Well, I'd kind of like to know how people who are gay reconcile who and what they are and do with their strong defense of their religion (right now I'm thinking just Catholics, and other like-minded religions in this regard..main line and fundamentalist ones, I guess...).
The Religous Right
- Thread starter madame_zora
- Start date
Verbatim from the English translation of Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae, the official catechism of the Catholic Church, concerning homosexuals:
"They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."
But isn't that a completely condescending attitude for church leaders to have? Hell, it's not even an accepting attitude. And it doesn't address how a person of faith as well as a homosexual DEALS with who they are on a day-to-day basis, living their religion, and how they are supposed to do it, if at all. You only have to look to words of past church officials like John O'Conner, John Paul 2 and the current one (Benedict, right?) to find phrases that are a condemnation of homosexuals and their behavior that are a remarkable contrast to the quote you've given.
And then what about the old chestnut they like to pull forth about Jesus' "admonition" to "Go forth and sin no more". Certainly doesn't square with the exploits that you've been gracious to provide us with over the past.
And then what about the old chestnut they like to pull forth about Jesus' "admonition" to "Go forth and sin no more". Certainly doesn't square with the exploits that you've been gracious to provide us with over the past.
actually, yes they were, by definition: organized religion is for those with no convictions of their own. that's why it's ORGANIZED. the people you refer to may well have been terribly clever (although personally I wouldn't qualify all of them as such), but if so, it was DESPITE their faith, not because of it. similarly, while obstinacy may in itself be an admirable trait, it certainly does NOT make the inability to function without the craving for endorsement/vindication through some "ultimate authority", any less contemptible. maybe I don't "understand" organized religion in whatever context you're talking about, but I sure as fuck understand enough to recognize that sacrificing intellectual volition to one's fear of death is NOT clever or meritable in the least.
and that's just the individual side; none of that would be relevant or worth discussing at all if it wasn't for the OTHER reason organized religion is organized - power politics and greed. that's the actual PROBLEM with it. I personally couldn't care less what anyone wants to BELIEVE (although I reserve the right to laugh at them in most cases), but when they try to uphold and excuse something as fundamentally obnoxious and dangerous as organized religion, I draw the line.
<!--QuoteBegin-warmsunshine@Aug 17 2005, 02:26 AM
But isn't that a completely condescending attitude for church leaders to have?... And then what about the old chestnut they like to pull forth about Jesus' "admonition" to "Go forth and sin no more". Certainly doesn't square with the exploits that you've been gracious to provide us with over the past.
[post=336155]Quoted post[/post]
[/quote]Not to mention that the language itself of the Catechismus sets us homos condescendingly apart from the christian normals: "...their condition. That leaves the door open for much "interpretation and application."
GottaBigOne
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,042
- Media
- 13
- Likes
- 326
- Points
- 403
- Age
- 44
- Location
- Dallas (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
actually, yes they were, by definition: organized religion is for those with no convictions of their own. that's why it's ORGANIZED. the people you refer to may well have been terribly clever (although personally I wouldn't qualify all of them as such), but if so, it was DESPITE their faith, not because of it. similarly, while obstinacy may in itself be an admirable trait, it certainly does NOT make the inability to function without the craving for endorsement/vindication through some "ultimate authority", any less contemptible. maybe I don't "understand" organized religion in whatever context you're talking about, but I sure as fuck understand enough to recognize that sacrificing intellectual volition to one's fear of death is NOT clever or meritable in the least.
and that's just the individual side; none of that would be relevant or worth discussing at all if it wasn't for the OTHER reason organized religion is organized - power politics and greed. that's the actual PROBLEM with it. I personally couldn't care less what anyone wants to BELIEVE (although I reserve the right to laugh at them in most cases), but when they try to uphold and excuse something as fundamentally obnoxious and dangerous as organized religion, I draw the line.
[post=336186]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]Dr. Rock on!
- jonb,
Luckily, just about every religious scholar who doesn't believe in Dominion Theology considers the theology of the Left Behind series seriously flawed.Originally posted by Pecker@Aug 16 2005, 08:43 PM
I've got the title for a new song:
"I'd Rather Be Religious and Right Than Wrong and Left (Behind)"
atriot:
[post=336138]Quoted post[/post]
I believe you are reading into the quote what is not there: it says 'condition', not 'affliction'. 'Condition' is this context means nothing more than 'a state of being', which is also a dictionary definition of the word. It's not a judgment. Reword the sentence with that intended meaning and it makes perfect sense:
"These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from the fact that they are gay." Remembering that this sentence immediately follows a condemnation of discrimination, I infer no condescension, nor do I see any ambiguity. We are part of God's plan and we are called in the same way that all of God's children are called. We must not condemn anyone based one sexuality: that is immoral and unacceptable. If we are the victims of such condemnation because we are gay, it is a trial that we will endure with God's grace, remembering that we are are part of the elect redeemed through the Crucifixion and Resurrection. That we experience difficulties due to the 'condition' of being gay cannot seriously be questioned, and the two sentences preceding that which you you find objectionable makes it clear what difficulties we encounter as a result of our condition. Being human is a condition. Being male or female is a condition. It is a neutral word in the way it is used. It implies neither 'good' nor 'bad'.
<!--QuoteBegin-warmsunshine@
And then what about the old chestnut they like to pull forth about Jesus' "admonition" to "Go forth and sin no more". Certainly doesn't square with the exploits that you've been gracious to provide us with over the past.[/quote]
Perfect example of being on the outside looking in. You don't understand the Catholic Church of the era following the Second Vatican Council: you can't be expected to without accepting and being educated in its precepts. People think that they know that the Catholic Church is an institution ruled by strict law and absolutes. That was true at one time, but Vatican II stripped away a lot of the superstition, pageantry and mystery that rendered God unapproachable. The result is a humanist religion that places emphasis on free will and conscience. 'Sin' is defined as a voluntary violation of one's conscience. The supercedes even Church doctrine (though not dogma). My 'exploits', as you so delicately called them, represent self-exploration, expressions of affection and harmed no one. I have no guilt resulting from them, and I did nothing that my conscience tells me is wrong. According to what the Catholic Church considers sinful, no sin took place. Other denominations, especially fundamentalist denominations, undoubtedly view the situation differently, but I'm not a member of one of those denominations.
<!--QuoteBegin-DrRock
actually, yes they were, by definition: organized religion is for those with no convictions of their own. that's why it's ORGANIZED. . . while obstinacy may in itself be an admirable trait, it certainly does NOT make the inability to function without the craving for endorsement/vindication through some "ultimate authority", any less contemptible.[/quote]
I would be hard pressed to find a more perfect illustration of misunderstanding the purpose and driving force behind religion. I have convictions of my own that do not come from religion. I have a conscience, and while my religion supports the conscience, it certainly does not engender it. My conscience dictates my convictions, and free will enables me to act upon them. 'Organised' simply means that my religion has a set liturgy, a hierarchy, a set of doctrines, and some dogmata; it doesn't touch my conscience or have a say about my convictions. It simply provides me with a form of worship that I can share with other. I do not seek endorsement or vindication and I can function just fine without those things, thank you very much. It's awfully presumptuous of you to think you know what people are looking for in an institution that you hold in such obvious contempt. You look for nothing there: how could you possibly know what others may find in a place where you've never placed foot? You don't even know the layout.
If that's what you think religion is about, I'd say you don't understand it in any context. But how can one expect a blind person to understand the concept of colour? Just because you've never experienced something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
... then why do it? as I've said in the past, if anyone can actually provide any justification for subscription to organized religions other than (1) attempt to assuage fear of death, and/or (2) desire to "belong" within a meaningless subcultural group, I'd love to hear them.
the real point here, which I was hoping in vain that someone would've picked up on by now, is that it DOESN'T MATTER whether I "understand" it or not; it's still an unavoidable fact that WHATEVER supposed benefits an organized religion can provide its adherents cannot and do not outweigh the negative effects it has on the human mind and human society.
I can't expect you to understand my point of view any more than I can understand yours. Al, you and I are two different types of people: You are a nihilist, and I'm not. I respect your right to hold your opinions, but they are not right for me. I can't put into words what it is I seek through religion, and that journey might never end for me, but I find something in the searching. If you have no room in your life for religion or philosophy, that's your decision. It's a very important part of my life, and no amount of ridicule or insult will change that.
Thanks, Vix. That pretty much sums up what I think Mme. Zora was trying to unravel in this thread. Those who advocate violence, discrimination, or any other negative behavior, in "the name of their religion," are doing a disservice to others of the same faith, and generally do not represent most of the believers.
DMW, regardless of what the dictionary definition of "condition" may be, it is always interpreted. And also consider that one of the dictionary definitions is also connotative of an affliction. I'm sure that James Dobson and Phred Felps have their own "interpretation" of the Scriptures and the Gospels - that does not necessarily mean that that was what was intended, nor what is literal in the text.
However, the original version is in Latin, not English. The Latin word condicio (which is the word used in the original version) doesn't have the negative connotation that the English word condition can have. To interpret it negatively is to misinterpret it. The objection you and warmsunshine had was that the word used was intended to be condescending. When the Cathechismus uses the term condicio gratiae, do you mean that the Holy Coclave were speaking condescendingly about being in the state of grace? When they speak of the condicio humana Sanctae Mediatricis, do you seriously think they're referring condescendingly about the Virgin Mary's human state? Do you honestly think that condicio is used condescendingly only when referring to homosexuality and is used with no negative connotation anywhere else?! If they wanted to use a negative word, there are plenty of ecclestiastical Latin words that have nothing but negative meanings: condicio is not among them.
Wave
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Posts
- 133
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 5
- Points
- 163
- Age
- 36
- Location
- Cleveland (Ohio, United States)
- Sexuality
- 69% Gay, 31% Straight
- Gender
- Male
- Wave,
However, the original version is in Latin, not English. The Latin word condicio (which is the word used in the original version) doesn't have the negative connotation that the English word condition can have. To interpret it negatively is to misinterpret it. The objection you and warmsunshine had was that the word used was intended to be condescending. When the Cathechismus uses the term condicio gratiae, do you mean that the Holy Coclave were speaking condescendingly about being in the state of grace? When they speak of the condicio humana Sanctae Mediatricis, do you seriously think they're referring condescendingly about the Virgin Mary's human state? Do you honestly think that condicio is used condescendingly only when referring to homosexuality and is used with no negative connotation anywhere else?! If they wanted to use a negative word, there are plenty of ecclestiastical Latin words that have nothing but negative meanings: condicio is not among them.
[post=336741]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]Hello Everyone...i am writing at the request of Madame Zora, for i do not post very often at all up to this point and I'm still working on getting my Visibility frequency correct before i introduce myself. I have skipped to the end of this longer-than-gunner's-cock thread just to stay on topic to the original query of Mdm. Z., although DMW's insightful comment on Tolkein vs. Harry Potter and the Pope was as trenchant and deductive as usual. Ah, wisdom! And Double Meat W, forgive me for digressing from your language discussion. :dunce:
Anyways, yeah, i'm a christian, though i prefer the word 'messianic' (and my writing style e.e.cummings-esque) cuz i feel that to avoid a lot of the weirdness that is inherent in the nigh-sci-fi world of Religion, it's best to understand it all through the filter of the original scene, aka judaica. but yeah, i was born-again quite some time ago and i have read the bible, as a student of literature at college and also as a student of philosophy and experience in general, about 5 times. i've also been into transcendentalism, the Tao, and Punk rock, and i will eventually study buddhism and the sufi thing, etc. i have the gift of glossalalia (speaking in tongues), which, unlike the common preconception, does not require a trance or frothing at the mouth or wearing clothes from the early Sixites or refraining from a good bottle of shiraz or rock & roll, etc. i've also had a few 'spiritual' experiences that i can't write off, because 1) there's not other rational explanation for them, and 2) they're pretty common experiences in the biblical narrative. :shrug:
i don't know what to say about some of the stupid, narrow, hateful, bigoted things that are said by religious 'leaders' today, except to remind you that the media often picks the most incendiary and dramatic issues and events to cover, excluding many more good and moderate happenings. case in point: the cat Brother Roger who started the french christian center named Taize and who was stabbed recently at something like 80+ years old. if i didn't check out the BBC news sites regularly i wouldn't even have known what happened to him--not that most of amerika even knows who he is!!!
i believe in Jesus, and that he truly came back to life and speaks with folks today and can do anything he wants to do (why he doesn't do more--aye, that's the rub!
and is quite remarkable and fascinating and the Now that never ends and that william blake understood some of it and c.s.lewis understood some of it and mother teresa understood some of it and john of the cross, teresa of avilla, saint francis, g.k. chesterton, flannery o'connor, thomas merton, etc. etc. etc...they all saw their 'pieces' of it. like Morpheus is Neil Gaiman's "Sandman" series.....lots of angles, lots of facets. but still one being, still one door.it's never easy to understand, especially to explain in a codified way--that's why a lot of these guys look so simple and ignorant--trying to conceptually relay a baffling set of mystical personality traits about Yaweh to people who may not know him yet.
the short answer, Madame Zora--no, they don't tend to represent anybody but their own denomination and their personal followers. most of the more "sophisticated" believers are too busy following Jesus to worry about lame-o human proclamations. hope to talk to you all soon in a more acceptable state! :toast:
DMW, you continue to argue whether the bat is made of ash or of maple. My point is, regardless of the construction of the bat, what matters is whether it is used to hit a baseball or a cranium. The text, the original language, the etymology - interesting points, but the important thing is what is done with them. Mme Z asked if the aforementioned people represent the majority, not the history of the texts from which they quote. The etymology of "condition, fr. L condicio" becomes immaterial. The end result is that, regardless of the intent of the writer, there will always be someone who twists the text to meet his own selfish and evil needs.
I agree that there are some who will twist the meaning ... I'm not pointing any fingers ... but you've changed your argument. You originally said:
That implies that the word used was intentionally meant to be condescending. I pointed out that condescension was not intended by the original author because the word he used carries no negative connotation in the language he wrote it in. So you changed to, "It doesn't matter what the author intended, but how others interpret it." That's like saying that the Bible verse that says, "Throw the fagots upon the fire" advocates gay-bashing because that's how Fred Phelps interprets it. The intention of the original author, not the interpreter, is what's important. If a reader twists what's there to suit his own purposes, the fault lies with the reader, not with the author.
Similar threads
