Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

patrice

(47,992 posts)
31. Well, I think I agree with you on that because speaking homophobically for God is doubly evil.
Tue Feb 12, 2013, 01:12 AM
Feb 2013

If someone says "I hate homosexuals" that's bad enough; if someone says "God hates homosexuals" that's much worse. It's worse than blaspheming about God in other ways, because hate is one of the most base human emotions.

I actually listened to a couple of Fred Phelps speeches on YouTube once and I was struck by how, to more naive minds, or to people without well developed intelligence, he would be utterly hypnotic, his style was powerful and full of divine drama, but what made it so much worse was that, not only was he blaspheming in a very attractive manner, he was also blaspheming with hate and fear, both very hard-wired powerful responses. He was saying the absolutely worse possible things to the lowest common denominator minds.

BTW, I don't particularly like the word "God", because I think it gets abused too much, too anthropomorphized. I kind of prefer the Kaballahistic notion that anything that might be what a God would be would not be pronounceable/knowable in the first place. I think that idea is inherent in the first of the JUDEO-Christian 10 Commandments: if you think you know God, you are placing a false god, your own mind/knowing, before whatever a God would be, since such an entity would not be subject to/dependent upon our mind's knowing. To me a more appropriate attitude toward anything like that would be: **IF** there is such a thing, it is best addressed as Buddhists do in calm, empty, awareness. And that must be an **IF**, because if you pre-determine the answer to that question you make whatever there is, if there is anything, subject to that predetermined answer. I think the Buddhists say you should give up on even asking the question.

To me, a better word for what many people are mistakenly calling God would be truth, so the caution expressed in the 1st Commandment and in the Kaballah and elsewhere is that one does not own the truth absolutely. It is what it is, not what you exclusively think it is and to think that one does own it as an unchangeable absolute for all persons at all times makes whatever truth one thinks one owns untrue. Absolutism falsifies "truth", because everything is in process.

What we are referring to by means of the word "truth" is a product of perspective. Perspectives can be shared by one person relative to that which is perceived, or a few, or many, but its all relative to what constitutes the perspective and perspectives can be quite different. That's why I can't tell you what you know; you're the one who has to know it. Each of us might share what each of us knows and discover some degree of overlap, but each of us has to do our own knowing (a process) and accept that it isn't absolute. Like Buckminster Fuller said, "I seem to be a verb."

Perfect grantcart Feb 2013 #1
Perfect AlbertCat Feb 2013 #35
Post removed Post removed Feb 2013 #2
Way to miss the point entirely....as you speak for your God, insisting that he's MADem Feb 2013 #4
That is your interpretation of what I said. I could not disagree agree with you more. humblebum Feb 2013 #5
No "interpretation" on my part is required. Your comment is quite plain. MADem Feb 2013 #6
I have no idea where you got that from. You sure do not show it. Maybe the term humblebum Feb 2013 #7
I "got that" from your post. Walk back slowly, now--the ice IS thin. nt MADem Feb 2013 #8
If you did you failed to show it. I think your preconceived bias has affected your judgement. nt humblebum Feb 2013 #9
Keep walking backwards, and trying to make this about me. MADem Feb 2013 #10
So then, if you have an objection to that statement, then that can only mean that you humblebum Feb 2013 #11
Nope. Not even close. MADem Feb 2013 #12
You are the one who objected to the statement, not me. And you are also the one telling me humblebum Feb 2013 #13
What a failure of a misdirect. You're the one that opposed the notion MADem Feb 2013 #16
Homophobic bullshit like this has no place on DU. cleanhippie Feb 2013 #17
I agree. I think the attempt to flip the argument is brazen in the extreme, too. MADem Feb 2013 #18
That has been his MO all along. I am suprised at the homophobic stuff. cleanhippie Feb 2013 #19
I'm stunned he lasted that long. What rank hatred and judgment-- MADem Feb 2013 #25
Well, he is gone now. cleanhippie Feb 2013 #26
Holy shit.. EvilAL Feb 2013 #32
Yep, me too. cleanhippie Feb 2013 #34
Your post was homophobic drivel, couched in religious cover. Despicable. cleanhippie Feb 2013 #15
Looks like admin agreed. Goblinmonger Feb 2013 #21
+1 cleanhippie Feb 2013 #22
As is the OP of the original train wreck. n/t Goblinmonger Feb 2013 #23
I saw that too. cleanhippie Feb 2013 #24
MADem certainly has no anti-religious bias LeftishBrit Feb 2013 #28
I am a fan of civility and I think people have every right to believe what they'd like. MADem Feb 2013 #29
Nicely done, dsc. Thanks for posting this. cbayer Feb 2013 #3
This message was self-deleted by its author cleanhippie Feb 2013 #14
The cowardice in trying to camouflage skepticscott Feb 2013 #20
KICKING! There's a REASON the First Commandment is the First Commandment. patrice Feb 2013 #27
it took me a minute to figure it out Phillip McCleod Feb 2013 #30
Well, I think I agree with you on that because speaking homophobically for God is doubly evil. patrice Feb 2013 #31
Well, unless you're a Pope. mr blur Feb 2013 #33
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»A nice counterbalance to ...»Reply #31