Hello!

[Max S.]

Hello all. I'm checking in to read all of your responses. I haven't left.

@Devils' Advocate I don't think your initial response (#10) was discouraging. My opinions differ but I appreciate your personal input on the topic; it's a valid idea and one you can bet that I've toyed with myself.

@BigJoeNobody I appreciate all of that writing about Islam - much of that I'm hearing for the first time.

@Everyone I personally will not engage in a conversation about nature-versus-nurture when it comes to homosexuality and transgender issues, but you are all free to carry on as you like. My only grievance is that, in LGBTQIA+ social circles, it is considered inappropriate for anyone who is cis, straight, etc., to discuss their personal opinions on the nature of homosexuality etc., because it is not something that they experience. Generally, only people who are transgender will engage in discussion about the nature of being transgender, and so on. It's a courtesy that people outside of LGBTQIA+ circles usually aren't aware of.

The point of my asking about established religions is that I want to know how well they suit the beliefs that I already have (which I am not very willing to change, in all honesty). I did not intend to spark a discussion about the nature of my body or brain. I'm a little uncomfortable.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Generally, only people who are transgender will engage in discussion about the nature of being transgender, and so on.

unfortunately I disagree with this mindset. It glaringly misses the point of non-biased investigation. If you don't wish to hear the topic, and live on without others opinions, fine. But that doesn't mean that the topic is only able to be analyzed by you or people like you. Prophet Mouhammed (PBUH) once said (paraphrasing and translating) to be patient when talking to anyone, because even a liar tells some truth in every lie. This site is filled with discussions where 1 person disagrees on a topic and fervently opposes the idea, yet we generally don't get offended and seem to learn about others and ourselves. I'm not asking you to identify, or plead your case, only informing what others including myself think and if you don't agree, then that's fine. Until science actually can prove any of it, there really isn't anything to get upset or uncomfortable over. However I can say with confidence that every member of the LBGT community that I've ever discussed anything with (even when the member raised the discussion) the "uncomfortable" remark usually comes in to shut the other side down so that only the member's side is discussed. This leads to more problems. If Christians never talked to Muslims about Christianity or vice versa, the rift between the 2 would be much larger than it is today, which is still pretty large because for years noone wanted to discuss with the other.

as for the point about seeing how your views fit with established religions, I would encourage you to read at least the small essays on the home screen of this site. choose the ones you want to know more about, then either read more, or ask questions specific to that religion. Otherwise we can only assume which issues you feel are more pressing.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Joe, can we move on to religion now, it is enough.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I'm looking for some hard context for what faith I do have. Is there a preestablished faith that is similar to my beliefs? Can I build my own religious routine? What can I do as a regular (daily or weekly) practice to affirm to myself and to God that I'm still spiritually available (customized prayers/meditations) even though I'm a little lost?

Hi again,

I'm still not quite sure what your belief structure is. I get snippets. You had a falling out with a fundamentalist group. You see the Bible as contradictory and cherry picked depending on what a person wants their belief to be. You see the Earth as God's real Bible; that God was responsible for creation and may or may not be directly involved with the unfolding of that creation. Jesus may or may not be the Son of God as there is no empirical evidence to support either suggestion.

Fair summation?

If so, you seem to fall more into the Deism realm of religion rather than Theism. I am a Deist, and more specifically a Pandeist. Which holds:

1. 
   Pandeism (or Pan-Deism) is a theological doctrine which combines aspects of pantheism and deism. It holds that the creator of the universe actually became the universe, and so ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity.

You might try that on for size and see how it fits.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

In Australia some Aboriginal cultures refer to those with homosexual tendencies as twin spirit. The belief being more than one spirit inhabits their body. In fact, many consider these individuals quite wise and seek them out for advice. For that matter, in many Aboriginal cultures a baby born with physical attributes of both male and female is cause for celebration.

Seems to me I read something similar about the indigenous people here.

My dad use to say, "just because you enjoy a campfire doesn't mean you're a pyromaniac."

I'm beginning to like your dad more and more. I wish he was still around.

 

[Max S.]

Fair summation? If so, you seem to fall more into the Deism realm of religion rather than Theism.

That is a fair summation. I'll admit that I haven't even heard of the word Deism before.
Dictionary.com says Deism is: "The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. Deism thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct."

This definitely interests me. Do you have reliable sources where I can read about varieties of Deism?

I found a few other descriptions of varieties of Deism and I want to know which, if not all, are credible.
http://www.sbnr.org/varieties-and-categories-of-deism.html
http://www.ehow.com/about_5372786_types-deism.html

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

Seems to me I read something similar about the indigenous people here.

Don't know. I should point out though, while the twin spirit nature of those with homosexual tendencies is revered by many Aboriginal societies in some Australian regions, acting on those tendencies, at least in a sexual way, is highly discouraged. The feeling being, this undermines the natural way that has sustained them and the earth since the beginning of time.

I'm beginning to like your dad more and more. I wish he was still around.

You and me both mate.

 

[Thomas]

Alright, here we go.

Good man!

I grew up in a self-isolating Christian group and I've had a falling-out with it.

Groan! As a Brit and a Catholic, I usually find myself discussing politics more than religion. The more I hear, the more I'd suggest most Americans dump their version of Christianity, import some European commentaries, and start again. American Christianity has become an extension of American right-wing politics, and the 'cowboy' mentality ...

... but there's just something about insisting that evolution is fake that doesn't sit well with a biology student...

Precisely what I mean. This is an American, not a Christian, phenomena.

And something about saying transgender people are delusional that doesn't sit well with a trans man. So here I am, with a spirituality-shaped hole in my heart.

I sympathise with that.

God's one reliable revealed word is the Earth, not the Bible. In my opinion, the Bible has lost too much to mistranslation and is defended with too much circular logic. Nature has more to tell us about the divine anyway, and this is why I'm a chemist and a biologist.

I'd have to disagree there. It's another version of the 'religion v science' debate. Science cannot prove or disprove God, and nor can it say what's going on in the mind of God.

In Catholicism we say there are two books – the first is Nature and the second is Revelation. The Book of Nature has a natural horizon, the Book of Revelation takes off from there.

The 'circular logic' thing is problematic. Too often people mean if the Bible is true, it should be logically true – but revelation, miracles etc, defy logic by their very nature. If miracles were logical, they wouldn't be miracles.

It's not so much circular as singular: Either you believe, or you don't. One way or the other, no logic is going to shift that position. Once taken, both positions are arguable, logically, reasonable and rationally – but one either accepts Revelation or one does not. Simple.

For example, God must be exclusively responsible for the laws of physics and the mechanisms involved in life's metabolism and self-replication, and that makes God responsible for creation/evolution jointly.

Quite. Why the idea that God means evolution is a no-no escapes me. It's ignorant.

If I say that God is present throughout nature or that God is the embodiment of these natural processes, it's my understanding that this can be interpreted to lean toward pantheism, but I am not familiar enough with pantheism to say with any certainty that I am or am not a pantheist.

The question is, do you see God working in and through nature, or do you see God as nature? If the latter, then natural attributes can be predicated to God, and then you get into all manner of complications.

Jesus is a real, ammendable person. Much of what he said differs from one gospel to another, and the gospels were cherry-picked at the Council of Nicea.

Er, no. This is a common and popular view, but not a scholarly one and there's no evidence to support it.

Jesus' individual statements should not be trusted on a word-for-word basis, but his overall message is fairly consistent.

But surely the latter is the aggregate of the former?

Is he the Son of God? Should he be worshipped as if he is a God? These things don't have a lot of contextual proof going for them.

Actually they have way more than moderns realise. If you were a Jew and 'there', it's beyond doubt. That's why they tried to stone Him for blasphemy on more than one occasion.

I still have some faith or hope that Jesus might be the Son of God, but it's not an empirically-evidenced claim on my part, so I won't argue for it.

Here we go with the science v religion thing again.

As a transgender and gay member of a multiple system, typical Christian congregations do not usually suit me, let alone want me in the building.

I really do sympathise.

Is there a preestablished faith that is similar to my beliefs?

Not really, for two reasons:
1: The science v religious thing is a false dichotomy.
2: Your experience as trans man is something religion has not had to respond to. Currently my own (Catholicism) is responding badly, and slowly ...

Can I build my own religious routine? What can I do as a regular (daily or weekly) practice to affirm to myself and to God that I'm still spiritually available (customized prayers/meditations) even though I'm a little lost?

Yes.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Dictionary.com says Deism is: "The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. Deism thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct."

This definition at Dictionary.com is correct to a point. Like most all religions, there are many different variations. The definition above would be more properly named "Classical Deism". Just like there are hundreds of Christian denominations all based on a core faith, there are a number of Deistic denominations. Which is why I mentioned Pandeism specifically. For me it fits the facts of the scientific version of reality and at the same time does not hinder the metaphysical aspects of reality.

But then I believe the foundations of reality, such as quantum theory and so on are the real answers to what we call "supernatural" events. Or more appropriately said, what we perceive as the supernatural has its base in the sciences such as quantum mechanics.

You are correct that Deism in most of its forms do not accept belief in revelation in the Bible, as Deism does not acknowledge the existence of the Abrahamic God; thus the Bible is not considered a book of any divinity.

I believe the first link you posted is the better of the two you found. I particularly like the final passage:

Bear in mind that the comments here about the various categories of Deism are in no way exhaustive; they are merely representative. In a very real sense, there are as many forms of Deism as there are Deists. Deism is that individualistic! The only requirement to be Deist is to believe in a power greater than self and to come to that belief through reason.

Here is an excellent source for further reading:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Hey Max, did you have a chance to look at Universal Unitarians?

 

[Rak]

There is enough science that says the opposite of that. Despite much want to prove it, no gene has been shown to swerve ones sexual tendencies. Primal thoughts would seem to push Hetero due to species survival. Again we must be specific, we aren't talking about a choice, but rather a behavioral trigger. These are the same triggers that would form anyone's persona. There is a trigger that causes certain behavioral traits that are not an inherited behavior. Identical twins separated at birth have been shown to have completely different behavioral traits, there have even been cases where 1 is Homosexual, the other Hetero. Even environmental factors when the child is developing in the womb have been shown to impact their persona.

I realize this is a sensitive subject, and it is very contested on all sides. So I can only offer my take, Science can't prove (yet at least) anything in any of them.

I understand that it's a hormonal issue. Science has not totally figured out how it works.

Some people have hormonal issues that affect their sleep so they get far too much or too little sleep, others have them affecting their weight - and even there are hormones affecting sexuality.

 

[wil]

Missed this thread earlier...

Looks like max might be gone...

Sad...

Are we here to discuss faith? Or fix people we think need fixing...

Sheesh.