The Paracast, Guests and Religion.

[tyder001]

Mike said: [Some background: I'm a man, ive been married to a woman for 26 years, i find the sight of two women kissing a bit of a turn on, the sight of two men kissing a bit yucky.
I dont know why this is, it might be genetic or social , i dont know.

Same here.

Mike said: But that is not in of itself a justification to impose that reaction and subsequent restrictions on them.
Marriage between a black man and a white woman, two men, two women, or a man and a woman is all the same to me, the configuration of the skin they wear is irrelevant.
If they choose each other, that connection has nothing to do with the skin each entity wears, and everything to do with the person inside.

I agree.


I think the problem is that faith is a very strong spiritual/emotional bond for some of us. The people that some of this caracatures just don't resonate with me or the people of faith that I have been raised around. When I was a youth and going to church I NEVER heard the local pastor say "Lets make it illegal for gays to walk down the street." I have Christian friends and family now and they never, ever say "Lets go bomb the abortion clinic and stone the infidels." Just because you can sling dirt on any religion or group using past sins or the idiocy of a few doesn't mean there is no good or sane people following that religion. Finally, let me say this.

I'm not a born again evangelical bible thumping card carrying right wing person. However, I do still pray. You don't? No problem. I find comfort in the inner dialog of my life and a thousand "studies" trying to disprove my hope are not worth one moment or one 10th of the moments when I have simply "known." I absolutely don't believe that we are here by accident. I absolutely don't believe that there is a mean old man in the sky that will burn you in hell if you don't watch out. But, yeah I do think we are an eternal expression of intent and purpose. I like Mikes statement that it's just skin because I think we are in "earth suits" while we are here. But, none of that means a rat's ass to the way you should live your life or vote in an election. But, the Christian "church" that I grew up in didn't try to rig elections or change the laws of the land. I was taught "be in the world, but not of the world." By that they meant "You don't make the laws of the land and you don't impose your will on others. However, you live in Christ no matter what the world does." Now, has that changed? Yeah, as far as right wing and politics go, it has. But, the people I still know from my old home town are still "giving out food and hot chohcolate in front of the downtown church on winter days." The pastors daughter is still leading the Halloween Dress like a Zombie parade downtown. The youth still drive over to Atlanta (I'm from Northeast Alabama) to give out clothes around Peachtree Street. The pastor still goes to the home to pray with the sick and dying and family. Matter of fact two young gay guys (no, they were not a couple) used to go to church there. The pastor never preached fire and brimstone while they were there or after for that matter. Not his style. So, some of this right wing hysteria bashing on this thread has just left me a little cold. It's propaganda and it's mud slinging and it's silly. Now, are there other side examples I can give? Hell Yeah! I could tell ya some horror stories about born again religious folks. But, mainly I agree with jpw.in.wi this is not the place to have an intelligent discussion on religion if you really are interested in taking it to a deep level. However, for the ones who just want to show how much they can curse and call names and sling mud at the name of Christ or Buddha or Mohammed or Krisna or the little old lady who prays for her family. It's an excellent place.

 

[Ezechiel]

Here's where someone can prove me wrong that a serious discussion of religion can actually be had in these forums.

The Church always has REASONS why it judges a thought, an action, or the absence of an action to be morally right or wrong. So, instead of insulting the Pope's appearance, or accusing the Church of being a front for homosexual pedophiles, or mindlessly citing the Galileo affair absent any context, or generally indicting current Church leaders for the obvious wrongdoings of other Church leaders who lived centuries ago, can somebody please take just one of the REASONS why the Church judges homosexual marriage to be wrong and refute that point? Seriously?

Pedophilia in the church... case closed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xFIkxAq1Xs

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18408

A patriarchal organization hiding criminal sexual activities involving young men. If that's not a front... then what is ?

Dispatching moral absolutes inspired by the dark ages... that's what the papacy is all about. The earth is the center of the universe, right ?

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/stor...iage-a-threat-to-humanity-s-future-mdash-pope
"The family unit is fundamental for the educational process and for the development both of individuals and states; hence there is a need for policies which promote the family and aid social cohesion and dialogue," Benedict told the diplomats.

What does he know about families, he never had kids lol. Has he ever met a gay couple with kids ? Does he think a gay couple will abuse the kids ? ... like his cult does ?

 

[tyder001]

This is to the moderators. I have NEVER asked for a thread to be closed. I don't believe in censorship and I am not Catholic. But, I saw a James Randi thread closed because folks were getting to personal and mean. I've seen threads closed because the same old tired arguments were going back and forth and the tone was getting personal and nasty and unproductive. I'm a social worker and have worked first hand with both victims and abusers and it is a nasty gut wrenching soul scarring abomination. But, this is getting to a point where this is simply an agenda from a couple of folks who have a personal grudge against an organization. Yes, the Catholic Church has been exposed as having some extreme problems and condoning in it's ranks the most vile actions ever done on a human. On the other hand so has Penn State University and local law enforcement and education and other places. But, the Catholic Church or Penn State or any other organization was not founded to harm others. Lets not forget that yes the church needs to come into the 21 centuary. But, they have also and continue to "clothe the poor." and feed the hungry and open hospital to heal the sick and give comfort to the dying when time is up here and science and comfort and material things are finished. So, yes you can always sling mud. But, out of respect to those who work and pray and have done much good and are just trying to live life and find their way. I'm asking that this thread be either closed or at least that some civility be brought back into it. Folks some of you are starting to look a lot like the very things that you proclaim to hate.

Peace!

Steve, you can be right and still say it in a way that is wrong and makes you wrong.....My wife to me on a subject that I felt strongly about and was beating somebody else up verbally about.

 

[trainedobserver]

I have often found that everyone wants to talk about religion until the uncomfortable subject of the actual behavior of the practitioners vs. their P.R. gets brought up.

I personally don't think the Paracast is suited to examine the religious beliefs of guests even in light of their paranormal claims. In my view their paranormal claims have to be examined outside of what a guest's religious belief system may or may not be. I for one am not that interested in the religious belief systems of guests unless they are something out of the ordinary.

Religion and unsupportable paranormal claims go hand in hand though, and UFO cults are historically a large part of Ufology.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I don't really see anything in this thread that necessitates it being closed. I don't think that someone's religion is relevant if it doesn't cloud his or her judgement on a particular topic. I also don't think that "because the bible says so" is a good reason for anything. People that do that pick and chose the best bits that fit how they feel. If Chris and Gene would start every interview with, "so what god to you pray to," it would be strange.
If someone wants to marry the person (and I'm talking human beings) he or she loves, they should be allowed to. Also, if a same sex couple wants to adopt a child, they should be able to as well. Saying the child has no choice is silly. My daughter had no choice over the fact that her mother and I are a man and a woman. The important thing is that the child is loved and taken care of. There are plenty of couples out there that should not be allowed to have kids. Just because they can put tab A into slot B and create a child does not mean they are more qualified than two men or women that adopt one.

 

[trainedobserver]

I have always wondered why the aliens (or folks claiming to speak for them) haven't proposed some alien god for mankind, or have they and I just missed it? Heaven knows, there are more contactees, experiencers, abductees, channelers, and so forth that no one could possibly keep up with it all. Do alien gods (or those that would speak for them) send their followers to other worlds to prosthelytize the natives? Doesn't seem to have been a major theme in UFO reports but a variation on the theme made for a chilling movie in The Chronicles of Riddick.

It does seem more likely that some space traveler might wind up on the Vatican lawn rather than the White House's. Isn't that a scary thought! The gold saucer lands, out walks an alien in ornate robes surrounded by attendants and through a series of audio visual presentations communicates that he is the Pope of the Universe or something and we've just been annexed. Everyone must now were funny hats and drink only eel milk or something equally as absurd.

 

[mike]

I don't really see anything in this thread that necessitates it being closed. I don't think that someone's religion is relevant if it doesn't cloud his or her judgement on a particular topic. I also don't think that "because the bible says so" is a good reason for anything. People that do that pick and chose the best bits that fit how they feel. If Chris and Gene would start every interview with, "so what god to you pray to," it would be strange.
If someone wants to marry the person (and I'm talking human beings) he or she loves, they should be allowed to. Also, if a same sex couple wants to adopt a child, they should be able to as well. Saying the child has no choice is silly. My daughter had no choice over the fact that her mother and I are a man and a woman. The important thing is that the child is loved and taken care of. There are plenty of couples out there that should not be allowed to have kids. Just because they can put tab A into slot B and create a child does not mean they are more qualified than two men or women that adopt one.

I actually agree, and as far as the adoption process goes, as long as the selection criteria are stringent then being a gay couple shouldnt in of itself be a barrier.
Let me clarify my concern, when a man and a woman have a child, the child has no choice thats true, because thats how the biological process works, there is only that one option.
In the adoption process someone has to make a choice for the baby, as to what environment its raised in. Gay partnerships are still a minority, that is to say not the usual unit.
Thus there is scope down the track for the child to question why it got a different environment to its peers.
Again not a barrier to gay adoption in my eyes, but i'm glad im not the one making that decision, and thus having to answer for it to the child in later life.

As for closing the thread thats insane, yes its a touchy subject, but its one thats valid for discussion.

JPW asked

can somebody please take just one of the REASONS why the Church judges homosexual marriage to be wrong and refute that point? Seriously?

And ive attempted to refute those reasons, why should one religions (in this example catholic) theological based morality, be imposed on the populace in general over say Hindu morality in regards to meat eating, or islamic morality in regards to pork ?

What makes one brand fit for Policy making and not another, do we let them all impose their selective morality on everyone, or do we keep theology based morality and rules out of the general legislative process.

How would you feel if your partner wound up in hospital and they wouldnt let you visit him/her ?

Two years ago, a Baltimore jury rejected a claim by Bill Flanigan, 38, of San Francisco, who sued Baltimore's Shock Trauma Center of the University of Maryland medical system after it did not let him visit his partner, 32-year-old Robert Daniel, as he died of AIDS. "By the time he finally got into the hospital room, his partner had lost consciousness and never regained it, and they never had a chance to say goodbye," said Buckel.

Gay-rights groups had hoped the case would mark a turning point in their effort to have more say over partners' medical treatment, but it hasn't always worked that way. While some states such as California, Vermont and New Jersey grant medical decision-making rights to registered domestic partners, most, including New York, offer limited rights or none at all.
Partners of gay hospital patients often can't even visit, much less make life-and-death decisions for their loved ones, particularly if blood relatives object, said Carissa Cunningham of Gay&Lesbian Advocates&Defenders, a Boston-based group.

Im not suggesting the church be forced to perform gay marriages, i'm all for them having the right to choose and say no. But the state should allow them to get married and thus be subject to the same advantages and obligations as a straight couple, the hospital example is as tragic as it is obscene in this day and age.

The catholic church frowns on homosexuality
The hindu faith frowns on meat eating

And its ironic that despite this ,ive been inside a gay and lesbian night club, and inside a slaughterhouse. Personally the latter was the more disturbing and upsetting experience

 

[tyder001]

Im not suggesting the church be forced to perform gay marriages, i'm all for them having the right to choose and say no. But the state should allow them to get married and thus be subject to the same advantages and obligations as a straight couple

In context that's what I said.


I have to admit I don't like closing threads. I just think this had gotten very uncivil and I hate silly little one sided arguments. Still, I do agree with the last couple of statements that Trained and Angel have made. So, I'll hush since I don't feel my main point was really understood. But, that's OK (smiles condescendingly) I'm gonna go over there now and post on a different thread.

 

[mike]

I have to admit I don't like closing threads. I just think this had gotten very uncivil and I hate silly little one sided arguments. Still, I do agree with the last couple of statements that Trained and Angel have made. So, I'll hush since I don't feel my main point was really understood. But, that's OK (smiles condescendingly) I'm gonna go over there now and post on a different thread.

Mate ive gone back through the thread and cant find any incivility in it, no one has called someone else a rude name. i get that some of the observations of others have made you uncomfortable and thus defensive about a system you subscribe to, but locking the thread on that basis would be pure censorship in its worst form.
People have expressed opinions, and made observations about a system you hold dear, but thats not the same as being personally offensive and uncivil, there have been no personal attacks that i can see

 

[tyder001]

Again, as I said before. I am not and have never been "Catholic" I am not a fundi. I am not right or left wing. I have decided that I either did a horrible job getting my point across or it was just "misunderstood." I do forget that reading comprehension is a gift. That being said I am just going to leave this one alone. Because either I have misunderstood and haven't been paying attention or some others just can't understand what I have tried to say. I think it's a little of both. Also, I do not want censorship. I simply thought this was a little hysterical. Most of the time I find myself arguing with the self rightous be they liberal or conservative, religious or anti religion. But, since I'm kind of sounding a little self rightous right now to myself, I'm gonna hush. Again.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I'm all for serious discussions of religion with guests, but I think that's really outside of the mission of this show.

I would like to say, though, that one thing that has urcked me in the past is the quick and condescending ways in which certain religions have been dismissed on the show. In particular, Chris really burned me on one occasion when all he had to say about Pope Benedict XVI was that he was one of the most evil looking men he'd ever seen. Really? Can you get more mean-spirited and superficial than that?

From the BBC: Joseph Ratzinger was born into a traditional Bavarian farming family in 1927, although his father was a policeman... At the age of 14, he joined the Hitler Youth.... World War II saw his studies at Traunstein seminary interrupted when he was drafted into an anti-aircraft unit in Munich... Muslims took offence when, in 2006, he quoted a 14th Century Byzantine emperor who said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things....Then Jews were taken aback when a breakaway group of bishops was welcomed back into the Church fold, including one who was found to be a Holocaust-denier.

From: miskeptics.org: Victims of clerical sex abuse have reacted furiously to Pope Benedict’s claim yesterday that paedophilia wasn’t considered an “absolute evil” as recently as the 1970s.
In his traditional Christmas address yesterday to cardinals and officials working in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI also claimed that child pornography was increasingly considered “normal” by society.

“In the 1970s, pedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children,” the Pope said.

“It was maintained — even within the realm of Catholic theology — that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a ‘better than’ and a ‘worse than’. Nothing is good or bad in itself.”

He sure sounds twisted to me, and if you don't think he is evil-looking, you need to check with an eye doctor...

 

[Ezechiel]

Im not suggesting the church be forced to perform gay marriages, i'm all for them having the right to choose and say no. But the state should allow them to get married and thus be subject to the same advantages and obligations as a straight couple, the hospital example is as tragic as it is obscene in this day and age.

The catholic church frowns on homosexuality
The hindu faith frowns on meat eating

And its ironic that despite this ,ive been inside a gay and lesbian night club, and inside a slaughterhouse. Personally the latter was the more disturbing and upsetting experience

That's really a puzzling aspect of all this... Why would homosexuals want to unite in a catholic church that denigrates them in the first place ?!

Homosexuality frequently appears in other species, surely somebody at the vatican recognizes this. That the catholic church has decided to prune homosexuality out of humans to promote a specific family model that excludes that element goes against the dynamics of this planet.

Ostracizing a part of nature that you have no control over is not the way to go. It is pure ignorance and contempt for different humans that have always been a productive part of our societies.

I'd hand over my kids to Tim Cook any day !!

 

[trainedobserver]

I simply thought this was a little hysterical.

I tell you what is hysterical. People trying to justify the existence and pronouncements of a predatory institution that has abused the innocent children of the very people who have run to it for refuge for centuries. Generations of Catholics have been sexually abused by the priesthood and we should be civil about how we discuss this putrid cesspool of humanity because of a few bowls of soup or a few rags laid on the heads of the dying? These rancid spiritual giants make me ill. That is just f*ing hysterical. What I wonder, is worth getting hysterical about if not systematic child abuse and the criminals that cover it up?

I for the life of me do not understand why they aren't dragged out into the street and tarred and feathered, every single last one of them.

 

[mike]

I just think this had gotten very uncivil

I have decided that I either did a horrible job getting my point across or it was just "misunderstood." I do forget that reading comprehension is a gift.

Your point was clear enough to me, you tried to justify your request to lock a topic you found uncomfortable by suggesting this had gotten very uncivil.

I replied that i could see no personal attacks.

then you drop

I do forget that reading comprehension is a gift

Which if we are honest is a veiled barb, suggesting i and /or others do not posses an ability to comprehend.

How ironic

 

[tyder001]

Mike you make a valid point. So, let me say something and then I will at least have placed all my cards on the table. First, I think the crime of pedophilia is possibly the very worst thing that any human can do. But, not to long ago a former moderator on this forum placed audio "proof" that james randi was at least leaning in that direction. Because he is a hero to some folks here (and to at least one person here that I honestly like and respect) the thread was quickly closed. No coming on and talking about dragging anybody into the street. No, beating of the chest and cursing his name. Just some mumbled excuses and a claim of it being "debunked." and then silence. Yet, you would have thought Phil Imbrogno was Satan incarnate for telling fibs. So, there ya have it. I think there is a double standard and that stinks. Now, I've opened up another can of worms and I will probably regret it. But, as they say in the country "God hates a coward!" so there I put my cards on the table. People from Paul Kimbal to James Mosely made referrence to it. But, the paracast didn't touch it. That's fine! But, that is one reason why I thought this was kind of hysterical. Now, I've really opened it up and I'm gonna hush. Cause I've touched on a sacred cow and I'm sure brick bats will follow shortly.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Mike you make a valid point. So, let me say something and then I will at least have placed all my cards on the table. First, I think the crime of pedophilia is possibly the very worst thing that any human can do... audio "proof" that james randi was at least leaning in that direction... so there I put my cards on the table. People from Paul Kimbal to James Mosely made referrence to it. But, the paracast didn't touch it...

Back when I one of the guest hosts, I posted on a thread here and referenced Randi's troubles and a link to the phone tapes. I'd have no problem talking about the subject of pedophilia and child molistation, but unfortunately it ain't very paranormal. There are stories out there that refer to children and occult ritual practice. This would fall under our Paracast subject umbrella. There are many places a conversation could go: The CChurch, theFinder's scandal, rumors about Hunter Thompson's investigation and death, institutionalized practices in other counties... suggest a guest? I'm fairly certain it wouldn't be one of my favorite shows, but this form of victimization is a worthy subject with which to further educate our listeners.

 

[tyder001]

Chris, I really am with you on this. I don't think it's something I'm comfortable with either. Although, what you suggest would work as a show. I guess that's why you make the big bucks! But, in all seriousness I couldn't help but think of how fast that thread went nowhere. I think when you get a u.f.o. researcher lying and it goes ballistic and then you get a fairly well known skeptic doing inhuman things and the fine skeptics on here that call out the u.f.o. guy just go "crickets".................. Well, then I guess I do think hmmmm. I mean if your gonna drag the bishops out and call out a whole institution then what's' the problem with one skinny old broken down magician? OH wait! He's "rational" He exposes charlatans. All you have to do is google James Moseley and a couple of others. The usual suspects (so called find csiop or whatever their called defend him of course. It's all bunk and made up. But, that pesky tape just want go away! Damn technology! That's supposed to be the atheist friend. Anyway, I did a little research and yeah it goes both ways. But, the "trail" is really provocative. I honestly don't know what the man is. But, there is a smell there that I don't like.

 

[tyder001]

On a different subject. I came across this from a link or two. It's kind of funny and kind of thought provoking. I honestly know nothing of the author of the blog. But, here's the link.

http://thenobbyworks.blogspot.com/2012/01/hitchens-in-heaven-dispatch.html

 

[trainedobserver]

First, I think the crime of pedophilia is possibly the very worst thing that any human can do. But, not to long ago a former moderator on this forum placed audio "proof" that james randi was at least leaning in that direction. Because he is a hero to some folks here (and to at least one person here that I honestly like and respect) the thread was quickly closed. No coming on and talking about dragging anybody into the street. No, beating of the chest and cursing his name. Just some mumbled excuses and a claim of it being "debunked." and then silence

Just what are you talking about? Are you equating James Randi's homosexuality with pedophilia? Is that what you are doing or are you accusing him of pedophilia? If you are accusing him of pedophilia just where is the evidence of that?

 

[tyder001]

Oh Good Gravy! Keep dodging Rodger! Don't give me that shit. You know what I'm talking about. It was all over the forums and it has NOTHING to do with being gay!