Being 'socially inacceptable'...

[MrsSeanBean]

I just wanted to say that it's great to be able to chat about this topic (Philosophy / religion / spirituality ) on MN.

I find it so much more diffuclt to talk about religion / faith / spiritual things in RL.

I find assume that no-one in RL will think in a remotely similar way to me, or share any of my beliefs, and will think I am some kind of religious nutter.

Do you think it's just the case that people are more reluctant to talk about these things in RL?

Do you think it would be worthwhile / beneficial to instigate more RL conversations on this subject?

I heard the other day that to say you believe in God is almost 'socially inacceptable' now, which is rather sad.

Can I join your thread?

Mersmam: there are lots of churches that are homophobic. Not all Christians are, not all churches are, but think of the number of Christians objecting to gay adoptions, gay teachers... oh, and gay vicars.
Having said that, there are plenty of gay Christian groups as well: some religious people are pretty adaptable about their religion, because it's perfectly possible (intellectually, too) to pick and choose the relevant bits from 'sacred' texts on the grounds that they were written by human beings who might have misheard or misunderstood what the Great Pumpkin actually said.

I was drawn in, not by the music, the cheery voices, and the light from the windows, but the thread title. "socially inacceptable".

mersmam, you say the Catholic church is not homophobic because it does not accept ANY sex outside marriage. So any sex should take place between married people. But gay people cannot marry in the Catholic church, can they?

Earthymama, sad that you have come across 'christians' like this. Unfortunately there are such around, inc as justabout says in the CofE. But hopefully not the norm. After all, Christianity is following Jesus, and he was radical in his time for showing love and not judgment, and having various characters everyone else judged as his mates.

Iorek, even 30 years ago Sweden was less Christian than England and there was far less good television around there. Still a very secular country.

'and made them inclined to be a nice, kind, fair-dealing person'

this annoys me more than most things
it is insinuating that I am not inclined to be as I am not a christian

what utter tosh

I don't really care about how social acceptability has evolved. Christians have a duty to not keep their faith hidden. It was commanded to us by Jesus.

We live in a country where we can practice our faith and talk about it.

It is not always easy to talk about your faith, but we weren't promised an easy life when we took up this particular cross.

The easiest way to overcome fears is to take small steps. Start out by saying where you were Sunday morning or on a particular evening, and let the questions come. Don't feel you need to be an apologist, but learn apologetics at your own pace (and prayerfully). Use words, only if necessary.

The catholic church would not have a problem with gay people living together or even being legally married (although it wouldn't recognise the marriage).
However, it teaches that our actions have consequences (here on earth, irrespective of what happens after death).
The Catholic church does have a problem with sexual acts between homosexuals, and this is backed up by the natural consequences - an increase in the risk of a whole host of diseases including anal Cancer, HIV etc...
Similarly the church says all sex outside of marriage is wrong (backed up by natural consequences such as STDs, abortions etc)

The Catholic church does NOT say that homosexuals will burn in hell. The reason gay people cannot marry in a Catholic church is because it would be leading them furhter to the temptation of committing an act which does not have good consequenses.

I know some people may find this offensive - but it does make sense, and I am simply giving you the rationale behind the church's view!

To me, it makes perfect sense that two grown up people who love eachother should be able to act on their feelings and make love, whatever their gender.

It is really only in the recent years (read milennia, lol) that love between people of the same gender has been frowned upon. In the ancient Greek world, the finest love was the love between two men. (or women, if you were to believe Sappho)

My husband is btw a Catholic. Though, a lapsed one. Personally, I was brought up Lutheran, but went to Church in my local Anglican parish.

QS - but there are non-sexual ways of showing love for one another which do not have the consequences mentioned in my pp, the church would have no problem with those.

Oh agreed there are plenty of nonsexual ways of showing love. But, most people who are in love have quite strong sexual urges, and I think it is discrimination to say you can only act on these urges if you are with the opposite gender to yourself.

Cory - dammit - back to the drawing board. Don't suppose the godless French have great TV either.

Still think TV has replaced religion as the major source of moral guidance for most people though.

The church is not saying that though QS- it is saying that you can choose to act on them if you wish, but there are consequences.

Trinity: arrgh, that wasn't what I meant at all. Militant atheist here, too. I was saying that being nice and fair can be a benefit of religion, not that it's exclusive to the religious - and plenty of people are lovely without the need for supernatural influences.
Mersman: I don't give a toss what the Catholic church thinks about people's sexual behaviour: as an institution the Catholic church has forfeited any right to comment on it due to the longstanding history of defending and protecting paedophile priests. Oh, and the woman-hating. ANd the idea that a bunch of sexually-dysfunctional old men have any right to control women's sexual behaviour anyway.

That's why society is in such a mess, IB

Scienceteacher: but theocracies (societies ruled by religion) are profoundly unhealthy. Religion, especially state-backed religion is basically incompatible with universal human rights.

OH NO... the paedophile priest thing
always comes next... the church HAS made a few mistakes which people love to drag up at every opportunity - it does not mean that everyone involved in it or even the majority of people involved in it are paedophiles.

The Catholic church is not woman hating - how do you explain its devotion to Mary if you think it is?

''a bunch of sexually-dysfunctional old men have any right to control women's sexual behaviour anyway...'' - is that not a bit of a random comment? The church imposes no more control over the sexual behaviour of women than it does of men.

Don't churches have 'house groups' or something similar where people can meet up to talk about issues and the role of faith? I am surprised to hear it is difficult to talk about faith. Churches should encourage this.

mersmam, I would like to know your own opinion, not what you think the Churchs opinion is.

I think, that any person who spend a life repressing sexual urges might end up in deep emotional trouble, and get a little "lost".

Paedophile priests: churches have been very easy establishments for paedophiles to move in. They are not people of God, but they find that the trusting and loving nature of church communities have made it an easy place for them to operate without being questioned.

Nowadays, the Church is much more astute and so we are very up on child protection issues, and it is very difficult for a paedophile to work within the Church of England nowadays (unless they premeditate for years).

It is unfortunate that the Roman Catholic church has defended their paedophile 'priests' in the past, rather than accepting that Satan is always on their backs.

You are already quite far in by the time you get to housegroup status, pointy. I don't think many people who go to housegroups are reticent about mentioning their faith.