|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is it all about sex?
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
And a big hug for MIM from someone wondering whether the process of redemption is simply to endure the steady burning of desires until I'm too old, ugly and weary to attempt (and fail) to satisfy them any more.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) You're very kind, EM. For me, I'm glad some of my desire is a lot less heated than 25-30 years ago. It makes being a sane man working at some kind of spiritual growth / discipline, not only easier but perhaps just possible, and it makes me happier.
I'm bloody glad I'm not 15 again in this age of unrestricted internet porn. Christ.
[ 07. March 2014, 17:37: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
mark_in_manchester
(Straight) men seem to have the biggest problem here. They dream of unbridled sexuality for themselves, yet seem ambivalent at the very least about the women in their families embodying this potential for other men, or about the increasingly unbridled sexuality of the women in Western society.
Maybe more family break-ups, the growth of unconventional families and even the widespread and unashamed use of porn is making young men less paternalistic and less protective (or oppressive?) towards the women in their families, and more tolerant of sexual license in the culture at large. I suppose this will continue.
However, I still can't see how the church could easily benefit from this development, except on an case-by-case pastoral basis. We seem to be lacking a theology by which whole denominations could effectively 'buy into' sexual liberation without undermining themselves.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
I wouldn't want them to. In my mind sexual liberation is anything but freedom, and I'm grateful my body is making it easier for me to hold that line as I get older.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I'm not keen either. But it seems to be what some people would like.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
(Straight) men seem to have the biggest problem here. They dream of unbridled sexuality for themselves
Do they?
I mean, when I think about sex (which I still do, occasionally), I think about having it with my wife. Perhaps I'm too old for dreams of unbridled sexuality...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
To go back to the OP, much of the modern griping is about sex and discontent with church regulations. That is because the Church has largely been discredited from running the state or imposing on peoples lives in other ways. I doubt there are many threads about whether punishments for violating the Sabbath are too strict or if tithes are set too high. There was also recently a thread about Bishops complaining about inadequate support for the poor. Much of the response was complaints about the Church having the temerity to criticize the government.
Setting aside Dead Horses sets aside a great number of sex related complaints in a way that amplifies the weight that the others have in discussion here. The fact that many of the dead horses are sex related means that there's a fair amount of energy and dissatisfaction in those complaints.
[ 07. March 2014, 20:55: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Nothing at all wrong with recreational activities per se - but sex is an expression of love!
Can be. Clearly needn't be.
quote:
People who see sex as mere recreational activity with any girl/boy they can get off with on a Friday night are simply 'getting pleasure' with hardly a thought for the well-being, the satisfaction, or even the name(!) of their sexual partner.
On what do you base this claim? Why can't two overnight-standers care about the well-being, satisfaction, and name of the other, without wishing to pursue a long-term relationship? It certainly isn't logically inconsistent. Why do you say it's not possible?
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
(Straight) men seem to have the biggest problem here. They dream of unbridled sexuality for themselves, yet seem ambivalent at the very least about the women in their families embodying this potential for other men, or about the increasingly unbridled sexuality of the women in Western society.
Which straight men are you referring to here? I certainly don't dream of unbridled sexuality, and judging by their actions, none of the men I cock an elbow with (if you'll excuse the expression) seem to dream of unbridled sexuality. This is a rather insulting claim.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Nothing at all wrong with recreational activities per se - but sex is an expression of love!
Can be. Clearly needn't be.
Is there any parallel with eating and obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease? Because eating needn't be about hunger, right?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
mousethief
I was thinking in particular of the comments made by mark_in_manchester and Erroneous Monk.
Other than that, you might say I read too much about male sexual restlessness, which is probably rather corrupting. Maybe I should start reading romantic fiction instead, as it might give me higher expectations and a more benign sense of male-female relationships!
[ 08. March 2014, 00:59: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Nothing at all wrong with recreational activities per se - but sex is an expression of love!
Can be. Clearly needn't be.
Is there any parallel with eating and obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease? Because eating needn't be about hunger, right?
If you want to go down that road, sex is about reproduction. What's love got to do, got to do with it?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
To say sex is only meaningful in a union is like saying that feeding someone food is meaningful only if they are a family member; hence the dabbawallah to transport a meal from the wife at home to the worker in the office. It's not like one of those immoral one-meal stands at one of those restaurants where you're not related to anyone.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
(Straight) men seem to have the biggest problem here. They dream of unbridled sexuality for themselves
Do they?
I mean, when I think about sex (which I still do, occasionally), I think about having it with my wife. Perhaps I'm too old for dreams of unbridled sexuality...
I just have the memories now.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Sex is complicated.
It's no wonder the Church gets in a tizzy about it.
It's about fun, desire, love, intimacy, hormones, brain chemicals, reproduction, feeling high, feeling euphoric etc etc.
Some Churches seem to want to limit sex to reproduction - one of the things it is least used for imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Sex is complicated.
It's no wonder the Church gets in a tizzy about it.
It's about fun, desire, love, intimacy, hormones, brain chemicals, reproduction, feeling high, feeling euphoric etc etc.
Some Churches seem to want to limit sex to reproduction - one of the things it is least used for imo.
If some churches teach that it's not my church! Sex is rather nice actually ![[Biased]](wink.gif) and is enjoyable as it is without the need for it to be reproductive. But it's too precious to share it with every Tom Dick or Harry - or Tamsin, Deborah or Harriet (LOL) - as mere 'getting laid on a Friday night when you're out with your mates in Newcastle City Centre!'
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Sex is complicated.
It's no wonder the Church gets in a tizzy about it.
It's about fun, desire, love, intimacy, hormones, brain chemicals, reproduction, feeling high, feeling euphoric etc etc.
Some Churches seem to want to limit sex to reproduction - one of the things it is least used for imo.
There is also the idea that sexuality provides a kind of spiritual high, or a unitive experience, and has therefore been seen as a competitor by some religions.
This is a kind of Jungian view:
"…practical confusion of sex and spirit… is inevitably encountered by anyone who embarks upon an intentional contemplative journey. This has to do with the fact that genital orgasmic experience and spiritual unitive experience are so deeply similar that often one cannot be distinguished from the other. … people who are in touch with spiritual passion often find themselves vulnerable to frantic physical expressions of that passion with other human beings…. Spiritual passion and erotic passion are so similar that people often find themselves using one as a substitute for the other…."
Gerald May, 'Will and Spirit'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sex is ... too precious to share it with every Tom Dick or Harry - or Tamsin, Deborah or Harriet
I'd say it's more a matter of degree. Before I was married I'd have sex on a casual basis if the opportunity arose (it didn't often) and I enjoyed it, it was great. Sex in a long term relationship is different and after 30 years in one I certainly wouldn't be tempted to change back to "the hurly- burly of the chaise longue", but each to their own. Some like the freedom and excitement, some the commitment and contentment. (Assuming all the usual things about consent/lack of coercion etc)
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I agree with that. I had my hot and heavy twenties, plenty of jouissance (enjoyment) there, then the 30s I calmed down a bit, then got married, more hot and heavy jouissance. Now I'm old, but don't give up on me.
It's just odd that people try to define sex and sexuality in certain ways; it's a many-splendoured thing.
I suppose it is an alarming thing, in its intensity and transcendent power, so humans often try to canalize it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Canalize, as in force it into artificial ways?
Yes, I can see that.
I see it most clearly in the RC teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary and the requirement of priestly celibacy.
As with all things, when we go beyond Scripture or even don't live up to what Scripture reveals, we make a mess of things.
AFAICS sex is wonderful - and the Song of Songs is a big clue as to what God thinks about it.
But it's also too precious to be squandered - hence the Biblical attitude to fornication.
Sex is also very powerful and can be used to damage self and others - fornication again, and especially adultery.
I don't see this as being canalizing it, merely setting up 'flood defences on a natural waterway' so as to allow the free and legitimate and productive flow of sexual expression.
To my mind the Bible sets up three main defences (I know I'll get crushed for saying this) - fornication, adultery and homosexual promiscuity (See, I'm expediently allowing for long-term relationships on that third one, just to prevent a huge tangent).
These three defences are not oppressive or unreasonable - in fact they are to do with activities and practices that have been seen as potentially and actually very damaging and I see the rules against them as being there to protect and affirm sexual nature and practice, to honour it and allow for its fullest enjoyment in commitment and respect.
Any other non-Biblical restrictions, I believe, might well be puritanical and oppressive.
[ 08. March 2014, 09:39: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The third is covered in spirit in the first two which are spiritually one any way Mudfrog.
And yes, it's ALL about sex. For 90% of my time here I've been a conservative. And for decades before that.
I've argued here that the sixth commandment was the key commandment, the test commandment that liberal 'Christianity' failed.
I was wrong.
And now that I'm liberal - that I see that ethics are more important than rules and that they are certainly situational - I shag everything I can get of course. That's what being a liberal Christian means right? I mean, I tried celibacy once and it was the worst day I'd ever 'ad.
That's right innit? And don't you dare question that.
Would be the false dichotomy imputed for my saying legalism is wrong.
It's all about love.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
AFAICS sex is wonderful - and the Song of Songs is a big clue as to what God thinks about it.
Was it written by Solomon?
If so he didn't see sex as exclusive at all!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think it's fine if people want to make restrictions on sexuality in various ways, for themselves and their associates, and obviously, all societies have done this, as far as I know.
I suppose the point where the wave began to break, was when pluralism became more than a glint in Locke's eye, and thus, if you want to make restrictions for yourself, or your own associates, that's fine, but don't make them for me.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
...if you want to make restrictions for yourself, or your own associates, that's fine, but don't make them for me.
There is no 'I' in Church.
cathedra mea, regulae meae
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
...if you want to make restrictions for yourself, or your own associates, that's fine, but don't make them for me.
There is no 'I' in Church.
cathedra mea, regulae meae
There is no I, but there is 'meae'? Eh?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
"My chair, my rules"?
Hmmmm - there seems to be a lot of 'me' in that phrase. What the Church likes, the Church makes rules about, often to control people.
But Christ isn't about keeping rules.
(Neither should the Church be imo)
The OP is asking why people reject the Church - is it that they want to have sex in a way the church won't allow them to?
I don't know - but it would be interesting to do a survey.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But Christ isn't about keeping rules.
(Neither should the Church be imo)
Ah, my dear; without rules, how would we know who's winning?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But Christ isn't about keeping rules.
(Neither should the Church be imo)
Ah, my dear; without rules, how would we know who's winning?
This reminds me of Bill Cosby's routine about God's report card from school. The PE teacher complains that his omnipresence makes him always out of bounds, and always in the girl's locker room.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Nothing at all wrong with recreational activities per se - but sex is an expression of love!
Can be. Clearly needn't be.
Is there any parallel with eating and obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease? Because eating needn't be about hunger, right?
If you want to go down that road, sex is about reproduction. What's love got to do, got to do with it?
Sex is a bit more than just making babies for humans and many mammals. If it weren't we'd spew out 100s or thousands of babies like so many sea turtles, salmon, conifers, dandelions, bacteria or corals and allow most of them to be eaten. Sex also seems to be about pair bonding for humans, and probably also about 're-motivating' aggression (i.e. aggression morphs into sexuality, just watch a nature show about wolves or A Street Car Named Desire). -- with the eating parallel being that eating is also about sharing food and socializing, whether done at table or altar. But over-consumption of both sex and food, and an excess focus on either are problematic.
But I've always likes Aristotle's Golden Mean more than Henlein's "take big bites, moderation is for monks, everything to excess". I think the latter approach is the foundation of most of our problems, whether sex, food or consuming drier goods needlessly. Most of our metabolisms and and wallets can't afford more than a periodic gourmet meal based on butter and cream, and our psyches and souls can neither afford more than periodic binge sex. No?
[tangent]
Reminded of the hymn just now "Let Us Praise God Together on Our Knees", and then asked Satan to get thee behind me, but thought better of that given the devil's rather gutter mind, and suggested he walk out the front door.
[/tangent]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
But I've always likes Aristotle's Golden Mean more than Henlein's "take big bites, moderation is for monks, everything to excess".
Somewhere between.
The Middle Road with a few side trips.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
"My chair, my rules"?
Hmmmm - there seems to be a lot of 'me' in that phrase. What the Church likes, the Church makes rules about, often to control people.
But Christ isn't about keeping rules.
(Neither should the Church be imo)
Really?
He seemed to like the commandments, the Torah, quite a lot.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But Christ isn't about keeping rules.
(Neither should the Church be imo)
Really?
He seemed to like the commandments, the Torah, quite a lot.
I like chocolate quite a lot. But it's not what I'm about.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
As the OP asked if sexual continence was the stumbling block for atheists, I wonder if sexual freedom is the stumbling block for believers?
I suppose if you think it's all about sex then it is all about sex. Probably no coincidence that the main sacraments are hatch, match and dispatch. Sex and death being the two big mysteries of life.
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I do wonder - are most of our gripes about the church and religion about sex? As in, we want to have it in a way the church won't allow us to.
Or is this just a way to dismiss people to criticize religion, by suggesting that they are basically hedonists who don't want to be told what to do?
I'm thinking of current threads here about divorce, marriage, the "hotness" of Jesus, Pope Francis' Extraordinary Synod, and am wondering if there's any merit to the idea. Sex is certainly at the center of those issues.
From some of the lInks on the Synod thread, it's quite clear that it's not about sex so much as about the Church being unable to admit that it was wrong.
Well-meaning people agonising over how to find a form of words that will allow the Church to change the practice (to do what's right) without changing the teaching (because that would be admitting error).
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
But I've always likes Aristotle's Golden Mean more than Henlein's "take big bites, moderation is for monks, everything to excess".
Somewhere between.
The Middle Road with a few side trips.
Side trips. Indeed!
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I do wonder - are most of our gripes about the church and religion about sex? As in, we want to have it in a way the church won't allow us to.
Or is this just a way to dismiss people to criticize religion, by suggesting that they are basically hedonists who don't want to be told what to do?
I'm thinking of current threads here about divorce, marriage, the "hotness" of Jesus, Pope Francis' Extraordinary Synod, and am wondering if there's any merit to the idea. Sex is certainly at the center of those issues.
From some of the lInks on the Synod thread, it's quite clear that it's not about sex so much as about the Church being unable to admit that it was wrong.
Well-meaning people agonising over how to find a form of words that will allow the Church to change the practice (to do what's right) without changing the teaching (because that would be admitting error).
Best wishes,
Russ
But that's easy. What is meant today by "homosexuality" is not what the fathers and the Bible were referring to. It is a phenomenon they didn't even know existed, and is thus outside the categories they were working in and writing about. Problem solved.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
*No DH here please*
I was reading an article online about science and religion, and a user made the following comment about Christopher Hitchens:
"Hitch was an atheist (and one of my favorites) because he didn't believe that a loving God would constrain his sex life. And since basically all religions teach such constraints, he rejected God."
Christopher Hitchins had a variety of reasons why he believed that religion was abhorrent - why don't you start by listening to him here rather than taking someone else's word for his motivation.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
He liked transcending mere rules with real ethics even more. Off the scale.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Christopher Hitchins had a variety of reasons why he believed that religion was abhorrent - why don't you start by listening to him here rather than taking someone else's word for his motivation.
No disrespect to Mr Hitchens was intended. I found the comment to be an interesting one that would have been worth discussion regardless of who its subject was.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Well said seekingsister. There are myriad people totally turned off by the church's failure to grasp the trajectory of inclusive grace for 98% of its life and breadth. It's only been 96% of mine ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Well said seekingsister. There are myriad people totally turned off by the church's failure to grasp the trajectory of inclusive grace for 98% of its life and breadth. It's only been 96% of mine ...
But the church is the people. If the people want a different kind of church, they need to create it themselves. They need to BE a different kind of church.
This is why I dislike the clergy/laity divide: what's the point of us giving power to priests and bishops if 98% of us are then going to complain that they don't do what we want? The system we've set up seems very ineffective to me.
Maybe the transgression of religious sexual codes is more exciting than belonging to a religion that tolerates all forms of sexual expression. It's the only logical explanation I can think of for why we say we want to let it all hang out, yet the only religions we patronise for any length of time urge us to tuck it all in.....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
