Holy question

[Burt]

Does Religion clash with Science fiction? Some people have said that Star Trek is anti-religion. Do you think so? What about Shows like Babylon 5, which shows more of religon's in the future?

[Chancellor Valium]

I don't think so. I'm a science-fiction fan, but also a Roman Catholic, and many sci-fi fans I know are religious. I see no conflict, myself.

[PointyHairedJedi]

I wouldn't have said so, necessarily. Being a fan of SF might imply that you are more open to new ideas, but then again it might not. I don't really think that there's a solid correlation there either way.

[Chancellor Valium]

I wouldn't have said so, necessarily. Being a fan of SF might imply that you are more open to new ideas, but then again it might not. I don't really think that there's a solid correlation there either way.

In any case, why should someone religious not be open to new ideas?

[Burt]

I think it comes down to how closely you follow Religion. New ideas have always been frowned on by them. Nowadays a Religion, while still might be important in a persons life, isn't usually as dominant as it might have been a number of years ago. There is an interesting link between the popularity of the religion and that generation's attitude towards newer ideas. Women’s rights, different orientations, new technologies were not quite so popular a number of years ago – when religion was dominant.
In any case, a new idea must always be checked against the religions holy laws to make sure it will not clash. And since those laws can never change, they will always be in conflict with society, whose ideas and laws will always be evolving.

[Gatac]

Eh. I'm an atheist myself, but I don't see a problem.

Sci-fi deals with issues. When it talks about religion and philosophy, I think there needs to be a "live and let live" attitude. I mean, if you really believe, then they can say whatever the hell they want and give you a small grin, the one I get when I see a movie or show do something I think is wrong.

(For controversy's sake, I'm going to throw in the old tired 'People who shout loudest are trying to convince themselves the most' cliche and see if anyone bites.)

Gatac

[Ginga]

Oh, it wasn't science fiction that influenced my backing away from Catholicism. But I suppose for some people it could be a factor.

[Zeke]

What about Shows like Babylon 5, which shows more of religon's in the future?

It shows them all right, but JMS is very good at undercutting religion while making it look like he respects it. The Minbari faith, for example, is taken very seriously by the characters involved... but the show ends up providing a sci-fi explanation for literally everything in it. Brother Theo and his monks are considered nuts by Ivanova and Garibaldi (who actually questions their ability to watch a bunch of monitors); we also find out the government uses them as a nice wholeseome environment to put brainwashed criminals in, presumably programming in the whole believing-in-God thing. And even then JMS couldn't risk having sympathetic characters who were actual, real-life Christians -- Theo and his order were into religious equivalence, the whole "all religions are actually true from different perspectives" thing. Delenn dragged Sheridan to a Baptist revival when she thought it would be good for him, knowing neither of them believed a word that was said there. This is the sort of condescension I mean.

Of course, I'm not forgetting that Gene Roddenberry was even more anti-religion, and openly used Trek to attack it. He believed religion was a phase humanity would grow out of. It wasn't till DS9 and VOY that religion in Trek was taken seriously, and episodes like "Mortal Coil" and "Destiny" had really interesting takes on the subject.

To actually answer the poll question, I've known sci-fi fans from all sorts of religions -- and I don't know anyone whose faith or lack thereof changed because of their sf habits. So empirically speaking, it looks like the two can coexist just fine.

[Chancellor Valium]

I think it comes down to how closely you follow Religion. New ideas have always been frowned on by them. Nowadays a Religion, while still might be important in a persons life, isn't usually as dominant as it might have been a number of years ago. There is an interesting link between the popularity of the religion and that generation's attitude towards newer ideas. Women’s rights, different orientations, new technologies were not quite so popular a number of years ago – when religion was dominant.
In any case, a new idea must always be checked against the religions holy laws to make sure it will not clash. And since those laws can never change, they will always be in conflict with society, whose ideas and laws will always be evolving.

Um, nope. Religion is central to my life, but I still love sci-fi, and I'm willing to at least listen to new ideas.

[Burt]

There will always be exceptions with some people. Thankfully some seem to be able to find it's true core, i.e just be nice to each other etc, and fit it in to their lives. Sadly, though, the Religon's at the moment seem to be the blocks on any advancement.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

Sadly, though, the Religons at the moment seem to be the blocks on any advancement.

The ones that get the most airplay, at least. The progressive churches typically aren't the ones grabbing headlines, waving placards and generally making a stink about how this, that and the other thing is going to turn out children into Satan-worshippers.

The Jesuit order somehow manages to combing faith and the pursuit of knowledge without the universe exploding at the contradiction. It took me a while to realise this, though.

[e of pi]

The Jesuits are pretty dang cool, in my opinion. The only downside of attending one of their learning establishments is that every month-or-so you have to attend a mandatory naptime- err, prayer service. Great folks.

[Burt]

Again, nothing is absolute. Some religons are pretty cool. So long as they stick to the nice side of life, promoting peace and thing. Not cursing groups they dislike, and sending everyone to hell.
Sadly the groups and religons that are 'grabbing headlines, waving placards and generally making a stink about how this, that and the other thing is going to turn out children into Satan-worshippers.' seem to get far too many followers.

[Chancellor Valium]

There will always be exceptions with some people. Thankfully some seem to be able to find it's true core, i.e just be nice to each other etc, and fit it in to their lives. Sadly, though, the Religon's at the moment seem to be the blocks on any advancement.

Like what? Has it ocurred to you that many of science's clashes with religion in the modern world are over expediency for scientists, where often there are non-ethically challenging solutions, but for the sake of getting things done more easily scientists decide on a quicker route.

[Burt]

Yes. It has. But many religons are based on Thousand year old laws and beliefs. Things that are done nowadays, were unthinkable back then. Only 15 years ago did the Catholic Church admit that Galileo Galilei was right, and they were probley wrong for their opposition. I wouldn't say Scientst's take quicker routes or do things just to annoy religons. Religon, I think is scared of science - always has been. It worries that certain things will be answered. Things, they don't want answered.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

This is not going to end well...

[e of pi]

Stand by for incoming fire...or at least flames...

[Burt]

Then I guess it's time for, 'Shield's to Maximum'.

But really, joking aside. I'm not here to annoy or piss people off at random. It's just....there are things about Religon's that...disturb me greatly. And I think it's good to discuss these things.

[PointyHairedJedi]

Any organized religion will by it's very nature be resistant to change. Nowadays that means social rather than scientific (for the most part) issues. They'll catch up eventually, as they usually do (though sometimes not), but what's not acceptable is when that resistance to change has a directly negative impact on people's health and wellbeing.

Suffice it to say, I'm not a tremendous fan of organized religion for pretty much that reason alone.

[Tate]

I agree with Burt that it’s a good thing to discuss religious matters. As long as we stay on a friendly level, discussions of this nature can help us to come to a better understanding of other points of view, and hopefully point us to the truth of the issues. I have some opinions myself, and I’ll try to address some of the points Jedi made in his latest post.

(By the way, I hope no one will object to me focussing my discussion on Christianity. I realize that there are other beliefs and organized religions involved in the world today, but Christianity is the religion I am most familiar with; not to mention being the faith I believe is true. Unless otherwise stated, whenever I mention ‘religion’ in this post, I will be referring to Christianity—both the organized Church and the universal body of believers.)

Any organized religion will by it's very nature be resistant to change.

I think this may be a misunderstanding. While there are many instances of religion resisting change, it can also be an agent of change. Christianity derives its values from the Bible, which we believe is the inspired world of God. These values include moral standards and guidelines, in addition to historical, philosophical, theological, and scientific beliefs. If Christians realize that their society is not following these values, they will try to change their society.

This is, in part, the motive behind the American abolition movement (if God made all men in His image, it is wrong to degrade that image by subjecting some men to slavery), orphanages (God commands us to take care of fatherless children, rather than leave them to starve on the streets), and the American education system (it is important for everyone to be able to read, so they can understand the Bible for themselves).

When society begins to change on its own, and to reject biblical values (or what the Church assumes to be biblical values), Christianity does tend to resist. But the point of religion is not to resist change and remain in the past, but, rather, to adhere to its own standards. If society does not conform to these standards, religion will be in favor of change, but if society changes without regard for the standards, religion will resist the change.

…what's not acceptable is when that resistance to change has a directly negative impace on people's health and wellbeing.

I agree with this. Even though I believe Christians have a legitimate reason to act when society turns away from biblical values, we must take care how we act. We should follow the example of Jesus, speaking the truth with love. Though we shouldn’t compromise our beliefs, neither should we resort to unkind language. We should be careful not to condemn those who disagree with us, knowing that we have no righteousness of our own—nothing we have done makes us any better than anyone else.

Above all, Christians should not resort to violence to get our point across. Anyone who does so demonstrates a lack of faith in God; they feel that God doesn’t know when to act and that they have to take matters into their own hands. I’m not saying that no one who uses violent force is ever justified—certainly force can be used in national defense, for instance. But I don’t believe that Christians should use any violence in order to win converts or frighten unbelievers; such violence would be opposed to the teachings of Christ.

In conclusion, I do not believe that religion is always opposed to change. Religion holds to its own principles, and will promote or resist change depending on how the change lines up with those principles. And while I believe that religion is justified in resisting many types of change (including current social changes) I also believe that religious people should take care how we resist. We should remain civil and promote our values in a manner in keeping with the political and social frameworks we find ourselves in. There’s more I’d like to say, but I think I’ll leave it at that. I've probably bored everyone enough by now. :)

I hope that this debate will help us to be understanding of other opinions, and I hope it will help us to know the truth.

P. S. Lest this thread stray too far from the original topic, let me make a comment on the opening question. I think that sci-fi is a neutral medium. While it is easy for science fiction to reject spiritual things, it is also possible for sci-fi to promote a Christian viewpoint (The Space Trilogy by C. S. Lewis and The Firebird trilogy by Kathy Tyers are excellent examples of this). Sci-fi may turn someone away from religion, or it could turn someone to religion; it depends on both the sci-fi and the person. But I don’t think there is a fundamental conflict between the two.

[PointyHairedJedi]

^ I read the first book in a Christian SF series once - what basically happened at the end was that a load of persecuted Christians (persecuted by Space Romans, pretty much) got saved at the end by a miracle. Some might call it devotional, but I just call it lazy writing. :P

(I wish I could remember what it was called, but I can't for the life of me. It was pretty awful stuff anyhow.)

Here's a wacky point - given that there are so many branches of Christianity alone, who's interpretation is "right"? And if it's the case that they're all right, then doesn't that by logical extension mean that quite a few other religions are right too?

[Derek]

Hm. Didn't intend to find myself posting in this thread, but when we talk about CS Lewis, it's very hard to keep me out.

Any organized religion will by it's very nature be resistant to change.

I think this may be a misunderstanding. While there are many instances of religion resisting change, it can also be an agent of change.
Two things about "resistant to change."

1. Everyone's resistant to change. Has Star Trek VI taught us nothing?

2. Religions are depicted as being resistant to change because, by and large, a lot of legislation and societal mores are moving away from what the religions teach. If that trend were to reverse, I think you would see religions embracing the changes that would occur, while today's "progressives" would in turn become resistant to change, becoming essentially conservatives. And wouldn't that be hilarious.

it is also possible for sci-fi to promote a Christian viewpoint (The Space Trilogy by C. S. Lewis
Ah. The Space Trilogy.... Each book markedly different from the one before it. I love reading those books. Perelandra (second book) is probably my favorite though it strikes me as being least accessible to someone not already a Christian. Out of the Silent Planet is an interesting example of 1930s science fiction (or scientifiction, as it was initially called), which has the interesting twist of the human learning the alien language instead of the aliens learning English. That Hideous Strength is very long, very different, but still very good. I love reading those books. I normally re-read them once every year or two (along with LotR, Hobbit, Silmarillion, Narnia, and various other CS Lewis books).

Here's a wacky point - given that there are so many branches of Christianity alone, who's interpretation is "right"? And if it's the case that they're all right, then doesn't that by logical extension mean that quite a few other religions are right too?
And since I'm already speaking of CS Lewis, I'll mention a neat little book he wrote called Mere Christianity, which attempts (successfully, imo) to show that there is a common ground among branches of Christianity that is universal to all branches, yet different from all other non-Christian religions. It's intended to be accessible to anyone of any religious background (or of no religious background), so anyone interested should pick up a copy.

[Chancellor Valium]

Yes. It has. But many religons are based on Thousand year old laws and beliefs. Things that are done nowadays, were unthinkable back then. Only 15 years ago did the Catholic Church admit that Galileo Galilei was right, and they were probley wrong for their opposition. I wouldn't say Scientst's take quicker routes or do things just to annoy religons. Religon, I think is scared of science - always has been. It worries that certain things will be answered. Things, they don't want answered.

What you don't often hear about Galilei is just how much of a shit-stirrer he was. He deliberately sent-up the Pope who had, up until then, supported him. How would you react to being parodied in a book after giving support to the author?

Did you know that the tenets of this country's law is based on thousand year old beliefs? Does that make it outmoded and wrong? Does that mean that all of a sudden its right to steal?

For the record, Christianity is based on two-thousand year old laws and beliefs. That still doesn't mean that it is wrong to love your neighbour as yourself.

[PointyHairedJedi]

The problem being, a lot of "Christians" don't.

[Gatac]

My take on it is basically "Believe what you want, but let us believe what we want". I don't mean this in a bad way, but it seems religion goes wrong when the believers try to muscle in on "heathen" territory.

Which is why I think religious education needs to be more widespread, but cover the world's major religions in greater variety. The ethical rules a society depends on for existence aren't unique to any one creed; agree on them, the rest is your business.

Yes, this has several funky spots (What happens to your children? What if your beliefs are harmful to yourself?), but I think that can be worked out. I dread the alternative where everything I do that doesn't follow the one true religion is automatically suspect; there is no morality without choice.

I know, I'm exagerating, but let me dig out one of the great debates of our time: stem-cell research. It is my opinion that if everyone directly involved in the process - donors, scientists, medical professionals and patients - are okay with it, the greater population is free to not accept these methods, but not in trying to keep it out of everyone's hands. I do know that many religious orientations feature a strong "save the unbelievers from themselves" theme, but this is where the fun stops for me; it's not religious tolerance to let somebody harass and decry other beliefs.

To wrap this up, here's a quote from Boondock Saints, where a handful of heavily-armed sociopaths make my point. :D

Murphy: Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace.
Connor: These are not polite suggestions, these are codes of behavior, and those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost.
Murphy: There are varying degrees of evil. We urge you lesser forms of filth, not to push the bounds and cross over, into true corruption, into our domain.
Connor: For if you do, one day you will look behind you and you will see we three, and on that day you will reap it.
Murphy: And we will send you to whatever god you wish.

Gatac

[Burt]

What you don't often hear about Galilei is just how much of a shit-stirrer he was. He deliberately sent-up the Pope who had, up until then, supported him. How would you react to being parodied in a book after giving support to the author?

That gives them the right to class him as a heretic? Keep him under house arrest for the rest of this life? Refuse to allow anyone to believe his (Mostly Correct) Theories? Shouldn't a pope be able to 'Forgive and Forget'? In Any case this happened not just with Galilei, but with many others. They were a threat to Christianity.


Did you know that the tenets of this country's law is based on thousand year old beliefs? Does that make it outmoded and wrong? Does that mean that all of a sudden its right to steal?
Did you know that it was the Law for a man to keep a slave? Or that Women couldn't vote. But do we still have those laws? No. Of course not. Because they do not apply to TODAY'S world. Women are equal to men. Why then is it hard for females to join the church, and attain higher levels?
Yes change in the law can be hard, but it can come round, because the law of a country is not the basis of that countries beliefs - it's an extension of the countries needs. Do we need to protect against theft? Yes, that’s why we have laws against them. Do we need to protect against people of different sexual orientations marrying? No. That’s why the idea of changing laws to 'Outlaw' things that a people 'don't like' is so dangerous.
But laws do change - Religious 'Laws' do not. They can't because, how can you change something that was supposedly influenced by a God? You can't. What was written then has to stay right up till now.
But the problem is....then doesn't always work, with now.


For the record, Christianity is based on two-thousand year old laws and beliefs.
For the record’s record, as Christianity is based partly on the Old Testament’s ‘Laws and Beliefs’ and it was written between the 5th and 2nd Century BC, Christianity is somewhat more than two-thousand.

That still doesn't mean that it is wrong to love your neighbour as yourself.
Watch the Irish Catholics throw things at Protestant children as they go to school, and vice versa, and then make that claim….

[Chancellor Valium]

That gives them the right to class him as a heretic? Keep him under house arrest for the rest of this life? Refuse to allow anyone to believe his (Mostly Correct) Theories? Shouldn't a pope be able to 'Forgive and Forget'? In Any case this happened not just with Galilei, but with many others. They were a threat to Christianity.

Maybe not, but frankly, he was dealing with man in the Middle Ages. He should have known better than to start insulting powerful men left, right and centre. Furthermore, the Inquisition, not the Church itself, classed him as a heretic, and as you should remember, the Inquisition was set up not by the Pope, but by Ferdinand + Isabella.



Did you know that it was the Law for a man to keep a slave? Or that Women couldn't vote. But do we still have those laws? No. Of course not. Because they do not apply to TODAY'S world. Women are equal to men. Why then is it hard for females to join the church, and attain higher levels?
Yes change in the law can be hard, but it can come round, because the law of a country is not the basis of that countries beliefs - it's an extension of the countries needs. Do we need to protect against theft? Yes, that’s why we have laws against them. Do we need to protect against people of different sexual orientations marrying? No. That’s why the idea of changing laws to 'Outlaw' things that a people 'don't like' is so dangerous.
But laws do change - Religious 'Laws' do not. They can't because, how can you change something that was supposedly influenced by a God? You can't. What was written then has to stay right up till now.
But the problem is....then doesn't always work, with now.

The problem is, that people seem to have this idea that the mood of the century outweighs a prevailing law that has lasted two millennia. There will be an anti-same-sex swing back, in time. But religious law is based on God. God is eternal, and unchanging. He won't change with the latest 'hip' thing to think.


For the record’s record, as Christianity is based partly on the Old Testament’s ‘Laws and Beliefs’ and it was written between the 5th and 2nd Century BC, Christianity is somewhat more than two-thousand.

In part. The majority is actually based on the teaching of Jesus the Nazarene for most mainstream denominations.


Watch the Irish Catholics throw things at Protestant children as they go to school, and vice versa, and then make that claim….
And do you have any idea why they are throwing things? These are people who have had their homes invaded and were persecuted for centuries. The protestants aren't ruddy Irish! They don't belong in Ireland, the were just thrust there to make James the Sixth and First feel better. They invaded, stole jobs, homes, churches and acted all superior. They're why Ulster hasn't been repatriated to Ireland. They are, in short, a menace that the people of Ulster have had to put up with for about 500 years, and frankly after that amount of time you and I wouldn't care about whether the targets of our agression were children or adults either.

I'm sorry, but this is a particularly sensitive topic for me as I'm a quarter Irish.

[Burt]

Maybe not, but frankly, he was dealing with man in the Middle Ages. He should have known better than to start insulting powerful men left, right and centre. Furthermore, the Inquisition, not the Church itself, classed him as a heretic, and as you should remember, the Inquisition was set up not by the Pope, but by Ferdinand + Isabella.

Easy to say now. But the Church could have easy undone what they did. Instead they waited hundreds of years to refute their points. And a man was persecuted as a Heretic for years, and his theories, which could help mankind and science, are ignored.
And come on. Talk about blaming the victim! Nice to see, that if insulted, the ‘Holy goodness’ of the church comes crashing down, and they are happy to damage others.



The problem is, that people seem to have this idea that the mood of the century outweighs a prevailing law that has lasted two millennia. There will be an anti-same-sex swing back, in time. But religious law is based on God. God is eternal, and unchanging. He won't change with the latest 'hip' thing to think. .

What!? The rights of all other men and women to be equal in the world..., is a ‘Mood of the Century’?! Granted some laws maybe….errors, but in general laws follow society. And I think laws nowadays are pretty good. Not perfect, but good. Back in Gods day, beating your wife with certain sized objects was acceptable. Child labour was fine. It’s utterly, utterly silly to say that. And as for the Anti-same-sex ‘swing’ back? Well I’m not sure if I should laugh or be afraid. The idea, that ALL PEOPLE are equal is something scared. Something that the Church should understand, more than others. Yet they attack it again and again. And I have sat and listened in disbelief to the POPE’S unedited speech of how ‘Homosexuality’ will destroy our morals, children and world.
God is eternal
God is unchanging
Then God is wrong

Yes, somewhat of a sensitive topic for me, being Gay myself.

And do you have any idea why they are throwing things? These are people who have had their homes invaded and were persecuted for centuries. The protestants aren't ruddy Irish! They don't belong in Ireland, the were just thrust there to make James the Sixth and First feel better. They invaded, stole jobs, homes, churches and acted all superior. They're why Ulster hasn't been repatriated to Ireland. They are, in short, a menace that the people of Ulster have had to put up with for about 500 years, and frankly after that amount of time you and I wouldn't care about whether the targets of our aggression were children or adults either. .

It’s not the 18th Century!! They are not slaves revolting! There is no reason why they can’t get along with each other. And even if they have that trouble, attacking Children,… Children? Because of a difference in Religion?
They have not been alive for 500 years.
Just the last few.
It really does make me sick.
For your information, my mother is Irish and Catholic. I’ve been to and studied Ireland many times. I’m very well aware of the topic. I’m still very well aware that there is no need to act like that, because of a difference in Nationality/Religion.
As a sidebar, should the Native Americans be allowed to kill American’s? By right, their suffering was much worse. And the Australian Aborigines?

[Chancellor Valium]

Easy to say now. But the Church could have easy undone what they did. Instead they waited hundreds of years to refute their points. And a man was persecuted as a Heretic for years, and his theories, which could help mankind and science, are ignored.
And come on. Talk about blaming the victim! Nice to see, that if insulted, the ‘Holy goodness’ of the church comes crashing down, and they are happy to damage others.

Not the Church, individuals.
That's like blaming all gay men and women for the actions of a few rapists.




What!? The rights of all other men and women to be equal in the world..., is a ‘Mood of the Century’?! Granted some laws maybe….errors, but in general laws follow society. And I think laws nowadays are pretty good. Not perfect, but good. Back in Gods day, beating your wife with certain sized objects was acceptable. Child labour was fine. It’s utterly, utterly silly to say that. And as for the Anti-same-sex ‘swing’ back? Well I’m not sure if I should laugh or be afraid. The idea, that ALL PEOPLE are equal is something scared. Something that the Church should understand, more than others. Yet they attack it again and again. And I have sat and listened in disbelief to the POPE’S unedited speech of how ‘Homosexuality’ will destroy our morals, children and world.
God is eternal
God is unchanging
Then God is wrong

Thats your opinion. What I meant was that all political opinions change with time.
If you were really listening to his speech, you wouldn't make such generalisations on what he said. There is no doctrine condemning homosexuality. In fact, if you knew the first thing about Catholicism, you would know that homosexuality is fine with the Church. Sex that is not for reproductive purposes is not. Those are the boundaries. At least try to read up before arguing these things.

You say 'Back in God's day', but what you mean is back in the day when men were not afraid to hide behind God as an excuse for such things.

You're right. The law today is in general pretty good. In our opinion. In two hundred years, this time may be looked back on with horror as an era of hedonistic debauchery on a massive scale...


Yes, somewhat of a sensitive topic for me, being Gay myself.

Bully for you.

I'm Roman Catholic, so congratulations, you've insulted me, too :)


It’s not the 18th Century!! They are not slaves revolting! There is no reason why they can’t get along with each other. And even if they have that trouble, attacking Children,… Children? Because of a difference in Religion?
They have not been alive for 500 years.
Just the last few.
It really does make me sick.
For your information, my mother is Irish and Catholic. I’ve been to and studied Ireland many times. I’m very well aware of the topic. I’m still very well aware that there is no need to act like that, because of a difference in Nationality/Religion.
As a sidebar, should the Native Americans be allowed to kill American’s? By right, their suffering was much worse. And the Australian Aborigines?
I'm not excusing what's being done. I don't think its right- thank you very much for assuming that because I attempt to explain something to you I disapprove of it. You know what? I'm not going to even bother arguing with you - you've insinuated enough insults against me and who I am and what I stand for, and, unlike you, I'll give you my response plainly: fuck off.

[e of pi]

Okay, okay. Let's calm down and just agree that there will obviously never be a resolution. I think all the bases have been covered, and now you two are starting to decend into insults. Cool it, I think this thread's useful lifespan is over.

[Chancellor Valium]

Great idea - e! That's right, lets sweep our problems under the carpet and pretend they're not there!

[Burt]

Not the Church, individuals.
That's like blaming all gay men and women for the actions of a few rapists.
No, no, no! The only link between Gay people is their prefrence of Partners. But after that, they are all different.
A person in the Church is within the Umbrella of those rules and ideas. It' impose's those ideas on them.

Thats your opinion. What I meant was that all political opinions change with time.
If you were really listening to his speech, you wouldn't make such generalisations on what he said. There is no doctrine condemning homosexuality. In fact, if you knew the first thing about Catholicism, you would know that homosexuality is fine with the Church. Sex that is not for reproductive purposes is not. Those are the boundaries. At least try to read up before arguing these things.

Yeah, mate, Catholic family. And Believe me, I've studied Religons.
By the way, The Catholic Church are against Gay people. It's clear. To say there're not, is just being ignorant.
Being part of a Religon is a choice. You choose to do that.
I'm Gay, by...I don't know, nature...chemicals in the brain, DNA. Out of my control.
See the difference? You choose it. I didn't.
Telling me I must be Abstain from sex just because that Church dissaproves of it, is just plain unfair.
That is the Sickening Ideas of the Church. 'We don't like what you do. Stop it, or we'll attack you.'
Intolerence is an ugly thing.

In any case. You'll never see my point of view. Clearly, you like your Religon. I most certainly will never see your side.
Ever watch the X-Men Movie?
It's always easy to dismiss 'outsiders' till it happens to you or somebody close to you.

[Chancellor Valium]

No, no, no! The only link between Gay people is their prefrence of Partners. But after that, they are all different.
A person in the Church is within the Umbrella of those rules and ideas. It' impose's those ideas on them.
Its not about truth, judging by your comments, its about the nature of the comment itself.



Yeah, mate, Catholic family. And Believe me, I've studied Religons.
By the way, The Catholic Church are against Gay people. It's clear. To say there're not, is just being ignorant.
Being part of a Religon is a choice. You choose to do that.
I'm Gay, by...I don't know, nature...chemicals in the brain, DNA. Out of my control.
See the difference? You choose it. I didn't.
Telling me I must be Abstain from sex just because that Church dissaproves of it, is just plain unfair.
That is the Sickening Ideas of the Church. 'We don't like what you do. Stop it, or we'll attack you.'

That's just plain fucking stupid. I am IN the fucking church. I wrote two thirty-thousand words essays on the church, one of which was on the Church's attitude to homosexuals. I know plenty about it. If you'd care to get off your fucking high horse, take the blinkers of YOUR eyes, and see the truth. That you've been indoctrinated by your own ego and have listened to what you've been force-fed by the mass media is pathetic, nay, sickening.

Intolerence is an ugly thing.

Look in a mirror.

In any case. You'll never see my point of view. Clearly, you like your Religon. I most certainly will never see your side.
Ever watch the X-Men Movie?
It's always easy to dismiss 'outsiders' till it happens to you or somebody close to you.
Oh, screw off. At least I am willing to listen to a contrary point of view. I am perfectly tolerant of others, and it is YOU, not I, who started making personal insinuations.

[Burt]

Just because I don't agree with your ideas, doen't mean I won't listen.

And because I have other opinions, I'm on a high Horse?


Mate. Swearing?

[Gatac]

I seem to recall that a similar debate sunk the Abortion thread...so guys, please, settle down. You're not action heroes locked in a mortal struggle.

And I'd really like to debate this further. So here goes my part:

Regarding Christian acceptance of Homosexuality, this is a rather sad case of the people who make the most noise being heard. Yes, Christianity has its extremists, and they're shouting really loud. If there's something to lament here it's that the many decent Christians never seem to get on TV and say that all the "religious" guys on there are blatantly pandering to the extreme right wing. I don't know if the majority of Christians would come out to say that they outright support homosexuality, but I'm sure most of them do not actively care either way. Live and let live.

While I agree that homosexuality is how you're born (or become at a young age), the subculture does seem to gather what I've often seen in minorities, real or imagined: persecution complex. I'm not saying it happens to everyone, I'm not saying that gay people are perfectly safe everywhere, but alas, thou doth protest too much, occasionally. It's what made Feminism and Black Power nearly unbearable to me. At a certain point, drawing attention to your (legitimate) concerns becomes simply drawing attention to yourself. [If I was mean and cranky, I'd point out how insufferably stupid many ads these days portray caucasian males, as if empowering women requires that their husbands/boyfriends become idiots. I don't call this enlightened.]

Tolerance cuts both ways. You do what you want as long as you let me do what I want. Trying to cast criticism of your position as persecution of your perceived minority status is wrong.

Gatac

[Chancellor Valium]

Just because I don't agree with your ideas, doen't mean I won't listen.

And because I have other opinions, I'm on a high Horse?


Mate. Swearing?

You refused to listen, deliberately misinterpreting my comments and twisting my words to suit your agenda, and flat-out telling me that I've got it wrong about my own religious beliefs, even. Furthermore, you then insiniuated fairly consistently that I'm a blind, bigoted fool.
I don't expect you to actually accept any of what I say, but I felt the need to set the record straight.

And frankly, if I were so unfortunate as to fall into the category of your 'mate', I would not be around much longer to suffer in it. My swearing simply indicates a fraction of the degree to which you angered me.

Oh, and a final nitpick - you don't need a capital for 'horse'.

[Burt]

I seem to recall that a similar debate sunk the Abortion thread...so guys, please, settle down. You're not action heroes locked in a mortal struggle.

And I'd really like to debate this further. So here goes my part:

Regarding Christian acceptance of Homosexuality, this is a rather sad case of the people who make the most noise being heard. Yes, Christianity has its extremists, and they're shouting really loud. If there's something to lament here it's that the many decent Christians never seem to get on TV and say that all the "religious" guys on there are blatantly pandering to the extreme right wing. I don't know if the majority of Christians would come out to say that they outright support homosexuality, but I'm sure most of them do not actively care either way. Live and let live.

While I agree that homosexuality is how you're born (or become at a young age), the subculture does seem to gather what I've often seen in minorities, real or imagined: persecution complex. I'm not saying it happens to everyone, I'm not saying that gay people are perfectly safe everywhere, but alas, thou doth protest too much, occasionally. It's what made Feminism and Black Power nearly unbearable to me. At a certain point, drawing attention to your (legitimate) concerns becomes simply drawing attention to yourself. [If I was mean and cranky, I'd point out how insufferably stupid many ads these days portray caucasian males, as if empowering women requires that their husbands/boyfriends become idiots. I don't call this enlightened.]

Tolerance cuts both ways. You do what you want as long as you let me do what I want. Trying to cast criticism of your position as persecution of your perceived minority status is wrong.

Gatac


It's funny, because I never really cared either way what people thought. Never bothered me. Some friends and family pointed out how there were...people who were less than tolerent of being Gay around, but I never really noticed it or if I did - care. Then I started to learn more about The whole Gay rights thing and a lot of points and areas with some religons clashed rather hard. And the more I think about it, the more it annoys me. The Christian Church and Islamic Council of Britain were very insistant on their views against Civil Partnerships.
I know Gatac, you don't mean any harm by what you're saying, and to be honest all the Feminism and Black Power stuff does start to grate on ( I mean, I'm not even sure what terms are ok to say anymore!) and god forbid I ever turn in to a person that becomes 'minority-centred', sidebar:
I read a letter that a guy wrote in to a magazine where he wanted all shops to chage the name of 'Faggots' (A type of Welsh food) because it's rude to Gay people. Thats just too, too far.
But the point is, I've never been a fan of Religon. I seen certain Religons really mess up two friends. Starting off on that base, I find myself, everyday, reading in Books, Newspapers, Internet, etc of different Religon's 'Problems' against not just myself but anyone who is different. How they oppose getting married, or speak out against how Gay people with corrupt others. And you know what I find that it annoys me. What I find amazing, is how Religon is still so...'protected', when it comes to a person with views and critisim, yet it's ok for a mainstream church it come out with the statments like they do against a whole group of people. And yes some people will say the statments shouldn't be misunderstood etc. But even the basic words they use, 'Sin', 'morally disordered'. I really don't need to be hearing these things about me. It's just not Cricket.

[Chancellor Valium]

It's funny, because I never really cared either way what people thought. Never bothered me. Some friends and family pointed out how there were...people who were less than tolerent of being Gay around, but I never really noticed it or if I did - care. Then I started to learn more about The whole Gay rights thing and a lot of points and areas with some religons clashed rather hard. And the more I think about it, the more it annoys me. The Christian Church and Islamic Council of Britain were very insistant on their views against Civil Partnerships.
I know Gatac, you don't mean any harm by what you're saying, and to be honest all the Feminism and Black Power stuff does start to grate on ( I mean, I'm not even sure what terms are ok to say anymore!) and god forbid I ever turn in to a person that becomes 'minority-centred', sidebar:
I read a letter that a guy wrote in to a magazine where he wanted all shops to chage the name of 'Faggots' (A type of Welsh food) because it's rude to Gay people. Thats just too, too far.
But the point is, I've never been a fan of Religon. I seen certain Religons really mess up two friends. Starting off on that base, I find myself, everyday, reading in Books, Newspapers, Internet, etc of different Religon's 'Problems' against not just myself but anyone who is different. How they oppose getting married, or speak out against how Gay people with corrupt others. And you know what I find that it annoys me. What I find amazing, is how Religon is still so...'protected', when it comes to a person with views and critisim, yet it's ok for a mainstream church it come out with the statments like they do against a whole group of people. And yes some people will say the statments shouldn't be misunderstood etc. But even the basic words they use, 'Sin', 'morally disordered'. I really don't need to be hearing these things about me. It's just not Cricket.
That is a product of our society's obsession with proving that religion is evil, which is, in itself, I think, a sign of insecurity about anything which takes a definite stand-point. I'm not sure why, but working things out to do with homo 'sapiens' is always nigh-on-impossible.

All right, yes, its a rather paranoid perspective, but in part its true. This country, and the US and most other places that were under British Rule at some point are and were virulently anti-Catholic, and developed all sorts of increasingly insidious propaganda against Catholics, which is all nonsense. Having researched many of the accusations laid against Catholicism, I've found few which have an actual grounding in fact. What we see now is simply the overlaying of this specifically anti-Catholic view onto the all religious beliefs. I think. An example of this is in regards to homosexuality, where the actual ethical beliefs have been misinterpreted by the mass media over such a long time that now many assume it to be true. In the case of Catholicism, if homosexuality in itself - the attraction of those of one sex to others of the same sex - was considered wrong, then why would the Pope have recently relaxed the rules on celibate gay priests?

Frankly, while I'm very sorry for your friends, religion is what you make of it, IMO. If you interpret the symbols the right way, God can want you to wage war, or eat spaghetti.

[Burt]

That’s the part I dislike. Religion can be fine. I may not quite agree with some of it's ideas on creation etc i.e. world in seven days, or water into wine, but hey, it hurts nobody. (Unless people insist on teaching that in schools ‘instead’ of science. Ala’ certain American states. As well as – fine. Instead of? Not so much). What I'm not pleased about, is the use of a Religion as a means of opposing things that someone dislikes. If a person really truly, has a problem with Homosexuals, then so long as you're polite about it, fine! I mean, honestly, (and maybe somewhat hypocritically) I'm not overly great with the idea of Trans-Gender people. Might be because I don’t really know any people with those issues, but I understand they still need their rights, because they’ve not done anything wrong. But when a Religions start using words like ‘grave sins’, it somewhat moves peoples opinions for them. In the least, it doesn’t help matters.
But yes I did study the ….(document with the longest name in the world)… ‘Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders’, which you speak of. And yes it was better than hoped. And it’s fine for the Catholic Church to ask that it’s Homosexual Priests must promise sexual abstinence. All priests must be practice celibacy, straight or not. However, such groups like Jehovah Witnesses insist on Homosexual abstinence only. Well that’s about the same as asking a Felmale to dress in male clothes or some such.

I did find a great site, written by someone, using clear and simple science to prove certain things, this time being the debate about Creationism. I found it very good.
http://members.shaw.ca/amitdeshwar/creationism.html

But this whole debate has somewhat move to the one subject. On the very first point, I remember there being a small uproar about Picard's line in 'Who Watches The Watchers'. The 'sending the Mintakans back to the dark ages because of Religion' bit. I don't know. Evidence of Star Trek being Anti-Religion? What about Doctor Who though? It has many, many stories which take Religion and such and turn it into Science or Aliens. See 'The Satan Pit'.

[Gatac]

I think that what Picard was referring to when he said that was religion replacing science, or more precisely, scientific method.

Religion contains many, many things that we can not test for and falsify. For these, philosophy and religion can argue about the great intangibles - is there a Heaven, is there a God, do we have souls? However, things that we can test for should be tested for, not blindly believed. Where scientific research and religious dogma differ, the rational choice is science.

The bible doesn't tell us how to make microchips. Conversely, Stephen Hawking doesn't know where you'll go when you die.

For some people, this might imply a God of the gaps. However, that is inaccurate; God of the gaps attributes everything Science can't explain yet to God. I propose that we will eventually learn everything important about the physical world, so there will be no more gaps to hide in there. Focus on the spiritual, where Science can not penetrate.

Gatac

[Chancellor Valium]

That’s the part I dislike. Religion can be fine. I may not quite agree with some of it's ideas on creation etc i.e. world in seven days, or water into wine, but hey, it hurts nobody. (Unless people insist on teaching that in schools ‘instead’ of science. Ala’ certain American states. As well as – fine. Instead of? Not so much).

Yeah, the whole one or t'other attitude isn't the most logical.


What I'm not pleased about, is the use of a Religion as a means of opposing things that someone dislikes. If a person really truly, has a problem with Homosexuals, then so long as you're polite about it, fine! I mean, honestly, (and maybe somewhat hypocritically) I'm not overly great with the idea of Trans-Gender people. Might be because I don’t really know any people with those issues, but I understand they still need their rights, because they’ve not done anything wrong. But when a Religions start using words like ‘grave sins’, it somewhat moves peoples opinions for them. In the least, it doesn’t help matters.

It depends, I think, on whether the 'grave sins' are eating pancakes or chocolate or genocide, IMO...

But yes I did study the ….(document with the longest name in the world)
Heh, try Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. By the time you've finished the title, it's time for tea...

… ‘Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders’, which you speak of. And yes it was better than hoped. And it’s fine for the Catholic Church to ask that it’s Homosexual Priests must promise sexual abstinence. All priests must be practice celibacy, straight or not. However, such groups like Jehovah Witnesses insist on Homosexual abstinence only. Well that’s about the same as asking a Felmale to dress in male clothes or some such.

I'll have to take your word for it. I tend to send J's Ws running with stern looks and telling them I believe in Ethical Non-Cognitivism.


I did find a great site, written by someone, using clear and simple science to prove certain things, this time being the debate about Creationism. I found it very good.
http://members.shaw.ca/amitdeshwar/creationism.html

Personally, I'd always assumed the Genesis Creation to be allegorical, like St. John's.


But this whole debate has somewhat move to the one subject. On the very first point, I remember there being a small uproar about Picard's line in 'Who Watches The Watchers'. The 'sending the Mintakans back to the dark ages because of Religion' bit. I don't know. Evidence of Star Trek being Anti-Religion? What about Doctor Who though? It has many, many stories which take Religion and such and turn it into Science or Aliens. See 'The Satan Pit'.
Mmm. That's one thing that has always somewhat irritated me, personally, alongside the shiny perfection of the UFP. Kept reminding me of the Nutrimatic drinks dispenser...In some ways, I feel that DS9 best handled religion and science in science fiction, up until BSG, which I think is possibly going to really develop these themes in s3...You're right, of course. Especially in Doctor Who there are a lot of gods and would-be gods who turn out to simply be pseudo-omnipotent beings, or people with delusions of grandeur, or both. And more generally there is a tendency in sci-fi to dismiss religion. Personally, I can't see a clash between religion and science unless one or another side pushes one.

[Gatac]

The Christian concept of "Sin" has spawned a few interesting developments. Take, for example, Antinomianism, which holds that souls are only saved by the grace of God - hence meaning that your salvation is totally independant from whatever sins you may have committed in your lifetime.

As the Rotten Library on the topic puts it:

In other words, par-TAY! (http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/heresy/antinomianism/)

For all the hype, they didn't really seem to do anything noteworthy, though.

Gatac

[Zeke]

Wow. I just discovered what was going on in this thread. Glad it eventually settled down without my having to intervene.

In future, if a fight like this starts and I don't react, can someone please PM me? I don't read every post in Misc.

[PointyHairedJedi]

Glad it eventually settled down without my having to intervene.
Maybe there's a lesson in there somewhere, Zeke...?

[Hejira]

Yeah, but intervention's quicker.

[Burt]

Yeah, but intervention's quicker.

Somehow, I think you may have missed the point

[mudshark]

No, I don't think she did.

[e of pi]

Yeah, I hate to say this, but when I had talked to the two of you, you both said you were willing to risk a banning as long as you got in the last word. This thing could have gotten really ugly if yuo two hadn't slowed down when you did.

[Burt]

Yeah, I hate to say this, but when I had talked to the two of you, you both said you were willing to risk a banning as long as you got in the last word. This thing could have gotten really ugly if yuo two hadn't slowed down when you did.

That's a very childish way of saying something. I know they weren't my words, and I'm guessing the Chancellor didn't say he just wanted to 'Get the last word in'.
I had my points to make and he had his. Maybe we made them too harshly, and maybe there shouldn't have been swearing. But the point of a Online forum to to discuss. No-one forces anyone to read anything.
A 'Banning' is insignificant against making sure you're true to your principles
and beliefs.

To be honest I may not agree what The Chancellor says, but I have a hell of a lot more respect for him than some others. As he put it when people suggested we change the subject:

Great idea - e! That's right, lets sweep our problems under the carpet and pretend they're not there!
So no. Lets not do that.

And yes. It seems some arguments can become heated. But like everything else in the universe they will cool. Maybe not totally, but at least below boiling point! And ours did. We'd finally said our pieces and moved on to other parts. Nuclear War averted.
Having someone come in a 'intervene' will solve nothing. Yes at times, it might be needed. But usually people will be left... unsatisfied.

[Zeke]

Maybe there's a lesson in there somewhere, Zeke...?

There would be if I were a Nazi admin like they have in some forums. My only modding hot button is politics, which I've learned the hard way not to let into this forum, and I think I'm going to relax even that rule somewhat.

(Unless the lesson you mean is "Don't ignore Misc," in which case point taken.)

Anyway, I really dislike closing threads, but this one's time has come -- I probably should have closed it with my previous post. The argument is over and should be let lie. If this is a problem for anyone, PM me.