This was a response to another blog. The post was about the first homosexual Episcopalian bishop admitting to being an alocoholic. The post went from a peice about a drunk bishop into a propaganda peice for why the ultra-conservative catholics have the inside road on all that is right and just. Oh, and they're better than you too. Oh and God hates fags.
That article and the responses can be found by clicking the title of this post. Let me preface this by saying I truly do respect the person who wrote the article. She is steadfast in her opinion and she writes well. I really just wanted to post my thoughts here as well:
Hello, I'm brand new to this blog, and while I consider myself conservative I must also say that the Ultra-Conservative, Christian stance of self righteousness is an affront to actual morality.
Morality and religion cannot be assumed to be the same thing. There are plenty of people who use religon as a veil to mask immoral lives. If you rely on any ancient poorly translated text to live every small detail of your life, then you really shouldn't "cast the first stone" at anyone.
The Bible is a wonderful reference for a framework of morality, but let us not forget that the people who translated the works into the current version had their own agenda. The Catholics (as it was the only brand of Christianity for a long, long time) used the dogma of the church as a tool to keep the uneducated masses in line. It worked. It's documented that some words that were translated from Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to Old English and to modern English, etc. have had several meanings and the translators went with the "best fit". To this day, the Nicene Creed continues to be "re-translated" to fit the language of the day. While it may not change the meaning, it does change the words. What will those words mean to the human race in 1000 years? What if a new language is developed in that time and this one dies?
Morality at the end of the day is in how you treat another human being. Can you really look at yourself in the mirror and feel good about the way you treated your fellow man. Hate mongering and basking in the glow of another's failure is not moral behavior.
Oh, and has it ever occured to those who accept the explaination that the Catholic priests who abused children were all "gay priests", that the church has labeled them as such to promote a further atmosphere of discrimination against homosexuals. This also served a second purpose of redirecting blame away from themselves for covering those same "gay preists" butts for decades? Plus, anything to satisfy the tithing congregations. The bottom line is Catholics are no better (or worse) than any other group from which you take a large enough sample.
With that said, I love the fact that I live in a place where we have the right to debate these things ad nauseam. Thanks.
21 February 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Good Afternoon Mrs. Proctor,
Let me say firstly that my posts wasn't a direct response to your post. I don't contest the rights of anyone to hold, or express their beliefs. I think you'd be surprised to find how much we would agree on outside of religion. It was more of a response to some of the comments your article generated.
To respond to you directly, I agree that progressive Christianity is a farce. I feel that all organized religion, started with the most noble of intentions, has been corrupted by the greed and general sinful nature of man.
I honestly don't quite understand your statement: "I may never have had the opportunity to struggle with homosexuality, but there have been defining moments in my own lief [sic] in which I questioned whether I needed to submit to Christian teaching or make up my own mind according to my conscience. That's a cop out."
(Shouldn't your conscience and Christian teachings agree if you have faith in those teachings?)
If I'm understanding your comment, then you're saying that people who are homosexual and refuse to change who they are because the church (and the Bible) tells them to are weak. If that's so, then so to is the system that protects priests (no matter their sexual orientation) who molested children. I don't care about confessional confidentiality. Some things trump professional ethics. Any information that can stop a child from being molested should be shared with every authority with an ounce of power to stop it.
As for being uneducated about Catholicism, I have to disagree. Perhaps a better phrasing would have been to refer to "early Christianity". I also said that the words of the Nicene Creed were translated several times (and continue to be). I've included a couple of links to illustrate my point:
http://horeb.pcusa.org/nicene/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/christia/library/nicene.html
Lastly, while I'm not lumping you in with this group I find it ironic many people who label themselves "good Christians" is that they are among the least humble and tolerant, while still managing to be judgmental and self righteous. Not the message of tolerance and fellowship I thought was being taught. Then again maybe it because I live in such close proximity to one of the most famous (or infamous) evangelical figures in the country. It pains me to see people choose to follow anyone who uses faith as a weapon against those who don't agree with them.
Though there is much we don't agree on, thanks for the conversation and for remaining courteous. That's a rare thing when people speak about politics and/or religion. Also, I am going to be opening my blog to outside comments, I didn't even realize it was closed to non-blogspotters.
Brik
Awesome, awesome post.
I'm not a fan of the church and you covered just some of the reasons why I'm not.
Post a Comment