Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by Tinuviel, Dec 4, 2003.
I love that a lot of her students came to her defence.
yup. don't think it'll make much difference unless parents pull their kids out. money is the only way to hurt a church
Everybody watch this movie!!
It seriously annoys me to read about stuff like this happening. I agree with Crou that it was great that her students came to her defense... just goes to show you that attitudes are changing for the better I think.
I donno, I think things are showing a bit more pessimistic with more aggressive responses from the bigoted side. The headlines about anti-gay mass gatherings and attacks have been making my head swell lately. People that are friends with me I see as being modern paragons with very good qualities and I have a handful of homosexual friends that I would be willing to die for and seeing people get so aggressive over something so trivial as a secular ritual or semantics makes me fume that they would damn the great people I know to misery.
So we're back to 'I think this way so you have to or you're a bigot and I'm going to cram it down your throat by any means possible" argument? If you do something that the religion views as abhorrent why exactly do you think they're going to let you work there? If I had, when I worked there, say had premarital sex (which legally as a 22 year old male I have every right to do provided she is of proper age/soberness etc) when I worked in a church and word got to the pastor I'd get kicked through the door faster that I could open my mouth. When you work in a religious institution you follow their rules in addition or you don't work there. If you're stupid enough to try to work in a religious institution when you commit abominable acts according to the religious institution where you work you deserve to get fired for your stupidity if nothing else. I'm going to get a job at a Jewish Tabernacle and start hiding bacon in peoples lunches and then act surprised and sue them when they throw me out on my head.
If she worked pretty much any other job I really wouldn't care much and it might be a legitimate issue, but working at a church sponsored school? Really?
I'm not talking about the article posted, I'm talking about the anti-gay protests, assaults, and hate speech I see perpetually on the internet. Honestly I think that lady is kind of dumb for thinking she had job security staying there as a homosexual, the last thing I would want to do if I were in that situation is help that niche community anyway.
Hopefully she was just holding that job temporarily and searching for work on the side perpetually, because again, why would you want to be under the roof of a house that damns you to burn alive forever after you die? It doesn't seem safe, logical, or like it would do any good for anybody. Religious institutions have made up their mind, people either have to disassociate or continue the eternal tradition.
And that would still make them a bigot, people are born that way, and damning somebody for being the way they are naturally is brutish. An outdated book shouldn't overrule modern biological evidence and testimony, but if people want to believe in that book they sure can so long as they acknowledge real evidence beside it, or else they are living in delusion.
Any chance of sharing the evidence of it being genetic? It doesn't really make sense to me from an evolutionary standpoint, but I'm open to changing my mind on the matter. Prefer research published in medical journals. Finding quite a few hits, but they mostly seem to quote the same study and the others have very small research groups and none of them agree with one another about causes for it. More cohesive evidence is needed to determine that it is purely genetic and that environmental sources do not take a part in it. Even then it doesn't determine whether or not it is something that should be considered socially acceptable as there are many disorders that are not necessarily damaging that are not considered 'normal'.
It makes everyone else a bigot for expecting them to accept what they believe to be wrong and then judging them for it. This is not a black and white situation from a third party point of view. Either point of view is a shade of gray, both sides are equally intolerant of the other's views and thus equally bigoted.
It may not have to be genetic to be inherited, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay
And the gay population is large enough to the point where we should tolerate them and accept that they have emotions and need social equality like you or me rather than be branded monsters for their entire existence.
If more of a pre-written slate rather than a blank slate situation then there are wrong people and they are damning others in countries that at their core are theocracies that will shred apart the humanity and happiness of others to uphold their beliefs and pointless definitions of normalcy. In one thousand years technology will probably force us to overhaul how we communicate and see the world, and it already has to a degree. This world is too dynamic for people to literally interpret the same thing for thousands of years too.
I guess from a neutral stance there are more shades of grey, there probably is more common ground between religious doctrine and homosexual rights than people are willing to give, but it will never be seen when people are in mass gathering to spit dull rhyming slogans showing they don't understand what a homosexual goes through and while homosexuals are being brutalized more and more for pithy things like holding hands.
Interesting idea, kind of a bummer that it hasn't been tested yet though. Funny that he said it could be done in six months which is in less than two weeks from today, I wonder if they've made any strides towards proving or disproving it.
It hasn't been interpreted the same throughout history, at least the Bible hasn't as the early Christians, the Medieval Church, and the modern Christian systems are vastly different. The Qu'ran is the same as I think at one point the Jews and Christians were deemed to be saved by their belief that we all worship the same God, not the current idea that Jews and Christians are as much infidels as everyone else that isn't a Muslim. So the interpretations do change (if they didn't I don't think we'd have the massive conglomerate of religions that is the Protestant Church.)
The people will change and so will their interpretations of the text, but the text won't. Many people will nitpick passages and revive more of the archaic ideas and problems other branches of faiths have moved on from. While interpretations can change for progress towards peace among faiths and can also be interpreted to smite and judge others if somebody has a narrow scope.
But still, another thing about faiths branching off is that the root still lies somewhere, some people will continue to consider everything literally the way it originally was as part of their cultural identity. And at the right moment against a broader issue it isn't that hard to rally masses of people with common ground no matter what they specifically believe in so long as they say they do.
Its kinda ironic that the above reason was why the Catholic Church didn't let people read the text for themselves originally, only the trained priests could which ultimately lead to corruption and now we can all read it, but most don't bother getting enough out of it for it to mean much and half-informed decisions are a dime a dozen...still managing to have corrupt ministers crop up painfully often. Church politics suck as much as office politics do. *sigh* I guess it lies primarily in what sections people pick out. The Hebrew texts are national based, while the Christian-only texts are personal based. I guess its the background in history, but there is so much more to be understood that just the words. Once you get to that point, most of the divisions are much smaller than people make them out to be, at least within the Protestant Branch. Catholics have completely different books, Mormonism has theological unlikelihoods, and Orthodox is a complete mystery to me.
The Orthodox and Protestant both broke off the main Christian branch, which became the Catholic branch in 1054 when the Orthodox church separated (during the Great Schism). The Orthodox church has stayed quite old. There are patriarchs at the top that each control a region, so there is no one ruler: it's all led by councils. “Lower” priests have a good place when it comes to larger decisions (at least in theory), so in a way it's more equal than the Catholic church. Meditation and prayers are much more important, so in a way they're more liberal than the Catholic church, but not as liberal as the Protestant church.
In what ways do you mean liberal? Tradition-wise or theologically or...? I see, so it's pretty similar to how the SBC operates structure-wise (Southern Baptist Convention), just much more dominant. I may need to bother you and Foin about this in pm or another thread so we don't hijack this one.
It's rather ironic to call an orthodoxy liberal in a sense - but I agree with Dreamscaper about the off-topic part
I like this article,it's from an orthodox site so I'll just show you what it says:
How old is the orthodox faith?
If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.
If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to re-marry.
If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.
If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.
If you are Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England, founded by Samuel Senbury in the American colonies in the 17th century.
If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1606.
If you are of the Dutch Reformed Church, you recognize Michelis Jones as founder because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.
If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1774.
If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, New York, in 1829.
If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.
If you are Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.
If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as "Church of the Nazarene, Pentecostal Gospel," "Holiness Church," or "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past hundred years.
If you are Roman Catholic, your church shared the same rich apostolic and doctrinal heritage as the Orthodox Church for the first thousand years of its history, since during the first millennium they were one and the same Church. Lamentably, in 1054, the Pope of Rome broke away from the other four Apostolic Patriarchates (which include Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), by tampering with the Original Creed of the Church, and considering himself to be infallible. Thus your church is 1,000 years old.
If you are Orthodox Christian, your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It has not changed since that time. Our church is now almost 2,000 years old. And it is for this reason, that Orthodoxy, the Church of the Apostles and the Fathers is considered the true "one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." This is the greatest legacy that we can pass on to the young people of the new millennium.
by Rev. Dr. Miltiades Efthimiou
nice summary there :]
New thread for this discussion in General.
I like how things are changing, first France, then the UK, and now the US...:
go go go !
One of the things that bums me out the most about gay rights stuff is that dissenters talk about homosexual rights like the mark of apocalypse for a society. Ignoring all other growth in culture and technology as if two gays that want to wear rings and have a label attached to them will make the statue of liberty crumble.
Maybe they mean it out of morality, but I know some homosexuals that have good morals outside of religious doctrine, just ideals about treating people properly and having respect. I think part of the reason people are so against gay rights is the gap in people that actually know any homosexuals well, versus people that just see those awful rancorous pride parades on TV.
Separate names with a comma.