• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Obama on Gay Marriage

Free episodes:

Angelo, Steve is correct, even in the part about the books I write! And he is not the only one to see my points. And you are tepid and coy and subscribe to a double standard.

That statement, let's examine it:

"Kim is doing his best to prove that the controversy over gay marriage is not because of religion".

My points have been that I, among tens and tens and tens of million of Christians, and, yes, people of other religions, ARE NOT ONLY FOR GAY MARRIAGE, but have been and are, in the forefront OF STANDING UP FOR GAY RIGHTS AND MARRIAGE, and for inclusiveness and liberality ON A HOST OF OTHER ISSUES CONCERNING LIFE AND DEATH.

Rather, it is YOU who want to do what you falsely condemn me for, EXCLUDE. You and the others who condemn religion so vehemently want to condemn and exclude religious people as right wing reactionaries who are responsible for, well, WHAT ARE religious people NOT GUILTY OF, Angelo?

Kim
 
Guys, can we stop calling Pope Benedict "Benny?" To those on the forum that are catholic, it can be insulting. I don't agree with his philosophy, but some people may take offense to that.
That goes both ways though. Just because someone is not religious, it does not make them racist or anti-semetic. Some people are making sweeping generalizations of those that are not religious and it's unfair.

I was born then baptized in a catholic church.. was married in a catholic church... etc. I have some aunts that are catholic nuns and had extensive discussions with them concerning their experience. They are not fans of Pope Benedict and considering the huge sacrifice of their life they made, recognize today that this construct is deeply flawed (sure took long enough).
Vatican Crackdown On Nuns: Are Americans In Rome Behind It?

Notre+Dame.jpg



My fondest memories of church are of the organ in the Notre-Dame basilica in Montreal. A spectacular piece of finely adjusted equipment that produces exquisite sounds!
Not to mention the architecture, and artisan work involved in setting up this exhuberant display worthy of any trip to Disneyland

36393175.jpg


Imagine for a moment, the huge pressure on anyone daring to challenge this kind of setup a few years back.

The catholic church paid dearly back in the 1960's for this kind of bullying. We're all going to hell ;)
 
Discussion of the paranormal is what this forum is all about. There are numerous other forums that discuss religion, cults, and religious belief. If religion is to be discussed in relationship to the paranormal then it seems to me that you have to talk about the alleged supernatural and paranormal beings associated with that religion.

The questions we ask about UFOs and paranormal phenomena here are, "Are those things real?" "If so, are they what they or their representives claim them to be?"

I don't see those questions addressed by people who seem to want to discuss religion here.

I would think that if someone were looking for a conversation about religion that doesn't involve skepticism and hard questioning of the basic tenants of the religion which is the very existence of the supernatural beings on which they are based, that they would find more receptive participants in a forum geared for another type of discussion.
 
Wow Kim, we get it. You are fine with gay marriage.

The point everyone is trying to make is that the ONLY reason people are against gay marriage is because of religion. Those that are against gay marriage are against it because of religion. It does not mean that because you are religious you are against it. Do you get it?
 
And, ezechiel just made a point I have been trying to make in vain about the history of Christianity: It is a RICH AND SOPHISTICATED HISTORY OF A CHURCH THAT HAS AND IS GOING THROUGH STRUGGLE AND INTROSPECTION. The history of ALL the Christian churches over centuries is a sign OF STRENGTH. The nuns he speaks of, and if you study the history of the church(es), you will see many other examples, are one of the signs of a rich history. Christianity is not some monolithic thing that can be demonized for everything. Kim
 
And, ezechiel just made a point I have been trying to make in vain about the history of Christianity: It is a RICH AND SOPHISTICATED HISTORY OF A CHURCH THAT HAS AND IS GOING THROUGH STRUGGLE AND INTROSPECTION. The history of ALL the Christian churches over centuries is a sign OF STRENGTH. The nuns he speaks of, and if you study the history of the church(es), you will see many other examples, are one of the signs of a rich history. Christianity is not some monolithic thing that can be demonized for everything. Kim

And no one is doing that. Can you agree that the opposition to gay marriage is one based on religion?
 
And, ezechiel just made a point I have been trying to make in vain about the history of Christianity: It is a RICH AND SOPHISTICATED HISTORY OF A CHURCH THAT HAS AND IS GOING THROUGH STRUGGLE AND INTROSPECTION. The history of ALL the Christian churches over centuries is a sign OF STRENGTH. The nuns he speaks of, and if you study the history of the church(es), you will see many other examples, are one of the signs of a rich history. Christianity is not some monolithic thing that can be demonized for everything. Kim

An absolute moral authority going through struggle and introspection ? We're talking about an absolutist construct here. It is immuable, the word of god is clear... or is it ?.

The more it tries to wiggle itself out logistical impasses the more it burries itself in a stinking pit of apologetic contradictions... thus the papal ban on gay marriages which is probably close to his last attempt to uphold a semblance of credibility (relative to his construct). Pope Benedict XVI (alias Joseph Ratzinger) can't back down from that stance... or will he ?
 
But, ezechiel, if you study the history of the catholic church, the eastern churches(I mean the Christian churches that developed in the eastern part of the "old" roman empire, Byzantine if you will), then up to and including the several European and English reformations, you will see the struggle, the change, the richness, and quite the opposite of this hidebound never changing view you present as represented by pope Benedict, which view I do disagree with.

By the way, I appreciate the beautiful photographs you posted. May I say that a hobby of mine, so to speak, is visiting churches, especially catholic ones. I know you probably posted them with a different intent, but I did like them. Kim
 
Kim323 keeps mentioning "the history of the catholic church"... i started wondering about those early humans who never knew about god or catholics... are they all condemned to hell just for not knowing about god or being christian? Will they be sent to hell because they never drank the blood or ate the flesh of christ? What about us who grew up in church and rejected it because we have witnessed the pedophile actions of those we trusted? I am posting once again a stained glass church window that accurately represents what i witnessed in a "christian" church setting. Am I going to hell because I rejected my church and religion because of this and other atrocities?

When I see other intelligent life forms on earth attending a church, only then will i return.

funny-picture-church-stained-glass-window.jpg
 
Kim, I'll agree that the history of Christianity is rich. There have been good times and there have been bad times. Mostly because humans run the various and sundry religions within the bounds of their interpretations of the "Word". I accept and acknowledge that. From my perspective, religious dogma has also perpetuated ignorance in the past. Ignorance that is responsible for contradictory action while functioning under the guise of evangelistic principles.

I would agree that there are religious sects that support and campaign for Gay Rights. I would further agree that a "one size fits all" lumping of anything "religious" is baseless. However, the stated and official position of the largest and overwhelming majority of Christendom is against Gay rights and Gay marriage. This is not an opinion it is a fact. For the record, Islam's stated opinion is likewise against Gay Rights and Gay Marriage. So this is not just about the Christian viewpoint.

Overwhelmingly, the stance of organized religion is against Gay Rights and Marriage. You cannot deny that. Nor can you honestly deny that overwhelmingly it is these religious overtones that color the anit-Gay sentiment. The argument is not, "Gay People spread disease and vermine" or "Gay People are prone to violence". The argument almost always comes back to a religious viewpoint.

Thus, it is my belief that there is no legitimate argument outside of religion that is used successfully to justify the denial of Gay Rights and Marriage. There is no degeneration of social consciousness, increase of violence, theft, increase of murder rates, or any other tangible societal collapses with a direct causality attributed to same sex couplings. To me, that is the crux of it.
 
Pixel, there are studies, accurate ones, some by insurance companies who live by actuarial tables and statistics, that the prevalence of molestation by catholic priests is no greater at all than for males in the population at large, and for other professional groups. I've read several studies and the rate of it among catholic priests runs from 2 to 4 percent, and it's been determined that the cases were mostly by priests ordained in the seventies, and, indeed the church has been and is acting on it. I was a teacher, and was aware of some cases among teachers in my own district, and of course we all read of other cases by teachers. From what I've read the percentages are in the same range for other groups studied.

Does that make it worse because, well, they are priests? Not in my opinion, because I am sickened by it there as well as when done by teachers, day care workers, police officers, and so on, people in trust. And by people within the family of the victimized child when relatives do it.

I do constantly mention the histories of many things. Just a passion of mine. I read books on all sorts of subjects, but history ranks the highest. I know that gets tedious to hear, but history does teach things about science, culture, religion, politics, and on and on.

I'm not diminishing whatever experience you may have had with religion or a church.

I just think that rejecting the whole thing might deprive you of the real good that does exist in religion. But I don't know your specific experience, and you have to make that call yourself, of course.

Kim
 
Ron, I know I keep getting asked that question, but you seemed to put it more reasonably, so, yes, of course, much of opposition to gay marriage is based on religious beliefs. But I watch the recent past history of the Christian churches as well as all the centuries before, and there is no doubt that views among Jews and Christians, and other religions, and among Christians in all the many varied denominations, is moving markedly toward acceptance. Of gay rights, for many, many, many years. For marriage, the curve is also rapidly going up.

I grew up in a very liberal denomination, the united church of Christ, as the spectrum goes, somewhat ridiculously but it's a stick to measure by, quite to the left, I'd say right of the Unitarians and left of the presbyterians. I have watched the Protestant denominations over the last at least twenty years get close to tearing themselves apart over the issue of homosexuality, not rights for them, but marriage and ordination. I am for years now a member of a presbyterian church, and have watched the Prebyterian church USA go through a lot on every organizational level, and you know, check the latest and I would hope you would admire where it stands now. I've watched the Methodists go through the same internal searching.

And, you know, I've seen people come around, and it's incorrect to assume those against did not go through agony within.

Also, as I'm sure you know, how many sons, daughters, cousins, uncles, the much loved brother or sister, reveal themselves as homosexual and even the most conservative family member is confronted with HIMSELF or HERSELF, and that to me is a large part of Christianity and Judaism, and must examine themselves inwardly, and I think most by far would rather take that brother or daughter in their arms than reject them. Of course there are exceptions.

But that's what I love about history. You can see it change over the many centuries, and you can see it change within your own lifetime. Kim
 
This will be my final post on religion, "yeah right" :p Well, maybe. ;)
To the Mikes and the Bill Marhs and others of the world. Go to an Islamic nation. Hell, I'll even change that. Go to an Islamic website. Post your name and where you live. Then pull up vulgar pictures of Mohammed and others Islamic Icons. Tell them they are full of shit. Call Mohammed a Pedophile and list the number of atrosicites comminted in the name of Mohammed. I will then salute you and call you brave. I will also say a little prayer for you as they lay you (or what's left of you) to rest. ;) I will then say you were a brave soldier in the battle for truth. Now? Not so much. :p

Oh and while I'm saying this let me give props to Richard Dawkins. He has indeed spoken up about this. He caught some hypocritical flack from his own camp for it but I gotta give credit where credit is due.
 
Pixel, I know religion is replete with examples of cruelty, often over fine points of doctrine. I don't want to get into a detailed litany of the good stuff, like while battles galore were going on among theologians and the royal supremacy of Henry VIII was contested, the parish priests, untold tens of thousands of them were, well, doing much, much, good on a personal level over many centuries in many, many countries.

Also, and I have a feeling this isn't going to go over well, I will say, and say it categorically, that persecution of witches and burning of heretics, the most popularized aspect of Christianity, catholic and Protestant, is highly overrated. Now, if you were George van Parrish, or Joan Boucher, or even Thomas Cranmer or Nicholas ridley, your burning was not to be downplayed. You can look those people up to get details about them.

But the popular picture is bonfires galore, and that is highly exaggerated, and that enforced conformity was always the case on the part of a monolithic church just waiting to pounce and bring out the stake. The catholic church was hardly omnipresent and omniscient, priests began movements on their own, and popular religious fervor was often the case.

Struggle was not anything new in the Christian churches.

I can tell you from what I've read that you had to work pretty darn hard to get yourself executed, and that executions are highly overblown. Now that is of small comfort to those burned under Henry VIII's daughter Mary, but she had some old family issues to settle!

Even the much maligned Spanish inquisition had protocols, and I know many of you will laugh at that, but actual court testimony exists of hearings. No, not pretty, but things are transient, and disappear, as did the inquisition. Was the purpose conformity? Yes, as much as could be hoped for, but people can be contentious, and it was anything but a universal regime. Again, you had to really WANT to be burned alive, every effort was made to not even get near that relatively rare sentence, and it was imposed under strict guidelines. But, if you really were hardheaded, it could happen, but then on the way to the stake, you were constantly offered the option to recant and be spared, or at least recant and be strangled before you were burned. Many burnings were of the dead. I know, not pretty, but the French revolution led far more to the block, not to speak of world wars. Kim
 
my brother got out of religion a few years before i did and used to tell me... "religion is simply a tool to manipulate stupid people."
 
my brother got out of religion a few years before i did and used to tell me... "religion is simply a tool to manipulate stupid people."

Ideologies centered around the appeasement of supernatural beings construct elaborate spiritual protocols that are used to ensure the loyalty of the members. Fear of punishment and promises of divine reward in the after-life are used as tools to control behavior and thought of its adherents.

The thing is, once you realize these supernatural beings and their demands are not real things but creations of the human imagination, their larger significance and meaning becomes that of a cautionary tale. Some of these cults will kill you for disagreeing with their ridiculous child-like views. Does that mean we should respect them in any way other than a man respects a dangerous animal?
 
Well that's simplistic and if that's why "you" worshiped anything then I understand why you are an atheist. :eek: But, wait I said I was through on the religion thread. Never mind. Carry on. ;)
 
Excuse, really, the contiguous posts, but people do get insistent about some questions for me, so I've answered Angelo and Ron, and then pixel, as inadequately as the answers may be.

On this one fingered iPad, I can't locate the face icons, so I can't use them to show softening or irony, though I can be outspoken and don't care to.

Ricky has been very insistent, and I've avoided his questions because I've almost obsessively wanted to avoid religion per se and stick to my beloved history and facts concerning Judaism and Christianity, about what exactly metaphysically, spiritually, theologically, is this God I worship.

He has asked me before something like, "Do you worship this creator God named Yehweh as your personal savior?". Now, that's how I remember the question, and I sincerely mean nothing if I got it wrong. And then he asked two more questions above. I've avoided those questions because I didn't feel they were really on topic to even the religious threads, but I'm not trying to provoke you, Ricky. I felt, ironically now, that those types of questions WOULD anger members, and I tried to avoid them, because believe me, I'm not at all into proselytizing. That's why I was a teacher, so I could "sell" stuff that everyone would buy!

I have to still avoid that first question of ricky's because it just has too many built in assumptions that make it a difficult question to parse. So I'll inadequately address the others, because they are couched in terms that speak to whether or not I should be on the forum.

"Are those things real?" asked in the context that belief in God is subject to the same hard scrutiny and questioning that paranormal subjects are. Off the top of my head:

1. I don't believe that God can be equated with the other paranormal stuff. Yes, and I'm stating what I believe strongly, God does indeed exist, and His form, specific substance, body parts, I don't presume to know. I also don't know his "mind" but I do know he is active, created the universe(s), is benevolent and loving, created humans, beautiful creatures that should not demean themselves by likening themselves to supposedly "lower" creatures like ants which themselves are beautiful in contrast to some wildly assumed intelligent extraterrestrials that probably don't exist, but if they do, they will be beautiful creatures, too, that somewhere God had to let go and let evolution proceed, that somewhere in that evolution, perhaps way before even muticellular life, predation, the feeding on others, entered the world and that was physically the first form of evil. (if you think thus far I'm nuts, I can point to scientists who postulate this!).

That free will exists, is paramount, is not an illusion, that we have a soul and mind that is dependent on and yet separate from just our biological processes, that though we may indeed advance in technology and supplement ourselves, but that we are sophisticated creatures in our own right physically and spiritually.

That God deplores what we choose to do to each other, that he is against that very real thing that is the definition of evil, not gluttony or homosexuality, but doing that which everyone, even the evil, will agree is that which causes others, humans and other animals, gratuitous and intentional suffering, the what is called " exquisite" evil, the physical and psychological acts that cause " exquisite" suffering: for instance, if someone stuck a knife in my ribs and demanded my wallet, that is wrong, but not, necessarily, evil. There is a malignant, can be subtle, narcissism that defines evil. We have all experienced it, and I don't think I need to offer examples. It is often very subtle, very controlling, that which dominates and causes pain to others. It doesn't have to involve whole regiments of soldiers, but can.

Regarding God's " representatives and what they claim to be," what are they according to me, is asked?

God deplores this evil, we know what constitutes it, some people defy God and work it on others, some people are psychiatrically sick, have diseases, cannot control what they do, God has had to let go somewhat, we are given wonderful brains to invent wonderful cures for each other, more will come. God doesn't let evil exist, he is omnipotent, timeless, and we are encouraged to exercise free will, to approach with mathematics and science and philosophy what he has created, to approach Him, he encourages our humanism, but he doesn't play games and tell us the whole story of what it's all about, of what worth would we be to him or ourselves if we were slaves to him, that we had it all spoon fed to us? There is no literal hell for us, no punishment for having existed before his " representatives" gave us what we needed in order to be " saved", because we already know what evil is.

And he has appointed certain men and women to be his representatives, and yes, I believe at this point I will say only I believe in Christian doctrine and theology. Yes, I believe that this person did and said certain things, especially did certain things, actions, deeds, that scholars are hard pressed to discount. I don't believe even he knew how special he was, he had grave doubts, he was human, he allowed us to witness what wonderful creatures we are to God, he was a member of humanity and also of a, yes, initially nomadic people that was unique in spreading monotheism. He felt a special closeness to God, whom he referred to in his language as Abba. I don't presume to know the details of all the whys of all this, it doesn't mean that all others are damned who came before or who don't currently believe. I believe that he was unique among others. I was raised in an extremely liberally politically family, I went to an extremely liberal church, nothing was forced down my throat, I just came to this view through, yes, for me, I will only call hard study, it was just the opposite of sheer faith, I don't know, I can't attribute it to any blindness of reason, just the opposite.

I'm going to stop here. I've no doubt proved ricky's assumption that I don't belong in this forum! And I've no doubt enabled some here to rub their hands together and say I knew it, he's a crazy Christian, and thus proved them all correct.

It's just that beyond all the cruelty man does to man, there's something to Christianity, with its, yes, elevation of women, it's message, its start with a man who didn't raise an army to conquer territory, its tenets of forgiveness, but its demands, too, of which I know I fall short, its
 
Its, yes, historical validity, its steadfastness, that transcends and shouldn't be made to bear in and of itself for what it is, the things that men themselves have done, for which it itself is not to blame. Kim
 
Back
Top