(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

*amused* I didn't get a lot of sleep last night, since you ask. But hooboy, I had a LOT of fun. >:D

Comments

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

Saw that indeed. That's a lotta post.

[cactus-cat.livejournal.com]

That was GREAT. =D

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

XD I thought so.

[insane-ophelia.livejournal.com]

Leik, whoa. Actually, skimming over it, it seems not even the Christian people in the discussion know where doctrine stops and common sense begins. Take for example picking an chosing what you believe if you are a homosexual christian. If you choose to believe that God can still love you (and he can, because if he can love the divorced he can love us queers) many Christians would say that you are not a 'true' believer. BUT, by the same token, if a Christian person chooses to believe in any aspect of modern science (ie: all modern science stems from Darwinism), if they are willing to accept that chemothreapy helps to treat cancer or antibiotics treat infection, aren't they then also just as unfaithful? Isn't this a contradiction in terms?

Yeah. I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that Christianity needs a serious make-over for the modern world. It's a religion based on a society that existed two thousand years ago - values and morals have changed.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

Not really a Christian, but being a Christian doesn't preclude belief in science.

[insane-ophelia.livejournal.com]

Of course not - you can be Christian and believe in science. I really do think that it's important to make your own judgements about your religion, whether you're Christian or Bhuddist or Jewish or something else. It's just interesting to see how very deeply and fundamentally Christian people (as in people who I know) are still quite willing to hold contraditions in their beliefs. They are the type of people who are quite happy to say that homosexuality is wrong and yet quite happy to believe that 'medicine' helps to treat illnesses, or rather, they realise that it helps but don't make the connection about how this effects their spirituality. What I mean is - they do seriously believe that thinking homosexuality is OK is disbelief in God, yet they don't recognise how they might also be subconciously 'disbelieving' God. Am I making sense?

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

Is this with regard to the bit about "don't worry about anything because God will provide"? I guess they could justify it by saying that God is the source of medicine by creating the chemicals that make it possible, but I agree that it's unbelievably pigheaded to say that science is a plot to defile God. I mean WTF? If God created everything, wouldn't that also mean that God created the materials and laws of the universe, the workings of living organisms, and thus the potential for science to be used?

[cabaiste84.livejournal.com]

I'm a Christian and I don't see the sin in two people being in love, regardless of their gender...does that make me a true believer? Yes, I believe it does. Some of my more fundamentalist and conservative mates would probably say no, but quite frankly I don't care. I love God, He loves me- He also loves queers, as you say, and I know of a few gay christians as well. I DEFINITELY believe in science treating serious diseases, such as cancer: my baby sister has acute mileoid leukaemia, so the wonders of modern medicine are certainly helping her out just a little. :)
Mind if I add you to frieds, ophelia?

[insane-ophelia.livejournal.com]

I believe that at the core of Christianity are the ideas of love and acceptance - therefore loving another person even if they are the same sex as you is not a sin because it upholds the values of Christianity. However, many 'fundamentalist' Christians (I don't really like to throw that word around...) don't see it that way at all, because in the Bible it says that homosexuality is a sin and the word in the Bible is the word of God.

But then we have people like Briam Tamaki, who in the Listener a while back said that he had no belief in science at all, and that it was a plan to 'defile' God and Christianity. It would be interesting to see what would happen if he were forced to choose between treating his child (for example) for a serious illness or doing nothing and seeing if God intervened.

What I'm trying to say is that I think it's important to have a belief in Christianity in the context of our society, and that means making you own judgments about what you believe to be true.

Sure you can friend me!

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Well, I suppose for some people that where there is a conflict between doctrine and common sense, it is a sin to pick common sense over doctrine. For fundamentalists, that is what faith means- trusting in God above your own common sense, even when you (or your immediate family) are in a position to suffer.

I guess this attitude is repellent to most people (including myself) which is why we have brands of Christian other than "fundamentalist." On the other hand, I don't think it is written in the Bible that "science is bad-" it definitely says "faith in God is most important," but it is easy to argue that if we weren't meant to use medicine God would never have given us brains.

[insane-ophelia.livejournal.com]

Exactly - for the Fundamentalists faith is everything. Because proof denies faith, and without faith God (and Christianity as a whole) is nothing.

Yeah it doesn't say that, but realistically 2000 years ago what we call science had only just started to be devloped.

Having said that, it seems that (once again) for the fundamentalists the proof that medicine works would disproove the existance of God. However it would be extremely arrogant of me, as an atheist to say that God does not exist. He just doesn't exist to me because I don't believe in him.

Christians? Bah, humbug!

[nzlemming.livejournal.com]

You obviously did have fun ;-) The sad thing about "christians" like divinecirinde is that they really don't know why they "believe" these things. I just read through the thread and I lost count of the number of contradictions in her(?) posts. I was hanging out for "the Bishop told me so" which I did get many years ago from a protester outside the premiere of "The Life of Brian" at the Embassy. He was telling me the film was blasphemous, and I asked him how he knew that because the film hadn't screened anywhere in NZ yet.

The thing that made me maddest about the whole CUB debacle (well argued in your posts, BTW) was the letters from bishops last weekend. If I hadn't left the catholic church 25 years ago (over its attitude to homosexuality, as I recall), I'd be running screaming from the building now. How can they preach love in the middle of so much hate???

Re: Christians? Bah, humbug!

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

"The sad thing about "christians" like divinecirinde is that they really don't know why they "believe" these things."

:-/ I kind of noticed that... in some ways, though, I felt comfortable in that argument because of that, which I guess is a sign of a weak mind. However, also because of the discrepancies, I feel that I may have helped to change her mind? Or at least point out some things she hadn't thought of.

*nods* It really is a shame about those bishops in more ways than one- I was reading the Christian column in the Dominion Post this morning (it's a really good one, I thought) and he ended saying that it was a shame they'd taken that stance- not only because the stance was an uncomfortable one but because it was alienating them from the modern Christian/Catholic/Anglican and even Presbytarian community. I really see this because although I am not Christian, I know lots and lots of them including Catholics and many of them would not take that point of view.