But.
In the Phillips translation somewhere Paul says something like "and they received in their personalities the consequences of their perversions". There are social consequences and there are psychological consequences for anything sex-related, and right now the consequences of church-inspired social control efforts seem to be the dominant effect. Clearly, a social policy that causes more pain and suffering than it prevents is disfunctional and to be modified. However, are there psychological issues to be seen under the social controls?
For example, social standards fence casual contact between members of the opposite sex, inadvertant touching producing instantaneous apology. Is that because our otherwise raging hormones would have us mating at random in the street, the males displaying like farm animals and fighting like wild animals for the opportnuity to procreate?
So (some part of) the church did it badly, very badly in fact. Is a Christian ethic of sex possible outside the church structures? What would it be like? I await the rant.
*cheering loudly*
Have as much rum as you can manage and, if you ever wanna be pope, you've got my vote.
Emily
More seriously, I just don't understand why everyone is so obsessed with sex. It isn't particularly interesting. It isn't even particularly enjoyable. Frankly I'd much rather have a really good meal and stimulating conversation with someone than have to go to bed with them. The discomfort, infections, and the way I was treated by a series of men over 10 years convinced me 15 years ago that I was never going to put myself through this again for anybody and I have kept that rule without any problems and have no desire to break it.
In short I am disagreeing with Erin's fundamental premise that it's beautiful and fun. Nor do I agree that it is a basic human need. It might be for some people but I'm far happier as a celibate and I'm sure I'm not alone.
As for the church having control - if you sign up to be a member of a church you have to take what goes with it. If you can't agree with the teachings then it probably isn't for you. You can still believe in God without signing on the dotted line and promising this, that and the other. There are fashions in popular morality just as there are in anything else. We routinely accept things that would have been unthinkable a hundred years ago. Who's to say that they won't be unthinkable again in another hundred years?
The word purile springs to mind. I realize that a rant is not supposed to be a reasoned argument, but is it supposed to be stupid? I'd like to see any real evidence that there is any greater degree of sexual malfeasence within the church than outside it? Or is it true just because you'd like it to be true? But I realize that rants are not supposed to represent any real information, just from the gut (or in this case, slightly lower down) opinions.
Still, one would think that even a rant would not descent to this level of shoddy thinking. But I'll take the bait. Sure, the church is trying to control us. Sure, it is trying to interfere with our private lives? Sure, it is trying to make us worry about oursexual behavior. But what's wrong with that? Jesus and his disciples interfered with folks private lives all the time. Jesus told the woman taken in so-called "adultery" to "sin" no more. [Irony]Who the hell did he think he was, laying such a moral judgement on her? That bastard Jesus even told people what to do with their money! Hadn't he read John Locke? Didn't he know that property was an inalienable right? [/Irony]
Probably the saddest thing is that you think you're being daring and provacative, when in fact you're simply being exactly like everyone else. It's not the church that controls people's live these days. It is the media. And you believe exactly what they tell you.
FCB
Tubbs
The Church uses it's teaching on stealing to control. Don't do it, this limits my freedom to get the things I want and need.
The Church teaches us not to envy, it even is trying to control the way we think.
Is it the Church that is trying to control us or God? Being a Christian should not be a matter of man made rules but of living to please God. We are guided in how to do this by both inner impression (the leading of the Spirit) and by the Bible (inspired by the Spirit).
The bible has a lot to say on human sexuality not all expressed equally by church leaders, but the over riding clearly expressed view throughout is that sex is a gift from God to be enjoyed, within the bounds of a covenant relationship. This is not control by the church but control by God. I would agree that an unbalanced teaching on this subject has been unhelpful but the free for all thinking of this generation has huge social impact which we have not fully come to terms with yet.
I have to say that although I disagree profoundly with the rant I think it is one of the most thought provoking articles I have ever read on this subject. (perhaps I just need to widen my range of reading matter)
Call me Paulline, but I think chaste celibacy is something useful and laudable to aspire to. What stops me voting in the negative is that bit at the end: 'Should the church just shut up about sex'. I sure as hell want to tell literalist bigots and fascists to shut up.
Unless, of course, you are "the church", in which case we've got way bigger problems than just my rant.
Coot... the point of my rant is not to go out and screw everything that's not nailed down. I'm trying to say that the church simply can't get this particular subject right, and that until it does so, it needs to just shut its mouth and actually do something useful. The time and energy the church wastes on this argument could have resolved world hunger by now.
I like the idea of not having to feel guilty all the damn time because I happen to favour the fairer sex, but El Cooto's right - a little more focus on monogamy etc might be needed.
Actually, we all pretty much know about that anyway, so never mind. Pure rum, without any pop-culture references.
Sex is not - at least not to the individual - a
quote:
basic human need – as vital as food, water, and shelter
Noone ever died because they didn't have sex. Plenty of people are dying right now because they - or more likely their boyfriend or husband - thought they would die if they had to hold off from having sex when their regular partner was away.
I think the church should certainly clean up its act, and I think it could find much better ways to talk about sex. But if people are not to keep on dying, and leaving orphans, and having their children die, we all need to talk about the fact that sex doesn't just happen between two people who feel like enjoying themselves. And that includes the church.
So away with hypocrisy, but keep on talking about sex, please, fellow Christians.
My definition of sex involves me being happy inside my own skin. My female skin. Somedays I even want to proudly show the world my female skin.(well carefully, tastefully selected areas)(and not that often I assure you) and I guess that is my problem. What is wrong with celebrating who I am? Afterall God created this voluptous woman. (Ok I have modified it as the years go on....)
Yet I feel guilty, uncomfortable saying the above. I know I got some of that thinking from the church.
I'd like the church to distinguish between sex as in the verb and sex as in the noun.
The church has a place in the discussion because God created sex and sexuality. Just as long as the church doesn't see itself as God!
I think I'd better sail off in my little boat now.
It's only in the last 2 years that I realised that the bible was right about sex. Note, not the church. Because the no church has a monopoly on truth.
Not wholly right, but the 80% that I agree with convinces me that the 20% I disagree with has to be worth considering.
There is no basic right or need to sex. There is a need for freedom of choice about sex.
But God created sex for us to enjoy it. We seem to be suckered into the media representation of what they think it ought to be. We seldom see real marriages on tv, because that sort of intimacy is near impossible to portray.
So they try to fob us off with this pale imitation. And, suckers that we are, we believe it.
Love
angel
It's not sex which is vital for humans, surely, but love, and for most, a means by which that love may be expressed. Even celibate people I know have an outlet for their love.....Christians especially.
Watched Moulin Rouge again last night, and a line stuck, something like "The greatest thing that we can learn is to love, and be loved in return" (From another song?)
And isn't it the case that the condemnation we read in the Bible is related to practices which are either exploitative and unloving or have health risks?
I think the Church has for too long been hung up on the practices themselves, when the context has changed. That some denominations (which have married clergy of both genders) consider gay clergy acceptable only if they are celibate is clear evidence for me that it's the sexual act which continues to be a problem and that the proper focus - on loving relationships - is considered secondary.
I see no conflict with Scripture if we got back to condemning exploitation and supporting relationships founded on love.
Iestyn
of course, if that wall were to come down, there'd have to be other changes...and some basic Christian tenets would have to be dusted off.
rum.
The restictions about sex are in part a reflection of God's wishes for us as human beings and we get this from the Bible. Although the church has dealt with the issues around Sex badly it does not mean that it is completely wrong.
SOrry. But I found the argument that just because a number of Priests abuse their position sexually, the church cannot teach on sex is mistaken.
Many priests abuse their positions of power - does this mean that the church can't teach about humility? Many priests abuse religion - does this mean that we can't tell people about spiritual matters?
Abuse by the church is an appaling thing, and worthy of round condemnation. But to blame it on the biblical teaching - or to argue that the biblical teaching is wrong because the church seems to enjoy abusing it - is disingenuous at the least, and blatently wrong at the worst.
quote:
As a bisexual divorcée who is called to neither celibacy nor marriage...
Well, I think that these are your only choices, and they haven't been arbitrarily forced upon you by [scary graveyard voice] "The Church". They have been given to us by the same bloke who gave us sex in the first place, and I'm quite happy to do what I'm told.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
It's worth noting that any argument based on "the Bible says so" is not going to get a response from me.
So what is?
angel
quote:
Originally posted by the Angel of the North:
So what is?angel
Oh, I dunno... something that actually addresses my Rant, perhaps. You know, the topic of "the church needs to just shut up about sex because it has done far more damage than good"?
Sorry, just feeling punchy today.
Sex is a gift. I think we would be wise not to misuse it. Is there a "better way" or a "better time" for sex? I think so. Is there an "only way" or an "only time" for sex? I think so, but I'm certainly not always right.
Don't blame it on the church, blame it on the imperfection of particular humans (some of whom make are in the church). Should the church take action when one of its leaders sins (whether sexually or otherwise)? Yes. Is the church wrong to let continued sin go on without correction? Yes. But I don't think the church's error was the first (that would belong to the person who sinned, not the one who failed to correct it) or the worst.
Oh, by the way, plank.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Oh, I dunno... something that actually addresses my Rant, perhaps. You know, the topic of "the church needs to just shut up about sex because it has done far more damage than good"?
so it's not meant to preach what it finds from the bible? Or we're not meant to expect it to?
What about the help that the church has given for those having problems with sexual relationships? the definition of News is something out of the ordinary. Abuse by churches is news precisely because of that - it is out of the ordinary. Most of the time churches have at least made an effort to nurture and care for people.
So, because, so far, mankind has singularly made a mess of the planet*, we should give up existing, and commit mass suicide?
The church as whole has a duty to its members. A priest speaks on the Word of God with reference to the needs of the congregation and the wider community. And where ideas of the grass is greener is wrecking marriages, as one issue among many, maybe it does need to be addressed. Just as the church needs to address communication problems between people.
And we are the church. And we are meant to take care of our neighbours - not to the point of outright nosiness, but we have a responsibility to them. And they have a responsibility to us. So we run shelters, feed the homeless and so on. But we are all broken human beings, and if we are not addressing our own needs, the need to be loved and cherished, then how can we help others without accusations of rank hypocrisy.
Love
Angel
*I'm referring to physical destruction of species, rather than any hypothesis regarding global warming or trade or any of the other more contentious topics. Ref: Kew Magazine Winter and Spring 2002 editions.
quote:
It's worth noting that any argument based on "the Bible says so" is not going to get a response from me.
In that case how do you know what God wants you to do is it by an inner impression alone? If so how can you be sure that is God speaking and that impression is not the result of too much cheese for supper? What standard do you use to judge the teaching of the church? Modern public opinion, that will be different tomorrow. If the authority of the church does not come from the bible is the opinion of it's teachers any more authoritative than the opinions expressed by people on The Oprah Show?
If the authority of the Bible is not a basis on which to base on argument on a Christian board what is?
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
The church has an unhealthy obsession with sex, to the detriment of just about everyone it comes in contact with. If it would expend just 1/100th of that energy on more immediate, pressing concerns than whether or not my having a girlfriend is an abomination unto the Lord, then I'd actually care what it had to say about the subject. The fact that it puts what I do in my own bedroom at the top of its list of concerns illustrates to me that the church, as a whole, simply does not get it.
Has that more to do with society's perceptions of the church's message? For example I read on the anglican news service four interesting announcements - relating to the Holy Land, supporting the family, and poverty. The fourth, on sex, was the shortest, and not particularly important one, and that was the one that I saw reported on the secular news.
It becomes a vicious cycle. And one the church can't win at.
Is this the local church, or the national church? If local - change church if you feel that strongly, and vote with your feet.
And with national church, often it's the national media picks things up. The church then gets the message that all the news media cares about is sex, and may be doing a lot of other things, but the only thing that will get any attention is sex.
If they don't say anything, then they're accused of brushing perceived problems under the carpet, if they do, then they're preaching on the wrong thing. However much they're talking about anything else.
And then there's the question of personal selective attention to the church's message, as opposed to news media.
Love
Angel
quote:
The church has an unhealthy obsession with sex,
I do agree with this though. I chaired a forum at the last British general election with the local candidates from the three main parties and the churches together group. I vetted the questions first and allowed only one question per topic, topics like debt relief for poor nations, involving churches in the delivery of social improvement schemes and so on. The major complaint I received was that I had not allowed more on the issue of sexual behaviour, some if not all of which were totally unsuitable to ask political candidates. If we could expend that energy in the problems of world hunger, poverty and social justice we would be much more effective in the world and the Bible has much more to say about these subjects than sexual behaviour anyway.
The reason news media focuses on sex is because it sells. And it sells because we, the public buy it.
I don't think I need to spell it out!
Angel
That's not media bias or perception. That's reality.
If we took the issue of sex out of the equation such people would still be schismatic. They'd still find things to argue about.
One thing occured to me - we're not "allowed" to say how much we give away: "let not the trumpets go before you". Why can't this just apply to sex as well so we can all be left alone to make the choices we're most comfortable with in ourselves? Speaking as someone who has had all levels of heterosexual celibate and married sex-lives flaunted smugly at me (and no, that's not just paranoia). Or have I missed the point again?
[Erin, I appear to be spending a lot of time posting immediately after you. I'm not stalking you, I promise]
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
The church has an unhealthy obsession with sex, to the detriment of just about everyone it comes in contact with.
You see, this is where I disagree. The Church has had an unhealthy obsession with control, and power, of which sexuality is a significant tool. But I think the church, in it's teachings, has has much less an obsession with sex as with many other things - to the detriment of all. It has not, in general, been able or prepared to provide teaching on sexual matters, because we have been scared of them.
IMO, the church has a right and a duty to be interested in what you do in your bedroom. Not to the exclusion of all else, or over and above other issues. And not simply to say "NO". But to be concerned with you as a whole person. That includes the bedroom, the loo, and the kitchen.
A freedom to talk about sex and sexuality in all its forms would, IMO, be much more liberating to the many people who are abused by church leaders than an attempt to ignore the issue altogether. If I ( as the church ) cannot comment on your activities, then what right do I have to criticise the pedophile and abusive priests? Ignoring ( or accepting ) sexuality is the route to greater abuse.
Usually sex is the one picked up on, but mostly there will be nice documents that outline a range of things - c.f. origin of species - Darwin wrote about a sentence on evolution but that's what it's remembered for
Love
Angel
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Oh, I dunno... something that actually addresses my Rant, perhaps. You know, the topic of "the church needs to just shut up about sex because it has done far more damage than good"?
What is the most important passage in relation to sexual morality? The same as any other moral question - Love the Lord with all your heart, mind and soul and love your neighbour as yourself. Going overboard on sex is unloving towards those who seek affirmation of their worth before God, unloving towards those who would otherwise be helped if the Church diverted that energy to helping them.
Tot of rum
I'm not one for the letter of the law, but I do think a very important principle can be gathered from the Scriptures.
-don't fuck around. It never comes without painful(or itchy) consequences.
-don't screw with sex. It's not to be taken lightly.
-don't screw with a couple other things... animals, your mom, vacuum cleaners(ok so the vacuum cleaner passages are ambiguous)
All this to say... Yes Erin, the church has no right to dictate sex rules(individual associations have every right to limit membership to whomever they wish though). But the Bible does have some valueable insight about how not to screw up with sex.
Atticus
(I don't even shake hands with someone I don't respect)
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
The fact that it puts what I do in my own bedroom at the top of its list of concerns illustrates to me that the church, as a whole, simply does not get it.
(I mean, to take an example -- Bishop Spong of Newark has attracted MUCH more attention for his views on homosexuality than his denial of Jesus' bodily Resurrection from the dead! And he is not alone -- that sort of doctrinal shift had been going on for decades among clergy -- and then people get in an uproar about sex. A very human reaction, I am sure -- just not the right focus. That's the kind of thing I mean.)
Churches say a lot of misguided, crazy things to control us (or lead us). But in truth; don't we use a measure of reasoning to filter this stuff through our own insight, knowledge, experience...? We aren't like little lambs being led off to slaughter.
Or zombie robots. We hear what the church says; and make our own decisions still. Sometimes with good consequences and sometimes bad.
Sex as a weapon is a true concept, but I don't see the church as the one firing most of the bullets. The media, the capitalistic money market - even the sinful power of one abusive person over another seem a bigger threat.
Sorry, Erin - I don't see that the argument has been developed enough to state that the church has done more damage than good. It's a leap I can't make to come to that conclusion.
Plank..............(sigh)
Because my heart and soul is in this issue......
Hugs/Bess
Have you read 'Godless Morality' by Richard Holloway (ex bishop of Edinburgh, one of my heroes) - lots of good sense in it and sounds like you would like much of it.
please don't answer that.
IMO the reason why the church's comments on sex are so much the focus of the media's attention is that we are almost the only people opposing the general legitimacy of promiscuity and homosexuality (well, some of us!). By contrast the comments on world hunger, the environment etc are echoes of many other groups in society - so the 'media interest' in the view is far less significant.
However I would like to pick up on another point:
quote:
Bishop Spong of Newark has attracted MUCH more attention for his views on homosexuality than his denial of Jesus' bodily Resurrection from the dead!
Talking to a bishop who has now retired, he was unwilling to act on any of the complete tosh from the likes of Don Cupid on the ground that it wasn't affecting people's behaviour so let the theologians play in their sand pit. 15 years on and the traditional beliefs of the church in sexual morality are in big trouble because the theologians in their sand pit have actually all but demolished the foundation of the church's authority (and vast swathes of the church are ignoring traditional teaching for the views of the world....)
[edited to fix scroll lock]
[tried again]
[ 11 March 2002: Message edited by: Louise ]
[ 11 March 2002: Message edited by: Louise ]
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Talking to a bishop who has now retired, he was unwilling to act on any of the complete tosh from the likes of Don Cupid on the ground that it wasn't affecting people's behaviour so let the theologians play in their sand pit. 15 years on and the traditional beliefs of the church in sexual morality are in big trouble because the theologians in their sand pit have actually all but demolished the foundation of the church's authority (and vast swathes of the church are ignoring traditional teaching for the views of the world....)
ES, I think this is simplistic. It's very easy to divide the Church up into 'liberal' pantomine villains and 'orthodox' heroes. I, though, and many like me [including at least one person hotly tipped for the top job in the CofE], would want to take a progressive line of lesbian/gay relationships NOT because I have abandoned credal Christianity, but because I think that belief in Creation and Incarnation demands a rethink of "traditional teaching."
In actual fact very little of Christian homophobia is well grounded in Tradition (understood, as it must be, with reference to God's act of self-communication in Christ.) Rather the (SECULAR) notions of family values, social stability, gender roles etc. are made to do a lot of the argumentative donkey-work, and the very dubious (and again, secular, albeit old and secular) notion of natural law is invoked.
We are very good at making God in our own image, 'conservatives' just as much as 'liberals.'
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
...from the likes of Don Cupid...
ROTFLMAO!!!
*snort* *giggle*
I'm sure Mssr Cupit would be pleased
Perhaps the reason that the church seems to harbour such an "unhealthy obsession with sex" is because so many of its adherants hold to such unhealthily liberal anything goes views of sex. So it becomes a question of cleaning up your own back yard so that you can reach out to the rest of the world more effectively.
I don't necessarily agree that the church does expend too much energy on confronting sexual issues. But even if they did, I would prefer that than to see them sitting back and winking at error rather than opposing it head on.
Church, yes it can be a bit screwed up in regard to sex, but not all of the Church is the same.
Is the Church hurting people, or are they hurting themselves.
So Erin, its the plank from me (But I bet you sent ME down the plank last year!)
Neil
Since your rant was about planking, you deserve the plank (whichever definition you prefer).
Greta
), I vote tot of rum. And perhaps another.This is a discussion raised often by my friends and I. All my life I have heard at Church that sex is wrong, sex outside of marriage is wrong, sex is for procreation only. Then they use guilt to attack anyone who has had pre-marital sex. This is what I have the biggest issue with - the guilt they try to make you feel. I agree that sex is a basic human need, obviously it is not vital for survival, but it can be very hard to suppress those feelings. These two things cause many problems (yes, I'm getting to a point).
In my experience, I have known a LOT of young couples (ie. younger than 20) who have got married almost as soon as they could legally purely so they could have sex. Sorry, I'll clarify, sex wasn't why they got married, it's why theyt got married so early. Because the church would make them feel guilty if they did anything outside marriage, then they get married to avoid the guilt. Or break up. OUt of all those marriages I have seen, only a handful are still happy. I maintain that had they had sex when they wanted it, they all would ahve been better off.
I'm not arguing for promiscuity, I disagree with that. I'm all for monogamy, but it doesn't have to be within marriage. If two people love each other (any two people) then they should be able to express that love. BEcause that is what sex is - an expression of one's love for another. I used to want to be celibate until marriage, but when I met my girlfriend that changed. We make love now, and I am fine with it. I dont'intend to do it with anyone else, and I intend to be doing it with her forever (if all goes well!!). It's not dirty when we do it, it's because we love each other. And isn't that why God created sex?
The church needs to change its tack on sex. If nothing else, stop trying to make people feel guilty for expressing their love to another person!
quote:
"Life in Lubbock, Texas taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth. And you should save it for someone you love."
- Butch Hancock
Rum for Erin, by the way.
Louise
the problem is that the church has all the ideas, but isn't good at helping us get to being the sort of people who can live up to them.
And we're not good at recognising how we can be helped to get there.
Instead they tell us things that are right, but don't tell us why they're right, and how they can be right for us, or whether they're right for us.
Like I didn't realise why living with someone could be so bad, and the sort of spiritual damage it could do. I was just told 'it's wrong'. And it was only a long time after that I realised.
The church shouldn't stop pronouncing, it should simply change the manner in which it pronounces.
Love
Angel
L
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Angel dear,
I don't want to live up to them, I'm happy.L
Lucky you.
Unfortunately some of us don't manage that. I think i said in my post that part of it is discerning whether those things are right for us.
quote:
Originally posted by the Angel of the North:
Hmm.the problem is that the church has all the ideas, but isn't good at helping us get to being the sort of people who can live up to them.
The problem is the Church keeps coming up with different ideas. For most of the History of the Church Sex has been considered sinful unless for procreation or prevention of fornication - and that's within marraige. Even in "Liberal" Anglicanism as recently as 1908 contraception was condemned, and sex for the sake of pleasure has only been accepted in the last 20 years or so.
All a sudden sex is great as long as you happen to do it with the right people in the right way. If sex is for pleasure and emotional commitment then it needs to be accepted in a far broader context. The church can't have its cake and eat it.
quote:
The church has an unhealthy obsession with sex
Actually, I think a lot of people in our society these days have an unhealthy obsession with sex (how much of this board is currently about sex?).
God gave us bodies. These bodies have ceratin parts. He gave us guidelines on how to use (or not use) certain of our parts. For example:
Hands:
1. Thou shalt not kill
2. Thou shalt not steal
Tongues:
3. Honour thy father and thy mother
4. Thou shalt not bear false witness
Brains/minds:
5. Thou shalt have no other gods before me
6. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's [anything]
etc. etc.
Why is it so hard to understand that there should be guidelines for the use of our genitals?
Why does the church seem to not be obsessed with the parts of the Bible that prescribe the proper use (proscribe the improper use) of other body parts? Because, generally, we still subscribe to them.
I would like to suggest that if we still subscribed to the biblical teachings on sex, the church would not need to talk about it any more than it has to talk about murder.
Let's not forget that out there, there are also prostitutes, people in abusive relationships, rape victims, those whose marriages have gone stale, those who are not physically compatible, the frigid, the impotent; young people pressurized into it before they are ready, people who use sex as a means of control, an expression of contempt, part of a power struggle; those who regard it as a tiresome job to fulfil part of a bargain, others who for whatever reason feel they can't say no; those who talk about "meaningful relationships" but in practice regard sex as little more than a sandwich when you're hungry, and some who genuinely enjoy the element of physical violence and intimidation that can go with it, even maybe to the extent of murder. Let's not pretend it's all roses. It isn't.
I'm not going to claim that having a clear set of moral/ethical/religious guidelines works 100%. It's never worked 100% even in more religious ages. But it is a help none the less and sometimes it's a defence for the vulnerable. A country's laws are generally drawn from a code of ethics inspired by religious teaching, no matter what the state of the country today.
As for feeding the poor...I challenge every crewmember & apprentice to find their local food bank. Every time you shop, get something for the bank (grab some staple that's on sale). When convenient, drop it all off. You might find it feels better than sex.
As for feeding the poor...I challenge every crewmember & apprentice to find their local food bank. Every time you shop, get something for the bank (grab some staple that's on sale). When convenient, drop it all off. You might find it feels better than sex.
OK. I am now going to confuse you all. I voted for a tot of rum for Erin.
If you're new, this may not have confused you. So, let me give you some background. I am, what is known on the ship, as a "Good Little Evangelical" or GLE. In fact, I am quite frequently described as The GLE. This is partly because I coined the phrase - which I'll freely admit is self parodying.
Now, being a GLE, I try my best to stick to straight evangelical teaching on sex and sexuality. Essentially, I believe that God knows what's best for us, and our most likely way of finding out His will is through the Bible. I'm not married yet, and so I'm not having sex. I struggle with this - quite publicly - but it's what I believe is right. If I were gay (I'm not, although I have in the past had sexual feelings towards other women, so I guess I might be bi) I would probably make very similar choices to the ones chastmastr makes - which pretty much come down to No Sex. These are my personal moral choices. I suspect they're very different to Erin's. However, I'm still voting her a tot of rum. Why?
Quite simply because I agree with her on the main point of her rant. The church is doing a very bad job of teaching about sex. In my personal experience, it has done more harm than good. In my knowledge of history it has done more harm than good. But still it continues to stress these issues.
The evangelical church has reached the point where it is using sex as the differentiator which marks out Christians from non-Christians. I'm sorry, but I can't find in the Bible the place where it says "And they will know that you are Christians by your self-righteous attitudes to sex". Wasn't there something somewhere about it being our love for others which marked us out?
I fail my Lord in so many ways. I tell lies, I gossip maliciously, I ignore homeless people on the streets, I hold grudges, I purposefully wind up my Mother, I blaspheme. All of these are things which I need the church to challenge me about on a regular basis - and it hardly ever does. However, I have lost count of the times I have been made to feel guilty and dirty about sex, even though I'm not having any.
So, as far as I can see, the church's way of dealing with sex means that it fails to to deal appropriately with other, more important issues - both on a personal level, and on a national level.
So there you go. I am the famous Rachel - "brightest and best of the GLEs", and I'm with Erin on this one. The church should shut up about sex until it has something useful to say, and get on with helping us all become more like Jesus, and with making the world a better place.
All the best,
Rachel.
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy L:
If sex is a basic human need like food, water, shelter, I died awhile back. Must be why people turn up their noses, start sniffing and look disgusted when they meet me. I don't know what to say about the comments on masturbation...I'm blind on that subject.
I'm not sure you could be more patronizing if you tried. This is part of the problem here: what works for you does not necessarily work for everyone else. Just because it's not a need for you, it does not follow that it's not a need for anyone else. You can be totally celibate? Yippee for you. You think you can extrapolate from your experience how everyone else's lives are? Get over yourself. Your life and experiences are not the standard against which the rest of us stand or fall.
quote:
As for feeding the poor...I challenge every crewmember & apprentice to find their local food bank. Every time you shop, get something for the bank (grab some staple that's on sale). When convenient, drop it all off. You might find it feels better than sex.
I do this quite regularly. And no, it does not feel better than sex.
(PS: Thanks, Rachel!)
(And I shall be substituting tequila for rum.)
quote:
. This is part of the problem here: what works for you does not necessarily work for everyone else. Just because it's not a need for you, it does not follow that it's not a need for anyone else. You can be totally celibate? Yippee for you. You think you can extrapolate from your experience how everyone else's lives are? Get over yourself. Your life and experiences are not the standard against which the rest of us stand or fall.
The point people are trying to make, I believe, is if not all humans beings feel that sex is a basic human need like food, water etc, then how can it be, because food, water etc are basic to everyone and people can't choose that they'll do with out - or not for a long period of time - without dying. Sex is not in that category, it is perfectly possible to live to 100 never having had sex and been a balanced and rounded person. I'm not saying that sex isn't important to some people though it isn't too me at all. But you don't die if you don't have sex.
I also find it ironic that we have a rant complaining about the amount of time the Church spends talking about sex, when all but 2 of the main articles on the front page of this magazine are about sex!
It's not (only) the Church which is obsessed by sex, but the media and society as a whole. Just because society has the idea that you have to be having sex to be a full human being doesn't mean that the Church has to go along with this, or change its teaching to suit. Yes, so the Church hasn't always got it right or lived up to its own teaching, but I don't think shutting up entirely is the solution, though there are groups I'd like to see shutting up. But should the fact I disagree with them mean they shouldn't express their views?
So I voted plank (which I've not done before, generally I don't feel strongly enough to vote either way).
Carys
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I also find it ironic that we have a rant complaining about the amount of time the Church spends talking about sex, when all but 2 of the main articles on the front page of this magazine are about sex!
Well, this is the 'sex edition'. It would be a bit weird if it didn't have anything about sex in it.
I don't know. I do find it difficult to see sex as a "need", but it depends upon your definition of need, I suppose.
Not that I'm complaining, you understand.
Huge embarrassment potential factor here. I'm thinking church, job interviews, being on trains, and so on.
quote:
Originally posted by Canucklehead:
Perhaps the reason that the church seems to harbour such an "unhealthy obsession with sex" is because so many of its adherants hold to such unhealthily liberal anything goes views of sex. So it becomes a question of cleaning up your own back yard so that you can reach out to the rest of the world more effectively.I don't necessarily agree that the church does expend too much energy on confronting sexual issues. But even if they did, I would prefer that than to see them sitting back and winking at error rather than opposing it head on.
I don't think many of us "liberals" on this board are advocating an "anything goes" view. However, we don't think that a few one line answers snatced from the Bible are the basis of debate on what to many people is a complex and pesonal issue.
Simply telling people the one way they can behave and then banging them on the head until they do is the basis of much psycological and hence spiritual damage.
Much better to view this issue (as all others) in the light of the 2 commandments Alan C. quite rightly brings us back to above. Unfortunately in many situations this doesn't lead to easy answers. Tough, life certainly isn't easy.
Until the church gets better at engaging people realistically and lovingly on this topic it should pipe down a bit - gallon of Rum to the forthright lady across the pond therefore.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
A couple of you have argued that sex isn't a basic need. For you, perhaps, that is true. But for others of us, it is. For me, I need it physically.
But unlike food, water and shelter, you are not going to DIE without it. That is the difference.
I realise that's pretty much a repeat of what several other people just said!
However, I still believe sex should only come within the confines of a trusting, loving, committed(to some degree) relationship. If all you want is an orgasm, buy a blow-up doll and wait for Britney to come on MTV. (Ladies, maybe Cuba Gooding Jr. will be on Access Hollywood tonight). I mean it. If that's what it takes to relieve yourself, so be it.
In conclusion, I don't remember reading anything in the Bible that forbids premarital sex. But I will say that I have never met a couple that has regretted waiting(I'm sure they're out there, but they are a minority). A close friend is currently struggling to keep his relationship "pure"(don't ask me how lack of penetration does that) and I must say, I admire him greatly. I see his struggles and I believe it is making them stronger as a couple to know that they are not just "in it for the sex"(though they have addressed the issues and made sure they were both... ornery enough to be compatible).
Another tot of rum for Erin.(If we get her drunk maybe she'll sing a bawdy song)
But what I want to ask is how are you supposed to know if you're sexually compatible with someone if you wait until you're married? Who in their right mind would buy a car without a test drive first? It would take alot of compatibility for me to walk down the aisle with anyone in the first place, but to wait to find out something that basic is to my mind just ridiculous and terribly risky.
quote:
I clicked on Erin's link to the Orgasm article and had to quickly minimize before anyone saw the huge title! I also had to suppress my laughter for fear someone would ask what I was laughing about.
wasn't there supposed to be an intermediate link???
*I`ve* certainly never heard the Church condemn spontaneous orgasms.
quote:
Originally posted by The Mid:
The vibe I'm getting is that the people who are for sex are the ones who perhaps understand what they mean a bit more. The impression I'm getting is that those who disagree or think it is bad assume that sex means promiscuity, not simply an expression of love in a monogamous relationship. I apologise if I offend anyone by this, but this is just the impression that I get.
Not offended at all. But I would say that the opposite is the case for me. I have never been promiscuous, always been in a monogamous relationship, that was loving, or that was how I saw it at the time.
Yet I still see how it harmed me.
Ultraspike - sexual compatibility isn't something that is a 'yes/no' answer. you can't divorce the sexual from the rest of you. nor can you expect a 'taster' session to reveal the full depths of something so completely intimate.
If you go in with the 'taster' attitude, then
you're holding something back, and you won't touch that deeper intimacy.
Sex, you can do with out, as has been noted. But love, companionship, trust, understanding. Now those really are basic human needs.
quote:
Originally posted by Manx Taffy:
[QB]I don't think many of us "liberals" on this board are advocating an "anything goes" view. However, we don't think that a few one line answers snatced from the Bible are the basis of debate on what to many people is a complex and pesonal issue.Simply telling people the one way they can behave and then banging them on the head until they do is the basis of much psycological and hence spiritual damage.
QB]
Manx, you quoted my entire post but are you sure you read it?
I didn't do any bible verse snatching - one liner or otherwise. Nor did I tell anyone how to behave. I don't personally care who or what you have sex with.
This thread invited people to vote a tot of rum or a walk the plank based on the rant of the month, and that is all I have done. I don't think I have said anything any more controversial than any other people on this thread, but if I have somehow hurt your feelings here then I appologize.
The more I think about Erin's Rant, the less able I am to decide ... and reading this thread hasn't helped much either!
The problem is, as others have noted, that actually it is two rants:-
1. Leaders and members of the Church have, down the centuries, abused their power. In some (many) cases this has involved sexual abuse on those unable to protest effectively.
2. That same Church has taught that sexual relationships are only acceptable within a formal, publicly acknowledged, relationship.
While both aspects involve sexual relationships, there is no other real connection between the two - except for Erin's lament that church leaders are preaching one thing while doing the other!
In answer to 1. Yes, many church leaders have abused their positions of authority. But are they in the majority - I think not. We hear of a few who abuse children; there may be a few more we do not hear about; but I suspect that the vast majority of church leaders are not abusing children or adults, have never done so and never will. As always, the good done by the majority is ignored, while the crimes of the minority are used to vilify the majority.
So to 2. This actually is a much thornier problem - since it hits each of us at a very deep level. For Christians it is difficult - does what Paul, for example, said 1900 odd years ago in a totally different age really apply to us today? Reading related threads, it is not even clear what he did say - are we sure that we have translated what he wrote accurately?
Let's concentrate on sexual relations - by which I mean to exclude masturbation. When I was a boy in the 50s, I was warned of the 'dangers' of the 'solitary vice of Onanism' (honestly!) but the dangers never materialised! What we do by ourselves with our bodies is, IMHO, up to us - I see no reason why the Church, or anybody else, should presume to comment on the subject - except if we let it rule our lives, as would apply to any sort of addiction. Even then I could be moved to argue that it is still up to the individual.
Sexual relations between two consenting adults is surely governed by the rule Our Lord gave when asked which was the greatest commandment. 'Love God... and love your neighbour as yourself'. I have always understood this to mean that we should not do anything to another person which showed anything but love (agape, not eros!!) to that person. This rules out anything abusive, destructive or just plain nasty.
Too long already - I may pick up some points and expand later if anybody wishes to pursue them.
In the meantime - sorry, Erin, but it's the plank - though you may have a tot of rum to fortify you on your short walk!
Moreover, in the matter of sex, I have been so busy during my life struggling to keep my own nose clean (so to speak)--with mixed success--that I have had precious little time or energy to be bothered about the escapades of others.
The plain truth is, I just don't give a damn about other people's sex lives.
But I do give a damn about people, and I do give a damn about the Church.
It seems to me that there is a glaring red herring in the thesis of the rant. Erin argues that the Church is to blame for sexual abuses among the clergy because of its teachings. She writes:
quote:
[The church has] taken a miracle of God – a beautiful, amazing experience – and turned it into something dirty, shameful and completely away from its original purpose. In the church's hands, sex is no longer an expression of love. It is a means of control.
Well, yes and no. Clearly, abuses through the ages have impeached the Church's authority to speak unhypocritically about such matters. Nevertheless, for every wounded soul harmed by such abuse, I daresay there is at least one person untouched by such trouble.
And I hardly need point out that, through the ages, human institutions do not necessarily rise or fall on the behavior of their members. If that should be the case, then God help the United States Congress or Presidency. It's easy to be a donatist when talking politics. Harder when it's the church.
Moreover, I suspect that, through the ages, countless people have been able to live holy and sanctified lives as a direct result of the Church's teachings. The sword of control cuts both ways, after all. The Church has curbed a lot of depravity over the years and made saints of many men and women.
I count myself as one person whose life has been made better and more holy because of the teachings of the Church.
But back to my argument. Simply put, I do not believe the the Church is in the business of social control though, God help us all, religion has been used as such as long as there have been people who disapprove of the behavior of their neighbors.
The Church is in the business of helping people love God. Period.
Note that I make an implicit distinction here between the church as a human institution with all the foibles that entails and the Church as the visible presence of Jesus Christ on the earth. And before anybody hop on the logical disjuncture here, I hasten to add that, yes, I realize the two are hopelessly intertwined and thus inseparable.
On to other things. Erin, in a startlingly candid comment, reveals that, for her, sex is just as necessary as food, water, air, etc. And she uses this argument to bolster her thesis that the church shouldn't be in the business of prescribing/proscribing human behavior.
Dangerous ground here! How many times have I read posts by her in which she advises a person to "get over yourself."
Erin's needs are really not persuasive to this argument. I freely admit that, similar to her language on this thread that I, too, have thought that several women's behavior would be vastly improved if they "got laid." But really, now!
Laying aside, for a moment, all the Christian "trappings," most of us have at one time or another found ourselves in a relationship based on "meeting the needs" of either or both partners. And, I daresay, most of us have scars from the experience.
To quote St. Paul, "Ye did not so learn Christ."
The issue is not how I or Erin or anybody else can get our needs met--whether that need be sexual, or monetary, or--whatever.
I don't see in Jesus a pattern of trying to get His needs met. Au contraire! And since the object of the Church is to enjoin Her members to imitate Christ, then I'm not surprised that there's not much evidence that God gives a rat's ass if Erin or me or anybody else has an orgasm--even if doing so would make her or me behave in a more Christian fashion. (As a teenager, I even believed that such behavior would clear up my complexion, but that's tangential.)
I've maundered on too long, probably. Back to my original statement. Working, as I do, on the thesis that social matters are driven or controlled, not by the Church or the church, but by the society at large, I expect that, in a generation or two, people are going to be doing things among themselves that would make the most liberal among us blush.
And there will be some soreheads out there railing against it.
Ultimately, though, the Church and her people will be well advised to use the Gospel yardstick in evaluating/judging them: are the things you are doing agencies/sacraments that encourage or aid you in your quest to love God with all your heart and mind and body?
If the answer is "yes," then who cares if it scares the horses? Damn beasts. They've been extinct for ages.
Sorry, Erin. To the plank with you.
tomb
As for my remarks on the food bank...you're probably right about sex feeling better, it's just that this is an experiment I've just started so "the high" is still there. I just wanted to highlight the "outward" things I think we Christians should be doing opposed to the "inward." Again, not appropriate to this this discussion, and I apologize.
Actually, I give you the tot of rum just for bringing up the subject...again, sorry!
Sex is good, maybe in some sense a need. I wrote "I don't know what to say on the comments on masturbation...I'm blind on that subject." I hate explaining humour, but if any of you don't "get it" find some fella of my generation to explain the link between "masturbation" and "blindness."
We certainly need sex to continue the species! Atticus said I was dead because my genes will not be passed on...given what Atticus knows about me this could be a very valid point. As it happens, I have an 11 year old daughter and a 10 year old son, so God willing, me and all my obnoxious forebears will live on in them.
quote:
Originally posted by the Angel of the North:
Sex, you can do with out, as has been noted. But love, companionship, trust, understanding. Now those really are basic human needs.
For me, sex is simply taking these things to a higher level, an expression of love, trust, companionship, etc.
quote:
I`ve* certainly never heard the Church condemn spontaneous orgasms.
Hmm. No. I've never heard it discussed. But the impression I got is that orgasm is as bad as having sex, whether or not it is spontaneous or manufactured. The church has been infected since its inception with a Hellenistic attitude, a dualism of body and soul. This is at the root of the sex issue: the body is gross, decaying, defiled, bad, evil etc; the soul/spirit is eternal, transcendent etc, and becoming spiritual people oblivious of our bodies and their needs is what life and the Christian walk are all about (subduing the body).
Not that I agree of course. Sometimes the only way to be rid of tension in the body is masturbation to orgasm... Has nothing whatever to do with Lust (where its sinfulness presumably comes in).
quote:
Originally posted by Canucklehead:
Manx, you quoted my entire post but are you sure you read it?I didn't do any bible verse snatching - one liner or otherwise. Nor did I tell anyone how to behave. I don't personally care who or what you have sex with.
This thread invited people to vote a tot of rum or a walk the plank based on the rant of the month, and that is all I have done. I don't think I have said anything any more controversial than any other people on this thread, but if I have somehow hurt your feelings here then I appologize.
Canucklehead - you didn't hurt my feelings its just that 2 points in your post express views which I strongly oppose. Namely that holding a more liberal view of not believing that the only valuable relations possible in all circumstances are within a hetrosexual marraige does not mean that we believe anything goes. I do not believe that, but nor do I believe there is a fixed set of rules that can be applied to all people in all circumstances and therefore did not agree that we can correct "error" by taking a purely legalistic approach. Your "error" might be someone elses loving strengthening relationship.
As a married man for 19 years who has manged to stay faithful (just) these issues do not affect my habits personally - though as I have daughters approaching their teens it may soon! But I do think it is an important issue that so alienates the church from huge numbers of ordinary people who view the church as holding a puritanical and judgemental view on this topic. This prevents them from even exploring the value of Christianity any further - hence my concern.
I do however apologise for associating your view with a bible verse quoting, simplistic condemnation of more tolerent views expressed by other people elsewhere. Sorry for making that unfair connection.
One could just as well use church writings regarding social justice (which are far more numerous, though less publicised) to say that the Church hates anyone's having any wealth.
I found the rant to be very poorly written - no logical progression, the connection of unrelated issues with various dimensions, no development of a thesis argument in any reasoned fashion. The entire effect was "I am angry, and therefore shall use whatever illogical and distored connections I can." It was neither thought provoking nor humorous - the Ship can do far better than this.
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
- Failure to distinguish between the message (the Bible) and the messenger (the Church).
But, the New Testament was written by the Church (albeit in embryonic form)! And the Old Testament arose out of God's People. Church and Bible go together, and whilst I would want to (ultimately) take a cautiously progressive line on sexuality, it is not as simple as "evil Church has distorted pure biblical message".
In any case, I was under the impression that the message was Jesus rather than the Bible. The Incarnate Word rather than the written word...
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Besides, if I weren't having regular, frequent orgasms I pretty much guarantee that my inbox would be flooded with e-mails along the lines of "you know, we thought you were a bitch before, but please, Erin, GET LAID".
quote:
...I think the church, in it's teachings, has has much less an obsession with sex as with many other things - to the detriment of all. It has not, in general, been able or prepared to provide teaching on sexual matters, because we have been scared of them.
quote:
Excuse me? What's this 'poor little me, I can't be half-civil unless I get my orgasms'? What happened to the fruit of the Spirit - love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, self-control (especially the last two)? Are we now saying the exercise of these is entirely dependent on how often we get laid?
Had you bothered to read my other posts in the thread, you would have known that I sometimes don't have a choice in the matter. If I don't make something happen, my body makes it happen anyway, and yes, my attitude is inherently different if I do not have that physical release. Just the same way I am not able to be patient, kind, blah blah frickin' blah if I have a migraine.
I really don't know why you people have such a hard time grasping this.
however, a serious disagreement:
sex and orgasim are not mutually exchangable words.
plenty of people, usually women, but men to, have sex without orgasims.
plenty of people have orgasims without sex. either by masturbation, or by the spontanious physiological response mentioned above.
its much nicer when the orgasim comes (pardon the pun) with the sex. sex without orgasim is pretty blah, and masturbation gets lonely.
but its not required.
so, just because you need an orgasim frequently, just because you orgasim easily and spontaniously, does not mean you need sex. in fact, it sort of proves the oposite.
1. The church has never, in my experience, differentiated between sexual activity and orgasm.
2. My rant isn't about sex, it's about the church shutting up about sex. Given point one, they clearly do not have a clue.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
The link itself wasn't explicit, chukovsky, it just said "orgasm" in big letters.
Possibly then the bit about "another link before something explicit" could be clarified. For many people's work-places, ORGASM in large letters would be too explicit. You may mean explicit pictures only need to be double-linked - fine, but people may need warning that explicit wording may not be double-linked.
Angel
If you're worried about people reading things on your monitor at work, read them when others are not around. 9Yes, I am ignoring the double standard which forces everyone else to work but lets shipmates visit the ship )
quote:
4. You may link to explicit material as long as it is relevant and adds to the conversation. However, it must be two clicks away from the bulletin boards. Meaning, you must link to another site which links to the one you're talking about. A lot of people read the boards from work or public libraries or colleges, and as such can get into trouble for looking at inappropriate material.
This does sound like the point is to prevent inadvertent click-throughs to explicit material - and that link was definitely explicit. If we are all sensible enough not to click on anything that might get us into trouble, we don't need the double-link rule.
If there is, as Erin suggests, a risk of people getting in trouble for clicking directly onto explicit material either the above caveat should specify what type of explicit material (writing is OK, but pictures should be double-linked, for example). Or explicit writing should also be double-linked - if explicit writing might trigger net-nanny type programs.
Right, back to the subject.
I agree that the church shouldn't keep quiet about sex, but neither should it be condemnatory. A few months ago I had to preach on the passage telling us that remarriage after divorce was effectively committing adultery. This was difficult for me and I was aware that as an unmarried man I was walking on eggshells.
The church I attend takes a fairy liberal line on this sort of thing for various reasons. First of all, we are of the catholic wing of the Church of England which it would be fair to say attracts more members of the gay community than any other Christiab tradition and we have a number of members who are gay. In fact, it's not been unknown (shock horror) for a gay priest to preside at the Mass.
A lot of this also has to do with our location. Part of the parish consists of a large run down council estate. Quite a lot of our congregation are single parents. It would be easy to say that it was their own fault for getting themselves into that situation, but that's not what they need to har as they're probably well aware of that already. So no, we don't condemn people for having children out of wedlock. Instead we offer them support.
So it's rum for Erin on this one.
Erin, you can rant all you want about the church "not getting it", but the truth is that the church has a moral obligation to teach biblical moral values, even if you blithely dismiss them, and the bible does have clear teachings about the proper place of sex. These teachings are not intended to make sex "dirty", but rather to prevent sex from being tainted by our animal lusts. I know what you said about "because the Bible says so" arguments, but if one does not accept the Bible's moral teachings, then how can one accept the Bible's teachings on other matters, like salvation?
As for the argument that sex is a basic need, I think Paul addressed that one quite effectively:
"Everything is permissible
for me"--but not everything
is beneficial. "Everything
is permissible for me"--but
I will not be mastered by
anything. "Food for the
stomach and the stomach for
food"--but God will destroy
them both. The body is not
meant for sexual immorality,
but for the Lord, and the Lord
for the body.
- 1 Corinthians 6:12-13
Bottom line: There ARE standards of morality, including sexual morality, and the church has a duty to teach these standards. The facts that some leaders of the church have not lived by these standards and that some leaders of the church have over-emphasized the topic of sex do not change the text of the Bible.
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
This does sound like the point is to prevent inadvertent click-throughs to explicit material - and that link was definitely explicit.
I didn't think that site was explicit. When I read the click rule, I thought about "adult" stuff, closer to porn.
I take the point though, about work computers having to be treated differently from home computers.
Regarding differentiating between home and work PCs... yes, that's true, but that's up to the individual. For instance, neither my boss, nor her boss, nor his boss would actually give a shit if they walked by my PC and saw "tits and testicles" or "orgasm" in blinking, size 48 font. You know what you're allowed to read and what you're not. And if the word "orgasm" is one of those things you're not allowed to read at work, you shouldn't be reading this board at work, either.
if sex is as basic a need as food and shelter, and someone isn't getting enough, or any at all... how far are they justified in going to get some? if someone is in a marriage where for whatever reason theres sexual problems leading to one partner being deprived, is adultery justified?
LOLOL Did you mean FAIRLY?
[B]These teachings are not intended to make sex "dirty", but rather to prevent sex from being tainted by our animal lusts. [/B}
Dear God... isn't that the whole point of what Erin is saying?
Our 'ANIMAL LUSTS' are exactly what sex IS about. How can passion and emotion TAINT an expression of love?
No, this isn't good enough. I take your point, all of you who uphold Biblical teachings as taught by the church... But I don't agree with you. Because I have been there and been horribly damaged by the low view of sex taught by my church. I made choices which were ill-informed and frankly stupid. I denied myself love because I thought the animal passions I felt meant that it was a sinful relationship ()and no, we never had sex) - and chose to live in a chaste and lonely marriage for many years.
Erin - you've had enough rum. A magnum of champagne is on its way over. I'm with you.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
1. The church has never, in my experience, differentiated between sexual activity and orgasm.
Anyway I'm now even MORE confused about your beliefs re orgasms or avoidance thereof..
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
getting this back to the rant for a moment, a query:if sex is as basic a need as food and shelter, and someone isn't getting enough, or any at all... how far are they justified in going to get some? if someone is in a marriage where for whatever reason theres sexual problems leading to one partner being deprived, is adultery justified?
That is entirely up to the individuals in the marriage. I will not marry again, as I know now that I could not stand up there and make that vow. At the same time, though, when my ex and I were in a particularly rough patch, he cheated and I was not upset about the act itself.
I've known people who are otherwise compatible in every way, but simply cannot cross the sexual divide. Is it better for them to divorce? Is it better for them to seek that one piece outside of the relationship if everything else is working? Would I have a better marriage if my (theoretical, I am not doing that again) husband and I had fantastic, mind-blowing sex twice a day, but shared nothing else? Which is the true marriage?
In my opinion, it'd be the first one.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Had you bothered to read my other posts in the thread, you would have known that I sometimes don't have a choice in the matter. If I don't make something happen, my body makes it happen anyway, and yes, my attitude is inherently different if I do not have that physical release. Just the same way I am not able to be patient, kind, blah blah frickin' blah if I have a migraine.I really don't know why you people have such a hard time grasping this.
Erin, I did read your other posts, and the link. I still have a problem though. Point one: we all know that body and mind are inextricably linked - which is why you (and I) find it hard to be civil when we have a migraine. But the link goes two ways: what occupies your mind will affect your body. Which way is the influence going for you?
Point two: Subject to point one, I have no problem with you having spontaneous orgasms (I simply question whether their origin is entirely physical and unalterable). What I do have a problem with is your implication that your behaviour is dependent on whether or not you 'get' them. I also detect an undertone saying something like: 'I am a polymorphous, multi-orgasmic bisexual, therefore I have the right to get my self-proclaimed "needs" met through another person of whatever sex regardless of the quality of relationship or degree of commitment.'
Forgive me if I exaggerate. It's just what I'm reading between the lines.
On the main point of the rant, I agree the church has talked too much about sex to the detriment of other important subjects. What I disagree with is that we should therefore shut up about sex. I think rather we should start to talk about the other subjects too. SoF is a case in point. We have 'the sex edition' - when are we going to get 'the money edition', 'the power edition', ' the justice edition', 'the peace edition'?
quote:
Originally posted by Gill:
[QB]
I denied myself love because I thought the animal passions I felt meant that it was a sinful relationship ()and no, we never had sex) - and chose to live in a chaste and lonely marriage for many years.
Gill, I feel for you, especially as your past situation is similar to my present one. And I too dislike the 'animal lusts' expression (a very male viewpoint I thought). But one thing I quarrel with. What you lived in was not a 'chaste' marriage - it sounds like it was a celibate one. A major error in church tradition is to confuse chastity with celibacy. A chaste marriage is one in which sex plays its God-given role of uniting the partners (17th century divine Jeremy Taylor put it nicely as 'endearing the couple to each other and lightening of domestic cares') and in which they are sexually faithful. Chastity is not absence of sex, it is sex in its appropriate setting (and I don't mean just the bedroom).
Sorry for posting twice but I only read Gill after replying to Erin.
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
I also detect an undertone saying something like: 'I am a polymorphous, multi-orgasmic bisexual, therefore I have the right to get my self-proclaimed "needs" met through another person of whatever sex regardless of the quality of relationship or degree of commitment.'
Forgive me if I exaggerate. It's just what I'm reading between the lines.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to which language "the church needs to shut up about sex" translates to what you said above. It surely isn't any language I speak.
rum.
quote:
Originally posted by Gill:
Sadly, I've heard it mooted.Anyway I'm now even MORE confused about your beliefs re orgasms or avoidance thereof..
Well, notice I say deliberate stimulation to orgasm.
(I suppose technically my jury is out regarding how much of our will is involved in dreams, erotic or otherwise.)
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
We have 'the sex edition' - when are we going to get 'the money edition', 'the power edition', ' the justice edition', 'the peace edition'?
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
the 'animal lusts' expression (a very male viewpoint I thought
As i and i seems to be saying (just in case I sunmmarize you wrongly!) there is simply no way to find middle ground. When I was a card-carrying evangelical, that was fine. Because there WAS no middle ground.
However, to my first, shock and then surprise, I have discovered lots of Christians who can argue for sex not being the black and white issue I was first taught. For heaven's sake, you can't argue chastitiy in marriage from a lot of out OT heroes/heroines... and God is unchanging, no? See how easy it is!
Another thing - and this has disturbed me for YEARS because I've seen it so often...
What the HELL are we saying to older people who've had lots of wonderful sex who feel a call to God but are doomed, logically, to remain secpnd-class christians?
Sorry, it SIMPLY WON'T DO to be simplistic.
Freudian slip!
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw:[QUOTE][QB]
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
- Failure to distinguish between the message (the Bible) and the messenger (the Church).
But, the New Testament was written by the Church (albeit in embryonic form)! And the Old Testament arose out of God's People. Church and Bible go together, and whilst I would want to (ultimately) take a cautiously progressive line on sexuality, it is not as simple as "evil Church has distorted pure biblical message".
[/QB][/QUOTE]
The members of the Church who preach from the Bible today, however, are not the same people who wrote the Bible, and it is true that many of the current members of the Church mangle the messages from the Scriptures, and not just on the topic of sex. "evil Church has distorted pure biblical message" is simplistic; "current Church distorted meaning of biblical message" is not.
quote:
In any case, I was under the impression that the message was Jesus rather than the Bible. The Incarnate Word rather than the written word...
The written word, though, is what we have to work with. It is what reports to us what Jesus said and did. In short, the written word is a record of the Incarnate Word, and cannot be dismissed simply on the grounds that it isn't the Incarnate Word itself.
quote:
Erin - you've had enough rum. A magnum of champagne is on its way over. I'm with you
Make that a Nebuchadnezzar. Just to keep all this Biblical!
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
I also disagree that 'the church' whom you accuse doesn't include yourself. You are a member of the church - if you don't like it, change it (not always easy, but should be possible for an assertive person like yourself...)
If only Erin had the time and inclination to be community editor for an international website that is devoted to christian unrest and tackling such issues.
Oh hang on ...
Gill, I don't understand what you are saying about treating 'older people who've had lots of wonderful sex' as second class citizens in the church. I have never encountered this. How much older? Are you talking about mature converts who have had a sexually active lifestyle but are not in a partnership? Or the divorced? Or is this something that occurs in a Catholic context? (don't know what brand of Christian you are). Please elucidate. As an older (one year to Saga motor insurance) person who hasn't had lots of wonderful sex, I'd like to understand.
Just logically, if we are saying that people are second class once they have had more than one sexual relationship, then we are condemnig lots of people yet to be converted... or won't it count cos they weren't Christians?
Sheesh.
I have only slept/made love with one guy ever. Is it so terrible to want to try it with someone who likes women?!?!
Back to what I remember as the main piont of Erin's Rant, which was that the Church has done a pretty poor job talking about sex and maybe it should just shut up for a while. (I'm sure I will be corrected by Erin and/or everybody else if my memory has distorted what she said. 
)
Based on that understanding, I vote her the tot of rum. Whether the Bible is clear or not is irrelevant; whether we as individuals choose to follow the teachings of the Bible or the Church is irrelevant. The point is that the Church has treated sex as a black and white issue and has over-emphasized it and generally made a hash of it. Which is why we are ALL so eager to argue about it!
I know lots of churches that preach all sorts of specific and often restrictive things about how I should conduct my sex life, and they follow through with a vengeance. On the other hand, they also preach about loving one's neighbor, the virtues of poverty, proper stewardship of our 'dominion over the earth', etc., but somehow I never hear a thunderous statement from the pulpit that "YOU! Yes, you! You know who you are! You had better quit your job, sell your possessions, and devote yourself to caring for the poor in the slums. I don't care if it's difficult and will cause pain to your loved ones. That comfortable home and well-paid job are EVIL in the eyes of the Lord..." I think you get my point.
When the church can get sex back in perspective as just one of the infinite multitude of ways we sin, then they can start talking about it again.
What I would like, and I have a vested interest, is for the Church to get off the fence and take a lead on the issue of those of us who are, er, chromosomally- and hormonally-challenged and therefore not permitted under English law to marry. (Here I confess, I was born XXY, had the op two and a half years ago).
If sex is only to be permitted within marriage, then does this mean we are called to celibacy? And if I am called to celibacy, why did God make me so frisky? I feel that this is the reductio ad absurdam that shows the Church's dogma on sex to be the muddle it is.
A couple of years ago, I wrote to the leaders of a number of Christian and other faith groups, asking if they recognised that marriage could exist in the eyes of God, even if not within the eyes of the State, and whether they would be prepared to perform a spiritual marriage ceremony where one of the partners was in a similar position to myself. The answers, or lack of them, were interesting.
The Methodists were deeply sympathetic.
The Quakers sidestepped the issue and said it was up to the prayerful consideration of individual Monthly Meetings (this is a characteristic Quaker response!)
Both the Church of Scotland and the Episcopalian Church of Scotland replied saying they were sympathetic in principle but feared that deeply entrenched conservatism within their numbers would oppose the idea.
The Liberal & Progressive Synagogues offered to bring my letter to the attention of the Rabbinical Council.
Someone on behalf of the Bishop of Bristol said that the matter would be considered. As far as I know it is still being considered.
Someone on behalf of the (RC) Bishop of Clifton said the Bishop was indisposed and I would hear from him in due course (I never did).
Nothing from Lambeth Palace, The Archbish of Westminster, the URC, the Orthodox or Reformed Synagogues, or any of the Islamic groups.
So, am I damned whatever I do, or what?
The result can be to force people onto a Procrustean bed, where they're supposed to chop off bits of themselves to suit theories developed on the basis of a dodgy knowledge of human biology, psychology and sexuality, 2000 odd years ago.The resuls can be very cruel.
It comes from trying to make people fit a dogma rather than looking at the underlying principle of love and justice for others and saying how can we apply this to give the most just and loving outcome?
Louise
The church, by it's puritanical attitudes has contributed to making sex feel naughty. The kinkier the naughtier. Sex's naughtiness is for many one of the most enjoyable aspects. What a shame if the church were to shut up now, depriving us of that forbidden fruit we all crave (and in our souls know is good for us).
Seriously though, sex has historically become taboo in so many faiths and cultures because it so often led to unwanted, unsupported children. The rules surrounding sex in most faiths worldwide derived from this fact. Had modern contraception been available, perhaps such strict rules would never have evolved. Certainly the perceived magnitude of offenses would never have risen to their current level: we would not have the hangups we now, as a world, seem to have.
What the church should be saying is that a liberal attitude to sex is fine, but whatever you are involved in , be it sex, power or money, think of others first and be sure your actions do not hurt other people.
Sex is dangerous stuff. A single act of unfaithfulness can wreck a relationship. Where children are involved then it can wreck their lives too. Handle with care and love.
Erin, I liked your rant even though I didn't agree that the church should shut up. I would rather it modifed what it most often seems to be saying. I agree with others that, for many, the act of sex is not a need. However for some (especially men) it is impossible to go through five minuites without thinking about it.
Sorry Erin but there's just too much of the smell of Hollywood, Playboy/girl, tabloid journalism, Rousseau's noble savage running innocent and naked through the forest, and first year university student historical revisionism in your rant. The church is too easy a target on this subject in our smarmy, western, post-Christian culture.
And beginning any statement with "the church is too..." or "the church spends too much time and energy ..." is a bit like saying "the world is too..." I can't say whether I agree or not. The statement is simply meaningless, even allowing for its 'rant' context.
Below is a bit of something I put on another thread trying to focus on the many positives in Christian and church teaching on sexuality (Yes, I accept it is a bit arrogant to quote yourself. But I say, the church for too long has forced us to be humble!! Let me be an arrogant prick if I like. Its my calling ..... [sorry Erin - couldn't help that bit of sarcastic diarrhoea - forgive me]):
"I must say, as a new shipmate, I was relieved to see this particular thread! I was getting a bit sick of some of the lengthy diatribes, astonishingly naive and seemingly Hollywood-inspired generalisations about nasty old church teaching interfering with our beautiful, pure sexual desires. ....
And we have to ask from what standpoint do we look down and cast judgment on the history of Christian sexual ethics? Who gave us our moral high horse and how sturdy is it?
Shall we talk seriously for a moment about sexuality in pre-Christian Europe? Shall we go into the realities of temple prostitution, castration, female circumcision, wife and concubine swapping, male chauvenism and child sexual exploitation in various cultures? (Of course those things aren't absent where Christianity has had an impact, but let's focus on church teaching and the big picture) Let's ask a few questions about the very origins of our moral judgments on child sexual exploitation, mutilation, prostitution etc. Where did we get the language and moral categories which enable us to even talk about consensuality and abuse in sexual (and other) relations? The church's record on sexuality is pretty awful but let's do a bit of an honest historical comparison. A sort of before and after shot might be enlightening. Many of the perspectives on other threads in the discussion so far might also benefit from some non-western perspectives. [I'm reminded of the good bishop Spong's enlightened and helpful response to our African sisters and brothers who took a "traditional" stand on homosexuality. "Neanderthals", was it??]
There are many, many churches and para church organisations which have promoted a healthy sexuality. Many theologians, male and female have taught and continue to teach that sexuality was created good, was frustrated and subjected to futility (to use St Paul's phrase) like every other created reality, but has been redeemed by Christ through the cross and resurrection. The thrust of biblical teaching on sexuality, as with so many subjects, is teleological and eschatological. God discloses his design for the amazing things he creates, that design has been frustrated in the fall, but has been redeemed, re-made and renewed through Christ.
Can I recommend a little gem of a book by Marva Dawn, published by Eerdmans, entitled "Sexual Character: Beyond Technique to Intimacy". She writes as a wheelchair bound person with several debilitating illnesses, and has some fascinating things to say about how our sex-obsessed culture has elevated sexual fulfillment to the level of a fundamental human right. She makes a rather cumbersome but helpful distinction between genital and non genital sexuality and expression and questions the idolatry of the former at the expense of the latter. She has some amazing, clear headed reflections on sexuality and friendship, homosexuality, masturbation, marriage etc. She is deeply influenced by Jacques Ellul and Stanley Hauerwas, both of whom are also strongly recommended on this subject. Theirs is often a virtue based approached, placing sexuality in the context of cultivation of Christian character within the unique communal and political bonds of the church."
Also, what's all this crap about the church not being allowed in the bedroom? Hasn't feminism and good ol' Karl of the Marx brothers reminded of the biblical vision that the personal is political and the "private" is public! Christian faith makes public claims about the real world. Its not the boy scouts. Just when Ananias thought his money and his little white lies were his own private business, a little public reminder was dished out about whose world and whose church this is.
As a wicked, carnal male, whose mind is prone to think about sex with people other than my wife about once every 6 minutes (or so the Freudians tell me, bless 'em), I'm glad I belong to a group of Christians to whom I regularly have to confess my failings and weaknesses. I'd have cheated on my wife too many times to mention without that external, public check (the still, small voice is either too easy to ignore, or its my own perfect HS impersonation). Let's recover a robust vision of ecclesial accountability and love. I am not made "free to be me", but freed from me to be a slave of Christ. The church is 'polis', and my pecker is not my own (thank Christ)!
So, if I can summarise that, how can we say anything intelligible about the nasty old repressive bad smelly mean church's teaching on sex (or anything else) unless we have a bit of a clue as to where we are in relation to what we are questioning. Whose high horse are you riding Erin? From the steamy windows of whose bandwagon do you peep? Answer that for me and we might know where to go next.
And please don't say you refuse to answer that question as well...
But hey, live in your fantasyland. It obviously works for you.
Oh, and I wouldn't be too proud of the fact that the only thing that keeps your pants zipped is the church, rather than a sense of commitment to your wife.
[ 21 March 2002: Message edited by: Erin ]
But the response about "commitment to your wife" is just as sanctimonious. Commitment is always communally grounded. Fidelity is only possible because of my wider belonging and commitments, not because of my mythical romantic heroism. I think there are some real issues about selling out to mostly pagan romantic individualistic notions of commitment and "love" in all of this.
I have been stimulated by Stanley Hauerwas like no other theologian, particularly his view of the primacy of the church to our identity, including our sexual identity and expression. And just how offensive that is to our western individualistic sense of our own moral identity.
So yes the church has stuffed this issue up, but so has everyone else. But the church shouldn't shut up because at its best it provides a context and language to make sexuality intelligible.
Hostly note/
It seems time for a small hostly reminder, especially to those who are completely new to the Ship, that before posting you should have read in their entirety and understood not only the Guidelines for this board (especially the bit about respect for others) but also the Ten Commandments for all boards on the Ship, which also apply here.
If you are posting on this board and have not already read both these documents, please do so now, before posting anything else.
In particular, I’d like to draw people’s attention to Commandment 3- "attack the issue and not the person" which also states
"extreme or insensitive attacks on the beliefs or lifestyle choices of other shipmates are not tolerated."
Louise
TnT Host
Host note off/
[tidied up]
[ 21 March 2002: Message edited by: Louise ]
And as long as the church keeps bleating the same old tired dogma, I am not interested in what it has to say.
On the flip side, to paraphrase Lewis, even if I disagree with Erin's frustration with the basic dogma, the fact of her frustration (and that of many others) is something to which we should give due weight. I don't think the basic doctrines should be changed at all -- but the method of expression, some of the assumed logical conclusions (which I think are not warranted) of the doctrines, and the mealy-mouthed unwillingness of the "religious" writers/publishing companies/etc. to be blunt or straightforward about sexual matters (thus leaving any frankness wholly up to non-Christians) -- desperately need changing.
So... I still think a tot of rum, not at all because I don't believe in those old teachings, but because I think they need to be expressed better than they have been in recent times.
I am sorry for overdoing the sarcasm (my wife actually agrees with your last comment Erin, and now I'm in trouble coz she read it ). I stretched the "devil's advocate" thing a bit far, but crikey, there's been too many tots of rum. Its all become a bit too self congratulatory. I still maintain its too easy a criticism to make in our cultural context, and the response to my argument is just a perfect illustration of it.
I'd still like an answer Erin if you are still talking to me. From what perspective do you judge the church on this issue? What tacit assumptions lie behind the conversation-stopping accusations of "sanctimonious" and loaded phrases like "tired old dogma". Until we get that far, aren't we just throwing around cliches?
Of course that opens up the wider issues I raised regarding the genealogy of our conceptual and linguistic tools for understanding sexuality. All ethical positions, including your stance Erin, require unpacking. Why should "tired old dogma" be under any greater scrutiny than the "freedom/fulfillment/need/basic human right" way of framing the issue.
I'd like you to unpack your stance for us, or at least be a bit more open to others trying to have a go.
Respectfully and obediently yours (although I can't see the consistency of needing strict rules for something like a bulletin board, whilst wanting a free for fall for something as breathtaking and dangerous as sex. But answering my question was the important thing)
quote:
Now I'm wondering about whether or not I should change my vote; because I believe that "tired old dogma"
It seems to me that the moment we go down the road of "this action is right and that action is wrong", we (the church) cause those who do not fit our categories, and yet love and care in exactly the way God wants, to suffer feelings of exclusion and unnecessary guilt.
For me the basic doctrine, in this case, is to love one another. To cause another person to feel guilt and exclusion, because for example, they are homosexual or because they have a sexual relationship outside of marriage, runs counter to that basic doctrine.
And that is just it. They use the same words, but those words and concepts mean different things because they speak from outside the Christian tradition and from within a different tradition of rationality.
So why do we assume that assertions of right and wrong, or better and worse, in expressions of sexuality, somehow run contrary to "love" and "justice". Is it that we have bought into a flabby, nebulous understanding of love that is alien to our faith? As Christians we have enormously rich traditions of theological and biblical reflection which make "love", including sexual love, intelligible for us (and maybe intelligible for others who might be interested). That tradition includes guidelines as to what is and is not God's design for sex.
Its only possible to critique that tradition of thought and teaching either from within the tradition (by arguing for example that our interpretation of Scripture is gnostic or rationalistic, and trying to reclaim certain biblical emphases or teachings), or from outside the tradition (for example, if we say that "love" is inconsistent with there being rules about sex). We need to be clear about whether we are criticising church teaching from within or without.
If from without, we then need to be clear about what tradition we have (perhaps uncritically and tacitly) adopted to make that criticism. We don't make criticisms from nowhere. There is no such thing as a neutral platform (including the platform from which I make that very statement).
If we are buying into ways of understanding sex and our moral identity, for example, from an Enlightenment-based, rationalistic or romanticist perspective (available at every newstand and on every soap opera in the western world), we should be unsurprised when the church fails to drop to its knees in repentence at our shrine.
If we don't like Christian or biblical teaching on sexuality, honesty requires that we either critique it from within, or accept we are evangelists for a different tradition. Likewise the church is only faithful when speaking about sex from within the church's tradition (but ensuring the tradition itself is constantly self critical, by calling itself back to biblical teaching). In the process, a robust conversation between our faith and other traditions will develop. Inevitably, there will be cross fertilisation of ideas, which help the various participants better understand their own tradition. There'll also inevitably be some blurring around the edges. That process means not only can we NOT shut up about sex, but we ought to talk a lot more about it (within the tradition) because we're still pretty confused.
And I think I've just described the evolution of the church's (and its rivals') teaching on sexuality. That evolution will only continue if we keep talking about it.
So I would argue that too much is at stake if we DON'T keep talking about sexuality at least as much as rival traditions talk about it. We definitely will need (and have had) the odd reformation here or there, but the teaching is not going to get better unless we keep talking about it self critically from within the tradition, rather than uncritically swallowing what rival traditions tell us. If we shut up we're at risk of doing precisely that.
The church's job with sexuality is to gently bear witness to and serve the world in the Spirit of Christ by its teaching, caring, suffering with others, healing and its unique common life (which involves rules about sexual conduct). Its job is not to seek to rule or impose its rules on the world. Historically that is the problem. The Constantinian impulse to control the world in sexuality as with every other issue is ever present.
I really do promise I'll be shorter next time.
Musta
Attempting to liken the arguments of Shipmates to those of paedophiles is NOT acceptable on this board or on any other board of the Ship.
Nowhere has any Shipmate argued that 'love' excuses statutory rape. Until or unless they do, by implying that their arguments do so you are making a grave and unjustified personal attack on other shipmates.
I realise you are new and will be unaware that this sort of argument has been debated before and is not an acceptable debating technique round here. But that's the way it is.
You need to withdraw those remarks and apologise at once if you want to keep posting on this board.
Louise
host mode off
quote:
Everything you just said, and most of what Erin has said on the subject so far, is wholeheartedly endorsed by the North American Man-Boy Lovers Association (NAMBLA).
I suppose it had to happen sooner or later. Consider this my version of Godwin's Law: whoever brings pedophilia/bestiality/necrophilia into a discussion about sexuality loses the argument. Some day, Erin's Law will be as widely invoked as Godwin's Law. I will be famous.
The thing is, though, I'm not sure what you're referring to. My only outright demand is that the church shut the hell up for five f'ing minutes. You've drawn some really half-assed assumptions from other people's half-assed interpretations of my position here. (Would that make your assumptions quarter-assed?)
I was prepared to answer your questions, until you equated me with a pedophile. But now it's off to Coventry with you.
The trouble is that if the church says, for example, 'It is wrong to have sexual intercourse outside of marriage'. That will alienate those people who find no problem with a sexual relationship outside of marriage.
In the days when such a relationship had a good chance of leading to unwanted children, the church could back up it's stance saying that this is unfair and therefore unloving to the unborn child, since the relationship could easily break down. To have some moral highground now the church has to use different arguments to back up it's stance. Just saying 'because it says so in the Bible' isn't any good to anyone.
I agree that the church should not shut up. It just needs to be a whole lot more honest and say that the moral answer varies from case to case, and that the people in the best position to decide what is morally right are the individuals themselves. It needs to provide a perspective against which individuals can best make those personal descisions.
I am truly sorry that my comments caused offense and were misunderstood. But I don't retract what was said. If anything, the misinterpretation and censure is pretty uncharitable.
I won't say anymore on this thread until my questions are answered.
Bonzo, I like your style, even though I respectfully disagree and would like to continue the conversation later.
You get my drift.
The cogently argued stuff, yes fine. I accept a lot of what you say - so... what AM I then?
a) A failed or failing Christian?
b) An excuse for a Christian?
c) Something else altogether?
I'm not IN another relationship. I may never be. But I can't rule it out. I know clergy who uphold this who slept with either their wives or (shock horror!) OTHERS before they got married. Isn't that just as much divorce? Why do we count marriage as the ceremony in church? It has a short history.
I suspect we've been sidetracked here. The Rant was on the Church praclaiming on things it should perhaps leave alone. And I think a lot of what's on here rather proves Erin's point!
Musta wrote
quote:
No one is likening anyone's position to that of a paedophile
You explicitly and by name likened the position of another shipmate to that of paedophiles.
quote:
and no one is "using the paedophile card".
You mention Erin by name and caricature her stance as a 'Beatlesque "all we need is love" argument' and say that all she has said so far has been "wholeheartedly endorsed by the North American Man-Boy Lovers Association (NAMBLA)."
That is playing the paedophile card, as it is understood on these boards and the other host of this board who has read your posts concurs.
Your post associates what Erin says with the apologetics of paedophiles without making a clear distinction.
If you want to examine how paedophiles think and argue, fine, but you may not explicitly liken it to the views of other people on these boards - unless they have argued, as paedophiles do, that something excuses sex with children.
I see that you say that your point is simply "that the same words and arguments can be used to reach starkly different conclusions, because they start from within a different perspective.", if so, that's fine - but you still need to explicitly dissociate Erin's views from those of paedophiles and to apologise for linking them in the first place.
That's all we're asking for, and if it's truly the case that you don't want to liken Erin's views to those of paedophiles, then it shouldn't be a problem.
Louise
host mode off
P.S. Yes, it is possible that traditional teaching is 'wrong', because God-awareness often gets unhelpfully mixed up with cultural background.
P.P.S. Linux Rose > Sorry to hear about your problem. Quakers were granted the right to hold weddings for the benefit of their own members, not for anybody who has a problem with other forms of wedding. Some meetings have chosen to do that and most will be happy to consider marrying attenders or the offspring of members and attenders. Saying that the Monthly Meeting has to decide is not "a typical Quaker get out" - the Monthly Meeting is where membership of the society resides and decisions about marriages are made at that level. There is no central body giving the orders. You will get a "Yes" or "No" answer from the Monthly Meeting.
Let me explain where I am coming from.
I grew up in a Church of England church and attended that church till I was 26. During that time I had a good friend and neighbour who was a sunday school teacher. She had a boyfriend who moved in with her. The church found out, and told her that she could no longer teach sunday school if she persisted with the relationship.
I am now part of a baptist church (not all baptist churches are the same), which generally takes the line which I have outlined previously. I like to think of the rest of the church eventually comming around to this point of view. I don't know if it will ever happen, but I pray that it will.
You may be right if you believe that the whole church can never get it right, but will soceity as a whole have any more success?
If attempts to liberalise aren't helping then we must try again. But aren't attempts to shut the church up probably even less likely to succeed or to help, however many tots of rum we award?
I must say though, that I agree with far more of Erin's rant than I disagree with.
Gnostic - is that a sort of glue?
My question is - Where does it leave ME?
And I'm sorry, I'm with Erin. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - and it will be between God and me, not anybody else.
I can see the danger in that argument - but there is such inconsistency in churces generally that I can't see I'm being that terrible.
Anyway as a male I've got better things to do, every six minutes that is!
Thanks, all for a good debate. This site gives me hope!
quote:
You mention Erin by name and caricature her stance as a 'Beatlesque "all we need is love" argument' and say that all she has said so far has been "wholeheartedly endorsed by the North American Man-Boy Lovers Association (NAMBLA)."That is playing the paedophile card, as it is understood on these boards and the other host of this board who has read your posts concurs.
Your post associates what Erin says with the apologetics of paedophiles without making a clear distinction.
I think this is a breathtaking (dare I say 'wilfull'?) mischaracterization of what Musta said.
He asked a valid question: how does Erin's argument differ from that of pedophiles? He did not call ERIN a pedophile--big difference.
I fear she won't answer the question, which is a pity. As a liberal myself, I am often confronted with the attitude of "If we don't draw the line on this, then anything will be permissible!" I would like to have some intelligent arguments to offer those who fear that expanding the circle of "acceptable" sexuality leads to a slippery slope from which the Church will slalom into Hell.
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Anyway as a male I've got better things to do, every six minutes that is!!
I thought it was every six seconds....
quote:
Originally posted by paigeb:
I think this is a breathtaking (dare I say 'wilfull'?) mischaracterization of what Musta said.He asked a valid question: how does Erin's argument differ from that of pedophiles? He did not call ERIN a pedophile--big difference.
Actually, the gist of his statement was that I think like a pedophile. ("Everything you've said is wholeheartedly endorsed by the NAMBLA" or something like it.) It is a disgusting, cheap, unworthy shot, and I have no use for ANYONE who employs it.
However, those of us with even one functioning brain cell can differentiate between mutually consensual and coercive acts. If you can't, you have serious problems that should be addressed by medical professionals, not contributors to a bulletin board. That bullshit analogy should always be treated with the contempt it so richly deserves.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
However, those of us with even one functioning brain cell can differentiate between mutually consensual and coercive acts. If you can't, you have serious problems that should be addressed by medical professionals, not contributors to a bulletin board.
Talk about cheap shots!
You are fortunate to have had so many years of arguing about all of this that you have the luxury of being bored by it.
I don't think I'm going to win any converts to a more liberal view of sexuality by saying "If you disagree with me, you are stupid and should seek professional help."
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Actually, the gist of his statement was that I think like a pedophile. ("Everything you've said is wholeheartedly endorsed by the NAMBLA" or something like it.) It is a disgusting, cheap, unworthy shot, and I have no use for ANYONE who employs it.
No, the gist of his statement, as "anyone with half a brain" can clearly see, was that there is a disadvantage to your arguments, in that certain people could use them to justify paedophilia. He`s asking how you propose to prevent them doing so.
Take as good as you give now and again.
You can try to win an argument, get angry, indignant till you're steaming at the ears, but even if you win what have you gained? Deeper understanding?
If you let anothers harsh or misjudged comment pass without returning one of your own you stand a chance of eventually reaching concensus which would be something worth having, don't you think?
Shit! I'm sounding sanctimonious now - please don't take offence!
PaigeB, we have a sad and sorry history on these boards of people trying to equate the arguments/lifestyles of others to those of paedophiles, and by extension implying "if we thought like, or accepted YOU - it would be OK to be a paedophile too"
People get very angry when such comparisons are made about them - understandably.
Specifically associating other shipmates by name with positions held by paedophiles is regarded as Chastmaster says -as an extremely serious ad hominem attack. Hence it's not allowed.
That is the ruling of both hosts on this board.
If you want to query it, then the correct way to do so is by starting a thread on the Styx board to that effect.
Louise
host hat off
And I will be more than happy to argue this particular offensive point with anyone who wants to take it up in the Styx.
[ 26 March 2002: Message edited by: Erin ]
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I have absolutely no common ground with ANYONE who wants to argue that there are similarities in the reasoning behind consensual and coercive acts. I don't even think we occupy the same universe.
Well, I occupy the same pew with some of those folks, and Jesus didn't give me the option of ignoring them. 
Erin--my problem with your approach is that it leaves no room for dialogue.
For instance, there are many, many well-meaning people who equate homosexuality with pedophilia, bestiality, incest, and every other horrible thing you can think of. I believe they are terribly wrong, but if I hold such people "beneath contempt" (to borrow your phrase), how am I to convince them that they are in error? If I act in the kind of impatient, angry way you prescribe, why should they listen to me at all?
That others may wish to make the connection is true, but the fact remains that the suggestion of such connections are not helpful in the least.
I would think that a debate about how to deal with such allegations, as a question in and of itself, would be a permissable debate, but I'm not a host so I can't be categorical about that. However, that debate doesn't require nor would it be furthered by the use of the allegation itself.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
The question I have is why should you listen to them? Seriously. A rudimentary study of biology and sociology would dissuade them from that belief, so why should you waste your time with people who are deliberately and willfully ignorant?
You're joking, right?
I'm not "listening" to them in the sense that I'm entertaining their prejudices. I'm "listening" to them in the sense that these are some of the same people who make policy for the Church--if I have nothing to offer them but contempt for their ignorance and a refusal to talk with them because I believe them to be uninformed, how will anything in the Church change?
And again I note--Jesus doesn't give me the option of ignoring people I don't like. Jesus says "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." He doesn't say, "Just hang out with people who think exactly like you do."
Rereading the post, it is quite clear that Musta's point was that those who want to argue against traditional sexual morality need to have more in there arsenal than "do the most loving thing" because such platitudes are sufficiently vague that they can also be used by those whom we would consider morally reprehensible. The point was not to say that anyone's actions were equivalent to a pedophile's -- it was to say that one needed better arguments to justify one's actions.
I think rhetorically Musta's invocation of the MBLA was unfortunate, since such examples are likely to make people see red. But I also think that folks could be adult anough to not posture and pose and say, "how [B]dare[/I] you say that I am the moral equivalent of a pedophile!" Reading the post in its entirety makes this clear.
FCB
I am very big on not wasting my time yelling at walls. I did that too much while I was married to continue that practice for the rest of my life.
quote:
But I also think that folks could be adult anough to not posture and pose and say...
But you established way back on the first page that I am juvenile, FCB. So what do you care?
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
But you established way back on the first page that I am juvenile, FCB. So what do you care?
Actually, I don't know you, so I don't really have an opinion on whether or not you're juvenile -- I simply think your rant is juvenile. As to why I would care. . . frankly, I'm not sure I understand the question. What does my opinion of you or your rant have to do with whether or not I think it is more conducive to good argumentation if people act like grownups? Frankly, I don't care if you are or are not juvenile. But I do care that what you said about Musta's post was untrue.
Oh, and by the way: yes, I am the church, and so are you.
FCB
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
If I know I'm not going to change someone's mind, I don't even enter those discussions.
Now you see, this is one major difference between us. I will never concede that I have no chance of changing someone's mind.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
If someone cannot differentiate between consensual and coercive acts, what common ground do I have with them? None. Why should I waste my breath and theirs in a discussion that is only going to thoroughly piss me off and make me be even more unChristian than I already am?
Many people have to be led to that understanding. I can understand you think that isn't your job, but [I]someone[I] has to do it or absolutely nothing will change.
As to the other... I notice that accusations of childishness and immaturity only flow in one direction. I find it completely immature that someone would use such an extreme example to "make a point". It's no more acceptable, debate-wise, to use pedophilia than it is to use Nazi fascism. If you can't argue without resorting to the most vilified people in society, then your point is very weak, and your debate style immature.
I really don't want to continue belaboring this point. I think Musta's post was a cheap shot, but it doesn't matter what I think, as Louise and Ruth have made their ruling. Now, can we get back to the church shutting up (or not) about sex? Or do I petition the hosts to close this train wreck of a thread?
You see, Paige, there is a huge difference. I have a hard time discussing things with people who have no intention of changing their minds. Likewise, I feel it is pointless and dishonest to enter a debate in which I know I'm not going to be changing my mind. If I have someone who, for whatever bizarre and incomprehensible reason, thinks that pedophilia and homosexuality are in any way comparable, I don't believe there is a common ground for us to explore. I'm certainly not going to change my mind about the fact that they are in no way related, and I can't see how anyone who can draw that analogy could change his/her mind, either, without some extensive logic courses thrown in. (This is not an insult, I just think that logically it is absolutely impossible to relate homosexuality with pedophilia.)
Besides, I have always been of the belief that actions speak far louder than words. (And my words are pretty loud.) I'd much rather be out there, showing them that (in my case, anyway) bisexuals are just as capable of living out the gospel as any 100% heterosexual male or female, than arguing until I'm blue in the face.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Clearly, FCB, there are differing points of view on Musta's arguments. And considering that the hosts have made their ruling (totally and completely uninfluenced by me, I did not even see this until after Louise had posted her first warning), that is the final word on how Musta's post came across. Host rulings always have been the final word. You've been here long enough, you should know this.
Infallible magisteria come in handy when they rule in your favor, don't they? But my point was that valid points can be badly made. It may be a host's role to warn someone that certain comparisons generate more heat than light, but I don't think hosts are capable of ruling on how a post "comes across." That would involve a major act of mindreading. In addition, I think the hosts clearly misunderstood the post. It was an equation of arguments, not of actions. So your point about consensual-coercive actions was beside the point.
quote:
As to the other... I notice that accusations of childishness and immaturity only flow in one direction. I find it completely immature that someone would use such an extreme example to "make a point". It's no more acceptable, debate-wise, to use pedophilia than it is to use Nazi fascism. If you can't argue without resorting to the most vilified people in society, then your point is very weak, and your debate style immature.
Agreed. Like I said, mentioning pedophiles is likely to make folks see red.
quote:
Or do I petition the hosts to close this train wreck of a thread?
Petition away.
FCB
[I can't believe I'm editing this code, just goes to show how nice I really am ]
[ 26 March 2002: Message edited by: Erin ]
quote:
Infallible magisteria come in handy when they rule in your favor, don't they?
As if. I've always maintained that, from the beginning, and I defy you to come up with an instance where I've deviated from this.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
As if.
Are too!
quote:
I've always maintained that, from the beginning, and I defy you to come up with an instance where I've deviated from this.
All I can say is that hosts have failed in the past. Yet we still look to them for guidance. After screw-up after monumental screw-up, we still look to the hosts for our netiquette. We still base modern secular society's views on posting on ancient usenet teachings – teachings the hosts can't even live up to. We still let the hosts dictate what we can post, and when, and how.
Oooo, I feel a rant coming on.
FCB
I believe I've made my point.
I'm not acting as administrator here, but please, this is about MY RANT, not about the host rulings, so if this discussion continues along these lines I will ask Ruth and Louise to shut the damn thread down.
If you have a problem with host stuff, take it up in the Styx (you know, where that sort of things belongs, according to the guidelines which I just know you've read).
Ruth and I have already called this post the way we see it.
Anyone who wants to carry on disputing about the interpretation of that post made by us and backed/not backed by other posters, now needs to take that dispute to the Styx.
If someone has a personal dispute with Erin, then they need to take that to the Hell board.
What's not on is to continue derailing this thread with it.
Louise
host hat off
And I'm not sure what point it is that you think you've made.
FCB
The church getting it wrong is only half of why I want them to shut up. The other half is because there are far, far more important things to get on your soapbox than who is doing what with which mutually consenting adult. I realize that there are some people (do not know if you are one of them) who believe that even mutually consenting adults should be subject to the church (a view I do not hold in any way, shape or form), but good Lord, even those of you who are biblical inerrantists have to admit that there is by far a greater number of exhortations in the scriptures regarding caring for the poor, the sick, and the hungry than about ALL aspects of sexuality.
Yet do churches throw you out for not giving all that you have? No. Do churches throw you out for not visiting or caring for the sick? No. Do churches throw you out for not feeding the hungry? No. But some will quite gladly throw you out simply because of who you're screwing. That is wrong and it will always BE wrong. And as long as we let the church define us as Christian or not based on what's going on with our genitalia, we will continue to look like the biggest bunch of hypocrites in the world.
My point was that your attempt to be ironic was lame and did not convey whatever point you were trying to convey.
And if you wish to debate authority in general, you may do so on a thread in Purgatory. If you wish to introduce the element of the authority of the church's teachings about sex into a discussion of Erin's rant, then go right ahead.
But be clear about this: dragging pedophilia into any discussion that isn't specifically about pedophilia is simply not acceptable. Musta compared Erin's argument for her views to the arguments pedophiles use to justify their actions. There are all sorts of other less combustible comparisons he could have used to express his opinion of the quality of her argument. The reference to pedophilia was entirely unnecessary.
Because of our miserable experiences in dealing with references to pedophilia, the hosts will continue to be heavy-handed about quashing such references.
RuthW
host hat off
I agree that the issue of sexuality is wildly blown out of all propotion by some very vocal and demonstrative factions in the church. I see why you would want the church to shut up, because it condemns and excludes people. Do you think it is going to be easier to make the church shut up or to change the prevailing opinion to a more accepting and inclusive approach? Or are both possibilities so equally remote that it's not worth bothering trying to do either?
My hope is that one day the church will recognize that our sexuality (or lack thereof) is a part of who we are. It's not some outward sign of how fallen and dirty we are. It is another aspect of us, it does not define us, but the church can't (or won't) recognize this. To be honest, and I know that the Rant probably belies this, I can't see why everyone is so obsessed with it. I came to terms with my sexuality some time ago. Contrary to what is I am sure board-wide opinion by now, I do not sit around planning out how many orgasms I can squeeze into one day, or how many people I can get them with. When I am in a situation where sexual expression is appropriate, I I express it, when I'm not, I get on with my life. I let relationships define themselves, and I don't obsess over whether or not they are sexual, they should be sexual, they shouldn't be sexual, or whatever. If sexual expression is appropriate, fine. If not... well, that's fine, too.
Of course, my own personal opinion is that people look to the church for guidelines on sexuality because they are not comfortable enough with it on their own. I mean, let's be realistic, we don't really look to the church for guidelines on giving, do we? We are comfortable with what we give to charity in terms of "time, talent and treasure" (ugh, I hate that phrase). If we were all comfortable with our sexuality, I daresay that the church would have no choice but to shut up about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Of course, my own personal opinion is that people look to the church for guidelines on sexuality because they are not comfortable enough with it on their own.
I think that's not just limited to sexuality, but certainly I know that a small (by general population standards) but large (as a proportion of Church members) group really feel that external authorities of morality which are unquestionable are needed. I've seen some research done on this by a sociologist, which indentified a clearly distinguishable group with this trait.
My biggest concern is that the more "traditional" parts of the church are both shaped by this group's needs, and conveys the idea that this is what the church is actually for to the rest of the population. I suspect (though I have no evidence of this) that external authorities were both needed and respected more in the past, and that the Church is left catering ever more substantially to the needs of what, in "the West" at least, is a smaller and shrinking community.
Sexuality appears to be a touchstone for this difficulty, but I don't believe it's the only one, and I think the problem is much more general.
I've even thought of doing a Rant about it, but I'm not sure.
(Though I think that's dangerously close to Purgatorial discussion...)
quote:
from ChastMastr:Yes, it was also an argument ad hominem (I hope I'm using this term correctly).
I don’t think it’s so much “ad hominem” as “guilt by association” – because no one called Erin a pedophile.
I would be gratified at all the horrified shock that anyone would mention pedophilia in the same sentence as a host’s name, except that I wish I had heard outrage half as heartfelt against pedophile priests, and the way the church hierarchy has (not) dealt with them.
RuthW
sexhostess
quote:
Originally posted by Gill:
I have only slept/made love with one guy ever. Is it so terrible to want to try it with someone who likes women?!?!
Gill, sorry to take so long to respond to this, I've been really busy and tired. I don't personally think it's terrrible at all, nor do many churches who don't take a hard 'no remarriage' line. If I'm honest, I would dearly like to try it with someone other than the husband I'm currently not sleeping with. But that's for me to work out by wrestling with God and maybe getting some more good counselling. (Said husband and I have a very strong relationship apart from sexually, which isn't a very comfortable state to be in).
On the 'divorce and remarriage' thing, which I guess is really another thread, many of my best friends including a (female) elder of my church are divorced a remarried. The way I guess this connects with the sex, lies and church thing is that what really seems to upset some churches about remarriage is that it entails sex with another person than the one you married first. If there was no sex in the first marriage it's annulment and even Catholics are happy.
That's all, folks. Except that I think Musta said some really sensible things and I think his 'paedophile' reference has been twisted somewhat. And Erin, if you're dissing someone please don't send them to Coventry, it's a city that deserves better. I was born and bred there (so you can send me there, but be selective in whom else you send).
[trying to fix bold]
[ 29 March 2002: Message edited by: Louise ]
quote:
Originally posted by gbuchanan:
I know that a small (by general population standards) but large (as a proportion of Church members) group really feel that external authorities of morality which are unquestionable are needed. I've seen some research done on this by a sociologist, which indentified a clearly distinguishable group with this trait.
Fascinating! So the church has been proved to have been taken over by conservatives... Do you have a reference for this ?
I'm getting a flavour of "us and them" from the discussion. Like, the church is "us" when it comes to acknowledging our collective sinfulness or paying up the money, but "them" when it comes to setting policy and making the rules...
I think Erin's point about the church spending far too much energy on sexual issues is right on. (Admitting that this is exaggerated by media bias). But the Rant's attempt to link this to sexual misconduct by priests seems misguided. Erin, can I vote you a full tot of rum for your post of 26 March 16:25, and a splinter for the Rant ?
Russ
Us vs them -- well, to some extent, yeah, it is, though a bit differently than I think you mean. For me, "them" is anyone who thinks that yammering about sexual sins is the mark of a true Christian. I'm just so tired of hearing about it.
I must point out that the media in the UK is not quite like the media in the US. Seeing as how the US is a secular nation, we don't hear a whole helluva lot about religion in our daily news. Outside of the (sexual!) scandals that appear every now and then, there's not too much said about religion. So what I hear on this issue comes straight from the church, rather than being shoved down my throat by the broadcast and cable networks.
Regarding the misconduct by the priests -- that point never got picked up much, but basically (at least in the US) the Roman Catholic church appears to be positioning itself to drum out celibate homosexual priests on the one hand while protecting pedophiles on the other. The message coming across is that it's okay to force sexual relations onto children, but even just being attracted to an adult of the same sex is a serious sin. WTF is up with that?
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
the Roman Catholic church appears to be positioning itself to drum out celibate homosexual priests . . . WTF is up with that?
... okay, I used my magic link-finding abilities to check Catholic News Dot Com, and found to my dismay this article. They're apparently not going to debate past ordinations because it would be a "thorny church law question," but they are looking at making it harder for those with gay inclinations to be ordained. Wow. I still think it smacks of Donatism, and am still appalled, and frankly astonished.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Regarding the misconduct by the priests -- that point never got picked up much, but basically (at least in the US) the Roman Catholic church appears to be positioning itself to drum out celibate homosexual priests on the one hand while protecting pedophiles on the other.
In England as well, the Roman Catholic clergy have been accused of being too soft on the few pedophiles within their ranks. But this isn't obsession with sexual misconduct to the exclusion of more important issues. It's simply "us and them" - a priesthood trying to shore up the party line that they're called by God and He doesn't make mistakes. When priests do things wrong they are to be shown every understanding and encouraged to keep serving the organisation, etc. Scandalous, yes. Symptomatic of an arrogance and self-importance, probably. But a key point in a rant denouncing the church's misplaced emphasis on sexual attitudes commonly associated with the Victorian era ? Not really.
Russ
quote:
Originally posted by Strauss:
I am curious, though, about how you deal with those Christians that still feel that there are Biblical condemnations of homosexuality- "abomination" and all that. I know that these attitudes are not just in the Catholic church, but in many Protestant circles, as well, including friends of mine and family members.
Just curious, thanks.
Well, on these boards we try to persuade them to open up their minds to other viewpoints, just a teensy weensy bit. And if they persist in ranting and raving about it and refusing to listen to others' points of view, then Erin gets her pecker up and chucks 'em off! Does that help?
quote:
Originally posted by 'Chorister:
And if they persist in ranting and raving about it and refusing to listen to others' points of view, then Erin gets her pecker up and chucks 'em off! Does that help?
Erin has a pecker?!
As to how I deal with those who think that it's all an abomination unto the Lord... I learned a long time ago that there is nothing I can say. I generally just avoid the discussion altogether. There may have been a display or two of this on the board somewhere, but when I get frustrated, I quickly become very unChristian. If I'm talking to someone and it's quite clear that nothing that I'm saying is registering, I quickly reach a breaking point where I'm ready to knock the holy hell out of them. I don't, because that's wrong, but it would make me very happy. So I just do it verbally.
There are others who are much better at this. Me, I avoid it.
Alan
Strauss,
If you want to discuss sex then this is the correct board, but if you want to discuss Biblical inerrancy and faith then the correct board for that is Purgatory and you need to start a new thread as I don't see on one that subject at the moment.
L.
host hat off
quote:
Originally posted by Strauss:
If, if, the Bible is from God-it is inerrant.
If, if, there are truly errors in the Bible, then it is not from God.
Duh! <slaps forehead> Oh Gee - I never thought of that before. Thanks Strauss
quote:
Originally posted by Strauss:
how her views could be squared with a fundamentalist view of the Bible
There are those who accept the Bible as if it has just come down from the sky already written by God himself.
But what others, including myself, see is that the Bible was written as several different books at several different times and, like everything else which is written, even today, it was written through a cultural screen of the times. Everything we think or do or say is processed through our cultural understanding of our upbringing and life experience. So any views on sex, family life and anything else which was written thousands of years ago has to be understood in these terms. So it is not that we don't believe what is written, it is that we remember to put our historical and anthropological spectacles on when we read.
quote:
Originally posted by Strauss:
It began with Erin's rant on sex and the church, (specifically homosexuality) and my curiousity as to how her views could be squared with a fundamentalist view of the Bible, i.e., inerrant, and with passages condemning behaviors she refers to.
I guess I am done, since it appears I am not going to get a direct answer.
'Till next time!
For the LAST TIME, you DID get an answer. I'll use stronger words (and bold!) so that maybe you'll pay attention this time: I don't give a flying rat's ass about squaring my views with a fundamentalist view of the Bible. I don't subscribe to a fundamentalist view of the Bible, I don't care about a fundamentalist view of the Bible, and I'm not interested in engaging with a fundamentalist view of the Bible, as I think it is WRONG.
Get it yet, dearie?
"How do you square this with an inerrant view of the Bible?"
"Well, I don't adhere to an inerrant view of the Bible, so I don't."
"Yes, but how do you square this with an inerrant view of the Bible?"
"That's not my position, so I don't."
"I want to know how you square this with an inerrant view of the Bible, but it's clear you're not going to give me an answer."
"Are you illiterate or just annoying?"
That wasn't the point, anyway. Strauss said that I wasn't answering his question, which was an outright lie, as I was.
I forgive you.
quote:
In front of all of your fans, do you or do you not believe that those are from God, and do you or do you not feel that they apply to our society today, and why?
No and no. Because I AM NOT a biblical inerrantist. Seriously, why do you keep beating this dead and rotting horse? I've answered this question for the last time. You can keep posting it and posting it until your fingers fall off, and you will not get another response to this same question that I've answered FOUR times now.
It is boring and tedious.
[ 15 April 2002: Message edited by: Erin ]
Much obliged.
Strauss,
Erin has made it clear several times on this thread that she is discussing whether the Church says too much about sex and whether it's time for it to shut up.
What she is not discussing on this thread - as she has repeatedly made crystal clear - are issues of biblical authority.
If you want to engage with her on whether the church focuses too much on sex, then do so on this thread.
However if your beef is a personal one with Erin that you want to talk biblical authority and she says it's irrelevant to this, then you need to take that to the Hell board which is where we take all personal disputes (as you should have read in the ten commandments for these boards) and start a thread on the subject there.
Given your arrogant, sarcastic and highly condescending tone you are in no position to complain about Erin.
Louise
BTW If you do want to discuss general issues of biblical interpretation/biblical authority, please do so on the appropriate threads (Biblical Inerrancy in Purgatory or for biblical teaching on homosexulaity - 'Homosexuality - are we all against it' on this board)
host hat off
so i'm doing it at work, and i'm explaining to cameron that i have to say who i am and get a reference from a priest, to make sure i'm not a paedophile or anything.
and cameron says "they want a PRIEST to verify you're not a paedophile?????"
asdnrew
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde:
This discussion on the Rant seems to have ended rather abruptly.
Does this mean that Erin has leapt off
the Plank?
Hehehe - oh no It means all those dissenters have been quelled, and she's sleeping the sleep of the very drunk
I'm guessing at some point all the votes will be totted up, and Erin will either take a walk, or give a speech. And you can find this out by checking back to where the rant is, at regular intervals.
Viki
