Good Theology Must Keep Religion From Sliding Into Superstition & Persecution

Not much better than superstition.

If one needs theology in order to not be a bigot there is something wrong with that person.

It's not about theology keeping someone from being a bigot, it's about creating theologians that can properly serve GLBTQ people.

Whether you like it or not, a lot of GLBTQ people are believers and many have had difficulty finding welcoming and affirming churches.

Anything that can be done to change that seems like a good thing to me. It's not about addressing bigotry, it's about understanding the needs of a specific community and addressing those needs.

A bigoted religious person will subscribe to a bigoted theology and believe in a bigoted god. A humane and tolerate religious person will believe in a humane theology and believe in a humane god.

Theology is just arguing whether Santa comes down the chimney head first or feet first.

It's like arguing over the pronunciation of words in Elfish or Klingon.

qualifies you as brilliant--or maybe just bigoted.

That's pretty funny.

Clearly you've picked that up by now, right?

I'm reminded of a bit in the prayer books my old synagogue used--there was a prayer asking God to turn people from superstition.

I haven't been to services in almost a decade. I recall it was part of the services for the big holidays/special occasions (Bar/Bat Mitzvahs, wedding, etc.) rather than the weekly Shabbat service.

...or at least superstition, so the slipping part seems unnecessary.

eom

Some read the four paragraphs and a small number may actually read through the link.

Hell, some people post their own OP without reading it. I personally did that and it didn't go well at all.

I came across an original report which was referenced in another thread I had started. I thought it was reinforcing some of the points made in the original, while, in fact, my original OP was an analysis of the report.

Not as thorough as I once was, that's for sure.

But the op knows that.

We're all friends here.

about a very progressive seminarian. What's the problem?

The reason you are encountering resistance from the non-believing contingent is because to us, the truth matters. Most of us, I think, would maintain lies, even if told with the best intentions, are still lies, and ought not to be told at all.

Furthermore, we would likewise argue subscribing to a superstitious worldview legitimizes all superstitious worldviews, including those with which you'd disagree. So, in claiming God loves gays and we should accept them, believers are thereby legitimizing the "thought" processes and arguments of those who believe the opposite.

I did!

But I stopped at "seminary professor has a powerful intellectual acumen that brings a new revelation to faith."

Yuk!

Yeah they do!

Like having "a powerful intellectual acumen that brings a new revelation to faith."

word for both: superstitio. It's commonly used to describe Christianity in the early mentions. We, in this latter and enlightened day, know the difference. What I believe* is religion, what you believe is superstition.







*rhetorical. Don't actually believe much of anything.

And no, before you go off half-cocked, I'm not saying that all theology is axiomatically "bad". I'm saying there's no such thing as "good" or "bad" theology, just as there is no such thing as "good" or "bad" imagination. The adjective is meaningless in context.

so that gay people of faith will be better served by religious institutions?

That just seems good to me.

After all, if religion and theology are being dragged forward by others who share your sense of good, then that sense doesn't come from religion or theology.

Perhaps some of us would want to live in a world without a system of religious morals. I think someone else around here might benefit from that message...

I can't tell you definitively from where it comes.

You will never live in a world without a system of religious morals.

I don't know what to make of your cryptic last sentence.

And here's a question: If the church is only now coming around to GLBT issues, how did you get out in front?

and my parents were activists.

I was also introduced to openly gay people early and have been around them as long as I can remember, even when hardly anyone was out.

Between those two things, I don't think I could be any different. Basically, there was essentially no learning curve.

jive with those of the church in the time you grew up?

Most of my updates arrive from my spelling errors--which often come from my dyslexia.

"At Thu May 3, 2012, 07:31 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

At least that's better than Odin nt

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

replying to darkstar3 to take a swipe at odin2005...rude...unecessary...potentially hurtful

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu May 3, 2012, 07:51 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I love atheism, and I love blasphemy, but I have to take Thats my opinion's side on this one. He is just saying he likes Darkstar's opinion on "good theology" better than Odin's opinion.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Are you fucking kidding me?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: WTF?? odin2005 is quite capable of taking a little heat. Alerter is the thin skinned one.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Just saying that one poster's comment isn't as offensive to your point of view than another poster's comment isn't a swipe IMHO.


Yuugal

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future."

If there is a god, I hope he/she/it/they will grant my prayer that the serial alerters will be turned into cereal alerters who can then guide me to free, tasty breakfast food.

This guy seems to have figured this out. If only our Republican brethren would do the same.

I confess as an atheist that the word brethren may be misinterpreted here. But that would only be in the sense that Republicans seem to use it.

All of us, theists and atheists, are brothers and sisters, which is the what the word means. It is also what the totally insane Republicans do not understand.

Good post.

curriculum.

for both the study of religion as a sociological and anthropological human activity. And also for looking at the sacred texts to find meaning received from a higher power.
There is a vast difference IMHO.

Why does someone have to find in the words of God the ethical idea of treating a certain group with equality and humanity, when that is so clearly the proper ethical position. Especially when the theology is meant to counter those who find in other words of the same God what is clearly a hateful and unethical position?

Why is God needed at all in this?

.... when the very 1st premise is a prehistoric superstition born of profound ignorance?