In response to the Feb. 27 news story “Maine’s gay marriage effort: what’s different?” the BDN Feb. 2 editorial “Insuring Contraception” and Bishop Malone’s recent statements about “natural law,” here’s an exercise that would win an F in logic class.
According to natural law, the purpose of eating food is nutrition. Therefore, eating non-nutritious (junk) food for enjoyment is a sin. The purpose of walking is to go somewhere. Therefore, walking without going anywhere (exercise) is a sin.
The purpose of marriage is procreation. Therefore, marriage between nonprocreating (nonfertile) people is a sin.
Based on the clear purposes involved in eating, walking and marriage, natural law deems that all junk food should be banned, aimless walking should be punished and persons intending marriage should first pass fertility tests. Ludicrous? Yes. Why? Because oversimplification to achieve so-called clarity inevitably leads to ridiculous conclusions.
Human activity and life itself are a bundle of related purposes that are constantly illuminated by science and human understanding. We learn as we go.
By trading common sense and human achievements for oversimplification, religious fundamentalists and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have painted themselves into a theological corner.
As people have known for centuries, and the fundamentalists well know, the purpose of marriage includes relationships and family support that go beyond birthing children. As they well know, common sense and laws differentiate civil marriage from sacramental or religiously sanctioned marriage. Couples can be married by a cleric in a cathedral or a guru on a windy hill in the boonies, but they still need a marriage license. As they know, common sense and medical science differentiate between contraception and abortion.
If a religious institution wants to deny sacramental marriage to a gay couple, fine. If a religious group wants to extend that denial to civil marriage, not fine. If a religious institution wants to deny contraception or abortion to its own believers, fine. If a religious group wants to extend that denial to those who are not members of their congregation, not fine.
This country is not and was not founded as a theocracy. If it were, then all religions could, and should, do political battle over gay marriage, contraception, abortion, blood transfusions, stem cell research, organ transplants, surgery that changes the “natural” body, food supplies, non-natural medications and any other issue that might transfer particular religious beliefs into law. The churches can hammer out which belief is the right one, and which belief should determine the laws of the country.
Separation of church and state made sense to the founding fathers. It also made sense to a street preacher 2,000 years ago when He said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
If we forget to make such common sense distinctions, then we shall repeat the Galileo censorship, the Inquisitions, the Crusades, the burning of witches, the Holocast and other regrettable atrocities that are falsely clustered under God’s name.
Anita Siegenthaler lives in Port Clyde.
Excellent argument. Funny how the party that gets bent out of shape over seatbelts and fireworks is also the one that wants to tell you exactly how to live your personal life and exactly what your family make up should be.
Eh, as one who is liberal (albeit libertarian) I am bent out of shape over seatbelt laws and fireworks laws as well.
My point was to highlight the inconsistencies. Is it really reasonable to get riled up over having to wear a seatbelt, but then advocate for much extremer infringements on the rights of others?
fwteagles: It is funny, that those who seem most concerned, about their own freedoms, have no consideration for others.
Affording others the same rights you are afforded doesn’t make you less free.
Santorum said he doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state. As the fundamentalists and the Church attack the government, it makes you suspect their true intent.
The Church spent a thousand years showing us their view of how the world would look under
their dominion; it was a dark period of history.
Why would it be any different now? The Church still uses the same book and thinking that
made heretics of those who thought different. I really wish the Church would take the stone out of their eye before trying to take the speck out of mine.
I’d feel better if the Church stuck to spiritual matters and left politics and our bodies
to whom they belong.
You and I probably agree about a lot of things, including our opinions about Rick Santorum. However, the churches — like any other organizations (NAACP, Planned Parenthood, etc.) — have a right to speak out on ethical and moral issues. Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, Temples, etc., must not endorse candidates or parties, but it would be wrong to tell a church “you are not allowed to have a public opinion on moral issues.” What if the government told Rev. Martin Luther King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference that it was not allowed to take a stand on racial segregation? The spiritual matters are often political. Jesus told us to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, comfort the sick, visit those in prison, clothe the naked and welcome the stranger — and so many churches support social (governmental) programs that help “the least among us” like Medicare, Medicaid, TANF, LIHEAP, WIC, and humane policies on immigration, based on their understanding of the moral teachings of Jesus. He said “blessed are the peacemakers” and “put down your sword,” and so many churches support efforts for peace. You can’t tell us to have no opinions about moral issues — that would violate our religious beliefs, and violate the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment.
All true, and I wouldn’t want the church to be silenced for many reasons, the biggest one for me personally is they are always good for a laugh. What I think Barst meant was, when people were running things using the “moral authority” of Christianity it was not a fun time for most people. There is a reason they call it the Dark Ages. He is just saying, “been there, done that, and it didn’t work out so well for the little people or society as a whole.”
Yet he says the church should stick to spiritual matters and leave politics alone — yet the spiritual often has political implications. The movement to end slavery centered in the Christian churches, as did the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s. My church supports the freedom of gays to marry, supports the freedom of women to use birth control and to choose an abortion if necessary, opposes most wars, asks for humane treatment of immigrants, supports social programs like LIHEAP, TANF, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Heath Care Act (ObamaCares). If you silence the Catholic Church, you have to silence us, too. The spiritual is often political — you can’t separate the churches and synagogues from their positions on moral issues.
Yea, he was doing good til that last line… We need Christian wackos (that isn’t a reference to all Christians btw) as well as Liberal wackos. You can’t find the middle ground until you know where both ends are.
Having said that, Santorum falls into the Christian wacko category. He would attempt to force America into the next Christian rule. He would find it difficult because as president he would not hold supreme power, but he can make life difficult for those who don’t need to look at the Bible to find out how they are supposed to think on issues.
Yes. I disagree with Santorum on a lot of issues. I think he’s a well-meaning guy who is passionate about his beliefs, and more forthright than many politicians. That said, he’s wrong about almost everything.
I think the Church speaking about moral values is fine. But what seems to be happening today is moral values are made into political fodder. You know as well as I do there are those who make what is Right and what is Christian into a convoluted ideology that call into question all who disagree.
Values in most cases are not debatable, they are conviction and beliefs of faith. Issues we address in politics are meant to be debated where both sides can find common ground. It seems to me the framers understood why issues of faith and issues of state maintain two separate forums.
I think that those of us on the left are upset that the voices of the religious right have been so loud for so long — but remember when the religious left was led by Rev. Dr. King, who opposed segregation, opposed the Vietnam War, and spoke out for unions and the poor? The “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment protects the freedom of religious organizations to address moral issues in the public forum. Spiritual issues have political implications — and if you silence the Catholic Church, you will also have to silence my church, which opposed the war in Iraq (as did the Catholic Church, b the way) — supports the right of gays and lesbians to marry, supports the right of women to use contraception and get an abortion if necessary, and supports humane treatment of immigrants. We will continue to speak out for what we believe in. It would be wrong (and unconstitutional) to silence religious people simply because we are religious.
I’ve never suggested that anyone including religious folks be silent. To be clear regardless of how loud you yell trying to legislate morality has already proved to be a colossal failure, and they seem to be at it again. By repeating history it brings into question the sanity of those who expect a different result?
We legislate morality when we outlaw stealing and murder. We legislated morality when we integrated bathrooms, schools and lunchcounters in the South — people at the time complained about what Rev. King was asking for and said, “You can’t legislate morality — you can’t force us to like the Coloreds.” But many people changed when the law changed, and their children grew up in a more moral universe, and they were different because of it. We legislate morality successfully all the time.
I just happen to disagree with the Catholic Church on much of what they think is “moral” and “immoral.” But having the discussion is important. And I think we all want the laws of our nation to reflect our moral outlook.
Though we legislate and make illegal things like stealing and murder our prisons are full of thieves and murders. That legislation didn’t do much morally for those serving time did it. I think it’s a stretch to think that by creating laws that punishes what is illegal that we are successfully legislating morality. And then there are times when our legislated laws are a complete failure like in the instance of prohibition and drugs. Legislation does not make us moral, our overflowing prison populations are proof we haven’t legislated morality.
The notion that marriage should be the exclusive privilege of those who intend to procreate is today as outdated as the notion that the earth is flat (once also forced upon all by religious supremacists). The separation of church and state was meant as much to guarantee freedom of religion as freedom from religion.
It’s a fake notion; “traditional” marriage was never about procreation, it was about property.
True — it was also about inheritance, which is both a property issue and a procreation issue. “Traditional” marriage was between one man and as many women as he could afford. The Bible tells us that the patriarch Jacob had two wives and two concubines by which he had twelve sons who became the heads of the twelve tribes of Israel. King Solomon, according to the biblical book 1 Kings, had 700 wives and 300 concubines — how did he ever find time to govern Israel?
Marriages were generally arranged by the parents, who made a financial deal. The “happy” couple then got together for a wedding feast (like the one Jesus attended at Cana in the Gospel of John 2:1-11). There were no marriage licenses, no church or synagogue wedding ceremonies, and no marriage certificate. Once the couple “consummated” the wedding it was a done deal. There were no church weddings until the 1500s. Today’s marriage customs are “modern” and not “traditional” or “biblical.”
And as far as procreation is concerned, my wife and I have been married 32 years, and we have no children together. We are now long past the child-bearing years. Don’t we have a right to be married?
It’s a bit ironic that an editorial that decries the results of oversimplification uses that very same oversimplification to demonize the opponent’s position.
If someone is going to attack the Catholic Church’s position on marriage, contraception and abortion, she might first attempt to understand what those positions are, and what they aren’t. The CC does not teach that the purpose of marriage is procreation alone. The CC teaches that the purpose of a sacramental marriage is to produce children, unite the man and woman as one flesh, and to be helpmeets for each other throughout life. This is not a formula where every condition must be met in order for a marriage to exist. Obviously, some couples will not be able to have children for a variety of reasons–they can still have lots of great sex AND a clean conscience..
By the same logic, eating is not just for nutrition. It is also for enjoyment. Ditto for walking.
This country is certainly not a theocracy, and I don’t know any American Catholic who thinks it should be. This country does not allow the government to establish a religion. This country does allow individuals to practice and express their opinions, even those that are based on one’s faith. You do not have to agree with them. You are free to express your own. But when the disagreement comes down to telling the other person they should just shut up because they have no right to say what they are saying–well, that is still protected freedom of speech, but it is not very productive.
The Catholic Church is not forcing anything on anyone. They just don’t have the power to do coercion. They can’t tax you into submission; they can’t beat you up; they can’t throw you in prison; they can’t take your life. They can use speech to attempt to persuade others that they are right. They can refuse to participate in actions they feel are immoral. The CC cannot deny anyone a civil marriage, or contraception, or abortion, or divorce.
I happen to support same-sex marriage. But I think it is not productive to attack the faith of Catholics, or other religious folks. You have the legal argument for equality won hands down. What do you care about what the Catholic Church says?
I didn’t read this article as an attack on faith, so much as it is an observation of what some people DO in the name of that faith.
Now if you seriously claim to not know a single Catholic that isn’t interested in making the US more of a theocracy, than I have to laugh, because obviously that’s not true, unless you haven’t been paying attention to Santorum, or any of the many Catholics that say as much, every day.
Your claims about the Catholic Church not forcing anything on anyone, well, that’s obviously false, the Catholic Church went to great lengths to prevent churches that want to wed SSM couples from being able to do so, and Catholics and others that post frequently here make it clear that they desire their religious views be imposed upon everybody else.
So while The Catholic Church doesn’t have the power to use coercion to make people do what it wants, it certainly does not hesitate to do everything it can to get the state to do that coercion for it.
If you’re annoyed at how the Catholic Church is being represented, complain to the Catholics representing it; not to the rest of us. Take care of your own house.
Now that I re-read it this morning, I agree. It is focused on what some people do in the name of their faith.
I know many Catholics who think the world would be a better place if people followed the CC’s teachings. But I don’t know any who think there ought to be a law forcing people to do so. The only issues I see Catholics, in general, feeling should be outlawed are abortion and same sex marriage. And, it is obvious that they are losing those battles as far as attempting to make and/or keep these things illegal.
So my point stands. The CC can desire all the policies it wants, but it cannot force anyone to comply. And apparently their influence on lawmakers is not that great. The Catholic Church is made up of millions of individuals and those individuals have a right to participate in the political arena, and the right to use their faith as a guide to their opinions.
Just because the CC speaks out, or the SSM community speaks out, does not meant you have to listen of follow either of them, That is called thinking for yourself. I do not follow the CC, nor do I follow the SSM community, I mad up my mind on my own free will. People are just not allowed to disagree anymore without being bashed, called names, ect….. I do not agree with SSM, I have my reasons and it has nothing to do with the CC either.
What are your reasons for opposing same sex marriage, then?
“Why do you care about what the Catholic Church says?”
Because it is using its vast wealth to try to legislate its dogma. It is, in effect, trying to cram its beliefs down the throats of everybody else. The Catholic Church should not be a tax-free entity when it engages in trying to create law.
I agree with you on marriage equality — I disagree with you on whether the churches should have a right to speak out on moral issues. During the Cold War countries in Soviet-dominated Europe were allowed to exist, but that was about all. They could not advertize or even have a sign out front. They could not organize youth groups. They could not evangelize outside of the walls of their buildings. And they certainly could not speak out against government policies they considered to be anti-democratic or immoral.
In our nation the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment protects religious leaders and religious organizations and gives them the right to say that they believe a policy is either moral or immoral. You don’t have to agree with the church — you also have the “free exercise” right to agree or disagree. But what if we told Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., that because he was a Baptist preacher he could not take a stand against racial segregation, which he thought was immoral? What if his Southern Christian Leadership Conference was not allowed to oppose segregation, because that was a political issue? Spiritual issues are often moral and political.
The Catholic Church opposed the Iraq War, as did the National Council of Churches. The Methodist bishops tried to meet with George W. Bush, a Methodist, to express their opposition, but Bush refused to talk with his own church leaders. Are we to tell them they are not allowed to oppose a war when they think that war is morally wrong?
Brilliant points.
Thank you — you and I agree once in a while!
Speaking out on war, torture, slavery, equality are not the same thing as browbeating the public with your dogma.
The Catholic Church “browbeats” the public with their opposition to war, with the obligation of a moral society to care for the sick, the poor, the defenseless, the homeless, with the opposition to the death penalty. These are all part of Catholic dogma. So is opposition to abortion, contraception, and same sex marriage. Would you have the church silenced on every issue just because you don’t agree with them on some issues? I wouldn’t.
Abortion, contraception and homosexual relationships are private, personal matters. They are not universals like war, hunger, poverty. And that is the trouble with religions. They do not understand the words private or personal or “I’m not a follower of your brand of religion”
Well, msally, my church is anti-war, for anti-poverty programs, and also for the freedom of gays to marry, and for the right of women to use contraceptives and to choose abortion if necessary. Members of my denomination gave their lives for the cause of Civil Rights in Selma, Alabama, in 1965. If you silence the Catholic Church, you will have to silence my church as well.
Abortion, contraception, and sexuality are certainly private matters, but they also have public ramifications. Especially when you are asking society at large to pay for your abortion, contraception, or sexual choices.
Hunger, poverty, and even war are private issues as well as public issues. Individuals go hungry, they suffer in poverty. War is fought by individuals.
Someone asked you to pay for homosexuality???????? Really???? Care to expand on that thesis?
Abortion and contraception come under the umbrella of health issues and you are not paying for them. They are simply being included in the health care risk pool and everybody is paying insurance companies for their health insurance. Have you forgotten the screeching from conservatives? “You’re taking away my freedoms. You’re forcing me to buy something”
I think you and thegreatwandini agree on the issue of same sex marriage. Thegreatwandini said above, “I happen to support same-sex marriage” — he/she simply respects the right of religious organizations to take moral and ethical stands, whether or not we agree with those positions, as do I.
The Catholic Church isn’t browbeating us about the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Infallibility of the Pope, the Immaculate Conception, or Apostolic Succession — their dogmas. Rather, they are taking stands on moral issues. I disagree with many of their moral stands but agree with some of their stands (like their opposition to the Bush 43 invasion of Iraq). We can’t tell a Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., “Don’t take a stand on moral issues.” We can’t say it to the Catholic bishops, either. The churches and synagogues can’t separate the spiritual from the moral or the political. It’s all connected. That’s why we have the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment.
Your own political positions are also based on your moral and ethical concerns, I suspect. Aren’t your positions on political issues intertwined with your moral outlook? Can we ask religious organizations to not have a moral outlook?
The Catholic Church is not using its vast wealth. But Catholic individuals, and groups of Catholics do use their wealth opposing laws they consider wrong. That is their right.
I agree the churches have a right to speak out — and some churches, synagogues, and clergy support the freedom to marry — but I didn’t think the article was an attack on the church. It was an attack on a certain misuse of logic. It won’t convince any church that opposes the freedom to marry to change its position, but it is an interesting argument nonetheless.
I think the editorial is not so much an attack, as it is just a faulty piece of logic. If you start with a false premise, the case you build is necessarily false. My main problem with this piece is that is starts by misrepresenting the CC’s position on marriage, and then creates false analogies from that. If the writer had done her work and actually researched the Catholic position on marriage, she would have found that the church teaches marriage is for procreation and pleasure. Now her analogy of eating food and walking falls apart.
People who are against SSM because they claim marriage is for procreation only are misrepresenting the truth as well. If the writer had targeted her piece toward those people alone, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But by dragging… oh, okay. I see your point.
When I read this article late last night, it seemed to say one thing to me, but when I read it again in light of your comment, and with a fresh morning mind, I see it differently. Thanks for pointing stuff out to me.
My wife and I have been married 32 years. We have never had children together (my wife does have an adult daughter from her first marriage). We are long past my wife’s menopause, so we will never have children.
You say marriage is for procreation and pleasure (a gay or lesbian couple can have pleasure, too). But we have never had children, and we never will. Are you saying that our marriage is not valid? It is the most meaningful thing in my life. Don’t tell me my marriage is not meaningful or valid, please.
Marriage is a good thing, and that’s why I’m for the freedom to marry. Marriage promotes commitment, fidelity, love, and family stability. It is good for the community. If those things are good for straight families, they are good for gay families, too.
I know the Catholic Church says marriage is only about making babies, but they are clearly wrong. Marriage is about so much more! Maybe if the Catholic hierarchy got married they might get a clue about what marriage is really about!
I stand for marriage, and so I stand for the freedom to marry. If commitment, fidelity, love, friendship, and family stability are good for straight families, they are good for gay families, too! My marriage is not threatened if someone else gets the same exact freedoms I already have.
Here’s what I said about marriage:
The CC teaches that the purpose of a sacramental marriage is to produce
children, unite the man and woman as one flesh, and to be helpmeets for
each other throughout life. This is not a formula where every condition
must be met in order for a marriage to exist. Obviously, some couples
will not be able to have children for a variety of reasons–they can
still have lots of great sex AND a clean conscience..
By the same logic, eating is not just for nutrition. It is also for enjoyment. Ditto for walking.
So I think your marriage is valid (of course, you know better than anyone how valid your marriage is!) . And I agree that gay marriage is sensible and does nothing to minimize my 20+ year marriage. The CC does not say marriage is only about making babies. It’s about babies, sex, companionship, pleasure, fidelity, mutual support. ALL these things can and should be enjoyed by any couple who chooses to take the vows–as much or as little as they want of any of it, no matter their gender.
Yes, I agree with what you are saying here, and to me that leads to the conclusion that gays and lesbians should have the same freedom to marry that I already have. If it is good to be helpmeets throughout life, to unite as one flesh, to be faithful and loving to one another, to encourage family stability and commitment to one another, then all of these things are good for gay couples as well as straight couples. I’m for marriage! Because I’m for marriage, I’m also for the freedom to marry. I’m not afraid of letting adults get married.
Those who feel gay marriage is wrong are free to express their opinions on that.
However, it is wrong to deny civil marriage benefits to gay couples, and our Constitution is there to protect all of us.
Please do not confuse “freedom of religion” with “freedom to restrict your rights because my religious views say you shouldn’t have them.”
I happen to agree with you. But the federal law doesn’t, and the Supreme Court has yet to speak on gay marriage being a constitutionally protected institution. And those who think gay marriage is wrong have the right not only to say so, but to act politically through legislation and/or courts to prevent the legalization of gay marriage.
I have never seen a religious-based argument opposing the civil marriage of same-sex couples that makes any sense at all. I think SSM will become the law of the land. I agree that opponents of SSM would be better off minding their own lives and marriages. But I will never agree to the statement that religious people and organizations have no right to speak and act in accordance with their beliefs.
You and I agree that religious organizations cannot separate the spiritual from the moral and the political — religious organizations must have the right to speak out on moral issues. That’s a big part of what the free exercise clause of the First Amendment is about.
Yes, they have the right to say these things, and they have the right to vote on these things.
And I have the right to call attention to the fact that they are wrong.
You were free to quote Jesus in the above article however I must point out that the same book refers to two men / two women sleeping together as an abomination. You perhaps should read the entire book before you form your opinion, I have !
Who cares what a 4 thousand year old bunch of myths says. You are supposed to stone your children to death if they are disrespectful. Have you followed that commandment. No? Tsk! Tsk! You are perpetrating an abomination. I expect you enjoy a peperoni pizza on occasion. Another abomination. How about wearing coats of acrylic, wool and cotton. Oh, oh god’s getting the vapors because you are mixing fibers. Bacon, anyone???
Now here’s what’s annoying about all you ” bible-is-the-infallible -word-of-God” christians. You have a unerring ability to completely ignore certain parts of this “infallible ” text: those parts that clearly tell you to center your lives on love, charity, tolerance and rendering unto Caesar.
How come if you can ignore love, charity, tolerance and the need for taxes you can’t ignore that part of the bible that clearly never had the benefit of modern science and condemned homosexuality???????? Hmmmm?
I practice love, tolerance and acceptance on an almost daily basis with my openly gay stepson. He knows just exactly where his mother and I stand on this subject as he was brought up in church. He knows he is wrong and chooses to sin anyway. How can we get through to him , perhaps you have some biblical in site other than we stone him !
Have you tried understanding that the bible may not be infallible on all subjects and simply accept the fact that he is gay. I’d suggest treating him like a loved son, inviting him and his partner to dinner and a movie and just enjoying a night out. How difficult is that?
Yes!
If I didn’t believe that the bible is the truth 100% I wouldn’t believe in it at all !
Sounds like you’re doing the right thing. Hold him up in prayer. God hears, He knows and He can deliver him from this. Never give up on him.
Deliver him from what exactly? Please, please tell me you are referring to Pray away the gay. I have a bet with a buddy that I can find the most misguided, closed minded, moronical post on the web today, and that would be an instant winner.
Its been done thousands of times and is well documented. You just won’t read it here or on any other liberal site.
Alan Chambers has stated that 99% have not changed their orientation …….. it doesn’t “go away” with prayer or therapy or shock treatment/aversion therapy. Is it possible for people to change their behavior, of course it is …… people do that everyday ….. but one can not pray away their orientation. You are attracted to whom you are attracted to emotionally, physically and romantically …… that innate attraction does not change.
If god makes every little egg a human being at the instant of fertilization then god has made a gay son. I’m betting god hears and is disgusted that the parents are unhappy with what He made.
Quit praying and start loving.
Interesting perspective, from an atheist no less. So God must have also created pedophiles, liars, cheats, thieves, drunks and rapists.
Being gay is like being left-handed. It’s not average, but it is natural. My wife was punished for being left-handed when she was a child. Whenever she tried to write with her left hand the teacher hit her with a ruler. But she was born left-handed, and your stepson was born gay. Dont’t punish him, just love him for who he is. For a good resource, I recommend:
http://mccchurch.org/download/theology/homosexuality/BibleandHomosexuality.pdf
If that link doesn’t work, try this one:
http://www.melwhite.org/article/3
or this:
http://www.gaychurch.org/Gay_and_Christian_YES/calling_the_rainbow_nation_home/7_gac_the_clobber_passages.htm
or this:
http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/winkhombib.htm
I too was punished and called bad and evil for daring to use my left hand to write with. We lefties have come a long way, from Reagan to Obama, the only right handed president has been “W”
Here is one, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” Stop worrying about it, he is who he is, and that is ok. Continue to love him and support him, as a parent that is what you are supposed to do. He doesn’t “know” he is wrong, he says that to you to make you feel better because he loves you, and he knows your feelings on homosexuality. What you need to realize is there is nothing wrong with him. Even if his life is contrary to your belief, your believe also says not to judge him. Take the energy you are using to judge and put it into unconditional love and both of you will be happier in life.
“Who cares what a 4 thousand year old bunch of myths says,” you ask? Sigmund Freud, for one. Remember the Oedipus Complex? Joseph Campbell said that a myth is not a lie. It is a classic story that tells us a truth about the human condition.
I can get useful life lessons from Aesop too, that does not mean I should run out and try to force people into thinking that animals can talk.
I think you’re missing my point.
The Bible is filled with many different genres of writing by many different authors. It contains poetry, hymns, proverbs, philosophy and wisdom literature, parables, mythology, testimonies of faith, personal letters to churches and individuals, etc. Not every genre of literature should be taken literally. When the Psalmist says that “God is my rock” that’s a metaphor. We don’t have to take everything literally — and the Bible need not be perfect — in order for it to be valuable.
The Bible is the great religious classic of Western civilization; the foundational scripture of Judaism and Christianity. It is authoratative for the community that regards it as Scripture.
Is it always right about everything? No. Does it have to be a “perfect book” in order to be “The Good Book”? No. Those who claim the Bible is “infallible” or “inerrant” are making the Bible into an idol to be worshipped. But the Bible is not a “paper Pope,” and idolatry is the mother of all sins.
We are not to worship the Bible — we were meant to read it, think about it, struggle with it, be informed by it — and then to go out and live our lives, informed by the truths we have discovered and the lessons we have learned.
I like what a Native American storyteller once said at the beginning of a story: “Now, I don’t know if it happened this way or not, but the story is true.”
So true, there are great lessons to be learned from so many different sources of fiction. History books too, they may be true, but that doesn’t make them accurate, after all the winner gets to write the history.
That’s why I said we have to “struggle” with the Bible! I’m just disappointed by those who decide that — because they can’t take literally what was never meant to be taken literally — they have to belittle it and be disrespectful.
There are great truths in the bible especially in the New Testament. But there is also a lot of nonsense. The problem comes when people try to make the nonsense into truths. It is not the only book of truths. In fact there are many better ones. It is not belittling to point this out.
If I said, “I am a Native American — a Penobscot — and I find myself returning to the wisdom of my ancestors and the great Native American myths and storytellers,” would you belittle me and say “There is a lot of nonsense in those stories. The problem comes when people try to make the nonsense into truths. … It is not belittling to point this out.”?
No, you wouldn’t. I believe you would be more respectful of that religious viewpoint.
And you would be respectful if I said I was a Buddhist. You only belittle Christianity, because you have a skewed view of what Christianity is, based on your lack of understanding of the fact that there is more than one way to be a Christian, and more than one way to read the Bible.
I have never said the Bible is the only source of truth — and I have said that to take it all literally, to make it into a “paper Pope,” is to misunderstand it and turn it into an idol. Those who take the Bible literally are worshipping the Bible, and missing the point.
The details of a myth are not meant to be taken literally — when they are, the power of myth and metaphor are weakened; bad theology can be the result.
But I don’t think you are able to hear what I’m saying, because you have a pre-conceived notion of what a “Christian” has to be.
I dunno, many of the problems people have with Christianity aren’t with the Bible, they are with the actions of those who hold it as a “paper Pope” (love that expression btw) The harm that has been done “because the Bible says so” rings across time, and many feel that those wrongs are not yet corrected even to this day. Galileo was imprisoned because of it, and now gays and women are bearing the brunt of it. Galileo was right, and those that held him for heresy were wrong, just like today those who use the Bible to prevent gay marriage are wrong.
A wise man once said, “Many of the truth’s we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.” No one’s interpretation of a story is more right or wrong than someone else’s, but when you use an interpretation to harm innocents like many religions have, you will have to forgive those of us who are a little skeptical.
I appreciate your comments, and find myself in general agreement. Thanks!
I find you to be disrespectful to the Bible just about everytime you post. Satan used scripture too.
The bible just doesn’t fit your worldview. The Bible is the inspired word of God. All of it. It is alive and convicts men of sin and their need for a Savior. Maybe someday you too will become a Christian.
Freud explains how the bible effects people. Campbell explains how men have made myths that explain themselves. Neither ascribe to following the commands within myths as truths. Re-read the story of Moses getting the tablets in light of what Campbell says. It’s a hoot.
Yes, I like what Campbell says, and much of what he says is a hoot. And I’m a Christian — so maybe some of us have a sense of humor, and are not as simple-minded as you might think!
Here’s what I said to Dane, below:
The Bible is filled with many different genres of writing by many different authors. It contains poetry, hymns, proverbs, philosophy and wisdom literature, parables, mythology, testimonies of faith, personal letters to churches and individuals, etc. Not every genre of literature should be taken literally. When the Psalmist says that “God is my rock” that’s a metaphor. We don’t have to take everything literally — and the Bible need not be perfect — in order for it to be valuable. The Bible is the great religious classic of Western civilization; the foundational scripture of Judaism and Christianity. It is authoratative for the community that regards it as Scripture.
Is it always right about everything? No. Does it have to be a “perfect book” in order to be “The Good Book”? No.
Those who claim the Bible is “infallible” or “inerrant” are making the Bible into an idol to be worshipped. But the Bible is not a “paper Pope,” and idolatry is the mother of all sins.
We are not to worship the Bible — we were meant to read it, think about it, struggle with it, be informed by it — and then to go out and live our lives, informed by the truths we have discovered and the lessons we have learned.
I like what a Native American storyteller once said at the beginning of a story: “Now, I don’t know if it happened this way or not, but the story is true.”
It also says that a man can only divorce his wife if she is sexually immoral and a man who marries her after is committing adultery. Come on stop choosing your hate.
Let me correct you , it says ” commits adultery”.
The Bible says far, far more in support of slavery than it says against homosexuality.
The purpose of marriage is procreation. Therefore, marriage between nonprocreating (nonfertile) people is a sinThe purpose of walking is to go somewhere. Therefore, walking without going anywhere (exercise) is a sin.
Perfect!!!! Absolutely perfect ridicule of conservative religious logic. LOLKudos to Anita Siegenthaler. Port Clyde is richer by many IQ points with her presence.
The religious freedom argument goes both ways— if the Catholic Church believes that the mere existence of civil marriage for same sex couples violates their religious freedom, then the restriction against civil marriage for same sex couples must violate the religious freedom of churches who want to marry same sex couples.
For this reason, we must obviously have a clear distinction— civil marriage is a state matter, and the religious ceremony of holy matrimony for marriage is not.
It is simply the right thing to do, to offer civil marriage benefits to same sex couples in Maine who wish to protect the lives and families they build together.
And it is simply reality that whether same sex civil marriage is offered in Maine or not, churches are always free to marry or refuse to marry same sex couples in religious ceremonies— our First Amendment ensures that. Gay couples have been getting married in Maine for decades, we just can’t get the civil license part.
The 1st paragraph, starts out by mocking the CC right from the get go, this writer looses all credibility right on the jump, no need to read a word further.
According to natural law, the purpose of eating food is nutrition. Therefore, eating non-nutritious (junk) food for enjoyment is a sin. The purpose of walking is to go somewhere. Therefore, walking without going anywhere (exercise) is a sin.
You are mistaken, she is not mocking Christians nor the Catholic Church.
She is mocking people who use the “marriage is for procreation” argument against same sex marriage.
Correct. My wife and I have been married 32 years, and our marriage has produced no children. Don’t we have the right to be married?
Marriage is about love, friendship, commitment, fidelity, and family stability. If those things are good for straight families, they are good for gay families, too. I’m for the freedom to marry because I’m for marriage — marriage is a good thing. I don’t understand why so many people are afraid of letting adults get married!