LGBT and religious belief

[tymejumper]

Here is the thread I have been wanting to write but have not been sure if it was correct to write! I was taught that it is "bad form" to ask about anothers religious beliefs. However, I also believe that if we discuss our views, it will open doors to understanding of each other and help promote unity, especially in our community. We can find what we have in common and build on that, instead of arguing what and who is the ultimate authority on religion. I saw that on the thread published by Stev0 about Christianity and how being gay was a sin.

So, here is goes, what are your beliefs and understanding of your religion? How do you identify?(christian, evangelican, jehova witness, buddist, pagan, wiccan etc....) How does your belief help you to find peace with your sexuality? How does your religion support you? And whatever else you wish to share with us so we can understand that we come from all walks of life and all religions.

I personally don't identify with any label for my beliefs. I usually say Buddist, but I don't seem to fit into that either:lol:

I believe very strongly in Karma, the energy you give out, you will receive. There are consequences to all acts, both good or bad and that payback is Karma. I also believe in reincarnation and that each life you live you have to learn, or finish a task to become a more complete and pure soul. Once you learn all you need to, you have the option of remaining in "heaven" or returning to help guide others on their life paths. I feel that the higher power is both female and male, I refere to her/him as either God or the Goddess, interchangably. I do not believe in Hell and feel that Hell is only here on Earth, a place we make by choosing to be unhappy. I feel that nature is a hugh part of our lives and that we need to revere it as it was created by the God/Goddess and we need to respect it. I do not believe in killing for no reason, not even a spider that comes into our homes, not wasps nor ants nor anything I can avoid harming. I will go out of my way to catch and release creatures that get into my home.(I have a hugh Baldfaced hornet nest in my front tree and am awaiting, patiently, for frost so I can climb up and remove it to place into the woods by my house.) I do eat meat, but I believe it should be killed as humainly as possible. I believe that the God/Goddess being both sexes, is supportive of GLBT relations as She is love and expects us to find our soul mates and become whole loving peoples. I see homosexuality in nature and therefore it is a natural expression of love. I also believe that if you wish harm on another person, you will recieve harm not love back. Whatever forces we release into the universe will return to us, love, hate and fear all return to us.

That is pretty much it in a nutshell.

Much Metta(much love and peace)
Rebekah

[scrupulous_stoic]

So, here is goes, what are your beliefs and understanding of your religion? How do you identify?(christian, evangelican, jehova witness, buddist, pagan, wiccan etc....) How does your belief help you to find peace with your sexuality? How does your religion support you? And whatever else you wish to share with us so we can understand that we come from all walks of life and all religions.



I am unreligious at the moment, as I feel too inexperienced to make such a momentous decision. Be that as it may, I have incorporated several philosophical schools of thought into my life to create an ethical system to follow. Among the greatest influences on my life is that of the Buddha. However, I tend to stray from the religious aspects that have been mixed with the Buddha's teachings, and focus on his original philosophy. I also am swayed by Stoicism and Epicureanism, two schools of Hellenistic thought. Stoicism praises virtue, and encourages meditative contemplation in order to advert hostility from one's self. Epicureanism is focused on attaining tranquility and freedom of fear through knowledge and friendship. Both promote seeking temperate lives.

Despite my lack of religion, I have studied religious traditions profusely, and have interests in some. One I find most intriguing is the philosophical school of Hinduism, which is considered as the "quantum physics" of religions by some scholars. Also, I am intrigued by two pagan "reconstructed" traditions: Asatru (with followers who would rather be termed "heathen" rather than "pagan"), and Hellenion. Asatru is focused on the gods of northern Europe. Many practioners focus on the Scandinavian deities, such as Odin, Thor, Freyja, ect. It is a tradition of varying ideas, with social conservatives and liberals, but all are bound to the old Germanic ethics, which glorify honor, knowledge, hospitality, and kinship. Hellenion is focused on the Greek gods, and value tolerance and insight. I have been drawn to these two faiths for different reasons. I am Dutch and Norwegian, and have found Asatru to be a link to my ancestral past, having read The Poetic Edda and The Story of the Volsungs and the Niblungs. I was drawn to the Hellenistic school due to my love of the ancient Greeks, having been started after reading The Iliad and Odyssey in middle school.

I've read the Bible, and felt no special bond to it, though the teachings within the New Testament are praiseworthy. I've also read the Qu'ran, and, though I found its prose quite beautiful and elegant, it did not stir my spirit.

As far as my sexuality goes, I feel that our judgments get the best of us, and there is no way for a man, imperfect and impermanent, to tell me that I am wrong. This has always been a part of me (I also am quite stubborn), and feel this has helped me greatly in my spiritual wanderings.

I hope this has helped!

-Bennett

[dsdrane]

So, here is goes, what are your beliefs and understanding of your religion? How do you identify?(christian, evangelican, jehova witness, buddist, pagan, wiccan etc....) How does your belief help you to find peace with your sexuality? How does your religion support you? And whatever else you wish to share with us so we can understand that we come from all walks of life and all religions.

Rebekah --

I was confirmed earlier this year (and a couple weeks before my 40th birthday) as an Episcopalian after an entire adult life professing agnosticism. For various reasons, I found myself desiring a structured spiritual setting and the Episcopal church, with its focus on reason, fit well with me intellectually.

That said, I do not believe that Christ is The [Only] Way; my Faith tells me that there are other paths. Naturally, I have no Proof for this, but, then, faith never requires proof, does it? Many would not, as a result, consider me a Christian because of this, but the incongruity doesn't bother me a bit.

I was never really churched growing up, though my family was nominally Protestant, so religion didn't play a role in my coming out process. It never occurred to me that being gay was sinful, though, of course, I knew there were others who did feel that way...people I simply wrote off as ignorant.

My fear was being hated or hurt rather than being damned.

Religion only became a factor once I knew I wanted to find a church. Again the Episcopal church fit well because of the very public struggle they were and still are going through with respect to full participation of gay people in the church. I believe my church is in the vanguard on this issue, a fact that gives me a great deal of pride. It is my hope that we will continue to have the courage necessary to chart our own course, regardless of what others in the Anglican Communion say or do.

[antonyh]

I am unreligious at the moment, as I feel too inexperienced to make such a momentous decision. Be that as it may, I have incorporated several philosophical schools of thought into my life to create an ethical system to follow. Among the greatest influences on my life is that of the Buddha. However, I tend to stray from the religious aspects that have been mixed with the Buddha's teachings, and focus on his original philosophy. I also am swayed by Stoicism and Epicureanism, two schools of Hellenistic thought. Stoicism praises virtue, and encourages meditative contemplation in order to advert hostility from one's self. Epicureanism is focused on attaining tranquility and freedom of fear through knowledge and friendship. Both promote seeking temperate lives.

-Bennett

Bennett, ever since you've been posting on Soulforce, I've been intrigued with your screen name, "Scrupulous Stoic". I'm at a stage in my life right now where I feel like I have stumbled on spiritual gold with the Stoic philosophers. I've been reading Epictetus' works, Marcus Aurelius and Seneca. I just find it so fascinating to find someone else that is nourished by the Stoics. I am also very interested in Buddhism and feel that Buddhism and Stoic philosophy work very well together. Can you elaborate more on how Stoic philosophy has helped you on your spiritual journey?

[scrupulous_stoic]

Bennett, ever since you've been posting on Soulforce, I've been intrigued with your screen name, "Scrupulous Stoic". I'm at a stage in my life right now where I feel like I have stumbled on spiritual gold with the Stoic philosophers. I've been reading Epictetus' works, Marcus Aurelius and Seneca. I just find it so fascinating to find someone else that is nourished by the Stoics. I am also very interested in Buddhism and feel that Buddhism and Stoic philosophy work very well together. Can you elaborate more on how Stoic philosophy has helped you on your spiritual journey?

It has helped clear my mind of trivial and insignifigant matters, such as bigotry and hate, by the meditations of Aurelius:

"Say to yourself in the early morning: I shall meet today ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, uncharitable men. All of these things have come upon them through ignorance of real good and ill... I can neither be harmed by any of them, for no man will involve me in wrong, nor can I be angry with my kinsman or hate him; for we have come into the world to work together..."

It has also led me to become unbiased and have an open conscience. This has helped me learn from people with varying beliefs, and improve my knowledge of other spiritual practices. The focus on logic has also helped me think critically, and has benefitted me by probing deeper into religious doctrine. It has also led me astray from destructive natures that are rampant in todays society, and helped me stay focused on the things that matter. Thus, I would say that Stoicism has helped my spiritual journey by having me focus on my character, and has made my mind broad and suseptible to other beliefs.

[antonyh]

Thus, I would say that Stoicism has helped my spiritual journey by having me focus on my character, and has made my mind broad and suseptible to other beliefs.

That is a great way of putting it because in Stoic Philosophy the only good is virtue (the inner character we bring to externals).

Have you heard about Keith Seddon's commentary on Epictetus' handbook? It is really excellent and the first commentary done on Epictetus' handbook since the one done by Simplicius 1500 years ago. Dr. Seddon actually runs the Stoic Foundation and you can get his books there or through Amazon. They are definitely pricey but worth the money.

http://www.btinternet.com/~k.h.s/stoic-foundation.htm

[scrupulous_stoic]

I'll have to consider it. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

This discussion of the stoic philosophers is very cool.

I identify as a Methodist Christian, and love to read John Wesley (the founder of Methodists). Wesley was an Anglican of the 18th century. This was a period in which the revival of the classics (Greek and Latin classics) was a big thing. Wesley often quoted approvingly from some of these so-called pagan philosophers (e.g. Aurelius).

I'm glad you guys have discovered something in the classics. Too bad too many modern Christians ignore them. If I were better educated, I'd know more about them too.

John Wesley, by the way, did not exclude the pagan philosophers you mention from "salvation." Wesley would be considered a heretic for that in a lot of places now a days. Fundamentalism has done really bad things to Christians (and alot of other people).

Steven Webster

[scrupulous_stoic]

Friends,

This discussion of the stoic philosophers is very cool.

I identify as a Methodist Christian, and love to read John Wesley (the founder of Methodists). Wesley was an Anglican of the 18th century. This was a period in which the revival of the classics (Greek and Latin classics) was a big thing. Wesley often quoted approvingly from some of these so-called pagan philosophers (e.g. Aurelius).

I'm glad you guys have discovered something in the classics. Too bad too many modern Christians ignore them. If I were better educated, I'd know more about them too.

John Wesley, by the way, did not exclude the pagan philosophers you mention from "salvation." Wesley would be considered a heretic for that in a lot of places now a days. Fundamentalism has done really bad things to Christians (and alot of other people).

Steven Webster

Yes, it pleases me when prominent Christians, such as Wesley, can see how the pagan philosophies have bettered the human experience. I am not Christian, but I can find good in the pages of the New Testament. I think that the Buddha's quote best describes the good of incorporating beneficial teachings into one's life, no matter one's religious or ideological standpoints:

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

[tymejumper]

I have a very interesting book called Buddha and Jesus, the Paralle teachings. It outlines what Jesus preached in the New Testament and what Buddah taught. They say virtually the same thing when you compair. There is some speculation that when Jesus disappeard as a young man and later returned, he had been now only traveling around the world, but had specifically visited with the Buddah and spoke and taught with him. There are statues, very old ones, of the Buddah and a Jesus type figure hold hands and having arms around each others shoulders as in friendship in Japan and China. The Buddast monks teach that Jesus did come and exchange ideas with The Buddah.

Interesting more still is the fact that after he returned, his teachings often were the same as the Buddah taught.

Just food for thought

[scrupulous_stoic]

There is some speculation that when Jesus disappeard as a young man and later returned, he had been now only traveling around the world, but had specifically visited with the Buddah and spoke and taught with him.

This would have been highly improbable, as the Buddha died four centuries before Christ. I've heard of the speculations and assertions regarding the similarities, but I also feel the Buddha and Jesus differed in the areas that matter most to religion.

[antonyh]

Friends,

This discussion of the stoic philosophers is very cool.

I identify as a Methodist Christian, and love to read John Wesley (the founder of Methodists). Wesley was an Anglican of the 18th century. This was a period in which the revival of the classics (Greek and Latin classics) was a big thing. Wesley often quoted approvingly from some of these so-called pagan philosophers (e.g. Aurelius).

I'm glad you guys have discovered something in the classics. Too bad too many modern Christians ignore them. If I were better educated, I'd know more about them too.

John Wesley, by the way, did not exclude the pagan philosophers you mention from "salvation." Wesley would be considered a heretic for that in a lot of places now a days. Fundamentalism has done really bad things to Christians (and alot of other people).

Steven Webster

You can definitely see the Stoic influence in the New Testament. Pierre Hadot in What Is Ancient Philosophy? wrote the following about Stoic Philosophy and the New Testament:


"We ought not to forget that there had long been relations between Judaism and Greek philosophy..In this tradition, the notion of an intermediary between God and the World -- a mediating element called Sophia or the Logos -- played a central role...It is from this perspective that we must understand the famous prologue of the Gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Logos..." Christian philosophy was made possible by the ambiguity of the Greek word Logos. Since Heraclitus, the notion of the Logos had been a central concept of Greek philosophy, since it could signify "word" and "discourse" as well as "reason." In particular, the Stoics believed that the logos, conceived as a rational force, was immanent in the world, in human beings, and in each individual. This is why, when the prologue to the Gospel of John identified Jesus with the Eternal Logos and the Son of God, it enabled Christianity to be presented as a philosophy." pg. 238


One of the things that I've been thinking about while exploring Stoic Philosophy is the idea of the ambiguity in the Stoic notion of Logos. Christianity boldly said that Jesus was the Logos, the ambiguity is no more! In my spirituality, I've returned to the ambiguity of the Logos and learned to live with it. This was build on my sense that the Bible is a human response to God, not a divine book. I've opened myself to the notion that we've overdressed the Logos by adding the labels of the New Testament.

I like the Stoic idea that there is a rational force immanent in the world, in human beings and in the world. I believe this can be experienced. But to associate Jesus with this as the New Testament does...? Did we take one step to far?

[u-dog]

I like the Stoic idea that there is a rational force immanent in the world, in human beings and in the world. I believe this can be experienced. But to associate Jesus with this as the New Testament does...? Did we take one step to far?

I am woefully ignorant of the Stoic philosophers. I know only enough to know that his stoic philosophy was one of the reasons that Marcus Aurelius was among the best of the Roman Emperors. His virtue speaks highly of his philosophy.

However to answer your question "Did we take one step too far?" the answer is "no". The author of John is a subtle and far reaching thinker who is extremely conversant in the ideas and vocabularies of the Philosophies and religions of his time. For example, he uses many of the concepts and terms that were current in the Gnostic philosophies and sects in order to attract readers who were involved in those sects. However, he uses those terms and ideas to construct a vision of the universe that is completely contrary to the dualistic vision of the Gnostics. The idea that the "Word" or "Logos" could or would become "flesh" and that that would somehow be a good thing would cause a true gnostic to toss his cookies.

Similarly, John uses a term and a concept (the Logos) that was popular in a number of Hellenist philosophies and which had a corollary in Jewish tradition as well. It was a concept with which many learned people would be familiar. But he uses it in a way that is uniquely and thoroughly Christian. His purpose is to make the reality that he has experienced in Jesus Christ accessible to Hellenistic culture.

John's idea is that the invisible and ineffible God desired to communicate with humans about himself, but that language, law, religion, philosophy were incapable of containing this self-revelation. John's idea is that this self-revelation of God could only be embodied in a life and could only be accessed through a relationship with that life. John's idea is that when one sees that life (teaching/healing/death/resurrection) and comprehends it one does not merely know stuff ABOUT God ... one KNOWS God. When one sees and comprehends that life one is looking at a blueprint of the heart of God and of the universe itself. The stars, the galaxies, ecosystems, individual molecules and subatomic particles are all put together according to this pattern. Past, present, and future all come together and have meaning in this one manifestation of the divine reality.

There are connections between the notion of the "logos" in stoic (and other) philosophy and John was aware of those connections. But he employs the term and the concept toward a specifically Christian agenda.

If you prefer the stoic notion of "the Logos" to the Christian... thats cool. But did John take it "one step too far?" Nah! He took it right where he wanted it. And I think its about as cool as can be.

[antonyh]

I am woefully ignorant of the Stoic philosophers. I know only enough to know that his stoic philosophy was one of the reasons that Marcus Aurelius was among the best of the Roman Emperors. His virtue speaks highly of his philosophy.


While this is true, Marcus was no friend to Christians. Christians suffered terrible martyrdoms, especially in Gaul, during the rule of Marcus. "Marcus probably knew very little about what Christians believed and may have accepted the popular charges against them of incest and cannibalism. Their refusal to recognize the divinity of the emperor surely made them appear unpatriotic. From the one reference to Christians in his notes, it appears that Marcus viewed them as fanatics with a mad sort of death wish, perhaps as people whose hatred for this life bordered on ingratitude to God, and who in any case shed too many tears at their public executions...

'How lovely the soul that is prepared -- when its hour comes to slough off this flesh -- for extinction, dispersion, or survival! But this readiness should result from a personal decision, not from sheer contrariness like the Christians, and manifest itself deliberately and soberly, in a convincing manner, without histrionics' XI.3 (Hicks, The Emperor's Handbook)


However to answer your question "Did we take one step too far?" the answer is "no". The author of John is a subtle and far reaching thinker who is extremely conversant in the ideas and vocabularies of the Philosophies and religions of his time. For example, he uses many of the concepts and terms that were current in the Gnostic philosophies and sects in order to attract readers who were involved in those sects. However, he uses those terms and ideas to construct a vision of the universe that is completely contrary to the dualistic vision of the Gnostics. The idea that the "Word" or "Logos" could or would become "flesh" and that that would somehow be a good thing would cause a true gnostic to toss his cookies.

Similarly, John uses a term and a concept (the Logos) that was popular in a number of Hellenist philosophies and which had a corollary in Jewish tradition as well. It was a concept with which many learned people would be familiar. But he uses it in a way that is uniquely and thoroughly Christian. His purpose is to make the reality that he has experienced in Jesus Christ accessible to Hellenistic culture.

John's idea is that the invisible and ineffible God desired to communicate with humans about himself, but that language, law, religion, philosophy were incapable of containing this self-revelation. John's idea is that this self-revelation of God could only be embodied in a life and could only be accessed through a relationship with that life. John's idea is that when one sees that life (teaching/healing/death/resurrection) and comprehends it one does not merely know stuff ABOUT God ... one KNOWS God. When one sees and comprehends that life one is looking at a blueprint of the heart of God and of the universe itself. The stars, the galaxies, ecosystems, individual molecules and subatomic particles are all put together according to this pattern. Past, present, and future all come together and have meaning in this one manifestation of the divine reality.

There are connections between the notion of the "logos" in stoic (and other) philosophy and John was aware of those connections. But he employs the term and the concept toward a specifically Christian agenda.

If you prefer the stoic notion of "the Logos" to the Christian... thats cool. But did John take it "one step too far?" Nah! He took it right where he wanted it. And I think its about as cool as can be.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. John did use the Logos to advance his agenda. But you have to admit, it is a tremendous leap of faith. This man Jesus shows up in one of the smallest, most remote provinces in the Roman Empire and claims to be the Son of God, the revelation of the Logos, the promised Messiah of Judaism. I'm just struggling with this leap of faith. It really defies all reason. I'm not willing to say that there is no God and that is why I relish the Stoic idea of a rational presence immanent in the world. It is ambiguous enough to be honest about what we can really know about the mystical.

[u-dog]

While this is true, Marcus was no friend to Christians. Christians suffered terrible martyrdoms, especially in Gaul, during the rule of Marcus. "Marcus probably knew very little about what Christians believed and may have accepted the popular charges against them of incest and cannibalism. Their refusal to recognize the divinity of the emperor surely made them appear unpatriotic. From the one reference to Christians in his notes, it appears that Marcus viewed them as fanatics with a mad sort of death wish, perhaps as people whose hatred for this life bordered on ingratitude to God, and who in any case shed too many tears at their public executions...

'How lovely the soul that is prepared -- when its hour comes to slough off this flesh -- for extinction, dispersion, or survival! But this readiness should result from a personal decision, not from sheer contrariness like the Christians, and manifest itself deliberately and soberly, in a convincing manner, without histrionics' XI.3 (Hicks, The Emperor's Handbook)



I wholeheartedly agree with you. John did use the Logos to advance his agenda. But you have to admit, it is a tremendous leap of faith. This man Jesus shows up in one of the smallest, most remote provinces in the Roman Empire and claims to be the Son of God, the revelation of the Logos, the promised Messiah of Judaism. I'm just struggling with this leap of faith. It really defies all reason. I'm not willing to say that there is no God and that is why I relish the Stoic idea of a rational presence immanent in the world. It is ambiguous enough to be honest about what we can really know about the mystical.

Antony,

That sounds like a VERY authentic, honest, healthy place for you to be right now. And as a Christian I think that there are worse places to stand and wait for clarity than among the Stoics (MA's hostility to Christians notwithstanding).

As for me, the idea that the manifestation or incarnation of the "logos" would happen in a podunk village out "where God left his overshoes" is part of why I think its true. It strikes me as "just like God" to do that. Of course, I have been influenced by LUKE'S GOSPEL. Luke is convinced that the Kingdom of God enters the world at the margins where no one is paying attention and relentlessly grinds its way toward the center. The image of grass poking up through cracks in the asphalt as a metaphor for the kingdom (kingdom= the active work of the logos in the world) is compelling.

Blessings on your journey.

[scrupulous_stoic]

"While this is true, Marcus was no friend to Christians. Christians suffered terrible martyrdoms, especially in Gaul, during the rule of Marcus."

This is...true, but also untrue. Aurelius had no direct official decrees against Christians, but local leaders found Chrisitians, especially in southern Gaul, to be scapegoats for the issues they faced. Actually, this period is when the church was increasing in size.

[u-dog]

"While this is true, Marcus was no friend to Christians. Christians suffered terrible martyrdoms, especially in Gaul, during the rule of Marcus."

This is...true, but also untrue. Aurelius had no official decrees against Christians, but local leaders found Chrisitians, especially in southern Gaul, to be scapegoats for the issues they faced. Actually, this period is when the church was increasing in size.

Christianity ALWAYS grows under persecution! If I was Satan and wanted to destroy the church I would do everything I could to make it popular and powerful. That always kills the church.

[scrupulous_stoic]

Christianity ALWAYS grows under persecution! If I was Satan and wanted to destroy the church I would do everything I could to make it popular and powerful. That always kills the church.

Perhaps, put the point had to be asserted that Aurelius did not officially condemn Christians. Actually, the huge martyrdoms that are imagined are nothing more than Hollywood dramatization and ignorance. Though there have been credible persecutions carried out, they were not on par with what many people believe.

[u-dog]

Perhaps, put the point had to be asserted that Aurelius did not officially condemn Christians. Actually, the huge martyrdoms that are imagined are nothing more than Hollywood dramatization and ignorance. Though there have been credible persecutions carried out, they were not on par with what many people believe.

perhaps not under Marcus Aurelius ( in fact this was the first time I had ever heard MA associated with persecution) but under Nero? Diocletian? and a couple of others? yes they were very real.

[scrupulous_stoic]

Those are two that I was thinking of, but the Roman empire lasted far longer than the reign of these two people. Trajan stated their "crime" was so insignificant that the empire need not bother with them, and this seems to be the same policy under the emperors until Constantine (with the notable exception of Serevus). Vespian and Titus, who ruled after Nero, didnt think much of Christians either. The only ones who were penalized were those who sought conflict with Rome, and were militant to the empire. They were never tried in accordance to religious belief, but rather for treason for attempting to defile the Pax Romana.

Sure, the Christians were persecuted from time to time in the Roman empire, but it was not a drastic as one would expect.

[scrupulous_stoic]

U-dog, I do think we are going a tad off-topic here. If you wish to continue this discussion, feel free to email me.

[u-dog]

U-dog, I do think we are going a tad off-topic here. If you wish to continue this discussion, feel free to email me.


You're right! but I think I'm done.

[antiochian]

In response to the original question, my beliefs are basically Christian. I was raised nominally Lutheran. As a teen I studied many religions. I focused my study on Christianity, though, and there are a LOT of Christian viewpoints and groups to study! In Sunday school our teacher took us to various churches to experience different ways of worship. Plus I have attended the Baptist church with my aunts and Christian (Dutch) Reformed with my grandma.

Jumping up and down, speaking in tongues and rolling around on the floor with a foaming mouth is not my thing. I found I liked more formal, ritualistic, "high church" worship--the smells, bells, etc.

I became Roman Catholic at 17. About a year later I began an indepth study of Eastern Christianity, particularly the Byzantine churches, both those in communion with Rome (Eastern/Greek Catholics) and the Orthodox. I began attending Sunday liturgies at a Greek Orthodox church and fell head over heels in love. The priest at the time in this parish is one of the greatest men I've had the privilege of knowing, and he remains a close friend.

Orthodox theology surprised me in that there is no belief in original sin or the atonement (the beleif that Jesus died to save us from the "wrath" of God which could only be appeased by blood--kind of gory, really, it makes God look like a vampire). There is also absent in Eastern Christianity the obsessive debate over grace v. works which exists in the West. Salvation isn't saying a sinner's prayer or perfectly following 1,118 rules, but consists in a lifetime of imitating Christ as best we can.

I also began reading the lives of various EO saints, and many of them are amazing. Two of my favorites are St. John Maximovitch of San Francisco, and St. Herman of Alaska--both missionaries, compassionate towards the poor and suffering, both were just awesome men!

I've visited two Greek Orthodox and one Bulgarian Orthodox monastery (and managed to fall in love with a monk, not good!) and planned to enter monastic life--but it didn't work out and I was down and out for a while. Looking back, maybe I'm finding my true calling now, which is to advocate for human rights, something I couldn't have done hidden away in a monastery.

The frustrating part is that Eastern Orthodoxy like the vast majority of other Christian traditions is not supportive of gay sex or gay marriage, in fact it is considered a serious sin. Hence my feeling of confusion at this point. I managed to overlook this for a long time but now that I'm coming more out of the closet, I'm considering that I may have to find a new faith to accomodate my new path. I'm considering various alternative faiths including non-Christian... but I'm afraid wherever I go, a part of my heart will remain Eastern Orthodox, as no other way of worshipping God has truly satisfied my heart and soul. I attend an Anglican church sometimes and the people are wonderful and accepting, but the worship doesn't move me in the same way. So spiritually this is a dark night of the soul for me--I don't know where to go or what to do, but I know that I can't live without faith. I believe in God most days, and in Christ. I want to believe there's a place beyond where I'll see my loved ones again.

At this point I'm keeping an open mind. I believe all faith traditions contain some truth, even if I don't agree with everything or even most of what some may teach. This post is becoming a book so forgive me, but this is my personal spiritual journey thus far, for what it's worth.

[antonyh]

"While this is true, Marcus was no friend to Christians. Christians suffered terrible martyrdoms, especially in Gaul, during the rule of Marcus."

This is...true, but also untrue. Aurelius had no direct official decrees against Christians, but local leaders found Chrisitians, especially in southern Gaul, to be scapegoats for the issues they faced. Actually, this period is when the church was increasing in size.

I'm not entirely sure about this. In Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church, the persecution under the great philosopher-king Marcus Aurelius is described this way:


"Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher on the throne, was a well-educated, just, kind, and amiable emperor, and reached the old Roman ideal of self-reliant Stoic virtue, but for this very reason he had no sympathy with Christianity, and probably regarded it as an absurd and fanatical superstition. He had no room in his cosmopolitan philanthropy for the purest and most innocent of his subjects, many of whom served in his own army. He was flooded with apologies of Melito, Miltiades, Athenagoras in behalf of the persecuted Christians, but turned a deaf ear to them. Only once, in his Meditations, does he allude to them, and then with scorn, tracing their noble enthusiasm for martyrdom to "sheer obstinacy" and love for theatrical display. His excuse is ignorance. He probably never read a line of the New Testament, nor of the apologies addressed to him.

Belonging to the later Stoical school, which believed in an immediate absorption after death into the Divine essence, he considered the Christian doctrine of the immortality of the soul, with its moral consequences, as vicious and dangerous to the welfare of the state. A law was passed under his reign, punishing every one with exile who should endeavor to influence people's mind by fear of the Divinity, and this law was, no doubt, aimed at the Christians. At all events his reign was a stormy time for the church, although the persecutions cannot be directly traced to him. The law of Trajan was sufficient to justify the severest measures against the followers of the "forbidden" religion."


Philip Schaff, "Persecutions under Marcus Aurelius. a.d. 161–180." History of the Christian Church, 2.2.20.

[scrupulous_stoic]

I'm not entirely sure about this. In Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church, the persecution under the great philosopher-king Marcus Aurelius is described this way:



Philip Schaff, "Persecutions under Marcus Aurelius. a.d. 161–180." History of the Christian Church, 2.2.20.

I hope my email clarified what i meant ;)

[Pablo Rafael]

The frustrating part is that Eastern Orthodoxy like the vast majority of other Christian traditions is not supportive of gay sex or gay marriage, in fact it is considered a serious sin. Hence my feeling of confusion at this point. I managed to overlook this for a long time but now that I'm coming more out of the closet, I'm considering that I may have to find a new faith to accomodate my new path. I'm considering various alternative faiths including non-Christian... but I'm afraid wherever I go, a part of my heart will remain Eastern Orthodox, as no other way of worshipping God has truly satisfied my heart and soul. I attend an Anglican church sometimes and the people are wonderful and accepting, but the worship doesn't move me in the same way. So spiritually this is a dark night of the soul for me--I don't know where to go or what to do, but I know that I can't live without faith. I believe in God most days, and in Christ. I want to believe there's a place beyond where I'll see my loved ones again.



You raise a good point. I think this is an issue that a lot of us face: How to worship in a church that is non-affirming. Being in the Roman Catholic church (though not as anti-gay as many denominations) leaves me also with religious tension. I love the worship and reverence of the Catholic church. I would be lost without a church home. I personally think that being in the church will effect change faster than leaving it. I think we are the generation that is going to start to turn the tide of ant-gay bigotry in the church. Like those brave people of the 1950's and 60's who refused to leave the lunch counter or move to the back of the bus, I think we are the pioneers in Christian churches who can begin to move the church and society to a greater understanding.

I also like to remember that in church I worship the Lord. The church itself has its flaws, but the love of God is perfect. In church I feel a special closeness to God.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[Daniel]

Antiochian- Do you know of Axios, the gay affirming Orthodox Christian organization? The march in the Gay Parade here in NYC every year. They may be of some help to you in your search for a church home.

http://www.eskimo.com/~nickz/axios.html

[antiochian]

Pablo, you're right. The Church is itself imperfect and I understand those who feel called to stay in shall I say unenlightened churches hoping/working for change. At the same time, I don't want to be part of a group that is constantly whispering, "Sin, sin, sin!" over my shoulder. The MCC is another option, of course. The one in my area is very small, less than 10 people, and again the people are great but the worship leaves me empty...

Daniel, thanks for reminding me of Axios! Yes, I guess it's kind of similar to Catholicism's "Dignity" and Anglicanism's "Integrity." Last time I subscribed to their online forum it was almost completely inactive. So are most Dignity and Integrity forums, for that matter, not enough people. But it's worth another look!

[Daniel]

Last time I subscribed to their online forum it was almost completely inactive. So are most Dignity and Integrity forums, for that matter, not enough people. But it's worth another look!

Hmmmmm. I'm sorry to hear the online forum is rather inactive.

You know, I have a friend who entered a brotherhood here in Manhattan some years back (under the auspices of the Orthodox Cathedral on the lower East Side). He's gay. It may simply be this particular urban area, but I had the sense that there are Orthodox congregations that are welcoming. As in all things, I guess this would depend on the leadership.

In the spirit of this thread, I should say something about my own journey.

I grew up Hungarian Reformed, which has it's roots in the ideas of Luther. However, as an adolescent, I was swept up in Pentacostalism, staying with The Assemblies of God faith- even going to an AG College- until my late 20's when I came out, at which point I felt somewhat dumped to the curb.

It took me a while to figure out that God didn't condemn me. And a big step in that direction was reading John Boswell's tome Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality. This book, more than any other, opened my eyes, and I credit it with saving my life. Well...mostly. Having a boyfriend helped too, convincing me that love- actual love- was only important, but an imperative.

In those early years after coming out, I investgated other Paths, Eastern Orthodoxy among them, read the Desert Fathers, the Gnostics, learned how to meditate, studied A Course in Miracles, before finally concentrating on Buddhism, where my daily practice is now centered.

If asked, I tell people, half-jokingly, half-seriously, that I am an openly gay/closeted Buddhist.

One thing I like about Buddhism is that it is more concerned with practice than belief, which, as a musician, makes a great deal of sense to me. (One doesn't benefit from talking about 'scales', as much as by shutting up, sitting down, and playing them.) It also has a deep resonance with psychology; while Christianity could be thought as focusing on the soul, Buddhism gives greater attention to the workings of the mind. I find this very compelling.

Music has been a part of my life for as long as I can remember, which I consider a spiritual endeavor, both having as their impetus the desire to realize something greater than one's self. It's the hub around which everthing else in my life resolves.

[BenL]

Daniel, thanks for reminding me of Axios! Yes, I guess it's kind of similar to Catholicism's "Dignity" and Anglicanism's "Integrity." Last time I subscribed to their online forum it was almost completely inactive. So are most Dignity and Integrity forums, for that matter, not enough people. But it's worth another look!

I agree that the Integrity home page is kind of static, but Walking With Integrity (http://walkingwithintegrity.blogspot.com/), Integrity's blog, is quite active. I find it an invaluable source of news and commentary on things queer and Anglican/Episcopal.

[iowan woman]

Scrupulous Stoic, you wrote: "I also feel the Buddha and Jesus differed in the areas that matter most to religion."

I don't know much about Buddhism, in fact this whole thread is smarter than me.

Other than culture, time period, personal history (Jesus obviously loved his own ethnic/religious group with all his heart) how was Jesus so different in a way that matters the most to religion? Or did you mean Christianity, which is a separate issue. The books in "The Bible" are not the only books that were written about him and his group. Elaine Pagels "Gnostic Gosples" uncovers other ancient texts that I wish "The Church" would let in. While Jesus could not have met Buddha as Buddha, he did have...

Wow. I just got a slap in da face. I wanted to read this thread a bit closer and came across this, and I quote:


"""Jumping up and down, speaking in tongues and rolling around on the floor with a foaming mouth is not my thing. I found I liked more formal, ritualistic, "high church" worship--the smells, bells, etc."""

I am angry with the branch of my home church for...I am...My home church is The Assemby Of God Church and I am angry at them but that quote was mean.

[scrupulous_stoic]

"how was Jesus so different in a way that matters the most to religion?"

Among other things, salvation.


In the New Testament, there is a notion that salvation comes from belief in Jesus Christ as well as God (John 3:16, Romans 5:8, Romans 6:23, Mark 16:16*). For one to be saved, one must believe in Christ, as well as good works. However, in Buddha's sermons, one may attain salvation, which in this case is nirvana, by personal means alone, which may include adherence to the Eightfold Path, and focus on the Four Nobel Truths. There is no savior but oneself. This has been misinterpretted by some in the West to relate to hedonism, but, again, the Eightfold Path restrains exhuberent passion. This has also changed in Mahayana Buddhism, which sees bodhisattvas as savior figures.

Granted, there are similar teachings and aphorisms that cannot be ignored.

"The books in "The Bible" are not the only books that were written about him and his group."

I am fully aware of these writings, and have read some during my free time.

*mentions baptism as well.

[antiochian]

Iowan, I certainly did not mean to offend and I apologize. Making fun of other's beliefs and practices ain't cool and I was wrong. I was venting my anger towards the majority of Pentecostals who are virulently homophobic without considering that there are people who are not like that but find meaning in the charismatic experience. What one calls crazy or weird another may find very meaningful. For instance, I've venerated and kissed bones (relics) of saints. Some call it idolatry or necrophilia and can't comprehend doing that which for me is simply a part of what I believe. I'll be more considerate from now on. :)

Stoic, I heard a lecture on Greek philosophy in world civ. class last week, so I understand a little of what you've been talking about now. Very neat stuff. Buddhism has some beautiful teachings as well. I'm just not completely sure on reincarnation.

[antonyh]

I'm just not completely sure on reincarnation.

I am the same way about reincarnation. I like Buddhism as a philosophy without the metaphysical aspects. One western teacher that expounds this is Stephen Bachelor who wrote Buddhism without Beliefs.

I can appreciate the idea of Karma and Reincarnation and how that contributes to the Buddhist understanding of liberation from suffering without embracing these ideas as reality.

[scrupulous_stoic]

I always thought of an afterlife like that in the movie "What Dreams May Come" with Robin Williams. Then again, I am a person who at times find it hard to decide on things, so that might be why. :)

[iowan woman]

Antiochian,

Thanks for your apology. When I read your description of Pentecostals I had to stop and think about how I express my anger as well, I had to stop and think about how I am maybe offensive every day that I open my mouth.

I have maybe said the very same thing about Pentecostals, if I am being honest, because they make me so mad. Being one myself, having been baptized in the Holy Spirit and having been dunked in a tank and having sat through many sermons that twenty years later I still remember, and even as of yet moving my soul in the same cringe that began seated in church or over coffee with another member who was embellishing on what is inferred from sermons from the pulpit when you call homosexuality a sin or when you make jokes about folks of other faith doing it wrong or when you say that only Jesus offers the way in - did he say that himself or did those words get scrambled up the road of writing - I know something about the supernatural that is as ancient as the practice of kissing bones. I don't understand why G-D would rain this gift on a group of people who are so stuborn in holding onto beliefs that hurt other people. I understand your anger and thank you for being so willing to apologize. Maybe as a group they will someday apologize to you.

I am a straight Pentecostal woman who is sorry on their behalf, that is the best I can do for now. I pray daily for an awakening in the church. Can you imagine what could happen across the globe if the people who made up the church would wake up to their ugly and use their resources to really help people who are in need? Salvation as an earthen matter. I used to go to these Pentecostal meetings when i was a kid, huge numbers of teens gathered from all over the state in auditoriums singing and listening to preachers. Imagine that army moving through a depressed community. I know this happens, but what if it were the norm? In a day or in a month, imagine the lives improved.

Antiochian, I too am a poet in awe of the Holy. I dance in the spirit before my poster of Martin Luther King Jr. and Princess Diana and then I turn and dance before the poster of a native American and John Lenon, then I turn and dance in prayer before other articals of faith and a collage of book covers pinned on my wall: Professor Howard Zinns bookcover, Passionate Declarations: Essays On War And Justice, is pinned to the top of my certificate of Baptism, which hangs under a cover about the Jewish Kabbalah - so I think I am weirder than anyone I have heard of and maybe I do foam at the mouth but when I get on the floor, I don't roll. Maybe if there were more room where I dance I would, but only if the form of dance were esthetically pleasing to me. I am rather a snob about form.


Jesus and Buddha and salvation. Salvation is an earthen matter that we need to attend to, and here I am full of sorrow that my spiritual home turns out Bible tossers instead of people who do practicle work that might save a kid in Afghanistan from death.

There is evidence from ancient texts that were discarded and are being found and translated that many of the early Christians were groups of women. There are texts that describe Jesus as a mystic, there are texts that raise the possibility that Mary Magdalene was a mystic from Africa. So they are not what we call the Bible, they contain information of a tradition that has many faucets of expression. History is still being excavated; it is exciting to imagine what we will learn if we keep an open mind. If Jesus really did say he was the only way to G-D, maybe those texts would tell us why.

And maybe Jesus did spend time with Buddha in an esoteric way.

The Bible has not been written to completion.


This thread is very interesting; it makes me want to go back to college.

iowanwoman

[scrupulous_stoic]

"Jesus and Buddha and salvation. Salvation is an earthen matter that we need to attend to, and here I am full of sorrow that my spiritual home turns out Bible tossers instead of people who do practicle work that might save a kid in Afghanistan from death."

I am having difficulty what you are trying to convey here. Can you reiterate?
Sorry, I'm a little brain-dead at the moment.

[iowan woman]

Scrupulous Stoic, there is nothing wrong with your brain, I have read some of your posts and you are a very smart person, much smarter than I can ever hope to be; my writing was very unclear (and full of spelling errors!)

I first responded to Antiochian and then responded to you, which is maybe part of what was confusing about my post. Antiochian wrote about the cruelty of Fundamentalist Christians and I agreed and one of the points I find that breeds intolerance and hate is around the idea of salvation. You wrote that Jesus and Buddha differed in ways that matter the most to religion around the point of salvation and so one thought flowed into the next. Sorry, I am often sloppy.

I am trying to convey that I think the concept of salvation is something we can help give each other, in the spirit of Jesus, in the spirit of other great leaders who have used their lives as an example of what is possible if we reach out to each other in love. I also think that as we learn more about ancient history through the excavation and translation of ancient texts we might find a whole different...I am not educated enough to go into this topic and my brain is mush.

iowanwoman

[scrupulous_stoic]

I got the first part. I just was confused about the other part. Thank you!

[iowan woman]

Antiochian,

In a glance back at my response to your apology I think I was offensive. I am sorry. I did not express myself well.

Thank you again.

iowanwoman

[antiochian]

Antiochian,

In a glance back at my response to your apology I think I was offensive. I am sorry. I did not express myself well.

iowanwoman

You were not offensive at all. We're good to go!

[iowan woman]

Antiochian,

I'm new; it feels like the only foot in I have is in my mouth.


Thanks for the response.

[scott snedeker]

My indicator is whether a thought or belief feels right. A spiritual belief or thought discipline is how a human makes connections in this world.

So a connection with spirituality should affirm my innermost nature/being like my best buddy always did when I was a child.

If I am my best friend I don't blame or judge myself just like my best buddy would accept me for who I am.

So a Pagan Radical Faerie spirituality gets my motor running! :cool:
For me it means love without hesitation. Heart circles help to dissipate personal boundaries. Then, Wow! I find fun sexy people are all around me!
Sex is Holy and good for me and makes the spirit of the Earth happy and the other fella happy too! :D 'cause Faeries seem to need more sex than other people!

Life becomes beautiful and funny and good! :love:

[scrupulous_stoic]

My indicator is whether a thought or belief feels right. A spiritual belief or thought discipline is how a human makes connections in this world.

So a connection with spirituality should affirm my innermost nature/being like my best buddy always did when I was a child.

If I am my best friend I don't blame or judge myself just like my best buddy would accept me for who I am.

So a Pagan Radical Faerie spirituality gets my motor running! :cool:
For me it means love without hesitation. Heart circles help to dissipate personal boundaries. Then, Wow! I find fun sexy people are all around me!
Sex is Holy and good for me and makes the spirit of the Earth happy and the other fella happy too! :D 'cause Faeries seem to need more sex than other people!

Life becomes beautiful and funny and good! :love:

Excuse my ignorance, but what does the Radical Faerie spirituality believe as far as a deity? Is it Goddess based?

[scott snedeker]

Excuse my ignorance, but what does the Radical Faerie spirituality believe as far as a deity? Is it Goddess based?

Ask three Faeries and you'll get five answers. I would say most faeries believe in a spirit of Mother Earth and many personify this with The Goddess. Many are Druidic pagans, Buddhists, Christians, Olympians etc. I identify with Pan whose sigil I have tattooed on my pelvis. I chose Pan for many reasons not the least of which is that he made love to men.

Some Faeries like to explore their dark side but most express love without personal boundaries. Most of us are nudist. Many of us are polyandrous or polyamorous. A few are monogamous. There are straight faeries and female faeries. One very beautiful disciple of Venus I met at the last gathering wanted to make love to me---made me wish I was bisexual. I was not sexually attracted but I was dazzled by her classic beauty.

[Ubuntu]

Alright, I identify as an eclectic pagan, lovingly calling myself a Heathen.
Though my beliefs are quite Christian in many aspects, Buddhist, Druid, Wiccan, and Hindu in others. I would almost consider myself a Christopagan. And if you don't know what that is, don't worry about it; no one ever does. It's a combined hybrid of Paganism and Christianity.
I personally worship a deity of both genders-- of two aspects in a sort of mono-deity with two 'personalities'; one of masculinity and the other of femininity. But I believe that all deities are different aspects of one unknowable genderless personality free asexual mass of divine energy. I believe that you build your own afterlife with what your life consists of-- neither considering anything good or evil.

But because I am eclectic and believe people should form their faith around themselves to suit their own spirit, it's easy for me to say that my deity/deities would be excepting of all GLBT people. But the simple matter is that, to me, it doesn't even register to Them because they are masses of pure male and female, and occasionally very sensual energy-- gender itself and orientation is a non-issue.

[scott snedeker]

Alright, I identify as an eclectic pagan, lovingly calling myself a Heathen.
Though my beliefs are quite Christian in many aspects

But because I am eclectic and believe people should form their faith around themselves to suit their own spirit, it's easy for me to say that my deity/deities would be excepting of all GLBT people. But the simple matter is that, to me, it doesn't even register to Them because they are masses of pure male and female, and occasionally very sensual energy-- gender itself and orientation is a non-issue.

I like your multifaceted paradigm but after being denounced and scapegoated I need proactve affirmation from my spirituality. Do you find any affirmation and encouragement to make love to your fellow man from them?

I've venerated and kissed bones (relics) of saints. Buddhism has some beautiful teachings as well. I'm just not completely sure on reincarnation.

Whatever makes the experience real to you is the connection you need to the wonder of youself and the world. Kissing bones or making love in a sacred forest sanctary are vehicles as well as destinies. :cool:

I am the same way about reincarnation. I like Buddhism as a philosophy without the metaphysical aspects. One western teacher that expounds this is Stephen Bachelor who wrote Buddhism without Beliefs.

I can appreciate the idea of Karma and Reincarnation and how that contributes to the Buddhist understanding of liberation from suffering without embracing these ideas as reality.

I have to suspend disbelief to attain spirituality. Disbelief is a spiritual extinguisher. If I can see feelings in an animal that I feel also, this affirms to me that all living things are connected.

So if I suspend disbelief in reicarnation, then I don't want to be human in my next life. I want to be an otter! All of life is a game to them. Everyone thinks you're cute. You get to have sex with all the other otters all the time, and if you are a pacific otter you eat sushi all the time!

It's fifteen years of bliss! just watch out for cars and killer whales! :lol:

[tymejumper]

It just seems after reading everyones posts, that we GLBT people that have made peace with ourselves are open minded about others beliefs.

I wonder if it is because we have fought so hard to be ourselves and therefore accept differences in others easier? Well, to some extent at least! :lol:

Rebekah

[Ubuntu]

I like your multifaceted paradigm but after being denounced and scapegoated I need proactive affirmation from my spirituality. Do you find any affirmation and encouragement to make love to your fellow man from them?

If I'm reading your question correctly I'd say I can answer like this:
What I do is my own, and as the phrase goes "All acts of love and pleasure are my rituals".
Sensuality and being open with yourself and others is highly important, since the very idea of it speaks of beauty, freedom, the world and acceptance of everything within and without.
That said, I'm still a virgin. :lol:

All in all, love making is, by its very nature an act of 'love and pleasure' and is therefore free and open to interpretation.

Did I answer your question or make new ones?

[scott snedeker]

If I'm reading your question correctly I'd say I can answer like this:
What I do is my own, and as the phrase goes "All acts of love and pleasure are my rituals".
Sensuality and being open with yourself and others is highly important, since the very idea of it speaks of beauty, freedom, the world and acceptance of everything within and without.
That said, I'm still a virgin. :lol:

All in all, love making is, by its very nature an act of 'love and pleasure' and is therefore free and open to interpretation.





Did I answer your question or make new ones?

Answer: Yes, :lol:
I really like:

"Sensuality and being open with yourself and others is highly important, since the very idea of it speaks of beauty, freedom, the world and acceptance of everything within and without."

Similar to "I am approved of by all of life. All is well. I am safe."

-----Louise Hay

Did you come up with this, or are you just really good at finding the best of philosophies?

[Ubuntu]

I came up with it, yes.
I'm sure that I've heard similar things in the past, but I couldn't tell you where or if it was a combination of things said by other people that inspired something else in me or not. But nothing is fully mine, because I had to experience something outside of me to be able to consider some new thought or idea.