to live a while, you might consider opening yourself to new ideas, not attacking them. The world is changing very rapidly. Learning new things could make the next 40 years interesting....
For me, there isn't much future time left. I've already seen as much of this changing world and new ideas as I can stomache and I don't really give a rat's butt about it. And, I don't find the manipulation of past events and beliefs through imaginative scenarios at all intriguing.
I frequent red neck forums because I share common interests with them. I come here mostly to pass time. I do enjoy reading some posters though. Ok?
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
LarsMac;1312759 wrote: It does not take religion to cause people to kill people, or beat children, or do any number of the things we see humans doing.
For some, it seems to stand out when we hear of a connection to a religion or a particular philosophy or political faction, but if you pay attention you will see that religion is more a result of the madness that infects humans than a cause.
And rest assured, brother, that the madness is something we humans have done to ourselves, not something sent our way by God, or any supernatural beastie.
There is a letter on the internet originating from the United States, Lars, which shows that a great deal of the madness you refer to is rooted in religion itself. It purports to be written by a troubled Christian to Dr Laura, a fundamentalist agony aunt. Here it is:
Dear Dr Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18.22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding one or two specific laws and how best to follow them.
(a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1.9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
(b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21.7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price?
(c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15.19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
(d) Leviticus 25.44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
(e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35.2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
(f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10.10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
(g) Leviticus 20.20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you for reminding us again that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
~o0o~
For some, it seems to stand out when we hear of a connection to a religion or a particular philosophy or political faction, but if you pay attention you will see that religion is more a result of the madness that infects humans than a cause.
And rest assured, brother, that the madness is something we humans have done to ourselves, not something sent our way by God, or any supernatural beastie.
There is a letter on the internet originating from the United States, Lars, which shows that a great deal of the madness you refer to is rooted in religion itself. It purports to be written by a troubled Christian to Dr Laura, a fundamentalist agony aunt. Here it is:
Dear Dr Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18.22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding one or two specific laws and how best to follow them.
(a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1.9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
(b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21.7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price?
(c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15.19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
(d) Leviticus 25.44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
(e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35.2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
(f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10.10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
(g) Leviticus 20.20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you for reminding us again that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
~o0o~
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
AussiePam;1300486 wrote: I have said many times on FG that it is my opinion that religion is a man-made construct, and has been / is used to further tribal and other power agendas.
This sentence was posted by you earlier in the thread, Pam (post #170). It clearly states that in your opinion religion is a man-made construct.
And I agree with you.
But here is what you posted later in the thread (post #213):
AussiePam;1300486 wrote: Specifically, I see religion as a human construct in response to man's real experience of the Divine. At attempt at expressing in human terms what is basically inexpressible in human terms - hence the imperfections. Divine inspiration - yes, but interpreted by humans, reinterpreted by humans, misinterpreted by humans, turned into a system by humans, tribalised, philosophised, politicised and bureaucratised by humans, hijacked etc. I agree that some bits of 'religion' have got a long way from that original spark.
The above post contains two sentences which need to be clarified. Firstly, this one:
AussiePam;1300486 wrote: Specifically, I see religion as a human construct in response to man's real experience of the Divine.
This statement is contradictory. For what you say in it is that man’s experience of the Divine has given rise to a human construct - namely, religion. But how can religion be a human construct when it has the Divine’s fingerprints on it? According to you, religion results from 'man’s real experience of the Divine' - or, if you like, the Divine forms the basis of the experience from which religion is derived. Hence, the Divine is necessarily involved in religion - inextricably involved in it - for you anyway.
Either religion is a human construct which is completely free of the Divine or it is not. You cannot have it both ways, Pam. So which is it?
The second sentence of yours which needs to be clarified is this:
AussiePam;1300486 wrote: I agree that some bits of 'religion' have got a long way from that original spark.
Here you have moved a long way from claiming that religion is a human construct, haven‘t you? For now you say very clearly that religion has been sparked by the Divine. And not only that - you also say it is just 'some bits of religion' which have got a long way from the Divine, which have got a long way from their original Spark. You cannot even bring yourself to say that these bits are utterly removed from the Divine. Presumably for you they continue to be infused by the Divine spark even though they are some distance from it, even though they are only 'embers'.
~o0o~
The impudence of it, Pam! The complete and utter impudence of it! How did you ever hope to get away with it?
This sentence was posted by you earlier in the thread, Pam (post #170). It clearly states that in your opinion religion is a man-made construct.
And I agree with you.
But here is what you posted later in the thread (post #213):
AussiePam;1300486 wrote: Specifically, I see religion as a human construct in response to man's real experience of the Divine. At attempt at expressing in human terms what is basically inexpressible in human terms - hence the imperfections. Divine inspiration - yes, but interpreted by humans, reinterpreted by humans, misinterpreted by humans, turned into a system by humans, tribalised, philosophised, politicised and bureaucratised by humans, hijacked etc. I agree that some bits of 'religion' have got a long way from that original spark.
The above post contains two sentences which need to be clarified. Firstly, this one:
AussiePam;1300486 wrote: Specifically, I see religion as a human construct in response to man's real experience of the Divine.
This statement is contradictory. For what you say in it is that man’s experience of the Divine has given rise to a human construct - namely, religion. But how can religion be a human construct when it has the Divine’s fingerprints on it? According to you, religion results from 'man’s real experience of the Divine' - or, if you like, the Divine forms the basis of the experience from which religion is derived. Hence, the Divine is necessarily involved in religion - inextricably involved in it - for you anyway.
Either religion is a human construct which is completely free of the Divine or it is not. You cannot have it both ways, Pam. So which is it?
The second sentence of yours which needs to be clarified is this:
AussiePam;1300486 wrote: I agree that some bits of 'religion' have got a long way from that original spark.
Here you have moved a long way from claiming that religion is a human construct, haven‘t you? For now you say very clearly that religion has been sparked by the Divine. And not only that - you also say it is just 'some bits of religion' which have got a long way from the Divine, which have got a long way from their original Spark. You cannot even bring yourself to say that these bits are utterly removed from the Divine. Presumably for you they continue to be infused by the Divine spark even though they are some distance from it, even though they are only 'embers'.
~o0o~
The impudence of it, Pam! The complete and utter impudence of it! How did you ever hope to get away with it?
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Religion Is For Big Infants
Glaswegian;1312428 wrote: On the subject of Jesus's homosexuality, YZGI - have you seen Mel Gibson's sadomasochistic fantasy The Passion Of The Christ?
I think anyone who fails to see the homoeroticism which drips from that film must be either blind or wet behind the ears.
I remember watching Gibson's film in a cinema several years ago and hearing sporadic tittering among the audience as they watched an effete, diaper-clad Jesus being manhandled and whipped by muscular men in leather trimming.
If you want an insightful analysis of The Passion Of The Christ then see Brian Flemming's marvellous documentary The God Who Wasn't There. Not only will you be enlightened - you will also laugh your head off.
The God Who Wasn't There can be accessed here: The God Who Wasn't There
THE GOD WHO WASN'T THERE
Disabuse Your Mind
Here are better links for The God Who Wasn't There:
View Trailer: YouTube - "The God Who Wasn't There" - Trailer
View Documentary: - The God Who Wasn't there Documentary
I think anyone who fails to see the homoeroticism which drips from that film must be either blind or wet behind the ears.
I remember watching Gibson's film in a cinema several years ago and hearing sporadic tittering among the audience as they watched an effete, diaper-clad Jesus being manhandled and whipped by muscular men in leather trimming.
If you want an insightful analysis of The Passion Of The Christ then see Brian Flemming's marvellous documentary The God Who Wasn't There. Not only will you be enlightened - you will also laugh your head off.
The God Who Wasn't There can be accessed here: The God Who Wasn't There
THE GOD WHO WASN'T THERE
Disabuse Your Mind
Here are better links for The God Who Wasn't There:
View Trailer: YouTube - "The God Who Wasn't There" - Trailer
View Documentary: - The God Who Wasn't there Documentary