minsocal

Myron,

 

Can you explain more why you find it "off the mark?"

 

George

George,

I'm considering this, but if I do I will create a thread in Debate and Dialogue.

Myron

Given the background, and the question ....

No, I would not attend this church. The interpretations seem a bit off the mark.

I am confident that you are right. This would 'discredit' his scholarship in the minds of some.

 

I also wonder if the antenna of a gay person is better in recognizing symbols and nuances on this subject that a straight person. As an example, I saw nothing initially in the painting from St. Catherine's in the Sinai (which, incidentally, is in Egypt, not Israel, as stated in the article).

 

George

George,

You are correct to some degree. However, a lot depends on the intent of the artist. It is typical of art of this sort that it have more than one intended meaning. What we also have here is Christ as the uniting symbol transcending or uniting dualities. I saw both interpretations almost instantly.

Myron

In Christianity, Social Tolrance, and Homosexuality John Boswell uses homosexuality as a backdrop for the more general subject discussed in Part IV The Rise of Intolerance. Chapter 10 is entitled "Social Change: Making enemies." This history is, to me at least, more important to activists. Most people seem to think that a "gay activist" is only concerned about "gay rights", but this is often not the case.

That is my exact reaction. If this is based on solid scholarship and has merit, why isn't it better known? Why haven't sme-sex marriage advocacy groups made this more prominent?

 

Truthfully, I don't think it would persuade hard-core homophobes, but it would add a historical religious argument to the issue.

 

George

George,

Many gay advocates are aware of the research, and it is sometimes used. Why not use it? The answer is complex, but I'll offer a few suggestions.

Beginning with Freud, there has been a strong resistance towards accepting any scholarship concerning homosexuality done by a homosexual. It was the influence of Freud that cast the fate of gays being labeled 'abnormal, and since they are 'abnormal' they are unreliable. If you are curious you might look for a copy of Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality and read for yourself. Be advised, you might not like what you find.

Boswell was gay and I am told he was well aware of an almost automatic response of an assumed bias in his work. Is this attitude real, does it persist today? Yes, it does. I have monitored and participated in discussions on other boards where the revelation of one's sexual orientation changes the response in sometimes a not so subtle way.

Sadly, there is more. Boswell became known just before the AIDS epidemic began. He died of AIDS, and we lost a great scholar. But the stigma remains.

Finally, there is the current negative view of religion and especially the scandals concerning priests.

I am pleased that this article appeared on the ProgressiveChristianity.org website and is being discussed here. This is on of the few safe places where the nuances and history can be appreciated.

Myron

Dutch,

This is good to hear. The best to both of you. Difficult journeys part and join.

Myron

Yvonne, I agree and I think it is happening. My only comment is that often especially conservative Christianity refuses to climb the mountain. That is a frustration of science. Religion on the other hand gets frustrated because science refuses to look sideways and also has a habit of belittling those who are behind and on a different path.

 

I am close to running out of my allotment of posts for the day so I bid you adew . Apparently it is assumed after 10 or 12 posts I might offend someone.

 

steve

JosephM can change the settings, and I made a request for this. Don't be discouraged.

Hi Joseph,

murmsk is running out of alloted posts. Could you increase as you did for me?

Myron

I'm not a fan of violence. It only begets more violence. I can also see the need for minimal force to bring justice at times. What alarms me is the number of homeless and mentally ill who die while being taken into custody and in police custody.

 

Off Topic example: You don't hear about this in other developed nations. In some of the Scandanavian countries prisoners are treated well and given therapy and taught an occupation. It seems they have a low rate of recidivism. Granted they also have a much smaller prison population, which, I believe, should be the goal of every nation. So is violence against prisoners justified? I don't think so.

I don't think your example is off topic. There is physical violence and psychological violence and both can be devastating. I'm not a fan of violence in either domain.

This may seem to be off-topic, but I do have a point...When I read Borg's "Heart of Christianity" one particular analogy he used really stuck with me. He said that various religions or spiritual paths are like walking up a mountain. At the bottom, the paths seem to be very far apart, but the closer people got to the "top of the mountain" the closer those paths become until, at the time, they were all one.

 

I think knowledge - strike that, WISDOM in its many forms is exactly like that. Science and religion in all their many forms all start out at the base of the mountain seemingly incompatible, but the more its followers move up the path towards the top, the closer the paths get. I think a lot of people get comfortable at a certian point along the path and just decide they've gone far enough - so they can never reach the point where they can "see" the other path with any clarity.

 

So, IMO, the more open to knowledge and wisdom and growth a scientist or religionist is, the more likely it is their paths will meet. Just my thoughts.

Yvonne,

Not off topic at all. In the last ten years the notion of "convergance" had found its way into the work of a number of prominent thinkers. It is an old theme finding its way back into consciousness after having been split apart long ago. As Jung put it, the psyche will always seek wholism, whether we like it or not.

Myron

In my quest to delve deeper into the subject I came up with an unexpected connection.

When asked about the relationship between science and religion, President Jimmy Carter replied:

"I happen to have an advantage there because I am a nuclear physicist by training and a deeply committed Christian. I don’t have any doubt in my own mind about God who created the entire universe. But I don’t adhere to passages that so and so was created 4000 years before Christ, and things of that kind. Today we have shown that the earth and the stars were created millions, even billions, of years before. We are exploring space and sub-atomic particles and learning new facts every day, facts that the Creator has known since the beginning of time."

(emphasis added)

http://www.huffingto...eligion-science

This I did not know.

Both science and religion are confessional: this what we believe until we are convinced otherwise. Perhaps one is knowledge of how things are externally related and one is knowledge of how things are internally related.

 

Dutch

This the conclusion reached by C. G. Jung, A. N. Whitehead, Joseph Campbell, and the Dalai Lama.

The divide between science and religion began long ago. Perhaps it was useful at the beginning of the Enlightenment. But is it relevant today? Does the divide benefit society?

"

At a lunch in the crypt at St. Paul's before the Dalai Lama received the Templeton Prize today, I was seated next to Canon Mark Oakley. "We need to move beyond relevance to resonance," he said.

It was a call to move beyond the shallows to the depths, beyond the passing novelties of the moment to the echoes of the soul. The Canon summed up the vicious circle we too often find ourselves caught in: "We are," he said, "spending money we don't have on things we don't want in order to impress people we don't like."

To find the peace of mind that alone can replace this aimless search that has led to an epidemic of stress, anxiety, and drugs -- legal and illegal -- the Dalai Lama is looking to science (specifically neuroscience) to convince a skeptical increasingly-secular society of the power of contemplation and compassion to change our lives and our world."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/arianna-the-dalai-lama_b_1515059.html?ref=religion

I hate to be nit picky, but did they really "disprove" this. It is something I can't accept and is highly implausible, but "disprove?"

 

George

Well, they came into the game a bit late. A game that has not changed for quite a long time.

Kinda the same way progressives view fundamentalists.

Part of what I've been searching for a is a effective way to frame the issue from a progressive perspective. I found this article just before logging in here to catch up with this thread.

"If we change the question to science versus religion, however, people flock to either pole of the debate. Some religious fundamentalists close their eyes to the scientific laws that make our 21st century lives possible in the name of preserving the literal words of scripture written down millennia ago by men who had a different understanding of how the universe worked. On the other extreme, scientific atheists look down their noses at those who hold religious beliefs as simpletons belonging to a different age.

The core problem in this debate stems from both sides overstretching their perspectives. A religious worldview that denies scientific knowledge will ultimately be doomed to irrelevancy. A scientific worldview without a larger philosophical, metaphysical or religious system in which to anchor itself strands one like a shipwreck survivor adrift in an ocean of meaninglessness. Neither science nor religion, on their own, can hold all of the answers to existence, but maybe together they can complement and strengthen each other."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-small/the-battle-between-science-and-religion_b_938045.html?ref=religion-science

A good read, IMO.

Myron

Steve has pointed out a key obstacle to getting good results in any study: this vocal and public polarization between the creationism and ID people and scientists and school teachers over textbooks.

 

John Polkinghorne, mathematician and theologian, has been very involved in the struggle to block creationism and Intelligent Design efforts to change learning the scientific method. Followers of Polkinghorne are insulted if I say that he believes in intelligent design - but he says the pure beauty of mathematics is witness to a divine intelligence. He would be a scientist who would say there is no conflict between religion and science and, at the same time, has been on the front lines, fighting off the efforts of Religious fundamentalists who would return us scientifically to the Dark Ages.

 

Dutch

I didn't intend this to be a debate on intelligent design or creationism.

We all have picked Judas as a friend with the same results and I think we all learned a lesson as well as the Judas s.

Without going into details involving pain being resolved. I know now that a Judas can become a Jesus. I would not be here today but for that.

Brent,

Many of those involved in the generation of the Urantia papers were phychiatrists and psychologists. What does this suggest to you?

Myron

Deb,

 

Welcome.

 

Have you checked out the Gospel of Judas, belived to have been written in the 100s CE? That book portrays Judas as a hero of sorts in that he was following Jesus' instructions in betraying him. Seems that long ago people had similiar thoughts to yours. I have no idea of the validity of the text, my only point is that it has been around for a while so it demonstrates (IMO) that others questioned like you. Apparently the text was around as early as 180CE as Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, wrote a document in which he railed against this gospel.

 

As for the 30 pieces of silver story, did you know that In Zechariah 11:12-13, 30 pieces of silver is the price Zechariah receives for his labour. Also, In Exodus 21:32, 30 pieces of silver was the price of a slave.

 

So I wonder if Mathew's version is based on fact, or perhaps tailored to 'align' with other texts to better sell his story?

 

Cheers

Paul

There is also this from Elaine Pagels:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pagels07/pagels07_index.html

FWIW, many things in the Bible that we consider reactionary today were quite progressive in their time. And, IMO, we should respect that.

 

George

George,

Oh yes, I agree. There are key transitions over time. These are something like the "epochs" of the Urantia Papers. They are the same as Whitehead saying that G-d tenderly intevenes at the transition, etc.

Myron

Myron,

 

According to the APA you cited: "Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes." To claim or suggest that this did not exist in biblical times, without solid evidence, is not being objective or responsible.

 

"The Bible does not talk about sex in terms of "love, attachment, and intimacy" and we have to ask whether heterosexuals in the time of the Bible would have used those words?"

 

Right . . . well . . . generally. Late writings like the Song of Solomon does, and in rather graphic terms. And, it almost didn't make the final cut for that reason. But, yes, there was no conceptual means of expressing this in the Pentateuch.

 

George

George,

Yes, it's a difficult subject. But, the dialoque must continue. The various views bend and twist on reason, behavior, feelings and emotions. I am hoping to move towards a view that sees the early Bible as the beginning of a trajectory to where we are now? I'd call that progress without loss.

Myron

George,

I think it is amtter of having the verbal categories. There is a difference between describing behavior and describing feelings. This is the latest from the APA concerning the progress of defing thing the subject:

"Sexual orientation and homosexuality

Since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations. The discipline of psychology is concerned with the well-being of people and groups and therefore with threats to that well-being. The prejudice and discrimination that people who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual regularly experience have been shown to have negative psychological effects. This information is designed to provide accurate information for those who want to better understand sexual orientation and the impact of prejudice and discrimination on those who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

What is sexual orientation?

Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of one’s own sex), and bisexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to both men and women). This range of behaviors and attractions has been described in various cultures and nations throughout the world. Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all.

Sexual orientation is distinct from other components of sex and gender, including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological, and genetic characteristics associated with being male or female), gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female),* and social gender role (the cultural norms that define feminine and masculine behavior).

Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others. People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing. Thus, sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment, and intimacy. In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment. Therefore, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic within an individual. Rather, one’s sexual orientation defines the group of people in which one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling romantic relationships that are an essential component of personal identity for many people."

http://www.apa.org/h...rientation.aspx

The Bible does not talk about sex in terms of "love, attachment, and intimacy" and we have to ask whether heterosexuals in the time of the Bible would have used those words?

Myron,

 

I suspect you are right. The media loves a good story; the more salacious or counter-intuitive the better. Lots of good science gets distorted when exposed to the popular press.

 

George

George,

One of the things I would like to achieve on this issue is a sense of knowing who our friends are so we can join with them.

Altering my search in that direction I find this:

"

NEW YORK (RNS) The Dalai Lama is best known for his commitment to Tibetan autonomy from China and his message of spirituality, nonviolence and peace that has made him a best-selling author and a speaker who can pack entire arenas.

But somewhat under the radar screen, the Tibetan Buddhist leader and Nobel Prize laureate has also had an abiding interest in the intersection of science and religion.

That interest won Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, the 2012 Templeton Prize on Thursday (March 29), a $1.7 million award that is often described as the most prestigious award in religion.

The Dalai Lama is the highest-profile winner of an award that in recent years had been given to physicists and theologians not well known to the general public, but earlier had been given to the likes of evangelist Billy Graham and the late Mother Teresa."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/dalai-lama-templeton-prize_n_1388190.html

Myron

Dutch,

The study was conducted over a period five years and included in-depth interviews. It is the analysis of those interviews after coding that I would be most interested in seeing. I'm assuming that a project of this size and cost used structured interviews and is much more sophisticated than simple surveys.

One of the reasons the results the results might be other than expected is that it includes researchers in all of the "sciences", including the social sciences. I think what we see in the media is skewed by the more strident voices.

Myron

On my system, I do not see the indications of messages and notifications as they are very, very dark against a dark background. Is there something I can do to change this?