Family values, Sodomy laws, Christianity

[ACPlayer]

I found an interesting article here by one of the important religious writers - Karen Armsrong (who authored, among other books, "The Battle for God" a must reading for those interested in the Middle East soup). She is an ex-nun turned "freelance monotheist" and is highly regarded by all three of the Judae-Christian religions, at least according to her books author profile.

She claims that for followers of Christ celibacy rather than marriage is advised (Luke); that homosexual acts are not considered bad except in the context of rape (Sodom story in Genesis) or as part of temple ritual (Leviticus); that holy matrimony was not always holy in that marriage was not performed at the alter but on the outside of the church. She further postulates that perhaps the evolution of christianity could be inclusive to homosexuals.

Most of this was absolutely new to me and certainly would be argued against by the moral right wing crew.

Here is the reference:
Armstrong editorial in Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,12592,987873,00.html )

[HDPM]

It is an interesting article. So many ideas in religion are so patently ridiculous though, it makes one wonder about why we spend so much time debating shades of irrationality. For instance, I assume based on your description of her that this writer is religious. But knowing what she knows, how can she really be religious? Certainly it is understandable to have spiritual feelings, but how can this woman know all about how stupid so many interpretations of the bible are and still be religious really? And if she believes in the evolution of religion and the advancement of civilization, wouldn't she see the bible as the story of human progression from really nutty polytheistic beliefs to less ritualistic, more individual forms of belief that don't have stuff like animal sacrifice? And if she believes that, isn't the next step disbelief or the dismantling of organized religion at least, not the tweaking of what may be permissible under some belief or another? If it doesn't result in disbelief, doesn't the trend favor purely individual explorations of the meaning of existence and our consciousness of it, and the scrapping of all organized religions and most other institutions? Also, since the bible was so obviously edited and written by humans, isn't it at best only some kind of hint at what's going on?

What is really depressing is when you think of all the human potential that has been wasted throughout history because of religious beliefs that are nothing more than a mirage. Even if you believe in God, one God or many, even if you believe there is more to the universe than we have been able to discern and explain in our terms, the waste of people, time, effort and money these last few thousand years is disgusting. Think of all the hours spent oppressing people, taxing people, building expensive churches, damaging kids, poisoning minds that could have been great and done something and then think of the latest little debate within the whole framework. Makes you shudder.

[Utah]

The church took a hard left in the 14th century (I believe) when St. Augustine, a reformed sex adict, had a profund affect on the sexual teaching of the chuch. One must realize that the bible itself was open to interpretation and editing. At one point, there was book in the old testament called the Book of Joy. This book basically described the joy of sex. Unfortunately, this book was left on the editing floor of future publications.

Just as one shouldn't read the meaning of Islam from terrists, one should not read the meaning of christianity from Christian zealots (please note that I am not equiting terrorists with Christian zeolots in an overall sense). As in most things, the teaching of any groups is massaged and formed by those you have the greatest influence.

Which leaves an interesting question - are there true fundemental beliefs of any religion, or is it always simply the interpretation of those guiding the religion?

[ACPlayer]

I suspect that this why she is no longer a nun and now is a self professed "freelance monotheist" -- which one could interpret as believing in god and religion but not in any particular religion -- picking and choosing her beliefs from a buffet.

Incidentally, the first words taught to Sikhs in India from their holy book is "There is one god, and many paths to that one god".

Clearly over the years the religious practice has been interwoven with political ambitions to further there own good.

Personally, I think all religions have it wrong!

[Zeno]

A few corrections and addenda:

St Augustine lived 354 - 430 and was Bishop of Hippo (in Africa). He was not a sex addict. He enjoyed sex. He also professed Manichaeism for a time, a sect with Christian undertones. He also dabbled in Neoplatonism and skepticism; He then converted to Christianity and became very influential the church in the early 400's. His book, The City of God , is probably still read and believed by many people. His Confessions is another famous book. He was intelligent but squandered his intellect on moronic ideas.

I can't comment further; My mind is blank.

-Zeno

[John Cole]

Zeno,

He was a pear thief.

[Zeno]

Kudos John. I almost fell off my chair.

/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif


-Zeno