Raas: The hindu tradition is very old and contains a long line of 'sons of god', they just don't get all exclusive about it ("only our son of god is the real important one"). Hindusim is not one religion but a whole range of them with a shared cultural heritage. Many of those sects would naturally accept jesus as one of the long line of semi-divine people (eg yogananda). Many of the christians in first century near-east also happily accepted jesus as one of the long line of semi-divine people, as that was their shared heritage.
Have you read the bhagavad gita? Read about Krishna who is an archetypal 'son of god' (long before christianity was a glint in judaism's eye) - many people (me included) would argue that there was a definite influence on how christianity developed from hindu and buddhist ideas which were collected in the melting pot of alexandria around that time (some even go further and say he was plaigiarised from krishna (jeshua krishna)). Christianity wouldn't exist in the form it does without the influence of a whole range of faiths/philosophies (including stoicism, neoplatonism, mithraism, zoroastrianism and hinduism/buddhism alongside judaism). This was probably it's strength (like mongrel dogs being cleverer, or hybrid vigour in plants). We don't know what the actual jesus followed - probably a fundamentalist jewish sect like in the Qumran settlement (the dead sea scrolls i think are some of the most likely remnants of the original jesus' sect (they sound a bit grim though)); but how chrtistianity developed in the first few centuries very much reflects the wider alexandrian context, and was arguably more greek and roman than it was jewish.
The way i see it, religions that are insecure have to make themselves all exclusive and monotheistic; religions that are more experienced and more at ease with themselves (like most eastern religions, and the saner christians, like the quakers) are happier to accept anyone into their tent.
I think the quaker attitude is brilliant, and they are what i'd consider the most christian of christians, even though they have no priests, no sermons, and don't even have to read the bible (or think of god in any way other than they decide themselves (and which is then private)). And yet look at their works - they do far more good per head than most/all other christian sects - and they talk sense too, rather than refering to ancient texts all the time. In their view the relationship with god should be direct and not via some human intermediary. Being humble before god must include recognising that your human intellectual faculties can't possibly fathom what's god's true will, let alone enforce it via your petty human language as an excuse to judge other people (judge not...)
EDIT: as for judaism, i think the torah gets a bit of a bad rep from how fundamentalist christians talk about it - as far as i know, the jewish approach always requires interpretation of the old texts to apply them to the current context, an analytical approach often missing from evangelicals. All religions have got their backwardnesses (look at the caste system in hinduism), and judaism would be no exception, but i've found that all religions have also got really nice bits too (for judaism, some of the stuff from jeremiah was pretty good from memory, and there's rabbi hillel who was saying jesus-y things 100 years before jesus).
If only these insecure religionsists, could get over themselves and focus on all the bits they have in common (as shown in huxley's 'the perennial philosophy') there could be no relgious conflict (i'm of the view that the religion is just a lightning rod and excuse for social-based conflict anyway rather than the actual cause of it)
I spent, literally hours, responding to your last post in detail. And you haven't said a thing!
I mean, even if u wanna disagree thanks. Just say anything so I know I didn't waste my time!
here it was:
NSFW:
Vurtual said:- homophobic is as homophobic does (or closet homophobia as i said) - the belief that homosexuality is wrong is homophobic, that seems pretty obvious ('wrong' has pretty negative connotations). Beleiving that someone is 'wrong' becasue of something about themselves that they can't change is pretty much the same as racism - it's definitely a sin in my eyes.
The key important differentiation, is that it seperates sexuality from the person. It suggests the person is spiritual, and the desires of the flesh are "death". As is it opposes the nature of the fleshly desire, it appreciates and loves the person who can supersede the desire. It suggests a person is too great, to be limited or defined by their sexual preference.
Therefore it does not oppose, nor discriminate, nor hold prejudice to the person who is trying to link themselves with the primitive desire, and why it is not homophobic. The Westboro church IS homophobic, some churches ARE homophobic. They preach hate to homosexuals - they oppose them; they dislike them; they discriminate against them. THAT is homophobic. The large majority of the church is NOT homophobic, because it differentiates between the desires and the individuals and teaches love to the individual regardless.
Is this making sense now??
Vurtual said:Christianity isn't against heterosexual sex and lust ('be fruitful and multiply') or do you think babies only happen when there's love (whatever that is). It's not even against heterosexual sex for pleasure within marriage since the reformation ('we just don't feel like it' - remember the Monty Python sketch from 'Meaning of Life' (after 'every sperm is sacred')) - and some of the psalms are pretty fruity and definitely about fucking from memory. But it is (if taken literally and without interpretation as you are) against homosexuals having any type of sex, except the 'right' sex (ie not with the person they love (or lust)).
Christianity is against all sex before marriage. It is against physical sexual desire from an animalistic perspective as a whole. It see's marital sex between soul mates as God intended, as something completely exclusive from the rest of it: The difference being it's pure, spiritual nature.
The term "heterosexual" seems too simplistic to describe it's opposition and does not cater for the complex spiritual ideology. It see's it fine to multiply with one woman, but not with another. Rather than being against homosexuality or heterosexualty, it is better to say it rejects all that is not of pure spirituality. Heterosexual sex that it condones, is meant to be of a completely different nature than the heterosexuality that is disallowed.
It does suggest that the form of true spirituality, is to be taken place through a man and a woman.
Vurtual said:It doesn't matter if christians say they love the perverts while calling them perverts - that's just passive-aggressive (unconscious maybe (if i'm being generous)). It's condemning people as sinners for who they are, and for which they can't do anything about (unless you actually believe in those dodgy christian gay-curing practices (i told what that leads to)) - you can't say it's the same as heterosexuals as they can get married and then fuck.
Your example of conditioning a person not to be gay, is not at all related to spiritual healing of sexual desire. Many, many, many people have found sexual chastity through spirituality and been content, you can google the many cases now. It does not condemn people for who they are, or what they can't do anything about. It glorifies them through who they are (made in the image of God) and in the same spirit - gives them a chance to progress from it (progress from the desires and enter chastity, as countless converts have claimed)
Vurtual said:[EDIT:that sounded a bit aggressive - answer it however you want (or not) you're going to think what you think - i'm just offereing a different possible christian perspective (as a non-christian)]
I appreciate your perspective and though I disagree, they are very considered posts. I'm trying to push my personal influence aside and give logical answers. To summarise, Christianity does oppose homosexual activity. Calling it homophobia depends purely on how you define it, because it can be a broad term. For me the term connotes aggression - hatred, dislike, fear and malice towards people who consider themselves homosexual. As explained above, Christian values are the opposite to this, which is why I don't think it's a suitable term.
)
.... i could read him/her
all day... if you'll excuse me, the mexxys kickin and I'ma slippin
(but you shouldn't encourage me - i could have said what i said in two paragraphs probably)
UiU0dg~~60_57.JPG)
