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?
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 people..........as in, Narcissis, I think it was, the myth of whom describes many people even today.
what else?............eh..........whatever 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.
You never cease to astound me, Brenda. A most interesting post.
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.
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.
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 privacy.........to 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.
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?
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? Eh....it'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Now this is something I haven't been able to understand about you, Mighty Mom.
I think you claim to be a Christian.........?
How can you so freely denounce or mock the word of God?
Sounds like you need to learn how to doubt.
"Faith is a house with many rooms."
"But no room for doubt?"
"Oh plenty, on every floor. Doubt is useful, it keeps faith a living thing. After all, you cannot know the strength of your faith until it is tested."
I neither denounce nor mock the word of God.
But as wilderness so aptly puts it in his last post below, I make no claim
that my "brand" of Christianity is superior to anyone else's. Nor do I walk around with a giant "C" branded on my forehead. My faith is private and not really up for debate.
I make no claim that my interpretation of God's intent for me or anyone in this world
is the correct interpretation.
More to the point, I recognize and actually celebrate that others in the world
see God -- or don't see my God or any god at all -- from a different viewpoint.
And that is ok and NOT MY BUSINESS. That is their right. As guaranteed by the First Amendment.
My post below that seemed to confound bBerean is that the Bible is NOT the
law of the land in the United States. Or, as far as I know, the law of the land in any other
It never was, which is why our founding fathers framed the Constitution and
didn't simply say, "Ok fellow Americans, let's just all live by the 10 Commandments."
I am not quite sure your point, but yes...if everyone followed the 10 commandments 100%, 24/7, we would need none of those.
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.
Actually, wilderness, I've lately found conversations with you quite interesting and enjoyable because you haven't resorted to personally attacking me like so many others have!
I'm trying to remember if it was always so, but I can't. Dunno if that's good or bad that I don't remember. haha.
But no, you haven't offended me.
I'm actually interested in how your mind works.
Like I said, you've been civil, and I think.......honest. Two attributes that many people around here can't seem to exhibit at the same time.
I respect that about you.
That being said (and accepted, I hope)......I will say............I think this is the first time anyone has ever accused me of being too liberal!! LOLOL. I'm joking with you. I'm not saying you've accused me as in attacking me at all.
So you think that since I'm against abortion, I should not consider condoning the giving of the "morning after" pill to a rape victim? Is that correct?
....I'm gonna mull on this a bit. I just, as I said before, believe that the act of rape was the doing of the rapist, and therefore the possible mother-to-be should have the right to take the morning-after pill just to stop the possibility of the crime producing a pregnancy that she had nothing to do with..........
yet the fact that a conception (which I consider the beginning of human life) could have occurred at the moment of rape......... is a consideration.........
Good. And right back at you; I find you most civil AND honest in what you say. I often don't agree with your premise and I don't understand how your mind works, but that's OK. I find the "why" of a persons beliefs of far more importance than the belief or opinion itself. If I agree with the "why" a person has a specific opinion I will almost inevitably have the same opinion or belief; if I don't I probably won't come to the same conclusion.
That's why it's important to me to understand the reasoning process, and from people that are different than I. I might, and have, learned new things from discussions with people that think differently than I do; you are one such.
Actually, I cannot truly speak rationally about the morning after pill. I find early abortion perfectly acceptable so it has never been an issue to me.
But to you...I have been told that pill causes menstruation, rejecting the fertilized egg whether it has implanted or not. I have also been told that it basically a spermicide, killing only sperm that have not already fertilized the egg and that it will not harm a fertilized egg.
Which one is true would make the difference between murder or not. Unless you believe either a sperm or an unfertilized egg is a human life, anyway, and I've never heard that one from anyone. I leave you to your research.
No, I don't believe sperm or an unfertilized egg is human life.
Only when conception has occurred do I believe there is human life.
Yes, I'm still looking for info and thinking on the morning after pill....
I don't think anyone would ever claim that. It would be like claiming a fingernail is human life. Gametes are nothing more than a very small piece, and probably not even truly alive at all. At least not by any biological definition I've ever seen.
Well, I've found out some interesting facts about the morning-after pill.
And I've decided that I AM maybe a bit "liberal" when it comes to making that pill available for RAPE VICTIMS. I'm emphasizing the rape aspect because that is probably the only scenario where I believe a woman really should have immediate rights to that option.
But I've also confirmed that I'm very conservative about when life begins. I actually hadn't thought much about it, but some people believe that life doesn't begin until the fertilized egg is implanted in the uterine wall. I believe it's a life before that, when the egg is fertilized (conception).
Funny thing, too........the site where I searched for information says this about "ella", another form of "morning after" pill, I assume....
"The manufacturers of ella claim that the drug will not cause an abortion when it is taken correctly. This is based upon the assumption that life begins when the fertilized egg implants into the uterine wall. However, the scientific reality is that life begins at conception when the egg is fertilized. When the sperm penetrates the egg (fertilization), the sex, hair, eye color, height, etc. have all been determined and a new life has begun."
There's also this about the "morning after pill" (Plan B One-step)======
"What is Plan B One-Step?
Plan B One-Step, sometimes called the morning-after pill is a form of emergency contraceptive. This means it is a type of birth control used after unprotected intercourse or suspected contraceptive failure (e.g. a broken condom) to prevent pregnancy.
Is Plan B One-Step Effective?
One study conducted by Plan B One-Step found that 84% of expected pregnancies were prevented. The makers of the drug claim that 7 out of 8 women who would have gotten pregnant, did not. These figures are based on estimates of when ovulation might have occurred.
How is Plan B One-Step Administered?
Plan B® One-Step is administered in one tablet and must be taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.
Should I take Plan B One-Step?
Many times women panic after having unprotected sex and rush to take the morning-after pill. However, you can only become pregnant on certain days of the month — around the time that you ovulate. Taking the morning-after pill during a time when you cannot become pregnant needlessly exposes you to large doses of hormones."
This may be too much information for you to be interested in; if so, ignore me; this is just information that I personally was looking for in order to make myself think more in-depth on the subject of rape victims.
I've concluded that my original belief on the morning after pill for rape victims is still the same. While I'm totally against using that pill as a get-out-of-responsibility-for-your-own-actions option, I do still think that it should be an option for rape victims if they feel the need, because they didn't willingly engage in sex; a crime was committed upon them. And since the fact is that a woman can only become pregnant during ovulation, seems that pill would only be needed if the woman was ovulating, which would still leave a question in her case as to whether or not she would even become pregnant if she didn't take the pill.
My reasoning takes into account, actually, something which I'm often accused of not taking into account----the legal rights of a woman in the case of unwanted pregnancy, meaning in the case of rape here, because a woman who willingly engages in sex should automatically be responsible for the conseqences of her activity.
I think my ability to definitively make a judgement call ends at rape. The victim of rape is a person who, I believe, should have options; rape is a different set of circumstances from other situations. Far be it from me to try to legislate such a personal dilemma; I am not that hard-nosed as to try to force a helpless person to take responsibility for what her attacker did when there might be an option that gives her the freedom to deal with the situation to some degree. Especially since it's an immediate option and it would be indeterminate at that time as to whether or not she would even become pregnant.
Thank you, Brenda.
Would you be willing to look at broadening your exceptions to include victims of
incest? Incest is essentially is the same as rape in that it's against the victim's will. except It's perpetrated on a minor by a trusted family member. Which to my mind
makes it even more horrendous.
Actually, I've always said that there are 3 possible exceptions. Incest was one of them (unwilling incest, that is, which would be rape, yes, because all incest isn't rape). However, that territory carries some considerations as to time frame and all, and it's always better to consider the possibility of life for what it is---life, even in cases of violent rape! I'm just saying that I believe that judgement call is up to the victim, who should still be counselled toward hope if she holds out any hope for being able to carry the child in the event she is pregnant.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
The issue at Sodom and Gommorah was NOT homosexuality. So, why reduce the complex issues of Sodim and Gomorrah to sex---particularly homosexuality?
Of course it was about homosexuality, as well as the other sin that ran rampant there. Read it and weep.
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:
‘“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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's kind of the point, Mo. He loved sex on the one hand, but decided that religious purity required no sex. "His problems with sex were so pronounced that modern-day psychology would list them as obsessive-compulsive and borderline psychotic."
Most definitely. St Augustine was not a well man in terms of his sense of/preoccupation with sex.
And, in that case, he's got more in common with the average, everyday human being than most saints. Sex is a hangup for most people. Not enough, too much. It's dirty, it's holy. It's for bonding, it's for procreation. It's for recreation, it's for relaxation. It is what it is. And, personally, I don't think the Christians are the only ones preoccupied with it. In general, actually, I think it's primarily men, regardless of their religious persuasion.
What I am trying to say is that most people---men AND women, while interested in sex generally and perhaps curious about homosexuality more specifically, seem better able to have social, cultural, and political discussions without resorting to diatribes on the evils of homosexuality.
You really cannot argue in 2013 that the propensity of some (particularly those among the Religious Right) to relentlessly engage in speech that focuses on homosexuality as sin is typical.
Isn't there something wrong, for example, with a person (like Pat Robertson) whose first response to the acceptance of gay boys in the Boy Scouts suggests that now some boys will join scouting to "do sex" with other boys?
Is that a normal response?
Is that the response of most people?
I strongly doubt it.
I think you'll find that Mo agrees with you on acceptance of homosexuality.
Most Christians are not Right Wing Conservatives.
I think painting with a broad brush here will do you, and the cause, a disservice.
If you want to talk about the issues of homophobic religious zealots.. I'm right there with you, but you need to realize they are the very very vocal minority of Christianity.
Yes, but people actually listen to Pat Robertson and he is dumb as wood.
I have no "cause", but I also think that we don't hear many secular humanists obsessing on homosexuality as THE evil or as THE force which is destroying the very fabric of our society.
And if polling data---reproduced over and over again has any validity, then it is clear that a majority of those self-identified as leaning right/conservative and holding strong Christian values are vocal opponents of gay rights and un-apologetically homophobic.
I said the cause, not your cause. And I hear just as many secular humanists obsessing on homosexuality... They just have the opposite opinion. To them it is Christianity that is destroying the very fabric of society. Zealots come in all political/religious flavors.
See, this is where I think there might be a problem. I said that most Christians aren't Right Wing Conservatives. You argue that "right/conservative and holding strong Christian values" are homophobic.
I'm not sure if you see the problem with that argument now. But if you don't, you've proven my point.
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.
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.
‘“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?
Exactly...why is everything with some Christians reduced to sex?
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.
by Firoz4 years ago
How does religion bind people?
by Dan Harmon3 years ago
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/bibl … a-schools/Seems that Orange county in Florida encourages Christian literature to be disseminated to students, but aren't so happy when other religions or groups want the...
by Grace Marguerite Williams5 years ago
There are children who are so aware at their young ages. They have a perception that some adults do not have. These children are often quite prodigious. They are usually the A students,...
by Jesus was a hippy5 years ago
Why do people brainwash their children into believing their particular religion at such a young age? Is it because they know that the younger the child the easier it is to brainwash them?Studies show that the younger a...
by VendettaVixen5 years ago
A child is baptised, receives first communion, and is confirmed before they even fully understand what religion is, and what consequences it will have on their life.Would it be better to wait until a person is... say...
by Daniel Carter6 years ago
Here's the link. Rather shocking, since Jesus supposedly is the "Prince of Peace." However, it seems to be consistent with the general temperature and climate of the religion forums...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.