Myopicism and the Ultimate in Child Abuse

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (71 posts)
  1. gmwilliams profile image85
    gmwilliamsposted 10 years ago
    Many traditional and fundamentalist religious parents raise their children to what is tantamount to abuse. Such children are brainwashed into thinking that the only legitimate and acceptable construct is the religious culture. They are shielded from what is considered to be secular and progressive culture.  Their parents tell them what, when, and how to think and act. 

    Of course, such methods of childrearing is not conducive to knowledge and growth.  Such children are insular and not exposed to different beliefs and cultures.  This is sad.  These children are often lost when they enter school, unless it is school selected by their parents or homeschooled.  They are shielded and/or forbidden from taking subject that their parents find threatening such as evolution, sex education, and related subjects. 

    These parents refuse to acknowledge in their myopic psychoses that they are damaging their children emotionally, mentally, intellectually, and psychologically.  Many of these poor children believe and become ensconced in their parents' morbid ideology; however, a few rebel against such stricture, often being disowned by their parents.  Many traditional/fundamentalist/ fanatical religious parents raise their children to be out of touch with the modern era which will only be detrimental to their children's development in the long run  Agree?  Disagree?

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      If you're talking about Christians,  then of course I totally disagree.
      With the exception of a few sects or "denominations" that may go to extremes and not allow kids to experience the reality of societal differences.
      If you're talking about other religions like Islam or Bhuddism or other such nonsense, or some forms of extremely secretive or hidden-from-society sects, then you may be right.

      Case in point about fundamental Christians,  I was raised by parents who, (although they didn't tell me like you said how to think and act, as in some robotic way,) they did teach me "how" to act and what was acceptable, yes, both by their own example and by something you seem to think is abuse!----------TEACHING me correctly.    That's what a decent parent does.    Liberals seem to be the only people so far that have the nerve to call teaching....abuse!    Such nonsense!

      Let's see------in school, I learned about the theory of evolution,  went to sex education classes, read literature that was often violent and dark (think Edgar Allen Poe, etc...)........went to classes on mythology (we read all the carp about Zeus, Hera, etc.....I rather enjoyed those,  looked at it as simply pure entertainment, and was able to apply the traits of some of those to real in, Narcissis, I think it was,  the myth of whom describes many people even today.
      what else? was there to learn, we pretty much were taught it in public school.   And that was about 40-some years ago.
      I was able to distinguish right from wrong, reality from imagination, etc.  while being raised by very fundamental parents.

      By the way, it's a parent's JOB to "shield" their kids from false teachings!   They can do that either by not allowing them to hear the propoganda,  or by allowing them to hear but teaching them which parts are erroneous and theoretical and which parts are real.

      There is nothing wrong with teaching a child religion.  If it's the correct religion, that is.   Matter of fact,  it's wrong NOT to.

      And if you wanna talk about "morbid" ideology,  the atheist viewpoint is particularly morbid!   No God that loves everyone,  no pinpointing the origin of mankind, no real history of the human race for a child to hold onto,  no debunking of the idea that he/she had ape ancestors!,  the idea that "gods" are just like humans and fight amongst themselves, and cast "spells" on each other and on humans, etc.;  and reading all the "secular" stuff contains a huge amount of morbidity.

      It is the kids who aren't taught about Christ who I feel sorry for, and their parents are much more accountable for some form of "abuse" or neglecting to raise them correctly.

      If you've got some talking points that really are valid in this, please post them.   Like.......some incident where a child was abused by being taught religion.
      Otherwise,  I maintain that it's close to "ultimate abuse" to teach them that they might be a girl when obviously they're a boy,  or that it's normal for men to have sex with men and women with women,  and that there is no God who loves them, and that when they die there is no heaven,  that they could've been aborted and it would've been a valid choice,  and other such morbid carp.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        You never cease to astound me, Brenda.  A most interesting post.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          What part is surprising?
          That parents and schools even 40 years ago taught kids reality and sex education, etc.?
          I will say that the sex education classes where good and decent and factual, unlike the ones I hear are presented in some schools today.    Regression instead of progression seems to be the usual fare these days that our kids are presented with.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            The part that absolutely refuses to give any acceptance or validity at all to any religious belief other than your own.

            I mean no offense, but you're nearly as old as I am - you've been around for a while and known a lot of people.  (At least I think I picked that up from one of our earlier discussions).  You've known good people, just as I have, with different beliefs than your own.  You've known bad people that share your belief.

            You're an intelligent woman, and there is no moss to found growing on you.

            Yet you ask for, and receive, freedom of religion while denying it to anyone not of your faith.  There is no doubt in my mind that you would, if you could, force everyone in the country (or even world) to accept your religious beliefs under penalty of law.  There is no other morality, belief or ethical system that can compare to yours.

            The dichotomy is something that I simply cannot wrap my brain around.  I like to think of myself as a tolerant person, but perhaps I suffer from the same "disease" as you - a conviction that only I (and the few others that agree with me) know what is true and right.

            1. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Actually, no, my idea would not be to force people to accept Christianity!   Neither under penalty of law nor any other way.    Accepting Christ is a choice, a personal choice, that each person has to make.  He didn't force anyone to accept Him, so why should I try to do so?    The Great Commission, witnessing to others, using that kind of persuasion, is another story.   But never forcing.
              Even though, yes indeed, there is nothing that compares to it.
              You're right that I do not give validity to any other religion.   My Lord who died for me and for all mankind didn't lend any credence to any other "religion" either.

              However, if it were in my power I most certainly WOULD ban the legalization of things that are so outlandish and perverse that they violate both God's and mankind's laws.   
              Notice I said "ban the legalization of".   I can't and wouldn't try to dictate what a person does in the privacy of their homes etc., unless it harms an innocent person.    But when people try to FORCE the rest of society to legally condone what is unconscienable (like abortion), then that's just wrong, and yes I would immediately overturn Roe v. Wade and count it as murder to abort a child UNLESS there were some extenuating circumstances like rape, incest, and the imminent loss of the mother's life if she gave birth; and possibly a proven case of Downs Syndrome, etc...  In those cases, there's a scenario which often brings it down to a personal and private choice that the persons involved may have to make (even though the Downs Syndrome issue is very fragile;   and if anyone's ever seen "The Memory Keeper's Daughter",  they'll surely understand why).   

              Same with homosexuality.    That's a personal choice that people make.   No, I wouldn't try to ban it to such lengths that people got arrested in their homes or even in public unless they exhibited perverse activity in public;   but I would ban it from becoming a law that FORCES others to accept it legally like the liberal agenda now is.     Making gay marriage legal is forcing everyone to legally condone something that isn't just a religious issue, but is an issue where an activity that goes against human nature itself is being forced down the throats of all Americans, plus indoctrinating innocent children into believing that anything goes & people have the right to do and say and promote whatever they want even if it's indecent and immoral.

              Common sense, common honestly, common TOLERANCE, even, is where I'd set the balance.    It wasn't right to physically beat someone because they were gay,  yet it's not right to legally condone gay rights/marriage.   

              It wasn't right to mock of shun girls who got pregnant before marriage,  but it's even worse to condone killing a fetus.

              Middle ground.   We used to have middle ground, before Roe v. Wade, etc.,  or at least a chance for the right balance between intolerance and abomination.     That opportunity has now been lost because the Left wants to push their agenda too far.   They went from the right to do whatever they wanted to do in trying to force all of America to legally condone their activities.
              Yes, I would ban the public discourse that promotes homosexuality.   That activity should be kept to the private lives of those who choose to engage in such behavior.     And people had the right to disapprove;  they still have the moral right to disapprove.   Now, liberals have pushed to make it a crime for people to disapprove.   THAT is an invasion of and stripping away of people's civil rights.

              Freedom of religion............the term "separation of church and state" has been used for what it was never intended to be used for.

              Freedom of nonChristian religions in America..................I wouldn't deny anyone the right to practice their religion in their own homes or their own churches, etc.  unless it constituted a danger to society.   But for the ideas of those religions to be inserted into our legal system,  yes, I would ban that.    Because America's traditions and beliefs were originally based on the Creator God,  not on Muhammad nor his idea of "God",  not on some little statue of a huge-bellied man,  not on the idea that we're each our own "god", etc. and etc.
              If people wanna believe in those "gods", then so be it.  But don't make ME and other citizens legally go by those fallacies.

              1. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                You know homosexuality like heterosexuality is not a personal choice right? I didn't chose to be heterosexual. It's not unlike being born short, do we ban short people from marriage?

                1. profile image0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Wrong.  It is totally unlike being short!   Choosing to have sex with someone isn't even in the same category as the physical differences we have.
                  While the temptation to sleep with same-sex people may not be a choice (but there's more evidence for it being a choice anyway),   acting upon that temptation IS a choice.
                  Suppose I was born with the temptation to LOVE having what other people have, and to obtain those things from them no matter what?'s called thievery.   I'd have no legitimate excuse for acting upon that temptation.     
                  Or what if I had been taught to lie all the time, or I just lied all the time for whatever reason, and just couldn't seem to stop myself?    Should I try to convince others that it's okay for me to lie, and that they should just tolerate me when I lie, and that they should even make it a law that says it's okay for me to lie and that speaking against my lying is criminal?

                  Now THOSE are more legitimate comparisons.

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    Choosing to love someone is a choice? You're saying God created homosexuals to test them. The rest of get to marry and have children, while these people must remain unloved to satisfy some sic sense of humour. Sorry, but homosexuality hurts no one and letting them marry helps them. It may help to forget about the sex part and focus on two people loving each other. That's what I do, to be honest two men having sex seems strange to me, but I don't have to watch do I. That part is none of my business.

                  2. profile image0
                    mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    SCIENCE tells us that sexual orientation---including homosexuality, is something that is formed PRE-natally. No one---in a world populated by intolerance, bigotry, and hate chooses to be gay. And for the record, (as noted in this discussion) being gay is not just about sex. being gay is also about forming romantic attractions, being in love.

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                You're right - I misspoke.  Even if you were the Grand Poobah, Ruler of the World, you cannot force a belief (except, perhaps through generations of "teaching" the belief).  What you could do, though, is force others to live their lives as you proclaim, and that's what I intended.

                The abortion issue is a case in point; while I disagree with your insistence that human life begins at fertilization, I can understand and accept your reasoning.  What I flat out cannot understand is how it's considered murder to abort a fetus conceived with love, but not murder to abort a fetus conceived from rape or incest or (shock!) carries a genetic defect.  Such children carry no blame, no sin (and I think you will agree) - it would be solely your declaration and judgement that makes it so.  And I simply do not understand that - you have to know that a great many people disagree with your opinion (not fact, but pure opinion) and yet...your opinion should rule all.  It's OK to murder a child that was conceived of rape - or at least it's OK before being born.  After that it's once more murder.  Pure rationalization, but a rationalization that everyone in the world should follow.

                Same with homosexuality.  You have to know that your opinion that homosexuality is a choice and not genetic is not shared by a great many.  Probably only a small minority of those that have studied and examined the matter.  Yet, your opinion should govern all - I have trouble accepting that anyone can possibly be such an egomaniac, let alone you.  I've interacted with you enough to reject that scenario, but...there it is again.  Your beliefs, and only your beliefs, should rule the rest of mankind.

                So you play with my mind again, for it really is incomprehensible that you, or anyone else, can seriously declare that only you understand morality well enough to assign right and wrong for the rest of humanity.  Or, for that matter, that only you are close enough to God (and you know my opinion here) to have a full and unambiguous knowledge of what He wants from His people.

                So I read your first post with astonishment - I think I always will because it is SO foreign to me.  More so than the radical Islamist looking for an infidel to kill, more so than the Hitler's of the world making the Jews a scapegoat by killing millions, more so than the man near me that physically tortured a young boy to death over several months time.  I can accept mental illness, and understand it to some degree.  I can understand the drive for power in some people, and I can even understand being taught that infidels need to die and believing it.

                I just can't seem to get a grip on anyone that honestly feels they are the only source in the world for correct morality.

                1. profile image0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  I'll elaborate on a couple of points.

                  ....Abortion after rape (immediately after) is something that I'd personally think is a choice for the woman simply because the rape was a happening that should've never taken place.  The mother-to-be had no choice, no say, no part in the matter.    But even that, I think, should be a scenario for the morning-after pill or scraping the womb or whatever is the best procedure for that case.   I say "immediately after" because we don't know whether a child has even been conceived at that time or not,  and I believe that's one case where the woman's rights might outweigh everyone else's, because as I said, the act of rape was committed upon her, thus taking away her choice in the matter.
                  I still think it would be better (if conception is detected) for a rape victim to have the child (if she can handle that emotionally and physically etc.) and give it up for adoption if she can't see her way to raising it.   
                  These types of things (rape, incest, etc.) are cases that are out of the norm, and sometimes things that are out of the norm have to be weighed out, thought out, and reasoned out, and that choice would seem to fall to the victim first and foremost.

                  Second...............I don't feel that I by myself am the only source for correct morality in the universe!    I give that credit to God/Jesus,  who gives us His laws via our spirits, our conscience, our human nature, even, and through His written word the Bible.   HE is the source for all morality.

                  1. Mighty Mom profile image78
                    Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    So God's morality is unambiguous.
                    All we need is the 10 Commandments.
                    Better tell Congress, the Supreme Court, the President, governors, mayors,
                    and police departs everywhere (among others) that their services are no longer needed.

                  2. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that reasoning at all.  To me it is a completely unreasoned excuse.  It's like saying that because I was robbed (without my consent) I have the right to murder my neighbor, or maybe the downstairs tenant in my house.  Nor can I accept "scraping the womb" as anything but murder (if a fertilized egg is human) - the only reason to do so is to kill that baby.  An unfertilized egg won't attach and thus does not need scraped off; only a baby does.  Same thing for morning after pill - it's sole purpose is to murder a baby.  A murder you are claiming is acceptable simply because the mother didn't have a choice. 

                    The only source; of course you do.  Every verse in the bible needs interpretation, and every verse is interpreted differently by people everywhere.  That you are the only true source for a correct interpretation is the inevitable result.  You may be (and are) giving the credit to God, but it is your interpretation that ends up being required of the people around you.

                    But Brenda, I fear that my words are looking more and more like a personal attack on you - something that I neither intended nor wanted.  You asked a question, I answered as politely and kindly as I could.  To continue this discussion is too likely to offend you and I do not want that.  Please, if I've offended accept my apologies and give me some latitude - write it off to very, very different ways of thinking and reasoning our way to conclusions.  That and my own inability to truly understand your stance.

              3. profile image0
                mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                With all due respect and in all sincerity, can you answer one question for me? Why are some Christians so obsesed with homosexuality? Jesus never mentions it. The Bible mentions it only briefly. Your religious leders claim we make up no more than 2-3% of the population. What is the reason for the obsession?

          2. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I find it interesting that every believer thinks they have the true/right religion, failing to understand that if they were raised in a family or culture of another religion they would have been of that religion and be still thinking they have the correct religion.

            1. gmwilliams profile image85
              gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this


            2. Rochelle Frank profile image91
              Rochelle Frankposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              But how could you be a 'believer" if you didn't think your religion was true? I think her answer was quite commendable, moderate, and in line with her belief.
              Everyone else has a right to express themselves in a similar manner as well, and that should be respected , even if not personally accepted.

              1. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                I don't believe I've ever said someone doesn't have the right to voice their opinion. I voice mine, they voice theirs. No problem.

  2. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 10 years ago

    You forgot physical abuse.

    Our local newspaper had a long article yesterday about a couple whose child has died for lack of medical care.  An easily curable disease, they prayed over him while he grew sicker and sicker until he died and all the while refused competent medical care. 

    They are now looking at, I think, 30 years if convicted.  You see, this is the second time they've pulled this; they lost a prior child the same way.  Prayer, while what the child needed was simple medical care to cure a simple disease.  Prayer that did not work, that resulted in the death of the first child as well.  That time they unfortunately got probation; that failure on the judges part has cost the life of another small child.

    Their other 7 children are now in the hands of the state.

    As far as the other harm, I'm not sure there is an answer outside of ignoring the whole concept of freedom of religion.  Probably better to sacrifice the social/intellectual lives of some unfortunate children than take that path.  Cold, perhaps, but we already lose lives to Christian radicals killing doctors; requiring a reasonable eduction would likely lose us far more than that handful of doctors.

  3. Mighty Mom profile image78
    Mighty Momposted 10 years ago

    I believe any type of parental myopicism that rigidly denies children to be exposed
    to any alternatives is dangerous.
    I grew up in a home with devout but by no means fanatical parents.
    But "being Christian" was never our sole or even predominant identity.
    I can't say my parents were casual about it -- they made sure we went to church
    every week, took the sacraments, and went to CCD classes every week since
    we attended public school. It was just part of the fabric of our culture.

    But here's the thing. My mother, by far the more active at church, was also
    very active politically. And guess what political persuasion she was?
    Hint: She would be vilified here by some hubbers as a horrid person who does horrid
    She did encourage me to have Jewish friends, Unitarian friends,
    other Christian denomination friends,  and yes, Black friends (this was the '60s).
    So it's entirely possible to be open-minded and tolerant and Christian at the same time.
    Oh wait. Isn't that the very essence of Jesus CHRIST's teaching?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      That's not fair.  It won't matter what political persuasion she was, there is a hubber of a differing persuasion that would vilify her for it.

    2. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Nope.   The essence of Christ's teaching was to Love one another, even our enemies,  because HE Loved everyone so much that He died for them.  But He taught that to be saved a person had to believe in Him only, not some other religion,  and to REPENT in order to get forgiveness for sins.      He didn't mince words about that either.    So a label of "tolerant" the way you mean it cannot be placed properly on Him.

      I believe I've said this before---------Jesus was a "friend" to sinners, yes.   But they weren't HIS friends.

      In case you get the wrong idea, I'm not saying we shouldn't befriend others the way Jesus did.   I had acquaintances when I was growing up that were of different denominations,  unbelievers, black....(I dunno why you brought race into it, because I thought it was just normal to be friends with blacks or other races).

      I'm just saying that Jesus wasn't tolerant of other religions, no.   He plainly said that He was the only Way;  that accepting His offer of salvation was the only Way;  that ye must be born again in order to get to Heaven.

      1. profile image0
        mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this are now claiming Jesus as THE source of modern religion-based bigotry; that he defined it? Wow...I am speechless.

  4. Mighty Mom profile image78
    Mighty Momposted 10 years ago

    You give no validity to any other religion than Christianity.
    That must be very isolating (or at least insulating).

    You say out of one side of your mouth you "can't and wouldn't dictate what a person does in their own home" yet immediately launch into a diatribe about sexuality, either
    heterosexual leading to unplanned pregnancy or homosexuality, which you continue
    to label as a "lifestyle" with an "agenda."

    Like these are the ONLY issues in the world and the ONLY issues related to
    morality in anyone's life. Or in anyone's community. Or state. or the country. Or most especially... our increasingly complex, multidimensional world.

    Perhaps you would have been happy living in 1620 Salem, Brenda.
    Maybe communities like the Menonites or FLDS are actually a good idea (swinging back
    around to the OP).
    Maybe there should be a designated Christian state where all those who think alike
    can go live and not worry about the crimes being committed by the atheists and people of all those non-recognized religions outside the state's walls.

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this


    2. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You want to tell me where I might've been happier living?
      You wanna say maybe there should be a designated Christian state?
      Maybe you'd be happier living somewhere where every day is Mardi Gras, or where there's a constant gay parade underway.  Ya know, somewhere reminiscient of Sodom or Gomorrah.
      And maybe there should be a designated "state" for people with your thought process too.    That actually might not be a bad idea!   It might even be the first good one that I've seen you come up with.   I'm rather shocked that you did that!

      1. Zelkiiro profile image89
        Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Hell no. I hate loud noises, I hate loud people, and I sure as hell don't want to live in a 10x10 mud-brick hovel.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          My suggestion was to Mighty Mom, not to you, in response to her suggestion about me.
          You should tell Mighty Mom your view of this, not me.
          She's the one who proposed that it would be okay to separate people in such a definitive way based on religion.   I thought she was much more accepting and "diverse" than that, but wow people do surprise ya sometimes.

      2. profile image0
        mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        What I do not understand is why you believe that your worldview based your particular sect of Christianity and its particular set of ideas are not only "right", but should be imposed on everyone.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          I don't understand it either, because I didn't say that.   I never said it should be imposed on anybody. 
          It is actually the liberal view that is currently being imposed on everyone.   So let's not even go there, okay?

      3. profile image0
        mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        The issue at Sodom and Gommorah was NOT homosexuality. So, why reduce the complex issues of Sodim and Gomorrah to sex---particularly homosexuality?

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Of course it was about homosexuality, as well as the other sin that ran rampant there.   Read it and weep.

          1. Disappearinghead profile image61
            Disappearingheadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            No Brenda it was never about homosexuality. It's an established fact that in many parts of the MiddleEast and Africa even today that straight men will rape other men for the purposes of torture, degradation and humiliation. It happens all the time in civil war and conflict when guerrillas  arrive at outlying villages allied to the opposing regime.

            If you really want to know why God was angry with Sodom, put away the myths from the pulpit and read the bible passage below:
            Ezekiel 16:49
            ‘“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

            1. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              I've read that lots of times.
              I've also read the next verse which you so freely omit in an attempt to excuse homosexuality from the other sins.
              Verse 50:

              "And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me;  therefore I took them away as I saw good." 

              Jude 7 & 8 also:

              "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh,  are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
              Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh,  despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities."

              It is so strange that people who are hell-bent on making everyone else condone homosexuality,  don't even want their sin to be lumped in with other sins, even when the admission that there ARE other sins is put forth.    Haughty, shameless, denying they even have any sin at all;  and when that doesn't work, they make sure they point their haughty fingers at the people who DO admit they have sin and are trying to avoid falling into temptation.

              1. profile image0
                mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                As I said previously, I will never understand the obsession with sex that permeates the minds of those who deem themselves to be Christians and/or who deem themselves to be immersed in the Bible. It makes no sense to me.

                These words you quote are meaningless and undefined. These words were written by men who intended them to be ambiguous so that whatever meaning was wanted or needed at any given time could be applied.

                What are "filthy dreamers"? What is "strange flesh"? What does it mean to "despise dominion"? What is speaking "evil of dignities"?  What exactly is THE "abomination"? What exactly is the "vengeance of eternal fire"?

                These words are utter nonsense.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Do some quick research on St. Augustine, around 400AD.  A major force in the early church, the man had some major hangups with anything sexual in nature, yet he is also responsible for much of the attitudes towards sex today.

                  1. gmwilliams profile image85
                    gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this


                  2. profile image0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    Lemme tell ya:  St. Augustine didn't really have any major hangups with sex.  He just REALLY liked it and struggled with the Church's idea that he needed to give it up for God.  He was known to pray often, "Lord, give me chastity and purity, but not [just] yet!"  He had a common law marriage with a woman for many years even after he became a Christian, and they had a son together.  It has always seemed ridiculous to me that the Church expected him to just give them up in order to serve God.  Seems like leaving a child and his mother behind to fend for themselves while you go out and serve God is kind of the antithesis of serving God in the first place.  roll

                    The Church has bastardized a lot of what Augustine said and thought about sex.  The man was a completely normal human being when it came to sex, and frankly, would have been a saint if he'd continued on in the same lifestyle.

                    There's another famous Catholic activist from the 20th century who was basically forced to choose between the man she loved and service to God.  Now, to be fair, it was he who would not accept her devotion to God.  I believe she'd have stayed in the relationship if he had agreed to it. 

                    Oh well.  Most of your average, everyday Christians don't give two shits about what happens in the bedrooms of other people.  The ones who do are probably not quite sure about what's going on in their own.  Until they figure out that part, they'll make the rest of us look bad all the time.


                  3. profile image0
                    mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    I know. As a historian I have studied St Augustine and appreciate his personal sexual preoccupations and know that he (and others) infused early modern Christianity with his own sexual "issues" and problems.

                    What I will never understand is the ways in which conservative Christians are so preoccupied with issues related to human sexuality and how they can possibly imagine that God's focus and God's preoccupation is sex.

                    I also find it difficult to comprehend why non-Catholics embrace the glossy sexual pathology of St Augustine while ignoring the fact that he claimed that the "sin" associated with sexuality was NOT in the nature or type of the act committed, but in the emotions and feelings that accompanied the act.

                    According to Augustine, men's sexual conduct is involuntary; women's sinful and designed to control and influence men and as a marker of the moral inferiority of women.

                    I strongly suspect that "Sex Sells" whether you're selling beer during a game OR religion.

          2. profile image0
            mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Exactly. Read the Bible and stop listening to your church leadership who are very skilled at manipulating that Bible and its message to achieve their own personal, political, and material ends.

            1. Zelkiiro profile image89
              Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Ezekiel 16:49
              ‘“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

              Being stingy = being gay, now?

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image58
                MelissaBarrettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                I don't know about stingy... But CHEAP might... depending on which bar you are at.

    3. profile image0
      mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly...why is everything with some Christians reduced to sex?

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image58
        MelissaBarrettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        I have two theories on that...

        I can't post one of them here.

        The second theory is just plain covetousness, as I've never known a person who was completely happy with themselves and their relationships to give a dang about anyone else's.

        You only look over your neighbors fence when you don't like the view on your side.

        1. profile image0
          mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          I totally agree. And yes, some probably very valid theories are not something we can post to hubpages.

        2. gmwilliams profile image85
          gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Voice of REASON right here! Totally agree, +1,000,000,000,000,000!


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)