whay has the Christian myth got such a magnetic pull on some people?

[FirmaFan]

“He who acts against his conscience loses his soul.” (Fourth Lateran council, 1215)

“It is better to perish in excommunication than to violate one’s conscience.” (St. Thomas Aquinas)

“I shall drink . . To Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.” (Cardinal John Henry Newman)

“If Newman places conscience above authority, he is not proclaiming anything new with respect to the constant teaching of the Church.” (Pope John Paul II)

“In the final analysis, conscience is inviolable and no person is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his/her conscience, as the moral tradition of the Church attests.” (Human Life in Our Day, U.S. Bishops Pastoral)

“A human being must always follow the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were to deliberately act against it he would condemn himself.” Catechism of the Catholic Church #1790)

“We follow church leaders only to the extent that they themselves follow Christ. . .
Some situations oblige one to obey God and one’s own conscience rather than the leaders of the church. Indeed, one may even be obliged to accept excommunication rather than act against one’s own conscience.” (Cardinal Walter Kasper, Head of Ecumenical Matters at the Vatican.)

“Over the Pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed over all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.” (Commentary on Section 16 of Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World.)

I got this from http://www.gaychristian.net/community/showtopic.php?tid/13922522/post/new/#NEW

If you are only going to follow the teachings of the religion that agree with your conscience (by "putting your conscience first"), why not accept your conscience as your source of morality and abandon the religious doctrine that comes with all the immoral baggage that your conscience knows better than to not follow? If you are able to cherry-pick the good in religious doctrine and ignore the bad, you have already demonstrated yourself to be morally superior.

 

[zoltanspawn]

“He who acts against his conscience loses his soul.” (Fourth Lateran council, 1215)

“It is better to perish in excommunication than to violate one’s conscience.” (St. Thomas Aquinas)

“I shall drink . . To Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.” (Cardinal John Henry Newman)

“If Newman places conscience above authority, he is not proclaiming anything new with respect to the constant teaching of the Church.” (Pope John Paul II)

“In the final analysis, conscience is inviolable and no person is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his/her conscience, as the moral tradition of the Church attests.” (Human Life in Our Day, U.S. Bishops Pastoral)

“A human being must always follow the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were to deliberately act against it he would condemn himself.” Catechism of the Catholic Church #1790)

“We follow church leaders only to the extent that they themselves follow Christ. . .
Some situations oblige one to obey God and one’s own conscience rather than the leaders of the church. Indeed, one may even be obliged to accept excommunication rather than act against one’s own conscience.” (Cardinal Walter Kasper, Head of Ecumenical Matters at the Vatican.)

“Over the Pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed over all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.” (Commentary on Section 16 of Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World.)

I got this from http://www.gaychristian.net/community/showtopic.php?tid/13922522/post/new/#NEW

^I'm glad to see many christians on the website supporting the idea that god blesses gay unions. I think it's a shame that there are so many who think gay love is sinful.

 

[FirmaFan]

I am under the understanding that Christ founded the Church, and that he did not promise that the leaders are going to be perfect, just as none of us can claim to be perfect in any sense of the word, now with all things considered, we are all called to strive to be perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect....Becoming what we strive for, is in fact Hard work, and it is a lifetime of work. The institution that Christ established is perfect in its own right, but the leaders are not perfect at all. So, you say that I have established myself to be Morally superior? I cannot even Match it, as I am morally inferior, and I can only strive for what Christ asks of me.

If you are as morally inferior as you claim yourself to be (again with the ideas of self-loathing instilled by this religion), by what basis then are you able to determine that the institution christ established is morally superior? And, if what is asked of you by christ is deemed morally superior simply because it comes from a powerful being, that isn't morality, that is submission.

 

[FirmaFan]

You have a big tendency to think that all religious submission is either coerced, or involuntary, but as for me...it is absolutely Voluntary, and that is the kind of Submission that God wants. He does not want submission that is coerced or involuntary. And again, I reiterate the fact that my Bishop knows all about me being Gay, and the fact that he says that I need not change myself. Now, does that still make me self-loathing? I think not. I have absolutely no reasons to leave the Church founded by Christ. Yes, the church was founded that includes sinful leaders from St. Peter on up to Pope Benedict XVI. The leaders of the Orthodox Church are just as much a sinner as everyone else including me, and you....yes you too.

Submission, whether voluntary or not, has no bearing on the fact that simply because a powerful being pronounces something that does not mean it automatically becomes a moral truth. Submission to an authority figure deemed moral merely by the fact that they are the authority is not a path to morality.

And, of the many many times I have pointed out to you an aspect of your religion that promotes self-loathing, rarely has that been loathing because of homosexuality. Calling yourself morally inferior, claiming you are burdened with the crime of original sin, pronouncing all of humanity as imperfect sinners - those are all examples of self-loathing. Believing these as truths is a tragic consequence, and I feel you are very much a victim of some extremely cruel religious practices. I like to think of us as being much better than religion gives us credit for.

 

[FirmaFan]

It looks to me that you're claiming to be without any sin, something that no one may claim to be, not even me.

I reject the idea of sin as proposed by various religions. It is a non-existent ailment so I can be sold an imaginary cure. Sorry, not buying it.

It also seems that with all of your postings, that you are a Militant Atheist, and in denial of the Reality Of God existing in Heaven and on Earth.

Me being an atheist is not contingent upon any militant dogma, it is the conclusion I have come to about the nature of the various claims of the existence of god/gods based upon reasoning, evidence, and rational argument.

God is all around you, and in all of Creation. Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory is just at the threshold of Death. It is far better to suffer Purgatory or Hell in this Life before death, and if you want real proof of the life after death, then ask the Creator to show you, because Science in this matter will not give you the proof that you need.

So, all I have to do to find proof of life after death is first believe, then ask the creator, who will show me proof in order to make me believe. It's circular - I have to believe before I can believe - and it gets us no closer to actually discovering the truth. You are probably right, science won't be able to give evidence of life-after-death, most after-death claims are by nature unfalsifiable and are therefore moot when it comes to scientific verification. But here's one thing I do know - I exist here and now, I am guaranteed the life I have now, for it is what I currently have. As this is the only life I know for sure I am to have, I want to do everything I can to make sure I am experiencing reality on reality's terms, so, no, it is a far greater risk to suffer purgatory or hell in this life before death, and I am not one to discard my one guaranteed existence in favor of some idea of an afterlife that, according to all known evidence, most likely doesn't exist.

 

[Laufey]

MikeyLove the bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong. And no it's not just the old testament you can find it in the new one as well (they have just taken the death penalty part out of it).

If a gay person follows Christianity it must be one of the two:

1. They consider their sexuality to be a sin. Self-hate.

2. They pick and choose what to take from the religion and what not to. When you do that you might as well just be spiritual without organized religion.

 

[Laufey]

Are you number 1 or 2?

If there is a third option please explain it to me.

Once you have done that I will answer your question.

 

[Rickrock]

Reply to Mariatenebre post #25. I believe that there should be a legal form of gay marriage. I am uncertain what I think about how the Catholic Church should address this.

I believe that a fetus is a human and you do not. I don't think that we are going to change each others opinion.

 

[Laufey]

It shouldn't be up to the government whether religious institutes bless gay marriages or not.

The main thing is to allow same gender marriages by the law and also allow religious gay marriages to be a option if that institute wants to take that path.

If some of these institutes want to show their true colors, that they will not bless gay marriages despite social and legal changes... then that's a good thing in my book. Christianities part in peoples daily life gets smaller and smaller with time mainly because it's on a different path from the general public. It continuing that way is a good thing in my book.

 

[ludolfo]

If you are only going to follow the teachings of the religion that agree with your conscience (by "putting your conscience first"), why not accept your conscience as your source of morality and abandon the religious doctrine that comes with all the immoral baggage that your conscience knows better than to not follow? If you are able to cherry-pick the good in religious doctrine and ignore the bad, you have already demonstrated yourself to be morally superior.

HOW do you know it is your conscience when you are already under the mind-control of a cult?

Surely you are already indoctrinated by the cult's dogma, and hence what you think is your conscience is really the dictates of the cult which you robotically follow. This more will explain the utter horrendous barbarity shown to women, children, and gay people, in the 16th century by members of the Christian cult who carried this horror out from orders by the highest authority of the cult. So what sense would it make to those doing so to ask them to act on their conscience? Because to them they were! Like the soldier will say he is just doing his duty.
They were attempting to eradicate "evil" weren't they, or "impurity".
Hitler and the Nazis were driven by this same irrational concept.

 

[FirmaFan]

So do you think there are no sins at all, or do you think that sins exist?
I think sins obviously exist, but I can accept if someone doesn't agree with the Church about them.
Sins doesn't exist because there is a religion that says : "X activity is sinful, thus if you take part in it, you shall suffer in Y place of sufferin for Z eternities if you do not repent"

Sins exist because there are things that you can only accomplish through wounding others. Killing is a sin. Most of the time. This is the easiest example of sin, but then there comes stealing. Stealing is a sin, because you take something from someone. You get something by damaging anothers life. Same goes for infidelity.
It is the very nature of sin to be a selfish act.

The word "sin" carries with it a lot of religious baggage, so much so that I tend to avoid using the term. In describing the various things you have mentioned, I tend to discuss them with respect to the ideas of morality.

 

[FirmaFan]

HOW do you know it is your conscience when you are already under the mind-control of a cult?

Surely you are already indoctrinated by the cult's dogma, and hence what you think is your conscience is really the dictates of the cult which you robotically follow. This more will explain the utter horrendous barbarity shown to women, children, and gay people, in the 16th century by members of the Christian cult who carried this horror out from orders by the highest authority of the cult. So what sense would it make to those doing so to ask them to act on their conscience? Because to them they were! Like the soldier will say he is just doing his duty.
They were attempting to eradicate "evil" weren't they, or "impurity".
Hitler and the Nazis were driven by this same irrational concept.

Morality, to an extent, is a subjective concept, and, yes, it is possible for a person to be so indoctrinated in an ideology that their sense of morality becomes completely skewed. I would say, however, that the ones who "truly" believe that committing acts the consequences of which would be very readily deemed "immoral" are acting morally are on the fringe, and would be severely outnumbered if not for the institutions that constantly instill commands that otherwise would not be followed. Check out the Milgram obedience experiments for demonstrations on how people come to commit actions they themselves would deem wrong because commands to do so are coming from figures of authority. It's frightening how easy it is to get a person to act against their moral conscience, even when fully aware of the action being "wrong", but it makes sense when thinking about the kinds of actions numerous people have taken like the kinds you described in your post.

 

[FirmaFan]

Calling sins crimes would be misleading, because it would make it sounds that they are against the law. But in fact they are against morals.

Yep. Pretty much what I said. I will discuss actions with regards to morality, calling them "sins" just isn't appropriate outside of religious context.

Sin is an expression of a certain set of actions, and just because the word itself appeared in a religious context you shouldn't throw it away.

It would be like NOT using the medical knowledge gathered by the nazi doctors during the holocaust. It would be a waste.

It's not that the word "sin" appears in religious contexts; it's that, to many, and I would say, the majority, the word "sin" still today carries with it the religious meanings that I may want to avoid in certain discussions. The various actions you listed before are certainly morally reprehensible, but if I were to call them "sin" I would be invoking religious ideas (such as commandments from god) that tend to go along with the word that I would feel is unnecessary in certain conversations. I don't avoid using the word, I will use the word when appropriate, but I don't feel it can be used without giving the topic at hand a religious undertone. If I don't want to involve religious context in the conversation, the word "sin" is definitely something I'm going to avoid.

 

[Telstra]

whay has the Christian myth got such a magnetic pull on some people?


Because the whole aim is to "spread the good news"

 

[Mariatenebre]

You have a big tendency to think that all religious submission is either coerced, or involuntary, but as for me...it is absolutely Voluntary, and that is the kind of Submission that God wants. He does not want submission that is coerced or involuntary. And again, I reiterate the fact that my Bishop knows all about me being Gay, and the fact that he says that I need not change myself. Now, does that still make me self-loathing? I think not. I have absolutely no reasons to leave the Church founded by Christ. Yes, the church was founded that includes sinful leaders from St. Peter on up to Pope Benedict XVI. The leaders of the Orthodox Church are just as much a sinner as everyone else including me, and you....yes you too.

Ok your Bishop knows that you are gay whop dee doo. Now does your Bishop and you personally believe that the only way for you to be spiritually right with your god is to be celibate and to deny your urges. Plus you said that homosexual orientation is caused by original sin and not only is that offensive (as is the concept of original sin) but it contradicts science as well.

It looks to me that you're claiming to be without any sin, something that no one may claim to be, not even me. It also seems that with all of your postings, that you are a Militant Atheist, and in denial of the Reality Of God existing in Heaven and on Earth. God is all around you, and in all of Creation. Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory is just at the threshold of Death. It is far better to suffer Purgatory or Hell in this Life before death, and if you want real proof of the life after death, then ask the Creator to show you, because Science in this matter will not give you the proof that you need.

Everybody does things wrong what is a lie is that we are cursed to be sinful. Now all of the evidence shows that your god atleast is a human construct. Also no sacrificeing your happiness and living a Hellish life on Earth and choosing to be miserable and to deny who you are is not worth Heaven and no ammount of compensation is worth the misery and psychological ill of denying who you are and being miserable. Further more psychology says that you should not deny who you are and loath who you are. In fact it is the biggest scheme of all time. Make yourself miserable and servile on Earth to prepare for a nonexistan god's Heaven instead of making your own Heaven here.

Reply to Mariatenebre post #25. I believe that there should be a legal form of gay marriage. I am uncertain what I think about how the Catholic Church should address this.

I believe that a fetus is a human and you do not. I don't think that we are going to change each others opinion.

Ok well atleast you support gay marriage, we agree on that.

Next it is not me that says a fetus is not a person it is science. You can however choose to deny science and live under false mysticism but you forefeit your right to be a rational person.

 

[Nemothepanda]

I just don't understand why someone would actively be part of a religion that so stigmatizes their feelings towards men. Why pray to a deity who says that homosexuality is an abomination that has no place in the world to the point of being a death sentence?

 

[ludolfo]

The evil of this belief exists for real. I saw a documentary that was very eye-opening and horrific to see for any gay person. A gay UK radio show host went undercover to Africa, Uganda, and pretending to be straight went around interviewing people from all sections of the community whether or not gay people should be punished. EVERYone he asked was behind this evil, even the youth who you would have thought would not be so conforming, and they mostly quoted the Bible in support of their homophobia. One African girl on a radio show about the subject he'd arranged even said that dreaded cliched crap "God didn't make Adam and Steve [pause] He made Adam and Eve". T%he climax was him arranging an interview with one of the country's top politicians who wanted to introduce the death penalty for gays who had been caught having sex. You should have seen the expression on his face when at the end of the interview the interviewer confessed he was gay lol. Soon after we here he had to quickly leave the country for fear for his life!

Gay youths in America etc etc have killed themselves because of bullycide--persecuted because they are gay or suspected of being gay. They are the tip of the iceberg with many kids lives made misery. So what I am saying is this is very serious, and is supported by Bible believers. It is not enough to pretend to be tolerant but then insist gay people cannot have sex with others, or before marriage as it is sinful. It is this belief in a 'pure God' that is the problem, because then others are considered of a sinful nature and hence 'impure'.

 

[ludolfo]

Do you think there wouldn't be homophobic people if, say, religion would be eradicated? I think the situation would remain the same, because now people use religion as an excuse, and justification for their hatred towards gays, but if there were no religion, than their hate would remain.

Humans naturally distance themselves from the unknown. I do not know why, but most humans always see difference as an opposition.
Why is that? Why does human nature constantly seek an opposition, a group he can blame everything on? In every group there is someone who becames the omega-male. In every society there is group that is hated. In every country, there a regions that are hated by most others.

I think this is a psychological phenomena. People want an enemy to hate, and blame everything on so they don't have to face their own failings.

Well in your own way you are really translating the Christian assumption of 'human nature' into psychologism. IE., instead of claiming that human nature is by sinful as the Christian myth states, you pretend that it has always been so and this is now a scientific-psychological fact that humans always hate others, 'an unknown'. Believing this myth, instead of really looking at the Christian myth and what belief in it does to the psychology you deny all that--refuse to look-- and claim human nature is like this throughout and has been always, and there's no real solution.

The Christian myth believes in a 'God' who is 'pure', and that nature by itself is 'impure', and thus we need to surrender to this 'God' so as to 'redeem' ourselves.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

But you seem to want to deny the pernicious assumptions of this myth and now diffuse the looking into it by claiming 'ohhh, its been human nature all along to hate gays, and blacks, and women, and nature, and sex, and 'the unknown''). This is your myth, and it stops you looking and questioning the Christian myth which blames human nature for being sinful and sexual love, especially being between those of the same sex, as being sinful.

Look, it really doesn't matter that there may have been other mythologies which have been violent. One could see the ancient Aztec mythology as being very bloody and cruel. The thing is we have to NOW to look and question. Realy mythology is not then but a living dynamic now. We are living now, and these problems--such as young people being bullied to death for being gay-- are with us now yet you defend an old story set down many centuries ago in a totally different culture and time and imagine it could apply to now when all it does is cause much of the fear and paranoia about sexuality etc.

 

[ludolfo]

That reply of mine sounds muddled, and not clear so I am gonna try to be clearer. OK, The Christian belief is that nature is already sinful. You then say that even despite Chrstian belief people will always be afraid of the unknown and attack what it doesn't understand. How do you know this?

native American culture pre-the European conquests accepted gay people, and they were known as 'two spirits' and considered sacred. So aty least there was a respect for males who desired other males. (sorry I do not know about lesbians)

But JUST because you may point out cultures from the past who not being Christian may have feared an unknown does not mean that the Christian belief system doesn't encourage such fear of the unknown.It starts of from its very beginning creating paranoia amongst its believers by claiming they are sinful, and the 'flesh' is to be feared and not trusted, and nature is fallen and ruled over by the devil who desires their souls to go to hell for everlasting pain. I mean sheeeeit you cant get more paranoid than that...can ya? LOL

How does this myth translate into secular culture, for after all most 'educated' people will calim that all of this is superstition, and now we live in an Age of Science. Well, we still have homophobia, so is this as you claim because this fear of the 'unknown' is inherent in human nature or is it that Christian values still permeate the culture albeit mainly unconsciously.

I wonder who are the groups that will not allow teaching children about homosexuality in their enforced schooling system? Would you say they are Conservative Christians or Conservative atheists? I am seriously asking you to tell me what you think?

There is also the question of what does gay even mean? Is it black and white with gays on one side and heteros on the other or is it far more complex than that? What do you think?

 

[Laufey]

Are you a Fundamentalist?

No.

Now answer my question:

MikeyLove the bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong. And no it's not just the old testament you can find it in the new one as well (they have just taken the death penalty part out of it).

If a gay person follows Christianity it must be one of the two:

1. They consider their sexuality to be a sin. Self-hate.

2. They pick and choose what to take from the religion and what not to. When you do that you might as well just be spiritual without organized religion.

Are you number 1 or 2?

If there is a third option please explain it to me.