i have great respect for buddism and it's connections with christianity.
It's interesting isn't it? The Buddha's mother supposedly immaculately conceived a child when she was visited in a dream by a white elephant that entered her womb. Sound familar? The Christian idea of "Immaculate Conception" was heavily influenced by the stories of the Buddha's birth. I'm sure you know since you've studied it that there are countless other examples just like this that Christianity borrowed from Buddhism. The average Bible thumper would be appaled to know this fact. Let's enlighten them shall we?
one foot in the door
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
Unfortunately - THIS is the problem... because they ARE influencing people and getting them riled up over what is really a non-issue.
EDIT: And it's influencing them to vote a certain way through scare tactics...
that's cause Republicans have nothing...Immigration debate will lead to no true action, election reform wil lead to no true action, flag burning...nothing, gay marriage....nothing, but that's all they have, if they ran on the things they have actually done they'd all get replaced. they confuse people with what they don't want them to know the truth about, then scare them to move there attention elsewhere...they won't openly and honestly debate issues so that anyone actually knows where they stand...they got nothing but great marketing scheme
"Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)
I have an honest question - for the hardline right on this board. The question was inspired by the following quote in another hotly-debated religious thred:
Originally Posted by know1
My church had a sermon last week on being accepting of homosexuals. The point was that sin is no worse than anyone of our sins and that the church has failed by alienating them.
So here's my question - to those of you who choose to make the "gay issue" a hot button issue during election cycles and a matter of turning a group of people into a sort of "lower" society.
Why is this "sin" so much worse than the others and worthy of your venom?
Why don't we restrict free speech on people who use the lord's name in vain?
Why don't we ostracize people who decide to labor on Sundays?
Why don't try to limit the rights of adulterers?
Why aren't people who covet other people's properties hearded off and forced to lives as kind of a second society?
Please - only real responses - no "stupid fucking liberals" comments or anything like that...
EDIT: OVER on Page 4, we've had lots of good discussion so far - but are still waiting for an answer to the original question from someone who steadfastly believes that homosexuals should NOT have the same civil rights as heterosexuals.
I am not a "hardline right", I just happen to think that the answer to your question (one of them) is pretty obvious. I believe the reason this is such a hot button issue is because you are talking about something, the family, that is considered by many to be the bedrock of society. If that is "corrupted" or redifined as something other than the children of our society being raised in a home of a woman and a man (or other potential threats to the family such as cohabitation, epidemic divorce, etc.), then they believe that is less than ideal for the rising generations, and for the basic moral fiber of society. Now, obviously, the other "sins" you mention have much less of an impact on society. Comparitively, not much is going to be affected by millions of people taking the Lord's name in vain, or working on Sunday, etc.
This question seems kind of obvious, so I'm a little worried it is just a bait qustion. But if it is legit, than I say it is just because of the deep impact changing the defined traditional family could have on society as a whole.
Good description of Buddhism....that's the dichotomy of Buddhism....you have to try for enlightenment but not desire enlightenment...it's a subtle yet all important difference.
yes, i don't think i'd make a very good buddhist at all.....but i like a lot of the ideas.
am not a "hardline right", I just happen to think that the answer to your question (one of them) is pretty obvious. I believe the reason this is such a hot button issue is because you are talking about something, the family, that is considered by many to be the bedrock of society. If that is "corrupted" or redifined as something other than the children of our society being raised in a home of a woman and a man (or other potential threats to the family such as cohabitation, epidemic divorce, etc.), then they believe that is less than ideal for the rising generations, and for the basic moral fiber of society. Now, obviously, the other "sins" you mention have much less of an impact on society. Comparitively, not much is going to be affected by millions of people taking the Lord's name in vain, or working on Sunday, etc.
This question seems kind of obvious, so I'm a little worried it is just a bait qustion. But if it is legit, than I say it is just because of the deep impact changing the defined traditional family could have on society as a whole.
seems the most logical answer thus far. not condoning it or saying such views are right...b/c i don't....but at least that has some degree of sense to it, as to 'why' one may look at it in a harsher light.
I am not a "hardline right", I just happen to think that the answer to your question (one of them) is pretty obvious. I believe the reason this is such a hot button issue is because you are talking about something, the family, that is considered by many to be the bedrock of society. If that is "corrupted" or redifined as something other than the children of our society being raised in a home of a woman and a man (or other potential threats to the family such as cohabitation, epidemic divorce, etc.), then they believe that is less than ideal for the rising generations, and for the basic moral fiber of society. Now, obviously, the other "sins" you mention have much less of an impact on society. Comparitively, not much is going to be affected by millions of people taking the Lord's name in vain, or working on Sunday, etc.
This question seems kind of obvious, so I'm a little worried it is just a bait qustion. But if it is legit, than I say it is just because of the deep impact changing the defined traditional family could have on society as a whole.
No - it wasn't a bait question.
I think the rising rates of adultery and divorce are as much of a threat to the institute of family and the long-term well being of children - but that's just my opinion...
And as I mentioned before - as I'm fairly close to the issue thanks to family and friends - The gay community isn't really banging down the doors for this "marriage" thing to happen. It seems like for every one homosexual who wants gay "marriage" there are three talking heads and politicians screaming about it's danger. It seems to me that its a manufactured "crisis of the family" that gets people to the polls.
I think the majority of the gay community would be happy with civil unions - where benefits can be shared and passed on to a partner similar to a married couple - and what would be wrong with that (since you're not going to stop them from living together anyway)...?
Plain and simple: I don't think its as much of a crisis to the family as the republican party and the religious right want you to think it is.
But I respect what you said - because for the most part you left religion out of it.
Which brings me back to my original question for those who do use religion to back up their assertions: Why is homosexuality a worse sin than others? Or why is it a worse sin than your sins? Why do you feel that particular sin gives you the right to separate them as a different part of society?
I think the rising rates of adultery and divorce are as much of a threat to the institute of family and the long-term well being of children - but that's just my opinion...
And as I mentioned before - as I'm fairly close to the issue thanks to family and friends - The gay community isn't really banging down the doors for this "marriage" thing to happen. It seems like for every one homosexual who wants gay "marriage" there are three talking heads and politicians screaming about it's danger. It seems to me that its a manufactured "crisis of the family" that gets people to the polls.
I think the majority of the gay community would be happy with civil unions - where benefits can be shared and passed on to a partner similar to a married couple - and what would be wrong with that (since you're not going to stop them from living together anyway)...?
Plain and simple: I don't think its as much of a crisis to the family as the republican party and the religious right want you to think it is.
But I respect what you said - because for the most part you left religion out of it.
Which brings me back to my original question for those who do use religion to back up their assertions: Why is homosexuality a worse sin than others? Or why is it a worse sin than your sins? Why do you feel that particular sin gives you the right to separate them as a different part of society?
I see, you are curious about the religious aspect of it. That makes sense. Sorry to suggest it may have been a bait question. No disrespect intended.
Anyway, I don't have much to offer as to why homosexuality is a "worse" sin than others. In my knowledge and understanding of God, I believe he does not accept the behavior, but a fundamental tenent of this nation is to allow people the freedom to privately practice whatever makes them happy (of course, if it doesn't harm others). Thus, even though in my religion, I feel homosexual behavior is wrong, I'm not going to suggest someone cannot practice it. My issue is with redefining what marriage is, however. Your suggestion of just keeping it at a level of civil unions with the necessary rights granted to the couple is refreshing. Honestly, I wish that's what we could compromise at. And leave "marriage" as what it has always been. The thing I have a hard time with is gay couples adopting kids. I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about that. Part of me is like "if it is biologically impossible to create children, why should you want to have them?" Anyway, I hope you respect my opinions and attempts to explain how I feel.
Also, there is a fundamental point to your post that many Buddhists would take issue with. It implies desire. In Buddhism, desire is the ultimate source of suffering. If you seek enlightenment, you must do it without desire - without motivation, so to speak. Perhaps a Christian seeks salvation for fear of being left out of Heaven (not all, but bear with me). A Buddhist should seek enlightenment simply because it's the right thing to do.
"Desiring the Desireless?
If we are to arrive at a state where desire is no more, how can desiring such a state bring us to it? ... Zen Buddhism quite naturally circumvents this apparent paradox by placing emphasis on practice itself rather than on aiming to achieve something. ...
However, this doesn't mean there is no place in Buddhism for aspiration. ...
Although aspiration has its place, it is the type and quality of one's practice that is more significant. The Buddha's words are helpful here. In the Bhumija Sutta from the Pali Canon (early Buddhist scriptures), he states that it is following the right path that will bring positive results, irrespective of whether one desires them or not."
The way I see it the sin of having homosexual sex didn't even make the top ten list. It is a sin just like any other. As far as my understanding goes there is no sin in being homosexual. Much like we are all liars, but the sin is to lie.
Well said.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
No, they've done that all by themselves. I'd drop that friend pretty quick if it was an ongoing thing.
I don't believe in gay marriage only because I think the government should get out of the marriage game. Government mingled church and state here and should leave marriage as an issue entirely up to churches. And if a church wants to marry homosexuals I have no problem with that. A marriage certificate would be purely ceremonial and have no legal value. The state should provide union certificates to any group of individuals wanting one and willing to take on the legal rights and responsibilities that would come with the certificate.
I don't understand why more people do not think this way. I totally agree. Marriage should have nothing to do with the government.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I'm actually not interested in man-made justifications or interpretations of biblical stuff that condones judging. I realise that it's out there and that many people believe it. I don't. It is very ugly and inappropriate in my opinion. It is about the human ego, which is about separation and making others wrong. God is Love which binds everything together.
i think you missed the point of the "judging". It seems like it's meant explicitly for one believer to another. If you are a believer and are NOT sinning in that way...let's keep it easy. You are a married believer and you are not cheating on your spouse. If you have a friend WHO IS A BELIEVER and is cheating on their spouse, you have an obligation to confront them IN LOVE and talk with them...not to condemn them to hell or anything, but to help them uphold the vows they made before God. If you are cheating on your spouse you have no business judging or rebuking anyone.
It looks like your source has misconstrued biblical stuff, for example Ephesians 4:15 actually says: "but speaking truth in love, we may grow up in all things into him, who is the head, Christ;" not only "we are to speak the truth in love"
is the meaning changed by leaving off the 2nd half of the verse? no, it is the same.
John 14:16-17 which is alluded to actually says: "16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you."
I listen directly to the spirit of truth that is in me at all times--and that spirit is not about condemning my fellow humans when I am the same.
That's right this passage is not about condemning or judging mankind. It is direction to believers and their rebuking of other believers. You're last line above is exactly what is being implied and what was said in the thing i pasted earlier. If you are doing the "sin" for which you are judging others, you are in the wrong. As believers we are to help each other when we stumble to not stumble again and to make things right. It is not for believers to go around judging everyone (non-believers and believers).
Do you know you are able to judge another person's homosexuality? Do you have a tally of your sins to know you sin less than they do?
I preach the word day in and out. But I do not judge.
I'll stick to the homosexualtiy question. Assume that homosexuality is a sin (i know you may not, that's fine). If you see a fellow christian who is struggling with homosexuality AND you are not struggling with it you should offer to talk with them, pray with them etc... You are NOT to condemn that person, even as a believer; however, i feel there is an obigation to speak with them. We all sin. Different people struggle with different "sin". The whole point of the passage is to not be hypocritical but to work together and lift each other up...NOT to say "you're bad and evil, unlike me". I feel that we're all on the same page when it comes to sin...it's a black and white issue...either you never sin or you're tainted...no in b/t.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
i think you missed the point of the "judging". It seems like it's meant explicitly for one believer to another. If you are a believer and are NOT sinning in that way...let's keep it easy. You are a married believer and you are not cheating on your spouse. If you have a friend WHO IS A BELIEVER and is cheating on their spouse, you have an obligation to confront them IN LOVE and talk with them...not to condemn them to hell or anything, but to help them uphold the vows they made before God. If you are cheating on your spouse you have no business judging or rebuking anyone.
is the meaning changed by leaving off the 2nd half of the verse? no, it is the same.
That's right this passage is not about condemning or judging mankind. It is direction to believers and their rebuking of other believers. You're last line above is exactly what is being implied and what was said in the thing i pasted earlier. If you are doing the "sin" for which you are judging others, you are in the wrong. As believers we are to help each other when we stumble to not stumble again and to make things right. It is not for believers to go around judging everyone (non-believers and believers).
I'll stick to the homosexualtiy question. Assume that homosexuality is a sin (i know you may not, that's fine). If you see a fellow christian who is struggling with homosexuality AND you are not struggling with it you should offer to talk with them, pray with them etc... You are NOT to condemn that person, even as a believer; however, i feel there is an obigation to speak with them. We all sin. Different people struggle with different "sin". The whole point of the passage is to not be hypocritical but to work together and lift each other up...NOT to say "you're bad and evil, unlike me". I feel that we're all on the same page when it comes to sin...it's a black and white issue...either you never sin or you're tainted...no in b/t.
Thanks for your answer friend. I'll be busy for awhile, but when I get a chance I'll respond.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If we are to arrive at a state where desire is no more, how can desiring such a state bring us to it? ... Zen Buddhism quite naturally circumvents this apparent paradox by placing emphasis on practice itself rather than on aiming to achieve something. ...
However, this doesn't mean there is no place in Buddhism for aspiration. ...
Although aspiration has its place, it is the type and quality of one's practice that is more significant. The Buddha's words are helpful here. In the Bhumija Sutta from the Pali Canon (early Buddhist scriptures), he states that it is following the right path that will bring positive results, irrespective of whether one desires them or not."
I'm too busy at work today to get further involved in this discussion - which is regretable because this has been a damn interesting one.
But I did want to pop in and say thanks to those I've been going back and forth with - and thanks to angelica for providing this bit of info (oh, and to reiterate my Non-Existence point you countered - I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong - only that some [not all by any stretch] believe that Nirvana is non-existence.)
I see, you are curious about the religious aspect of it. That makes sense. Sorry to suggest it may have been a bait question. No disrespect intended.
Anyway, I don't have much to offer as to why homosexuality is a "worse" sin than others. In my knowledge and understanding of God, I believe he does not accept the behavior, but a fundamental tenent of this nation is to allow people the freedom to privately practice whatever makes them happy (of course, if it doesn't harm others). Thus, even though in my religion, I feel homosexual behavior is wrong, I'm not going to suggest someone cannot practice it. My issue is with redefining what marriage is, however. Your suggestion of just keeping it at a level of civil unions with the necessary rights granted to the couple is refreshing. Honestly, I wish that's what we could compromise at. And leave "marriage" as what it has always been. The thing I have a hard time with is gay couples adopting kids. I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about that. Part of me is like "if it is biologically impossible to create children, why should you want to have them?" Anyway, I hope you respect my opinions and attempts to explain how I feel.
Absolutely - this has been a good conversation so far with rational thought and level heads - I respect what you've written.
On the issue of adoption, my view is this: If it comes down to a kid being bounced around from foster home to foster home, living an unhealthy, transient life as a child vs. being adopted by two people who will love that child and raise it in a comfortable home, I would let those two people adopt. Whether it's man-woman, woman-woman, or man-man.
Well - that's the cliff-notes version of my opinion on the matter.
I'm too busy at work today to get further involved in this discussion - which is regretable because this has been a damn interesting one.
But I did want to pop in and say thanks to those I've been going back and forth with - and thanks to angelica for providing this bit of info (oh, and to reiterate my Non-Existence point you countered - I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong - only that some [not all by any stretch] believe that Nirvana is non-existence.)
Peace.
Thank you to you, as well, and to everyone participating in this enthralling discussion.
RainDog, I think I know what you are saying. What I see is that an individual reaches enlightenment as a human and lives the rest of their earthly life, with the open Mu empty/filled head, living far beyond ego in compassion and service.
I think I know what you are saying about the non-existence Nirvana--I see this as well: that it is a stage of afterlife, when one melds with the ultimate. It's perfect union with All and absolutely no trace sense of self is left. I've read about people who have had nirvana experiences and have achieved union with all life, and yet they cannot stay focussed there while living in an earthly body, or they would lose their grip on "life". We are ingrained in a life for a reason.
As a living person reaches enlightenment/nirvana, though, they obviously don't just disappear into nothing, rather they touch base with the eternal realm and the ALL, and therefore know experientially that life is a process of the eternal now, that all is truly connected and perfect. They get to KNOW-know, not just believe or have faith. One truly learns that the only thing to fear is fear itself, and therefore one can quicken the process of letting go of the earthly layers or programming they have built up. By KNOW-ing eternity is AMAZING and is guaranteed in each moment, one steps out of the cycles of pain/pleasure into the harmony of at-one-ment and peace. One becomes an open channel of universal Light, hence enLightenment.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
i think you missed the point of the "judging". It seems like it's meant explicitly for one believer to another. If you are a believer and are NOT sinning in that way...let's keep it easy. You are a married believer and you are not cheating on your spouse. If you have a friend WHO IS A BELIEVER and is cheating on their spouse, you have an obligation to confront them IN LOVE and talk with them...not to condemn them to hell or anything, but to help them uphold the vows they made before God. If you are cheating on your spouse you have no business judging or rebuking anyone.
This may be the meaning of what the link you provided was about. And I can understand what this rationale is about. I'm quite big on holding people accountable, myself. The problem is, we all have planks in our eyes at all times, and for me to say to someone what they are doing is wrong is condescending. The Jesus I know and Love does not advocate standing above anyone ever. Hence people who tell others they are sinners come off as intolerant. I've met many Christians who come off as good representations of the Jesus-mindset when they seek to help in love--they are not judging or condescending or hinting at intolerance that may exist in their hearts. So, If someone like the earlier poster is getting feedback that he/she is intolerant, that is the opposite of speaking in Love.
As Ed Roland of Collective Soul (whose father was a preacher) says in the song "Blame" : "When Truth is your reason lay the blame on me". Or "When Love is your constant lay the blame on me."
Once one is even hinting at intolerance and insensitivity, one has stepped out of Truth and Love.
is the meaning changed by leaving off the 2nd half of the verse? no, it is the same.
To me the meaning is very much changed, because the original sentence shortened, implies we must only speak the truth in love. The full sentence explains how when we do so, we grow up in all things into him, which to me sounds like we personally flourish in our Christ-consciousness. It is about us being loving and truthful, not about condemning someone else.
That's right this passage is not about condemning or judging mankind. It is direction to believers and their rebuking of other believers. You're last line above is exactly what is being implied and what was said in the thing i pasted earlier. If you are doing the "sin" for which you are judging others, you are in the wrong. As believers we are to help each other when we stumble to not stumble again and to make things right. It is not for believers to go around judging everyone (non-believers and believers).
Here is the quote again: "16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you."
Please explain to me how this bible verse is direction to a believer to rebuking of other believers, if I am understanding what you are saying. That is the earlier verse that mentions rebuking. If the author tied the two versus together, it does not change their meaning.
To me these verses are about asking the Father that the holy spirit counsel the other person. One does that without speaking to the other person and without condescending in judgment. This verse does not specifically say anything about giving a human the right to counsel. Granted, the author is misconstruing the meaning of this verse to support his assertion that we are entitled to judge sin as long as we present the solution. How do you reconcile the fact that this person is misleading the reader away from God and toward giving license where God and Jesus did not? He makes his claim: "We are to "judge" sin, but always with the goal of presenting the solution for sin and its consequences" and then adds a dash and uses Jesus' name and the verse that supposedly supports the assertion when it does not. That is terribly misleading.
Ultimately, the verse about rebuking was not a direct Jesus quote, (unless I am mistaken) so therefore I do not accept it in dispute of jesus saying the "plank in the eye" thing. I can string together a bunch of facts and construe them to mean whatever I want. That does not mean it is true or that it disputes Jesus' word. Again, I listen to the Spirit in me, rather than a man whose own words reveal his misinformation. We shall know them by their deeds.
"When Love is your constant, lay the blame on me".
I'll stick to the homosexualtiy question. Assume that homosexuality is a sin (i know you may not, that's fine). If you see a fellow christian who is struggling with homosexuality AND you are not struggling with it you should offer to talk with them, pray with them etc... You are NOT to condemn that person, even as a believer; however, i feel there is an obigation to speak with them. We all sin. Different people struggle with different "sin". The whole point of the passage is to not be hypocritical but to work together and lift each other up...NOT to say "you're bad and evil, unlike me". I feel that we're all on the same page when it comes to sin...it's a black and white issue...either you never sin or you're tainted...no in b/t.
I accept what other people believe and I support people doing the best that they feel they can within the spirit of Love and Truth.
Once people, going by their flawed human perspective, begin to throw around judgment and words like sin, new sin can flow--the sin of not raising one up, but rather putting them down in the false name of building them up. Being told one is intolerant towards homosexuals is a BIG sign of this error (again referring to what the person who originally brought up this point said).
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Absolutely - this has been a good conversation so far with rational thought and level heads - I respect what you've written.
On the issue of adoption, my view is this: If it comes down to a kid being bounced around from foster home to foster home, living an unhealthy, transient life as a child vs. being adopted by two people who will love that child and raise it in a comfortable home, I would let those two people adopt. Whether it's man-woman, woman-woman, or man-man.
Well - that's the cliff-notes version of my opinion on the matter.
In the Bible it says, "one sin is just as bad as another" But, the reason that people freak out about homosexuals is because homosexuality is greater to the human mind than any other sin (besides murder, rape, etc.) And it's also because, most of us aren't gay...I really don't have a problem with gays as much as i do liars to be honest. But, that's just a 14 year old's point of view
"I believe everybody should have a room where they get rid of all their releases. So my room was a stage."
- Jimi Hendrix
"I thought I'd do something nice for the band... I'll hang myself."
- Jason Newsted, Metallica
No I dont live under a rock. I live in a very heavily populated city, stuck between NYC and philly. I meet TONS of people almost daily in both my lines of work, and Ive yet to meet any truly extremist religious right zealots. Unless they simply arent running around 24/7 bitching about the sinners like some like to think.................................
bitching about sinners?
dispense mi,pp, could you please elaborate? I mean you sound liek your lines of work enable you to have a diversified response to unique and unusual stimuli when most people might wee wee run all the way home or jump at their own shadow at an introduction of any alternative style of behavior; could or might I even ask, would you please explain religious right zealots? And maybe you lucky enough not to meet a couple members of my family. Would you not say that liberals and people who are set in their ways, who refuse to wanna fluctuate with waxing and waning of moon, are religiously zealous? .
With all fun aside; don't you really think that introduction to main stream "topics" about consciousness is like throwing out seeds to create a sense of urgency for regulation so that new industries can be created?
*/;) .
all insanity:
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
another great post angelica; but i'd like to add a twist. where does hell come in? the worst thing that could happen to me when i die is to be reborn onto this earth. and be reborn again and again until i reach the enlightenment. earth has all the reported attributes given to hell. if you want to see fire and brimstone; visit a volcano. hunger; pain; disease; etc; is all around us. i agree that all beings will be saved. but i also believe they will continue to be reborn onto earth until they get it right. thus; they remain in hell (earth) until redemption.
I wanted to address this post again, because when I did before, I agreed with your points, but somehow glossed over the brilliance of them. If people had the slightest idea! I totally agree with what you say here. If people only realised that they don't get to skip over the step of RESOLVING their problems. And that they will continue their cycles for as long as they use their precious free will to just continue them. It can go on forever. And people are just comfortable doing that. Wow, if they could realise the cost to them in every day! People decide to cope with pain, hunger, and disease--we can always turn a blind eye, or lose ourselves in our vices, or watching tv, or shopping, or work. It doesn't end the cycles, however.
I've had such a difficult life, and I've been drawn to transformation (trans: to go beyond; form: form...trans-form) Since my first spiritual experience 12 years ago, I've been focussed on not having to come back to the back and forth, good/evil level of suffering. And considering I feel I've essentially cracked that barrier for myself, I KNOW I am blessed beyond belief.
What is currently happening, though, is that the energy of the past two thousand years is shifting. We are moving to a new stage of human development. We are evolving to understand and synthesise our imbalances. Partriarchy, domination and oppression are ideas whose time has come to an end. The shifts will entail great upheaval and the crashing of systems that do not work any longer. People are terrified and cling to the old ways, and make the death/transition of the not-working-ways that much more difficult. No matter, for what will be will be. There is nothing more powerful than a truth whose time has come.
We've gotten used to our patriarchal/domination-submission cycles and with war and chaos, and we believe the future is created by the past--we continue to overlook our own power and that the past does not need to perpetuate itself. It is our choices in the now that creates everything we see. We will come to learn/own this and we will come to learn to create in new ways: constructively, beautifully, and responsibly. We will stop buying the false idea that history repeats itself and therefore we will stop repeating history in each day--it's called breaking the cycles and coming to find true peace. It is our birthright. Some will find it sooner than later. Others will take their sweet time about it. From the perspective where time is an illusion, it's all good.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I wanted to address this post again, because when I did before, I agreed with your points, but somehow glossed over the brilliance of them. If people had the slightest idea! I totally agree with what you say here. If people only realised that they don't get to skip over the step of RESOLVING their problems. And that they will continue their cycles for as long as they use their precious free will to just continue them. It can go on forever. And people are just comfortable doing that. Wow, if they could realise the cost to them in every day! People decide to cope with pain, hunger, and disease--we can always turn a blind eye, or lose ourselves in our vices, or watching tv, or shopping, or work. It doesn't end the cycles, however.
I've had such a difficult life, and I've been drawn to transformation (trans: to go beyond; form: form...trans-form) Since my first spiritual experience 12 years ago, I've been focussed on not having to come back to the back and forth, good/evil level of suffering. And considering I feel I've essentially cracked that barrier for myself, I KNOW I am blessed beyond belief.
What is currently happening, though, is that the energy of the past two thousand years is shifting. We are moving to a new stage of human development. We are evolving to understand and synthesise our imbalances. Partriarchy, domination and oppression are ideas whose time has come to an end. The shifts will entail great upheaval and the crashing of systems that do not work any longer. People are terrified and cling to the old ways, and make the death/transition of the not-working-ways that much more difficult. No matter, for what will be will be. There is nothing more powerful than a truth whose time has come.
We've gotten used to our patriarchal/domination-submission cycles and with war and chaos, and we believe the future is created by the past--we continue to overlook our own power and that the past does not need to perpetuate itself. It is our choices in the now that creates everything we see. We will come to learn/own this and we will come to learn to create in new ways: constructively, beautifully, and responsibly. We will stop buying the false idea that history repeats itself and therefore we will stop repeating history in each day--it's called breaking the cycles and coming to find true peace. It is our birthright. Some will find it sooner than later. Others will take their sweet time about it. From the perspective where time is an illusion, it's all good.
i'm beginning to think we've gone through a lot of the same experiences. after my death in 1986 i sought "enlightenment" because i knew what is waiting for me. it took me a long time but when i left the earthly aspects behind; it came easy. a whole new world opened up for me and i'm able to do things most think impossible.
Has anyone pointed out that the reason Christians are always banging on about homosexuality might just be because the homosexuals are always banging on about homosexuality?
Seems to me that if there weren't threads saying 'homosexuality=good', you wouldn't have Christians in threads saying 'homosexuality=bad'.
When somebody starts a thread saying 'adultery=good', then perhaps Christians will be about saying 'adultery=bad'
Microchosm to macrocosm: if there were adulterers / polygamists / child rapists / muderers in the media saying 'what we do is right', then perhaps you'd hear Christians in the media talking about something other than homosexuality.
Can't stick around.
i brought it up using different words but thanks for the reideration. sometimes it takes several people to share the same views before it starts to sink in here. (on the train)
i brought it up using different words but thanks for the reideration. sometimes it takes several people to share the same views before it starts to sink in here. (on the train)
No - I see what you guys are saying... I just disagree with it.
What homosexuals are doing is similar to the way african americans fought for their civil rights back in the day...
But for every one that is shouting for their rights, there are five screaming about how awful homosexuality is...
A group of people being denied equal rights as citizens of a country because of sexuality.
A group of people being denied equal rights as citizens of a country because of color.
Yeah... they are worlds apart...
A group of people kidnapped, packed like sardines so tightly in a ship that the lucky ones didn't even survive the trip and became shark food, sold as human commodity, enslaved for nearly 200 years, released to absolutely nothing, segregated (separate and very UNequally), jim crowed, beaten, lynched, denied education etc. because of a completely uncontrollable, hereditary, physical trait (skin color).
A group of people unable to obtain a legally recognized marriage certificate based on who they like to have sex with.
I'm in no way homophobic, but, yes, they are worlds apart.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
A group of people kidnapped, packed like sardines so tightly in a ship that the lucky ones didn't even survive the trip and became shark food, sold as human commodity, enslaved for nearly 200 years, released to absolutely nothing, segregated (separate and very UNequally), jim crowed, beaten, lynched, denied education etc. because of a completely uncontrollable, hereditary, physical trait (skin color).
A group of people unable to obtain a legally recognized marriage certificate based on who they like to have sex with.
I'm in no way homophobic, but, yes, they are worlds apart.
It's hard to argue against that - but thankfully we live in a society today that has advanced since those days, where things like lynching, etc. are non existent (save for the occassional hate crime, etc).
But it is also unfair for you to say that it boils down just to a "marriage license"... there is much more to it than that. Family benefits, workplace discrimination, societal discrimination...
And since I believe that homosexuality is a trait you are born with just like the color of your skin - not just about "who you like to have sex with" - than yes, at their basic levels - it is a valid comparison.
The retribution for this fight is not as severe as when other races where fighting for equal rights (hangings, cross burning, etc.) - and we should be thankful for that and that we live in a more advanced society - but it is nonetheless a fight to be recognized as an equal citizen based on who you are.
EDIT: Bottom line: a fight to be recognized as an equal citizen based on who you are and the way you were born.
That = to me - is what this discussion strips down to. And at it's base, is no different than other races fighting for equal rights.
It's hard to argue against that - but thankfully we live in a society today that has advanced since those days, where things like lynching, etc. are non existent (save for the occassional hate crime, etc).
But it is also unfair for you to say that it boils down just to a "marriage license"... there is much more to it than that. Family benefits, workplace discrimination, societal discrimination...
And since I believe that homosexuality is a trait you are born with just like the color of your skin - not just about "who you like to have sex with" - than yes, at their basic levels - it is a valid comparison.
The retribution for this fight is not as severe as when other races where fighting for equal rights (hangings, cross burning, etc.) - and we should be thankful for that and that we live in a more advanced society - but it is nonetheless a fight to be recognized as an equal citizen based on who you are.
EDIT: Bottom line: a fight to be recognized as an equal citizen based on who you are and the way you were born.
That = to me - is what this discussion strips down to. And at it's base, is no different than other races fighting for equal rights.
I didn't mean to start an argument, or imply that the homosexual rights movement is completely insignificant. I just do not put it near the same level as other movements such as Black civil rights or women's suffrage.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Comments
It's interesting isn't it? The Buddha's mother supposedly immaculately conceived a child when she was visited in a dream by a white elephant that entered her womb. Sound familar? The Christian idea of "Immaculate Conception" was heavily influenced by the stories of the Buddha's birth. I'm sure you know since you've studied it that there are countless other examples just like this that Christianity borrowed from Buddhism. The average Bible thumper would be appaled to know this fact. Let's enlighten them shall we?
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
that's cause Republicans have nothing...Immigration debate will lead to no true action, election reform wil lead to no true action, flag burning...nothing, gay marriage....nothing, but that's all they have, if they ran on the things they have actually done they'd all get replaced. they confuse people with what they don't want them to know the truth about, then scare them to move there attention elsewhere...they won't openly and honestly debate issues so that anyone actually knows where they stand...they got nothing but great marketing scheme
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
This question seems kind of obvious, so I'm a little worried it is just a bait qustion. But if it is legit, than I say it is just because of the deep impact changing the defined traditional family could have on society as a whole.
yes, i don't think i'd make a very good buddhist at all.....but i like a lot of the ideas.
seems the most logical answer thus far. not condoning it or saying such views are right...b/c i don't....but at least that has some degree of sense to it, as to 'why' one may look at it in a harsher light.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I've never understood being afraid of gay people.
No - it wasn't a bait question.
I think the rising rates of adultery and divorce are as much of a threat to the institute of family and the long-term well being of children - but that's just my opinion...
And as I mentioned before - as I'm fairly close to the issue thanks to family and friends - The gay community isn't really banging down the doors for this "marriage" thing to happen. It seems like for every one homosexual who wants gay "marriage" there are three talking heads and politicians screaming about it's danger. It seems to me that its a manufactured "crisis of the family" that gets people to the polls.
I think the majority of the gay community would be happy with civil unions - where benefits can be shared and passed on to a partner similar to a married couple - and what would be wrong with that (since you're not going to stop them from living together anyway)...?
Plain and simple: I don't think its as much of a crisis to the family as the republican party and the religious right want you to think it is.
But I respect what you said - because for the most part you left religion out of it.
Which brings me back to my original question for those who do use religion to back up their assertions: Why is homosexuality a worse sin than others? Or why is it a worse sin than your sins? Why do you feel that particular sin gives you the right to separate them as a different part of society?
I see, you are curious about the religious aspect of it. That makes sense. Sorry to suggest it may have been a bait question. No disrespect intended.
Anyway, I don't have much to offer as to why homosexuality is a "worse" sin than others. In my knowledge and understanding of God, I believe he does not accept the behavior, but a fundamental tenent of this nation is to allow people the freedom to privately practice whatever makes them happy (of course, if it doesn't harm others). Thus, even though in my religion, I feel homosexual behavior is wrong, I'm not going to suggest someone cannot practice it. My issue is with redefining what marriage is, however. Your suggestion of just keeping it at a level of civil unions with the necessary rights granted to the couple is refreshing. Honestly, I wish that's what we could compromise at. And leave "marriage" as what it has always been. The thing I have a hard time with is gay couples adopting kids. I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about that. Part of me is like "if it is biologically impossible to create children, why should you want to have them?" Anyway, I hope you respect my opinions and attempts to explain how I feel.
"Desiring the Desireless?
If we are to arrive at a state where desire is no more, how can desiring such a state bring us to it? ... Zen Buddhism quite naturally circumvents this apparent paradox by placing emphasis on practice itself rather than on aiming to achieve something. ...
However, this doesn't mean there is no place in Buddhism for aspiration. ...
Although aspiration has its place, it is the type and quality of one's practice that is more significant. The Buddha's words are helpful here. In the Bhumija Sutta from the Pali Canon (early Buddhist scriptures), he states that it is following the right path that will bring positive results, irrespective of whether one desires them or not."
http://buddhism.about.com/cs/bodhisattvas/a/Aspiration.htm
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Well said.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I don't understand why more people do not think this way. I totally agree. Marriage should have nothing to do with the government.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
i think you missed the point of the "judging". It seems like it's meant explicitly for one believer to another. If you are a believer and are NOT sinning in that way...let's keep it easy. You are a married believer and you are not cheating on your spouse. If you have a friend WHO IS A BELIEVER and is cheating on their spouse, you have an obligation to confront them IN LOVE and talk with them...not to condemn them to hell or anything, but to help them uphold the vows they made before God. If you are cheating on your spouse you have no business judging or rebuking anyone.
is the meaning changed by leaving off the 2nd half of the verse? no, it is the same.
That's right this passage is not about condemning or judging mankind. It is direction to believers and their rebuking of other believers. You're last line above is exactly what is being implied and what was said in the thing i pasted earlier. If you are doing the "sin" for which you are judging others, you are in the wrong. As believers we are to help each other when we stumble to not stumble again and to make things right. It is not for believers to go around judging everyone (non-believers and believers).
I'll stick to the homosexualtiy question. Assume that homosexuality is a sin (i know you may not, that's fine). If you see a fellow christian who is struggling with homosexuality AND you are not struggling with it you should offer to talk with them, pray with them etc... You are NOT to condemn that person, even as a believer; however, i feel there is an obigation to speak with them. We all sin. Different people struggle with different "sin". The whole point of the passage is to not be hypocritical but to work together and lift each other up...NOT to say "you're bad and evil, unlike me". I feel that we're all on the same page when it comes to sin...it's a black and white issue...either you never sin or you're tainted...no in b/t.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
looking forward to it...i'll be around a while later to check back. Have a good one.
I'm too busy at work today to get further involved in this discussion - which is regretable because this has been a damn interesting one.
But I did want to pop in and say thanks to those I've been going back and forth with - and thanks to angelica for providing this bit of info (oh, and to reiterate my Non-Existence point you countered - I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong - only that some [not all by any stretch] believe that Nirvana is non-existence.)
Peace.
Absolutely - this has been a good conversation so far with rational thought and level heads - I respect what you've written.
On the issue of adoption, my view is this: If it comes down to a kid being bounced around from foster home to foster home, living an unhealthy, transient life as a child vs. being adopted by two people who will love that child and raise it in a comfortable home, I would let those two people adopt. Whether it's man-woman, woman-woman, or man-man.
Well - that's the cliff-notes version of my opinion on the matter.
Thank you to you, as well, and to everyone participating in this enthralling discussion.
RainDog, I think I know what you are saying. What I see is that an individual reaches enlightenment as a human and lives the rest of their earthly life, with the open Mu empty/filled head, living far beyond ego in compassion and service.
I think I know what you are saying about the non-existence Nirvana--I see this as well: that it is a stage of afterlife, when one melds with the ultimate. It's perfect union with All and absolutely no trace sense of self is left. I've read about people who have had nirvana experiences and have achieved union with all life, and yet they cannot stay focussed there while living in an earthly body, or they would lose their grip on "life". We are ingrained in a life for a reason.
As a living person reaches enlightenment/nirvana, though, they obviously don't just disappear into nothing, rather they touch base with the eternal realm and the ALL, and therefore know experientially that life is a process of the eternal now, that all is truly connected and perfect. They get to KNOW-know, not just believe or have faith. One truly learns that the only thing to fear is fear itself, and therefore one can quicken the process of letting go of the earthly layers or programming they have built up. By KNOW-ing eternity is AMAZING and is guaranteed in each moment, one steps out of the cycles of pain/pleasure into the harmony of at-one-ment and peace. One becomes an open channel of universal Light, hence enLightenment.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
As Ed Roland of Collective Soul (whose father was a preacher) says in the song "Blame" : "When Truth is your reason lay the blame on me". Or "When Love is your constant lay the blame on me."
Once one is even hinting at intolerance and insensitivity, one has stepped out of Truth and Love.
To me the meaning is very much changed, because the original sentence shortened, implies we must only speak the truth in love. The full sentence explains how when we do so, we grow up in all things into him, which to me sounds like we personally flourish in our Christ-consciousness. It is about us being loving and truthful, not about condemning someone else.
Here is the quote again: "16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you."
Please explain to me how this bible verse is direction to a believer to rebuking of other believers, if I am understanding what you are saying. That is the earlier verse that mentions rebuking. If the author tied the two versus together, it does not change their meaning.
To me these verses are about asking the Father that the holy spirit counsel the other person. One does that without speaking to the other person and without condescending in judgment. This verse does not specifically say anything about giving a human the right to counsel. Granted, the author is misconstruing the meaning of this verse to support his assertion that we are entitled to judge sin as long as we present the solution. How do you reconcile the fact that this person is misleading the reader away from God and toward giving license where God and Jesus did not? He makes his claim: "We are to "judge" sin, but always with the goal of presenting the solution for sin and its consequences" and then adds a dash and uses Jesus' name and the verse that supposedly supports the assertion when it does not. That is terribly misleading.
Ultimately, the verse about rebuking was not a direct Jesus quote, (unless I am mistaken) so therefore I do not accept it in dispute of jesus saying the "plank in the eye" thing. I can string together a bunch of facts and construe them to mean whatever I want. That does not mean it is true or that it disputes Jesus' word. Again, I listen to the Spirit in me, rather than a man whose own words reveal his misinformation. We shall know them by their deeds.
"When Love is your constant, lay the blame on me".
I accept what other people believe and I support people doing the best that they feel they can within the spirit of Love and Truth.
Once people, going by their flawed human perspective, begin to throw around judgment and words like sin, new sin can flow--the sin of not raising one up, but rather putting them down in the false name of building them up. Being told one is intolerant towards homosexuals is a BIG sign of this error (again referring to what the person who originally brought up this point said).
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
it's a good version.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
- Jimi Hendrix
"I thought I'd do something nice for the band... I'll hang myself."
- Jason Newsted, Metallica
dispense mi,pp, could you please elaborate? I mean you sound liek your lines of work enable you to have a diversified response to unique and unusual stimuli when most people might wee wee run all the way home or jump at their own shadow at an introduction of any alternative style of behavior; could or might I even ask, would you please explain religious right zealots? And maybe you lucky enough not to meet a couple members of my family. Would you not say that liberals and people who are set in their ways, who refuse to wanna fluctuate with waxing and waning of moon, are religiously zealous?
With all fun aside; don't you really think that introduction to main stream "topics" about consciousness is like throwing out seeds to create a sense of urgency for regulation so that new industries can be created?
*/;) .
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
I've had such a difficult life, and I've been drawn to transformation (trans: to go beyond; form: form...trans-form) Since my first spiritual experience 12 years ago, I've been focussed on not having to come back to the back and forth, good/evil level of suffering. And considering I feel I've essentially cracked that barrier for myself, I KNOW I am blessed beyond belief.
What is currently happening, though, is that the energy of the past two thousand years is shifting. We are moving to a new stage of human development. We are evolving to understand and synthesise our imbalances. Partriarchy, domination and oppression are ideas whose time has come to an end. The shifts will entail great upheaval and the crashing of systems that do not work any longer. People are terrified and cling to the old ways, and make the death/transition of the not-working-ways that much more difficult. No matter, for what will be will be. There is nothing more powerful than a truth whose time has come.
We've gotten used to our patriarchal/domination-submission cycles and with war and chaos, and we believe the future is created by the past--we continue to overlook our own power and that the past does not need to perpetuate itself. It is our choices in the now that creates everything we see. We will come to learn/own this and we will come to learn to create in new ways: constructively, beautifully, and responsibly. We will stop buying the false idea that history repeats itself and therefore we will stop repeating history in each day--it's called breaking the cycles and coming to find true peace. It is our birthright. Some will find it sooner than later. Others will take their sweet time about it. From the perspective where time is an illusion, it's all good.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i'm beginning to think we've gone through a lot of the same experiences. after my death in 1986 i sought "enlightenment" because i knew what is waiting for me. it took me a long time but when i left the earthly aspects behind; it came easy. a whole new world opened up for me and i'm able to do things most think impossible.
i brought it up using different words but thanks for the reideration. sometimes it takes several people to share the same views before it starts to sink in here. (on the train)
No - I see what you guys are saying... I just disagree with it.
What homosexuals are doing is similar to the way african americans fought for their civil rights back in the day...
But for every one that is shouting for their rights, there are five screaming about how awful homosexuality is...
That's just the way I see it...
Actually, IMO, its nothing like that at all.
A group of people being denied equal rights as citizens of a country because of sexuality.
A group of people being denied equal rights as citizens of a country because of color.
Yeah... they are worlds apart...
A group of people kidnapped, packed like sardines so tightly in a ship that the lucky ones didn't even survive the trip and became shark food, sold as human commodity, enslaved for nearly 200 years, released to absolutely nothing, segregated (separate and very UNequally), jim crowed, beaten, lynched, denied education etc. because of a completely uncontrollable, hereditary, physical trait (skin color).
A group of people unable to obtain a legally recognized marriage certificate based on who they like to have sex with.
I'm in no way homophobic, but, yes, they are worlds apart.
It's hard to argue against that - but thankfully we live in a society today that has advanced since those days, where things like lynching, etc. are non existent (save for the occassional hate crime, etc).
But it is also unfair for you to say that it boils down just to a "marriage license"... there is much more to it than that. Family benefits, workplace discrimination, societal discrimination...
And since I believe that homosexuality is a trait you are born with just like the color of your skin - not just about "who you like to have sex with" - than yes, at their basic levels - it is a valid comparison.
The retribution for this fight is not as severe as when other races where fighting for equal rights (hangings, cross burning, etc.) - and we should be thankful for that and that we live in a more advanced society - but it is nonetheless a fight to be recognized as an equal citizen based on who you are.
EDIT: Bottom line: a fight to be recognized as an equal citizen based on who you are and the way you were born.
That = to me - is what this discussion strips down to. And at it's base, is no different than other races fighting for equal rights.
I didn't mean to start an argument, or imply that the homosexual rights movement is completely insignificant. I just do not put it near the same level as other movements such as Black civil rights or women's suffrage.