Topic: Classic Sitcoms and Gays

[ThunderStooge]

Yes, most Catholics I know are some of the nice and fun people.  It's the hierarchy that pisses me off.

[xraffle]

Seamus, I'm one of the "loose Catholics."  I love God, I love going to church, I love Jesus, and I love my faith (sorry, Jim), but I have absolutely no problem with homosexuals.  

I'm a Catholic and go to church too and I like being a believer in God. It gives me hope and makes me a better person. That's all that matters. But that doesn't mean I have to believe everything they say. I'm the kind of Catholic that uses common sense to judge what I feel is right and wrong. If I think that the priest is uttering total nonsense, then I ignore him. If what they say makes a lot of sense, then I follow it.

[shemps#1]

I went to Catholic high school, and they absolutely teach evolution, so yes, it's true the Catholic church does not take a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible.  From my experiences, it is the Evangelical religions who believe in Adam and Eve and view the Bible as 100% accurate history.

They can't take a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible because they changed it so they can make their crosses. The Bible also says nothing about all that saint nonsense either. They do get points for not ignoring the evidence for Evolution but the atrocities the RCC has committed cannot be ignored.

[xraffle]

This guy also claimed that the stories of child molestation were wildly overblown by the media.  I think the fact that someone on this very board knows one of the perpetrators is an indicator of how deep that problem runs.

That’s what one of the priests in my church said. He claimed it was just a couple of priests that molested children and the media is exaggerating it. And I actually believed him because my church hasn't experienced this problem yet. But since people here are claiming they’ve encountered a priest that molested children, it just shows how serious the issue really is. And my aunt and uncle encountered one as well in their church. This is very serious and from the way it looks, I now believe that this has not been overblown by the media.

I think they were made into perverts. Man is a sexual animal, and when you implement all the restraints that the catholic church does, your bound to create a pervert. I'm surprised the catholic church didn't make all priest become Unic's.

That answers the question that I was about to ask. I was just about to ask what drives these priests to commit such evil acts. I guess their vow of chastity causes their sex drive to go out of whack!

[xraffle]

You’d be surprised at how each priest can have a totally different opinion on a subject. When I was in high school, one priest said that masturbation is a very sinful act and if you do masturbate, you need to seek help. Then there was this other priests who said it was ok under certain circumstances, LOL!!

The Catholic Church is very political. Who gets appointed pastor at a church? Who gets promoted to a Monsignor? Who gets promoted to become Bishop or Cardinal? Very simple. The priest with the a lot of connections gets promoted. It’s all political, my friends!

[metaldams]

They can't take a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible because they changed it so they can make their crosses. The Bible also says nothing about all that saint nonsense either. They do get points for not ignoring the evidence for Evolution but the atrocities the RCC has committed cannot be ignored.

I agree, which is a major reason why I'm not Catholic.

[Seamus]

I was a total believer until I was 18.  I took a religions of the world course and came to the realization that what most people believe is based on the culture they were brought up in more than any universial truth.

This is pretty close to my experience.  When it hit me, around age 20, that people's belief systems have a lot more to do with the accident of their geography with than any serious contemplation on their part, it was my first big step away from Catholicism and toward the for-all-intents-and-purposes atheism I'm at today.  If there is a higher deity (and that's a BIG "if" in my opinion), there's practically zero likelihood that he/she/it conforms to the one sold to us by any of the man-made religions, IMO. 

Not intending to sound patronizing at all, but my hat's off to the believers in this thread who are willing to separate out the decent ideas their religion teaches them from the stupid, harmful, or bullshit rules they try to hold you to (e.g. the "loose Catholics" Liz mentioned).  But I'd also respectfully argue that we don't need a religious underpinning for most if not all of the moral values people claim they get from religion.

[shemps#1]

This is pretty close to my experience.  When it hit me, around age 20, that people's belief systems have a lot more to do with the accident of their geography with than any serious contemplation on their part, it was my first big step away from Catholicism and toward the for-all-intents-and-purposes atheism I'm at today.  If there is a higher deity (and that's a BIG "if" in my opinion), there's practically zero likelihood that he/she/it conforms to the one sold to us by any of the man-made religions, IMO. 

Not intending to sound patronizing at all, but my hat's off to the believers in this thread who are willing to separate out the decent ideas their religion teaches them from the stupid, harmful, or bullshit rules they try to hold you to (e.g. the "loose Catholics" Liz mentioned).  But I'd also respectfully argue that we don't need a religious underpinning for most if not all of the moral values people claim they get from religion.

Now I should be high fiving you! I couldn't agree with you more. In fact there are ongoing scientific studies about "moral values" and how they are key to the survival of the species. You see it in animals as well as humans (which of course blows a big hole in the "only from religion do we get moral values" idea).

I've got to be a dick to my friends here who call themselves "agnostic" however and like you said yourself: for all intents and purposes you guys are atheists. Agnosticism and gnosticism deal with KNOWLEDGE (and with the former the lack there of). Everybody is "agnostic" and to state otherwise is being intellectually dishonest. I cannot prove with 100% certainty that there is no higher power whatsoever, just like I cannot disprove Santa Clause (nor is it up to me to do that because I am not making the positive assertion). Atheism and theism deal with BELIEF in a higher power at it's most broad form (not just limiting ourselves to Judeo-Christianity).

So the question "do you believe in a higher power?" or "do you believe in God" is not answered by "I have no knowledge" or "I don't know". The definition of belief is "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof" (dictionary.com, 2). Knowledge does not factor in the equation. It's a yes or no question and reading between the lines I see a "no" from Seamus and Doug.

Which begs the question, why do so many people shy away from saying they are atheists? Well "atheist" has always been a dirty word. Only until very recently in history atheists were killed for their lack of belief and still to this day atheists are ostracized although many inroads have been made and it is a lot safer than it once was. "Agnostic" is sort of an out, a way to avoid the possible backlash and public stigma that comes from "atheist".

For further reading I highly suggest "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith.

[Curly4444]

For further reading I highly suggest "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith.

With a title like that, you can see why Atheist get all that backlash. I know the atheist wouldn't like a title like "The Case Against those sole-less evil atheist". BTW i think i'll pass on reading that.  

I cannot prove with 100% certainty that there is no higher power whatsoever, just like I cannot disprove Santa Clause

Nice you just compared God to Santa Clause. Not a way to win points for your fellow Atheists. Should have said something like,  "I cannot prove with 100% certainty that there is no higher power whatsoever, just like I cannot disprove the existence of life on other planets. It was kind of offensive to me to see god compared to a silly children's myth. Maybe you didn't intend it to be offensive, i don't know?

[metaldams]

With a title like that, you can see why Atheist get all that backlash. I know the atheist wouldn't like a title like "The Case Against those sole-less evil atheist". BTW i think ill pas on reading that. 

It's a "case" against God.  You read the Atheist side of the argument and choose yourself whether to agree or disagree.  Why's that offensive?

[Curly4444]

It's a "case" against God.  You read the Atheist side of the argument and choose yourself whether to agree or disagree.  Why's that offensive?

Cause its worded negatively like its a war against god, or God is a bad thing. "Does god really exist?", or "Is there really a god" would not have been offensive. I wouldn't ever read something from that slanted of a view on the topic, as i wouldn't care to read it from a religious nuts view on it. If it was written by a more neutral point of view, like by an agnostic, i'd consider reading it.


How did we go from talking about gays to god?? 

[xraffle]

How did we go from talking about gays to god?? 

It was my fault. I brought up the fact that the Catholic church was prejudice against gay people and then this happened.

I screwed up again. Sigh!

[Curly4444]

It was my fault. I brought up the fact that the Catholic church was prejudice against gay people and then this happened.

I screwed up again. Sigh!

Ok good to know. Now i know who to blame if i get banned.   

[metaldams]

Curly, X, will you guys both chill.  You're not in trouble and none of you are getting banned.

[Curly4444]

Cool.

I have a question, "why is this topic even still open"? Hasn't it run its course?

[metaldams]

I have a question, "why is this topic even still open"? Hasn't it run its course?

Uh, no, last I checked, people are still discussing it.

[Curly4444]

Ok, its just gotten off the original topic. But its cool. Discuss on.

[ThunderStooge]

I guess I lean toward theist.  But I'm still an agnostic theist.  I like to think that there may be an afterlife and at least one 'higher power.'  But I do not believe that one religion or faith is any more accurate than another.  If there is is an afterlife and/or higher powers, they could take any form.  How are we to know whether or not 'God' takes the form of a male, female, white, black, asian, etc., or a giant spaghetti monster? There could be a multitude of gods and goddesses, there could also be a group of demi-gods.
I can't prove that any of that exists, but It's a more comforting thought than the more logical, "When you die, that's it.  No reincarnation, no 'heaven' or 'hell', your spirit or soul will not roam the earth because it poof'd away the second you died." That's no fun.
I want to think that as long as you were a good person in life, you will be rewarded your own perception of 'heaven'

[archiezappa]

I do want to say this about this subject.  I love the old shows and I really don't want to know about the private lives of my favorite stars.  While it's interesting, I'd rather judge them based on their acting skills with the characters we love.  Really, we love the characters they portray and not, necessarily, the actual people.  That's why they're actors.  They're playing a part that is not their real personalities.  It's not their real life.  It's a show.  I enjoy many different tv shows and movies that the actors, probably, engage in many, many things that I really don't want to know about.  I just want to enjoy the shows at face value, without all the real life drama.

This is part of the reason that I don't go for reality television.  I really don't want to know.

Some of my favorite movies (i.e. "Pee-wee's Big Adventure") can be ruined if you know what they did in real life.  But the show has nothing to do with what Paul Reubens did in a movie theater.

Also, some of my favorite shows (i.e. "Bewitched") are totally ruined for me, because I can't discuss the show without someone saying "He's gay" or something to that effect.  I'm usually taken aback with those kinds of statements, because it has no bearing on how well the episode is written, directed, or starred. 

Anyway, that's my two cents.  (Attn: Actors!  Do what you do, but don't tell me about it.  And keep up the great acting skills.)

[xraffle]

I do want to say this about this subject.  I love the old shows and I really don't want to know about the private lives of my favorite stars.  While it's interesting, I'd rather judge them based on their acting skills with the characters we love.  Really, we love the characters they portray and not, necessarily, the actual people.  That's why they're actors.  They're playing a part that is not their real personalities.  It's not their real life.  It's a show.  I enjoy many different tv shows and movies that the actors, probably, engage in many, many things that I really don't want to know about.  I just want to enjoy the shows at face value, without all the real life drama.

This is part of the reason that I don't go for reality television.  I really don't want to know.

Some of my favorite movies (i.e. "Pee-wee's Big Adventure") can be ruined if you know what they did in real life.  But the show has nothing to do with what Paul Reubens did in a movie theater.

Also, some of my favorite shows (i.e. "Bewitched") are totally ruined for me, because I can't discuss the show without someone saying "He's gay" or something to that effect.  I'm usually taken aback with those kinds of statements, because it has no bearing on how well the episode is written, directed, or starred. 

Anyway, that's my two cents.  (Attn: Actors!  Do what you do, but don't tell me about it.  And keep up the great acting skills.)

Well said!! I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Curly4444]

I do want to say this about this subject.  I love the old shows and I really don't want to know about the private lives of my favorite stars.  While it's interesting, I'd rather judge them based on their acting skills with the characters we love.  Really, we love the characters they portray and not, necessarily, the actual people.

I take that same philosophy with Mel Gibson. I dont care whats going on in his life, i love his movies.

[shemps#1]

For me it's not about what makes me comfortable, it's about the truth. I am one of the few rare atheists in this country that was never religious so I had no defining moment where I "realized" atheism was 99.99% the likely answer. When I first told the Biblical accounts I knew something did not jive and I thought the whole Biblical account of the beginnings of the Earth in Genesis was a silly story that was unbelievable. As I got older I learned that much of what was said in Genesis (that the Earth, as well as day and night came before the sun and that the moon shines a light of its own) were proven to be false by scientific advancement since the Bible (both testaments) were written a couple thousands of years ago by desert dwellers.

Quad 4's: I don't see how can find the title of Smith's book offensive. Like Doug said he is presenting the atheist point of view, or the "case against God". The book is not a couple of pages of "fuck you, there is no god" but rather a comprehensive study of atheism from the point of view of an atheist. Before Smith most books on atheism were written by hyper religious people and naturally were very skewed and anti-atheist in tone. If I am going to learn about a people, a belief system or (as in this case) the lack of a belief system I will read books from the insider not from the outsider.

The reason why I recommended the book in the first place is because Doug and Seamus were calling themselves "agnostic" but like most people who call themselves "agnostic" they sounded like they were actually atheists and the book delves deeply into this kind of "agnosticism" in the early chapters. I liken "atheism" to the Scarlett Letter and "agnosticism" to people trying to avoid being tagged with that letter. Everyone is agnostic in a sense, even you and I because we can never prove there a god(s) or that they do not exist just like we can't prove there is no Easter Bunny even though I'm sure we both would agree that there isn't one.

Thunderstooge actually uses the term "agnostic" in the correct manner, as Smith discusses in the book "agnostic atheists" and "agnostic theists".

Lastly, what is taking place is actually a rather civil discussion between theists and atheists as we learn more about the other side. I don't think anyone but you is finding anything offensive about this thread and no one else is calling for the thread to be closed. I like how smoothly and intelligently the thread is flowing through what can be some rather tender subjects. If you, or anyone else for that matter feel offended by the thread you are more than free to ignore it. From a personal standpoint I'd rather you not and everyone contribute freely without being a dick as I think everyone has up to this point and the more point of views we get the broader the discussion gets. In my eyes what was once a rather inane thread started by a rather inane person has become a thought-provoking philosophical message board masterpiece thanks to the other people who have contributed.

[shemps#1]

So actors should just shut up because they are in the public spotlight? They are as free to voice their opinions and whatnot as you and I.

[xraffle]

So actors should just shut up because they are in the public spotlight? They are as free to voice their opinions and whatnot as you and I.

I don't think he meant it that way. He's just saying that whatever goes on in their personal lives shouldn't detract from the enjoyment of watching their shows. For example, I'm not going to say, "Ew! Dick Sargent and Paul Lynde are gay! I'm not watching Bewitched anymore!" Sargent and Lynde were both great actors, especially Lynde (he was funny as hell in the show), and whether they're gay or not, it doesn't make them any more or less talented. They are talented actors who we enjoy watching because they are talented individuals, not because they're gay, bi, or straight.

That's my perception of his post.

[Curly4444]

For me it's not about what makes me comfortable, it's about the truth. I am one of the few rare atheists in this country that was never religious so I had no defining moment where I "realized" atheism was  the likely answer.

Well being raised religious as a kid, my defining moment came early when i realized 99.99% god was the answer.

Everyone is agnostic in a sense, even you and I because we can never prove there a god(s) or that they do not exist just like we can't prove there is no Easter Bunny

See now i know your trying to stir up shit. You were sounding intelligent up to this point. Why be that way?? I dont go about putting you down for your beliefs. First it was Santa now its the Easter bunny.