Dark Christianity
.::: .::..:.::.:.
Back March 14th, 2007 Forward
dogemperor [userpic]
Proof in the gene pool

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]mocuirdhgalla)
There could be proof that being gay is not a choice.

However, it would still be a sin.

This is a rather simplistic over-view of the article, but my brain is spinning, my kids are doing homework, and I think I ruptured a major blood vessel in my brain in the reading of this.

What I brought away form the article is the following:

Homosexuality could be fixed with simple genetic altering.
Genetic testing and altering for anything else would be a sin.
If parents didn't "fix" their kids before birth, then their kids would still be sinners and doomed.

This is a good news bad news senario if I have ever heard one.  Two steps forward and a giant leap backwards.

I'm sorry.  I have really lost my ability to speak in any sort of sensical manner.

Help?  Discuss? 

Current Mood: contemplative
dogemperor [userpic]
Here's an idea...


Many American Christians seem to be totally ignorant about the teachings of their own religion.

Biblical illiteracy is not just a religious problem. It is a civic problem with political consequences. How can citizens participate in biblically inflected debates on abortion, capital punishment or the environment without knowing something about the Bible? Because they lack biblical literacy, Americans are easily swayed by demagogues on the left or the right who claim — often incorrectly — that the Bible says this about war or that about homosexuality.
Stephen Prothero, chairman of the religion department at Boston University and author of "Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know -- and Doesn't" has a solution: Teach people in public schools what the Bible actually says. Lectures would be academic, not religious in nature.

I wonder if they'd bother to also teach the bloodstained history of the Catholic Church (wars, crusades, mass murders, torture, forced conversion, antisemitism, etc.,) while they're at it. Might as well present the full story....

dogemperor [userpic]
Red family, blue family

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]velvetpage)

Red family, blue family This is the best explanation I've ever read of the difference between the conservative view of the world, and the liberal view.

Nutshell version: Both conservatives and liberals view the nation in terms of a family, but they have different ideas of what that means. Conservatives tend to view family as a series of obligations that one is born into, while liberals see family as a collection of negotiated commitments. In the Inherited Obligation family, traditional roles are taken on because that is just part of your obligation to your family. Words like "freedom" and "choice" are bad because they are seen as the freedom to choose not to fulfill one's obligations. Liberals are misunderstood because flexibility can look like slipperiness when liberals talk about, for example, moving to the center on issues. Since commitments are up for negotiation, conservatives tend to believe that nothing is ever settled - there's never a time when commitments are taken seriously. In fact, the reverse is usually true - those who negotiate their own terms are more likely to stick with them in the long run.

Back March 14th, 2007 Forward