Homosexual Liberal Atheists ~ What's UP with that?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

A minister has a right to say to his members that they must follow the 10 Commandments and that one of the commandments is "thou shalt not steal" and another is "thou shalt not kill".

However, that minister has no right to say that, Rudy Giuliani is a strong "law and order" candidate and that Rudy's platform of long prison terms for criminals and treating child offenders like adults is the best way to make people follow the 10 Commandments, or that neither of Barack Obama's Liberal policies of building more recreational facilities (claiming that it will keep people away from temptation), nor putting better housing and more jobs into poverty neighborhoods will help people follow the 10 Commandments.

He should also not say IMHO, that one candidate offers long prison terms for criminals and treating child offenders like adults while the other wants to build playgrounds. Who do you think will protect us from the violators of the 10 Commandments?

Note: I do not know the policies stated for Giuliani or Obama are actually their ideas. They were just used as examples.

[green 6]

QTkidsmom: I am impressed that you are a thinking for yourself woman. You are not endoctrinated in any way. You make your decisions based on your own personal beliefs after perhaps talking with your minister outside of church. That's smart. You are very fortunate to attend a church (or more than one churches in your lifetime) where the pastor separates his church from matters of state. Maybe I should say that where you attend church(s) is not a matter of fortune, it is a matter of you choosing a church that separates religious matters from social/policial ones, by your thoughtful consideration. You are not the only person who is so thoughtful and considered in their approach to religion. However you may be from the top of your class in religious education. I am too.

By being from the "top of my class" I know that many churches and ministers are not separating church and political issues. They believe it is their job to address social issues... it is what is expected and what separates (sometimes) one church from another.

Your experiences with church and ministers is quite different from mine. I have never attended a church where they only speak to issues of the Bible. They always have related Biblical passages to issues that people encounter every day of their lives - and many of those days and lives are intertwined with political issues. You named a couple.

There may be some atheists who are saying that church goers are "drones and voting as instructed" but I am not. However, I can assure you that ministers from all kinds of churches absolutely do involve themselves in all areas of people's lives. That's why so many people rely on their pastors for answers and for input when they are voting - in fact, that's part of the reason why people go to church at all - for guidance on the big issues in their lives.

I am amazed frankly at how many people here who say they are Christians are very quick to point out that their particular church and minister does not ever discuss political issues from the pulpit - ever. However, I've never been to one that does not. It is a part of what churches do - they help people with the tough issues of the day. They provide guidance in things that are good and bad in the world. We put our money in the till and go there and expect our preacher to tell us what the church doctrine is on every religious AND social/political problem we are faced with every day.

Some do not preach politics to the extent that they are obvious in their efforts to influence their congregation to vote for a certain issue or person. However, even though you haven't experienced it, many absolutely do!

I very much like Bjean's comments in the above quoted post. It does seem to me, too, that those who are believers would require that their spiritual guidance involve every aspect of their daily lives and this is provided by the leaders of their churches, of course. What dismays many of us is when that guidance omits common sense, kindness towards others, tolerance, and acknowledgement that there has been certain changes in our social fabric, some related to our greater scientific knowledge, since a sacred text was written.

It seems to me, a atheist, that apart from the command to worship God, the overwhelming thrust of all sacred texts is establish and maintain social order among men. This is what all the rules are about: things you shouldn't do and things you should do.

Now, the Bible has a number of rules concerning the treatment of slaves and captured women of enemy tribes which are entirely inappropriate for modern times. So too, I would argue, is the material contained in this Book which is viewed by some Christians as being hostile to homosexuality. Indeed, it could be argued that the story of Sodom is more a comment on sexual excess and sexual degradation than a complaint against two loving members of the same sex who wish to live in a union and enjoy the same civil protections that the rest of us do.

[Carlene 12]

We wound up trading some of our kids clothes for some of their beautiful wooden carved animals.

You missed a great opportunity, BJ. You should have traded them the kids!

[Carlene 12]

But the fact still remains, you vote according to what you are taught in church. Each person living their life according to what is right for THEM is totally beside the point. You ARE attempting to put YOUR religion into law.

Again....I have never voted in accordance with my church's doctrine - never. My church is anti-gay marriage and pro-life. I am pro-gay marriage and while I am not completely pro-choice (I despise the so-called "partial birth" and other late-term abortions and think they should be illegal), I pretty much think that other people's reproductive systems are beyond the realm of what qualifies as my business - legally, politically, or morally.

In a very broad sense, what I learned in church throughout my life may influence which candidates I support, but most of what I learned to oppose in religion class was enacted long ago: thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness. Just because the church/Bible teaches something, by the way, does not mean it isn't a good thing, in terms of legislation.

Finally, I'd like to point out that this country has survived and prospered under a democratic system. And if the majority of voting Americans are Christians, then the lion's share of the laws we adopt can pretty much be guaranteed to reflect Christian values. That's how a democracy works....one man, one vote. And the majority rules.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I very much like Bjean's comments in the above quoted post. It does seem to me, too, that those who are believers would require that their spiritual guidance involve every aspect of their daily lives and this is provided by the leaders of their churches, of course. What dismays many of us is when that guidance omits common sense, kindness towards others, tolerance, and acknowledgement that there has been certain changes in our social fabric, some related to our greater scientific knowledge, since a sacred text was written.

It seems to me, a atheist, that apart from the command to worship God, the overwhelming thrust of all sacred texts is establish and maintain social order among men. This is what all the rules are about: things you shouldn't do and things you should do.

Now, the Bible has a number of rules concerning the treatment of slaves and captured women of enemy tribes which are entirely inappropriate for modern times. So too, I would argue, is the material contained in this Book which is viewed by some Christians as being hostile to homosexuality. Indeed, it could be argued that the story of Sodom is more a comment on sexual excess and sexual degradation than a complaint against two loving members of the same sex who wish to live in a union and enjoy the same civil protections that the rest of us do.

While I agree with much of what you said, you may have inadvertently hit the nail on the head with the statement that I turned red above.

It has been said that the main reason for religion is to subdue the masses in order to milk them. In the game of Chess, it is no accident that the Bishops are powerful pieces and are protected by the pawns who are sacrificed for the protection of the King, Queen and Bishops. The people who religion is aimed at may be represented by the pawns in the minds of many.

[synicalchick 0]

They are referred to Sheep and the pastor the Shepherd for a reason....

Good point Wheetsin.

My point is, if you attend church every Sunday and your pastor interprets the Bible and relates it to daily activities and preaches to the congregation over and over on how they should live their lives, and preaches over and over about what the doctrine of the church says is right, you're pretty well going to know how your church and how your minister expects you to vote on issues and for people. Some preachers stand up and tell you exactly how he thinks you should vote and some are not so obvious. There may be some exceptions, but one can say generally that people do get voting instructions in church. I am continually amazed at the number of people who say they do not.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Again....I have never voted in accordance with my church's doctrine - never. My church is anti-gay marriage and pro-life. I am pro-gay marriage and while I am not completely pro-choice (I despise the so-called "partial birth" and other late-term abortions and think they should be illegal), I pretty much think that other people's reproductive systems are beyond the realm of what qualifies as my business - legally, politically, or morally.

In a very broad sense, what I learned in church throughout my life may influence which candidates I support, but most of what I learned to oppose in religion class was enacted long ago: thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness. Just because the church/Bible teaches something, by the way, does not mean it isn't a good thing, in terms of legislation.

Finally, I'd like to point out that this country has survived and prospered under a democratic system. And if the majority of voting Americans are Christians, then the lion's share of the laws we adopt can pretty much be guaranteed to reflect Christian values. That's how a democracy works....one man, one vote. And the majority rules.

Many of the rules of "The Church" that have to do with interaction between people are who do not consent to the behavior described in the rule are ok with me.

Thou shalt no kill, bear false witness, steal, etc are fine with me, because their is a victim and victimizer in each of these statements. Thou shalt not kill means the victimizer should not kill the victim.

But when it comes to what someone does on Sunday (or Saturday in some religions), or coveting my neighbors house or wife, or having consenting sex, then I am generally against the state putting those Church rules into effect.

The positions that Tina and I use in bed are not the business of the state of Florida, nor the Federal government's business. If I want to look at a porno movie before going to bed; my business. If I want to cheat on my wife, with a female of male, as long as they are over 18, then it is only the business of Tina and I. If I want to worship a statue of a Golden Donkey, or tell my parents to "shove it", then the government should not be concerned.

[synicalchick 0]

Amen Brother!

Many of the rules of "The Church" that have to do with interaction between people are who do not consent to the behavior described in the rule are ok with me.

Thou shalt no kill, bear false witness, steal, etc are fine with me, because their is a victim and victimizer in each of these statements. Thou shalt not kill means the victimizer should not kill the victim.

But when it comes to what someone does on Sunday (or Saturday in some religions), or coveting my neighbors house or wife, or having consenting sex, then I am generally against the state putting those Church rules into effect.

The positions that Tina and I use in bed are not the business of the state of Florida, nor the Federal government's business. If I want to look at a porno movie before going to bed; my business. If I want to cheat on my wife, with a female of male, as long as they are over 18, then it is only the business of Tina and I. If I want to worship a statue of a Golden Donkey, or tell my parents to "shove it", then the government should not be concerned.

[green 6]

Carlene: The description of the weather reminds me of much of the year in the high desert in Arizona. It really is ideal because it is so dry. You do have to adjust to using cocoa butter body lotion - most lotions just don't hydrate you enough.

I think I'll still go for Canada if I have a choice. I like their politics better. I don't speak Spanish, and I'm happier near mountains than being closer to the tropics. Although we did spend some time near the Mexican Baja penninsula and it was very beautiful there. If we hadn't been so afraid of the cannibals that we'd heard about living a few miles out in the desert, we would have more fun on our camp out. We wound up trading some of our kids clothes for some of their beautiful wooden carved animals.

My mate and I love Mexico, too, and we are going there this Friday to spend a week on the Pacific side near PV. My mate and one of his good pals, a Polish immigrant by the way, both figure that they would love to move to Texas; the pair of them share powerful cowboy fantasies. I think it's a guy-thing.:phanvan

As for me, I am built the opposite to you, Carlene. I thrive in the cool and suffer mightily in heat and sun.

Though I am blonde I have the complexion of a red-head and I sweat. Boy do I sweat!:cry This is kinda tragic for me: I find the hot countries more interesting to travel in. And during the dog days of summer in Toronto I am more or less confined to my air conditionned house. On the other hand, my skin is fabulous for my age and I walk a great deal when the temperatures plunge.

I will spend this week in Mexico loitering in the shade covered in number 55 sun block. We will be strolling along the beaches early in the AM and late in the PM and I will likely spend part of the day in my room with the A/C on max reading a book.

And like you BJean, I adore the handicrafts of Mexico. The artisanal traditions of Mexico are far richer than those of the other get-away countries of the tropics. I particularly love the carved and painted animals though we did have problems with the one we bought, a big one, which turned out to be infested with dry wood termites. I discovered this pretty quickly after we got it home through the sawdust that the thing kept shedding.

Anyhow, I went on line and found out that one of the ways of killing this particular type of termite was to expose the wood to prolonged periods of sub-zero temperatures. The cat - it was a jaguaranda - was far too big to fit into our freezer and so I stuffed it into a garbage bag and left it in our garage for a couple of years. This has solved the problem but just to be sure I have the cat sitting on top of a metal plate.

[Carlene 12]

The cat - it was a jaguaranda - was far too big to fit into our freezer and so I stuffed it into a garbage bag and left it in our garage for a couple of years. This has solved the problem but just to be sure I have the cat sitting on top of a metal plate.

My husband would like to leave my dog in the garage for two years - inside a plastic bag. But I won't let him. :biggrin1:

[Carlene 12]

If I want to look at a porno movie before going to bed; my business. If I want to cheat on my wife, with a female of male, as long as they are over 18, then it is only the business of Tina and I. If I want to worship a statue of a Golden Donkey, or tell my parents to "shove it", then the government should not be concerned.

I don't disagree, but for the sake of argument, "the government" is still "we, the people of the United States". If "we the people" vote to outlaw pornography, not for religious reasons, but because the majority of us feels it victimizes and exploits women, contributes to crime, and has no redeeming social value, why should the minority (losers at the polls) get to call "foul"?

Not all issues of conscience or conviction have religious undertones. There are undoubtedly Atheists and Agnostics who abhor homosexuality and as voters, side with the Christian group on the issue of gay marriage. Christians do not have a monopoly on values, you know.

[BJean 16]

Hey Carlene: As long as it's a fair fight in the voting rituals, I'm all for putting things to a vote. But the problem is that many times the fight isn't fair. Without me having to reiterate what I have earlier argued, you do understand that this is why I have said what I have about clerical influence, corruption in elections (meaning the actual voting process itself), outright lying by politicians and popular media people, lying by elected officials, etc., etc., don't you?

By the way, the cannabalistic Indians in Mexico (probably near where Green is going :heh: ) weren't interested in trading their carved animals for my little boy. (Except maybe for supper, but I didn't ask. He would have made a sweet, plump little morsel for their stew!)

Green, the carved animals that I'm talking about are not the kind that are painted and made of a somewhat porous wood. They carve them from a very hard (perhaps somewhat petrified) wood that is polished to an extremely smooth, hard finish with no hard edges and no defined details. Look for them while you're down there. They are exquisite.

I too suffer in the sun. My natural hair color is mousy, reddish brown and I have the Irish skin of my grandfather instead of the beautiful easy to tan native American Indian skin of my both mother and my father. My white legs would put the eyes out of anyone who might accidentally spot them in the gleaming Mexican sun. I wouldn't be caught dead in shorts or a swimsuit without a spray on tan of some sort. Thinking of the greater good!

[green 6]

While I agree with much of what you said, you may have inadvertently hit the nail on the head with the statement that I turned red above.

It has been said that the main reason for religion is to subdue the masses in order to milk them. In the game of Chess, it is no accident that the Bishops are powerful pieces and are protected by the pawns who are sacrificed for the protection of the King, Queen and Bishops. The people who religion is aimed at may be represented by the pawns in the minds of many.

Woohoo! Green adores being turned red! Although I am an atheist and a cynical individual by temperament I am not inclined to agree with the above statement. I believe that religions were often established in a more innocent fashion - Jesus's activities may be considered to be somewhat akin to those of oh, let us say, a Che Guevara or a Ghandi, given the political and religious power structures in place at his time; in brief, Jesus was certainly a revolutionary and he did fall afoul of the local power brokers.

This is easy to decypher whether one believes in the Bible or not. Jesus came from the common people even though his antecedents were royal, the line of the Jewish kings. Jesus tossed the money makers out of a place of worship. Jesus recruited members of the working class to follow him. Jesus taught the notion that all humans have equal standing under the eye of God. He protected and valued a prostitute, Mary Magadalene, and taught that the rich are at a disadvantage when it comes to entering heaven. He sure did challenge the existing power structure, eh?

I am inclined to suspect that many movements, religious or social, are initially founded in idealism and with the best of intentions. The corruption and the greed are things that sadly follow later on.

If we wish to look at the dreary result of an initially idealist secular movement we could examine Communism as it was applied to Czarist Russia. The initial impetus was an honourable one. This was a country which was still living in feudal times. Wealth was gathered in the hands of very few and fewer still were literate. And though the United States and Europe were arenas of modern industrial progress and were thriving, this country was still managing on the social and economic structure of the 1400s. There were peasants, there were illiterate local landowners, and there were a handful of power brokers who lived in the capital city of Russia.

Communism did serve to toss the country into the 20th century, free the serfs, and raise literacy. Along with these benefits there grew an oppressive totalitarian state, and a new corrupt power structure.

In just such a way Christianity was, I believe, an idealistic folk movement at its birth. At various points later on this Christian movement became lost to the idealists and the revolutionaries and became, like all successful movements do, machinery which comes to be used and owned by the establishment.

The Franciscan monks were a group of folks who rebelled against the perceived wealth and power of the Catholic church; they were a group of Roman Christian adherents who were anxious to emphasize poverty and simplicity as part of their commitment to their religion. They chose to follow the teachings of another revolutionary, an individual who later came to be known as St Franciscus.

The earliest Protestant schisms, excluding that of the Anglican/Episcopalian church, were prompted by a desire to reject the power structure and to return to basics. The efforts of these revolutionaries stand in stark contrast to the more questionable aspects of the Christian churches: the wealth of the Vatican, the former empire of Jimmy and Tammy Fae Bakker, the desire of Benny Hinn that his adherents buy him a personal aircraft, and the personal wealth and power of a Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc.

Although I am an atheist I believe that the role that faith/belief plays in the hearts of mankind is exceedingly complex.

I personally think that one role of religion is to help men believe that they can make sense of their emotional and physical environment, an environment which might otherwise be much too terrifying for many of us to endure. This comfort would have been particularly crucial in those times when science was its infancy.

And, as I have previously stated, all sacred texts are filled with rules which not only instruct us, but command us to maintain social order.

[anonemouse 1]

I can't speak for TOM, but what I thought he was referring to was the actual organized religion, not the faith or spirituality itself. I agree that faith and spirituality are founded with the best of intentions, in most cases, but I feel that the organized religion part of "religion" acts, like TOM said, as a method of "crowd control", for lack of better words.

[green 6]

Haha, BJean, Green can certainly relate. She herself is a kinda fishbelly white and she also glows like snow in the sun! *sob* Her mate tans real nice and he has often been mistaken for being part Native American or Spanish even though he is German and French. Oh yah, the body gods were kind to him. (Good thing Green is a smarty pants.)