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

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]

Originally Posted by tymejumper

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]

Originally Posted by tymejumper

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]

Originally Posted by scrupulous_stoic

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]

Originally Posted by antonyh

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]

Originally Posted by scrupulous_stoic

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by tymejumper

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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:

Originally Posted by Haddot

"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]

Originally Posted by antonyh

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]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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)

Originally Posted by u-dog

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]

Originally Posted by antonyh

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]

Originally Posted by 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 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]

Originally Posted by u-dog

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]

Originally Posted by scrupulous_stoic

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.