Nightcrawler/Religious & Spiritual Discussion

Would anyone like to have a Nightcrawler & Spirituality / Religious discussion? In the movies Kurt is a real spiritual dude so I thought it would be a cool topic for discussion. Also, a lot of the fan fics get into this subject & it makes an excellent story, so that shows there is an interest. Any ideas, people?

yeah...Kurt's a great guy for the Catholic religion... In all honesty if he were real, I would advocate for him to become a saint. grin" />

Yeah, even though most people who know me think I'm more of the laid back type! WHOOO! I guess it's cause I argue every point in the Bible kinda meh*shrug* i just dislike making him a FANATIC about being Catholic. It makes me want to hurt someone. But since I'm Catholic, I can make confession and make it go away

Ironically, the main people screaming about gays going to hell are the same ones bombing abortion clinics: extremist Protestants. I've yet to hear of an RC group, church, or whatever taking pride in that. Not that I agree with the church position that homosexuality is wrong. That seems to be the big problem I have with most versions of Christianity (and I'm American Orthodox). I just can't see it as a sin. Sorry, but if no one is hurt by the action, and it's a way to show love, I just can't see the sin behind it.

I guess we're all free to disagree on things.

One of the reasons the RCs have been getting the short shrift in America is because we were damn near created by Protestant militants: the Puritans. Some of these guys were wacko: the even limited their vocabulary to words written down in the King James translation of the Bible. Their hatred of the "papal whore" was legendary, and, regrettably, a lot of that has persisted. What they were actually angry about wasn't so much the way the religion was practiced as the political quagmire of Europe, which was entangled in religion. If you were Catholic, you believed in X political views, while the Protestants were of Y view. (We're still seeing the same stuff over in Ireland. )

Kurt seems to espouse the "pure", unpoliticized RC faith. He doesn't constantly witness (evangelize), he doesn't make political decisions based solely on faith, and he doesn't use it as an excuse for pre-existing intolerance. He takes Christ's admonition of "As you treated the least of your brothers, so you have treated me" very seriously. And considering how he gets treated in return, it takes a lot of moral fiber to keep ones chin up in that way.

wow...!

Wow, you guys... This is really a great discussion. I love it. And this is getting some great replies, too! You guys are all so awesome. Lauren, you write terrific stories. And you guys are all correct in saying that there are too many negative stereotypes of Catholics... I guess our leadership (the "hierarchy" isn't helping right now...

Anyway, this is a great discussion. We can also use this Kurt & Religion thing to get to know each other & discuss how we feel about stuff sociologically & spiritually too.

As to how some people feel that Catholics are "not Christians" -- that is so sad. My uncle became a Jehovah's Witness, and he says that God loves only Jehovah's Witnesses, not Catholics, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or (your group in this space here). Sad, isn't it? Why can't we all just get along, and focus on the things we agree on rather than what we disagree on? Because that only drives people apart.

Anyway... one of the things that I loved so much about the movie was the portrayal of Kurt Wagner. This was because, like, FINALLY -- a Catholic was portrayed in a positive way in a movie. Now, some people may watch the movie and disagree that this is a positive portrayal of a Catholic because the guy is a mutant who climbs up walls and hungs from the ceiling from time to time. But I thought that -- now hear this! -- this movie was the best thing to happen for Catholics in a long time -- and we needed it, honey! Finally, a positive Catholic character in film -- he prays, he lives in a church, he says the Rosary, and he kicks ass then disappears before you can catch him! LOVED IT!!!

I have to admit I returned to church, as an adult, mostly because of Kurt's example. I was looking for a spiritual direction, and I thought, oh hell, it works for Kurt. I'm not Catholic, though, I'm Episcopalian (and you know what they say, since Vatican II we're more Catholic than the Catholics. Except for the women priests, and the gay clergy, and all the divorced people, etc. etc).

I rather liked the story line where he was exploring becoming a priest because I thought his faith might lead him to see if it was a true calling or not. I didn't see him accepting all the clerical restrictions, at least not at that point in his life, but rather exploring to find where God might lead him.
So it's cool with me if he becomes a priest--he can always be received into the Epicopal/Anglican community and then he and I can get married.
And while I'm dreaming, I'd like a million dollars.

Movie Kurt did get on my nerves a little bit with all his God talk. I see it as more something I show others by example, like Comic Kurt. To keep it in context, Movie Kurt also got on my nerves for being fuzzless. There were lots of reasons he just wasn't my Kurt.

Somebody, somewhere on this board, a while ago, mentioned that Daredevil is also Catholic. Anybody know if that's true?

My big brother had married a Jehova's Witness. I remember when I was 14 she kept trying to convert me, saying that Catholics worhiped the devil in their churches. When I told her how much I felt the Spirit because I had just gone thru confirmation, she said that proved her point, it was the devil's work. go figure

Quote:

Originally posted by Maelstrom Kurt seems to espouse the "pure", unpoliticized RC faith. He doesn't constantly witness (evangelize), he doesn't make political decisions based solely on faith, and he doesn't use it as an excuse for pre-existing intolerance. He takes Christ's admonition of "As you treated the least of your brothers, so you have treated me" very seriously. And considering how he gets treated in return, it takes a lot of moral fiber to keep ones chin up in that way.

This is the thing that attracted me to Nightcrawler in the first place, and I was so thrilled to see a truly Christian comic book character. Some people don't understand how much influence cultural icons have on society, especially young people. Teenagers often get ostracized by their peers over the smallest differences. I think Kurt is a good influence for the disenfranchised to understand the roll of faith in making us whole, no matter how we were created.

And I too am distressed over what some of my friends at church say about Catholics. My husband, who was a very wayward teenager and almost ended up in jail, was brought to a faith in Christ by a Jesuit priest. It seems very petty. Only God knows our hearts and we are cautioned to not be judgmental. It's a pity not enough people take that to heart. It's nice that Kurt does

*sigh* Yep, yep, yep. Strange how things work, isn't it? I honestly don't understand why the fundlets think Catholics worship the devil. I think it's all the symbols and rites they hate. Like I said: if you want a window into the mind of Fundamentalist paranoia, take a look at the Jack Chick Museum of Fine Art (search an engine for the title). It's funny and sad at the same time. There's a guy who'd be positive that Kurt was the antiChrist. And he's Catholic? Proof positive!

Man... anyone who messes with Kurt messes with me, and you mess with me, fingers and toes go missing dernit!

Why is there such a big thing against Catholics anyway? I mean, sure we were mean and bad in the past, but most religions have their sour points....except Buddhisim, their still cool...

I wonder if Kurt wold make a good Buddhist

One of the things to remember: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, and countless others are Religions, ways of preparing yourself for the hereafter. They are manners of worship. Bhuddism, Daoism, and so forth are Philosophies, which are ways of living here and now. The former can lend itself to extreme behavior much easier than the latter. That's why you never hear about extremists Bhuddists rioting or starting a holy war. They think of the here and now and of how to expand consciousness, rather than planning for a future that has no basis in anything other than faith.

Lauren, don't feel too bad about "losing" a friend like that. My mother, who was just a non-denominational Christian at that time, had a mormon girl looking at her very hard for several minutes, and when she asked her why, the girl said she was looking for my mom's horns. Seems she'd been told that anyone who wasn't Mormon, yet claimed to be a follower of Christ, was a demon in disguise...

very cool indeed.

This discussion is turning out totally awesome (sorry for being so 80's)!

Bamfchyck, that is cool that Kurt got you back into church & stuff.

To you other guys... Yeah... I just cannot figure how so many people think that Catholics worship the devil. I just do not get that one! Or maybe you get a lot of that where you live? Is is like in the South, or something?

Where I live, you get a lot of this kind of stereotyping: That Catholics are "uneducated" or "ignorant." People sometimes think that Catholics don't think for themselves and just "do what they're told." Like hello? They're wrong, honey! That's the line I hear. If yah wanna hear a real bad one... I went out with this Wiccan on a date. He was bragging that he was Wiccan, trying to scare me or impress me. I just so did not care, since I'd come across so many various types in my life... I told him I was Catholic since he asked. He laughed, "Catholic girls! I know what they're like! Family values. Do everything they're told. Like to get down on their knees!" Evil Bastard!

Anyway... no, I don't know if Daredevil is Catholic. I never read that one! I am also an X-Files fan, so if people care, Dana Scully is Catholic... Mulder just believes in aliens!

I'm glad I started this discussion. I thought that I'd get NO RESPONSE at all, since people don't seem that interested in religion these days.

If people wanna think that Catholics worship the devil, let's make Kurt Wagner the patron saint of mutants! They can make little gold holy medals with his image on it!

You can tell everyone who asks, that's St. Wagner, patron of all lost mutants, whom God gave the miracle of teleportation!

Anyway... I don't mind if Kurt became a priest and stayed single, but personally, I don't think it's a good idea, since he would not have time to also be an X-Man. How could he do both?

Actually, that's a good point too. My aunt's an atheist and she sometimes complains that most people tend to think that atheists have no moral codes. Now to me, I don't care what you are. Heck, I have a friend who's actually a Satanist, and they're a pretty cool person. The whole "kill and drink kitten blood" is not what normal Satanists do apparently, they just happen to think God and Satan are on the same level, but Satan is better *shrug* meh

Going back to the atheist thing, I think the only reason people put down Atheists is because the more vocal ones tend to make all atheists look like whiners who go around saying "We need to change this and we need to change that because I don't believe it and it's not fair to ME so YOU have to change everything to better suit MY wants and needs." I know most atheists aren't like that, but with every other group out there, it just takes a few to screw it up for everyone else you know?

St. Wagner that sounds awesome! but do you think the Pope would really let a comic character be named a saint Maybe if we asked real nicely?:oops

I think the term "Satanist" is kind of a misnomer, because there isn't really any organized religion around it. Yeah, yeah, There was a "church of Satan" in the 70s, but it was a real joke.... There are no extablished, traditional, "accepted" ritual methods of actually worshipping the JudeoChristian devil. People just kind of slap together stuff that sounds or looks right (mainly gathered from horror films) and claim that it's the real deal.

That's what really decides the difference between a religion and a cult, for me. Time is one thing: it needs to have been around for a very long time. The next is established, unbroken traditions. Satanism doesn't have that. (Unfortunately, neither do most of the new age "Wiccian", "witchcraft", or "Neo-pagans", but that's another story entirely....)

So far as I can see, Satanism is the ultimate boogeyman. It's the perfect, irredeemable enemy; elusive, invisible, everywhere, and fits whatever mold you want. Problem is, as a organized religion, or even a cult, it just doesn't exist... so you have to make a boogeyman out of somethine else.... Something that's real.

Humanity defines itself more by its enemies than its friends. By saying "I am NOT that", you also emphatically define what you are. We need a "them" to be "us" against. This is why I don't think we'll have world peace until we discover aliens. Then we'll have a whole new "them."

Regrettably, "mutants" fit the bill just fine.

Geez. I guess I, as a devoted Pagan, am in the minority of those posting in this thread. I deconverted from fundie Christianity in 1999, so I don't see Christianity as a blessing in general.

I see religion as the particular category of faith one follows (e.g. I have faith in Christ, therefore I'm a Christian), not the usual negative "it's following rules and not having faith" idea.

My mother's an atheist, and I have no problem with them in general. I have problems with the ones who ape fundamentalist Christianity, though, and insist anyone who has any religious belief whatsoever is clearly stupid and evil.

I don't mind people being Catholic. I mind people being jerks. I don't care what context it's in, be it religious or political or social, if you're a jerk then you're a jerk. And I don't blame jerkiness on religion or politics or so on. FYI.

This continues to be a real cool discussion. I'm impressed with you guys. I go to other online communities like this one & discuss philosophical stuff, and they all end up fighting and putting each other down. I'm really impressed to see people who are above that here.

The idea behind adorning church buildings with all the shiny, glittery stuff is "You give your best to God". Kind of like how the Jews would bring in the best of their chickens, their lambs, their oxen, etc, for the ritual sacrifices. After all: if you're giving stuff you don't really care about, it isn't a sacrifice, is it?

The problem with all the glittery, shiny stuff is when we get too attached to it... and that goes for religious leaders. Priests/ministers, rabbis, holy men, shamans, and so forth: anyone is prone to temptation and corruption. To want to gain the shiny stuff for them, not for God. Or to demand more shiny stuff for God than the people can reasonably afford, just to make them "look better."

At one time the Catholic faith was a MAJOR governing institution, and (IHMO) sin is part of the job description for governments. They're as worldy as they come. That's why I believe (and our founding fathers did, too) that the two should NEVER mix, because one gets corrupted by the other. During the Middle Ages, we had all sorts of governmental taxings and purges from the Catholic Church. They were the same things everyone else was going, but with the added "shield" of being done in His holy name. Martin Luther saw the governmental excesses (sale of indulgences, the Inquisition, etc.) and disagreed with them so much that he nailed his thesis to the door, demanding change. The shiny stuff had gotten in the way.

It's not wealth that's the sin. Nor is it simply the pursuit of wealth that's bad. It's the pursuit of wealth above all else that causes so much trouble. The shiny stuff dwells hapilly, without trouble, in churches and mosques, in temples and synagogs, and even in the simplest of shrines. It is the best people can give, whether that's gold and jewels, or gifts of time and effort. It's the motive behind them that makes it a true gift or meaningless, repetitive ritual.

Like NL said, the Church referrs to the people: capital C for the congregation, small c for the building. The reason the Church is important (as opposed to the little building itself) is that humanity isn't generally designed to "go it alone". We need the presence and support of others. (This is why solitary confinement is a punishment in jails, and why we have "go sit in the corner" as a punishment for unruly children.)

Even monks and nuns, who have sealed themselves off to further their devotions, will congregate in groups. The true hermits, who go by themselves to be closer to God, are rare, but still acceptable. However, the hermits have (hopefully) made an enlightened choice, in the fullness of knowing the rest of the world, and they're the extreme minority. The rest of us just aren't designed to work that way. So we attend the Church by being around everyone else (whethet it's in attendence of a religious ceremony, a school, a party, or any other gathering). This is what makes Nightcrawler's situation doubly tragic. He may be part of the Church, but cannot express it by going to attend ceremonies in church with the rest of the congregation, because of his appearance. His solitude, his hermit status, has been kind of foisted upon him... and still he has the grace and love to deal with it instead of turning into a misanthropic nightmare.

Thank you for making me spit out my Toblerone

C-ko

In the middle ages in Europe, the Jews were *only* allowed to lend money (known as usery). They got in serious trouble if they had any other jobs. The interpretation of the Catholic faith, at the time, forbade charging interest on a loan, and in that case, why lend money at all? Judaism, however, still allowed one to charge interest (so long as it wasn't injurious or outrageous). The Jews were the moneylenders and financiers. And they were a persecuted minority...

I'm sure you can see where this is leading....

Yup: whenever you wanted to default on a loan, just go to your local Priest and tell them that that nasty 'ol Jew over there is eating meat on a Friday. He gets killed for Heresy, and your debt also goes up in smoke. Very convenient. The barons, dukes, and kings did this way too many times....

Invariably, when politics, greed, and other worldy things get involved, the most peaceful of religions can turn into an oppresive nightmare. Christianity reveres and worships one who let Himself be tortured to death, rather than fight back! You can't get more pacifistic than that! And yet, how many atrocities have happened in His name? More than I want to count. This isn't a swipe at religion in general, or Christianity in particular: it's a swipe at mankind's general habit of twisting things to fit one's personal desires.

I can go you one better, hun :

When I was in college, a pair of fundlet whack-jobs came and "preached" in the courtyard to anyone within earshot. I put "preach" in quotes because it was more of a harangue with Biblical notation than a sermon. They were so busy calling everyone a whore and a whoremonger that I doubt anyone who wasn't in dire need of a dominatrix would listen to them. (I felt so sorry for the local Saltworks group, kind of a Campus Crusade for Christ outfit. They were such sweethearts, and this made them look so bad....) I argued with them (like so many others). I asked, "Why should we be so terrified of a God who loves us?"

Their response? "NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT GOD LOVES US!"

Excuse me?

"He so loved the world that He gave us His only begotten Son"?

"God loves the sinner, but hates the sin"?

Are we even reading the same book???

I like Buddhists. Just a little sprinkle of garlic salt, and voila!

Oops, did I say that out loud?

Yes, fundie ignorance can be entertaining. A local Pagan I know was once accosted by a pair of them, who asked him what religion he was. He pulled out his pentacle, a five pointed star in a circle. Apparently they confused it with the six pointed Star of David, for they looked at each other, smiled, and said, "Oh, so you're Jewish!"

So sometimes we local Pagans say we're Jewish.

::: I don't know if they just assumed a star had to be Jewish or what. I just know that it was funny...

BWAAAHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh, Lord, that's hysterical! Can't tell the difference between Solomon's Seal and the Star of David?? I swear....

Of course, if you want to hear what happens when stupid people try to out-think zealots, here's one for you. Yes, this really happened. I personally knew both guys involved, Scott and Alan (who, at this time, were both in their mid to late teens).

Alan was telling Scott how tired he was of the Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on doors with the Watchtower. (Their block was some kind of magnet for Witnesses.) So Alan got the brilliant, inventive idea that he'd tell them he was a Satanist and scare them off. Scott could smell trouble, and warned Alan that this was not the brilliant, inventive idea he thought it was. Undaunted, Alan was determined to see his plot through. He didn't even wait for the JWs to get to their side of the street. He went to the door, opened it, and shouted "Hey! I'm a Satanist!"

The JWs came to his door calmly. Scott stood back and watched. Here was the approximate conversation:

JWs: You said you were a Satanist?

Alan: Yeah!

Scott: (silently, in the back corner)

JWs: What do you mean by that?

Alan: (pause) Well, I'm a Satanist! I believe in Satan!

JWs: Well, we do too. We just believe that our Lord and Savior, Jesus, is far more powerful than Satan....

.... This went on for quite some time.

The JWs, as Scott predicted, were SO used to this little ploy that they were quite ready for it, and had their spiel all worked out. After about half an hour, poor Alan mumbled that he had seen the error of his ways, begged to be let go to use the bathroom, and took a Watchtower just to get them off his doorstep.

Scott couldn't stop laughing for ten minutes.


However, sometimes the "Satanist" ploy does work. Case in point:

I knew a friend (neither Scott, nor Alan) who once rented a single apartment for incredibly cheap. Why was it so cheap? Because the Satanic, incredibly STUPID, tenant before had burned a pentagram into the hardwood floor! Not surprisingly, the landlord was having a hard time renting it out, but my friend didn't care. He shrugged, kicked a rug over it, and basked in the glory of paying half the rent he expected.

One day a JW came to his door. This was one of the stereotypical, foot in the door kinds who just wouldn't leave until you were converted. So my friend went to a bookcase, picked out some random book with a black cover, kicked the rug off the pentagram, sat in the middle, opened the book, and said, "I'll match you verse-for-verse".

The poor bastard practically left skid marks.

I agree with you. People aren't perfect so they shouldn't claim that the writing in the bible is faultless. The only problem with trying to disproove the fautlessness of the bible is that you will have others who say that the bible was utterly and completely inspired by god so none of it can be wrong or slightly mistaken. There's the problem

I'm not exactly an agnostic but I don't believe in institutionlized religions because in every one I found some sort of problem with it..well..except for buddism (haven't really known that many Buddist people). I go to a Catholic high school because it offers a very good education despite the mandatory religion class. However, I've pretty much lost my faith in Christianity and other religions because of what I've learned and seen at my school. I have met many a truly hypocritical Catholic and many honest and good Catholics. The hypocrits hide behind their religion which has decent and moral goals but they take advantage of the name and the ideas behind it to defend there not-so-good beliefs or actions.

One of my religion teachers was a real goody-goody kind of person. She always smiled and always seemed nice but she was VERY biased. She would give less than deserving grades to people who didn't believe exactly as she did or have opinions just like hers. We had a section on abortion and had to write papers. This was supposed to be an open opinion paper but the only girl who wrote pro-choice was denied a grade on her paper until she was forced to after the parents spoke to the principal. Still, she gave the girl a low grade.

People like that have made me lose my faith but one of my very good friends is a devout Catholic and another is Jewish. The former is very involved in the religious activities we have at our school and I respect her and the other for their devotion to faith but I don't think I'm changing any time soon.

I've seen the problems with religions because many people have a lack of respect for other religions. Essentially, each religion is like a different interpretation of the same thing. God presented itself to different cultures in different ways but many refuse to see that. Human imperfection drives the majority of people to seek a way to make themselves better than someone else. All in all it's a sad predicament.

Yeah... but then there would be no more violence in the world. We could all be happy geeks and read silly comic books and watch X2 together!

*looks around*
oh boy,

thats fine, i know even people with the same faith and beliefs will always dissagree.
but there doesnt have to be any love lost between us all.

(im sorry, i know you weren't referring to me here )
but i am so very sorry to hear that!
i so hope i havent made it worse by what i said. if so i am extremely sorry!

yes that is true Northstar.
what i know (and i know many will think im crazy, & just plain hard headed) is that homosexuality is a sin (and homosexual people sin). just like any other sin (no better, no worse) and it is because of our sins that separate us from God in the first place.
now i know that when we are saved he takes away those sins & separates us from them (like he says "farther than the east is from the west". we are not all perfect and when we are saved we are still not perfect (we still sin) but God does still forgive us of those sins we make.
so to your statement about the homosexual community in the church not going to hell. i do not know if they will or will not.
all i know is when Jesus saves us from our sins. we are saved forever unless we turn from him and say "no i dont want to have anything to do with you anymore" (which is not to say that that person will indeed go to hell, you never know if the person will come back to the Lord in the future).

Amen! and thats the only place it comes from, bro!

im glad you dont hate them.
and, yes you are right, our one goal is to show Jesus's love and redemption for the world through ourselves. we shouldnt let our dissagreements dampen that (i think God wouldnt be pleased with us doing that either).
*gives hug to Northstar*
please understand, i dont hate anyone here.
youre all fellow nighty lovers, how on earth could i ever hate you guys?

ouch!


btw…why'd i get 2 warnings for one post?

You know, one of these days, I have got to read the Chronicles of Narnia. I've heard so much about them, and know the basic premise, but I've never actually read them. And it's a seminal fantasy series, like LOTR.

I'd have to wonder... if anything like this could have influenced Kurt in his past....

Warbird... I myself am proud to be a geek! Long live all geeks! The geeks shall inherit the Earth! Okay... if you don't want to think that comic books are silly, that's okay too!

The Chronicles of Narnia are fun books. My personal opinion is that they are a little sexist, but remember, they were written in the 1940's, and that's to be expected.

I like the Lord of the Rings better.

If you want good science fiction with a religious bent, also try the "Firebird" series by Kathy Tyers. Real good stuff. War, intrigue, romance, jealousy, and space ships blowing up! Cool!

Last Battle Tash worshipper? Went to "heaven"? Emeth. His name was Emeth. Book geek here!

C.S. was VERY sexist. "Wars are ugly when women fight"? Ugh.

As for believing X or Y will go to hell...you can believe that all you like, as long as you can understand that I disagree with you and believe there is no such thing as hell anywhere but in the minds of vengeful human beings.

How can a created being boot out an all- knowing, all-powerful God of the universe out of Heaven?

He can't.

But God decided if Lucifer wanted his own kingdom, why not cast him down into an abyss with a third of Heaven's angels that followed him.

I would like to think it would have gone like this:

God -"There you go Morning Star. Your own kingdom to reign. The master of the underworld.

Lucifer- "Thanks. Kind of dark down here. Could I get a light?"

God- "You should have thought of that before you tried to take over my throne. Not to mention influencing a third of the angels to join you. You are now eternally out of my presence, and the brilliant infinite light that had bathed you for eons has been replaced with total darkness...."

Lucifer-"Ya. Ya. Save the epilogue. Can I get a light down here?"

God-"I'll do better than that. How about some fire and brimstone?"

Lucifer-"Well, it would smell horribly. I don't think I'd like that too much.

God- "At this point Lucifer, you really don't have a choice."

Lucifer-......

Lucifer created his own Hell. So now he has to live with it. To be so arrogant into thinking he could take out God. Talk about not being the brightest crayon in the box!

Yeah, and they're so beautiful when men fight.

Believe it or not, the sexism in the Narnia books is mild compared to some of Lewis's writings for adults. Compare them with That Hideous Strength, if you dare.

To get just a wee bit off-topic, I've always said that the big difference between men and women is this:

When men get into a physical fight, people turn to watch. When women get into a physical fight, people turn away.

Women are far more likely to have a screaming match than a punching contest. Our weapon of choice, by and large, tends more towards words. That's one of the reasons we were forbidden to go into politics in times past: we were too good at it

Really, think about it. When little boys are claiming that "my dad can beat up your dad" as a taunt, little girls are backbiting with "Well, Judy really doesn't like you, but don't tell her I said it, 'cause she'll say she likes you, but she really doesn't...." Men physically dominate, while women emotionally manipulate.

Which comes down to this: if it's gotten so bad that we're actually punching each other, it's gotten baaaaad. I'm talkin' primal, irrational, animalistic, turn off the brain, screamin' and clawin' baaaaad.

Quote:

Originally posted by BamfChyck Quote: Originally posted by Angel of the Night but didnt you see in the 2nd part of my post where i said "no i dont hate homosexual people and no God doesnt hate homosexual people either"? From BAmfChyck (Why can't I ever make this darn Quote thing work right?!?) Oh Angel Honey, I wasn't talking about you when I wrote that! I was thinking about some people who came to protest in my town a few years ago who carried the most hateful signs. Just awful, venomous stuff. Some of you probably know who I'm talking about. I'm sorry I didn't see this sooner and reply to it. I'm sorry you thought I was talking about you. I was talkiing about the issue you raised, but not what you yourself said. oh thank you BamfChyk ! i feel better now! man im so sorry to hear that! i know i get angry too when i see people do & say hateful things "in God's name" and call themselves "Christians". then in the end we have to clean up the mess ( so to speak) and try to explain that we truly arent like that. ugh! thanks too for telling me what you meant! i really appreciate it! Whoa! i feel like i just got away with the skin of my teeth there! (or however that phrase goes) . Anyways, back to the subject of nighty. well, i have really only one thing to say about the fact that he actually has faith (well, besides the word YAY! ). Dave Cockrum gave nighty life but Mr Clairemont really gave him a soul when he added that feature to nighty's character. Its not everyday you come across a character that is extremely devoted to what he believes in and is also widely accepted by people of so many different backgrounds and beliefs. (which is not to say i am not eternally grateful to mr Cockrum for creating him). God bless you both! well…just hope nobody hates me now for stirring up so much contraversy.

Well, Phelps is sort of in the news again. I guess he got tired of not being the front-runner Here's the link on the SPLC website:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=142

Basically, when people decided to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed on public land, he decided he wanted his little "memorial" to Sheppard put up, too: "Matthew Shepard entered hell October 12, 1998, at age 21 in defiance of God's warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22." What a sweetie...

Of course, he was flatly turned down, but he's still keeping it up. Ironically, he may well undercut the support out of displaying the Ten Commandments at this rate....

(click the link for a lot more info)

Quote:

Originally posted by Maelstrom Basically, when people decided to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed on public land, he decided he wanted his little "memorial" to Sheppard put up, too: "Matthew Shepard entered hell October 12, 1998, at age 21 in defiance of God's warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22." What a sweetie...

What gets me is that he has the hubris to think his message is more important than the Ten Commandments! Talk about arrogance! Yes, he said it plain as day.

A quote from the SPLC article:

"Even as conservatives attempt to place more Ten Commandments monuments around the country, Phelps told a reporter in Rupert that it didn't bother him that his own campaign could undercut those efforts.

'My message is infinitely more important than the Ten Commandments,' he said."

:o "Infinitely more important"?! Wow! He must have a direct line to God! (Or somewhere else.... )

Even the most extreme flaming nutcases would disgree with him on that one. It would be interesting to see the fireworks if he took that idea to a rabbi. The most conservative of them, who hate homosexuality just a little less than Phelps, would have kittens over the very concept of someone thinking their message was more important than Moses' commandments!

Phelps is going to Hell no matter which way you believe. If you believe in the fire-and-brimstone place of eternal punishment, he'll get tossed down there with all the other haters who do evil in His name. And if you believe we basically all go to the same place when we die, he'll sure *think* he was in hell, with all the "heathen homosexuals" walking around up there, smiling, shaking his hand, and welcoming him to forever....

Warbird, if that was your idea of a "rant", I can't wait to see something from you that's well thought out and reflective!

So often the haters rely on people getting angry and spitting invective. They're like net trolls. They thrive on it. It gives them an excuse to hate. That's why the Klan tries so hard to incite riots; they want to have a reason to hate and show how "oppressed" they are.

The best response I saw was done by a small town in the Midwest. (Can't remember where, sorry.) They knew that the Klan was going to parade down main street, and as they had a permit, they couldn't stop them. So they just closed the place down. Nobody went to work that day. The Klan got to march down a deserted, empty street with nothing but "closed" signs as far as they could see. They couldn't even find an open restroom. They went back demoralized, denied of their conflict. And the community pulled together and drove them back with passive resistance.

It's hard to walk that line between letting haters walk all over you and fighting back too aggressively: either extreme is just what they want. Evil thrives when good men do nothing, but it also thrives when they react too much.

But the thing that always gives me hope is the knowledge that this kind of thing is now considerd *wrong*. It isn't tacitly understood, it isn't given a wink and a nod. It generates headlines because people see it for the hateful, destructive thing it is. No longer is it "okay" to bash on minorities, to rape women, to drive drunk. No longer can laws get away with quietly stigmatizing the victims. Yes, there are still cases when the law fails, and people are hurt, even killed, due to such "winks and nods". But invariably someone finds out, splays it over the front page, and people are outraged instead of blandly turning to the sports section.

Extremists cannot abide by anyone who doesn't cowtow to their own personal views. They especially hate people who refuse to hate. Fred Rogers, God love the man, was a Minister, and he saw his program (Mr. Roger's Neighborhood) as an extension of that ministry. Notice that he never shoved Christianity down anyone's throats? In fact, I never knew he was a Minister until someone told me. He lived, and worked, by the ideal of "conversion by example", which works a helluvalot better than fire+brimstone "We teach ya to HAYTE fo' Jesus" stuff you get in Chick tracts.

And that is no doubt what pissed Phelps off so much.

1) Rogers was also a Minister.

2) Rogers was infinitely more successful at spreading his message, purely by his loving, soft touch.

3) Rogers' message, "love everyone, especially yourself", was the opposite of Phelp's.

4) Rogers was respected by virtually everyone, conservative to liberal. He was so listened to that people breathed a sigh of relief when he came ot of retirement in 2001 to help parents explain to their kids about the Twin Towers. Phelps... well... everyone would breathe a sigh of relief if he shut up.

5) Rogers refused to rise to anyone's bait. He never lost his temper. For Phelps, this means Rogers was always in control of the situation, where Phelps no doubt sees the sinful world as a place he simply must dominate, and can't.

6) This is incredibly petty, but, you know, it might have something to do with it? Rogers and Phelps share the first name.

So, you've got a rival minister, with a rival, antithetical message to yours, who's more successful, more respected, more loved and listened to, has more power, leaving you, the paranoid hateful delusionary in the dirt....

What's not to hate?

One of the things that strikes me most about these groups is how uneducated many of their members are.

I live in a relatively liberal college town in the Midwest. We often have religious groups come to campus to try to put 'the fear of God' into all of us sinners. You know, by wearing incredibly offensive signs and spewing hate Anyway, I was walking with one of my lab-mates to lunch and we passed a protester with a sign that read "If my dad was a censored slur, I wouldn't be here". After we recovered from laughing, my friend, whose father is gay, turned to me and said "do you think we should give him a little lesson in biology?"

It was funny (in a horrible way), but then you notice all the really young children that these parents have dragged to the 'protest'. They're shouting out as much filth and hate as their parents. It really makes me want to weep just thinking about them and how they'll turn out

Aw, I could see him sitting in front of people, taking off his special made shoes, asking if you'd be his neighbor! That would be awesome!

Moonies were glassey-eyed cultists of the worst order. The "reverend" *snort* Sun Yun Moon would use such wonderful, ethical measures as sleep deprivation, food withholding, and various methods of mind control to brainwash them into mindless cultists, who'd work sixteen hours a day selling junk and roping in recuits! So, yes: if you gave them an inch, you *would* be forced into it.

And besides: anyone who claims to be "Christian", then claims to be the second coming of Christ, amasses an army of followers, and uses influence to create a financial empire isn't exactly kosher.

He's been taken down many pegs by now, lost a lot of followers, power, and money, but he's slowly working behind the scenes. Just punch the word Moonie in any search engine to find out a lot of unsavory things about his cult.

Can you tell I have zip-po sympathy or patience with cults?

I'd forgotten about that. I went and looked up some stuff after you mentioned it, and it seems familiar, so I must have heard it before somewhere....

But I don't think the Washington Times has the same amount of pull now as it has in the past. It's become a journalistic joke. It has been satirized for shoddy reporting so publicly, so many times, that it has lost a great deal of its former respect. What at one time made it popular with conservatives is that Moonie hated the communists with great fervor (after all, they would have done away with his cult if they gained power). Well, now the Godless commies aren't the big baddies: terrorism is. Which makes it harder for Mr. Moon to get away with such wonderful statements as this:

"Some people may oppose me, but they will go down the drain after a while and end up in hell.... I came with the teaching that the world and religions should become one.... Soon, the American president will have to visit me to seek advice."
Sun Myung Moon, December 10, 2000, East Garden, New York source: http://www.unification.net/news/2000/news20001210.html

Yeesh! For someone who claims to have "created" Christianity, you think he'd remember that he's way too close to Revelations with this little "uniting all the world and its religions under one banner" kind of statement....

BamfChyck, you're right. I had meant that remark to be more of a pointed reference to us creating our own hell, and placing ourselves firmly in it, but it wasn't in the best of taste. I apologize.

You are quite right, Warbird. And it's so sad that human nature is so weak.

I try to be a good person and improve myself each day. When I see how badly other people behave it makes me so very sad. And you cannot give them advice that would be helpful since they resent it. You see people messing up their lives with drugs & unsafe sex & alcohol & whatever they are doing, and you try to gently turn them around and they get mad at you for telling them & etc. Same thing with war, I guess. You tell people to give peace a chance and they say you don't understand & etc. and just go on fighting. Humanity stinks!!!

Sadly true. Humans are a diverse bunch of people, with differing opinions. Even zealots of the same cult/political party/subculture will have different ways they express their fanaticism. And if someone wants to hate and feel superior, they'll find a way to do it.

Ini the 60s, there was a famous experiment done in a grade school classroom (I think it was 2nd grade). The teacher had a theory that the reason minorities (specifically African Americans, at this time) seemed to do so poorly in school wasn't from "mental deficiency", but from social pressures. So she told the (all white) class that that day, blue eyed people were "better" than brown-eyed people. The blue-eyed kids even got to put little paper collars around the brown-eyed ones. Instantly, the brown-eyed kids, with their new social stigma, became withdrawn, unhappy, and uninterested in their studies, despite the fact that they had been A students the day before. The blue-eyed ones, with their newfound power, started tormenting them, calling them brown-eyed, constantly reminding them of their inferior status. The entire dynamics of the class changed wildly in just one day.

Recently, there was a reunion of the "kids" of that class (now all grown up and in their 40s) and the teacher. No, their was no bitterness. Everyone was happy to see each other. But as adults, they could look back at it and express eloquently what they felt, something kids just can't do. The ones on the "superior" side said that they had a sense of power and invulnerability. Like they could do whatever they wanted to the "inferior" ones, without fear of reprisal, that it was okay because they were better, and the teacher (the authority) said so.

And there you have elitism, racism, and hate in a nutshell. It feels good to have someone under you. It gives a feeling of power to "realize" you are better. And in a community, you reinforce this belief, give it authority, making it "all right" to feel this way. Zealots, with their black-or-white mindset, fall into this trap along with other extremists. They're 100%, absolutely, positively right. Everyone else in the world is wrong. They are the elite, the chosen, the vanguard. Everyone else who doesn't believe their way is inferior, and by association has less power, less rights, less everything.

Back to communism as an example, Stalin took everything one step further by manufacturing enemies. It wasn't enough to be superior, and have the right, nay, the responsibility to take charge. He had to have enemies. He had to define his nature by showing what he was not, and to do that, he had to have enemies. Unsatisfied with a vague groop of inferiors, he had to specifically identify a group of enemies within that inferior set, so he could define his own nature against them. A rampaging, paranoid-delusionary ego.

This is so often why extreme parties and cults self destruct. When there's no room for dissent, and dissent is basic human nature, you're going to have schizms. That's what happened with communism in the early part of the 20th century. The moderate Mensheviks, who found no reason to be violent, were bulldozed by the violent Bolshevicks. Why? Because the Bolsheviks saw the Mensheviks as traitors, along with the rest of the inferiors. In the schizm, all the really forceful, violent people went to one side, and the moderates stayed on the other. Regrettably, in this case, the moderates lost.....

I couldn't agree more. Far too often, churches tend to think of themself as a country club for the "saved". You go to your place of worship, you follow the holy texts, you perform the rituals, and that makes you superior to all those sinful heathens that don't. But in each and every religion I've seen, a church isn't a club for the saved: it's a refuge for those who need saving. It's a place you go to improve your imperfections, not congratulate each other for piety. And to improve, you have to realize your own faults, your own humanity. It requires humility. One of the original definitions of sin in the Catholic (both Roman and Orthodox) Church is "missing the mark". Not WRONG behavior, not EVIL behavior, not STUFF THAT WILL SEND YOU TO HELL behavior: just imperfections. In this vein, when mankind is called a "race of sinners", it doesn't mean a bunch of evil bastards. It just means nobody is perfect.

I've met some pretty beligerant Baptists and people of other Protestant denominations, Bamfman, and some who were certain that their particular brand of Christianity was the only "right" one and that others were invalid. NOt just Catholics, for certain. I've had some Baptist kids claim that Catholics are not even Christian, which is highly ignorant at best. I've also had athiests, polythiests/pagans of various stripes, and Muslims run on about how only *they* have the true knowlege and every one else is a bunch of fools, so it's not only in the Christian world that these problems pop up.

The fact of the matter is that people just aren't happy unless they feel that they are somehow a cut above the rest or that they are "special" and part of an exclusive group. It's human nature to want to be unique. Well, that's fine and all, but when it gets to the point where you have to harm others to feel important, that's just downright pathetic. Back to Mr. Rogers, I think if more people would adhere to his view: that you are unique by your very nature, the world would be a safer place for all of us.

The funny thing about Christians who think they know more in particular is that the Christian faith bases salvation on Christ's sacrifice: a free gift given out of God's love for all who are willing to accept Him as their Lord. The idea that special knowlege is the "ticket" into heaven is an old Gnostic idea, and actually predates Christ by a century or two. It's also an old heresy.

(ps. the Gnostics are actually a rather interesting bunch, as far as heretics go. Look 'em up on wikipedia or google. )

I think sometimes that Bruce Almighty film is right. He can't answer it all but he is "all powerful" why give us problems? cuz we ate an apple. No offense god but you think your big and bad now? dangle it. Danlge it. The only real redeeming thing in my eyes, that god did was give us Jesus. He felt bad. It was guilt. Jesus is awesome and Jesus is the man Big J. Way to go.
Why'd you kill him?
What was the point in that? Good character develpment? So we could all be freed? couldn't you have done it some other way? I mean come on.
AL thought we all need to work to improve ourselves so maybe that "bigger plan" is gonna do something useful for once. I want to know what that bigger plan is for me. Why I have to be stuck with this valve.
Or why jimmy died at 5 a month ago. Why his family was sent to wait for his death in a hospital for 6 months. Why he has the exact same problems as me, he just got pnemonia. Why does he die and not me? Why can't the kid who has so much the kid who can sing, why can't he live. God's bigger plan was to take a kid at five. No. God wants to prove himself to us it's about dammned time he came down. I beleive in him but i want answers and i want everyone else to get theirs answered too.

edited: i'd just like to say that this is the primary reason I've been distant lately. Yeah..... it's not fair.

Sorry to offend you as I had said I was actually trying to think of that word but i am no longer a human theasaurus and always ferget words.

From my experience no. Baptists (protistants) are often not strict at all. That is why they left england and why they so frequently got cast out right? Cuz their rules weren't as harsh. Though once again this ist he stereotype. Although I do have to think that the way that catholic schools and churches have run kids lives since the dawn of it's time well... let's just put it this way (and this is not meant to offend) but you don't see any Baptists telling their kids they can't do such and such on TV for a reason. TV does reflect life otherwise it wouldn't be realistic to us and we wouldn't pay attention. So the boob tube has to be right about it somewhat. If the majority of catholic churches are harsh tv will reflect that and then further the steretype of it.

Ahem. Not a Baptist, but I can tell you there are numerous divisions within that designation. There are liberal Baptist denominations, conservative Baptist denominations (e.g. Southern Baptists), and "independent" Baptists as well. Bill Moyers once said on his religion special on PBS, "Growing up they always told me, 'If you have two Baptists in a room, you have a fight,'" which referred to Baptist diversity of opinion on religious matters.

There are too many negative stereotypes of ALL religions that aren't WASPy in this country. Catholics are one of the many, unfortunately.

Most Catholics I've met are nice, but I've also met a few "If the Church says so, then it is true no matter what" types who scare me with their blind adherence to authority. Good to know you're a Catholic, Lauren! I like good Catholics. Especially in a white wine sauce.

Bamfman,

One thing to remember is that some of the Protestants who left England (because of religious persecution) were the PURITANS. These guys made the Catholics look like loosey-goosey hippies. They were so strict that they refused to use words that weren't in the King James version of the bible.

And so it is unto today. Some sects of Protestantism are fairly loose and accomidating, some are the fire and brimstone "keep you in line for fear of your soul" types. Though this is really no different from any other organized religion (there are moderates and extremists in any group), the Protestants have a history of just splitting off and forming their own church when they disagree, which is why there's so dang many denominations out there. The biggies are the Episcopaians, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Lutherans, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses (the dogma of the latter two I *really* don't care for ). But there are lesser known ones like the 7th Day Adventists, Pentacostals, Christian Scientists... and more churches are being formed as I speak. Why? Because humans naturally disagree, and the Protestant faith has made a precedent of spltting off during bad disagreements.

The Catholic church (Roman or Orthodox) doesn't allow for that. If you disagree that much, you can leave, but you can't split off and form your own sect. This is one of the things that gives the Catholics such a reputation for being strict. You don't agree? You have two choices. Keep it to yourself, or leave.

A great many RCs in America don't agree with what the Pope says, but you won't see anyone protesting over it and forming their own "true" Roman Catholic church. That simply isn't the way it's done. For those RCs who believe in Papal Infallability, the Pope is right no matter what. And for those who don't, they still respect the man deeply for his unwavering devotion to the faith. (The Pope has NO time to himself. He is 100% "on the job", day and night.)

Catholic schools are a slightly different subject. We've all heard of, or even experienced first or second hand, the nasty nuns and their metal-backed rulers of doom. We've heard of the teachers that squash all forms of questions as heresy. I would like to think these are notable abherrances, rather than the rule, as Catholic-run schools also have a reputation for excellent curriculums and graduates with excellent grades.

But, then again, if you go into ANY religious school, you're going to find the same basic things. In ANY religious school, you'll find good teachers and nasty zealots who squash all inconvenient questions that they don't know how to answer. There are Baptists schools that punish people for believing in Evolution instead of Creationism. In the Middle and Far East there are way too many Schools of Islam that are nothing more than brainwashing centers (giving the rest of the excellent Muslim-based schools around the world a bad name). And I'm sure the same thing is true of any other Religious-based instruction. What we should look at isn't just the ruler-wielding nuns, but the system that produces them, and ask ourselves whether or not the same results would occur in other religious schools.

The chances are, the answer will be "yes".

You're "preaching to the choir" on this subject, T.Sam. I included Mormonism as a "branch" of Christianity because that is what THEY claim to be, and it shows just how far some schisms can go.

The problem is that it's hard to get anywhere in life with complete independant thinking. Most of the stuff people do can be acheived unconciously or at least subconciously. Even if independant thinking is important, it is no longer neccesary in a society where you can get away with doing everything half-assed.

...i know...

This is kind of a reprint from an earlier thread, but since we're delving into cult behavior, I'll repost it here.

Cult behavior short-circuits your critical thinking process. You're taught to ignore any evidence to the contrary and remain "safe" in the knowledge that you are right. Any "inconvenient" facts are rationalized as "oh, well, I guess (cult leader X) had his reasons", or considered anathema and shunned. It's the mental equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and loudly singing LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA!!

Here's an interesting example from 1989, when George Bush Sr. was President. I was in college, and a rather scary man called Lyndon La Rouche was trying to gain power for his little "political party" (cult). He was an anti-semite, a Holocaust denier, a rampant homophobe who believed AIDS was spread by mosquitos, etc., etc. (Eventually, he went to prison for child molestation. ) He had one of his followers in the courtyard (along with people from legitimate political parties, fraternities, sororities, and credit card companies) trying to raise interest and gain members. I walked up to him and engaged him in conversation. Here is that rather one-sided conversation.

Me: How can you believe in and follow a man who says the Holocaust never happened?

Him: You've swallowed Bush's lies!

Me: .... No, I hate Bush. I voted against him. But your boss said these things....

Him: You've swallowed Bush's lies!

Me: Okay, look. I have a recording of your leader claiming the Holocaust never happened....

Him: You've swallowed Bush's lies!

Me: *exasperated and looking to other tables for support* Somebody hit him! He's stuck!

For the Mormons, the fact that the Book of Mormon has been EDITED (that is, rewritten) over 5000 times is conveniently ignored. Name ONE other religious text that has been EDITED, not translated. As an example most of us on the board are familiar with, take the Bible. The King James version of the Bible was a translation from Latin, and the Protestant Bible removes a few sections completely (like the story of the Maccabees), but nothing is DELIBERATELY EDITED. No words have been DELIBERATELY CHANGED from their original meaning, no "errors in grammar" have been "fixed". No embarrassing or inconvenient parts have been made more "palatable". (Hell, the Pauline Letters embarrass ME, but I'd never change a word. If a book is really holy, it's not your place to do so.)

Also, one of the original Mormon texts, The Pearl of Great Price (once required reading), is now kind of set aside as it's a bit politically and socially embarrasing and hard to defend. And the entire dubious (perhaps even shameful) history of its author, Joseph Smith, is NEVER, EVER TAUGHT. After all, if you knew the historical TRUTH about him, you'd lose all respect for him and the religion he began.

Some religions are shrouded in what other faiths might consider "myth", such as Hinduism. These are not "historically provable". Others, like Islam, Judiasm, and Christianity, have definite "real world" people involved, and their history may be up for a bit of minor scholorly debate, but there are no "skeletons in the closet" that would destroy the faith they set up. But when you've got a (relatively) modern-day founder, whose life can be easily traced by hundreds of impersonal, factual records, and you deliberately keep that life from being accurately portrayed to his or her followers, you've got a cult. Period. End of statement.

Quote: Most Catholics I've met are nice, but I've also met a few "If the Church says so, then it is true no matter what" types who scare me with their blind adherence to authority. Good to know you're a Catholic, Lauren! I like good Catholics. Especially in a white wine sauce. <-- (fresh!)

Those fanatical people scare me, too! I've known a few! They are so far gone.

Catholic schools are actually okay. They are not these "torture chambers" they are stereotyped to be. The nuns are okay, about average teachers. Some were terrific, and one nun I had was bi-polar. But most were average. The big problem was that there is a large concentration of upper class wealth in those schools, since they are expensive. And the rich kids are total brats. "My daddy is a lawyer. He bought me a pony." "Oh yeah. My daddy owns the Patriots." "My daddy bought me a stereo system that cost $1,000." And, "My daddy bought me a diamond necklace." "What did you get for Christmas?" "Ah... I got a sweater and a pair of mittens." That hurts, yah know.

John Smith was mentioned... ? What is the real history of this dude that is so interesting? Tell us, do!

"No words have been DELIBERATELY CHANGED from their original meaning,"
Erm...three letters. NIV. Certain discrepancies HAVE been edited to make them consistent with other parts of the Bible.

Ahem. Carry on, though.

Seriously? I thought it was just omission of the Apocrypha! And maybe an updating of archaic language (you instead of thee, etc). They actually "edited" things to make them "consistent"??

Shows you how long it's been since I actually looked at the NIV Bible. I only use the Orthodox one now, which does have the Apocrypha and is supposedly translated directly from the original Greek texts.....

Note: the Greek texts are not actually "original", the old testament was written originally in Hebrew and the new testament was written in Aramaic. Unfortunatly, the few Aramaic texts that have been found cannot be feasibly authenticated, so pretty much all modern bibles have been translated from the later Greek texts.

Quote:

Originally posted by thylacine John Smith was mentioned... ? What is the real history of this dude that is so interesting? Tell us, do!

"They actually "edited" things to make them "consistent"?"
Yep, that's one of the reasons the evangelical Christians who sponsored it gave. They also may have done it in response to the RSV, which as I recall translated a word in a verse in Isaiah usually translated as "born of a virgin" as "born of a young woman." Young woman, ironically, is a more accurate translation of the original Hebrew word "bethulah" used in this passage.

See what fun you can have with this stuff?

Out of curiosity, what do you consider the requirements for being considered Christian? I thought "Christian" as a catchall term meant any religion that believes Jesus Christ was the Messiah.

If that's the case, the Mormons are definitely Christian. Maybe not "proper" Christians in the generally accepted sense of the term, but they do indeed believe that Jesus was the son of God, and that he was the Messiah.

(Sorry. I try to avoid religious topics like the plague, but my parents are Mormon. I think the whole religion is a load of hogwash, but I still learned their principles of belief while growing up).

Oh, I'm not arguing anything, actually. I simply asked a question: how does anyone determine who is Christian and who is not? Is there a set list of criteria?

For that matter, how is arguing that the Mormons (or any other "sect" of Christianity) are unChristian any different from the fundamentalist zealots who accuse the Catholics, Methodists, and Presbyterians of being non-Christian?

Being that I am a member of a "minority" faith myself, neo-Paganism, I am willing to acknowledge that anyone calling her or himself a Christian who is not, say, practicing Islam and saying that Christ was stupid, is a Christian.

Besides, I've been told by many "loving" Christians before that if I'm not a Christian, I can't say anything about what Christianity is or who Christians are, so I have to take y'all's words for it anyway.

I would not call most members of minority faiths, Christian or not, members of cults. It's a word too often used to mean "a religion I don't like, therefore I'm going to put it down." I'm sure no one here is trying to use it that way, but that's how I see it used most often. It's even used of my religion, and I can assure you that no real Pagan could be part of a cult because we're generally anti-authority and pro-individual rights. How could we all just be following a "charismatic leader"?

Ergh. Anyway. Enough. I could talk about this stuff for hours, but I won't.

Quote:

Originally posted by Wolvertique Besides, I've been told by many "loving" Christians before that if I'm not a Christian, I can't say anything about what Christianity is or who Christians are, so I have to take y'all's words for it anyway.

The way you put "loving Christian" in quotes speaks volumes!

For the longest time, I was really down on Christianity in general because it seemed unreasonable. As a kid, of course, you might go to Sunday School and learn about all the "Jesus Loves Me" stories. All the warm, fuzzy, touchy-feely stuff that tells you Jesus is your friend. And then you look at the "real" Bible as an adolescent, it's filled with contradictions and rules that make no sense, and people are now telling you to fear someone (who supposedly loves you??) or you'll go straight to Hell with everyone else because as a baby first out of your mother's womb, you're a sinful creature.

I don't even know enough to recognize my own toes, and I've already sinned my way into hell? Can someone please explain to me the difference between Christianity and a brainwashed Cult of Personality?

What was missing for me was the "why". A LOT of the Bible makes no sense on the surface. I mean, there are two sections in the Old Testament where a guy adopts his wife as his sister! Some things (like how Cain, one of the first four people on earth, could go and settle with the people in Canaan) make it look like you missed a chapter somewhere. And yet, this thing is supposed to be 100% TRUE? What the HELL?

I started "studying" Christianity in earnest when I met a priest who was actually able to explain things to me in a sensible manner:

"Sin" doesn't automatically mean evil or wrong, and it doesn't mean you're going straight to Hell. It means imperfect. As a baby, you're born of a human, imperfect mother and father. You'll make mistakes, as have every single human before you, and will every human since.

The bit where the husband adopts his wife as his sister? That's based off of an old Babylonian custom. Wives couldn't inherit property, but family could, so if you truly loved and respected your wife, you would adopt her as a sister so she would have something left to support her when you died. (I'm not going into all the icky social "incest" consequences of this: I'm just relating a historical fact... )

Cain marrying into Canaan is still a bit of a mystery to me, and to a lot of others. But, according to the Orthodox and Roman Catholic doctrines... it doesn't matter. Yes, it's a discrepency. It's a Mystery. The Bible is full of them, and they do not detract from the Truth.

And THIS is the #1, most important, imperative thing: there are two kinds of "truth". There is Big T Truth, and little t truth. The Bible is 100% Truth, not 100% truth. The difference? Big Truth consists of universal Truths. Of allegorical, metaphysical, universal Truths. Little truth is literal, historical, factual truth. Is the story of Adam and Eve the little truth? Of course not. It's taken from an even older Sumerian myth. There's no pottery shards, no preserved fig leaf aprons. Snakes never really spoke, and lions and lambs have always been predator and prey. But is it the big Truth? Yes, because it tells an allegorical story of how mankind grew in knowledge and self awareness, in the ability to know right from wrong, but did not grow in spiritual wisdom and occasionally makes choices to do wrong, and how the uneven nature of this development has placed us in the less-than-perfect world we are on today.

In a strict, clinical sense, many Pagan branches (I have no idea which one you belong to) can be considered cults because they've had to make up their rituals and traditions to approximate those of old. The 18th century Druids had very little historically in common with their 1st century progenitors, because there were few records (if any) of what the rituals were. When there's no clear-cut, historical lineage of traditions (whether they're written down or orally transmitted), and someone has recreated them in the recent past, that can fit the literal, dry, academic definition of a cult. It's not the same connection that dangerous, mind-controlling, violent cults have (the Moonies, the Scientologists, the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Phineas Priests), nor is it the "outcast and heretical" label of the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses, but rather it fits the definition placed on any belief system/religion that is less than a couple hundred years old.

That said, I personally would be loathe to place anyone in that camp if I didn't know the first thing about their belief set. And, honestly, I don't know the first thing about yours.

Actually, I kind of like talking about this stuff. Please feel free to go on talking about it for hours.

Quote:

Originally posted by bamfchickie Oh, I'm not arguing anything, actually. I simply asked a question: how does anyone determine who is Christian and who is not? Is there a set list of criteria? For that matter, how is arguing that the Mormons (or any other "sect" of Christianity) are unChristian any different from the fundamentalist zealots who accuse the Catholics, Methodists, and Presbyterians of being non-Christian?

:s:: I find it weird that you're singling out Mormons. Why not just say you don't like any spiritualities who force their faiths on others? It seems to be a better representation of your beliefs so far.

Love your sig, BTW. I've been entertaining my husband with it for several days now.

This is such a very, very sticky situation....

Part of this is indeed blatant religious bigotry. "I don't want my kids raised by A Catholic" makes it abundantly clear that he thinks Catholics are inferior at best.

However, I've noticed that many, many religions (not just Christianity) don't like to have their members marry someone of a different faith. Anyone besides me remember Fiddler on the Roof? When the father disowns his daughter because she wants to marry a Christian instead of a Jew? That's a scene repeated many times, with many religions. Sometimes that applies to different sects of the same faith, i.e. Catholic vs. Protestant.

The reason given is that when you've got people with radically different religions living together, something's gotta give. It's assumed that one of the two will convert to the other's belief. And if not, then any children will grow up terminally confused about their religious "identity". My mother explained it a bit more gently. She is very much Orthodox Christian, and her faith is so important to her that she would hant to share it with anyone she loves.

This is a very, VERY old view. Not "old" as in "outdated", but as in "has been followed for thousands of years, not likely to be changed any time soon". It's woefully common throughout the world. (If you think Fundlets hate the Catholics, imagine what happens in India or Pakistan when a Muslim and a Hindu fall in love.... )

Personally, I don't agree with this all-or-nothing view. I think there's room for debate and room for similarities. True, if there are children involved, you'll have to plan ahead of time what's going to happen. I think it is a lousy idea to bring a child up actively following two distincly different faiths, because it will be confusing. An adult can make a decision as to what road to follow, but a child lacks the wisdom to do so. But, by that token, if you've persevered this long against social pressure and opposition, then you'll surely be able to figure out something mutually acceptable.

Quote:

Originally posted by Maelstrom Quote: Originally posted by thylacine ... Anyway... speaking of religious prejudice... today in the newspaper's advice column, this guy's girlfriend dumped him because he was a Catholic. She said, "I don't want my kids being raised by a Catholic." Like, that is so awful! That sounds like, 'I don't want my kids raised by a crackhead' to me. What was she thinking? That he would glue rosaries to their little heads??? This is such a very, very sticky situation.... Part of this is indeed blatant religious bigotry. "I don't want my kids raised by A Catholic" makes it abundantly clear that he thinks Catholics are inferior at best.

That is cool to be both Jewish & Christian.

Quote: "He actually told me that I was a wonderful girl and that he'd stay with me if I would convert and turn my back on the "wretched" Catholic Church."

Did you slap that punk???

Anyway... I once worked with a Jewish girl who, when she found out I was Catholic, announced to my face that I was closed minded, prejudiced, uneducated, and ignorant, and homophobic. She only knew me for a few days. I could not say anything back to her, because she was a manager, and I knew right away that she was the type to make big trouble. All I could say was, "What-? I am not- " "Yes you are. All Catholics are! All of them! And you all just think you have to be so good so when you die you get to Heaven. But there is no Heaven," she raged. "There is nothing after this. Nothing at all! You just die!" (This behavior, of course, says more about her as a person than it says about her faith. She always left work early to see her psychiatrist. She was going to night school too, to be a sex therapist. I am not making that up!) She found out I was Catholic and treated me like an evil mutant!

Speaking of religious prejudice... My mother always said that she believed that my alcoholic father married her just because she was Catholic and he thought she would never divorce him no matter what. "Guess I showed him!" she said. It was a nasty divorce. Real nasty. "That's what I get for marrying a Protestant! If you ever get married, you should marry a nice Jewish boy. They're all doctors, and their mothers bring them up to do what they're told!"

Well, the level of genetic diversity that is considered 'normal' will depend on the species. I don't think the human race is in as dire a position as the cheetah population - they have such low genetic diversity that all individuals are practically clones. And, therefore, there is little difference in their disease resistance. One good virus could wipe them all out.

I think the most astounding and important fact is that we've found there is more (much more) genetic diversity within human 'racial' groups than between them. Making our perception of 'races' really pretty biologically irrelevent. And pointless, too The visible differences between people that we (as humans) like to focus on are not reflected in the underlying genetics. And we should just become more homogenous over time, as we become a more 'well-travelled' species.

And to keep it on topic... um... we're really all the same on the inside... so, um... we should try to love one another... rather than partition ourselves into groups... whew!

"Is it just me, or is being Christian and Jewish an oxymoron."

Not necessarily. Believe it or not, to many people these days, being Jewish is solely a cultural and not a religious thing! Shocked the stuffing out of me when I found out, back in college, that a Jewish person I knew who grew up in Israel considered herself to be a Jewish atheist! I didn't think it was possible, but then she explained the whole cultural v. religious Judaism thing to me.

I know. Weird. But if you ask, you'll find out that what I say here is true.

Examining and thinking about a religion should never, ever make it "weaker". If it does, then you shouldn't be in it. The kind of people who rail against such examinations tend to be zealots, those who believe that any view but their own is utterly wrong. Also, cult leaders (there's that word again ) smash any kind of critical thinking about their "faiths" with the "you must believe unquestioningly in order to be saved" garbage because critical thinking and cults cannot co-exist.

The major religions of the world have traditions of debating and scholarly research. (Some of the so called "debates" of the RC church during the middle ages were a bit silly, as they'd get really worked up over ideas such as how many angels could dance on the head of a pin....) When such scholarly research and debate is suppressed, it's invariably for purely secular reasons of power and control, not because the faith itself demands it. A preacher on the corner denounces you as a blasphemer for questioning the Bible? That's because he personally doesn't have the answers, but he doesn't want to lose control of the situation.

Whew! Take a few days off to get some writing done, and I miss all kinds of stuff!

I'm sorry I missed the end of the Mormon discussion, but I wanted to blow a kiss to everyone who responded with "Mormonism is not a cult." You expressed my opinion far more eloquently than I could have done.

(Hmm, I need a smoochy-Kurt smilie. The licky-Kurt one seems awfully forward).

As I mentioned before, religion is one of those topics I try to avoid at all costs, because differences in opinion often cause the "debate" (such as it is) to disintegrate into an exercise in cyclical logic. Or in other words:

"Is not!"

"Is too!"

"Is not!"

"Is too!"

And so on, so forth. LOL ...

That said, however, if you're interested in exploring the topics of Christianity, cults, their definitions, and the Mormon church (or any church, for that matter), I would recommend reading the following sites/pages.

http://www.religioustolerance.org

This is a wonderful site, with multiple cross-references and all sorts of lovely links to track down for more information. Of specific interest is this:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn.htm

Very nice overview of the multiple definitions of Christianity, with an explanation of why some denominations exclude others as being "real" Christians. There are links to cult information from this page as well.

And for a better look at Mormonism:

http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1598-1,00.html

These are the Mormon Articles of Faith: IOW, what they basically believe in. I think #11 is particularly meaningful when their church is faced with that nasty "cult" moniker.

Hope that helps, if anyone wanted to know more.

Call me Libs. Most everyone else does, and Bamfchickie always throws me for a loop. LOL! It's my LJ name, but no one calls me that online, so I always do a double-take when I see it.

"Bamfchickie? Who is ... d'oh!" *face palm*

And naaaah, not upset at all! I'm not even Mormon. My parents are Mormon, though - so I tend to start twitching when "Mormon" and "cult" get used in the same sentence.

Yeah, but that's because Catholics ARE Pagans!

(I've been to some forums where people, seriously, would say that. Ignorance, bliss, you get the drill...)

Well thankfully we all seem mature enough to eventually just agree to disagree on some things instead of it degenerating into a bunch of "is not!" "is too!" "is not!" "is too" "well you're a poopy-head!" "well so is your mother, so nyah!"

For better of for worse, Christianity puts a heavy emphasis on conversion. Gospel means "good news", and we're told very plainly to "go out and spread the news" all through the New Testament. Some say it's absolutely necessary to do this, because anyone who isn't Christian is going to you-know-where (sound familiar? ). Others take a softer tact, that Christianity is the easier, more direct route to grace.

Of course, this can take a lot of different paths. Some evangelize, attempting to spread the Gospel at the top of their lungs. I prefer the "live by example" approach. Show that you're a happy human being, and make yourself likable, dependable, etc. Show them how *good* Christianity can be: don't shove it down their throats.

In other words, screaming to the masses about God and sin is like spam: you hit way too many targets about it who couldn't possibly care less, you're annoying, and you're wasting everyone's time. But if someone is obviously unhappy, and you think that maybe you might be able to give them a measure of hope and happiness, maybe improve their live somehow, and they're receptive, by all means talk.

An interesting point about this: when Christianity was introduced to Ireland, the founding Saints (St Patrick, St Bridget, and one other, can't remember his name) explained to the Druids that Christ was the person they had been waiting for, that all their beliefs and religious ceremonies had been pointing to. That the human sacrifices that were regularly done in bogs and so forth were no longer necessary, because He had fulfilled that role. Incredibly, the druids listened to their arguments, weighed the theological evidence, and agreed. There was no bloodshed, no "red" martyrdom (as dying for the faith is called) in any of Ireland. For perhaps the only time in all of history, the conversion was done quietly, quickly, and willingly.

The Norse eventually converted, too, once they realized that converting to Christianity meant they didn't have to do any more human sacrifices either. This wasn't so much theology as politics, tho. After all; for Wotan's sacrifice, no one was exempt. A great leader might have to do it himself, or sacrifice one of his family. You can imagine how this conversation went.

Norseman: Look, we've got plenty of gods, and you only have one. Well, maybe three. I still don't get that "trinity" thing.

Missionary: It's a mystery. But, look, stay on the subject. If you convert, you don't have to worry about getting killed in one of those rituals of yours.

Norseman:... you mean, I won't get sacrificed on Wotan's Altar? And neither will one of my sons?

Missionary: Nope. And you can still claim divine right of rulership.

Norseman: WHERE DO I SIGN UP??

It's really easy to catch flys with crap though. that's why Politians rock so awsome at bull $#!t

Mmmm. Honey and crap.

That's interesting about the druids.

Sometimes that happens, Warbird. It's annoying, but no big deal. And it is fixable. Just click Edit, then go down and click on the Delete this post! checkbox.

Gaz, I think most Christians feel the same way, or at least most of the ones I know. It seems that those who prefer the other way are the same ones we were talking about earlier who are a bunch of nazis.

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the subject in a nutshell. Those who are honestly religious, and follow the spirit of their teachings (whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, or whatever) will "put their money where their mouth is". They'll do the hard stuff their conscience, and their faith, dictates. They'll knit socks for the poor, or help work at a soup kitchen, or (if they're financially fortunate), they'll give a bit extra to various charities. And they'll do it for anyone. People they know, people they don't, and even people they don't personally like. Because, at its core, every faith demands we try to forgive and get along with everybody.

The hypocrites don't bother. They're too busy demanding unquestioning faith and threatening you with eternal damnation if you don't do what they believe their religion says. They're screaming "God hates fags!" on a streetcorner in America. They're howling for bloodshed outside a Mosque in Saudi Arabia. They're setting fire to a busload of Muslim pilgrims in India. After all, taking your frustrations out on an enemy is so much easier and more gratifying than forgiving, feeding, and clothing them, isn't it?

It is sad that all Catholics get tainted with the "sins" of a few. But I think it's a good thing that people are looking good and hard at the church, making sure that it's living up to its obligations. I wish people would do that with all institutions, so we can be sure our children and the people we love are safe. A roommate of mine in college, e.g., was abused by a priest, and when I found out due to the investigation that he might well have gotten off and kept doing it...you have no idea how sick I felt. No, I don't blame all Catholics for what was done to her, for the fact that she was an anorexic control freak, but I do blame the church structure that let priests do it over and over again.

I agree that living one's faith is more important than preaching it, but then again, I'm a member of a non-proselytizing religion.

I don't reject any Gods. I reject human beliefs about the Gods, be they the obviously sick "God wants you to murder someone" beliefs or the more controversial "God believes you have to believe X or you're going to be tortured forever." I believe those are human beliefs, not the Gods' beliefs, thus I can't be rejecting the Gods themselves, just erroneous beliefs about them. (BTW, the latter "call God this or he'll torture you" I consider to be blasphemy, as no human being would torture anyone we loved for eternity for calling us "Lauren" rather than "Wolvertique," for example...and the Gods are supposed to be better than we at love...)

Quote: "Also on a historical note. In reference to Thylacine's comment on his Catholic churches food and clothing drives, Catholics in America are historicly the poorist groups of people."

Hi. I'm a she, not a he!

That is also correct that Catholic immigrants were historically among the poorest people in the past. My theory is that this is part of the reason that there is so much anti-Catholic feeling in this country. The dominant group was, and still is, what we commonly call the WASP -- white, anglo-saxon protestant. You know the kind I mean, belongs to the country club, plays golf, runs a big corporation, etc... Then you have the Catholic immigrant or second generation person who works for the rich man. Catholics and Protestants are not radically different the way Christians and Hindus are in their beliefs, but it becomes a class situation. The upper classes need to keep the working classes below them, and the working classes resent it. Many of the stereotypes about working and poor people are the same stereotypes they stick to Catholics: They're uneducated, they're ignorant, they're dirty, they're superstitious, they have too many kids, they don't think for themselves, they all beat they're wives, they all drink, and etc. Many of you may not have heard some of those, but I have... !

I think another thing that strengthens these steroetypes is the very worldview of Catholic vs. Protestant. In many instances, Protestants (especially Calvinists) believed that God showed you some of your blessings here. (The Calvinists had this interesting idea that you were predestined to succeed or fail, but by doing a lot of hard work, you would be able to "see" this future of success? Or something like that. It's kind of loopy to me: if you work hard, you'll likely be successful, so then we get into that whole chicken-or-egg argument....) Roman and Orthodox Catholicism is more concerned with the afterlife than this one.

These somewhat conflicting worldviews, now vs. hereafter, can make for some very different economic decisions. If you believe that your financial success is an indicator of God's favor (not the ONLY, just ONE of many), you're more motivated to acculmulate wealth than one who sees financial success as just another "thing" that makes life easier.

There are advantages and drawbacks to both views. The belief that some of your gifts now are a reflection of your spiritual status can encourage you to work hard and succeed, which can lift up a lot of other people in turn. However, it can also lead to the "worship" of wealth above all else, selfish, hoarding behavior, and constant discontentment with what you have.

The "live for the hereafter" view tends to make life much more bearable no matter what your "economic station" is. If you're content with your lot in life, knowing that no matter what, it'll get better in the end, your life can be that much easier. However, this view can be abused by a dishonest few. "Wordly" priests have been known to demand more than their flock can afford, with the admonition that "wealth is evil, spiritual wealth is everything, so give all your stuff to ME (God's representative)". And there are always those that think giving their wealth away can buy their way into Heaven (there's that Indulgence thing again.... ).

(The one thing I don't believe is that the "afterlife" view breeds laziness. I have yet to see someone who is poor and religious who would dare sit on their hinder instead of go out and work for their daily bread, let alone do all they could to better the lives of their family. The "welfare deadbeats" that we always hear about on TV or in political speeches are a result of an "entitlement" culture, not a "who cares about this life" idea.)

I walk something of a line between both views. I believe that there is nothing wrong with the acculmulation of wealth, so long as it isn't your entire life. I believe that we can "make" some of our own blessings by giving in good faith to those who are in need, as good works do come around threefold (in one way or another). Though I strive to improve my lot, I'm never discontent with my material goods.

But I am not willing to devote constant 70 hour weeks to the pursuit of wealth, because I believe my time is more valuable than the extra dough. I'm just not willing to do the things that would make me a millionaire. I have obligations to my family, my friends, and my spiritual well-being. What use is all that money if you're constantly stressed out? It's one thing to work long, hard hours because you have little choice. It's another to do it just because you want more stuff.

Sounds like he needs some ghosts.


Or a good psychiatrist....

It doesn't sound like he would be willing to pay for a psychiatrist

Quote:

Hi. I'm a she, not a he!

Nothing personal. When I'm not sure, I always use the mascaline. Less girls get all worked up when accidently referded to in the incorrect gender than guys. One of those wierd PC things.

I'm gonna have to go ahead and dissagree that being a non-beliver is completely damning. Yes I totally agree that it's a Grave sin, but so are rage and envy. Every one commits them. Even Jesus had a fit of rage. I'm pretty sure he got in.

But like Sam, it's just my belife and oppinion. I'll agree to disagree all the way.

Also, I've always belived in purgetory, but my entire family( and 95% of my extended family) is Catholic. Now, I know a lot of people don't, but I was wondering if it was only Catholics that do, or if other groups do too? I know many who don't, I'm only curiouse about who does.

If it's okay for Jesus, it's okay for me! *smacks someone who's bugging her* Perfectly justified.

Geez, I'm agreeing with Lauren again. Why can't you ever say something controversial?

BLASPHEMER!

I'm having too much fun with this.

Hey, everything I've written in the Fuzzy Visions forum is absolute truth. I swear. But I try not to.

Cool. Finally digging up the real Ten Commandments, huh? I bet people will feel really silly when they find out they were really just directions on how to do laundry.

wow...you really ARE having way too much fun with this

Somebody bugging you isn't a justified reason for smacking them. Tsk, tsk. *puts you in time-out corner*

You guys are so funny... !

I'm not sure if I believe in purgatory or not. Maybe... ? Some people deserve it!

My uncle, by the way, is a Jehovah's Witness and says that God only loves Jehovah's Witnesses. No one else will see Paradise.

Warning! Long, rambling, theological post ahead!

It warrants some interest that the Old Testament God seemed a lot more willing to punish and otherwise get involved in worldly affairs than the New Testament God. Think about it: considering that the OTG was willing to wipe out entire cities for sinful actions, do you think He would hesitate to wipe all of the Romans, the Pharisees, and an unhealthy selection of his Chosen people off the face of the earth for the death of His son? Yet the NTG was not only willing to put up with this affront, He, His Son, and the Holy Spirit all came up with the plan to step aside and let it all happen without interference.

It looks like someone replaced Gods between stories, doesn't it?

So what's going on here? Is God the bipolar thunderer on high, who is blessing us one moment and damning us the next? Is He the snap-decision entity who reflexively decided to banish all of humanity from His presence just because his two prototypes screwed up? Or is He the patient, loving father, who so loved us He was willing to sascrifice His only begotten Son?

Obviously, it has to be a mixture of both, somehow.....

I look at it this way:

The first few books, were stories passed down from many sources, taken from the Sumerians mostly (the Semites settled in Sumerian land for a long time). And the old gods had the burden of "explaining" why things were the way they were. They had to explain why floods destroyed cities and killed children, why lions, crocodiles, and hippos attacked and killed humans, why disease was rampant. This was one of the reasons there were several gods in the old religions: one for the good stuff, and one that cause all the problems. You had to have someone looking out for you, to make you feel safe, but there had to be a scapegoat for all the rotten stuff you couldn't control.

About the time of Abraham, things started turning from allegorical into historical. However, God was still the wrathful, vengeful Guy you just didn't want to cross. Why? Look at the examples the Semites had. Good gods and bad gods, constantly mucking about with human affairs. But there was only One God for the Semites, remember? So they saw him in the only mode, the only way, they knew how from the examples around them. He was loving to those who obeyed, but unforgivingly harsh to the disobedient.

Things evolved a bit further with Exodus and Kings. After all, God but that rainbow up for Noah as his covenant, and promised He'd never again wipe out all humanity, so even He had some rules to follow. But bad stuff still happened in real life, so the only possible reason the Semites could see for it was that they had screwed up and God was angry. Remember that the concept of an afterlife was not accepted by Judaism at this time, so everything that happened in this life was a reflection of your good, or bad, living in accordance with His rules.

Look at Job (generally accepted as the oldest book in the Bible). The poor guy loses everything, just so God can test his loyalty and faith. This was doubly bad for a Jew at this time, because it meant he and his neighbors saw this as a sign of his bad living and God's displeasure. And when he complained, God basically bitchslapped him, said "What? Who gave you all this stuff in the first place? Don't you question me, buddy!"... and promptly gave him back what he lost twice over in an ending that seemed awful rushed to me.... Makes me wonder if this wasn't a (historically) modern political parable that got a last minute revision...

And then, suddenly, in the New Testament, God stopped talking to us. He stopped reprimanding us through his poor, beleaguererd Prophets. He stopped raining fire and lightning on enemies. He stopped telling us what He wanted through the Ummin and Therimm. Instead, He spoke only to and through His Son, who was almost never angry. (Okay, there was that one bit with the temple, but you get the idea.) And His Son volunteered to be brutally tortured to death just so He could show us the afterlife that awaits. And when His Son dies, the most He does is rip a few curtains and cause an eclipse.

And when Christ returns after a few days, suddenly everything turns on its head. Suddenly your misfortune in this life doesn't mean God hates you. Why? Because this is only temporary! You've got something infinitely better waiting. In one fell swoop, we've taken the yoke of "bad guy" off God's neck. We've allowed Him not to constantly nudge things and interfere with this life, because He's really more concerned with the next.

Here's the crux: God is eternal. God doesn't change. His moods don't fluxuate. Only our perception of Him does, according to our own personal views. When there was only this life, and the gods around us had to have their hands in literally everything from raising the sun to making the rain fall, it looked like bad things meant anger, and good things meant pleasure. But once the afterlife concept came into view, this life becaue less important, and God didn't need to constantly interfere. This was just a dress rehersal for the real gig sometime later.

Draz! You're not giving humanity or God nearly enough credit!

It isn't so much that God (which ever kind you believe in) has changed according to our whim. It's that humanity's perception of him has evolved. With every new thought, every new generation, humans saw another facet of behavior, and with each sightning, it changed the basis of belief. The "obvious" conclusion to some was that God changed Himself. To others, the conclusion was that we just kept reinventing God depending on what our social mores were at the time. But while these are both understandable conclusions, I don't think either is quite correct.

In this case, I suppose you could make a tenuous analogy between faith and our discovery of various laws of physics. (Very tenuous, I know, as physics is generally provable by empirical research, but stay with me here.... ) At one point, we had very simplistic, and incorrect, ideas of how things worked. Even Galileo, that brilliant individual who revolutionized astronomy (and pissed off the Catholic church/governing body with both his "politically inconvenient" discoveries and his egotism) believed that tidal action had NOTHING to do with the moon, and EVERYTHING to do with the Earth's roation instead. But no matter what anyone believed, the tides have always been dependent on the moon's proximity.

Or, perhaps, we could use the story of the four blind men and the elephant. Each one had a different idea of what the elephant looked like in entirity dependent on the part they touched. (One thought it was a long sinuos creature because all he felt was the trunk, another thought it was a winged thing because he felt an ear, and so forth.) If suddenly they all gained sight and saw an elephant for the first time, their opinion would change radically. Yet that elephant has never changed.

Just because we made discoveries, and those discoveries changed our conclusions about what we saw doesn't mean the object itself changed according to our whims. So, in a way, has God always been constant and unchanging. We're the ones who have evolved, not Him. We're the ones discovering new facets of God, as opposed to just adding another layer to our creation. (Or, at least, we should be. I'm not going to go into detail about nutcases who invent gods or deliberately distort the view for their own gain . We've done a lot of talking about cults already....)

Quote:

Originally posted by Maelstrom Quote: Originally posted by The Drastic Spastic When it's all laid out like that, the whole God and faith thing looks completely fabricated by man... Draz! You're not giving humanity or God nearly enough credit!

Or maybe I'm giving humanity too much credit.

Though, religion in general still has a long way to go before it evolves into any real universal truth, or even something that does more good than harm.

Quote:

Originally posted by The Drastic Spastic Quote: Originally posted by Maelstrom Draz! You're not giving humanity or God nearly enough credit! Or maybe I'm giving humanity too much credit. Though, religion in general still has a long way to go before it evolves into any real universal truth, or even something that does more good than harm.

I think what you have more a problem with isn't the religion itself, but rather the organized structure behind it. Faith is a basis of humanity, and is supposed to make us better people. I can't see too many instances of a single person's faith causing worldwide social catastrophes. However, organized religion has been abused in this manner. "Holy Wars" (there's an oxymoron for you... ) have been around a lot longer than Christianity, and they're invariably a result of organized religion rather than one heretical wacko. Or, should I say, one wacko wouldn't have a chance of starting these messes if he/she didn't have an base to start from, and corrupt people willing to accept, spread, and enforce this P.O.V. for personal gain.

Christianity is the big example of this because, put bluntly, we're the latest "success" story *shudder*, but you need to look at other historical precedents to see the pattern. Many of the faiths that follow a monotheistic ideal started with one man who espoused tolerance, forgiveness, and all those other good things. Initially the belief spreads because it is superior, in some way, to what is currently out there. It gives something that is missing from the current belief set. But once it spreads beyond his immediate reach (and especially once he's gone), a structure has to spring up to coordinate things... and things can get out of hand. Why? Because if you rub two people together you get politics. You get different ideas on how things should be run. You get one guy who says "live by example. Show them that belief in (x) will make them happier, and make everyone happier." And you get the other guy who's convinced that the population's beliefs are so incredibly wrong and damaging that the ends justify the means. Also known as "conversion by the sword".

Some of the more obvious examples of this reasoning are:

RCs: the Inquisition (more recently, the lack of action in WWII)
Orthodox: "apologists" of the Russian communist party (at least, in the beginning)
Protestant: Salem Witch Hunts
Islam: conversion by the sword
Hindu: Thuggee assassins of Khali

(As an aside, the Khali thuggees were especially tragic, because they forever branded the image of Khali as a devouring, hideous, evil monster who demanded human sacrifice, and she was never that way. She's a lot more peaceful than most of the West thinks. There are lots of shrines devoted to her, and many interesting websites out there for those curious as to her true nature. Worth a look, no matter what or who you worship. )

But all of these notable atrocities are perversions of the original faith. It isn't the faith that's rotten: it's the way it's interpreted by the current religious structure.

Organized religion can sometimes suck, depending on who's doing the organizing. But the original tenets are much harder to argue with, since you'll find they disallow the very actions that are done in "their" name.

My bad, BB. I listed the Episcopalians/Anglicans incorrectly, and I really did know better than that. They deserve their own category, as they were created a good couple hundred years before Martin Luther nailed his thesis to the door, and formed for a slightly different reason.

The Protestants had a problem with many of the rituals and procedures of Catholicism (Roman and Orthodox). This lead to the idea of "Solo Scriptorum"; the Bible alone is sufficient. I don't think that the Episcopal church believes in Solo Scriptorum, do they? I think it has kept many of the original Catholic rites (weekly communion being one of the biggees: I've only seen a version of communion done once or twice a year in my husband's Presbyterian church....)

I'm really pleased that this conversation continues to be interesting and thought provoking, and best of all... no one has had a big fight!

By the way... my uncle never asks us for money... he just has my poor mother waiting hand & foot on him. She needs to take care of her own health, so it ticks me off that he is so self centered.

Also... everyone out there in computerland! Say a prayer for my mother today, please... she is getting an MRI on her liver at the hospital. We don't know if it's serious or not. Okay? Bye 4 now.

Younger and more modern leadership is something that will never happen in the Catholic Church (Roman or Orthodox). I had it explained to me this way:

The church isn't concerned with updating to modern standards. It's there to reinforce ancient, immutable values. When a new problem comes along (say, the spectre of human cloning), the moral implications are interpreted using the old, established traditions and rules. The Truth is supposed to be Truth for all ages and all times, not Truth sometimes and not others.

While the shakier interpretations of those universal Truths have been known to change with the climate (big example: the Southern Baptists at one time used the Bible to *defend* slavery instead of attack it), ideally those interpretations are to be made with careful, thoughtful deliberation for all time.

So why does the RC Church forbid birth control (besides abstinance or the "rhythm method" )? I'm not really sure. I think it's on the grounds that not having to worry about pregnancy and repercussions can cheapen the act and invite promiscuity. But if so, there should be nothing to prevent a married couple from using such methods. After all, they've fulfilled all of the requirements. I believe that the hard and fast rule of "never ever, no matter what" is an incorrect interpretation of Tradition and Canon, based on the old idea of "Go forth and multiply".

One other thing: I can now understand the reason behind "no sex before marriage"... but it's taken me a long time to figure it out. Yes, it makes sense... but it isn't being explained. When all you get is "It's a Sin! Because God said it's a Sin! So don't question, or you'll burn forever!", it isn't exactly helpful. As a matter of fact, that kind of authoritarian garbage simply invites teen rebellion. If ministers, priests, and so on would take just a few minutes to EXPLAIN, they'd save themselves (and their flock) a great deal of hardship and teen pregnancies. If you're old enough to seriously think about having sex, you're old enough to understand the church's position on it. THIS is what they should be telling you, instead of just sending you to your room for "insolence".


Oh, and the explanation? The reason behind the decree, besides to stop unwanted pregnancies and transmission of STDs?

1) Sex creates a very powerful bond. People who just have sex easily with everyone are refusing that bond, and it leads to treating people like objects. It also leads to being treated like an object. Ever wondered by "Easy Susie", the class party girl, is both popular with the boys and demeaned behind her back? There ya go.

2) That bond is so powerful it changes a relationship. If the relationship isn't mature enough, it gets stunted. Kind of like a bonsai tree, it'll never grow any further. Sex is really meant to be a "capper", a fulfillment, to a mature relationship.

3) Casual sex can be used as a form of emotional blackmail. If you have sex with someone, and then it turns out the guy/gal is a complete loser, it's a LOT harder to drop them, let alone refuse a request (or demand) for more sex.

Marriage is one of the few obvious and universally accepted ways of making sure that relationship is mature. You're supposed to have a long enough engagement to be sure of yourselves and explore your relationship before the final seal. (That is, ideally. I'm not going to get into the fact that half of all marriages in America end in divorce.... )

My personal take on it is that it's not so much the religious and legal ceremony that's important as being in that committed and mature relationship. Sometimes, it just isn't possible to have that sheet of paper that makes your union "legal". But does that mean expressing your love is sinful and wrong? As long as you're bonded to each other, in a stable and committed relationship, then I'd have to say you're in the right. You're fulfilling all the moral requirements.

Does that really surprise anyone? Mystique is a sociopath. She has no morals, conscience, or anything remotely resembling a sense of guilt. She plays people as if they're her own personal toys. The rest of the episode featured her doing such wonderful, socially redeeming things as:

Setting up one of her servants to rape another for no apparent reason, except it was fun.

Bedding any man she could find behind her husband's back, apparently in a bid to become pregnant.

Making out with/being seduced by Azazel in a church.

Killing her husband once he started to suspect something might be wrong. And by the way she had that dagger conveniently placed under her pillow, it must have been something she was coldly calculating for a long time.

Throwing her newborn over a waterfall after reciting a litany of inconvenient and unhappy things that SHE will have to go through to cover everything up. In this litany, she blames everyone but herself.


I believe that the point the writers were making with this story (or at least trying to make) was that Kurt turned out a wonderful human being despite the absolute depravity of his birth parents and conception. As they were using religious things in a blasphemous way to drive home this point, it didn't bother me so much. There's a difference between just casually, thoughtlessly tossing in improper religious images and a calculated attempt at revulsion and horror. In The Excorcist, the whole thing was FILLED with blasphemous images, and it worked very well because they were literally fighting the devil himself. It highlighted the contrast between good and evil. Now, I'm not comparing the storyline with The Exorcist, because Azazel isn't the actual JudeoChristian Satan (despite the fact he seems to have adopted the role for political gain or ego purposes). But the blasphemous scene of sex in a church was acceptable to me because it was a shorthand way of showing both characters in a dreadful light, thereby highlighting the contrast between them and their religious, gentle son.

The way the story was executed... well, let's say I had serious issues with those issues. But that wasn't so much the storyline itself as the way slow. Plodding. Manner. It. Was. Told. Andthen gotshovedintoasingleissueathteendbecausetheyranoutoftimeorsomething.

What she said... I mean, I agree completely. I actually really liked that issue (428, I think) because it showed just what a thoughtless and self-centered bitch Mystique is. I think the art emphasizes the point that these are two horrible people profaning something sacred. And, yet, they manage to produce something beautiful Particularly, I liked how the inside of the church was depicted - kind of glowingly lit, warm - it looked like a holy place. So, I think this scene does have symbolic meaning - that the church is not 'reduced' or profaned by their act, because it's power comes from something that they don't understand, faith and belief. In the end, the act itself is redeemed by Kurt's own faith and goodness. In other words, I don't think Marvel needs to apologize, at least, not for this

Awwww, Gaz is picking up on my speech patterns.

Uh? She didn't wanted to help Rogue, she was using her. I'm not sure where you got the idea she was ever trying to help Rogue.

I found the Mystique in the Draco prequel to be easy to sympathize with, or at least see where her motivation was coming from.

Quote:

Originally posted by The Drastic Spastic Awwww, Gaz is picking up on my speech patterns.

Has I? I really has'nt notesed that my speeach are silimar to yurs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway....I hate when they make villians actually villians and not something you can slightly pity or relate to. I mean, villians are so 2D when they have no obvious motivation. Mystique does have the motivation of wanting humans dead because she was most likely taunted when she was younger, but so were others, I'm sure. I wish they would give villians more personality and less to hate about them.

::: I think that her motives might have been partly selfish, but they were obviously also to give Rogue a friend IMO.

You're welcome. nice to meet you.

Last I heard it was sepreation of curch and state and not the seperation of church and comics. People get bent out of shape it seems because A)they want to seem politically and socialy progressive or B) their religion isn't being depicted so it's a travesty to have others up. All I have to say in either case is, how untollerant can you be!!!

I agree that having such real and diverse qualities and personalities is what makes a really good comic. I think that's my problem with some charicters... i.e. superman, there's nothing to him. Thses qualities is importatn.

Colossus was an atheist. I doubt anyone can say he did nothing moral for the X-men. Unless sacrificing himself to cure the Legacy Virus means nothing to people.

In my experience, "bad" people are bad whether they believe in a religion or not. We've all known, presumably, "bad" people who are Christians. Those people would be "bad" whether they gave up their religion for another or for no religion. I'm glad that the X-men show good people, like Wolverine, Kurt, and Colossus, of different religious faith and no faith.

My mother is an atheist. She has spent her life working for a non-profit that benefits women and children. They run a domestic violence shelter and the only Big Brothers/Big Sisters program in her area. She is definitely a good person, and anyone who says she is not does not know what he/she is talking about.

it was also established before that storyline that that's what happened. in X-Men Unlimited 4, and before she kept who Graydon who is only slightly younger than Kurt, until he was a teenager because he looked normal and she could maintain the illusion of normalcy with him. but she was also somewhat contradictory because she abandoned him later because he was not a mutant. she wanted a mutant child, jsut not a 24/7 visible mutant. so then she adopted Rogue when her own attempts to have a baby that fit a very narrow perception of what she really wanted failed. she also may have kept Kurt had she been in another position. but given the position she was in, having a baby that looked like that took her from having wealth and power to having nothing.

and i should have known people here would understand about the morality issue. but a lot of people don't seem to understand. Recently the school board polled people on the inclusion of religious teachings in schools, and they lumped a class on morality, not 'religious morality' just 'morality' in under religious teachings i wrote tem a letter.... Atheistic morality is just based on empathy. you don't do something that would hurt someone, since you would not want that to happen to you. and you help people because you would want people to help you should you find yourself in some unfortunate position. and most religions teachings of morality are based on this, really. 'do unto others as you would have done unto you' etc. except there is a punishment and reward system thrown in with heaven/nirvana/valhalla etc and the numerous hells in the various religions.

Unfortunately, Jill, people see the word "Atheist" and just assume that without the belief in (or threats of) a God, you must be a very bad person. At best, they equate you with Madalyn Murray O'Haire, who was responsible for removing prayer in schools in '63 (a good thing, in my opinion, but really ticked off a lot of people), and also had such a loud, "in your face" militancy that she annoyed many of her fellow athiests. Or they'll shove you in the same camp as Michael Newdow, who decided to use his kid as an excuse to change the pledge of allegiance.

(A little clarification on that point. If Michael Newdow wants to sue to have the words "under God" removed, he has the right to do that. But the very idea of using the excuse that "it made his daughter uncomfortable", when she neither lives with him nor believes in his particular view, let alone minds saying the pledge, is outrageous. He's dragging that poor girl into a very uncomfortable position, and his methods are making everyone out there who might agree with his end point look bad. Do it yourself, mister! Don't use your kid as a shield!)

95% of the world believes in some form of higher powers, whether it's one of the "big" religions like Christianity, or something like tribal animism. This puts atheists in an extreme minority. Their view is incredibly foreign to the rest of the world, and we're all too familiar with how foreign, unpopular notions or people can be treated. Rather than try to understand, it's easier to demonize, especially when you can have God "on your side".

Jill, I find your explanation that athiests "don't need the threat of an afterworld to do well" very telling. Though it wasn't anything I'd thought about much before, I think you're definitely onto something here. The threat of an unpleasant hereafter has been used as a way to enforce morality for a very long time. I think the Egyptians were the first recorded instance of a "reward and punishment" system of faith. There are many people who just can't be hauled into line without a higher force or the threat therof. Small children (who tend to have no morals due to inexperience) have to be taught that actions have repercussions, and that is done by the threat of punishments from parents. Certain people would steal if they thought they could get away with it, but the police and law system keeps them in check.

If you don't have a specific belief in any gods, then your actions can never be for or because of them. There's an accountability inherent in atheism that seems lacking with too many forms (or perversions) of religions. You're not being charitable for bonus points somewhere else. You're doing it because you can see that this family is really in dire straights, and they need your help.

For a certain selection of humanity, I think you're right. Religion forms the basis of a law system, of an inescapable parent looking over your shoulder no matter where you go. You stole something and thought you got away with it? No ya didn't. God/Allah/Vishnu/whoever saw you. You'll pay one way or another. There are some who have to be hauled in line with this, because there's no other way to keep an eye on them all the time.

But I don't think that's the only reason behind faith. A universal parent can also make you feel loved when you have no one and nothing else in your life. For those who don't need constant watching and threat of chastizement, the knowledge that someone is there beside you at all times is very comforting.

Quote:

Jill, I find your explanation that athiests "don't need the threat of an afterworld to do well" very telling. Though it wasn't anything I'd thought about much before, I think you're definitely onto something here. The threat of an unpleasant hereafter has been used as a way to enforce morality for a very long time. I think the Egyptians were the first recorded instance of a "reward and punishment" system of faith. There are many people who just can't be hauled into line without a higher force or the threat therof. Small children (who tend to have no morals due to inexperience) have to be taught that actions have repercussions, and that is done by the threat of punishments from parents. Certain people would steal if they thought they could get away with it, but the police and law system keeps them in check.

um... i guess i already covered this... but i agree.

I REALLY, REALLY MISSED ALL YOU GUYS!!!

I missed visiting this discussion every morning before class and debating all this deeply serious philosophy, theology, religion, and furry blue mutants!

We're back!!! YES!!!

So let's all start where we left off then!

What are U2U's??? I am not a computer expert, so I do not know???

Thanks for asking about Mom, by the way. The doctors say she is fine. Her MRI was "normal."

Also... I shall take up all this computer space and announce this... I'm on the Dean's List!!! YES!!!

Just wanted to share it with all you guys!

I'm glad we're back, anyway!

Wow is it just me or was there a lot of stuff that was deleted?:o OH well. I'm so glad to be back. I missed everyone sooo much, and am very happy to hear how your mom is thyacine, thats great! I'm looking forward to some religous discussion .

I've been deprived.

Everyone:

I just wanted to let you know that I posted a "review" (of sorts) on Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ. I thought about putting it here, on the religious thread, but then decided to just tell you about it and make its own thread so it wouldn't be "swallowed up". Go and take a look, and let me know your thoughts on the matter.

To Warbird, I have no clue why she doesn't attend a christian highschool, though even those are more accepting in this city than she is.

Here in Oregon, they checked the laws, which stated that anyone can marry as long as they are a male or female over the age of 17, which obviously does not state whether they have to date the opposite secks. So here in Oregon, a ton of people have been hanging out out side of the courthouse, waiting to get that slip of paper that says they are married. Good for them.

And Warbird? The separation of church and state thing? Private schools do not apply, obviously. If it applied to private schools, there wouldn't be any catholic or christian schools. Private schools have completely different laws than public ones.

And I would just tell her that she has her own opinions, but it is really hard to let someone insult you are your friend's beliefs to your face without saying anything. I'm just a born fighter anyway....

Marriage is such a loaded word. It's got legal, moral, religious, and cultural definitions, and they don't always coincide.

Marriage as a religious institution has historically only existed between heterosexuals. I can't think of one currently active religion that has ratified a marriage between a same sex couple, and this is probably because marriage was primarily made to create a family unit. Having children was the most important thing about a marriage when you needed children to support you in old age as well as to help run the farm.

Bush's problem is that he sees those Pauline letters about the "sins of sodomy" and has decided that he's got to make sure it this "sin" doesn't get spread or legitimized. In my opinion, he's got this whole thing bass-ackwards:

1) The more I think about it, the more I'm sure that "sodomy" refers to anal rape, not to homosexuality as a whole. By bashing so hard on homosexuality, these people are missing the point.

2) The US government has NO, read NO, place in the debate of whether a religion will allow marriage or not. It would make more sense (though be no less abhorrant) if Bush wanted to outlaw Same Sex Civil Unions than Same Sex Marriage as a whole.

3) I'd be more sympathetic to the "defense of marriage" if the rest of us heterosexuals treated it with any respect in the first place. We've got a 50% divorce rate in the country. People commonly get remarried not once, but four or five times. Cheating is rampant, abuse is rampant, and we're screaming about two men (or women) who love each other daring to make a lifelong committment?

Same sex marriage, as in a religious ceremony, is going to be very contentious because of the historical background. It has never been sanctified before by any of the major religions, and it's gonna be a very hard sell in the USA, at least. And it's something that the government has no say in whatsoever.

But there's one thing the government *does* have a place in, and that's the legal side of marriage. One of the big reasons why gay couple want to marry, besides the symbolism, is that they want the same legal and financial benefits for their partner as I enjoy with my husband.

For instance, if my husband dies, I get social security benefits. If he's injured and needs someone to take care of him, I make the decision before his family does. He's insured under my workplace insurance, and he's the primary beneficiary for my life insurance.

If I had a female parter, none of this would be possible. If she was badly injured, her sister from New Jersey, who she barely even remembers from childhood, would have more legal right to care for her than I. I wouldn't be able to cover her with my health insurance, and being a beneficiary on the life insurance would be iffy. So, in essence, I have the moral obligations to take care of my partner, but I have none of the legal aids to help me.

While the religious aspects of marriage can only be decided by that religion's elders, there is no reason to deny civil unions to same sex couples. They're useful on many levels to more than just gay couples. For example: let's assume I have a friend who was estranged from her family and would rather I took care of her if things went wrong. As it stands now, if she's badly injured in a car crash, and has left instructions with me that she'd rather die than live brain dead, but she hasn't written those instructions down, her family can swoop in, kick me out of the picture, and keep her alive indefinitely against her wishes. Or, if she was only mentally disabled, her family could grab her and stuff her in some convalescent home, even if I was willing and able to take care of her at home. You should be able to choose who will take care of you if something happens. A civil union will help plenty of people on this front.

Wow, I didn't know that. Thanks for filling me in on that Warbird

I've heard of that, but it's such a contentious debate that I was a little iffy on mentioning it here. And Wolvertique, I had no idea that the Methodists would okay same sex marriages. I thought they would have the same problem seemingly every other sect of Christianity has with them.

But the crux of my argument (such as it was) is that there's so much religiously-motivated hostility against the idea that it's going to take a long time for all that to die down in the mainstream. The Unitarians, along any pagan sect (which by the word's technical definition also includes American Indian faiths), aren't as "universally accepted" as the bigger, policy-making sects (Catholicism, Baptists, Islam, Hindu, etc). For better or for ill, very few people pay attention to the former as opposed to the latter.

But Methodists allow same sex marriage... and they're one of the more "powerful" sects... hmmm.... That's really interesting. I would never have figured a Protestant sect would take that tact. I wonder why I haven't heard more about that?

Let's face it: America as a whole is a lot more conservative than the rest of the Western world. For all our racial tolerance messages (mainly forged by necessity, as America isn't as homogenous as the rest of the world), our "power to the people", and our "innocent until proven guilty" statements and laws, we're still a very conservative country on the whole. That means anything that even seems like change to us is going to be resisted with everything we've got.

I think Canada has the right idea, but I don't hold out much hope for America to do the same thing for a long, long time. Unfortunately, there's still some rancor between the US and Canada now, thanks to Dubya's cowboy attitude in the Middle East. But Dubya was elected by a sizable portion of the US (I'm not even going to touch the "who really won the election" debate....), and that reflects America's current social conscience.

Not my conscience, and not the conscience of the majority of this board it would seem... but if you go into the hinterlands of the USA, you'll see all too many people who believe with their heart and soul that they're under attack and need Bush to defend them.

Many people need to reaffirm their faith in God by pointing at something and saying "that's from the Devil". Kind of like internet trolls who desparately need to be hated to prove to themselves they have worth. I think that a lot of the hatred of homo or bisexuality is a "Biblically sanctioned" way of expressing that need for enemies. (And it's only Biblically sanctioned if you twist it out of all context.)

And in my opinion, if you have to "prove" God's existence by seeing Satan everywhere else, you don't have much faith at all.

I think one of the reasons the pendulum has swung back to conservative thinking is because of 911. The old phrase goes "A conservative is a liberal who hasn't been mugged yet". Once someone is hurt, a lot of talk about forgiveness, understanding, and giving a second chance tends to fly out the window.

It's kind of like the idea of Yin and Yang. We will always need both points of view. We need liberal thinking to make us re-think old, outmoded ideas, which we cling to for no other reason of "because we've always done it that way." And we will need conservative thinkers to remind us that not every new idea is going to work. Without liberal thinking we'd be stuck in 1950s Alabama forever. And without conservative thinking, Mao and his little red book would likely have taken over.

Religions tend to be an interesting mix of the two. They're conservative in the manner that they don't change. They're meant to be a bastion of morality. But their views, such as pacifism, forgiveness, charity, and so on, are liberal at their hearts.

When religions become hopelessly conservative in a negative manner (removal of women's rights, racism, "holy war", etc.), it's because someone has fundamentally excluded or misinterpreted things. The Bible is such a complex book that it's all too easy to do this with one out-of-context quote....

Part of the problem today is the fact that people associate religion with politics for some reason or another, and it was really never meant to be that way. Sort of like the feud between science and religion except with science, people are TRYING to disprove religous work to show that the cause of life is the Big Bang and evolution as opposed to miricals and such. Religion and politics should be seperate, and I'm sorry to my fellow Americans, but if we can't just learn to deal with religions and marriages with different gender combinations, then our nation will eventually end up being screwed.and I don't want to see that happen.

I find it particularly telling that with all the sects of Christianity out there, it's the literalist fundamentalists who have the most problem with evolution and other scientific methods. The RCs, Orthodox, and so on have no problem reconciling Biblical and scientific views on the creation of the universe. And plenty of scientists who happen to be Christian (NOT the same as "Christian Scientists" ) have no problem with discovering the laws of the universe, either. They just see them as laws that God set down to make His job easier. I mean, what's more efficient? Spending all that time to keep drawing a straight line over and over again, or making and using a ruler? God's no dummy.

Religion and politics *should* be separate... but historically it has never been so. Kings claimed divine right of rulership way back in Sumerian times. It was an easy way to legitimize your rule and keep your subjects from contesting it. Churches, temples, holy women and men, all have been authority figures, and so often forms of government. One of the reasons was that until relatively recently, literally everything was attributed to divine intervention. You had to set up a system to appease the gods (whatever kind they were), or ELSE. There's a drought? Forget meteorology: it's an angry god. Appease them.

Now... well, now religion has become "shorthand" for political views in some places. Ireland is a classic, and sad, example. If you're Catholic, you have this political view. If you're Protestant, you have the other one. And the backdrop to this Irish Sectarian tension is an uprising in 1641, where the Catholics (an oppressed population at the time) rose up and mercilessly slaughtered every Protestant land lord and gentry in sight. Believe it or not, many, many Protestants still live in fear of that reoccuring.

She ahould keep her opinions too herself, tell her that for me would ya?

Racism, sexism, and a host of other blind hatreds exist in part because they make the haters feel good about themselves. Isn't it wonderful to feel superior to someone? It doesn't matter how bad your life is, how much of a failure you may be, how your finances or your marriage may be in wreckage. You can point at that (insert insulting epithet here) and know with utter certainty that you are better.

Curly, where in California do you live? I know it's been a good fifteen years since I was in High School, but I just can't imagine any school paper allowing that kind of blatantly phobic drivel to be printed. Even letters to the editor get censored for that kind of ranting. Heads should be rolling in that journalism department.

I'm afraid that they will be illegal since most people don't want gay marriage based either on moral, religious, or just plain hate for gay people in general.

So sad.

btw Bunny, Love your Bunny/Mags smilie.

HeeHee. I Have familt there too, maybe I will vist there!My uncle has a good job I just can't rmember what it is.

I think I read that one a while back, I don't remember...UH..

A miracle? So if someone's car breaks down, it means God doesn't want them to drive? That Catherine is just lucky WD-40 hadn't been invented yet. Or not, since she died anyway.

I gotta read that one. I know that one had to have pissed someone off, huh. Interessting.

Oh, dear Lord, tell me that's some sort of joke.

Translations from Aramaic to Greek to English and so on have always caused problems one way or another. But slang is a subsect of language that will do NOTHING but cause trouble.

For instance, that whole thing about "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven"? It sounds like an absolute, since no way can a camel fit through a needle. But in Jerusalem there was (and I believe there still is) a very narrow gate called... you guessed it... The Eye of the Needle. It was too narrow for most livestock to go through, but it could be done in certain circumstances, if you were very cautious. But since that subreference has been lost through the ages, the statement went from "difficult, but possible" to "utterly impossible".

Considering how fast slang goes in and out of style, can you imagine what a "slang" bible would look like in a few years? Let alone a century or two. How many of us would be able to make heads or tails of Civil War era slang?

Imagine a slang bible from the 80s:

...And, like, God said His son was, like, totally tubular....

Quote:

Originally posted by The Drastic Spastic A miracle? So if someone's car breaks down, it means God doesn't want them to drive? That Catherine is just lucky WD-40 hadn't been invented yet. Or not, since she died anyway.

This medieval painting that I saw was actually quite beautiful. She was standing with a sword in one hand, and a wheel in the other hand, and had this calm placid look on her face like nothing much happened at all... I guess that's why she's a saint. They tortured & beheaded her and she's got no worries!

Catholicism (both Roman and Orthodox) has a history of people engaging in "red martyrdom". Those who have been horribly, horribly tortured for their faith. This generally happened under occupation (the original pagan Romans, the Turks, etc.), but occasionally happened because some individual was just a complete dickweed and decided to rape/beat the crap out of some pious innocent.

I believe (and correct me on this if I'm wrong, everyone) that martyrdom is revered for several reasons. One, it's a link to the suffering Christ went through on the cross. Two, it shows that if you have belief and faith, you can weather anything. Hell, if St. Barthalamew can keep his faith while he's being flayed alive, then keeping your faith while you're going through an economic downturn should be a piece of cake, right? And three, if you do wether adversity, keeping your faith to the end, then there is a reward for you. And, in this case, I consider "keeping the faith" to include keeping your sense of humor, your sense of love and trust, and a host of other positive things, instead of turning into a bitter nutball of a zealot who thinks "GOD HATES XXX"

A more current example of martyrdom and keeping your faith: I remembered hearing about people who survived the concentration camps (most statistically likely to be Jews), and that some of them had created some sort of "healing" house for those who had gone through the holocaust. One of the people who came there was one of the prison guards, who apparently could no longer live with what he had seen and done. The staff, who may well have recognized him on the "other side of the fence", welcomed him with open arms. In all likelyhood the staff had been martyred for their faith, brutalized and butchered because they were Jews. If not, if they were among the countless Poles, homosexuals, "Gypsies" (used as an umbrella for Rmani, Sinti, etc.), "enemies of the state", and others who got in the way of the Nazi machine. Regardless of this, they still forgave and cared for their torturers when the need arose. That's keeping ones faith.

Remember that religion was a slightly different animal back in ancient times. Now, in the "age of reason", we have various scientific means to explain some of the world around us. We understand the theroies of physics, epidemics, internal medicine, meteorology, geology, and a host of other things that were originally seen as 100% controlled by the gods. Back then, your religion explained *everything* around you, from why your kid died of measels to why the tide rises and retreats. Now, science explains all that, and our religions are reserved for social interactions, allegorical teachings, and all manners of things strictly controlled by faith alone. If someone dies from a lightning strike, it may be seen as God's will that it happened at all, but it won't automatically be seen as God taking an active hand in it and smiting some non-believer.

Therefore, when the early Christians were tortured to death in Rome (made into human torches, fed to lions, used as target practice, etc.), they let themselves be killed to *prove* their loyalty to a God that took an active hand in things. They figured a few minutes, or hours, of pain was a worthwhile trade for guaranteed entry into heaven.

Also, and this is something a little hard to explain, death and suffering was *everywhere* back then. It's only been since the Victorian era (late 1700s) that the Western world sanitized everything to avoid death entirely. People often die in hospitals now, instead of home, and when they die their bodies are taken to a funeral parlor instead of back to their home to be displayed and mourned over. In years past, people commonly died in the streets, or their homes, their bodies seen by all. You saw dead animals everywhere, too. Death was common, your own mortality constantly reinforced, and the afterlife always on your mind. The spectre of their own death wouldn't phase a martyr in the least.

The word "martyr" tends to bring up all sorts of imagery. Nowadays, it's distressingly negative. It's generally used for two kinds of people: nutcases who blow innocent people up to make a political statement, and mopey, guilt-inducing, attention-demanding creeps who say things like, "Oh, no, don't mind me. You go on ahead. There's not enough room in the car for me, and I'm sure I'll see Disneyland someday...."

Traditionally, a martyr was someone who suffered, one way or another, without any gain in mind but the tempering and purification of his own soul. No sympathy from passers-by, no political or land gains. For this, there are three types: red, green, and white (this is best explained in the book How the Irish Saved Civilization, which is also a darned good read. )

Red martyrdom: This is the one we're most familiar with. These people have physically suffered, or were killed, for their beliefs. To spread the Gospel and prove their faith, early Christian martyrs would happily go to the lions in Rome.

Green and White martyrdoms: Here I've directly cut and pasted from an article on http://www.americancatholic.org/messenger/jun1998/wiseman.asp#F1 :

In the book How the Irish Saved Civilization (Doubleday), Thomas Cahill talks about both green and white martyrdom. According to Cahill, Ireland was unique in that Christianity was introduced there without bloodshed (red martyrdom). No Irish martyrs emerged until the time of Elizabeth I. Cahill states that this lack of martyrdom disturbed the Irish, so they conceived first of a green martyrdom.

Green martyrs left behind the comforts and pleasures of ordinary human society to live hermits' lives on mountaintops or lonely islands. As Cahill puts it, they went "to one of the green noman's lands outside tribal jurisdiction." There they studied Scripture and communed with God after the example of the anchorites in the Egyptian desert. Ireland could not duplicate the barren terrain of the Egyptian desert; thus, this green martyrdom gave way to the more social life of monasticism.

Against this background Cahill introduces Columcille ( "Dove of God" ); also called Columba or Crimthaann. Born in 521, a prince with a title to kingship, he chose to become a monk. By age 41 he had founded 41 monasteries. Because Columba was held responsible for the Battle of Cuil Dremmed in which 3,000 men died, he became an exile. As penance he set out to save the same number of people as died in the battle.

Columba, with 12 relatives, founded a monastery on Iona off the coast of Scotland that became famous throughout Europe. Monks from Iona in turn set out for what they called a white martyrdom: "[H]enceforth all who followed Columcille's lead were called to the white martyrdom, they who sailed into the white sky of morning, into the unknown, never to return."

Damn! Why do I keep getting that one date wrong? For some reason, I keep thinking it started in the 1790s instead of the 1890s.... Thanks for the correction, BB.

Like I said: humanity defines itself by its enemies. A negative is an affirmation of what you are not, and lets you project everything you despise onto a "safe" target. By destroying that target, you have a "legitimate" way of attacking what you hate in yourself. It's the very idea of a scape goat.

Originally, when things got really bad, the shamans would dress up a goat, load it down with the evil luck that was plaguing the villiage, and let it loose out on the countryside, where supposedly all the bad luck would follow. In this manner, the scapegoat was very much a sacrifice. Its loss would eliminate the bad luck (or sins) of the community. In other cultures, the animal would be killed instead, but it was still done with the same goal of appeasing some higher power. And I think we're all rather familiar with the concept of a lamb being sacrificed to wash all our sins away...

Sadly... yes. It does. And it is.

The idea of having something else take the blame for your misdeeds, without any contrition or will to change on your part, is an incredibly immature and selfish thing. That's why a modern-day scapegoat is an object of pity and compassion: it means someone has been royally screwed and blamed for stuff they didn't do.

Christianity took a different tact with the concept. Yes, we had a sacrificial lamb to take the blame for literally everything we've done. In return, we got a clean slate, absolution, and a "get out of Hell free" card.

BUT....

There's a catch, here. This is where the "traditional" scapegoat idea takes an interesting, and more mature, turn. The Lamb wasn't just a farm animal you killed to even the score. The Lamb was someone you identified with. He was a being who made a conscious decision to do this, without our asking, and therefore you owe Him. With this one difference, we've got an incredible leap from "I'll just blame someone else, have him pay, and keep going on like before" to "Oh, man, this was my fault, and someone else suffered; I can't do this anymore." It's a measure of maturity. From serving our own needs and only being annoyed that we got caught, to 1) realizing there are others who pay for our mistakes, 2) feeling an empathic bond with others that overrides our own sense of self, and 3) taking steps to rectify the situation, even if it's inconvenient or painful for us.

An immature asshole will stand you up for a date, and when you confront him later he'll shrug or laugh and say, "Sorry, dude, I really got caught up with this cool videogame." Someone who's mature will at the very least call you to apologize for running late. A true gentlemen will go out of his way to get to you, even if he gets a flat on the road, gets splashed with mud in the pouring rain, and his cell-phone goes on the blink.

What's the difference between a flake and a gentlemen? It isn't age, breeding, status, wealth, or anything external. It's the same thing that makes someone a "good" Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or whatever faith they believe. It's a sense of responsibility, empathy, and the willingness to put others above self.

Have you ever wondered why gang cultures, hate groups, and so on seem like such immature schoolyard bullies? Why do they act like such spoiled bratlings? It all goes together. To create a scapegoat is the ultimate in irresponsible, immature behavior. It's not only refusing to admit to your own flaws, but gleefully putting the blame on something (or someone) else when caught, therefore avoiding any repercussions from your own actions. It also requires an utter lack of empathy, which is the glue that binds any society together, from humans to meercats.

I'll never be able to go along with the fire-and-brimstone section of Christianity, which constantly screams that we're all horrible, horrible sinners! Guilty for life! Guilt guilt guilt guilt! Feel ashamed for absolutely everything, you lousy piece of filth! He died for you, and you can never be worth it or repay the debt! That's going too far in the other direction. It's one thing to recognize that you're human and fallable, just like everyone else, and that you should strive to overcome this frailty. It's another to believe (or have forced upon you) that you're utterly worthless at all times.

Or hit a dog and right in front of the owner and then drive away. That's what happened to our family-friend's dog yesterday
That dog was so sweet. He just drove up, killed it, and left. That dog also happened to be my doggy's dad. A father and husband. I usually don't hate people that I don't know, but I hope that person who killed Buster goes to hell

Hell is such a subjective thing. I've seen some wonderful versions of it:

An episode of the Simpsons where Disco Stu sees a vision Heaven as an all-night disco. Also there is a rather glum and very out-of-place Frank Sinatra, who claims this is Hell for him.

A short story (or TV show, unsure which) about a nasty biker who goes to Hell. But Hell for him has nothing to do with demons and boiling pitch, which he thought was cool.... No, old Scratch turned him into an 8 year old kid and placed him in a 1950s era front room, watching his parents' slide shows for all eternity...

A far side cartoon, where a devil is ushering someone into a classroom with a smiling nun. The devil's words are to the effect of, "Believe it or not, this is Sister Guido's version of Heaven...."


The formation of Hell (or, should I say, our understanding of it) has always been a bit of a mystery to me. In the Old Testament it's barely mentioned at all. (The same goes for Satan. The Book of Job seems to be the Devil's main apperance there.) You've got sheol, which seems to be both hell and the afterlife. Apparently, the earlier Semites didn't believe in an afterlife, and when you died that was it. I guess your disembodied soul was kind of stuck somewhere dark and creepy. I wonder if, when Christianity and "eternal life" came around, the ideas of sheol blended with visions of the afterlife already common in other cultures? Thereby splitting into our more commonly accepted visions of Heaven and Hell?

Paranoid delusionaries like Jack Chick would have us believe that "everyone's already going to Hell; only belief in Our Lord and Savior will get you off that one-way road." But I just can't reconcile the idea of an all-merciful and loving God with someone who would gleefully send 99.9% of humanity to eternal torment. Sure, there's a lot of statements in the New Testament that could be taken that way, but only if you twisted them out of shape and removed them from all context.

Case in point: "I am the light and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me."

Sounds pretty inflammatory, doesn't it? "If you dont believe in me, you're not getting to heaven." But when approached in a less literal way, it means if you don't follow His tenents, you're not getting there. And what are the tenets of Christianity? The usual stuff about not stealing, loving your neighbors, parents, and enemies, helping the poor... Hmmm, where have I heard this stuff before? Maybe from the mouths of every religion in the world? And every philosopher, whether they believe in a God or not?

My view of Hell is a place of self-imposed isolation. When you repeatedly act in a selfish manner, distancing yourself from God, then when you die, the closer proximity to Him will feel like a horrible, burning flame. You could be standing right next to another guy who led a decent life, and is perfectly happy being so close to God. But you, the unrepentant, selfish creep, are so damned miserable that you're isolated among all these happy people.

In other words, Jesus paid for our sins, now let's get our money's worth.

I am a scientific thinker too and I respect that other people have a right to believe what they want... but this is how I see this afterlife thing. I believe in an afterlife because there has to be something beyond this material world, and I think most people make it to Heaven, but if you were really evil like Ted Bundy, then there is a place for you to go!!!

I found this thread to be very interesting....
No matter what section of a country anyone lives in...
"Or maybe you get a lot of that where you live? Is is like in the South, or something? "
Or what people believe that is their personal belief.
I was raised Southern Baptist, attended at Catholic church when we moved to the South...heh and then for years didn't even go to church. I have a 15 year relationship with a Catholic and together we have a beautiful 11 year old daughter. I accepted Christ as my PERSONAL Savior and it is as Northstarluver said earlier...a Personal relationship between God the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the believer. Everything else is just man made and can be corrupted.
When people like JW or Mormons come to my door, I simply and politely tell them to have a nice day and then close the door. I do believe that there is a place called Hell-it is known as Graduate School!
:p:p:p:p

In my personal experience, fanaticism, especially religious fanaticism, requires ignorance to breed. You may find those who lead the fanatics may have an education and worldy knowledge, but the vast bulk of their followers are "the great unwashed", often with substantially lower education, experience, and social standing than what is considered "normal" for the area or nation at large.

In fact, ignorance is vital to the formation of a fanatic. Because if you start seeing the rest of the world, and realizing that different does not always equal evil, then you're not much of a fanatic, are you?

In hotbeds such as the Middle East, where they've been trying to wipe each other out for thousands of years, and the Balkan States, where the Christian-Muslim hate has been going on for centuries, it's easy to find fanatics. They're everywhere. They're molded by their societies, they're reinforced by sporatic conflict, and they're lead by a charismatic, educated leader. It's almost always the same, a cult of personality built around a figure of power. Religious fanaticism is precisely the same way. Sects will spring up based not off of the religous texts, but off of the man who interprets them (and, generally, in a manner others of his religion would see as heretical, if not blasphemous).

Where religious fanaticism takes a turn for the especially nasty is in willingness to die for a cause. Oh, sure, every fanatic will hapilly lay down his life, but a religious fanatic cannot be stopped by any force on this Earth, short of his death. If God has told you to do something, what could possibly convince you otherwise?

And if you had any education, if you had the right information and weren't kept in the dark, you would take a look at your religion and realize the very God you're willing to die for also forbids the very action you're proposing, whether it's suicide bombings, shooting doctors, or screaming hacial hatred and separation in His name. If you thought about it at all, you'd say no. And people who think for themselves aren't exactly easy to mold that way, to seduce with stuff that may sound reasonable, but isn't quite right.

As it is in the dictator's best interest to keep his subjects ignorant and in the dark, so it is in the religious demagogue's best interest to only give part of the story, ignoring parts of the holy texts which are "inconvenient".

If you have ever seen the movie "What Dreams May Come" with Robin Williams, this can sum up everything you are stating Gaz. It was a real mind opener for me. I believe that there is much more to the story than first meets the eye when you see it. It is a movie that will have you asking questions long after you've seen it. Good in my book!

If you haven't seen it, watch it with an open mind, I recommend it.

K

I can't believe I missed this us Catholics get all the crap, nice to see that Kurt is helping reverse that as for fanatics theres devout and then theres foaming at the mouth :/

Anyway nice discussion lasting 19 pages wow! with minimal backbiting, when I saw this I was expecting it to beome a landmine field. Monty Python's the Life of Brian also pokes fun at religion in a nice way. Who could forget the mob of people screaming: Follow the shoe! classic
any body else heard of Father Ted? Also pokes fun at Catholics :p

It is you have a choice between three quite strange priests: Theres Father Ted the loser who tries constantly to get off the tiny crap island where he lives, theres the naive Father Dougal very sweet but slow, and theres my personal favourite Father Jack the filthy mouthed alcohol-mad one who is fond of shouting ''feck!'' ''arse!'' ''gurls!'' and ''knickers!'' He says little else. :p

Yeah? How about my litigation class? Now that, my friends, is pure hell!

Quote: "I can't believe I missed this us Catholics get all the crap, nice to see that Kurt is helping reverse that ." Yes, that is right! I agree with you! The Catholic Church's leadership is rotten right now, but why should Catholic people, the majority of whom are decent, be the focus of so much prejudice these days? It's enough to make you feel like a mutant!

And don't kill all the lawyers! How am I gonna get a job out of paralegal school?

Easter celebration: or, "Christ gives Satan the finger"

Since there are so many of us of different theological persuasions on this thread, I thought it would be interesting to you if I related what an Orthodox Christian Easter celebration (also called Pascha) is like. I realized that the rituals used vary so much from sect to sect, we likely have no idea how another group celebrates the Resurrection.

First thing... Orthodox services start at 11:30pm Saturday night, and end sometime about 2 or 3am. We don't do midnight mass for Christmas, but we do for Easter. The younger children are brought to church in their PJs, with sleeping bags and pillows. Hell even the adults can have a hard time staying awake through this. My first celebration, last year, I was falling asleep halfway through. Add to this the fact that there are candles involved, and life can get interesting.

A fair percentage of the first half hour is spent in near absolute darkness. We have candles, but they aren't lit yet. There is just enough light for the priest to see by the altar. Those of us in the choir had to use little LED lights to read our music. At the end of this half hour, near midnight, all the candles are lit, and there's a candlelit procession outside and around the church. The entire church is involved in the procession: only one person stays behind in the church (more about him later). When we get back to the entrance, the priest pounds on the closed door three times. The guy left inside asks who it is, and here the priest acts in the symbolic role of Christ, demanding to be allowed entry. This is repeated once, and then the door is opened, and everyone enters into a fully-lit church. And so we have the symbolic reenactment of His going down into Hell and freeing everyone who'd been stuck down there since Adam and Eve.

The next two some-odd hours are filled with liturgy that constantly reinforces the fact that He has risen from the grave. The actual chant is "Christ has risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs restoring life." Many times, the priest will "interrupt" his own service, walking up and down the aisle and shouting "Christ is risen!". The congregation responds with "Indeed He is risen!". This is done in several different languages, each one (and the correct response) printed on a small sheet you're given. This symbolizes the fact that the Resurrection touches the entire world. (This can sometimes be a bit difficult to follow. While most of us know the Greek call and response, it's harder to do this in Arabic or German. The end result being that there's a big response for English and Greek, and a more muddled response for all the others.) Aside from the constant focus on the Resurrection, and the fact that Hell got thoroughly pissed off, screwed over, and torn down when He went down to pay a social call , another notable difference between the Pascha liturgy and that of the regular Sabbath is the fact that there is no homily (sermon). The gospel is read, but for once it is not "explained" per say.

What I found the most impressive about the Orthodox service, as opposed to the Protestant ones I had attended in the past, is the participation and energy. The Presbyterian church I had gone to in my youth seemed very passive. You had the choir singing, you had a sermon, and there was a lot of life, but it seemed to be focused entirely in the pulpit and in the singing loft. The rest of the laity, while happy, was just passively receiving it all. (I imagine in a Baptist ceremony, where the whole congregation often joins in, this wouldn't be the case, but I digress. ) In the Orthodox service, even though there's repetition on a grand scale (I lost track of how many times we heard and chanted Christ is Risen!), it serves to heighten the Earth-and-Heaven-shaking significance and joy of the Resurrection. Also, and for me this is very important, the Orthodox method of celebrating Easter placed it squarely as the most important religious holiday of the Christian calendar. On a strictly theological level, even as a pre-teen, I was always surprised at the cultural emphasis placed on Christmas, when Easter seemed like it should be the more important holiday. Yeah, sure, without His birth there could be no Resurrection, but the whole reason for His birth was the resurrection. Everything was leading to this, so He could wipe that slate clean. So why did it have to play second-fiddle to Christmas? (Which, coincidentally, wasn't even invented as a celebration until some time in the 4th century, while Passover/Pascha has always been celebrated without a break.)

I think it's probably because of its religious significance. It's one of the more "pure" religious holidays that we celebrate in the Christian culture, one which hasn't been overtaken by the secular aspect. There's more Easter decorations, candy, and bunny junk sold now than a generation ago, true, but it still doesn't hold a candle to the money pumped into Christmas lights, food, gifts, decorations, trees, trips, holiday parties, and so forth. Celebrating someone's brutal murder and resurrection isn't a cause for gift giving, while a birthday is.

I think you're closer to quoting "Black Adder". You know: the bit where he's been assigned the role as Bishop of Cantlebury or some damn fool thing, so that he can keep people from dying and leaving all their stuff to the church? Paraphrased:

Dying man: But I thought I needed to leave my wealth to the church to go to Heaven?

Black Adder: Weeellll, Heaven's not really all that it's cracked up to be. Heaven's fine for people who like playing harps, singing, talking to God. (evil grin) Hell's for people who like doing the other stuff.

Dying man: Really?

Black Adder: Oh, yes.

Dying man: *signs his property over to the king* Then I will leave my worldly wealth to the King, and may God damn me to Hell like the worthless wretch I am!

yay! another Father Ted and Blackadder fan about the hell is other people comment, i meant that the characters in that play didn't live their lives according to what they wanted to be. They let themselves be defined by other people, now their hell is made all the more worse because they cannot exist without each other and define who they want to be. They are dependant on the others' existence, yet at the same time they will only cause each other misery for all eternity.

Or maybe he has some serious psycological problems that he really needs to deal with, He should call Love Line, they'll talk to you about any problem, Dr. Drew has the answer for any problem and Adam Carolla is just there to bug drew and make a joke out of your problem, I love those guys

Perhaps that's the point: to get people thinking about something else. Which immediate mental association would be less damaging to a diocese?

Boston = pedophile priests
Boston = overly-zealous Catholics

Three guesses as to which is more acceptable, and the first two don't count.

In all honesty, I haven't even heard of this new problem, somehow. I'll have to look it up so I can form a more coherent opinion on it. Right now, it looks like a diversion ploy.

Unfortunately, that's where things get really, really sticky. A marriage is both a civil and religious ceremony.

Originally, the government was the religious order, period. The tribal shamans ran everything, then the priests when things really got going in places like Sumer. At first, priests ran things in Egypt to the point where they killed the old king when he got too feeble to rule. But after a few hundred years the king got more temporal power (probably due to a standing army at his side ) and the priests had to slack off, replacing the human sacrifice with a "rebirth" ceremony (Heb Seb). Rome got a name as being the "most pious city" in the ancient world because there were so many religious ceremonies to perform, and these ceremonies went hand in hand with running everything.

As you can imagine, it was all too common for ancient Mediterranian priests to be bribed or otherwise corrupted in a "worldly" fashion, which was one of the reasons Judaism developed the ideas of chastity, charity, and at least a little bit of separation. The Christians took this even further, inventing the monastic, reserved life, which was supposed to remove you from all worldly temptations. But, even so, religious law ran things. Priests had as high a stature as kings, in some ways.

Marriage, one of every society's most fundamental ceremonies, had religious signifigance due to its primal importance. You *need* kids in your old age to support you. You *need* sons to inherit. (Daughters, regrettably, were less desirable... ) And so getting married meant nothing less than survival and continuation of your people.

Now marriage has a slightly different significance. Our society has grown so complex, with financial, tax, and other rules, that the government has invented whole civil statues for married couples. It's no longer vital to your small tribe's survival that you have as many children as possible, and in America woman can inherit property, too. But the basis of it is still in religion, and a sacred vow to take care of your partner until their death. We have a layer of civil legistlation over what is a religious ceremony.

And now... get ready for the nasty, complex stuff. Because of its religious significance, the idea of same-sex marriage scares the holy shit out of the more conservative parishoners, and even gives the more liberal ones reason to pause. Conservatives we can understand, because they're convinced everyone but them is going to burn in hell anyways. But for the liberal authorities, it's not so much the idea of "legitimizing" homosexuality that worries them as the precedent it sets. If you can redefine an institution that has only allowed male-female bonds, in any culture, from the beginning of time (which in itself is a controversial view: just ask Bunny about documented same sex marriages in the Middle Ages ), then what's to stop polygamists from screaming "foul" when we refuse to let them marry four fifteen year old girls at once? And that's the mildest example I can think of.

In a way, they have a point with this. America has gotten so "sue happy" and overly sensitive to "political correctness" that people are willing to sue for the most absurd things, claiming them as God-given rights. For every honest man trying to make a point and change an injustice, there's a Fred Phelps harrasing everyone he can see and gumming up the legal system like sand in an engine.


An example, and I'm 100% serious about this: a friend of mine, who runs the fan club for the San Jose Stealth LaCrosse team, has been sued, along with Lockheed-Martin, Gilette, and everyone else who has used the word "Stealth" in a commercial sense, by a guy who claims to have copywrited the word. So the Stealth team, the Stealth Fighter, the Stealth Bomber, the Stealth rollercoaster, the Stealth razor, and everything else all belongs to him now. This is a "fishing" expedition, to be sure: he's trying to see how many big corporations he can blackmail into giving him a few grand to shut up, since it'll be cheaper for them to buy him out than to mount any legal defense, but the fact he's even doing it shows you how insane our legal system has become.

(And I'm not even going to go into what the Scientologists have been doing for with their army of lawyers the past 20 years.... )

So on one hand we have dedicated couples, who have been together for many years, and just want the civil ability to take care of one another in old age. On the other we have the tenets of a popular religion that says "you can't do that; you're gay". And we have a government that is strongly influenced by the religious side, but is now starting to finally see that it isn't their job to dictate moral standards. All they can, and should, do is dictate sterile, legalistic, civil law. And, in a civil sense, there is no reason why a monomagous couple shouldn't be able to take care of each other in old age, so civil unions are starting to be bandied about. A civil union sidesteps any religious sense, but allows the same rights any heterosexual couple enjoys.

No, you're not really married, but at least you'll be able to take care of your lifelong partner.

It's the best they can do, and really the best they should do. If this is what has the Boston Diocese up in arms, the idea of civil unions, they have NO RIGHT to scream, any more than the government has the right to interfere in church doctrine. It's a civil matter, guys. Stay out.

Quote:

Originally posted by Maelstrom Unfortunately, that's where things get really, really sticky. A marriage is both a civil and religious ceremony.

Quote:

Marriage, one of every society's most fundamental ceremonies, had religious signifigance due to its primal importance. You *need* kids in your old age to support you. You *need* sons to inherit. (Daughters, regrettably, were less desirable... ) And so getting married meant nothing less than survival and continuation of your people.

Quote:

But for the liberal authorities, it's not so much the idea of "legitimizing" homosexuality that worries them as the precedent it sets. If you can redefine an institution that has only allowed male-female bonds, in any culture, from the beginning of time (which in itself is a controversial view: just ask Bunny about documented same sex marriages in the Middle Ages ), then what's to stop polygamists from screaming "foul" when we refuse to let them marry four fifteen year old girls at once? And that's the mildest example I can think of.

Bunny, I'm really sorry I didn't make myself clear on this. What I was trying to do was several things at once:

1) I was trying to say that the idea only heterosexual marraiges were ever performed is in itself a statement open to debate. I personally know of the same-sex marriages the RC church was supposed to have performed in the middle ages, and have no doubts that other cultures did the same thing. So the statement that "this has never happened" is controversial, and even untrue. In this, I think, we're in violent agreement. :oops

2) I was also trying to give the reasons why the more liberal parts of the established Christian order would object to the ceremony, as I had it described to me. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it myself, and I had to "step out of my own mind" to try and explain it with any sense of clarity... and I don't think I did it that well....

And, personally, I'd be a lot more "vigorous" in "defending the sanctity of marriage" if the very people screaming the loudest weren't also the same people with a 50% divorce rate....

In retrospect, that comparison did seem to belittle the cause, and for that I apologize. (This is what happens when I tackle a subject this complex... )What I was trying to do was show what an "overly sensitive" legal morass our system has become. And, no, I wasn't doing it with the implication that "suing for the right of gay couples to marry" was that kind of "overly sensitive" application. It's the fact that people take things into the court (or into the government itself) that should, by all rights, never have gone in there in the first place. When religous leaders request that their parishoners deliberately influence their statesmen with their narrow interpretation of a religious law, that is an example of taking things into court/ the government that should never have gone in there at all. And it seems to me that that is what the Boston Diocese is doing....

Unfortunately, our founding fathers weren't always that good at enforcing the principles of complete freedom. How long did it take before a slave was considered anything but property (and therefore somehow 3/5ths of a person)? How long have women had to fight for their basic voting rights, and the right to inherit property? How many laws have been put in place that deliberately took away all rights to certain minorities? In California, especially, we had laws in the 1800s that pretty much made it legal to eliminate all Chinese or Japanese immigrants like rats. Think we've changed? Guess again: In the 1990s, Prop 187 tried something very similar with Latino immigrants, attempting to force every doctor, teacher, and emergency worker into being a spy for the INS....

Which isn't to say you're wrong. On the contrary: you're right. But that protection, which should be automatically there, is going to have to be fought for. Because implied rights don't seem to mean much if they're not written down in strict, airtight, legal terms.

No ames, thats the problem, it exists to shut us up, which has worked well as you can see , but we get NO RIGHTS whatsoever, we ARE second class citizens.

its a ploy to shut us up so we can say "Oh we're married", marriage isnt about cake a parties and a piece of paper, its about love and rights.. they dont seem to get that

Example : Amanda is in the hospital, sick as hell..and hes gonna die. Bunny is fucked.

http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2459758

Honey... I think we're in violent agreement again. I don't think that the government should dictate to religions, and that the change has to come from the parishoners and Patriarchy. By the same token, I think that religions have no right to dictate federal and government policies.

That was my take on the "the best they can do" bit. It's up to the parishoners to scream loudly enough for the Patriarchy to take notice, in order to change the religous definition of marriage. Having the government make a religious decision sets a horrible precedent for letting a religious sect have its way. Even more than it is now.

That doesn't mean we have to "sit back and take it". Far from it. But it does mean that the rights that should be guaranteed by the constitution, all too often, have to be fought for. And it means that we have two fronts to fight on: the religious and the secular. We have to raise a stink in our churches (assuming we belong) to have them "reconsider" the marriage policy. And we have to raise a stink in congress to squash things like that damned amendement. Slavery was at first fought in this manner as well: civil disobedience and religous disobedience (in both instances, by the same basic group of people: the abolitionists). (God forbid that we'd have to go that last step that I deliberately left out: a Civil War.)

What really ticks me off is that they're selling this Civil Union idea as "just as good" when it's apparently far from it. It isn't the same as marriage, despite what they're saying. THAT has me steaming.

C, you're right. "Separate but Equal" has never worked. I was under the (sadly, false) impression that they were just going to extend the same civil and legal rights. Instead, it's morphing into a twisted "separate but equal" bit.

And that has me penning a letter to my congresswoman. Maybe it will do something, maybe it won't, but, dammit, I don't like being lied to!

Well... anyway... with regard to George Junior and his Defense of Marriage Act... just keep on saying to yourself... "Term limits! Term limits!"

An explanation and apology from she of the hard head....

Quote:

If you can redefine an institution that has only allowed male-female bonds, in any culture, from the beginning of time (which in itself is a controversial view: just ask Bunny about documented same sex marriages in the Middle Ages ), then what's to stop polygamists from screaming "foul" when we refuse to let them marry four fifteen year old girls at once? And that's the mildest example I can think of.

I so screwed up with this, and I should have seen it. I insulted Bunny, and I didn't mean to. Here's a breakdown of what I actually meant:


1) The "only man-woman marriages happen" theory is at best up for debate, if not flat-out wrong, and that's assuming it's only Christianity we're talking about. Otherwise, it *is* flat-out wrong.


2) When I did the little () at the end of "ask Bunny", that wasn't a "isn't he cute with his little theories? Give this poor deluded fool a hand!". I had spoken with Bunny on this before, and realized that he had actualy done research on this. He knew the papers, the facts, the actual nuts-and-bolts of the issue, where I didn't. I consider him the expert in these matters, the factual resource to go to.

In other words, I meant to both refer to Bunny as the authority, having information that I lacked, and to thank him for his setting me straight. Instead it came out like a slap in the face , and I am so sorry that happened...


3) The "what's to stop the polygamists" line was never, ever, ever meant to implicate anyone's views or preferences. I was actually quoting, word for word, what I had heard from one of the church scholars. I was attempting to show the point of view of a third party, which I did not necessarily understand or agree with, but wanted to espouse so that others might at least see (if not understand) the fears they have.

I should have actually put that in quotes, to further separate it from my own point of view. But I didn't. Like I said, I screwed up big time.


Of the many faults that I have, I had not realized that arrogance was so key among them. I was so certain that I was doing this "right", that I was perfect in my words, my phrasing, and my views. It never once occured to me that I could be wrong, let alone harmful. But there's a reason why pride is considered one of the seven deadly sins. It has much more far-reaching implications than simply making you look like an asshole. In this case, I ambushed and hurt at least one very, very dear friend of mine.

finals!!!

I've never heard anything about Xavier at all, but I do remember seeing in the Daredevil movie that he was a lapsed catholic, and considering how close they tried to stick with canon, I believe that would be from the book. And as for Gambit, it would also make sense, considering that Catholicism has a stronger following in French-descended New Orleans.

But, so far as the RC church is concerned, better a lapsed Catholic than a convert to anything else. They don't even consider the Episcopalian or Orthodox churches in communion with them, and those are the closest in theology and proceedures among all Christianity.

And, to be honest, I can't really see why Kurt would want to leave Catholicism. He hasn't had any reason to turn away from God, and I think that's what it would take to do it. He's so familiar with human frailty that whatever a single priest, or even a heretical sect, does isn't going to shake his faith. Vicious acts in God's name happened several times in the Church of Humanity arc (ending in Holy War), and Kurt has still stayed.

Here's an interesting bit of "food for thought". The RC and Orthodox churches are very similar in most things, differing mainly in procedural overlays such as papal infallibility, the "fliloque", and immaculate conception. But there are other, very intriguing cultural differences, too. Has anyone here ever seen an Orthodox icon? Here's a link, just so you have an idea what I'm talking about : http://www.greekorthodoxicons.net/byz/deisis.htm

Notice that this picture of Christ, with (I believe) Mary and Joseph to either side, looks curiously flat. You have shading, but it's brought out in an exaggerated, almost "cartoonish" manner, and the perspective is almost non-existant. It looks very much like a Medieval European painting. This is done deliberately: the artist who wrote (yes, it's called "write" instead of "paint" when talking about Icons) the Icon wanted to remove the situation from the real world and place it elsewhere. This removal aspect continues in every "flat" Icon you see in the Orthodox church. In fact, they don't even like to have statuary. You will never see a single statue in an Orthodox church, whether American, Serbian, Greek, Russian, or any other.

For instance, this icon shows the "Harrowing of Hell", which is sometimes called the harrowing of Hades instead. http://www.comeandseeicons.com/pha21.htm . Since the Orthodox do not believe that Heaven or Hell are real, physical places, but states of being, this is an entirely allegorical icon. Christ is trampling on the open graves (those "boards" under his feet), raising up Adam and Eve. All those shackles and keys, in the dark space below, represent the bondage of Hades, which He has broken to free those held within. It's as if this scene has been seen through a "filter", allowing us to comprehend what can not be seen with our physical senses.

In contrast, the Roman Catholics have no problem with statues. Statues of the Virgin are common, as well as statues of Christ and His saints. The belief here is that all of these people really existed at one time, so why should there be a problem recreating them in a realistic manner?

Neither view is inherently "more enlightened" than the other. It's a cultural choice. The Orthodox concentrate on the fact that He was part of this fallen, imperfect world, but not *of* it, and show that remoteness in their art. They want people to know that the scenes depicted are "out of time and space", that they often defy description and understanding on this level. The RCs want to bring Him, and those around Him, as close as possible into their midste, as their way of following scripture. ( "Do this that I may be among you" )

Icons are a fascinating thing, by the way. They're basically historical, religious records, and because of that they use specific, unalterable symbols in every one.

It is rather ironic that in our quest to separate church and state, to keep any religion from being forced upon us (*cough*ChristianCoalition*cough*) that we have also created an especially "militant" strain of people who have NO respect for religion of any strain. Let's hear it for that swinging pendulum, boys and girls....

This case you described, Thy, is almost laughable. Read the brochure, pinheads. This is a college owned by a monastary. It is a Catholic School, not a public one. Therefore, strict rules that separate church and state do not apply. If you're going to "act all sophisticated and growed-up", then do your damned research. You have no right to complain here.

I think the seat of this isn't so much their disdain of religion as their disdain of any type of authority. Even if this was a public school (where such displays are frowned upon if not banned outright), the way they responded was unforgivable. Anyone with an ounce of respect would have asked the teacher about it privately. At the very least they should have raised their hand and said, "Mr. So-and-so, the cross makes me uncomfortable." No, this wasn't truly about religion; it was about respect and power, and those students didn't want to relinquish an ounce of either.

So why'd they make a fuss about a small, tastefully-displayed symbol of faith in the corner? In their case, it was because Christianity is "safe" to express indignance over. Christianity is "looked down on" in the USA for several reasons, and, unfortunately, some of them have merit:

1) One word: Fundamentalism. This has to be the worst thing to happen to Christianity since the Inquisition. Fundlets have provided such a raucus, skewed, intolerant version of Christianity that they've turned off literally anyone with the ability to think for themselves. And their habit of *ahem* interfering with laws and political candidates is enough to make anyone unfamiliar with the faith toss that Bible into the garbage.

2) Christianity is the "power broker" of religion in America, and that, in itself, can be a problem. Christianity is *everywhere* in America. You have to look around to find someplace where it isn't the dominant belief. At best, people like rooting for the underdog.... and at worst, there's this "snob appeal" thing, where anything that the "vulgar masses" like must be ignorant, inferior, and only worthy of scorn.

3) Because the USA was created by Christian men (and women, but they weren't officially included for a couple hundred years ), Christian symbolism and specific values have permeated the entire system. The In God We Trust phrase on coinage, and the beleaguered "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, are relatively new, but it's only been since Ms. O'Haire raised a stink that we finally got rid of "organized" (read "expected and enforced" ) prayer in schools. Presidents, judges, and everyone who's ever been on a witness stand, all swear on the Bible. Though most of our holiday displays have been sanitized to some degree, just the fact that we shut down banks and workplaces for Christmas, but not Eid, is something that no one could possibly miss. And if you're not Christian, constantly having this "enhanced status" rubbed in your face has to hurt.....

4) Christianity has been used as an excuse for hatred and willful ignorance. It's been used to justify such odious institutions as slavery. It's been (mis)quoted to justify wife and child abuse, race hatred, constant verbal and physical attacks on gays and bisexuals, and even attacks on other sects of Christianity (let alone other religions). Some of this is the fundlet's fault, but not all. I've seen these views espoused by many an intolerant Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Episcopalian, and so on. (Now, to be fair, a LOT of other organized religions have been abused in this way, but then that leads us back to the "power broker" problem: they aren't currently the big dog on the American block.)

5) Christianity has so many bickering sects now that it's lost a fair amount of respect. (Remember Ireland?) I don't know how many versions of Islam there are, but I don't think they number in the hundreds....

A militant *anything* is frikkin' annoying at least, and at worst a danger to themselves and others. Why? Because their militancy doesn't let them give and take, to recognize that they might *not* be speaking for all of their brethern, let alone the rest of the world. And the more diverse we become, and the more acceptable that diversity becomes, the stronger the militant fringes feel the need to lash out. Militant Aethiests HAVE to get rid of anything that could *possibly* be construed as acknowldging a god of any type. Militant Christians *HAVE* to try and get amendments passed to "protect" their narrow vision of love and partnership. Militant Jews and Muslims *HAVE* to kick (or blow) each other off of "their" land in the Middle east, because it's THEIRS, dammit! THEIRS! THEIRS! THEIRS! No one else's!

And if you put all these militants together, with enough firepower, you'd get a large crater. And maybe the rest of us could go about our lives in a semblence of peace.

Jill,

How long have the B.C.E and C.E conversions been around? I've seen them used within the past few years, but only sporatically, and nowhere near as often as the more commonly seen B.C. and A.D. This is one case where I don't think there will be a giant "Christian backlash" against changing, because these are marks used almost entirely in the scientific or academic community, which is more interested in factual, specific notation than religious validity. I think the reason we developed the standard of B.C. and A.D. is because the birth of Christ was a universally accepted time constant in the Western (and that time, Catholic) world, during a time when God's hand was seen as directly influencing everything. The only reason I can see why it has survived through the 20th century is inertia: no one bothered to change it. And now that there's a movement to do so, I don't think there'll be much opposition. It won't cost millions of dollars to change, and there's no emotional attachment to it.

Just the fact that I have seen B.C.E. and C.E., in other places than purely academic jounals like JAMA, does speak well of the fact American society could be moving that way. Sort of like how the plural "their" is being accepted as a single gender-neutral pronoun instead of only a plural.


To change topics a bit, sometime back (in either this thread or the Heathen Sent one), the question was raised as to why God would kick out 1/3 of his angels for disagreeing with Him. Was the threat to His power so great that He couldn't allow any dissent in His presence? And what was it all for, anyway? I was curious about this myself, so I listened to a talk my local Priest, Father Leo, had on the subject.

First, a quick discalimer: this is the Orthodox Christian view. It may not match the RC or moderate Protestant/Episcopalian points of view, and it sure as hell won't jibe with the Fundlets (which may be a good thing... ). The church Patriarchs went over this question in length during the early centuries of the church's existence, primarily trying to figure out just what could make an appalling 1/3rd of His angels rebel, especially His second in command, Lucifer.

What they came up with is that The Incarnation was what did it. It's hard to envision, let alone explain, but Orthodox believe that the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all existed at the same time, from before the beginning of time, even though God created the Son. Therefore, all of God's plans were laid out before time began. He knew that He was going to create Mankind, that Mankind would screw up so badly that He'd need to send His Son to clean things up, and that by doing that, He would humble himself to a level below that of Mankind. For some reason, 2/3rds of the angels said "That's a great idea!" and the others said, "Wait a minute, you're going to do WHAT?"

On the surface, it would seem that Lucifer and the rest of the 1/3 are given a raw deal. They tell God that they can't possibly love and obey anyone or anything more than God. Lucifer actually says to God, "Lord, let *me* do this. Let *me* suffer the pain, humiliation, and death for you. I love you too much to want you to suffer for a fallen creation." And God throws a hissy fit and kicks them out of Heaven for that love. But you have to look a little deeper. It isn't really love; it's pride masquerading as love. Lucy and his compatriots weren't worried about God (and, by association, the Holy Trinity) going through all this effort to bring Mankind back to Him. Their real objection was the fact that they would have to humble themselves before humanity. Why? Well, they know they're under God in the grand heirarchy, and if God makes Himself a servant of Man, that means THEY'RE servants of Man as well. Lucy hated this idea so much that he brazenly offered (demanded, really) to take this position, and the glory that would inevitably come from its completion, for himself, thereby attempting to insinuate himself as an equal in the Holy Trinity.

And at that point, when that 1/3 decided that they didn't want to go along with it, they cast thmeselves out. By deciding that they didn't want to follow His plan, and deciding that they knew better than He did, they turned away from Him, and placed themselves in a fallen state. It's the Orthodox view that Hell and Heaven don't exist as geological places, but as states of being.

So it comes down to the fact that one third of some of the most perfect beings ever created have the capacity for evil, in one state or another. By pride they refused, but attempted to "spin doctor" it into love instead, thereby compounding things further. (Hmmm, what does this say about politics in general? )

That's kind of scary. If selfishness and evil exists in such amounts that it can corrupt so many nearly perfect beings, no WONDER humanity is in such a state. But, then again, it is a little comforting to know that even those right next to God can screw up, because it means that maybe the rest of us who screw up aren't as far removed from Grace as we think. That's where the humans have it over angels: since we're still learning, we can screw up and still redeem ourselves. The angels, being borderline omnicient, had learned everything already and *still* chose the wrong path, damning themselves by their own knowledge when they rebelled.

& etc.

I don't know about the necessity of vhanging BC and AD to BCE and CE.

We have days of the week named after Norse Gods

We have Planets named after Roman (and now Inuit) gods

Why not have time seperated based on the origins of Christianity? Aside from being a religion, it's also one of the most impactfull forces on western culture (And remember- if it's not western culture... it's not culture.... jk). It makes a decent historical marker for that reason.

Actually, I'm not sure that's quite right. The fact that I don't believe in the Mormon's view of the hereafter doesn't mean I'm not interested in hearing it. Why? Because those beliefs tell us something about the people who believe in them. Though I'm Orthodox Christian, I'm always eager to hear about the symbols, the beliefs, the rituals of others. The fact I don't consider them sacred to my religious core is secondary: I want to learn what is important to other people, because it makes communication and relations that much easier.

Here's a few true life cases where ignorance has caused trouble, or at least embarrasment. Names and dates have been removed to protect the innocent. Two of these are commonly-known dietary restrictions, which makes you wonder how insular people can be....

* At a small company, honey-baked hams are given out as holiday bonuses. To everyone, including the one Muslim of the group.

* Another ham disaster: a catering company was doing a bar mitzvah, but they catered it with ham platters. If they knew anything about the Jewish belief set, they would know that any pork product is considered unclean, never to be touched. Compounding this, when they were told to remove the offending foods, the idiots just removed the ham from the platters and re-served them. To this day, I don't know whether they were bloody stupid, or whether they were anti-semites, and did this deliberately to a paying client to show disrespect. In any case they didn't get paid, and they never catered any Jewish events again once word got around of their behavior. That incident cost the caterers tens of thousands in future lost revenue, and it wrecked a boy's once-in-a-lifetime coming of age party.

* While in Greece, and attending a Greek Orthodox service for the first time, a man eats the bread of fellowship (available to anyone who attends service, regardless of their religion). As his Greek is poor, he is mystified as to why people in the communion line are shouting to him and pointing to the ground. Then he realizes that he is letting the crumbs drop inside the church. (This is a serious faux pas: it is disrespectful to let the blessed bread be carelessly dropped inside, where it helps nothing. Crumbs are always dropped outside, where birds can eat them, or they nourish the nearest flora.)

* A young American altar boy is attending a Greek Orthodox patriarch for the first time. The patriarch asks him to get him some Kolyva (which is prounounced similar to "cola" ). Since it was a hot day, and the boy was as yet unfamiliar with that particular name of the traditional sweetened almond and grain dish, he bypasses the place where the Kolyva is being served out, goes to the closest vending machine, and gets a Coke instead. (The patriarch just laughed good-naturedly and thanked him for the cool drink. )

In cases of the responsible religions, knowing more about their way of worship is a broadening experience, showing you different ways of expressing what is essentially the same love. For cults, it's more a case of "know thy enemy." That knowledge lets you know what flashpoints and triggers are built in. It can also let you argue facts with them and have a chance of snapping them out.