Religious Freedom
 

For the first 19 years of my life I was actively involved in a very strict religion, and for the past six I haven't been involved but have still followed the basic precepts/restrictions of said religion. I'm posting this because we've officially set ourselves free. Officially in that if people ask I will no longer say I am part of that religion. I haven't sent in a letter to the religion or anything, as I don't really feel like it's any of their business.

Today I celebrate the release of guilt of not attending religious meetings three times a week, of not believing everything the religion taught, and of not really caring whether there was an eternal future in store for me.

I also celebrate the regaining of my faith in God. For a long time I've felt that if this religion didn't have the truth about God then God simply didn't exist. I just finished reading somewhat of an expose written by a top ranking member of the religious organization. It was revealing in that I discovered that much of the organization doesn't actually have much to do with God, but rather with upholding policies and making new rules. I no longer claim to have all the answers about God or the bible, but I can be a nondenominational Christian without really worrying about the exact details of every bible prophecy.

Freedom from religion feels like an entirely different outlook on life. I no longer feel obligated to assume that 99% of the people on earth will die, or to group people into categories. I haven't done either of those in longer than I can remember, but it's what most members of that religion do. Don't get me wrong, I think nearly every member truly loves God and Christ, and most are very good people, but that's what they are taught. The flaws are with severely organized religion, not with individuals.

Michael and I both have a handful of family members that remain in the religion. Some we'll tell the truth to, others we just won't talk about it with, and some wouldn't be able to handle it. We'll probably lie to the last group and tell them that we just don't go. Our closest friends that live out of state will eventually find out and cut us off. It won't be their fault, but it will suck. That's life though. The most important thing is to be true to ourselves and find our own path to God.

So welcome me to the free world! This year we'll celebrate our first Halloween, our first birthdays, etc. (Well, not sure about Christmas yet.) Religious meetings feel like suffering and I will probably never go again. Ah flexibility! :D

Congratulations on charting your own path and finding a way that rings true and sincere with you and your immediate family

Welcome, Traci. I refuse to believe that God intended us to suffer through interminable sermons that preach hellfire and damnation for all those not lucky enough to be hanging out with that particular group. I believe what I believe, and I don't need some mitre weilding, smock wearing, sexually repressed (or worse) leader of the church I was brought up in telling me otherwise. I believe I was given a brain that I was supposed to use, not hand over to someone else.

You go, girl!:snap:

Oh Traci,

I am so glad you have come to peace with your decision. Just in time for Halloween ;).

Yeah! Rock on! I'll add to that: If God intended everyone to worship in exactly the same way he would have given us a clear set of rules in which to do it. And furthermore, it's ridiculous to think that He created such a wide variety of people, yet expects everyone to think and act exactly the same way.

Thanks BTD, Euro, and WB! :coffee:

I had read that the way out was the way through. It is good to see that it is not always the case.

Congradulations Traci! Legalisim is the downfall of any religion. If you belive Christ, and what is written in the Bible, you'll see that He would compare what you went through to what the Pharasies were doing, and He would reprimand them.

And BTW, I don't believe God is worried about someone dressing up and collecting candy, or passing out candy, for Halloween. I also don't think he is the least bit scared of Santa Clause. He is stronger than all of that, and it's what's in your heart that matters.

God want's you to enjoy life, not suffer through it. So have fun!!

And good luck with your family.

~Bob

Many people seem to make the assumption, when looking at the religious overtones of the all encompassing "will of God", that God wants everyone to suffer and be in some dark corner of Africa spreading the gospel. To echo RStar, I don't buy that vision. God does want you to be happy, but in a different light, that desire does not give license to do whatever one pleases.

I hope you'll be posting your birthdate for all of LoT to see. Look forward to a whopper of a celebratory thread that day!

I'm glad that you're going with your heart.

Congratulations Traci!
To those who call you a friend and then rescind their friendship based on your status with any church are not your real friends. Wave them goodbye and wish them well and go forward to find new friends, you will find many on this planet I am sure!

I agree. My church going days ended when I over heard my college/church friends make a comment after my wedding, "What a wedding." It was said very snarky. I felt bad that they didn't like it. David is not religious, neither are his parents/family. My parents are boderline athiest, though my mom is more agnostic that anything else. We did have an ordained minister preforming the wedding, my sister's father-in-law. It was very casual, held in our backyard. Their one comment was enough to show how closed minded they were.

My sister belongs to a huge church in Tehachapi. Between Sunday service and her girls being in Awanas they go at least 3 times a week. All of the kids in the church are either enrolled in the church's private school or are home schooled. These girls worry me because they are so sheltered. When they are finally allowed into the real world they will have no life skills to cope with what comes at them.

My sister has her entire church praying for me with my home situation. She is begging me and Nickolas to go to church with her. I just can't justify going. Maybe that will change after we go up there for Hannah's baptism in October, but I doubt it.

My whole issue revolves around how they treat people they deem as unworthy.

I'm very happy for you, Traci. Only you know what's best for you and your kids.

Those of us from restrictive backgrounds can appreciate a more free adulthood. :) I'll go back to synagogue someday, but my POV on all that has changed a lot since I was a kid.

Congratulations on making a decisions about what's best for you and your family. Happy Halloween! Happy Thanksgiving! Merry Christmas! Happy Birthday!

Welcome!
I made that same decision when I was about 15 or 16 or so.
It freed me. My mind opened like a parachute.
Don't let people tell you that just because you're not in a religion that you're not a good person. 'Cuz we know you are.
:)

Congrats on the newfound freedom! I applaud your choice to use your own brain and make your own choices that are best for YOU. I hope it brings you much happiness.

Congratulations, Traci, on finding comfort with your faith - now get out there and celebrate it! :)

Congratulations, and very brave! Do you want to spill on what group, so we can close the door extra hard when they come knocking?

What if I know deep down inside that I'm a bad person? ;) :evil:

The one home-schooled baby sitter that we had was a minister's daughter who was 13 going on 45. However, if "life skills" means making dangerous mistakes so that you learn not to make them again, I'm not sure that's a terrific life skill for children to pick up, though it is inevitable to some extent. If "coping" means having the vocabulary to say no to dangerous behavior, that vocabulary will almost certainly come from some strong presence in the child's life be it family or religion that teaches (bludgeons?) the child with who he or she is and why some things just are not done.

Be careful who prays for you. Every sick person that the priest at my wife's church prayed for was gone just like that. Oddly, when he got lung cancer, he lived much longer than was expected.

The lack of holiday/birthday celebrating kind of narrowed the field for me, but I could be wrong as to the one I guessed.

That occurred to me as well, but it could also have been the church of the big firm lawyer.

You guessed Puritan, too?;)

Seriously, though- I know, as do many others here, just how stressful the decision can be. While it's freeing, it's not without a price. I will never understand how anyone could turn their back to a loved one just because they aren't involved in the same religious organisation. You may be surprised by how many others feel the same way, Traci- maybe you won't get the reaction you expect from some of your family and friends. It's entirely possible that some of them are wrestling with the same or similar issues.

I say snake-handling!
:D

Thanks all. :)



No, they really are good people. They've just been trained to believe that you can't associate with people who have "abandoned God." I have no doubt that if/when they do find out that they will be very hurt.

Not really. I bear no ill will towards any members. I met many good people throughout my life as a member. As Rstar put it, it was the legalism that turned me off of it, not most of the people.

Tracilicious, I disassociated myself when I was 14 and it was pretty stressful. And it is hard because for the most part they are all wonderful people and completely earnest in what they believe and what they believe really isn't all that bad. And while I understand why non-believers find them annoying I also understand why they do what they do anyway and it really is an act of love and compassion for them.

But I quickly learned that religion and an inner certainty that in all likelihood god doesn't exist were hard to reconcile. But it was still a tough thing for a 14-year-old to stand up to his congregations elder and explain that I was pretty sure they (and all religious people) were sharing in a mass delusion.

So, to say it all backhanded, while I think your beliefs are equally silly as what you were raised with, I am glad you have come to terms with how you want to live your live and that is the important thing.

But don't start celebrating your birthday, that is just silliness that should be trimmed from polite society.

Oh, and while it certainly changed my relationships I found that hardly anybody took the hardest line interpretation of not associating with the lapsed.

Hopefully you'll find that to be true as well, particularly within the family (but I know that is something that seems to vary a lot from region to region).

Wow, leaving at such a young age must have been really difficult. You've got a backbone, that's for sure.

Agreed. This also makes it impossible for any of them to understand the mentallity of someone that leaves.

See above comment about backbone. I'm lucky in that we have very few ties left to any members. Only immediate family and two friends that live out of state.

Lol, I'm glad that you squeezed in some classic Alex Stroup. ;) I'm not 110% sure in my newfound beliefs yet, but to me they are quite a bit less silly. I no longer believe one group has all the answers about the bible, or even that the bible is completely true. I tried being Atheist for a short while, but it was so depressing.

There's hardly a holiday in existence that isn't about getting presents or eating food. Birthdays are no different. I could frankly care less about my own though. Michael is terrible at presents anyways and our anniversary is two days later. I am happy that we'll be able to celebrate the kids' birthdays, as I think it was getting difficult for Indi knowing that all his friends do it and not understanding why he didn't.

I doubt that any family will cut us off. On my side only two of my sisters and my parents are still members. My other sister and two brothers already left. My mom will understand, my sisters won't but they will still talk to me. It will be a long time before I'm honest with my dad and his wife. I would hate for it to get back to my 87 year old grandfather who's been serving his entire life. None of Michael's five siblings are, which is actually one of the reasons why we'll just gradually let his mom see that we don't plan on returning. I think she had high hopes that one of her children would come back to the religion.

I have seen many people cut off family for leaving though. My older brother was one of them. I often wonder how different his life would have been if he had been shown compassion and sent to rehab rather than being kicked out of the house at 17.

Regardless, such a decision seems to be a mixed blessing. I feel somewhat as though I've carved a huge chunk of my own flesh off. It may have been infected flesh, but I still have religious ghost limb syndrome.

Thanks for sharing your experience. :)

Well, it's been tough living without electricity and cars and such, but at least religious officials won't be able to call me! :p

I don't quite understand either. But these people literally associate with practically no one outside the faith. So relatives or friends that leave have just crossed over to the side of people that they don't hang out with. In most cases it's a very difficult thing for them to go through. They're just doing what they are taught is right. In regards to our two friends though, the wife just severed ties with her best friend of a decade or more for leaving, so not much hope there.

For me, developing my own beliefs was something that happened over time and through experiences, continued to change. The more I learn and experience in life, the more I "tweak" what I believe. To be cliché - it has been- and continues to be - a journey, not a destination,

Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads...

and now back to your thread :)

A church devoted to worshiping big *ahem* firm lawyers... Kinky.

32 posts before a sex mention. New record! :p

I'm fascinated by this discussion. It must be both a little terrifying to abandon what you've been brought up with yet so freeing at the same time. No matter what path you end up on, making your own decisions about what you believe and how you live your life is, I think, an excellent thing.

Yeah- where is KB, anyway?

I just wanted to update here to say that I no longer consider myself Christian. Too much research about biblical origins I suppose. Not that it matters, I just didn't want all of you running around thinking I was nondenominationally Christian.

Does this make me atheist? Do I get to sit at the atheist table at my next meet? :p

Well, if you no longer believe that God sent/became Jesus to fulfill Old Testament prophecies and make a new covenant, then . . .

Congratulations! You're a Jew! Shalom, chaver!

Based on this:

I'm going to have to say you stay at the kiddie table. (There that should get the talking going.)

Yeah, the belief in a God part is still problematic, but you're always welcome at this atheist's table
:cheers:

Oh, when I say I'm not Christian anymore what I mean is that I don't really believe in God anymore. Or maybe I do, but not a God that has much to do with earth. I believe in infinity and that's as close to a belief in God as I'm willing to get right now. Or perhaps it's that I just don't care whether there's a god or not. Maybe I should just sit next to the atheist table and eavesdrop. :p

Congratulations! You're a Jew! Shalom, chaver!

I believe the word you're looking for is agnostic.

^ What GD said.

I have many Agnostic friends. Even Ken is more Agnostic than Pagan, in that he doesn't really believe in God/Goddess, but more of an all-encompassing spirit of which we are all part.

The nice thing about Agnosticism is that no belief is "wrong". :)

I just think agnosticism sounds kind of lame. (No offense to anyone who's agnostic.) I don't really believe in god, I'm just open to the possibility that I'm wrong. I also think it's possible that there is some sort of different energy-ish thing that people call god, but definitely not a walking around in his castle in heaven looking like a person kind of god.

I think the atheist table is a jollier place than people imagine. I'm hoping that the term "atheist" will eventually lose it's pejorative sense. (According to a recent poll, us atheists are the least trusted group of people in America.) I've only recently grown fully comfortable with the label myself, (I identify as a secular humanist more often because it doesn't produce the same shock that "atheist" does. Maybe it's because a lot of people don't know what "secular humanist" means.) I hope to promulgate "atheist" as something perfectly warm and fuzzy. (Ask those who know me - I'm a kitten doting, cry at dog movies, sentimental sap whose big vices are corn dogs and Dole Whip.)

Anyway, Tracilicious, it's inspiring to hear about you grabbing hold of your own emotional and intellectual freedom. Wherever this journey takes you, you rock.

Just a quick update.

I am officially out of the religious closet. Only one of my sisters has decided not to talk to me anymore. We were good friends. Could have been worse I guess.

Now all you need to do is get the others to work on the one. :D

Glad to hear you're not cut off from all.

You thought you were good friends.

I have an elderly aunt who still lives in the Father Divine mission in Philadelphia. My mother said, "Fine," on that long ago. Don't lose too much sleep over it.

The family stories I have about people who, having experienced intolerance generally and from going their own way, could still heap intolerance on others for the way they went could fill a book.

Hmm. This makes me wonder~

Is this why my sister really doesn't talk to me anymore? She had loaned me 'The Passions of the Christ' and I told her I couldn't watch it because I couldn't sit and watch the torture, no matter to whom. I don't go in for that sort of visual, ya know?

So, after, she 'witnesses' to me. I know it is her new church and I know they are supposed to 'save' people and I love her for wanting to 'save' me.

I told her that I felt that I was living a life that would make God happy, I am honest and I care about people, etc. She said it wasn't enough. I told her it was for me and while I appreciated her attempt and the reasons behind it, no thanks.

I also told her 'You did do a great job in your attempt'. See, me, always trying to be positive. Even though I wanted no part in all of it, even though I felt attacked, insulted and my whole life knocked, I still wanted to encourage her on her attempts.

Anywho, don't hear from her much anymore. I wondered what was up and now this makes sense.

Aren't they supposed to cut people out who aren't positive Christian role models? I really wonder if I've heard this before.

Well, while it saddens me that there are two people who come to mind {one being my sis} who have been absent from my life, it is such a nice feeling not to be judged every freakin' time we are together that what I say is wrong and that I think the way I do or have problems that I have because I don't go to church, etc.

Strength to you in this time and remember you are a great person. :snap:

As we were fond of quoting when I was in the pentecostal, hallelujia, born again, charismatic Hillsong church (when it was only the "hills christion life centre" in a industrial unit):

In the Bible 2 Corinthians 6:14 says:"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?" (KJV)

"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" (NIV)

"Do not be teamed with those who do not love the Lord, for what do the people of God have in common with the people of sin? How can light live with darkness?" (LB)


See - we were told that our relatives and friends who were not "of God" were bad influences and we were to avoid contact and most certainly should not go out with or marry them. :rolleyes:

Oh well, with all the money I saved not going out with anyone, I could afford the full 10% of my wage (before tax) tithes. I just love their big new monumental church estate they've built. :rolleyes:


....the above post is with apologies to non-extremist Christians like Nephy & Scaeagles... I just need to vent sometimes. Forgive me.

Thanks, Lashbear. So it isn't my imagination....

Isn't it something? I sure hear a lot of judgement coming from religious people who are in no place to judge.

That is one big reason why I quit going to church and the biggest reason I don't go back. I was privy to some information via a member of a church committee and I had to tell them 'Isn't this what God is all about, forgiveness and beginning again? Shouldn't this person be given a chance? I don't see the church giving him a chance. I think he is a role model.' I was glad at the time that I felt I got through a bit. But to that person, not their whole member board.

I wish you the best. It isn't easy.

I've always heard that verse interpretted in reference to marriage. As in if you are a believer it probably isn't best to marry an unbeliever.

As a practicing (and practice certainly does not make perfect) Christian, it bugs me when unbelievers (or just those with varying opinions) are shunned. Jesus didn't hang out with the religious of the day. He hung out with those that the religious looked down on. Now, I will note that he didn't want people to remain unchanged, but he accepted everyone for who they were. For every former prostitute Jesus took under his wing there was a rich young ruler who wouldn't pay the price Jesus asked, which was just loving God more than money.

I have a different view of judgement than most. I can judge an action. We all judge actions all the time as to if we think it was a good thing or a bad thing. However, judgement of the heart is what no man can do. It is simply not within my purview to say so and so will burn in hell for such and such.

JW's don't, per policy, shun non-believers. They tend to hang out with like minded people but you are allowed to interact with all kinds of people.

The ones who are shunned are people who leave the faith. There is a certain amount of logic in this (not that it makes it any easier on people) because you have to understand what accepting the good news means to them and what a betrayal it is to have accepted it and then reject it. You are also fundamentally rejecting how they define themselves at their very core.

Alex is right. I wouldn't say they tend to hang out with like minded people though. I would say that 95% of them have no friends that aren't JW's. It's very strongly discouraged. They are friendly to unbelievers though.

I have a shred of hope that my sister will change her mind. I really do sympathize with my family. It isn't as black and white as judging and not being as good of friends as I thought we were. It's a whole nother world.

Celebrating Halloween to them is akin to Satan worship. I may as well have told them that I've decided to have a baby sandwich for lunch every day. They can't possibly comprehend that this is a decision I've come to using logic. To them my mind has been corrupted by Satan. Rejecting what they consider to be God's truth voluntarily is like telling them that I have a highly treatable form of cancer but have decided just to die. It isn't an easy time for them. I'm the last person they expected to do this to them, which makes it much worse.

If they were allowed to read anything about the bible or their religion besides what their religion publishes, then it would be much easier to understand. But then there also wouldn't be a ton of JW's left either. But as it is, they are indoctrinated three times a week, read loads of material published by their organization, and only associate with other JW's. It's a very insular world. To maintain close contact with me is to reach out of their comfort zone. Thankfully, most of them will do that. Hopefully in the end all of them will do that. Only because we are family though. There is no possible way any of our friends will.

So while I certainly am angry at my sister, I understand where she's coming from.

You guys' support has meant a great deal to me. I'm lucky to have the LoT and a supportive network of real life friends so that I can at least have a bit of normalcy right now. :)

I wonder if this is just standard variation from one congregation to another or if it is has become more rigid in the last 20 years (man, I can't believe it has been almost 20 years for me), but I don't recall ever experiencing any direct pressure not to associate with anybody I wanted (other than the disassociated), nor did my parents stop doing so.

And we were encouraged to read the bible (which is why I have read most of it), and not even just their translation but we also used the KJV. But yes, the official interpretation of things was always in your face.

Is it true that in recent years, the fine people in New York have moved away from the idea that Armageddon will happen before the last person alive in 1914 dies? I've always said that the first step in the maturation of a religion is abandoning specific predictions for the end of the world.

The thing I most liked about their specific brand of faith was that it got me out of having to celebrate my birthday (which I didn't like even when we did it) and the rejection of the trinity. The concept of the trinity has always struck me as very stupid so I'm glad I didn't have to try and internalize it.

Hopefully your sister will come around enough to have some kind of relationship, and I suspect she will with time.

I can't really say definitively. I've been in seven or eight congregations in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona and it's been pretty consistent. In 89 or 90 they released a book specifically for young people that stressed not associating with unbelievers or participating in extra curricular school activities. There's a good chance that people do have unbelieving friends and they just don't talk about it.

We were always encouraged to read the bible, but only the New World Translation. Any other version was considered highly inaccurate.

I'm not totally solid on current doctrine, but they've hinted strongly at 2034. They are using the 120 years before the flood and comparing our time to Noah's or something. So 120 years from 1914 is 2034. They haven't said it outright, but the hints are there. It's just vague enough to cover their asses when it doesn't come. The entire 1914 thing is hilarious as it's historically and biblically inaccurate. I think the people in power know that, but abandoning that would be a huge nail in their coffin. They are pushing the Armageddon thing like I've never seen before. I think they're scared because so many people are leaving.

Lol, that was the think I liked least growing up. Yes the trinity thing always struck me as dumb too. Though if we are all God's creations then I guess it doesn't matter whether Jesus is God or Jesus is from God. Technicality really. But JW's thrive on technicalities. I always liked the hell thing the best, as I have yet to see it accurately supported biblically. Though, I'm not sure how 99% of humanity dying is much better.

I think my sister will come around. She's married to an unbeliever after all.

Yep, you're agnostic :)

Well traci and Alex....I was recently disfellowshipped! lol

I was an elder, pioneer, bethelite etc! But funny how things change when you "come out"

I had an attraction to the same sex since I was 4 and after spending 32 years trying to make everyone else happy, I dicided it was time to make me happy!

It's funny though, I got "kicked out" for being gay, but the man, my father, that molested me for many years is still an elder in the "church"

So, I say, "Welcome Aboard!"

Hey, welcome to the boards, NGW, and I'd invite you to just jump right in, but you already have! You'll be a fine fit to our Swanky family.:cheers:


I can't help but read this thread and think that it's truly terrible, the things we do, in the name of God, Jesus or whatever other divinity you want to cite. I can't believe that people would turn away from family or be so easily swayed by others that annoint themselves as holy leaders and then require their followers to do such awful things. I find my trust in others has become very much compromised, but it's not such a big deal because I've always kind of followed my own path anyway.

Welcome, NGU. Yep - coming out seems to apply to the church doors as much as the closet doors.

welcome to the most un-judgemental family around :D

Hugs
Rob.

But should they be swayed by the holy leader who appointed his successors? Shunning lapsed members of the put forth by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians. It wasn't an invention of Russell or Rutherford. From the King James Version (1 Corinthians 5:9-13):

Now, you all know that I think the Bible has all the holy help of a 12-pack of Charmin' toilet paper. But complaining about modern people doing stupid stuff in the name of god is odd when most of them were instructed 2000 years ago.

Uhm, having re-read my post thoroughly, I can find no reference to 'modern' in it- simply the expression of dismay that anyone (past or present) would do this, or allow religious leaders to coerce them into it. This certainly applies to past, present and future religions, such as Catholicism, Islamicism, Mormonism, etc.

Ok. I assumed you weren't considering Jesus an ass, but if he is fair game for the label as well, then I rescind.

I guess I don't have you PM you think link now, NGU. ;)

Welcome to the free world. ;) While I was still considering making an attempt at remaining JW, the gay thing was a big hang up for me. With all the evidence that the homosexuality scriptures are misinterpreted and the evidence that most gay people are born gay, it was hard to reconcile the church's beliefs with my own. I had a discussion with my sister about this once and she compared it to alcoholism. With God's help it can be overcome. She didn't get it when I compared it to Down's Syndrome (not in the retarded aspect, just the genetic one). So I would have had to lie about my stance about that as well as a few other things anyways. (Wifely submission anyone? Hurl.)


While I get what you are saying, didn't Jesus eat with sinners? I can't really recall Jesus doing anything assish. I haven't combed through or anything though. Considering that a great deal of the epistles were written over several centuries by many different authors, I'd say that most of the stuff in them doesn't have a great deal to do with Jesus.

Not that I place any stock in such things anymore, but if there actually were a god watching everything we do, and Jesus actually was his son, and following him meant anything, if people actually followed only what Jesus said and not what a bajillion other self inflated leaders wrote down after he came, religion would look different. I actually like Jesus. He seems cool. I think he's mostly legend, much like Buddha, but cool nonetheless.

I agree Wendy. It's amazing how much people let others have control of their lives. I think that's the appeal of religion for most though. It takes away the uncertainty and the obligation to think for yourself. And to some extent, the weight of your decisions. Not for all religious people, of course. JW's are indoctrinated three times a week, plus whatever ministry they do. All their publications are written very persuasively. If you only read JW stuff, it's easy to believe that everything that authorities say has the weight of God behind it.

On a brighter note, my sister talked to one of her elders about the whole situation, and he told her that as long as I hadn't written in a letter saying I wasn't JW then I was A-OK to talk to. One time religious authorities worked in my favor I guess. :rolleyes: She's become pretty depressed about the whole thing with me and my other sister though and has stopped talking to most people. If this has any benefit to her at all then I hope it makes her a bit more relaxed.

And my other sister told my dad, which I wasn't planning on doing, but I guess he said he figured that a long time ago. He's cooler than I gave him credit for.

Well, he self-appointed himself a holy leader. I consider that assish.

And the teaching of Paul was not to not eat with sinners (which would be pretty impossible for an evangelical religion), but to not eat with those who are a member of the faith but lapse.

Glad to hear about your sister. As I said when you first posted it, I expected you'd find that people weren't quite to rigid about it as you feared. If there is one thing the religious are good at* it is rationalizing that which they were going to do anyway. Religion is rarely an impediment to the life people wanted to live anyway and when it is, they just form a new religion.




* The non-religious are good at it to, they just don't have to frame it within religion.

With "God's help" one can stop drinking, but the alcoholic is still - and will always be - and alcoholic. A gay person can stop having sex with those he or she is attracted to and become a non-practising gay person, but they are still gay.

Let me rephrase this. I was responding to wendybeth saying she can't believe how much people subvert themselves to the teachings of self-appointed religious leaders allowing themselves to be coerced into things she takes to be bad.

I assumed, erroneously, that she was talking about modern "self appointed religious leaders (such as Russell, Rutherford, and the current leadership of the Watchtower Society). So I was pointing out that this particular teaching goes back to the earliest "self appointed holy leadership" of the Christian faith.

To the extent that what the modern "self appointed holy leadership" does is assish* for being self appointed and telling others what to do, so was Jesus Christ, and the church structure immediately following him.

To the extent that this particular element of Jehovah's Witness doctrine is bad and coercive, it was so 2,000 years ago. Unless you reject that this was a teaching of Christ as passed on by Paul. But once you do that, the Bible becomes worthless as a vehicle for passing on the teachings of Christ.



* wendybeth did not use this word, or necessarily this sentient. I introduced it to the conversation. Though it seems apt for describing the behavior of self-appointing yourself a holy leader and then coercing others to do bad things.

This basically sums up my feelings of the bible. Not that I believe in a Jesus as God or God's son either. If you look only at what Jesus is quoted to have said (which could be highly inaccurate, as Jesus himself didn't write anything down), then he has extremely little dogma. He professed himself to be son of God and to have insight into his kingdom, but I'd hardly call him a religious leader. Perhaps a leader of faith? Didn't he replace all laws before him with, and I paraphrase, "Love God with your whole mind, heart, and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself"? Sounds simple and dogma-less to me. If I could find it within me to believe in god, I could get on board with that.

The reconversion efforts have been high today from my mom, who thinks she can restore my faith in God by asking how everything got here and what the point of my life is without God. This discussion gets us nowhere, of course, because the theory of evolution makes about as much sense to her as lions flying helicopters would. I did find it comical that she thought she could get me to admit the bible is true by getting me to reject the Q'uran. Nice try, Mom. :rolleyes:

Yes, none of my family has spoken to me in several years! But they are the ones missing out on my great life!

Alex, it's a bit of a stretch to extend my statement to the lengths you have, so I thank you for your clarification. Yes, I think mankind does have a tendency towards assholiness. I do not think Jesus was an asshole in any way, shape or form- just the people who try to speak for him and use and abuse his message. I really don't think I trust any man or woman, so I guess I will plod along on my merry way and hope for the best. If I'm wrong, so be it- I don't think I'd want to spend eternity with the god of most of these religions anyway. I will say, if I hear or read 'I'm not perfect; just forgiven' one more time, I will lose it on the transgressor. It's like a free pass to do rotten things to others and get away with it, and I just don't believe it's that easy that bypass karma, divine retribution or ironic occurence.

Ugh, that is so beyond crappy! I'm curious, how do you feel about JW teachings now? Do you still believe in God and the bible? I know some leave and remain Christian, so this is just pure curiosity on my part.

Out of curiosity, why does Jesus get a pass that all of the other people who claim devine authority in telling other people how to behave do not?

Since the only evidence we have of Jesus's message are the people who tried to speak for him (no direct authorship exists) how do you have any idea what his message was independent of them? Maybe it is like deciding that Jeffrey Dahmer was a pretty good guy based on the writings of his mother?

Alex, I'm pretty comfortable with my belief system, although I think 'system' implies more structure than it really has. I've arrived at a core belief that I think works for me and I have no desire to share or convert or really even discuss it. To go into why I think Jesus was not an asshole would involve far more discussion than I want to get into to, and it wouldn't necessarily be truth to anyone but me. You grew up a JW and your view is affected by the things you've experienced and learned in your lifetime; I grew up a Catholic and the same goes for me. I've studied (and continue to study) history, science and all the other things that might influence a person's belief system and have largely concluded that most of the bible is political bull****. It's been twisted and so selectively edited that any truth was probably lost long ago.

However, my metaphysical astrologist mother would say that the above is merely my Leo sun sign conflicting with my Pisces moon and it's spiritualistic influence.:rolleyes:

Fair enough.

I'm very curious how you simultaneously belive that Jesus existed but that the Bible doesn't really contain any truth since any knowledge of the former only exists in the latter (as well as similar posthumous apocrphya). It is fair to not want to talk about it. But with your willingness to judge the faith of others, as you did above, I hope you can see where I might be interested in knowing more of how you come by such judgments and the method on which you filter what you find to be the wheat from the chaff.

As Richard Dawkins has been so famously saying recently, everybody is an atheist for 99% of the gods, atheists just take it one god farther. I'm fascinated by the process in which non-atheists end up picking that one god (or god-system, to involve the polytheists), and then how all the ones that pick the same god manage to create nearly infinite variations and then start shooting each other over them.

I'm certainly not looking to be converted or convince anybody else of my views. I'm just curious of a process so completely foreign to me since the gods forgot to give me the faith gene. But I can live with curiosity unfulfilled.

It's difficult to reconcile a claim of mere curiosity when also presented with statements like this:

I'm having a hard time seeing that as anything other than a dig.

I can't speak for Wendybeth, but the reason I don't usually participate in these discussions is that, for the most part, the "other side" does NOT have a genuine curiosity to know how I think, except as a pretext for "demonstrating" how wrong I must be. Because the "other side" sees my beliefs as silly and fundamentally untrue, they are genuinely unable to prevent themselves from, in their minds, proving me wrong. The questions aren't so much "why do you believe that?" as they are "how can you believe that in the face of all this evidence I've decided proves your God doesn't exist?"

It's nearly, if not completely, impossible to have a reasonable discussion in such an environment. If I respond with any visible emotion whatsoever, it's proof that I've let emotion, and not reason, guide my judgment. If I stop participating, it's conceeding the point. I can't produce God out of my sock drawer or give his address in Jersey as proof. And what I can provide that I consider proof, others consider mere coincidence, which gets no one anywhere. And thus the argument goes 'round and the horse begs to be made glue already.

Jesus certainly was an asshole on the "Live and let live," "Dude, what's your problem?" level. So were the Old Testament prophets. If by asshole, we mean treating the people who love and trust him poorly, I don't recall any such stories in the Bible. Of course, the Old Testament God was an asshole to Moses and Job, so it's reasonable to assume that God in the flesh was as well. And, if the question of salvation vs. damnation hinges on faith and belief rather than good works, that's major ass-holiness.

I don't mean it as a dig, honestly. Change it to "deciding that Gandhi was a pretty good guy based only on the writings of his mother" and my question is the same, if you can't trust the only source of information, how do you decide the truth.

And I'm not asking anybody to prove that God exists. For the sake of discussion I concede the point. In this case, I'm asking how, if you otherwise discount the Bible, you decide what Jesus's message was?

Is there a scheme to how some religious/spiritual ideas are embraced (for example, Jesus says to love everybody) while others are tossed aside (for example, Jesus says to avoid contact with lapsed Christians).

No, I don't think everybody with faith is silly, but I do think they're wrong. But then they think the same of me. So, faced with a selection of 100, in my view, equally wrong things (from the Greek pantheon through animism and into the various flavors of monotheism), I'm curious how most people manage to pick one of those as true but still agree that the other 99 are false.

This analogy may look like a dig, again, but I don't mean it as such. If 100 people came to me saying 2+2 equals everything from 20 to 119 I'd say "no, you're all wrong." But from my point of view, religion\spirituality is someone saying "no, you're all wrong. Except the guy who said 2 plus 2 is 38." Why?

If it is simply "I looked deep inside myself and this is the truth I found" then fine. That a non sequiter to me, but I can't argue with it. But when other religious views are condemned, as they have been in this thread, I again get curious as the basis for assuming that when other people similarly look deep inside themselves they find the wrong answer.

No, nobody is under any obligation to discuss these things, but I don't feel bad for asking the question.

This is another tangent, but I fail to see why this is a problem. More often than not we use reason to rationalize what we feel in our gut in the first place. Perahps your argument would not fall into the usual if x then y ,of the socratic method, but does God and belief really follow such logic any way?

Actually, Prudence summed it up quite nicely for me. Not in the mood, Alex- my post wasn't intended to be anything other than an observation and expression of dismay at what people do in the name of religion, and it wasn't even particularily original. If you'd like to start a discourse on wherever it is you seem to be trying to lead this, then by all means go right ahead, but I am really not interested in this conversation anymore.

observation and expression of what? The sentence is missing a word.

And again, fair enough on not wanting to discuss it. But when you find other faithss lacking, I'll be interested in the basis by which you do that. I don't feel I'm trying to take it anywhere beyond where you took it yourself, but that's fine, I"ll drop it until the next time.

Sorry- edited for clarification. I had another post, but an error 504 message kept popping up and wouldn't let me post it. I copied it and tried again, but it still wouldn't let me. For some reason, it let me post the less verbose reply above, and I took that as a sign.

This isn't exactly religion - but under my definition of "spirituality" - if you're going to put a label on it...

I believe that there is a some "life force" (for lack of a better phrase) that's in everything alive - from people to trees. Something that makes them alive - electricity type of thing that makes each person grow, age, heart beat etc...

That "life force" can affect other things and other people - in both good ways and bad - and that life force is apparent in very minor ways as well. It connects people in ways as silly as my making for dinner the very thing my husband has eaten for lunch (over and over and over again.) To the point now that I will email him in the afternoon and tell him: So, you had spaghetti for lunch and he'll reply back and laugh knowing that I was planning that for dinner and he'd aleady eaten it.

The same sort of thing when large groups of people pray. I don't believe it's a man in the sky doing anything - but all those people focusing their energy on the same thing can have an effect.

We are all good. We are all bad. We all make choices everyday that affect ourselves and everyone else and the energy or life force is affected by those decisions.

I've been christian and wiccan and various points in my life. I really liked wicca but had a hard time with the god and goddess feature. I think I identify with the energy of wicca, but not so much to praying to any sort of entity.

I have been known to repeat "nee stell thu" over and over because in high school I read a "spell" book which used that phrase as something to say when doing a protection spell. It sounds rather silly putting it down like that - but I do it anyway. It's a way for me to focus my thought on protecting what I'm interested in. Similar to prayer I suppose.\

Wow, how did I miss this? I don't know how I can muster my thoughts on the subject of the JW's because there’s a long history. I was born into that "religion" and was part of it until my mid teens. I don't know the extent of NGU and Traci's experiance as a kid in that atmosphere, but I can tell you I think most of my "issues" stems from the type of person my parents are/were, particularly my dad. My dad is selfish and a total jerk. That said I'm sure the teachings were taken in different context from NGU and others. I thought my family was normal and that the beliefs were normal right up until I was in school and I found out I was very very different. Being taken out of class during "holiday" celebrations (birthdays, Christmas, Halloween) not doing the pledge (I still don't know the whole thing) and not associating with other kids beyond who went to the "Kingdom Hall."

SO as I got older I became the weird guy in school and up until I stopped participating in the religion, I continued to be the weird guy. There were no parties, no real friends, and no social stuff like going to the movies. Dating was out of the question. Collage was out of the question. Etc. etc. I could go on but...

Anyway, I stopped going and soon after my parents divorced. The JW's gave my mom serious problems to the extent she had a restraining order on them. My dad is still very active and can not get thru a conversation with me or my sisters without "preaching" to us.

I don’t' consider the JW's a religion really but more along the lines of a Cult. Its extremely narrow minded, bigoted and very self important IMHO. But, like what was mentioned before, there are some good people I've met and I think try to do "the good thing" I guess. I think any religion where ultimate control is the focus point of its teachings is just wrong. IMHO religion is about one's mind, ideas, beliefs and what they believe to be right, not someone else telling them what to believe or think and that's pretty much the main point of the JWs.

For me, I've been "over" the experience for some time. Like everyone's childhood, those experiences resonate in each of our lives as mine does in my life. I can't change the past and those experiences do show up all the time, but you try to overcome them and to varying degree's that happens. But that's a whole other chapter.

Glad you're working it out T.

NGU you know you can talk to me anytime about it if you want. :)

I'm a religion??? The church of JW??? Who knew!

Show us yer canticles.

Yeah, well, spellcheck put a "E" in there and I had to correct it. :rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure that Wendybeth was saying she found others' ACTIONS lacking, not their faith specifically. I don't believe she has a problem with others having differing dogmatic beliefs; she has a problem with their self-righteous actions in defense of their religion.

There are plenty of Catholics who don't bomb abortion clinics. There are plenty of Muslims who aren't violent. It's the extremists who bother me, because their fanaticism obscures the goodness that their religion is supposed to inspire. I suspect that this is what Wendy is talking about.

And I don't know about Wendy, but I really respect what Christ had to say (even if it's only attributable to the oral tradition.) In the Bible, much of what is said by Christ has to do with loving and forgiving others and being peaceful. Regardless of who said it, in my opinion, it's a good way to live. But then, I also like to reach out and see what others have to say about how to live. Buddhism, especially, has some great philosophies that help me day-to-day.

Why do I accept some religious philopsophies and not others? Because I have no desire to be told how to think; because I like to come to my own conclusions. I take a piece from this and a piece from that and I use what feels useful to me. Just like you do, Alex; you simply find different things useful.

Pretty much right on, LS!:snap:

I truly don't care for proselytizing, hence the utter lack of interest with engaging in any conversations regarding religion. I am still a bit taken aback by Alex's interpretation of what I said, but that's just not my problem.

Gee, did I kill this thread or what?

Thou shalt not kill.

:p

Lol, you didn't kill it. I just haven't had time to sit down and reply to everything that I want to reply to in this thread. Tomorrow morning, I promise!

(looks at watch)
.
.
.
(taps foot)
.
.
.
(looks at watch again)

Yeah, story of my life...

Sorry! I'll start replying right now.

This would be ok with JW's. You can feel gay, you just can't act gay. And I'd highly advise against advertising that you feel gay if you are a JW. There's a quick ticket to being ostracized.

More serial posts to come...

Though I didn't see this in Wendy's posts, I'm curious about the same thing. So many people believe so strongly that there faith is THE faith and all others are laughably wrong. (This goes for lack of faith as well.) I'm not sure why they can't see that others are reading the same scriptures they are and have interpreted it differently, not because they are idiots, but because the nature of the scriptures lends itself to many different interpretations.

For the particular religion that I've been part of, they have many justifications for why they are right and everyone else is wrong. They never truly look for the other side of the coin though. I'm assuming it's that way for most devout faiths. Also, the admittion of possible error opens up an entire world of uncertainty that most wouldn't be comfortable with. Perhaps the community aspect of it comes into play as well. With the erosion of beliefs would come the erosion of the larger social group that they are part of. All their security would be lost.

I'm having this same problem in reverse. The people I talk to about faith really have no motive other than proving me wrong. Except in my case, they are trying to prove that God does exist.

I'm cool with whatever faith people want to have. If it's something that works for you then great. Whatever makes your life richer. I just don't get the people that are so dead set on conversion. I used to be one of those people, and I still don't get it.

Yes, I am gay! Why will I be ostracized for acting gay? Doesn't anyone like me anymore??? :(

Alcoholism is a disease. Being gay is not.

Where's the religious freedom in that?

Not that I agree with most religious standpoints on homosexuality, but that's not a black and white distinction that will do much good in making progress towards tolerance.

The only difference between defining alcoholism as a disease vs. homosexulaity as not is your perception that alcoholism is harmful and being gay is not. Otherwise, they are both conditions that affect the mind and/or body. "Negative effects" are the only thing that defines a disease (if we're talking about genetic disease) as different from any other genetic trait. So to someone who believes that homosexuality IS negative, it IS a disease.

Again, I obviosly don't hold that opinion, but in the idological battle, defining something as "a disease" or "not a disease" is as meaningless as worrying about what is and isn't a planet.

We were very hardcore JW's. I started public speaking within the congregation at six and was baptized by eight. I was a pioneer (someone who makes a huge time commitment to the public ministry) at nine. I always knew we were different though. My mom emphasized that as the best part of the religion. She felt that being different from everyone else was desirable (as everyone else sucked in her opinion).

I'm sure my experiences were shaped by my parents as well, but I'm pretty sure that who my parents were was largely shaped by the religion. I'm sure there would have been much less assholery without it.

Quote:

There were no parties, no real friends, and no social stuff like going to the movies. Dating was out of the question. Collage was out of the question. Etc. etc. I could go on but...

I'm lucky in that by the time I was a teenager my parents were divorced and way less strict. Michel and I dated in secret, but the stance on college was way relaxed by the time I was in high school. Although, from the time I was tiny I was told I would never even go to high school because armageddon would come. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Anyway, I stopped going and soon after my parents divorced. The JW's gave my mom serious problems to the extent she had a restraining order on them. My dad is still very active and can not get thru a conversation with me or my sisters without "preaching" to us.

Lol, I was the only one that went for a while after my parents divorced. Funny how things turn out.

Quote:

I don’t' consider the JW's a religion really but more along the lines of a Cult. Its extremely narrow minded, bigoted and very self important IMHO. But, like what was mentioned before, there are some good people I've met and I think try to do "the good thing" I guess. I think any religion where ultimate control is the focus point of its teachings is just wrong. IMHO religion is about one's mind, ideas, beliefs and what they believe to be right, not someone else telling them what to believe or think and that's pretty much the main point of the JWs.

I see what you are saying, but I don't consider them a cult. I consider them the same as most fundamental religions. They all think they are right based on different opinions of the same book. My distaste for the JW religion is increasing, though, as I see them relying more on fear and obscure prophecies. They take in members at a high rate, but lose members at just as high a rate. I predict the end of the religion within the next hundred years.

Here is an email my dad's wife sent me. This is a prime example of the fear and obscure prophecies that I was referring to. This is also rare for anyone that isn't a JW to actually see. So, uh, "enjoy" it? :p

The dates quoted were dates that JW's originally predicted the end of the world to occur at. They are masters at glossing over, so I'm guessing that's why they've added those to the list of dates that something prophetic happened in. Then they can say they were right about the dates, but wrong about what happened on them. Notice the reliance on their governing body. They see them almost as a prophet. Their word is law.

So happy to be free! Thanks for sharing Borneio!

I agree that my point is meaningless if you believe that being gay is wrong, but in scientific terms, that is the case. But, religion and science are often at odds.

Actually, my point is that in scientific terms, it's not the case. Just as, in scientific terms, it matters not at all whether Pluto is called a planet or not, because in the end, it's just a ball of dirt circling a star, not fundamentally different than millions of others that happen to be smaller.

In scientific terms, alcoholism, depression, homosexuality, my distaste for tomatoes, high intelligence, etc., etc. are all equal. "Disease" is a subjective term with no scientific basis for distinguishing what is and isn't a disease. The only distinction is a sense of what is "beneficial" and what is "harmful"

Well, gee whiz, I like you JW :D

Thanks... At least there's one.... ;)

I guess all this “JW” talk has got me paranoid… ;)

Not so sure about that. Alcoholism has been classified as a disease while distaste for tomatoes has not been classified as one. In my own terms, alcoholism is something that happens as a result of a change in the body's ability to deal with a substance. You aren't necessarily born an alcoholic, but become one as your body ceases to be able to deal with the substance. It may be genetic predisposition or it may be more like cancer (which can also have a genetic pre-disposition). Is being gay a genetic predisposition? I'm not sure that question has been answered.

To me, they are very different things. You don'e become gay over time like you do with alcoholism.

And Pluto has been classified as a dwarf planet while other similar objects in the Kupier belt have not, and when it used to be a planet. People decide on these classifications for conveneince sake, but in the end, it's an arbitrary call. One with some practical purposes that I won't argue against, but the point is, using such a term in a discourse against gay bigotry is, in my opinion, pointless because it doesn't impart anything new into the conversation. "Gay is not a disease" is synonymous with "Gay is not harmful", and that tack certainly hasn't worked.

Focus on the difference between how one IS gay and how one BECOMES an alcoholic. That is the primary difference to me.

The planet analogy just isn't working for me.

The planet analogy is not working for me, either.

But I see where you're going with the "something is only a disease because society has decided that its effects are bad" argument. Still, you are born biologically gay. You are not born biologically alcoholic. Compulsive, perhaps, but not alcoholic.

Just because something doesn't have the same structure as alcoholism doesn't mean it's not a disease. Albinism is classified as a disease and it exhibits itself nothing like alcoholism, obviously. You are born an albino.

Additionally, alcoholism itself can be exhibited in many different ways, as you're well aware. Some people can become addicted within having the first few drinks of their lives. Some people who might become addicted were they to drink in excess likely avoid it if they never have more than an occasional casual drink their whole life. And some people will never become alcoholics no matter how much they drink.

And while there's no hard evidence as of yet, I'd be shocked if the same weren't true of homosexuality. Some people are going to be gay no matter their upbringing. Some people are going to be straight no matter their environment. Some people will go one way or the other depending on what they're exposed to as they grow up.

But the fact remains, if the medical community were convinced that homosexuality were detrimental, it would be classified as a disease.

And I'm standing by the planet analogy. Both are purely subjective calls to drawn an arbitrary line in the sand. Neither term has any scientific definition that can be applied to accurately and automatically categorize anything.

Exactly what I was trying to say, H. You may be alcoholic before you have your first drink, or it may develop over time as you continue drinking and your body begins to chemically process alcohol differently. But, you need alcohol to become an alcoholic. You can BE gay and never actually have acted on it. You don't need to ever have had gay sex to be gay. Big difference.


I don't think albinoism is classified as a disease.

Umm, you completely contradicted yourself. "You may be alcoholic before your fist drink" "You need alcohol to become an alcoholic." Which is it?

But again, it's not even about the specifics as things called "diseases" vary GREATLY between being born already exhibiting it, being born with 100% chance of exhibiting it later in life, to being born with a predisposition to exhibit it if the right (or wrong) event triggers it, etc., etc. So whether homosexuality is exactly like alcoholism is irrelevant.

I think what NA means, and I am no way speaking for her, IMHO, is the addiction is there. Addiction to the alcohol, or it could be drugs or smoking, whatever the vice is. People are born with that somewhere in them, just like maybe being Gay or being attracted to redheads or hating Democrats or roadrage. It's part of personality that pops into us whenever one belives we become a "person."

IMHO. My .02. :)

Let me try this again.

With alcoholism, you may be physically have the inability to process alcohol like a normal person, but without alcohol, you would never know you are an alcoholic. It is just a malfunction of your body that never gets triggered because you never ingest the substance it takes to trigger it. Once you ingest alcohol, the "whatever physical thing happens in your body" begins to take place. In some people, the process happens slowly, in others they become full-blown alcoholics almost immediately. But, often it is a progressive disease.

Now, take out alcoholism and replace the appropriate words with gay definitions. There are huge differences. You don't become gay over time. You may beceome more accepting of being gay over time, but your condition doesn't get "worse".

I don't know the timeline, but homosexuality used to be classified as a mental disorder. Now it's not. My DSM IV does not list homosexuality as a disorder. It does, however, list transvestic fetishism and gender identity disorder. However, as with most diseases, these should only be diagnosed as disorders if they cause distress or impair function.

I'm going to mince words about alcoholism. Alcoholism isn't alcoholism until alcohol is involved. Predisposition to compulsive behavior is the genetic trait in question.

And here's where our arguments aren't running on the same track. I believe that homosexuality isn't a predisposition, but a biological fact-- therefore not at all comparable to any behavior that IS a predisposition.

I don't know that there's enough evidence to make that claim.

And I'm not going to mince words...I believe that, just like alcoholism, it runs the gamut between "Gay no matter what" and "Not gay until ya' get some man-love."

But again, EVEN if I were to accept your premise, that doesn't disqualify it from being a disease IF it's deemed detrimental.

All true, and it's that last bit that's of most import. Subjective definition, not scientific fact.

I'm going to state my bias that alcoholism is a disease that an alcoholic can be given a reprieve from thru various forms of treatment. I will never believe, nor aligh myself, with the religious that believe that being gay can be cured. Being gay is a natural part of who a person is. Being an alcoholic is a mutation of who a person was.

Hmm. If they ever manage to conclusively prove that being gay is genetic, than we most certainly CAN "cure" it. SHOULD is a different question, one you obviously know my response to. But for that very reason, that identifying a genetic cause would define a path to a "cure", the "disease" context is one I would prefer to be kept far away from the debate. Way too much danger of the bigots dancing for joy at the discovery of the "cure".

I've already stated that I *see* your point of view that anything can be called a disease if society deems it detrimental.

The point that I was debating here was sexuality as a predisposition. And we disagree.

Which is why I hate hate hate the argument that being gay is genetic. Especially since there is no basis for it.

One other thought about alcoholism vs homosexuality. Alcoholism is a progressive disease that gets worse, never better. There is no cure, only a daily reprieve. Being gay is not a progressive that leads to self-distructive behaviour and severe illness and death.

(And, anyone, regardless of their sexual preference can use that preference for self distructive behaviour. I was not opening that door. That is not really something that is unique to homosexuals.)

Yes, I agree-- that's why I used "sexual" and not "homosexual" in the post above yours.

But I have to say that everything's really rather genetic. And once we learn to manipulate genetics, there are a lot of 'diseases' that we could 'cure.' Skin pigment. Nose size. And so on. That's why, other than healing actual medical conditions (cancer, MS, etc) I think the idea of 'healing' anything genetically is rather inadvisable.

You guys are hilarious. WHy this argument about what it is to be gay between lots of people that are ok with being gay? My original point was that to the extremely religious, acting alcoholic is a sin and acting gay is a sin. End of story.

Traci, you are right, but I find these discussions - as I find many discussions here - to be enlightening. Even if they do completely derail a thread on a different topic. ;)

I agree. I've known many alcoholics and NA has it right one.

The part about the self destructive behaviour and all, the thought that both can be {being gay and being an alcoholic}. Well, I think a person who is self destructive and gay is such because society has made them ashamed of who they are and they can not deal with the pain brought upon them.

Accepting an alcoholic will only lead their their demise and normally the destruction of a familys foundation.

Totally my opinion but also totally from experience as well.

I don't think people fully understand either issue. And, I have to say, I don't completely either.

I don't disagree with that, but self destructive behavior, gradual/externally triggered onset, uncureability, etc are NOT defining characteristics of a "disease". Read this list of common diseases. I dare you to find a commonality among them other than a vague, subjective sense of "they result in something bad." It's not about distinguishing homosexuality from alcoholism specifically. It's that, as someone who dearly would like this "debate" about homosexuality to no longer be a debate, I cringe any time I see someone couching their argument in a context such as "diseases" which lends itself to being used against what I see as the "right" way to go. One can never conclusively prove that homosexuality is not a disease because there is no conclusive definition of what a disease is.

I'm not really sure how this is true. Perhaps you are alcoholic because you have a predisposition to addictive tendencies, or perhaps it is because you went through a spurt of intense drinking for one reason or another and your body now craves it. You can be depressed because of an innate chemical imbalance, or because you are nutrient deficient or never get any exercise. Your distaste for tomatoes is likely not something you were born with, but the result of your current diet (not in a negative way, but our tongues get used to whatever it is that we eat). Often people that juice fast find that their taste buds have been "reset" and they like foods that they never did before. Likewise, high intelligence can be genetic, or it can simply be the result of a good diet as a baby and enough essential fatty acids at crucial points of brain development coupled with a stimulating environment.

Are you saying that in sciences eyes those are all genetic? There doesn't seem to be support for that. I'm not sure how any of this relates to being gay.

I think the origins of gayness is a poor argument to get into. I think it would be better to focus on mistranslations of the bible in reference to homosexuality. Since those that oppose it seem to be mostly Christian. If we were to have a correct translation, it's doubtful that most would condemn homosexuality provided that sex be monogamous after a commitment has been made.

Assuming that homosexuality is innate at birth (and I don't think it is, at least not for all homosexuals) then I think an interesting analogy would be congenital deafness.

It isn't a disease, but it is a defect (in the sense that it is well outside even a couple standard deviations form the human normal range). Technology is finally giving us ways to "cure" it but there are communities who strongly argue that there is nothing to cure. That they're fine the way they are.

But I agree with GD on a key point:

"Disease" and "defect" like "planet" and "moon" are social constructs without objective meaning. Society decides what is disease and while there is an obvious core, there is a fuzzy edge where over time things fall in and out of the category. 80 years ago alcoholism was a moral failing and now it is a disease. 80 years ago homosexuality was a disease and now it is a [moral failing | biochemical imperative]. Drug use has cycled through it several times in recent decades (for Nixon it was something to be treated, for Reagan it was something to be punished).

Personally, I don't care at more than an academic level why someone is gay because I don't really care that they are gay. However, if you're a Christian, it doesn't really take a lot of ingenuity to find biblical condemnation of homosexuality (this is one topic where I find the "progressive" interpretations more tortured than the "regressive" one). I'm reasonalbly comfortable with the idea that (if he was real) Jesus would not have approved of homosexuality (though that does not mean he would have approved of violence against or even ostracism of them). But then I don't believe he was anything more than a delusional preacher so it is equally easy for me to imagine he'd think Two and a Half Men is good TV, so that is a statement without much meat.

I'm curious to know why you say this. The greek words that modern man has interpreted into homosexuality actually reffered to keeping young boys as prostitutes. The actual word for homosexuality that the greeks used doesn't appear in the bible.

Not that Christians couldn't argue about the whole man and woman in marriage thing.

I'm never clear on which parts of old testament Christians decide to pay attention to and which they decide is invalid, but Leviticus rather clearly states "Thou shalt not lie with another man as you lie with a woman," the penalty for which being stoning to death.

/eating bacon wrapped lobster.

Not forgetting wearing a Poly/Cotton blend !