Christians showing love at Gay Pride

[RootedPhoenix]

Also, I know that Smiley knows that not all Christians are alike and that he should give those that extend an olive branch a chance. Because he's an intelligent human fucking being living with more access to information than at any point in human history. I can understand what might motivate his emotions, to a point. But even if Rottweiler and Corgi still don't deliniate enough emotionally to out-impact 'dog' he should at least recognize his intellectual knowledge and fucking act on it or shut up. JMHO.

He may well recognize that, but emotions are powerful things. Haven't you ever had your emotions override your intellectual understanding?

It hurts to be lured in by false niceness and then get beaten on, even if it's just with words. It hurts to be betrayed like that. It hurts a great deal. It takes people a long time to deal with those feelings. You don't want to be hurt again. The ideas "should" or "should not" are steamrolled by the fact that you remember the betrayal. You can't tell if you're going to be hurt again, because it looks like the same thing.

They could be the nicest people, with only the purest of thoughts and intentions. But how can he know, looking at the outside layer, what's really inside them?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

He may well recognize that, but emotions are powerful things. Haven't you ever had your emotions override your intellectual understanding?

It hurts to be lured in by false niceness and then get beaten on, even if it's just with words. It hurts to be betrayed like that. It hurts a great deal. It takes people a long time to deal with those feelings. You don't want to be hurt again. The ideas "should" or "should not" are steamrolled by the fact that you remember the betrayal. You can't tell if you're going to be hurt again, because it looks like the same thing.

They could be the nicest people, with only the purest of thoughts and intentions. But how can he know, looking at the outside layer, what's really inside them?

Yes, I've experienced instances in which my emotions got the best of my intelligence, which is precisely why I continue to constantly re-think my attitudes and make sure that my actions are based on knowledge and not my emotions. IMO we shouldn't let anything over-ride our rationality.

I could go back into the whole 'logically a different situation' spiel but I've already done that and re-posting seems like it would be a waste of time. Suffice it to say that I understand Smiley's reasons, I just wish he'd overcome them.

[smileyeagle1021]

Suffice it to say that I understand Smiley's reasons, I just wish he'd overcome them.

And I wish my circumstances weren't such that I had to see my reasons affirmed on a regular basis.

[Hyena Dandy]

I still have a problem with Christians proselytizing at parades, though, even if they're part of a liberal denomination that accepts homosexuals and homosexuality. It seems like they're saying "Was another church bigoted asshats to you? Still believe anyway? Come join us! We'll be nice!"

I don't really see the problem with saying that. I mean, Christianity IS a missionary religion. You're supposed to proselytize. And I would feel very bad if somebody had kicked me out of my church, but I still considered myself a Christian. I'd be happy to find out there were Christians who didn't hate me.

However, the last time I accepted an extended olive branch it ended horribly. To use your phrasing, an intelligent fucking human being doesn't knowingly put himself into situations that he knows have gone horribly wrong in the past. In fact, we have a word for trying the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome... Insanity.

If I may ask... And this isn't in any way a criticism... But how many times have you tried extending the olive branch? Just out of curiosity. Because I've only heard about once, and if there's more I'd be glad to hear it, because there's a difference between trying once or twice, and trying something over and over again.

[The Shadow]

I was raised, and am, Catholic. I don't think I've been lied to. This is completely a construct of your own making.

Well since a lie, by definition, is when someone says something they KNOW isn't true, it's understandable why you wouldn't feel this way. After all when the Popes, Bishops, Priests, Nuns say things like "abortion is murder" or "masturbation is a sin", or "women are not fit to be priests", I think they genuinely believe what they're saying (most of them anyway).

But as someone who was also raised in the Catholic faith, might I suggest that if you never questioned any of the things you were taught or never had any doubts about the ethics and values they instilled in you at any point, then maybe you haven't examined them carefully enough? This isn't an insult against you, just something you might want to think about.

[The Shadow]

(eta- at least one of the comments confirms that I may not be wrong to have that ill ease... there is a guy on there talking about how the love of the church allowed him to overcome his homosexuality)

Yeah...and I also couldn't help wonder about this comment:

I still don’t agree with many socio-political goals of the stated LGBT “community” but why are they individually any less worthy than God’s love and grace than I?

Oh, I think I get it...that whole "hate the sin, not the sinner" malarkey, right?

Also note his/her use of quotation marks around the word 'community', as if to imply they really have no business referring to themselves as such. Also (s)he doesn't agree with the socio-political goals of the LGBT community. What goals would they be, I wonder? The right to marry the people they love and want to make a lifelong commitment too? The right to the same benefits given to married hetero couples? The right to adopt children just like anyone else? Yeah, those are all really reprehensible things.

[KnitShoni]

But as someone who was also raised in the Catholic faith, might I suggest that if you never questioned any of the things you were taught or never had any doubts about the ethics and values they instilled in you at any point, then maybe you haven't examined them carefully enough? This isn't an insult against you, just something you might want to think about.

It's entirely possible that he DID question those things, and simply did not come to the same conclusions you did.

[Ghel]

I hadn't intended to have to explain or defend the being "lied to" statement that I made; it was just a bit of background to explain where I was coming from with other statements. But since it has spurred discussion, here we go.

There was a reason that I said I'd been "unwittingly lied to". Growing up, nearly everyone around me was Catholic. My family, many of my friends, my priests. They were all convinced, I assume, of the existence of God on the authority of their family, friends, priests, or the Bible. They passed their beliefs on to me as if they were true, without ever verifying the claims for themselves. And since they had no good reason to believe their god-claims were true, then they had no justification for raising me to believe they were true.

I can say with some confidence that none of them have ever verified the claims of the existence of the Christian God because no one has ever produced solid, independently-verifiable evidence for the existence of God. Nothing that could withstand scrutiny. Nothing that was repeatable and falsifiable in the way that science demands.

And because I want my beliefs to mesh with reality, I cannot accept the claims that Christians make about their God.

[Hobbs]

But as someone who was also raised in the Catholic faith, might I suggest that if you never questioned any of the things you were taught or never had any doubts about the ethics and values they instilled in you at any point, then maybe you haven't examined them carefully enough? This isn't an insult against you, just something you might want to think about.

I was raised Catholic. My mother is devout, though we never went to Church after I was ten or so. My sister has never been baptized and no one shuns her for it. My brother is gay and is more devout than I.

That said, when I was 18 I went to a predominantly Protestant university. There I was subjected and educated on a different form of Christianity than I knew, and even some non-Christian faiths (my high-school also taught me non-Christian faiths as it was designed to teach students to think internationally and of global concerns). So, as I was thinking all this through, I realized that I did believe in God, that my belief did not contradict any of my moral or ethical beliefs, and that my knowledge of science and history did not contradict my faith either. From there, I went to the local Catholic Student Org. and talked to the priest there. I had been baptized, but hadn't gone through Confirmation. He enrolled me in RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) and I was educated in Catholic teachings and confirmed that following April (2004).

Therefore, I do think I have thought my faith through, and in high school I did have my doubts, like any normal person does. Considering my family's continued lack of "faith" (by this I mean not attending, and my father's rejection of Catholicism) I have remained faithful. KnitShoni said it best; I questioned, but the answers I found renewed my faith and didn't destroy it.

[Hyena Dandy]

And because I want my beliefs to mesh with reality, I cannot accept the claims that Christians make about their God.

There is no experiment which can prove or disprove God. Which means its your choice. I do not feel my faith meshes fine with reality. My family raised me as an Atheist, in fact. When I was deciding what I believed, I found that Catholicism had the answers for me. Believing in God is a choice. So is not believing in God. If you choose not to believe in something not verifiable through experimentation, that is perfectly fine. But the fact that an experiment can't be devised does not mean that it does not exist, only that we cannot know for sure.

[smileyeagle1021]

But the fact that an experiment can't be devised does not mean that it does not exist, only that we cannot know for sure.

As my grandma used to say (I steal a lot of her saying apparently ), science has never proven the existence of God, they've also never been able to scientifically prove that love exists either... unless you are going to discount love because there is no scientific basis for it, don't be so quick to discount a higher power that has no scientific evidence.

[Hyena Dandy]

As my grandma used to say (I steal a lot of her saying apparently ), science has never proven the existence of God, they've also never been able to scientifically prove that love exists either... unless you are going to discount love because there is no scientific basis for it, don't be so quick to discount a higher power that has no scientific evidence.

Very well put Smiley.

[Ghel]

I didn't mean to derail this thread so badly. Really.

There is no experiment which can prove or disprove God.

If that's true, then that means there's not sufficient evidence to accept the claims of God's existence. Therefore, I remain an atheist.

Which means its your choice.

You're obviously not one of those theists that say that God's Word is written on the heart of every human being, and so we have no excuse for not believing.

If you choose not to believe in something not verifiable through experimentation, that is perfectly fine. But the fact that an experiment can't be devised does not mean that it does not exist, only that we cannot know for sure.

But if God has some influence on the world, then there must be some evidence of his existence. Does the fact that an experiment can't be devised to determine whether leprechauns exist mean that we should accept that they exist? What about pixies? Invisible pink unicorns? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

In all honesty, the beliefs you're stating here don't bother me. But it does bother me when people with similar beliefs expect their beliefs to be above reproach. Or when they try to force everyone else to behave as if they believed the same way by legislating based on their beliefs. Or when they try to revise history to say the the US is a Christian nation. Or when they try to trick people to coming to their church by saying "We're not so bad as that other church that believes almost exactly the same as us except for this one little thing right here."

So I explain why I think this is a problem. I try to stick with the core issues, but just like everybody else, I get sidetracked sometimes.

[HYHYBT]

But if God has some influence on the world, then there must be some evidence of his existence.

That, itself, is an unsupported assumption.

[Ghel]

That, itself, is an unsupported assumption.

No, that's definitional. Everything that exists leaves behind some evidence of its existence. That evidence might not reach us to allow us knowledge of its existence, but that doesn't mean that the evidence wasn't there at some point.

If, as many Christians claim, a creator god existed (and still exists) and intervenes in the world's processes on a daily basis, then there should be evidence of his existence. And not just minuscule evidence, but mounds of it. It should be apparent for all to see.

There's no more evidence for the Christian God than there is for Allah, Ptah, Viracocha, Unkulunkulu, or Coatlique.