|
Sampatrick posted:thats what this is. captain von trapp is literally saying that gay folks are going to hell. You can disagree with me all you want, but don't make stuff up. I neither said that nor believe it, and in fact that statement borders on straight-up heretical.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 01:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:05 |
|
|
Sampatrick posted:thats what this is. captain von trapp is literally saying that gay folks are going to hell. No he is not and it is not semantics or whatever is the right English language word for unimportant wordplay. I do not know if you read my previous post but this is exactly what I meant about misrepresenting someone. I assume you are not doing it on purpose and your motivations are morally defensible in every possible light. I am not being snide either, I mean it. I get the impression that you want to speak plainly and call out disrespect and bigotry. That is a good motive by any standard. I am not against you at all. This is just my attempt to say that things are complicated. I do not know Captain here well enough that I could claim to speak for him but the way he writes is close enough to how a relative of mine would speak so I think I am doing the thing I described in my previous post. I feel I have to try to open my mouth for the sake of peace. The point you are missing, frankly, is that even if homosexual acts were wrong, they would rank so low on the scale of things wrong in this world that hurting another person by talking about it is worse. My relative(s) would, if pressed, admit that they are pretty traditional and conservative in this matter. They would try to use neutral and impersonal words, though, because hurting another person is bad. It is way worse than romantically loving a member of the "wrong" sex. Making a valued list of sins is in itself a misrepresentation of how my relatives believe but the internet loves lists so I'll try that here. Bad things one should condemn: * all the stuff you yourself do wrong (loving God less that you love your earthly possessions, talking Lord's name in vain, not keeping holy days, not respecting your parents, hurting other people, coveting other people than your spouse, stealing, lying etc etc...) * all the stuff that is hurting those who can't defend themselves, or who have historically been treated wrong, like gay people Things so low on the list that it's not worth mentioning: *someone being gay somewhere * other similar stuff that does not actually do very much harm
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 02:47
|
|
|
One has beliefs about reality and one uses shared symbols to talk about those beliefs while participating in a community that also uses those symbols. This I don’t like religion business, is really I don’t like specific religions. Hidden civic religions are religions too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 03:48
|
|
|
I read this thread a lot, but never post. Maybe I should post more? But boy does this remind me of all the angsty atheist threads of early 2000s SA. Folks gotta chill, I think. And we should applaud not just SA but the spiritual community within SA (as evidenced in this thread) for being a place where tolerance is the a priori baseline.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 05:06
|
|
|
Tias posted:I would compare our state monarchy to the English monarchy. Our queen isn't the head of the church, though (maybe the English one isn't either, I haven't been paying attention the last 400 years). A lot of people support the idea of a 'modern' (wtf) monarchy that is a tourism magnet and aids in diplomacy, but most just kind of shrugs off their existance as inevitable stuff, like death and taxes. This is a bit random but do you know of Law of Jante? This is just a random thing brought up on a stream I'm watching to contrast with us Americans and our inability stop masturbating all over ourselves and our success. I was wondering if Jantelagen was some legacy of Christianity but nothing I'm seeing says it is. Still, stuff like this fascinates me and it's why I enjoy learning about other cultures. We inhabit the same world but we perceive it so very differently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 05:11
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:This is a bit random but do you know of Law of Jante? This is just a random thing brought up on a stream I'm watching to contrast with us Americans and our inability stop masturbating all over ourselves and our success. it's a cultural thing that certainly exists and was exported to the Upper Midwest by Scandinavian immigrants. The actual Jante Law is sort of an over-the-top parody of real life behavior but it's stereotyping a real set of cultural attitudes part of "Minnesota Nice" etc
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 06:19
|
|
|
Someone who believes in a religion that has lovely bigoted doctrines, like, as Fritz the Horse said, Catholicism, is not necessarily bigoted, of course. There are hundreds of millions of Catholics worldwide, with many of them actively fighting against those doctrines. But if they agree with those doctrines, or at the very least have no problem with them, then yes, they personally are a bigot. In a similar vein, if someone was a Christian in the American South in the 18th-19th century, they weren’t necessarily a horrible racist just because there were denominations that supported slavery using the bible. But if they supported that, or if it wasn’t a dealbreaker for them? Yeah, gently caress them, they’re personally a huge racist. Going back to the Christian parties and the religious schools law. If someone’s a Christian associated with the denominations that believe the same general doctrines that those who run those parties do, they’re not necessarily a bigot. But if they support those actions? Yeah, they’re a homophobe and a piece of poo poo personally. I believe that was the poster’s point: the parties themselves are much shittier in their application of religious beliefs to laws than the people who vote for them. In terms of the religious schools, in terms of the war or drugs, and so on. The loud, awful bigoted members get much more of a platform in the party. And please stop comparing this issue with the issue of women priests. They’re very different: one’s an internal matter for those who volunteered to be a part of the church hierarchy, the other deals with children who had no choice in the matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 08:19
|
|
|
Kayten posted:Someone who believes in a religion that has lovely bigoted doctrines, like, as Fritz the Horse said, Catholicism, is not necessarily bigoted, of course. There are hundreds of millions of Catholics worldwide, with many of them actively fighting against those doctrines. Cosigned!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 11:38
|
|
|
People get very protective of this thread, and for good reason; it (and its predecessors) has long been an island in a very chaotic sea. I've learned a lot from the many people with many beliefs here, and it's had a big role in the reawakening of my own quiescent faith over the last few years. Fundamentally (lol) it's always been a place, I think, where people can talk to each other rather than the more common status quo of shouting with our ears plugged. I don't think the 57 posts I woke up to this morning, however strident things have gotten, are fully a counterexample and I hope the whole line of discussion is not treated as such. My own faith tradition has been...mixed...on this subject, of course (certain open letters to the writer's beloved church notwithstanding). There are certainly some Mennonite churches that are very welcoming of LGBTQ folks and numerous others that are, er, not. My personal belief is that it's the latter group that are wrong, but that there's a difference between being wrong and being lost, and it's my hope that God's love will in the fullness of time, get through to the hardest of hearts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 14:14
|
|
|
I'm what I would call a New Testament Christian*, but I don't really think that a loving God is going to punish someone for who they love or feeling wrong in their body. My wife's cousins are two of the sweetest and nicest people I know - I don't know their beliefs (and that's fine), but from what I know about them, they certainly live by what I would call Christian values. One is gay, one is asexual, and I would have all sorts of problems with them being punished for who they are. I've always been of the opinion that as far as the whole "how you live" thing goes, sexuality and gender are like...down the bottom of God's list, if they're even on there. Much more important is how you treat others, praise and worship, and being an overall good person.  * Essentially, the interpretation of the Bible by clergy (or laypeople) resulting in traditions and laws isn't really kosher - the idea that the New Testament pretty much lays out how to build and run a church. D34THROW fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Oct 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 14:17
|
|
|
As for myself on this subject, I'm deeply uncertain of my gender identity. Never have been, really, it was remarked about me by parents and friends thereof even when I was a child. For me, though, confusion and questions along those lines of feeling innately wrong are also deeply tied up in the fact that I strongly suspect I have Asperger's or otherwise fall on that spectrum of my mind and brain not working like many peoples' even though I've never been professionally diagnosed. Too much has added up over too many years of feeling like there's something genuinely off inside me, compared to most people, for me to keep brushing it aside as me being just a bit different. But for me, I approach this in the same spirit I approach my religious faith. I don't have all the answers. I don't even have a lot of answers. I know I never will. And, for me at least, that's comforting in some ways. Would certainty and true knowledge actually make me feel any better and improve my life? Maybe, and maybe not. I trust that God is above all else a God of compassion, mercy, and love. And Paul was an rear end in a top hat. https://i.imgur.com/XhWltE0.mp4
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 15:21
|
|
|
I had to look up a Bible reference I didn't understand while reading Jane Eyre. I was delighted to read the tale of Eutychus, a young man who was in the audience while Paul was preaching. The talk began in the morning and that night, Eutychus, seated in a window at the back, nodded off, fell from the building and died. Paul of course put his arms around the boy, declared him alive again and continued to preach for a full day, but now I have my most relatable Bible character.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 15:26
|
|
|
Cyrano last night: Oh hey I probably don't have to look at those couple dozen posts in the religion thread. They were talking about what, pickles and Jesus's hair before? I'll check in on Monday or something to see if there's a new recipe for sauerkraut or something and theological disputes about how to baptize the cabbage. Cyrano now: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
I'm going to break this up in a few different posts because there's a few different threads to pluck at here. One thing I want to say before digging in is that, once again, I'm proud of this thread for not being, well, terrible. Pretty much any argument having to do with religion is ground zero for people to be the absolute worst version of their selves. This post in particular sums up what is special about this little corner of our collective community quite well: (bolding mine) docbeard posted:People get very protective of this thread, and for good reason; it (and its predecessors) has long been an island in a very chaotic sea. I've learned a lot from the many people with many beliefs here, and it's had a big role in the reawakening of my own quiescent faith over the last few years. As much as things can get heated in here it's almost always done at a much higher level and with a much greater degree of mutual respect and understanding than you find elsewhere on the internet, or the forums for that matter, so thank you all for that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
So to start with, just to clear this up specifically:Captain von Trapp posted:As a matter of self-awareness it's worth acknowledging that you're writing from a perspective that's at least as righteously self-assured as them. "Why is this even a discussion" - with a full-stop and not a question mark no less - is no less a hallmark of moral absolutism, except it's in service of a moral code that you date to the 60s but which in terms of the gay and trans issues you cite is probably closer to the 2010s. Against this (in the view of your conservative Christian countrymen) is the order instituted by God himself, thousands thousands of years of history, and a conception of natural law that's so common among human civilizations as to inform the official policy of modern formally-atheist one-party states. I didn't read that as CvT endorsing anti-LGBTQ laws or saying that they think all gay people are going to hell etc. Fritz put it pretty well: Fritz the Horse posted:Not really, and in the very next line they say that sexual ethics should not be enforced on people outside the church. I don't see the issue here. von Trapp is not a new person in this thread and I think most of us are somewhat aware they're on the more conservative/traditionalist end. Something I would add is that the post reads to me like CvT highlighting why, exactly, there's frequently friction on these topics. You have two sides speaking from what they feel is absolute moral superiority: one side feels that they are speaking truth to bigots and defending the downtrodden, the other feels that they have the word of God and the "natural order" (and yes, that is an extremely loaded term, especially when you get into LGBTQ issues, hence the scare quotes) on their side. This is, frankly, the crux of pretty much all tensions when it comes to discussing religion. I believe that my god is the One and True capital-G God and all others are false idols. You believe that your god is the One and True capital-G etc. Meanwhile the third person in the corner believes that there is no god, but has their own moral framework that is in part or whole incompatible with both of your beliefs. These things are all profoundly incompatible with each other. I don't think its unreasonable to say that more blood has probably been spilled in human history over our inability to square this particular circle than anything else. It's in the top three at the very least, and the other two candidates (land and ethnicity) are historically very intertwined with religious belief. I'll address that more in a moment. But, suffice it to say that while I understand the concern that people had who read that post as CvT defending the position of that school, I don't think that was his intent. If anything I read this as more of a "know your enemy" recommendation, especially given the last line. As an aside, I do think CvT phrased things a bit provocatively. In particular choosing to use the word "chiding" was a low blow and more than a bit dismissive. It comes off as a bit assholish, but my read on THAT is that it's grounded more in him being grumpy at someone who he's perceiving as a thread outsider coming in to poke a sensitive topic than it is deep homophobic convictions. Don't do that, gatekeeping sucks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 20:06
|
|
|
Ok, now onto the topic of whether it's even possible to have a reasonable conversation about mutually exclusive ideas that people hold to be literally the most important truths in creation. I'm going to jump off with a Cythereal post, but please ignore their last sentence until I move on to solving the tension between religion and politics. Once I've done that I'll take a break and phone the UN to get on that world peace business after dinner. (bolding mine again) Cythereal posted:This thread has to walk a very narrow tightrope in terms of the subject matter that is discussed here. I think everyone in the thread is well aware that almost every single religion you can think of has controversies (and I don't use that word dismissively) involving questions of gender, sexuality, and identity. This thread's cast of regulars is filled with straight people, gay people, bi people, asexual people, cisgender people, transgender people, nonbinary people, and more. One of the biggest issues that religion has, as I alluded to in my previous post, is that it is extraordinarily normative and a great many of them - especially the major world spanning ones - claim spiritual dominion over everything and everyone. God has revealed themselves to me and my fellow co-religionists, God has shown us the path to salvation, and only this path is the one that works. Meanwhile you have an equally strong creed among what I'm going to lazily hand-wave as post-Enlightenment secularists: that everyone has a right to worship in their way without interference. That's a wonderful ideal, but unfortunately you run into issues where secular law and religious belief clash, and the question then becomes who gives way? LGBTQ rights and traditional doctrines on homosexuality are an easy one to point at, but there are tons of others. Can I, or example, as someone who describes himself as a religiously tolerant feminist, criticize female circumcision when it is performed as part of a deeply and sincerely held religious conviction? There is a part of me that wants to uphold people's rights to practice whatever faith however they choose, but there is also part of me that is deeply offended at religious leaders mandating unnecessary surgery because of their views about women's bodies and sexual pleasure. Frankly I don't have a good answer. The best that I've, personally come up with is that just because someone else believes a thing doesn't mean that I have to approve of it and it certainly doesn't mean that a secular government should be forced to legally tolerate it. But I fully admit that this comes at the cost of abridging some religious liberties. Just because I understand your belief doesn't mean that I can't also - based on my own beliefs and internal morality - believe it is wrong. But, then we're right back at incompatible belief systems because most of what I'm basing that on is my own liberal secularism and how that's reacted with my Catholic upbringing. That's why this thread has always danced along a knife's edge, and why the uneasy truce has been one of toleration and cohabitation. It's not a solution, it's a Westphalian truce at best. At the end of the day this is a thread for people to discuss religious belief, and the simple reality is that those beliefs are going to be mutually incompatible in many instances. Not all, mind you. I've gone to pains to spell out where my own head is on all of this because, well, cuius regio, eius religio still holds true a bit as well in a situation where one person in here has buttons and the others don't. I like to try to be as up front as possible about where my own head is so that it's in the open at least, and it really only comes out when I do stuff like drop-kick an incel. But, at the end of the day, I'll still drop kick an incel. I'll leave off with an Earwicker post (bolding mine again) Earwicker posted:i think criticizing religious political parties for enabling homophobic bigotry in schools and pointlessly attempting to reignite the war on drugs is a lot more specific and nuanced than just saying "religion sucks", nor is that even the point of the criticism. one can be religious and, at the same time, critical of the harm caused by specific religious institutions This clashing of beliefs isn't just something that people deal with when confronting external values (as in my example of my own abhorrence of FGM) it's also something that many people deal with internally. What do you do when the doctrines of your faith deeply conflict with how you think society should be structured, or even with who and what you feel you are? At what point can you just say that the church is wrong? Catholic attitudes towards homosexuality are the easy example, but there are tons of others. The fudge that this thread has historically adopted is to be critical of the church and tolerant of the faith, but that's imperfect at best. Again, because we're dealing with a situation where it's not just differences of opinions, but fundamentally incompatable beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 20:39
|
|
|
OK, now let's really screw up the Thanksgiving table and talk about the intersection of religion and politics.Empress Theonora posted:You can’t avoid politics completely anywhere, because the personal is political— and that’s especially true as a queer trans woman, where merely asserting our existence is often construed as political and divisive. This is something I want to address head on, because it is really the crux of the issue. The personal is and politics permeates everything. This is utterly undeniable. However, there is a difference between a discussion about religion, or science, or guns (yes, I mod both of those forums plus this thread), or anything else you care to mention that gets political, and a political discussion that features those other things. It's an issue of focus. Talking about religion during a discussion of politics is going to be something different than talking about politics during a discussion about religion. So while you can't deny the political in a religious conversation, what you don't want it to do is dominate it and become the conversation itself. This is a fine line to walk. But I find that keeping the topic of the thread in mind helps to keep things in focus, even when they necessarily have to stray into the political. The views of many religions on LGBTQ rights has unquestionable political implications, and those can't be ignored. But, at the same time, this also isn't the thread to get into economic justice or the plight of striking workers, even though those may be things that many people here might be sympathetic towards. So to circle back to that Cythreal post I quoted before Cythereal posted:This thread has to walk a very narrow tightrope in terms of the subject matter that is discussed here. I think everyone in the thread is well aware that almost every single religion you can think of has controversies (and I don't use that word dismissively) involving questions of gender, sexuality, and identity. This thread's cast of regulars is filled with straight people, gay people, bi people, asexual people, cisgender people, transgender people, nonbinary people, and more. I'm also going to disagree with the part that I bolded here. Discussing the political aspect of religion isn't in and of itself bad. But it has to be done with a focus on it being a political discussion of religion, not a discussion of politics as a derail in a religious thread. To take it all back to what started it: That initial post about that dumb dutch (I think it was dutch? Not paging back to find out) law about religious schools was fine. There's absolutely a discussion to be had about the intersection between faith and secular government. There's even room to talk about how that intersection gets used as a wedge issue for very much non-religious political reasons. But where we should pull up short is giving head first into the greater political morass. Again, a religious conversation that turns political, not a political conversation with a religious fig leaf.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 20:56
|
|
|
Now all that said, the last thing I'll say is that worst case scenario there's still a bit of cuius regio baked in. Namely, if the political conversation about religion starts to drift off into just being about politics, or if it drags on too long and is sucking all the air out of the room, etc. then I'll just step in and say to draw a line under it and move on. That doesn't' mean it's some kind of forbidden topic we may never return to, it's just me moderating the discussion and shifting gears so that we don't spin in circles. On that note someone get Cythereal in here because I need a few pictures of cute animals after all that naval gazing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:On that note someone get Cythereal in here because I need a few pictures of cute animals after all that naval gazing. You ask, and I answer.  https://i.imgur.com/1rKOGMV.mp4 https://i.imgur.com/rDiVe2z.mp4 https://i.imgur.com/gdG9Ykb.gifv
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 21:03
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:What do you do when the doctrines of your faith deeply conflict with how you think society should be structured, or even with who and what you feel you are? this question is why we have things like reform movements, schisms, and new religions. to me the constant asking of this question is very much an essential part of how human religion works and has changed over the millenia, but obviously it is a process often strongly opposed by forces of traditionalism. personaly i have always felt that all traditions and laws and cultural values should be examined and questioned rather than simply accepted, whether they are religious or secular, especially those that have enormous impact on the lives of others. at a certain point, the idea of polite acceptance becomes incompatible with the prevention of harm. in regards to this thread the question "is it better to call out harmful beliefs vs. maintain the civil tone of this discussion" is, in my opinion, not a question with a singular answer that can or should be decided and set, but rather a question that should be constantly asked in perpetuity. its absolutely true that an internet discussion like this thread which manages a pretty wide range of beliefs without turning into a shitflinging contest is a pretty rare thing, and that should be maintained, but that doesn't mean it can or should be a smooth ride the entire time
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 21:06
|
|
|
I want to be that otter. Either one.  Also, drat. That some heavy duty moderation. Amateurs move over. Thank you for taking care of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
Valiantman posted:Also, drat. That some heavy duty moderation. Amateurs move over. Thank you for taking care of this thread. Yes, absolutely, thank you, Cyrano, for keeping a benevolent eye on your realm. I've been part of this series of threads since the first one, when it was "Ask us about Roman Catholicism" and the tone of the thread was often "Q. You are a piece of poo poo. Why?" "A. I'm not, so I can't answer that.", and I much prefer our current Westphalian truce. However, in the spirit of that first thread: You cannot, it is not possible, to say "what adults believe shouldn't affect children", because either my beliefs affect my children, or your beliefs (that I shouldn't teach them mine) affect them. For example, if a church teaches that children may be baptized, then that doctrine affects them; if a church teaches that they may not be, that doctrine affects them too. There's no third option here: either it's permissible to baptize them or it's not. But this is true for doctrines that only directly affect adults, too: if women cannot (or even merely should not, if we're discussing Dutch Protestants) become priests, then a boy who seems quite virtuous and intelligent will be encouraged to consider the priesthood, while a girl who reports that she feels called to be a priest will be told that she can never be, regardless of apparent virtue or intellect. If two women or two men cannot (or, for Protestants, should not) marry, then two adolescents of the same gender expressing romantic interest in each other should be discouraged from doing so. If contraception is bad in itself, not just bad for the unmarried as most contraception-opposing Protestants see it, then it won't be presented as a neutral choice, and certainly won't be encouraged as a responsible decision the way some non-opposing Protestants would teach. If you (generic you) would prefer a world where schools are not allowed to do this, then you would prefer a world where religious schools either cannot exist, or where they are subordinate to the government and can only teach what the government approves, as well as one where parents are discouraged from teaching their children anything more than bland "it's nice to be nice to the nice" statements. What the Catholic Church teaches is very difficult for many people. It is not comfortable to be told that oppressing the poor and defrauding a worker of their wages are not just bad, but "sins that cry to heaven for vengeance", but it is beyond uncomfortable to hear that "sexual perversion" is the third of the four such sins, and absolutely no one anywhere on the American political spectrum wants all three of those to be classed with murder, because murder is basically the thing that everybody agrees is bad. (Generally. Most Americans don't define murder as broadly as the Catholic Church does.) Some people are Catholic despite this, hoping the Catholic Church will change, but some Catholics profess those teachings as true, because the Catholics in question "believe and profess everything the holy catholic Church teaches and professes, because it was revealed to her by God, who cannot deceive nor be deceived."
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 21:45
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:personaly i have always felt that all traditions and laws and cultural values should be examined and questioned rather than simply accepted, whether they are religious or secular, especially those that have enormous impact on the lives of others.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 21:46
|
|
|
Nessus posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
White Coke posted:I agree, as good as the idea of questioning received wisdom is, it does seem to very quickly devolve into "You should question your traditions, laws, and cultural values because they aren't my (objectively correct) values". Sometimes people undergo deep study and introspection and find that they do legitimately believe all they things they did. I think in terms of us all being blind men describing an elephant. What we experience ourselves is absolutely valid and true for us, but maybe completely different from what is valid and true for someone else. Wisdom comes from trying to integrate our disparate experiences into a larger idea, which is greater and more complicated than what either of us could experience individually.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:If you (generic you) would prefer a world where schools are not allowed to do this, then you would prefer a world where religious schools either cannot exist, or where they are subordinate to the government and can only teach what the government approves, as well as one where parents are discouraged from teaching their children anything more than bland "it's nice to be nice to the nice" statements. (long-time lurker who thinks this thread is in general the best place to discuss religion on the internet and hopes that stays true) I think there's something important here, which is the tricky line between respecting belief and avoiding harm. I hope it's not controversial to say that it is empirically thoroughly demonstrated that teaching people that homosexual relationships are less valid or inherently sinful is deeply harmful to gay kids. I'd argue it's not great for anybody, straight or gay, but it is pretty solidly shown to actively harm children. The small town I live in lost a widely loved teenager who worked at our local ice cream store to suicide a few years ago, in part because she was struggling to reconcile what she had been told by her faith with her sexuality. I think there is a compelling state interest in being able to say "teaching X and Y harms children, you can't do it" in the same way that there's a compelling state interest in banning FGM imposed on minors incapable of consent. That is wholly separate from the religious perspective on the morality of homosexuality or FGM or whatever. I think there are ways that this can be squared: I think a lot of the tension in the intersection of religion and politics comes down to people being attached not to the core theology of a belief, but to a specific expression of that belief. In Catholicism specifically, there is an entire sub-branch of liberal theology that tries to develop ways of being welcoming and affirming of gay people while also maintaining Catholic teaching about sexuality. I don't think anybody is really satisfied with it, of course, but at minimum it demonstrates that there are ways to take a core teaching or belief and develop ways of talking about it that avoids harm. I'm of the belief that it is reasonable for people to discuss how we can ensure that religious teaching doesn't conflict with what's known about how to avoid harming people and what kinds of things cause harm. One of the things that has really struck me about this thread while I've been reading it is that fundamental benevolence. While everyone here has a variety of religious beliefs, I genuinely believe that thread posters tend to value each other as people and respect each others' beliefs. I think that what is on the table is how that same approach intersects with formal political decisions - and that's a much trickier discussion, but one I think is feasible to have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 22:19
|
|
|
Now that we're a little bit past the heated discussion, I have a question: Apparently Fred Rogers (Mr. Rogers) was given the catholic last rites even though he was a presbyterian minister all of his life. Does this mean he converted or are there circumstances where non-catholics might receive last rites?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 22:24
|
|
|
White Coke posted:I agree, as good as the idea of questioning received wisdom is, it does seem to very quickly devolve into "You should question your traditions, laws, and cultural values because they aren't my (objectively correct) values". Sometimes people undergo deep study and introspection and find that they do legitimately believe all they things they did.  This changes everything!Shakyamuni told us to build faith by testing and observing for ourselves; I think sometimes the questioning gets valorized above reaching the actual belief. Is the point of the questioning to find an answer, even if it may be impermanent and it is good to revisit it? Or is the questioning the point in itself?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 22:26
|
|
|
for me, the point of the constant questioning is to account for the fact that we are constantly having new experiences and learning new information so i might feel a certain way about a particular belief or idea now but i shouldn't just accept that feeling as true for the rest of my life but constantly reconcile it with what i have learned, who i have met, how i have grown, and how society has changed and why Earwicker fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Oct 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 22:30
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:at a certain point, the idea of polite acceptance becomes incompatible with the prevention of harm. One of the basic concepts of the enlightenment is "yes, but let's talk about it first." I think X is harmful, you think not-X is harmful, maybe we can figure something out before we start hitting each other on the head with clubs. This is an increasingly endangered concept these days on all sides. True, there probably is a point where you do have to draw a line and start hitting each other on the head with clubs, or these days to have the cops do it for you. But the concept of this thread has generally been that this is a place for talking, and the head-hitting can be done elsewhere if it comes to that. Maybe someone's mind will even be changed for the better, although that's probably not frequent. How far should we stick to that if someone believes something bigoted? If someone believes some weird neo-pagan thing that just happens to put, uh, undue emphasis on northern European ethnic status? If someone believes they should cut the still-beating heart out of their captured enemies and throw the bodies down the steps of their temples? I don't have a clean answer. Fundamentally though this is a thread on the internet, and words are the medium. To whatever extent words have the power to change things without force, in my opinion that's something we've historically done a pretty good job at trying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 22:32
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:for me, the point of the constant questioning is to account for the fact that we are constantly having new experiences and learning new information On the other hand, I feel like this can become pathological in some ways - not necessarily in your case, but because it means that you do not ever get the benefits of the faith or the finding of a location to be. I think this can shut off room to grow; it can be isolating; it does, at a certain point, become a commitment to being non-committal. I think there is value in commitment, whatever form that that may take, and even if it has the note of - "I'll swear this for now: but I reserve the right to check back next year."
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 22:34
|
|
|
Notahippie posted:
I agree with you, but there are two things that I think are important to keep in mind with this line of thought: The first is that harm is not always evident to everybody. "This is the way my father did it, and this is the way his father did it, and so on back for generations." What's more is that frequently the people advocating for the harmful thing believe, genuinely believe, that the harm they are inflicting prevents a greater harm. It's a big part of why arguments over matters of faith often go nowhere. I, personally, think that gay conversion therapy is, to put it simply, incredibly hosed up and unspeakably harmful to the people who are forced to suffer through it. However I do think it's important to understand that if you truly believe that being gay is going to lead to eternal damnation, that it is preferable to that. The second is that these beliefs are genuine. It can be easy to loose sight of this when dealing with something that you think is absolutely, insanely, wrong headed if not out and out deeply harmful and even immoral. Still, I think that understanding that is important because it gives some context to why people fight so hard to defend things that you and I might see as completely indefensible. From their point of view, they're the ones fighting against irrational secularists. Again, none of that means that you have to approve or condone of it, and it certainly doesn't mean that you have to structure your laws around them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 22:38
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I agree with you, but there are two things that I think are important to keep in mind with this line of thought: I agree with both of these points and there's also a third nuance which is that there are some things that everybody accepts as harmful (e.g. the aforementioned weird neo-pagan white power example) and there are also others where I think there's at minimum some space for disagreement. So in practice this gets complex, because when somebody says that something causes harm I think it's appropriate for that to trigger a discussion about what kinds of harm and what evidence there is for that to be the case. But I think the thread earlier was getting a little heated because some folks interpreted the discussion to mean the thread felt it was inappropriate to talk about the potential for harm caused by some political expression of beliefs. I don't think that's the intent of the guidance, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
Nessus posted:On the one hand I agree with you completely, including about the impermanence of everything and how the world and your own perspective can evolve and move on, often without you realizing it. I too agree with you completely while also disagreeing with you completely. Mostly because, as someone raised Catholic, I've been fascinated by the way Southern Baptists embrace being schismatic. Drive down a rural road in parts of the south and you'll see a literal row of small churches anywhere from a quarter mile apart to a few miles. As often as not it's a string of break away congregations, where someone disagreed with the preacher enough to pick up and start their own, better church. That seems to happen a lot less these days, but I also know congregants vote with their feet by going to a different, already established church in a way that's frankly alien to my Catholic upbringing where you've got the church and the priest in your parish and if you drive a town over to go to mass you're pretty weird. And, despite that, and despite the million ways that the divinity school kids can find to sort the various branches and sub-branches of Southern Baptist churches, there's still a core faith that is recognizable, and recognizably different from e.g. Catholicism or Presbyterianism etc. So I think it's possible to be open to continuous reformation* without losing the core faith and commitment that gives you that kind of touchstone. *I'm now considering the intellectual parallels between this kind of continuous reformation and Mao's Continuous Revolution Theory and am now INCREDIBLY eager to drop this on a Baptist deacon I'm good friends with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 22:48
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:Now that we're a little bit past the heated discussion, I have a question: Apparently Fred Rogers (Mr. Rogers) was given the catholic last rites even though he was a presbyterian minister all of his life. Does this mean he converted or are there circumstances where non-catholics might receive last rites? He definitely did not convert. He was comatose when his very good friend, the Archabbot of St. Vincent’s Archabbey (at the time), gave him last rites. It can, in certain circumstances, be given to baptized non-Catholics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
Notahippie posted:I think there's something important here, which is the tricky line between respecting belief and avoiding harm. Notahippie posted:[T]here are some things that everybody accepts as harmful (e.g. the aforementioned weird neo-pagan white power example) and there are also others where I think there's at minimum some space for disagreement. So in practice this gets complex, because when somebody says that something causes harm I think it's appropriate for that to trigger a discussion about what kinds of harm and what evidence there is for that to be the case. But I think the thread earlier was getting a little heated because some folks interpreted the discussion to mean the thread felt it was inappropriate to talk about the potential for harm caused by some political expression of beliefs. I don't think that's the intent of the guidance, though. Countries with a state church, or where the government hasn't agreed not to interfere with religious practice, have a much easier time of saying, "No, you can't teach such-and-such," but it's harder in the US. Someone who believes that it is morally wrong to kill animals for food must permit someone whose religion requires animal sacrifice to kill animals and eat them; some people who hold the former belief would be offended at the idea of considering harm to humans more serious than harm to non-human animals. Again in the US, two men or two women may require their local government to provide them with a marriage license (assuming they meet the government's other requirements, like a positive rubella titer or a negative syphilis test or whatever), but they cannot require a Catholic priest to officiate at their wedding, nor require a Catholic parish to allow such a ceremony to take place on its property, unless the parish already allows non-Catholics to use that property. If it is harmful to say, "It is impossible for two men to marry each other, or for two women to do so," that harm is unavoidable in this country, so long as the Catholic Church is permitted to remain here. On the other hand I'm quite privileged in this discussion: while I have a uterus and thus could theoretically be advised to have an abortion, I have never been in a position where someone did give me that advice; nobody's ever been foolish enough to think I would support them seeking euthanasia; I've never been tempted to any other kind of murder; I don't have anybody whose wages I pay; and I've only ever been attracted to men. So the only one of the sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance that I'm at any risk of is oppressing the poor, and that makes it real easy to talk about the other three, and provides a lot of incentive for me not to talk about whether I have clothing I could donate or time with which I could volunteer. As a rule I would like to look for exculpatory circumstances for everyone else, and only get really serious about condemning sins I'm at all likely to do. TOOT BOOT posted:Now that we're a little bit past the heated discussion, I have a question: Apparently Fred Rogers (Mr. Rogers) was given the catholic last rites even though he was a presbyterian minister all of his life. Does this mean he converted or are there circumstances where non-catholics might receive last rites? My understanding is that if a baptized non-Catholic is in danger of death and is unable to locate a minister of their own tradition, they may receive Communion as Viaticum (the last food) and I think they can receive the Anointing of the Sick as well, under the same circumstances. The third sacrament involved in "Last Rites" is Confession, and I'm not sure whether non-Catholics can receive that. Cyrano4747 posted:So I think it's possible to be open to continuous reformation* without losing the core faith and commitment that gives you that kind of touchstone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 23:08
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I too agree with you completely while also disagreeing with you completely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 23:23
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:It can, in certain circumstances, be given to baptized non-Catholics. At seminary the students all do this a lot in hospitals for end of life ministry. It is incredibly common for cross denomination and even cross religion death rituals to be done. Its a one is the only person there sort of thing as it was explained to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 00:26
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Whoa, we can do nested quotes now? All you have to do is quote both posts, then move the upper line from the second quote over the first and format as necessary to make it look like the original post and quote. Nessus posted:On the one hand I agree with you completely, including about the impermanence of everything and how the world and your own perspective can evolve and move on, often without you realizing it. That remind me of something I've seen brought up about the afterlife, which is what happens to our personalities. Are they frozen in place at death or will we be able to change as we experience eternal life?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:05 |
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:At seminary the students all do this a lot in hospitals for end of life ministry. It is incredibly common for cross denomination and even cross religion death rituals to be done. Its a one is the only person there sort of thing as it was explained to me. Is... is there a way to be sure that you, the patient, are ministered to by a minister of your own denomination? Like, when my daughter died, the chaplain on duty came to visit with us, and she was very kind, and also arranged for the priest to visit when he next came to visit the hospital, which was all I needed at that point, since I wasn't dying, but when I am dying (may that day be many years from now) I'd certainly prefer to be absolved by a priest whom I know can absolve me and from whom I can receive the Apostolic Pardon, rather than just be prayed for by whoever happened to be on duty that hour.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 00:53
|
|