|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 9, 2007 3:37:24 GMT -4
I know I said my last post was likely my last, but Gillianren posted while I was writing that novelette.
You see, the Goddess I worship sees sex as a sacrament, not a sin. It's never anything to be ashamed of if no one gets hurt and everyone consents (and is able to; sex with children or people under your control cannot truly give consent). Healthy pleasures are a gift.
The God of the Bible doesn't see sex as a sin. If he did, why would he have given it to us? However, He does see it as a gift that is to be shared in the bonds of a stable and loving relationship, namely marriage. Now fine today sex out of marriage is so common place that it's just accepted, but also we are noticing that there are a lot of social ills all being related back to sex outside of a relationship, so perhaps there is a reason for rule...
My relationship with Graham is invalid in your eyes because we're not married and don't know when/if we will be. You don't generally say it, because you know it makes me angry, but it's how you feel.
I'm not sure how Jason will react to this as it was addressed to him, not me, but had it been to me I'd have been angry. Judging someone based on how you think they see things is plain wrong. As I say, I don't know what Jason will say, but as far as I am concerned, you don't claim to follow Christ, it doesn't matter what you do. Simple as that.
The Goddess I worship sees it as the duty of those best suited to the job, be they male or female, to be spiritual leaders; we are all equal in Her eyes.
Sorry this one annoys me too. Paul gets a hugely unfair thumping in his supposedly being anti-women. This really is highly unfair. You stated in one of you earlier posting that you had to understand the times, but here you're totally missing that point. In the times of Paul very, very, very few women knew the scriptures. As such it was very much a time of learning for them. Regardless of that, there were still a number of female leaders in the Churches that Paul travelled to, set up and wrote letters too. Priscilla who travelled with Paul and taught in the Church of Ephesus and Lydia who was Paul's first convert in Philippi, then went on to establish the first Philippian Church in her own home, are just two of them.
The fact of the matter is that Paul was not anti-women and in fact encouraged young women to follow God and take on the roles in the Church as much as men. Not only that, but he tells us repeatedly that ALL people are equal regardless of sex, race, or freedom/financial status. Whenever guidance is given to women, it is based on the society of the time, which was a very different place and had rather set ways in which women were expected to behave. While he said it a lot better, Paul's basic advice to women was, "Stick to the social norms. While you are free in Christ to do anything, it's better if you show your respect to God, your Husband, and your family by not acting in ways that society would see you as a hussy."
She has never wanted us to discriminate against others based on sex, colour, sexual preference, or belief system.
And show me were the Bible says that anyone should? Just because some idiots that claim to be Christians do so, doesn't mean that God says too. In fact God says exactly the opposite, that all people are equal, that God loves everyone, even while we were still in rebellion to Him. It also tells us to be like him.
She also wants us to learn from our mistakes, not cover them up.
And Christianity doesn't? The entire idea of repentance is exactly that. Admitting that you did something wrong and screwed up, that you have learned from it and are going to try your best to avoid doing it again. How's that covering anything up?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 9, 2007 5:42:31 GMT -4
The God of the Bible doesn't see sex as a sin. If he did, why would he have given it to us? However, He does see it as a gift that is to be shared in the bonds of a stable and loving relationship, namely marriage. Now fine today sex out of marriage is so common place that it's just accepted, but also we are noticing that there are a lot of social ills all being related back to sex outside of a relationship, so perhaps there is a reason for rule... How justifiably are they being related back to that? Very, very few of my friends my own age are actually married. However, there are more than a few stable, committed relationships that are healthier than a lot of marriages I know. Um, he's said it. I'm not just saying that he'd believe that. I'm referring to past instances where he said it. In Jason's eyes, in his own words, my relationship with Graham is wrong because we can't afford to get married but live together anyway. Because, you see, even though I don't follow Christ (or claim to!), I should, and the laws apply to me regardless of whether I see God the same way as he does. I don't assume that all Christians feel a certain way about things. I know too many of them, and too many different ones, to say that. (My mother doesn't consider my relationship valid, particularly, either; my mother's Catholic. Which is, after all, the religion all other Christian sects trace their roots to.) However, I am quite capable of remember what people have said about me. This is also based on past history. Jason doesn't believe, nor does his faith, that women should hold leadership positions in the church. He says it's God's will, in part because Paul said it. Also do remember that very few men knew the Scriptures in Paul's time; great heaping swathes of the population, Christian or not, was illiterate, after all. However, what we do know suggests that women were no less likely to be ignorant of their Scriptures than men. So in other words, because society has changed, we don't have to worry about not appearing to be hussies anymore? Yes. I know. However, a great many faiths from the 19th Century had some sort of institutionalized racism as part of them. Some of them didn't clear that up until the 1970s. (Some, I fear, still haven't, but there we all are, I suppose.) You're coming in on an awful lot of past history. However, this one is not aimed at individuals. It is aimed at organizations. Some Churches, for example, have apologized for using Jesus in support of slavery. Some choose to pretend that whole stretch of history never happened. The Catholics took some 400 years, was it, to apologize about the whole Galileo thing. The fact that they did it is admirable, but they're now getting entangled in newer problems. (They have gotten awfully good about science, though!) Can I also say that to equate being gay--remember, please, that it's not an action!--with being a child molester is pretty reprehensible to me? You know what? If you want to molest children but have the moral fortitude not to, great! I'm still going to want to keep one close eye on you and not, you know, throw greater temptation in your path by making you a Sunday school teacher, but whatever. However, we can assume that men don't have sex with women outside marriage if their calling forbids it. Why can't we have that same rule about men who want to have sex with men instead? Note also, by the way, that I am not endorsing a celibate clergy; it flies pretty strongly in the face of what we know about the early Church. For Heaven's sake, Peter was married! However, if we are going to call the physical act of love between two consenting adults a sin, is it really what God would want to prevent someone who is resisting temptation from a position just because they might succumb to it? (Okay, if they have a record of succumbing, especially with those who cannot consent, that's different, of course!)
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jun 9, 2007 9:17:24 GMT -4
I'm going to throw this in here and ask opinions for all sides.
I've stated before that I'm atheist. As I am sure many of you will agree, that doesn't mean I am bad / evil / whatever.
As a personal opinion (and this can be backed by doctrine if you so desire), if I conduct myself according to the rules of what I generally term "Christian" behaviour with the exception of showing 'faith' or 'worshiping' a deity, would this exclude me from any afterlife 'salvation'?
What I am trying to say is: if the only difference between myself and a "pious" person is a belief in a deity, does "belief" constitute the most important requirement of entrance to an "afterlife"?
I think it would be obvious that if some people would say yes, I would question why faith is more important than conduct.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 9, 2007 15:40:41 GMT -4
You see, the Goddess I worship sees sex as a sacrament, not a sin. I don't believe sex itself is sinful. I believe it's powerful. It's a force that can strongly bless or destroy lives. Like all powerful forces it should therefore be used carefully. God, who knows quite a bit more about human relationships than we do, has given us some nice guidelines on how best to use this power to improve our lives and avoid getting hurt by it. He's done this because He really does care about us and wants us to be happy. Now, can we break these rules and still be happy? Yes we can. But we're running more risk, and we're missing out on some of the benefits that come with playing it by the rules. Can people follow the rules and still be unhappy? Again, yes they can. However I believe they have a much better chance of being happy by following the rules than by ignoring them. Case in point - I went to a cousin's wedding last night. She married someone who is not a member of the LDS faith. This means the marriage was a civil ceremony rather than a religious one, and of course they weren't married in an LDS temple. Does this mean I believe my cousin's marriage is invalid, doomed, or wrong? Not at all. They seem very much in love and very happy with each other, and I hope they will be happy with each other and have a lasting marriage. I do believe that they may have some hard times ahead of them because they don't have a common religion between the two of them and they don't have the extra spiritual support that a temple marriage would provide them. I generally don't speak about your relationship because it's really not my business. However, since you bring it up I'll say a few words. I don't think your relationship is invalid in the sense that you don't really care for each other or that it can't possibly make you happy. That would be very presumptuous of me. I do feel that generally speaking marriage is a better choice than living together. I may have said in the past that sex without marriage is immoral. Well, it is, there's no getting around that fact, but it is not as dangerous a use of that power as having one-night stands with people you will never see again would be. You are of course referring to the fact that in the LDS church only men hold the priesthood. There are women spiritual leaders in the church, by the way - you can see several of them speak at any General Conference of the Church. But you are correct that they don't hold the priesthood. In my opinion women are generally better suited to feeling the spiritual and would make better leaders, and that is precisely why the men are the leaders in the LDS church - what God wants done will get done no matter who is in charge, and he has therefore put the people (men) who can learn and improve themselves the most from being in charge in the hot seat. Surely, Gillian, you would agree with me that even though men and women are equal that they are also different from each other? There is a crucial difference between the first two items on your list and the last two. The first two are inborn. The last two are choices. You can't be blamed for being something, only for chosing something. And that works in reverse too. I believe you're referring to the idea among anti-mormons that the LDS church routinely attempts to cover up history that they feel might embarrass the church. I've never seen any convincing evidence that the church has ever willfully hidden or suppressed real information that would otherwise "embarrass" it. (Of course, you could argue that this is because they suppressed it, but then we start getting into 9/11 conspiracy theory territory)
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 9, 2007 15:56:15 GMT -4
To be honest, 80% of what Gillianren says I agree with. There is so much hypocrisy and unchristian behaviour in many of the churches today that most of them simply are not Christian under what the Bible shows us a Christian is. They call themselves Christian, but they simply aren't, they go to church on Sunday, claim to be a Christian and then behave in bigoted and evil ways the rest of the week. They are today's Sadducees and Pharisees and I am more then positive that if Jesus was on Earth today he'd be the first to condemn their actions, just as he did those of his day. I agree with most of what you have to say, PhantomWolf. But... (you knew that was coming) I don't think we should label people as either Christian or non-Christian. It's not our place to judge. We might be able to say "that didn't seem like very Christian behavior to me," but not "that person is not a Christian." Whether a person should be called a Christian is pretty much up to them in my book. If they say they are then it's my Christian duty to take them at their word, rather than try to argue with them. If they say they're not Christian then even if they're living what I would consider an exemplary Christian life then I won't argue that they "really" are Christian. None of us are perfect anyway so if you use "Christian" to mean "someone living the life Jesus would have them live" then none of us are Christians, really. Not much offense taken. I think labelling a group a "cult" these days doesn't really have any meaning beyond "a group I don't agree with," and I'm used to hearing it used against my faith by other board members anyway.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 9, 2007 16:04:41 GMT -4
As a personal opinion (and this can be backed by doctrine if you so desire), if I conduct myself according to the rules of what I generally term "Christian" behaviour with the exception of showing 'faith' or 'worshiping' a deity, would this exclude me from any afterlife 'salvation'? What I am trying to say is: if the only difference between myself and a "pious" person is a belief in a deity, does "belief" constitute the most important requirement of entrance to an "afterlife"? In my opinion you need both - both an exemplary life and faith. One or the other by themselves won't do the job. When you get to the final judgement you'll certainly be better off with an exemplary life to show than you would have been without one, but in the end you will need faith too. And vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 11, 2007 22:07:44 GMT -4
I'm going to throw this in here and ask opinions for all sides. I've stated before that I'm atheist. As I am sure many of you will agree, that doesn't mean I am bad / evil / whatever. As a personal opinion (and this can be backed by doctrine if you so desire), if I conduct myself according to the rules of what I generally term "Christian" behaviour with the exception of showing 'faith' or 'worshiping' a deity, would this exclude me from any afterlife 'salvation'? What I am trying to say is: if the only difference between myself and a "pious" person is a belief in a deity, does "belief" constitute the most important requirement of entrance to an "afterlife"? I think it would be obvious that if some people would say yes, I would question why faith is more important than conduct. Well, of course, my faith doesn't have that sort of rule at all. In my opinion, in the opinion of most of my coreligionists, what's important is that you are good to others. "Do what you will an it harm none" and "Whatever you do for good or evil will come back to you threefold." Whether or not you see God the same way as I do is irrelevant. The Goddess has more pressing concerns, I think, than human fallibility. And Jason, why in Gods' names would anyone choose to be gay, all things considered? Or are you wrong about this, and it isn't a choice? (Hint: all the evidence shows one of us to be right!)
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 11, 2007 23:09:03 GMT -4
And Jason, why in Gods' names would anyone choose to be gay, all things considered? Or are you wrong about this, and it isn't a choice? (Hint: all the evidence shows one of us to be right!) Why do people chose to become addicted to gambling, or pornography, or smoking, or alcohol, or drugs, or to become thieves, murderers, or rapists? Do you think people who succumb to such vices do so because of inborn traits, or choices, or a combination of the two? My money is on the combo, which means that choice is always a factor.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 11, 2007 23:59:41 GMT -4
You mean people actually choose to become addicted to gambling etc? I thought they only choose to play (smoke/drink/etc.) and the addiction was an involuntary side effect.
People always assume that they can't become addicted, that it only happens to other people. So no, I don't believe people go into something knowing they will develop an addiction to it. Just like pilots know there's a chance they could die in a crash, but they don't really expect it otherwise they wouldn't get into the plane.
And I'm with Gillianren on this... people do not chose to be something that is discriminated against (sometimes violently). Gay people don't choose to be gay any more than I choose to be left handed. I can maybe force myself to write with my right hand, but it will never be natural to me.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 12, 2007 11:30:07 GMT -4
You mean people actually choose to become addicted to gambling etc? I thought they only choose to play (smoke/drink/etc.) and the addiction was an involuntary side effect. People always assume that they can't become addicted, that it only happens to other people. So no, I don't believe people go into something knowing they will develop an addiction to it. That is precisely my point. They don't consciously set out to become addicted yet their addiction is the result of their poor choices. They are responsible for it. Nobody says "I want to be a rapist when I grow up", yet despite the fact that no one wants to become one, rapists still exist. Would you argue that since they didn't "want" to be rapists that it is somehow "natural" for these people to be rapists? As natural as being left-handed?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 12, 2007 12:19:25 GMT -4
Are you really comparing homosexuals to rapists? The fact that they are consenting adults is a pretty big difference, in my opinion. People don't decide to try homosexual sex on a whim and then suddenly become addicted, they likely have a pretty good idea that's what they prefer before they even try it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 12, 2007 12:23:18 GMT -4
Are you really comparing homosexuals to rapists? Are you really comparing homosexuals to left-handed people?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jun 12, 2007 12:27:06 GMT -4
Jason, you do a wonderful job of exemplifying why some people find the religious so offensive
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 12, 2007 12:38:04 GMT -4
Jason, you do a wonderful job of exemplifying why some people find the religious so offensive If you object to "rapist" in my example substitute any other obviously distasteful category that people don't generally consciously set out to become and yet become neverthless. Say, a nose picker, or morbidly obese, or a racist. Why do people become what no one wants to become? Is it because it's natural to them or because of poor choices on their part? And if you argue that it's natural to them, does that have any bearing on how dangerous, disagreeable, or immoral the practice is?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 12, 2007 13:11:27 GMT -4
Are you really comparing homosexuals to rapists? Are you really comparing homosexuals to left-handed people? Yes, I am. Another similarity between homosexuality and left-handedness (besides being involuntary) is that the church used to condemn left-handedness too. Now people see it as no big deal.
|
|