Category: Let's talk
Hi all,
So, this is a potentially weighty topic which I felt deserved its own thread. I'll wave the normal caveat here; I'm not meaning to specifically attack any one of you, but if you can't hhandle your views being challenged, analyzed and even found wanting by someone else, now is the very best time to turn aside and leave.
If you're still here, then I'll get on with it.
Sin has always been a metaphorical bone in my throat every time I try to swallow religion, even on a trial basis.
People definitely do ugly, deplorable, dangerous and senseless things to one another and to themselves. You won't see me saying otherwise. But what exactly is sin, anyway?
I urge those of you of a religious persuasion to avoid your scripture of choice as much as you possibly can in this discussion. I feel, personally, that one should have enough confidence in one's choices that the quoting of passages from any book, religious or secular, is unnecessary.
Most religions which speak of sin suggest that their god is free from it, and does not engage in any sinful thoughts or deeds. I wonder, though.
If I came home one day and found Meglet was cheating on me, then grew jealous and killed her and her lover, I would be rightfully punished for it. My jealousy and rage might be justified, but the way I acted upon that jealousy and rage could not be.
However, it seems that God, in many cases, is given a pass here. He proclaims himself a jealous, vengeful god, as a means of somehow justifying the attrocities of the day performed at his decree and in his name.
So is such emotion and response sinful? If so, then God sins every time he sees fit to punish because of his own self-admitted jealousy. And if it's not sinful, then why are we talk that murder is wrong (among, of course, a whole host of other things)?
I feel this is a rather blatant double standard, and it has always stuck fast every time I tried to reason with it. Perhaps some of you can provide some honest-to-goodness enlightenment here.
Perhaps an even bigger issue is the whole idea of the origin of sin. So, as I understand it, the first man and wooman willfully disobeyed God, did something they were told not to do, and were cast out for it.
I suppose I can understand that much; it's harsh, but it's reasonable if you accept all that surrounds it.
But here's where I run into trouble. If I got angry with any of you for something someone else did, wouldn't that be sort of ridiculous? If one of your fathers upset me, wouldn't I be considered spiteful, judgmental and even downright mean if I basically made you prove yourself trustworthy to me on account of your father's actions? And now, multiply that many billion times over. Adam and Eve may have made a mistake, but quite frankly I don't see why we're still paying for it.
What sort of a creature who claims to love and respect his creations perpetrates such disregard of common courtesy? To go a step further, if God is in control of creation, it stands to reason that he could very easily make all humans born completely neutral, capable of sin but being free of it.
And here is the one point that may strike you as slightly contentious. Fair warning.
Jesus came and died for our sins...but God made him do it.
God could have forgiven mankind, as a whole, for the single mistake made by his first two children, but he didn't. Instead, he, this loving, caring father, asked his only son to die a terrible death to forgive what looks quite seriously like a phantom debt.
And all of this, I'm afraid, adds up to a pretty bleak picture. Sin scares people. Sin is used to keep people in line. Sin is used to validate Jesus Christ. Sin is said to be unavoidable, and since the only way to be free is via a prescribed path, then the prescribed path begins to look almost forced. Goodbye, free will.
Here's my main question, then, and it's almost a plea:
Why can't religious people simply believe that some god or other, about whom they are incapable of knowing anything, set the universe in motion, and perhaps gives it a little nudge from time to time? Why all the scare tactics? Why all the doctrine? Why all the human failings wrapped up in the wonder of a pretty amazing world, when you get down to it?
It feels to me a little like receiving a priceless Ming vase and then throwing up in it.
Crude, I know, but it's how I feel.
I welcome discussion on this. I want to know how, outside of scripture, so many good and honest people can get so wrapped up in this ephemeral concept of sin...a concept so bone-deep that, once it started, it passes on by force to every single living human. And I really want to know why sin takes precedence over simple human decency so often. That, to me, is the biggest crime of all.
This gets muddy.
The reason I suggest this, is it depend on what you are taught in your religion, or by your religious teachers.
It also would be based much on your personal belief system, or religious stance.
Let’s start with God. God repented. I believe this example was given to mankind to show that we need to repent and forgive, because no one, is perfect.
Next, Jesus died so that we could be washed of our sins. This was done, because mankind had forgotten, so needed a refresher.
We had other profits go through things other than Jesus, if you’ll remember.
You called Jesus’s death bad, but remember, his father gave the humans free will, he did not make them do what they did to Jesus.
The death looked bad, but if Jesus had all the power he is said to have, don’t you think that death was nothing to him at all?
Jesus was always telling people it is fine, your human. You made a mistake, so now you’re forgiven, go and sin no more.
Jesus wasn’t worried about your sex life, your personal habits, but only what you did to others.
Decency, was all he asked, and so did the other profits.
Do on to others as you would have them do on to you.
You know the story of David, one of God’s profits and loved?
He had plenty women, but wanted one specifically. He sent her husband to war so he’d be killed so he could take his wife.
It was only about sex.
The sex wasn’t the sin, but the fact he killed a man for his wife he didn’t have to have killed.
But God forgave David.
The thing is, we can recover from sin, and from Adam and Eve we have many times.
The nature of sin is only what you wish to have it be, but if you strip it down to basics, it is only the harm you do to others.
Like your example of killing your lover in jealous rage. That is sin only because you took something away from them you couldn’t give back, or fix.
Sure, they hurt your feelings, but were was there sin?
All he ask of us, is we give each other love, nothing more.
This is interesting, and I have always wondered this. In so many religions, god punishes, often by killing, those he disapproves of. Surely, even if that person has done something wrong this is also an awful response to it?
Greg, Forereal is quite right about the muddiness of this topic. I will have a much different view as a member of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints about the nature of sin, whether God sinned, and even the origin of sin than a catholic
might, or a southern baptist evangelist might.
In the homophobe topic I have covered a lot of what I believe, especially about the idea of original sin, adam and Eve, and
Jesus dying for us. I've linked to a lot of information on these topics already, though given they are vast links, I wouldn't
be surprised if people refrained from looking into them. Now, You've asked us not to quote from scripture or other material,
but they are the source of our knowledge, and the conviction of our beliefs. Without them, we'd just be making stuff up on
our own, which is how ... well, lots of religions get started. I get you want us to say it in our own words, for the sake of
being brief if nothing else, but sometimes, it's better to give something official rather than hear what an individual member
thinks, because that's one person's oppinion. Plus, sometimes it's just written better and in a manner more understandable,
especially when it takes so much time to write what one with more authority can make clearer.
I am going to provide links, and if you're really curious on this topic, and what my particular church believes, I hope you check them out. But before hand, I'm going to over-simplify in my own words. This took me quite a while to write, and doubtless I may not touch on all your questions, ian if I missed some, please let me know.
This is, as a member of the human race, and as a member of neutral standing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
saints, what I believe. To sin is to willfully disobey the commandments set forth by God, or to act in unrighteousness,
fully knowing that what you're doing is wrong. As no unclean 'thing can dwell in the presence of God, sin cuts us off from
God and drives away the Holy Ghost, given as a companion to be our guide. As long as we are in the presence of Sin, we can
not return to God, and to the place from which we came. He is also bound to keep promises he makes us, but when we disobey
him, we break the covenants we make with him at baptism, (and if you're LDS, in the temple.) We all sin, either on purpose
or without knowledge. Only Jesus was without sin, which is why he was the only one who could atone for mankind's sins. But
I'll get to that. essentially, when we repent with a sincere heart and strive to foresake a sin, the lord God will remember
it no more, and we will be forgiven. We partake of that atonement Jesus made, in which he paid for the sins of mankind
through his blood. This he did willingly as I said before, out of love for us, and an understanding of what it would mean for
us. God had no hand in forcing him to do anything. Jesus had as much free agency as anyone else. When he suffered in the
garden of Gethsemane as his apostles looked on, he experienced all the physical, mental and spiritual agony any of us would
ever experience all at once. It washed over him, and it is said his suffering was so great that he sweat blood. With his
death on the cross, he atoned for the sins of the world with his blood, overcoming death and allowing us to overcome it as
well. He rose then, a glorified, perfected being of flesh and spirit, which is that glorified body we may all enheirit. When
we cause pain to others, when we insult them, harm them or abandon them, we do it to him. When we treat people well, when we
keep his commandments, when we act in his name in righteousness, when we give service, we do it unto him, making what he did
to us mean something. He did all this because he loved us, and by experiencing our collective suffering, he may stand as a
mediator for us, paying the debt due for our sins when we stand at the judgement bar of God at the end of this world's time.
it's important to note that, were he to need to suffer so that only one of us could be saved, he'd have done it. he is not
expecting us to be perfect. None can be perfect in this life. Perfection is an eternal principle. What he expects us to do is
strive to every day keep the commandments he has given us, and to sincerely repent and to foresake our sins when we
inevitably fall short. But we can't partake of the fullness of his atonement unless we accept him, believe in him, be
baptized in his name, and endure to the end. That is sin, and that is why Jesus chose to do what he did.
Now, original sin. I've spoken on this at length and will try to keep it brief. See "The fall of Adam and the Garden of Eden"
below to get a waaay bettter description with a lot of helpful sources.
I'm quoting here from that link a bit, because it helps.
In the Garden of Eden, God commanded, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but
remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Moses 3:16–17). Because Adam and Eve
transgressed this command and partook of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they were cast out from the
presence of the Lord (see D&C 29:40–41). In other words, they experienced spiritual death. They also became mortal—subject to
physical death. This spiritual and physical death is called the Fall.
We inheirit this fallen condition because we are born of mortal parents. But had Adam and Eve not fallen, we would not have
been born. There's a lot that goes into that, but that would be its own post and is outlined below should yuou like to look
into it more. The important thing to understand about our beliefs is there is no original sin. We are not sinners because we
are fallen by default, but we are in this fallen state because of Adam and Eve, our "first parents." This means we're
separated from God, and we are subject to physical death, trials and tribulations. "In this fallen condition, we have a
conflict within us. We are spirit children of God, with the potential to be “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).
However, “we are unworthy before [God]; because of the fall our natures have become evil continually” (Ether 3:2). We need to
strive continually to overcome unrighteous passions and desires." This is what is called the natural man, which is an enimy
to that god, and our natures before we were mortal. It is a constant striving to put off the natural man, to ensure our
passions do not stretch outside the bounds of commandments which are meant to keep us safe from sin.
So why all this rigamarol? Why did god allow the fall at all? While it did subject us to physical and spiritual death, it
also allowed us, as I said before, to be born on this earth, to be given a mortal body with which to experience mortality.
This experience is necessary for our eternal progress if we are to be heirs to the kingdom of God. "Through our righteous
exercise of agency and our sincere repentance when we sin, we can come unto Christ and, through His Atonement, prepare to
receive the gift of eternal life." “If Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the
garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were
created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end."
“And [Adam and Eve] would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy,
for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin."
"In addition to redeeming us from the universal effects of the Fall, the Savior can redeem us from our own sins. In our
fallen state, we sin and distance ourselves from the Lord, bringing spiritual death upon ourselves. As the Apostle Paul said,
“All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). If we remain in our sins, we cannot dwell in the
presence of God, for “no unclean thing can dwell … in his presence” (Moses 6:57). Thankfully, the Atonement “bringeth to pass
the condition of repentance” (Helaman 14:18), making it possible for us to receive forgiveness for our sins and dwell in the
presence of God forever. Alma taught, “There was a space granted unto man in which he might repent; therefore this life
became a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God; a time to prepare for that endless state which has been spoken of
by us, which is after the resurrection of the dead” (Alma 12:24).
To summarize, this life is a probationary period, a time in which we prepare to meet God. We will all meet him in the end,
regardless of whether we have accepted Christ or not, we will all be judged.
I hope that gives you a little insight, and one perspective. Others will add their interpretations as well I've no doubt.
I've linked to the
The fall of Adam and the Garden of Eden
Original Sin
if this is at all interesting to you and you'd like me to attempt to answer anything else, or that I might have missed, please let me know.
I've read those links before, but I'm afraid this isn't precisely what I'm looking for.
The reason I've asked people not to quote scripture if they can help it is simply this. I'm trying to get them to examine the underlying philosophical questions I've attempted to raise here, without immediately falling back to an answer contrived by someone else.
For instance: why is it all right for one person to claim they're jealous and wrathful, then to sentence someone to death for making him angry or jealous, and yet it's wrong for others to do the same?
Or, if God is apparently all-powerful, why couldn't have have created man in such a way as to let him procreate and still remain innocent? It seems as if God set the whole thing up. The garden, its one forbidden tree, the fallen nature of every single man and wooman thereafter...he planned it. He knew there was a chance it would happen. But instead of asking how, I'm asking why.
That, right there, is the big difference. I want to know why, not how. Scriptures are there to tell me how, but they cannot touch on why.
You and I both, Greg. You and I both. I'm sorry I misunderstood your question. Sorry to me too since it took a while to write. All I can assume is that god is bound by laws, laws which he doesn't understand. I ask the why of things all the time. And the how of things. God stands above - in an eternal sense - from man. And he has a much greater understanding of universal laws and worldly laws than we do. From the LDS perspective, Lucifer said he could redeam all of mankind, that not one soul would have been lost. He would have done that by subjegating us, taking away our agency. Because we had free agency before being born to mortal bodies, you can imagine how well that went over, with God, and with all of us. There's scriptures relating to all of that, and I've gone over this before. All I know for sure is that God sees the end from the beginning. Don't ask me "how". he's god.:) I explained about the old testament before too, that vengeful god who seems to kill those who piss him off. I don't have time, as I'm leaving right now, to get into that again in detail. Suffice it for now to say that in that eternal perspective, those who were smitten will still have a chance. We always think in the narrow, mortal perspective. it's our nature to do so, and frankly Greg, I agree with all of your questions. Why is it okay? Why couldn't we have all been born perfect in mortal bodies? Actually of that, we are. Little children "are" born perfect. They are alive in christ at first. But it is the nature of man to fall, and then to be raised up by Christ. All I can assume is that, because of the state Adam and Eve were in at first, that state of innocense and that unchild-bearing state, children could not be born for one reason or another. I'm delving way too far into supposition though, with little to back me up. If this topic still warrants it, I'll try better tomorrow.
"God is bound by laws...laws which he doesn't understand."
This undermines the integrity of God himself. God is supposed to be all-knowing and all-powerful, is he not? This suggests that he would be 1. cognizant of those laws and 2. strong enough and canny enough to break or reshape them. If he cannot do these things, then he is neither all-powerful nor all-knowing.
If he -will not do these things, then some knowledge must be necessary. You cannot make a conscious choice to do a thing, or not to do a thing, if you are unaware of that thing. So, from a philosophical standpoint, this is a serious roadblock.
And it begs the question: if there are laws greater than both the power and the understanding of God, where did those laws come from?
In the other thread, I said that both religious and nonreligious folks alike were stumped by the "what created..." line of reasoning. It's true, and this chain of induction you've raised just puts a big neon sign on it.
To be honest, I feel like the argument about there being laws that God must follow but which he doesn't understand is just a way to make a tough question go away quietly. The more I see, the more it looks as if people only believe a thing because, in essence, they're told to believe it. Remy, if no one had introduced you to an LDS background, you wouldn't be seeing eternity through an LDS lens. You wouldn't be able to. You might very well believe in a god, or in the idea of an eternal soul, or in any number of other things independent of any given religious sect, but you almost certainly wouldn't have preconstructed ideas about Christ, original sin, man's fallen nature, and all the rest. Wondering about life and death and mortality and the hereafter is quite understandable, but the prepackaged ideas of sin and atonement have always felt circular. That's why I'm picking at them, and trying to ask the hard questions hiding behind them.
From my view, you have forgotten that even God repented.
When you say that God is jealous, it isn’t jealous as we see it, it is meant to mean here is the way you should be, and if you insist in not following this path, you won’t be such a good person.
Even if we don’t have God, we have rule. Rule is what keeps us able to live on the earth. Without rule, we’d have all sorts of problems.
Saying that, God is the guvnor, or leader. Your leader punishes you in some fashion to teach you.
Just like the police. If you insist in breaking the laws of the land, the police are going to get jealous you are following another’s rule and punish you.
This brings you back to society boundaries.
It is nice to live in a world where you have free choice, not one that restricts you is it not?
God is all powerful, so can allow us this freedom.
When you were born, you had to be taught a value system. You didn’t just have it.
As a baby, you could have been taught hate. You could have been taught that stealing was the right way to live, and other human’s property was yours for the taking if you could take it.
You could have been taught many other sinful things.
At some point you had God, or a God like force in your life that taught you the difference from sin, and right.
God had the power to kill them all, because the people were not following.
God also had the power to put them back, rebirth if you will.
God still repented, because God has the power to teach in the method we are taught now.
I take that story as an object lesson, not a point to debate, or argue over.
You are mad with God, because God spanked mankind for miss behaving. That is what is comes down too.
Last, we humans mis intrepid sin, or give sin our own values.
Some believe gambling is a sin, but if you look at gambling, it hurts only the person losing his or her money.
It only becomes a sin when that person takes someone else’s money, livelihood to fund their habit.
Sin and the concept of sin gets complicated because we humans want to be God.
It is really simple.
Do on to others as you’d like to be done.
Maybe I’m not brain washed as you’d like, so I don’t really qualify here.
I'm not so much mad at him. I'm kind of disgusted with him, because he allowed it to be decreed in his holy book that starting a fire on the Sabbath could result in a person being stoned to death. That's pretty extreme when you boil it down.
I did say before that if we accept all the trappings surrounding Adam and Eve, I can understand God's point there. "Don't do this one thing, okay?", and then they did it, and suffered the consequences. I still think the setup is silly, but I'm not necessarily against the idea of punishment.
When I'm talking about a jealous god, I mean the part where he essentially says, many many times and with varying degrees of threat, "You will have no other god besides me. Or else." That's a bully tactic.
Wow, Greg. That was one huge typeO on my part. I meant, god is bound by laws that "we" don't understand. Geez. See, this is a "lost in translation" moment if ever there was one. See how just a single word can change the entire meaning of a thing? That's what happens in the bible when it is mistranslated. And it leads to .. well, unnecessary questions.:) Great questions in the event I hadn't typed wrong though. As for the LDS version of things, I prescribe to it because for the longest time, I didn't find a way by which to make sense of the scriptures. You speak of preconceieved notions, but what's wrong with that, if it's right? I'm not saying the LDS church is right, here. What I'm saying is, if any of this religious stuff is real, then one of these outlooks have to be right, or at least close. That doesn't mean I can't and don't question the small details. And Forereal, thank you. I'd forgotten about god's repentence. All of this doesn't invalidate your question Greg, who started it all? Who created the rules god is bound by? We have no idea. That's probably one of things things wwe won't know for a long, long time. Speculating is fun, but that's all it will ever be at this stage.:)
If god is bound by any laws, then the laws are greater than god in some way because he cannot supersede them. This means he is not, in fact, all-powerful.
You're right, a single word does change things, but it still does raise an interesting question. Whether or not -god understands those laws is irrelevant; if he's bound by them, then any honest Christian ought to be asking "Okay, but how can God be bound by anything?"
Either he controls everything and everything comes from him, or he doesn't. You can't have both.
This almost becomes an epistemological argument.
I would also like to point out that we didn't have free agency before we sinned.
WE couldn't have. If, according to scripture, eating of the tree of knowledge of
good and evil is what gave us knowledge of good and evil, then there is no way
that we could have known what good or evil was before we know what good and
evil were. Without knowing what good and evil is, you can't have the choice
between good and evil, because you don't know what those two words mean.
You don't have moral agency. Its just like, if you have an infant, and the infant
drops its bottle, and it breaks, you don't assume the baby did it maliciously,
because the baby doesn't know what maliciousness is. The baby can't be evil,
because it doesn't know enough to have the good possibility, and the bad
possibility, and choose the bad possibility.
To which most christians say that God told them not to do it, so they should
have listned. But this just creates two more problems. First, God said that they
would die if they ate of the tree. But no one had died yet. They'd never seen
anyone die, heard of someone who died, or met someone who had once seen
someone who had heard a story about a guy who thought of the word die yet.
They, adam and eve, were the only two people, and neither of them had died.
So it would be like me saying, "Don't type using the combination of letters I'm
thinkig of right now lest ye bladrodrolkov". You have no idea A, what the letter
combination I'm thinking of is, and B. what that punishment is. So my threat is
meaningless. Thus, so is original sin.
If oriinal sin is meaningless, all sin is meaningless. Its just a made up
construct.
First, you have all approached sin from the Christian viewpoint. Sin exists in other traditions too. Sin has differing deffinitions depending on the tradition. Its meaning varies even among Christian traditions. The reason the meaning of sin varies is because the meaning doesn't matter. Sin as a concept has one and only one purpose and that is social control. It is interesting to me that in most, but not all traditions, sex and sin are practically synonyms. But that aside, the purpose of creating the sin concept is to control behavior. God did not invent sin. Sin is a man made concept used to control our behavior and invoking God is merely the mechanism to insure we don't bawk. It is a sin for a Muslim woman to show her face to a man not in her family. Really? It is a sin for a Jew to even cook on the Sabath. Really? And in many evangelical Christian sects, it is a sin to even think about sex. Really? Come on folks. Sure we don't want to be killing each other out of hand and we survive better if we cooperate and don't constantly take each others things. But to even think about sex, a sin? Its about social control an that is the extent of it.d
Exactly. Man has decided what sin is and is not.
Man read that people should be stoned, or understood it wrong.
But even now, God never said people should be jailed for their sins, but we jail people all the time for disobeying the law.
The Adam and Eve story is an example, not a rule, and shows that God is forgiving even after dealing punishment.
Like Adam and Eve, we are allowed to test things, have ideas, and even hate God, or say God doesn’t exist.
I say God exist, like it or not, because even the best disbeliever knows what is decent, or not.
Good and evil can really be defined simply, but man has complicated this, not God.
I don’t agree God has rules to follow God is the law.
I can’t exactly remember where this is written, but you asked us not to rely on scripture.
If we are talking only about the Christian God, then you have a jealous God. But were was it written that God was the Christian God?
Other religions follow God’s laws or don’t, but when it comes down to it, all roads lead to God, or one concept of good.
So, sin is a label, not the law, or rule.
Actually, Cody, you bring up an interesting bit of thought about agency. From my perspective, we must have had freee agency in the beginning, while we were
all still spiritual beings. Else we would not have been able to choose whether to follow Satan, or God. All who were ever and will ever be born to mortality
have made the choice to follow God. Those who did not were cast out with Lucifer, never to have the opportunity to be born. And they're not happy about it.
When Adam and Eve, the first humans, were born, they had no sin, and they had perfect, immortal bodies, unable to die, and unable to procreate either. They
lived in a state of complete innocense, knowing no pain, but no real pleasure either. No sadness, but no joy. Doing no bad, but doing no good either. They
just ... were. All of us who are born have a vail drawn over us, and thus we do not have a rememborance of our time before mortality. The same was true with
Adam and Eve. Thus they were like us, being born without a knowledge of Good and Evil, having a freedom to eat anything in the garden, but the fruit of this
one tree. God said they would surely die, and that they did. Lucifer tempted Eve, saying that they would not die - only half truth, since partaking of the
fruit did lead to their eventual deaths - but that they would be as God, knowing good and evil. Upon disobeying God, their minds were indeed opened, and they
hid their naked selves and made simple garments because they were ashamed of what they had done. their immortality was taken, and they became just ordinary
humans with the ability to die, but also to procreate, which they did. Human beings lived a lot longer back then, but all innevitably die. God knew they
would disobey, just as parents who know their children know what they will do. But this disobedience made it possible for all of us to be born. For her name
is eve because she is the mother of all living. Kind of creepy when you think about the whole insestuous angle, but genetics and living conditions were a lot
purer back then, one of the reasons so many people lived so long. So yes, it all was free agency. Just like when we tell our children to do and not do
certain things, and then plan for their innevitable disobedience based on our knowledge of them. God, the father has a perfect and pure knowledge of each of
us. He knows us, our hearts and our minds. That he knows the end from the beginning doesn't take away our free agency. To put it in smaller terms: I've got a
pretty good idea, based on past experience, how my post is going to be recieved by certain people. I choose to write it anyway, knowing that. But those who
answer still have the freedom to do so. Now because I'm not God, I could just as easily have an answer that utterly defies my expectations. As for whether or
not God forgave Adam and Eve, I'd say absolutely yes. He forgives all who repent sincerely, and Adam and Eve were known, based on the scriptures, to be righteous, and they raised their children to be also. Then Cain sort of pooped on that, but that's another story.
The idea of Sin is absolutely a means of social control. Whether sin is a man-made concept or a godly concept is the question, but it does exist as a means
of A: controlling behavior or B: guiding behavior based on a set of rules. Without clearly defined parameters taught to us in some way, we'd grow up, well,
being perhaps like Adam and Eve, not knowing what is good and what is evil. Maybe there would be some inate genetic disposition toward that knowledge. That
would be a fasinating - and likely very cruel - social experiment. Sin exists to keep us in line. It gives us clearly established guidelines on right and
wrong. What sin actually is is a transgression against that law, just like breaking the clearly defined laws of a country or state. Whether those laws were
adopted from God's commandments, or whether we made them up ourselves is the question. And that's where Pasco is quite right. We are approaching it from a
primarily Christian viewpoint. I really do wish we'd here from some other faiths on these topics. While the what constitutes a sin varies from belief to
belief, and religion to religion, the actual definition is usually pretty close to the same. I agree that some religions take it wayyyy too far. And that's
why, if there is any religion at all that's actually true, it's so frustrating to figure out what's real.
I don't know exactly what laws God is bound by. I do know that if he makes a covenant with us, he is bound to keep that covenant unless we do not hold up our
end of it. But therein lies a question. When do we covenant with him? And, why, if we hold up our end to the best of our abili8ties, is the answer still
sometimes "no"? After all, you can't just say: "God, I promise to obey all your commandments, and you make me a rich person." That's not how it works. the
Obedience might even lead to riches. It happens in the scriptures quite often. But riches, if not properly used, can lead to turning away from God, and being
lost. It isn't a sin to be rich by any means, but we never know how it will affect us. God gives us what he knows we need. Not necessarily what we "want".
Here's a darker, more tragic example: "God, I promise to serve you if you keep my wife/daughter/friend from dying of cancer." Sometimes our faith and prayers
will indeed help that person. Miracles - defined for sake of arguement as things that well-defy the odds - do exist, for whatever reason. But sometimes,
despite everything we do, God might still let that person pass from this world. Doesn't mean our faith wasn't enough, or they are being punished. And it
definetly doesn't mean "we" are being punished. it just means it was their appointed time. And when we're the one left behind, that can sometimes feel like a
huge hand slapping us right in the heart. We're left asking "why"? Like God doesn't give a crap about us, or that person who he didn't save. Often that's
something that can stress, or even break anyone's faith.
God makes tons of covenants with people in the scriptures, and by extention, those covenants extend to us at certain times. We make covenants with him when
we are baptized, married, endowed in the temple and partake of the sacrament. Tithing is a covenant which we make as well, and I have a personal testamony of
the blessings that come from paying a tithe. Since nobody serving any clergy role, from myself as a youth sunday school teacher, to the prophet and apostles
themselves gets paid by the church for their services, we use the tithes and offerings for everything from humanitarian efforts, to building upkeep, to
temple building, to organization of events. But furthermore, we do it because God has asked it of us. And in return, he makes us certain promises, ones I,
unemployed for four years straight after getting married, have absolutely seen fullfilled in my own lives.
I don't think God follows rules as we understand them as I said. But, for instance, he did not create the universe out of nothing. Something can not come from nothing. It was not blinked into being, but created over a period of time, in stages, from unorganized material. I can't think of a time in the scriptures where god created something that wouldn't have existed in some form before. Even the manah from heaven which he fed the Israelites. Pleae correct me if I'm wrong.
Greg, I admit that most of what's been posted on here by other people I have not really heard before.
Now I can tell you without quotes what it is that orthodox Christians view as sin:
Sin is anything that offends the person of god, precisely because it offends the person of god. It's not the act, or even the thought, it's the offense the god takes.
I'm writing this from a secular viewpoint of course. But the late C. S. Lewis in his extremely popular book Mere Christianity basically states as much.
You know how, if yu shoot a regular Joe on the street, you could be in trouble. But if you shoot a police officer, or worse, the President, your punishment will be much worse. Because you acted against the office of an official.
Many Christian kids learn in Sunday school that the word "sin" is an old archery term which means "Miss the mark".
So what's the mark? the so-called perfection of pleasing this particular personage, the deity.
Ironically only in recent Christian history do you see apologists write that God's laws are entirely for our own good. But that's not really in the Bible, although there's allusions to "all his law is good," but that's circular. It's good because it comes from God and God is good, and to know what is good you must know God. Their main man of the new testament, Paul, writes this incessantly.
Many people find it offensive that there is allegedly one way to God, through Jesus Christ. But uhnder a system where the concept of "sin" equates to offending the personage of the deity, it makes sense that if the deity is going to be un-offended, if you will, such an easily-offended deity is likely to be pretty constrictive as to what it will allow as a means to un-offend it.
Paul uses racial terms but I think it bears merit, he claims that the cross of Christ (and by extension our understanding of sin) does two things to "unbelievers", people like you and I. He claims the "Jews" are offended by it, and the "Greeks" say it's all "nonsense" or silly.
I'm afraid I'm one of Paul's Greeks here.
In reality, fundamentalist Christians are the most morally relative people you can meet, although they claim to rail on against moral relativism. I'm personally an objectivist when it comes to most things, ethics included. The reason I say they're among the most morally relative is that their system is entirely subjective. An action is not wrong because it's objectively proven to be wrong; it's wrong because he said so.
The notion that he makes these laws for our specific good, is new in historic terms. You won't read that from Augustine, Tertullion, or even Luther.
It's a newer, 19th-century innovation in Christianity.
Christian kids today might be told that God proscribes premarital and extramarital sex because he cares about them so much that he wants to prevent them getting STD's and broken hearts. But there's no evidence of that anywhere.
Why human beings proscribe it, (establishing paternity, maintaining a financial benefactor of the offspring until it grows, and so forth) is pretty well known.
But the deity calls sin a stench in his nostrils. It's an offense, he doesn't like it. No more, no less.
If it was objective, you think maybe along with the proscriptions against behavior there might have been given a reason? The reasons given in the Biblical and other religious texts have to do with punishment from the god itself.
The Way of the Master was extremely popular mid to late 90s early 2000s among Christian evangelicals in part because it did what the god and any other cult leader does: Prove you've got a problem and then sell you on the solution. The problem you allegedly have is with the god, and you're not punished on behalf of your fellow humans for having hurt them. Classical Christianity makes it pretty clear sin is just an offense against the god, and the god is only willing to be un-offended by sacrifice, blood sacrifice, a distinctly bronze-age practice.
That's why the sin of stealing chewing gum, or the sin of murder, will equally send you to hell. If the god was the least bit concerned with justice or objective morality, in short if the god actually judged, adjudicated the situation, he / it could not logically punish both equally. Now I know some Christians will say there are levels in Hell. but in a lake of fire, isn't that largely a distinction without a difference?
Now if you asked my Christian daughter or other liberal Christians, their answer might look quite different, something closer to Wayne's argument. I honestly wouldn't know how to answer that, as I don't know how they arrive at their conclusions.
Their arguments, I simply don't know or think that I could know.
See, Leo, if the only option was to believe as the fundimentalist evangelists you speak of do, I'd have a much different aditude towards God. In fact, I'd be leaning more towards you and Cody's point of view, and would probably be, if not an atheist, more embittered towards the idea of Christianity. I can't equate my notion of God with such thought. Could be I'm wrong, in which case, even though I do believe in Jesus I'm either completely saved without effort, or still somehow bound for some sort of hell, but I just can't bring myself to believe that way. A lot of the fire and brimstone stuff came from a time where only a select people had access to any scripture. Then, religion really was used as a form of social control, and certainly a fear tactic; far more than it is today. There is a large portion of our belief, and of religion in general which really is man-made. People will always mingle the philosophies of man with scripture to serve their ends. And when those ends are wicked, we have things like the spanish inquisition, and forced conversion. if that's who and what God is ... well, I'm in serious truble. Newer ideas came about due to greater access by the common people to scripture reading, and, in the case of my church, scriptures and revelations which build upon what the bible teaches. All of it goes to show one thing: Christianity, to say nothing about all the other religions, is vast. It would really be helpful if God gave us some sort of guidance as to what is "actually" the right path to follow. We LDS believe he has indeed done so but, conveniently, we lack the concrete evidence to back it up, just like every oither religion that tells people it's the right path,. That's another reason I find the LDS church makes sense, because it takes people who believe differently into consideration and has an explanation as to where they end up. Here's a hint, it's not a hell of fire and brimstone in a burning lake of fire in a literal, nor in an eternal sense. There is such an eternal damnation, but it is reserved for Luciver and his angels, and a handful of the worst of the worst of us who have committed the unpardonable sins. And we know very little about this place, whose english name is "outer darkness." +
I don't want to derail Greg's topic here but I feel a term I used bears some explanation.
Ethical objectivist, or some refer to it as moral objectivism. I think ethics and morals do sometimes differ, which is why I refer to myself in this context as an ethical objectivist.
So what's that actually mean?
It means ethical dilemmas, from simple things like murder to more complex things like fudging on one's taxes legally if not ethically, can be and should be rationally understood. Neither the "because he said so" nor the "because it's their culture" arguments have the slightest logical merit. We know now that a major part of what makes us human is our capacity for reason. Many other animals have deep and intense emotions, this has been measured on functional MRI tests and certainly anecdotally experi9enced by pet owners. But other animals, even other primates, don't reason abstractly the way we do.
To that end, any ethical judgment I might make, or any ethical mandate I might give my daughter isn't actually an end in and of itself.
To me, as a parent, an order obeyed without context was totally useless to me. I'd rather she learned the mechanics of the situation instead, so that going forward she would need no such order for related situation. Ethics that mean something can be demonstrated, proven and explained. Neither the cultural relativists nor the evangelical Christians may like it, but most our ethical innovations have not come about by feelings but by understandings. And certainly, we're emotional animals with a highly developed limbic system like the other primates. So certainly understanding leads to feelings. But reason and understanding humans are better than subservient and submissive "sheep".
Now where theists can get this wrong is they think we perceive rationality as a god or an end in an of itself. Not at all; it's the toolbox to be used to figure out what's going on and what makes for the best decision in a given situation.
Not as simple, perhaps, as the two competing arguments from theists and relativists: "What's good for God," or "What's good for me."
But ultimately I agree with Socrates, that rationality tends towards our better nature. Not rationalization, rationality and reason.
If you recognize the term "objectivism" from Ayn Rand's works you wouldn't entirely be mistaken, but I know ethical objectivists whose economic and political leanings don't tend toward the anarcho-capitalist model of Rand, a model I was more or less into for quite a number of years. On that front I'm in a bit of a metamorphosis but not sure as to where yet.
But anyway I used the term "ethical objectivist" so I thought it bore some explanation. While we're not necessarily a popular lot with the Christians, we're also not terribly popular with the secular humanists either.
And I understand there are Christians who have tried to integrate objectivism into Christianity, but again that's an entirely modern innovation and there's a lot of ways it doesn't fully align very well. To the fundamentalist Christian, where reason competes with Scripture, the authority of Scripture wins out.
I only wish Christians would quit banging on about moral relativism, because from an ethical objectivist standpoint, the traditional Christian position is so morally relative it's near laughable. Any time a position that could be rational is instead based solely on what someone or some entity allegedly said, you've lost the rational argument. Even if one comes along a couple thousand years after the fact and attaches an attempted logical framework to the edicts. At least the honest apologists will openly admit if their reasoning didn't work, they would stand by their deity as a matter of principle, obedience to the deity.
Because to them, in the end, sin is just disobeying / offending the deity, whatever the deity happens to want. It's entirely subjective to the deity's words. Even if the claim is that the words don't change -- a subject for another topic, -- still that isn't a rational or reasoned position. Which is why Christian objectivism never took off, not even when political powerhouse Christians like Gary Bower tried to make it so.
I am straying a bit, but have to respond to a couple of points raised.
Ain Ran's writings are about as narcisistic as it gets.I too was once a devotee, but that was when I was young idealistic and inexperienced. Her theories do not stand up to real human existence. I applaud your evolution. And speaking of evolution, an earlier poster wasn't seriously suggesting that all humankind is genetically descended from eve is she? Not possible. Incest isn't the problem either. Either you believe the story is literal or you don't. If you believe the story litteral, then where are the women? Adam and Eve had sons, no daughters mentioned. And don't give me the male lineage argument. The bible mentions plenty of women, but none in this case except Eve herself. If you do not believe in literalism, then the story is an allegory and we scientifically cannot be all descended from that one woman. It's called evolution.
Wow, thank you for that explanation, leo. (NOT sarcasm.) You've reminded me why I stopped my study of philosophy. You can dance rings around me in that department. A lot of those isms just make my head spin.:)
I whole-heartedly agree with giving an order context. "Because I said so", set my teeth on edge as a child, and it doesn't do much better now. My daughter is still a bit too young to reason, being only two and a bit, but we're starting to be able to a bit, and I'll always try to do so when I can. I do know however that she's going to disobey me at times, even if she's got a sound reason as to my commandment. She'll do it because she wants, or to test me, or because she thinks she's right. And she will discover consequences for her actions, sometimes from her father, but more likely from the experiences those disobediences bring about. You can tell a child never to touch a hot element. You can even explain to them that it's going to burn them. Hopefully that will be enough. But sometimes the heat will be too enticing, and when your back is turned, they're going to brush it, and then they're going to realize the why. That's terrible, and I hope it never happens. It happened to me though. Mom told me not to stick my finger in the light socket because I'd be electricuted and would get hurt. She'd told me what electricuted meant. But eventually that finger went in that socket. Why? Heck if I know - I was like five or six. God's no different. He gives us rules to follow, rules which are for our good. Sometimes we don't always understand the exact why, though usually, especially in more recent scriptures - such as the new testament - you can see where God's coming from if you try. You might not "like" it, such as the no sex before marriage bit, but that's not the same thing as not having a reason.
Now, a questiohn about rationality versus ethics. You say rationality tends towards our better nature. I think, at least in my experience, that I agree. I think humans are fundimentally good natured, even if there are many who are not. Nobody's going to ever call Peter Skulley or Albert Fish "good natured" - look those two up, especially Peter Skully if you really want to question humanity. My question is, where does that tendancy to do good come from? God? Maybe. Evolution? Perhaps. But even then, why? Consider this random senario.
You're a person without any real friends or family, and you work in a big corporation. You dream of rising to the top, and you're inches away from being CEO. The only thing standing in your way is Tom. Tom's a really good at his job. But he has no family or friends who would miss him. You can't find any dirt on him to exploit, so you decide to kill him. You reason it out in your mind, covering all the loop holes. You can do the job just as well, if not better. neither of you have family who would miss you, you if you were caught and went to jail, and he if he was murdered. Furthermore, you know you can make it look like an accident and get away with it. It's survival of the fittest, you tell yourself.
With that in mind, what makes it morally or socially wrong to kill Tom. From a financial and survivalist view, it seeems viable. Natural selection and all that. So why not do it if there are no consequences for you? Is this okay? If so, why? If not, why not?
I see your point, Pasco. But adam and Eve did in fact have many children, Sons and daughters both. Everyone knows the names Abel and Cane, but those weren't the only children. They and their decendants all lived for a few hundred years, some even more than that. Certainly many must have been killed off, but that's a long time to have children. The problem with the bible - and the book of Mormon for that matter - is women ... aren't really talked about much, especially not in linniage. I don't know why that is, and I don't really like it. There were women of great significance and importance in the bible, but as a whole, mostly the men are given the spotlight. Heck, you never hear about female vikings that much, but they've just recently discovered evidence that there may have been much more than just men who traveled. The bible - the scriptures as a whole - any scriptures - aren't a complete chronicle of any historical sense, just the parts the writers, inspired or not, deemed important enough to record. Now, I'm not saying evolution doesn't have a big part to play, though I don't actually know how much, or how. We LDS have our theories, though I don't think we think we know for sure. But then, science and archiology, if I understand correctly have a lot of questions too. It is called the "theory of evolution, after all. I'm not discounting it - I'm no six thousand year old earth believer - but I'm not willing to discount creation and god based on evolutionary theory either, as much evidence as there is. It is, I think, just one piece of the puzzle.
Wow, this is such a great topic. NO bashing, just straight discussion, and I'm seeing things I've never seen before in a religion board. :)
I know I've been focused on the Christian idea of sin, and I really would like to see others chime in if they have the knowledge and experience to do so. Christianity is the religion I know the most about.
I would say that the big three (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) seem far more focused on sin and the "do it or else" mentality than your eastern religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, etc). Oh, those philosophies still try to get you to be a good person, try to get you to follow ideal paths, but they aren't so much trying to browbeat you as guide you.
And that's actually one of the reasons I brought up this topic in the first place.
Sin is a construct that we seemed to think necessary enough to employ to unite the masses in one thing: fear. By "we", here, I more mean our religious leaders and authorities.
But what of all those people who do not believe in Christ, but who would still act in support of their fellow man, or who at the least would generally act decently toward others since they hope for and expect the same for themselves?
It seems as if a big difference is "do it or else" versus "Come this way, let me show you". I think western culture has largely forgotten that people do not need to be terrified, intimidated, shamed or guilted into being decent people.
My problem with your line of though ramy, is this. You have to twist either
what you define god as, or what you believe from the bible or holy text. Rather
than taking what is written about god as the truth, you are bending god to fit
into your moral framework. So yeah, if you choose to believe something about
god that you have no basis for, then you're right, we had moral agency before
then because you believe it to be so. Since its all made up anyway, you just
make up what you want to believe, and go with that. That protects you against
the arrows fired at fundamentalist religion. The problem is that you have no
basis for your stance. You just think it sounds nice, so you go with it. At least
fundamentalists have a book.
Right, people can learn decency from the people around them.
Not all will follow the teachings, but many will.
I draw my views from the reading of the Bible, and other written material on the subject.
I have to come to the place that say, we are one church, body, or group undergo. That body, or church doesn’t need a title or a name.
The people of the Bible were not Christians, and other religion titled, groups have spiritual, or holy people, meaning, people that follow the basic laws of God in life.
If you are looking at their sin, it would be not joining the Christian body.
Otherwise, they are just as holy, right, or sin free as any Christian.
I draw my simple sin concept from all the profits in the Bible or other publications that had vary real human problems, but were still seen as good in God’s eyes.
We can see man’s problem in the extremist. They are killing people in mass, but expecting reward in paradise.
It is called holy war, but the people dying are not fighting them.
Have they not sinbed in God’s law?
I can understand your thoughts, Cody. But everything I have said is what I've gathered from the various scriptural sources and commentaries - which site said sources. The bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, the words of living prophets, the gospel topics resources, the temple ceremony and student manuals and other commentaries. All of this combines to form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. These are my basis. I'm not making leaps. It's true that there may be a couple things that I just "believe" because generally we just don't know enough about them, but they are few and far between, and I don't really talk about them here much. It's also one reason I post the links I do, so that people who care enough to read them will realize I'm not pulling a captain's log out of my shoot. My way is the right way ... for me. Whether or not it's "the right" way, remains to be seen. But it all resonates in a way no religion has before. It's clear you've formed your own understanding of my church, and that's fine. But I'm not twisting god, or making him into something "I" want him to be. Maybe that's what my church has done, and maybe we're wrong. But I myself do not tend to come up with conclusions just because they "sound good".
I like that, Forereal
No, all that proves is that you're pulling the log out of someone else's ass.
You've bought what someone else said, and took it as your own. All of those
books you listed are so full of holes, errors and blatant lies that trying to use
them as anything more than a prop for your coffee table is a sad waste of time.
Certainly trying to find moral grounds in them is useless because it requires you
to ignore the vast majority of what it constitutes as moral. You, I hope, don't
think native americans are evil, do you? You, I hope, don't think blacks are evil,
do you? You, I hope, don't think its acceptable to own slaves, do you? You, I
hope, don't think its acceptable to stone a woman to death for not being a virgin
on her wedding night, do you? You, I hope, don't think its acceptable to tell
women they should never speak in church, but rather ask questions of their
husbands when they get home, do you? You, I hope, don't think its acceptable
to murder an entire wagon train load of immigrants as your religion did, do you?
You certainly don't think its ok for that same religion to then charge the
government for the bullets they used to kill those immigrants, do you? You, I
hope, don't think its ok to tell young women that they are unclean if they are on
their period, do you? You, I hope, don't think its ok to tell young men not to
masturbate because of what's in your book, do you? And that's just a small
sampling of things in your books we now ignore. I didn't even mention all the
raping, polygamy, infanticide, genecide, and mass murder found in those books
and construed as moral goods either.
And Wayne, the simple answer to your question is yes. Those extremists are
acting exactly sa their holy books tell them to act. That's the thing I find most
entertaining about moderate christians. The people they say aren't true
christians have more scriptural basis for their hate than anything you'd find in a
moderate church today. So, those people we think of as extremists, the KKK or
the westboro baptists, are, if anything, better christians than people like
Chelsea or Ramy there.
All these things you list are man decided sins.
I have read that holy book, and know place do I find the innocent should be killed.
That particular holy book advises protection. Protection is the only reason to go to war, not to make people suffer, or agree with your opinions.
If we take the aposing profits, Jesus, and Mohammad, they were really similar in thinking.
Neither treated women badly, or any of the other sins listed.
Sure, these have been done, but all have been done due to man's need to rule, not God's rule.
These are only two profits, or holy men. We have others in different groups.
It seems when men wants something, or to rule something, man decides how to do this, and bases that on religion to make it right.
That is not God's way, or doing. It is the free will of man.
Even men that decide not to follow God rule, follow God's rules, but say they don't believe in God.
That also is free will.
No Cody, I don't think any of that is okay. In fact I think it's all far, far from okay. Neiher I nor my church thinks blacks or native americans are evil. In fact, the United states treaed both groups far worse than we ever did. Yes there's that whole blacks in the priesthood thing, and I can't defend that because I haven't come across the exact reason for it. But blacks had it before the ban, and they have it now. There were a lot of them during that time who were faithful, even whom helped build temples, even knowing at the time, they could not enter. It was always meant that that ban would be lifted. I admit it took far, far too long. I just don't know the reasons for it. yes, it was convenient that it tended when it did. But we "do not" believe it was because they were descended from Cain, and we "do not" believe it was because they were less than valliant in the pre-mortal life. Those were only theories people came up with, and ones many times disavowed by the church. I also don't think slavery is moral. Never have, though the US, again, did for a while. Stoning is likewise not okay, man or woman. We don't do that. Maybe it happened in the old testament, but again, another time, another place, another people, eternal perspective, blah blah blah. No I don't think women should be silent in the church. Paul, a convert and a man from another time and place again said that, to a people who are not us. It's unfortunate that people believe it applies today, but I don't, and my church doesn't. I think women should have more leadership roles in the church should they wish to, but nowhere, NOWHERE! do we tell women to be silent in church. You hear just as many men speaking in church as men. As for the wagon train load of immigrants. I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're speaking of. I've read a lot of church history, but can't recall that. Give me a source on that, will you, and maybe I can set the record straight. I do know that the US government treated early LDS members like actual shit. There's a long list of atraucities committed on us by them, and yes, there were times when we had to defend ourselves. What were we supposed to do, bend over and take it? As for women being unclean? No, again. And as for masturbation .... okay, you've got me there. We do encourage men - AND women - not to masturbate, and to stear clear of pornography, and there's a whole bunch of reasons for that. To us, sexuality is sacred; to be enjoyed immensely yes, but in the bonds of marriage. I can see why people don't like that idea. I myself had a hard time with it. But I can also see the reasons of it too. Do I follow what someone else has said, Cody? Yes! Do I do it because I'm told to. No. I do it because I believe in it. If I was just doing what I thought was right with no basis, I'd be creating my own religion, wouldn't I? Something "convenient" for me. I use my common sense - if you can believe it - and if the church suddenly told me to start stoning women who weren't virgins, then I'd have to seriously reevaluate everything I think I know. But that's the thing, I'm not being asked to do anything terrible. It's hard to equate LDS beliefs today with stuff in the old testament, I'll admit. But We can, in fact find scriptural basis for what we believe. Just because you've read our books doesn't mean you understand their intricacies. You've proven that by the questions you've asked me. You see what you wish to see. And I see what I wish to see. Who's right? Who really knows until it's all over. But I live as moral a life as I can. I am proud to be a member of this church, even though I know much of its history, and of the accusations laid against it. You think it's stupid? Then Think it's stupid. That's the beauty of this age we live in. I can believe what I will, as can you. There will come a time where great, real persecution of Christians will come again, don't worry.
Remy I haven't read all the posts but I want to address the one where you
presented the ethical dilemma.
First I must state I differ from secular humanists in that I don't see any
evidence that we are born good, any more than I do for the Christian view that
we are born evil. I think we're born with tendencies for both, and they've now
done studies to demonstrate why we have specific tendencies for both in-group
bias and empathy.
So on to your dilemma:
First, let's be clear. "Survival of the fittest" is outdated as a means of
explanation, and it isn't an ethical maxim. It's a mechanical explanation of
natural selection, to some extent can explain parts of sexual selection.
But when chimpanzees and bonbons practice empathy, or when dolphins try to
rescue each other from nets, survival of the fittest isn't at play. Survival of the
species is.
Honestly, your limbic system is very powerful. Your own scriptures talk about
the searing of a conscience. That is really difficult to understand. We've all done
things deliberately that we knew were wrong, but in no way was our conscience
relieved. We suffered from the experience even if we never got caught. But
some people can in fact "tweak the dial" to the point that certain things don't
bother them anymore. It's startling to learn about such conditions, but these
are war-torn or devastation areas where people are left to do dastardly things to
survive.
But your corporate man: His brain didn't evolve to survive in this wholly
anonymous environment. We only think of people as people up to 40 separate
people at a time. Meaning when you have an infrastructure greater than that,
you don't think of the masses as people. You can though, which is how applying
rationality in ethics makes a difference. We're not bonobos or chimpanzees, we
can reason. And it's through reason that your man would realize doing this act
would probably injure other people he knows who knows this man. He might,
whether he likes to or not, imagine this man's mother. He might imagine the
mother crying before he can control himself and steel himself for the task. We're
assuming here that this corporate CEO fits the stereotype of marshmallow man
in suit and tie, useless on the battlefield or on the farm, only good for office
duty. So battle-hardened he may be in the boardroom, but not so much at the
notion of blood trickling, or seeing the victim's mother's face on TV.
Still, he may so want the position that he would put his desire for it above his
own personal honor and integrity, two things a human possesses and can
singlehandedly ruin. He might not care for the other person, not even see them
as a person. But if he thinks he'll get away with it, he should first consider how
many people have thought they got away with murder for many years, only for
a new technology or method to come forward which exposes them. Again here I
am an atheist but defer to your own scriptures that say "Be sure that your sins
will find you out." It's not magic, it's mistakes made by the perpetrator, who
isn't a seasoned killer, and it's new and improved forensics methods.
Most of this isn't humane morality, and isn't even ethics. But if we can get your
man to reason long enough to abstain, who knows? If he gives in to his
imagination of the other man's mother crying, associations will be made, and he
will see the other man's mother as a human, even if he does not see the man as
human yet.
I have been angry enough with people in my life that I wanted to cyber
sabotage them. For real. Not this doxing foolishness the kids talk about, but
destroy their servers and data. I reasoned at the time that no crime is
untraceable, and even imagined myself (before I could stop it) as the person
solving my own crime, and that was enough to stop me for long enough to
further reason my way out of the whole thing. I didn't rationalize a thing.
Rationality is not above ethic, it leads to ethics. Rationality and the unavoidable
limbic system which is your empathy. If that empathy didn't exist, then cult
groups who wish to go out and kill their enemies would not have to spend so
much time "tweaking that dial" to see the other parties as nonhuman, or
deserving of death.
So your man here might imagine he'd like to kill his competitor, but unless he's
a psychopath who literally doesn't possess the ability for empathy, he's not
going to be able to escape it, even while trying to justify the act before he does
it.
Will that necessarily stop him? NO, but a Christian might do the same crime,
considering the other person is already reprobate, or will go to heaven anyway,
and in the end he can ask for forgiveness for his sin.
The likelihood that a Christian or an atheist will do this is extremely slim, but
your question is well founded.
In truth, the Christian who thinks about doing the crime but shudders at the
thought and refuses to entertain the notion, is not saying "God will be mad."
They value the other human's life intrinsically. As does the atheist.
As a species, we are not like the bears or the great cats. We are extremely
social animals, although far from the hive mind of the insects which government
and other control infrastructures wish that we were. We are tribal, build small
communities with one another even in teeming cities like New York and L.A. We
have small groups of associations just as our ancestors did on the savannas
long ago.
Even FEMA and Homeland Security know this, which is why when we deploy to
do emergency assistance, we are deployed in small groups instead of large,
unwieldy teams.
There's a lot more I could say on this point, and you'd hear some different
things from certain elements of the secular humanists which I differ from
personally. But in the main, reason helps us make associations and understand
the world around us.
An interesting post, Leo. THank you for entertaining my previous one. Goes to show there's a great deal that goes into our behavior, whether we believe in a deity who orchestrated the original rules or not. Very interesting.
I'm only somewhat miffed my Mac's autocorrect ruined the spelling of the word
bonobo or bonobos. It knows they're not misspellings but still called them
bonbons.
It bears mentioning we live in the least violent time in human history. Most of
the deaths in the 20th century were during the War to End All Wars, World War
I.
What most people experience is the news paradox, where things get
sensationalized, but news being what it is,, must report on what is rare. You will
never see on the news that the squirrel crossed the road.
Academics too seem to operate under this paradox, as though all men were
potential rapists, when in fact the biology in the brain for rape only exists in an
extreme few.
Part of what makes us less violent towards one another is this constant new
associations we make. We are more able from earlier on in life, to put ourselves
in one another's shoes. There's a case of a white man asked in the 1960s, "How
would you feel if tomorrow you woke up black and experienced all that the
blacks do?" His response was "That's silly! Nobody just wakes up black!"
But reason and rationality has demanded that we earlier and earlier learn to put
ourselves in the other's shoes so that we can make more informed decisions
when it comes to ethics.
You will see the news media and the activist academics from the social sciences
continually trotting out their tired old tropes, acting as though it were still 1955
and that a boy of 3 is scarce different in his character and quality than Joseph
McCarthy, but that is all those are, tropes, inaccuracies based wholly on
ideology and without any kind of actual data to back it.
The jury's in though: Societies that place a higher premium on reason and
rationality experience far less violence and crime.
But your holy book thinks blacks and native americans are bad Ramy, so
whose right, your church or your holy book?
And wayen, you clearly need to read those books again. I can point out the
spots I'm talking about if you like, they're not hard to find.
Please do so. I'd like to see them honestly.
I know that that specific religion is devided on this issue, so it must be a reason for it.
It seems the extremest are a small group.
The easiest way for me to point them all out would just be to tell you to go to
www.evilbible.com. start there.
And yes, the extremists are a small group, if you consider just the people who
use bombs and guns as extremists. I don't think extremists, at least in this
country, are a small group at all.
Cody, Where does the book say blacks and native americans are evil? If you're talking about the skin of blackness with which the lord cursed the Lamonites, that was done as a means of making them less enticing to the Nephites - who were, at the time, a more righteous people. The tables eventually turned mind you. It was meant to differentiate them, so that in general the nephites might not wish to enter into marriage with them. Remember that at the time, the Lamonites were a terribly savage people. But that isn't so far as I've ever heard, synonymous with blacks and native americans of the latter days, just of the time. There were theories about blacks who were not able to be priesthood holders in the early days of the church being desendants of kain, or who were less than valliant in the premortal war in heaven, but those were just theories and have been disavowed to this day. Also, keep in mind that though the lamonites were a wicked people, they were considered wicked due to the way they acted. They weren't wicked because they were of a different culture, but because they were constantly making war on the Nephites, and they lived very violent and debasing lives. This is very clearly due to the way in which they were raised, and the scriptures often mention the treditions of their fathers. They also felt the Nephites had foolish treditions too. There were lamonites who turned away from those treditions and embraced Jesus Christ, and there were also Nephites who fell into transgression too. You're not wicked because you belong to a culture who is primarily evil, you're wicked because of the actions you take. Muslims aren't evil as a whole, but there are muslims who without a doubt do evil things. Sames with any culture.
Well, you just pointed out the one about blacks. Lets see, how does your bok
choose to make people less attractive and less tasteful as marriage partners?
Covers them in boils? Nope. Gives them giant silly mustaches? Nope. Gives
them giant slimy tentacles? Nope. He makes them black. Explain to me how
that doesn't mean that black people aren't lesser beings?
aS for the native americans, I don't remember the people, but they were
cursed with red skin for disobeying god.
There is a popular Christian apologetic which, depending on how it's packaged, states that the natural materialist cannot ever see justice satisfied. After all, say the apologists, if Hitler committed suicide, and there's nothing after death, then Hitler got away with it, save the violent pain of death by cyanide tablet and a single gunshot through the eye.
That's interesting but far from the whole picture. Was Ted Bundy not a bit of a celebrity in the 1980s when Dr. Dobson interviewed him hours before his execution? He blamed pornography for his crimes, and even cable TV which had not technically existed until after he was already incarcerated. Damn us technical types, we get in the way and ruin everything, don't we?
So let's follow the logic of Bundy's redemption, or that of Carla Fay Tucker, whose clemency Pat Robertson sought in the late 90s:
Several problems arise, problems I never could reconcile even when I was Christian.
Bundy dies and goes to heaven, after all he's asked Jesus into his heart, has seemingly repented and even took an approved political stance before he died to boot. What if one of the women he killed hadn't accepted Christ? Now we have her in hell, and him in heaven.
There goes all William Lane Craig's treatises on justice up in smoke. There went C. S. Lewis's God the judicial English tutor gone.
If punishment for sin were a way to resolve justice, this would not be one of its results. But if you understand sin from the classic perspective of no more and no less than offending the person of the deity, we can see how this could be an outcome, distasteful as it sounds.
Your standard evangelical preacher will tell you that you take your character with you to heaven or hell. The type of person you are, what you've cultivated in yourself. I'm not sure what Scriptures they gain this from, but it does strike a chord of reason which is probably why, when I was Christian, it wasn't something I ever challenged.
But that means Bundy takes his character,what he has cultivated, to heaven.
If you read classical atheists, not these new Atheism plus kids who are low-hanging fruit for Christian apologists, you'll find a commitment to justice in this life. No lolling about hoping that procrastinating justice to the next life will pay off.
I think if you're secular, it really does you well to remember the classical roots of the sin concept; you're offending the personage of the deity by sinning. Historically, it has never been about God enacting justice. Hence many of the older translations of the Bible say "righteousness" where something like the New Living, as thorough a translation as it is, translates the term "justice" instead.
In fact: Augustine was not particularly tyrannical to assert that the unbaptized babies went to Hell. There was no age of accountability back then. Sure, the Jews had it, but they didn't have a Hell, or at least their classic scriptures did not.
In fact, substitutionary atonement although proffered as an explanation by Paul, didn't become popular until the 10th century. Before that, Christ's work on the cross was ransom payment from the Devil.
Really, the Reformation brought about all the possibilities we now have, for God's edicts against certain things are technically best for us, because he loves us. But none of that is directly stated in the Scriptures. And if it were so, all the proscriptions against certain things would have been followed up by explanations provided by an intelligence.
The current modern Christian movements that hearken to some of the old testament food laws are interesting. They cite the Bible presenting a diet that has health benefits. But those health benefits? Conspicuously absent from the text.
I bring this up for the benefit of secular people who may not have ever been exposed to the classical Christian interpretation of sin. With this understanding, if you read Jonathan Edwards, you can see how they put that all together.
Certainly the punishments the gods mete out often are far greater than the crimes committed. Gather wood on the Sabbath and you get rocks thrown at you till your bones break and you finally, mercifully, suffocate under the weight of the stones. And this during a time period when, if death were really the prescription for this offense, a sword thrust could have been ordered. Even a garrote would be more humane.
I admit it's hard to even contemplate the mind of the person who make up such tales.would
Cody I thought I already had explained. I’m not sure how much more explaining I can do. They aren’t “lesser beings” now. All are equal in the sight of God. All were equal then too, but were set apart because of their wickedness. I don’t know why the skin of blackness. Though boils or tenticles sound a lot more … disturbing. Either way, that’s not why African Americans are black. And even if it were, they still wouldn’t be lesser beings. None are lesser in the sight of God, only the sight of man. As for the Native Americans, I don’t recall the red skin cursing. There’s a “sore cursing”, but I can’t recall exactly what that means. I’ll look into it. Either way, there is none made evil or thought of as evil based on the color of their skin. One is made evil by their deeds.
Leo, I can’t really speak to much you’ve said here since I don’t prescribe to that particular Christian way of thinking. First the devil, pornography and tv can’t “make” us do anything. Videogames don’t cause violence. Watching porn doesn’t make you a rapist. I play violent videogames, and yet I am pretty darn peaceful. I’m ashamed to admit I’ve watched porn too. Doesn’t mean I love my wife less or want to cheat on her or rape a woman. Certainly such things can help move us towards such directions, but there are many factors that go into making someone a vile human being. But I’m sure you don’t think otherwise. We do not believe the afterlife to be a straight black and white heaven or hell as the fire and brimstone types do. AQccepting Christ is essential for our salvation, and accepting him in this life, whenever possible, will make things so much easier in the next. But acceptance alone doesn’t garontee the highest degree of salvation. Nor does rejecting Christ, save it be in extremely specific circumstances relegate one to Outer Darkness – or hell if you prefer – prepared for the devil and his angels. And for those who die without any knowledge of Christ, they will have a chance to attain that highest degree. Were it not so, then babies dead from the womb, or who die without being baptised, or who die as young children, or people who have never learned of Christ, or everyone in the old testament who died before him, they would all be lost. What God would do that? The post in which I outline what we believe heaven and hell to be, as well as what happens beyond them would be very long-winded. Suffice it to say that in the case of Hitler, even had he accepted Jesus, he would still be in need of repentance. He’s still responsible for countless deaths, and murder is a very cruel sin. We believe we will all be brought to a complete and perfect awareness of our actions and sins post mortality, as well as retaining our individual personalities in so much as what is not affected by physical ailments or limitations. Furthermore, any knowledge we attain in this life will rise with us in the next, and that includes that perfect knowledge of our guilt. That’s why repentence now, in this life is so important. I don’t know the specifics, but I know repentence in the hereafter can be possible to a degree, but it’s so much harder to endure, akin to what Christ himself may have suffered. Whereas those who sincerely repent in this life, as long as they are indeed sincere and are striving to forsake their sins and make amends, god will not hold them accountable at the last day. Hitler then is going to have a very very hard time of it. That’s a lot of mass death, and I highly doubt sincere repentence was on his mind at the end. I don’t know if such as him can or will be washed clean. I don’t have that answer. But I do know that a whole lot of things are going to make a lot more sense at that time.
As for the christless woman in hell? Again, I don’t follow the fire and brimstone path. We – meaning the LDS church – believe that we will all be judged according to our works, or hearts, and our minds. God is a being of love, and also justice. Crimes committed must be paid for. Jesus paid for them on our behalf. But to take advantage of that we must accept that it really happened, and we must strive to live our best within the bounds he’s given us. And to repent when we inevitably fall short. This is sincere repentence, mind. Christ is the great mediator, and he has suffered all things for us. Circumstance are going to go a long way towards condemnation or salvation. Had that woman had the chance to accept Christ, but rejected it, she wouldn’t be in an eternal hell - especially not one of endless fire and brimstone searing the skin for all eternity. But it would depend on why she hadn’t accepted Christ. Her mental state, her emotional state, her circumstances. As I understand it, there’s a lot of factors that go into salvation, even though Acceptance of Jesus allows us to take advantage of his salvation. But one can’t accept jesus, think they’re saved, then go around murdering and raping and expect to be forgiven just because. Were it so, then there’d be no need for the commandments God has set forth. I hope I’m making sense here. I’m glossing over a lot because I didn’t give you guys any context in our view of heaven and hell. I can elaborate more fully if you like. In the end Leo9, my views on this subject differ dramatically from those you set forth, and that’s why I don’t concern myself with the implications – I don’t believe it will be necessary. And if I’m wrong … then … all I can do is tell god I wish he’d made everything more clear.:)
This is gonna be harsh remy, but at this point I'm not really willing to accept
anything you say because you've displayed yourself to be too blinded by your
beliefs to know which end is up. I could show you exact scripture of what I'm
talking about and you'd do the intellectual equivalent of plugging your ears and
yelling "la la la I can't hear you I can't hear you".
Thank you Cody. I'll accept that. I happen to think there's a difference between what you said I'd do and finding answers which explained whatever passage you didn't show me. But if it will put an end to this particular chain of debate I'll conceit that yep, I'm blinded by my own beliefs. I've spent the last eleven years following blindly, never thinking for myself; never questioning when I encounter strange scriptures, or when people bring up hard questions. Who needs intelligence or logic anyway. Jesus, man, Jesus. ;)
Remy, thanks for your explanation of heaven and hell. I definitely think it's
worth us secular people knowing who it is we're talking to, and what they
believe, rather than superimpose what we think they believe before arguing it.
So thanks for having taken that time to explain it.
Cody. You want others to name sources exactly, but you have refused to do the same. Name your exact sources verses etc. for your accusation or shut the fuck up. How about you give us your view on sin since that is the topic. you spend all of your time attacking another poster, but don't have the balls to give your own views on the actual topic at hand.
Rayumey, I am curious. You say Adam and Eve had both male and female kids. Please tell me where you get that view. It is not in the Bible.
Pasco, you earlier pointed out that different religious systems have different views on sin.
I'm not that educated on religions to be honest. But is it also true there are systems with no sin concept at all? If there are no gods to offend, or the gods simply aren't that "emotionally insecure", maybe a bit more grown up and less easily offended, you wouldn't be left with an opportunity for sin.
Am I wrong, or is there a way they communicate this? You seem more educated in that space than I am.
So far as I understood things, when looking into the religions of my ancestors for awhile, they didn't so much as have a sin situation as just plain old dishonorable and cowardly behaviors. I don't believe in their gods but by default I guess I tend towards the Noble Virtues, the big three being honor, love and fidelity.
But I found no sin among the Nordic or the Odinites. Perhaps you could illuminate how that concept of sin gets played out elsewhere? Some of us would be most grateful.
I would find that quite fascinating as welll. it's ashame this topic is getting into so much back and forth territory now - partially my own fault admitedly) and less about hearing others' perspectives. Get some Wikkans, Muslims, a jew or two, maybe some eastern practitioners. Can't all be about us CHristians. Actually speaking of Buddhists, it's been ages since I've studied about them, but I think they are less about "sin" per say than "letting go". We LDS - or maybe this is a wholey christian saying - have a saying "Be in the world, but not of the world." In other words, live, but don't be a slave to the vain things of the world. Buddhism seems to embody that concept wholely.
Remy, for my part I've enjoyed the transactions we've had on this board.
Many of us, evangelicals and atheists alike, have tended to see religion -- even Christianity -- in one single context. I'm quite frequently surprised by my daughter's responses to things as she's made her way in this liberal Christianity that she embraces.
Leo, there are Christian outlooks that are indeed quite liberal. For my part I find much of what they believe a breath of fresh air. I, like you, have a hard time with the sort of teachings followed by the kind of evangellicals people you often talk about preach. They’re usually harsh and critical, and raise a lot of the philosophical questions that have come up here. Now, people like we Mormons might be dead wrong, as Cody and Terrence seem to think. Other liberal Christians might also have it wrong too. But I have a very hard time equating a god of apparent love, justice “and” compassion with the teachings of Paul, or the apparent mass murderer of the old testament. Maybe he is all those things, in which case Cody’s perspective, and your own might be pretty darn comforting. But I don’t personally believe that. That’s why I look to the scriptures and other resources as I’ve said to find other excplanations which better suit my idea of God. I’ve said all this though. Generally, I find liberal Christians far easier to get along with. They’re usually a lot more tolerant and accepting of other people, and other beliefs.
Now, Pasco. There are several reasons that leed me to the conclusion that Adam and Eve had daughters. First, as I said, is the overall liniage described in the Bible, and the book of Mormon for that matter. Both books love to get into linniage. I can’t recall if daughters are mentioned at all, but if they are, it’s extremely rare. In fact, - and this bothers me – women as a rule aren’t mentioned very much in any of the scriptures, including ones we also follow. They “are” there, but you really have to look. So it’s very possible based on that that adam and eve did indeed have daughters. They had many children, and they lived for hundreds of years – many people did during the early days. If one has any belief in the role of Adam and Eve as the mother and father of the human race, it stands to reason there would have to be daughters. But there is scriptural basis for this too. The book of Moses especially sheds a lot of light on Adam and Eve, and the early days of man.
I’ve found a lot dealing with this matter, and dealing with much of what this topic was originally about. I’m going to link to a couple of the things I’ve found for anyone interested in our perspective. These explain things more fully than I could, and they sight a whole lot of scripture. Whether you believe that scripture is your call. If you have waded through my unauthorative posts, I hope you’ll give this a chance too. It doesn’t prove anything except that there really are answers to questions out there to be found. You just have to go searching for them, and find sources you feel are trustworthy. To me, I find these sources trustworthy. But that’s just me. If nothing else, this is another perspective.
The first is about Adam and Eve, who we believe them to be, and before, during and after the fall, and Why original sin is a false concept. It also talks about God, and how he knew from the beginning that Adam and Eve would fal, and why he allowed it. It also discusses them as parents, and also discusses their daughters. It also discusses Satan, and his role and dealings with them. It speaks of Jesus Christ, and all that he means for us, and how he was important even from the beginning. And it speaks of the end of days, and Adam’s role in preparing his posterity for the second coming of Jesus Christ. This article sites many scriptural references, and I hope anyone curious will also read those too. They’re linked, and you can just open them in a new tab. I’m curious to know what you all think. Especially those familiar with the creation story.
What Modern Revelation teaches about Adam
This is a lesson from the Old Testament Seminary study guide, and once more talks about the fall, and of original sin. Of particular note is the idea that the fall was due not to a sin, but a transgression.
Old Testament Seminary Manual, lesson 10.
This one is a companion to the other two and speaks more about the fall, the war in heaven, Lucifer’s involvement and deception, and the fall itself.
The Choice that Began Mortality
Finally, this article speaks quite well about Adam and Eve’s relationship, and women and marriage in general. Might be interesting for some; it was for me. Keep in mind two things though: this is a speech given at Brigum Young University, and thus doesn’t site anything as far as I could tell. Also, when discussing adam and eve in the garden, he says “gods” in the scriptures. These “gods” are in fact referring to Jesus Christ, who created all things, and his heavenly father, under whose direction he created all things, not multiple gods in the pantheistic sense.
The Divine Destiny of Women
Remy: I too have enjoyed your concepts/post.
The question was asked, and you've tried to answer as you view it.
Now, as to sin. I have said I view it mostly as manmade, or a man idea.
It seems most things thought of as sin are things that give pleasure.
The problem with them is when they cause harm to others, but I can’t see sin in a pleasure that is self enjoyed, or enjoyed by all involved.
Remy, you state you are a shamed of liking porn, why? If your wife made you a video, or made it physical so you could experience it, would you be ashamed of how she made you feel?
In all the “holy books” I’ve read, you have much pleasure. It only got to be sinful when someone decided it was.
Nakedness was only a sin when someone put clothes on it, but before that, it was ordinary.
Leo and Reyumee, I am flattered but my knowledge is limited as religion is such a huge subject. I have read the book of Mormon and several other LDS books as well as the Koran and both testaments of the Bible. Even so, there is so much open to interpretation. For instance, I do not agree women are overlooked by the Bible. Women are prominent all through the books of Moses. The fact they are missing from the Begats in Genesis is actually surprising to me. I read it to mean that Adam and Eve are not the parents of all people except as a symbol. But that is only my view.
AS far as sin in other non western religions, I have not run across the word per se, though the concept is there. I'm sure you are familiar with Carma. It is kind of a Do on to Others lesson which implies you may do wrong or right. Other religions also have evil entities though not called Satan. One of the best books on this stuff is called "The eight Major Religions of the World. That might not be exact. I'll have to look it up. It's easy to find though and available from NLS. It compares the eight largest religions by adherents. They are all codes of behavior to some degree, except maybe Hindu which is a very strange religion to the western mind set. It is written by a professor of religion from Boston and is really well done. If you are interested, I'll try to find the exact title. There is also some excellent writing on Budah written by those who study the faith. Budahism was originally a very simple concept. Let go and do good works. However, the more modern version has become like all modern religions tied up in belief systems and control. But, I am rambling. I think original sin, and the concept of sin as held by Islam, Jews, and Christianity is really specific to a God who will punish, or forgive, and wants adherents to punish others for sin. It uses fear as its primary motivator, and that is unfortunate.
Interesting Pasco and yes I'd be interested in that book.
Modern Christian women point to a significant number of women who were close to Jesus during his lifetime, as well as some prominent leaders in Acts. Even Paul when first mentioning Priscilla and Aquilla, the tentmaker couple in charge of a house church, initially spoke of them as Aquilla and Priscilla ... in keeping with eastern tradition, but in subsequent passages, presumably after getting to know them, spoke of them as Priscilla and Aquilla, in keeping with who was in fact the church leader. Priscilla in this case. Some modern Christian thinkers, evangelicals at least, think that Priscilla might have written the book of Hebrews, whose author had formerly been unknown.
I think many of their arguments make a lot of sense, leaving aside whether or not the individual characters technically existed or not. I personally have pretty strong doubts about Paul, seeing as we don't have any records from Agrippa or Festus or anyone else a about his arrest, trial, appeal to Rome, and subsequent voyage there. For someone who allegedly made such trouble stirring up the Jews and attracting Roman citizens away from Roman custom, seems his appearance in Roman records is conspicuously absent.
Neither here nor there, though, it does seem that however the text got composed, women do feature prominently in qutite a few places. See Deborah in Judges, or the young woman Jael who saved the Israelis by singlehandedly killing one of their enemies.
Actually as a Christian I did really try to educate myself on that. I personally went through a transformation during those days. Initially I just thought women ought to have the same rights as men ... certainly qualified ones ought to have more access to leadership than the lesser qualified guys like me. The metamorphosis I went through had more to do with learning that for them it wasn't just merit based like I thought; they really view it as a lifestyle, those who feel "called" to be in those spaces.
All the old testament proscriptions against women, killing men and boys but keeping the women alive as sex slaves, stuff like that, gets all the attention admitetedly most of it from the secular community. But being where I've been, with a wife who's been in ministry situations in churches, I find I realize there's another dimension to this that we secularists often overlook, as do the wish-they-were-Isis fundamentalists.
I"m curious what good god you're talking about with paul. The one that says
all women should be silent, or that homosexuals will never get into heaven?
That good god? Some definition of good you've got there.
Paskoe, I haven't needed to site the exact verses because remy has known
more or less what I'm talking about, which ones do you require me to site and I
will be happy to do so. As for my views on sin, I don't think it exists. Its a made
up concept that is utterly meaningless because no one can agree on what it
actually means.
Oh yes, women absolutely are mentioned in the scriptures. Heck, there are whole books devoted to them. There are some fabulous stories of women. When I said that, I meant it simply that compared to Men, and with regards to the records of geneology, they're a great deal less conspicuous.
ForReal, you have asked an interesting question. It definetly does appear, in many cases that that which is sinful is meant also to give pleasure. Let’s talk about sex, baby, let’s talk about sex.
Sex is wonderful. It feels good, and it brings people together in a very intimate way, and creats – much of the time – feelings in the individuals. Sexuality is good in the sight of God. Sex itself is not a sin. In fact it’s quite the opposite. But sex is also many other things. Sex is the inate power between man and woman to create life. God has commanded that sex be enjoyed between man and woman within the bonds of marriage. Now, we can argue as to the why a bit later, but for now, we’ll keep that in our minds. The problem is, sex is also potentially dangerous. I’m not even talking about the diseases that can come. When you engage in sex, I believe you need to do so responsibly. Even if you take steps to protect against things, they aren’t 100%. Sex also creates a lot of feelings in the individuals engaging in it. Furthermore, a lot of people simply use sex as a means of recreation. Not everyone, but you need only look at popular media and popular culture to see how prevalent it is. To God, that is abuse of, not only the power of procreation, but also its intimate potential. Keep in mind this is all from my own fingers, and can probably be better explained. The other side of this of course is that there are some Christians who at best consider sex a necessary evil, and at worst, simply evil. Then there are the people in the middle. Sex, like many aspects of scripture, has its interpretations.
Disclamer: I’m going to get a little personal here as a means of demonstration. For myself, I like sex. The no sex before marriage law was something I admit I could and should have been better about. I was never one to use it casually, but I also didn’t follow that commandment as well as I should have. Now, self-sex. Masturbation. Pulling the pud, seeing a man about a monkey, … I don’t know any slang for female masturbation… I like it. I’ve liked it ever since I was 14. Yes, there it is, I’m a wanker. I’d like to say it’s why I’ve gone blind, but sadly I was born that way. Anyway, then I joined the church, and realized, aw crap, it is a sexual sin as well. I don’t know all the reasons why. In truth, I don’t particularly see the problem with it. But it can potentially awaken feelings in us which are better left to the appropriate time. It’s also, I think, an abuse of the procreative power, and or the intimacy meant for, again, the appropriate time. Which leads me to lots of people’s favourite subject: porno! The billion dollar industry. I’ve heard pornography essentially called a means of instant arousal. I think anyone who has viewed porn and enjoyed it can attest to that. It awakens those very same feelings, feelings meant to be enjoyed between man and wife. Again, those feelings aren’t evil, but must be exercized in the appropriate time and place. Porn can also be very addictive. I can’t tell you how many times our church’s general authorities have warned us, especially the young men – away from it. It’s because it’s such a problem for so many people. There aren’t many sins that actually need to be “confessed” a bishop of our church. But sins of a secutal nature are one. And of sexual sins, issues dealing with porn are huge. And no wonder, it’s virtually everywhere in one shape or another. I myself have been a victim of that addiction. Not to the degree of others, but enough. Then when you are in that relationship with that special someone, it can, for some people, be hard to stop, no matter how fantastic a sex life you have. Which leads me to another reason. Adultery. Jesus said that if a married man looks upon a woman and lusts after her, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. First, the same goes for women. Women, though they may think about sex differently, are just as sexual as men, and they can be enticed just as much. Second, it’s okay to find someone attractive. It’s when you seriously entertain those lustful thoughts, that’s what Jesus is talking about. Now, for years, I justified myself by saying that I had no lustful thoughts about other women. In truth that was always true. My wife has always and ever been enough for me. Porn was just a means to an end; an appreciation of the female figure. The problem with that is it can make whoever you’re with feel like crap: completely inadequate; like they aren’t enough for you. It can and does destroy relationships. It’s also really disrespectful to the women – and men – involved. And yes I understand that a lot of people are doing it voluntarily. But I don’t know if that really justifies it.
Now, if my wife were to put together some sort of video for the very few times when we are apart. That’s a really hard question to answer. Masturbation is still wrong. But when two people are together, love one another and are okay with it, and if you keep your heart and mind from wondering to someone else? I think that’s a really personal question, and I think the only person who can judge that is God himself. As I’ve said, the deeds we do, the thoughts we dwell on and entertain, and our hearts are all going to be taken into consideration. Not really much of an answer I suppose.
I can't answer the question about Paul because I've already made my feelings on that subject known. Anyone else?
Just gonna jump back in here to say two things.
First, Buddha wasn't and isn't a god, not really. he was a teacher who gained enlightenment and tried to instruct by example. As I have understood it, Buddhists aren't wrapped up in sin concepts. They're wrapped up in doing a specific thing or series of things because those things will lead to greater understanding and enlightenment. Buddha never asked to be prayed too or worshipped, although many do.
And, on a completely unrelated note:
Wait wait, stop the train. Masturbation is wrong?
I have many, many issues with this:
1. Masturbation is sexually freeing in the sense that it is a guiltless, victimless act which brings you pleasure.
2. Masturbation, by and large, does not make people feel bad.
3. Telling people that masturbation is wrong leads to two things, and neither is good. The first is shame. The second is sexual incomprehension. Let me put this baldly. If there wasn't so much god-damned shaming and naysaying going around about female masturbation, especially, you wouldn't have nearly so many women having issues reaching orgasm. There are still women who reach adulthood without ever believing it's really within their expectation to come, and oftentimes the reason is because they've never masturbated. They've been steered rather roughly away from that act, so instead of being sexually liberated and free to learn about what they do and don't like in the bedroom, they're left crippled by their lack of knowledge. Let me say again: victimless. act. Let's stop telling people that self-discovery is wrong, especially when that self-discovery can (and very often does) actually lead to greater physical compatibility between partners.
And as far as pornography hurting people and ruining relationships? Yeah, I suppose it can, and sometimes will. But so do a lot of things. Like religion, politics, spending habits, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, choice of friends, and (wait for it) sexual incompatibility. Far as I'm concerned it's up to the partners whether or not porn should be in the picture. I don't use it, I have no interest in it, but to be honest, I'm confident enough in my relationship that if my fiancee wanted to watch the occasional movie or read erotica, I wouldn't begrudge her that. As long as I'm not feeling replaced - and that's not gonna happen - what's the problem with it? I mean, should two partners expect to provide each other with one hundred percent of the physical pleasure they receive? Should any form of seeking pleasure on one's own be seen as treasonous or sinful? Because to me, that's just self-defeating and backward.
I feel the need to put an extremely sharp point on this last argument I made:
Porn doesn't hurt people. Masturbation doesn't hurt people. Lust, as in, physical desire on its own, doesn't hurt people. What you do with that desire has the potential to hurt people.
If I watched a porno movie and got aroused, Meglet either didn't know or didn't care, and I thought one of the girls I could hear was kinda hot...then what of it? I'm not going to fantasize about this woman. I'm not going to stalk her or rape her. It's not going to change how much I love and respect Meglet. It isn't going to have any bearing on my relationship with her. Hell, it might teach me a little more about what I like, and if I can articulate that and if she's willing, we both might be able to incorporate that into our sex lives.
Ditto if the same goes for her.
Harm happens when people's lust gets out of hand, or when porn is such an addiction that a physical relationship with a guiltless partner suffers. But that's true of all kinds of things. Religion can drive a wedge between people, but would anyone in your church have the balls to say "You should stop reading your scripture and coming to church and devoting yourself to God so much, your wife is suffering for it"? Honestly, would they? Because somehow I doubt it. Maybe I have a skewed perspective, so set me straight if I'm wrong about this.
Let's keep this in some form of freaking perspective. It's not what you feel, it's what you do with it. Thoughtcrime exists in Orwellian circles but not, thank god, in real life. Let's stop repressing the hell out of people and start embracing the fact that -anything, if handled incorrectly, can be problematic, while most things handled in moderation are virtually harmless. i'd draw the line at truly illegal acts and stuff like doing hard drugs, mind you.
To be honest Greg, I agree with you about the masturbation. It can and does create shame and guilt. Been there. It also is very helpful with helping one explore their sexuality. And a lack of that knowledge can and does lead to trouble in the bedroom at times. It would be interesting to do a case study about this sort of thing, but I think there would be a great many variables to consider. There are, as you say, lots of women who can’t reach orgasm. There are also lots of men who won’t bother trying to learn to please a woman in the way that works for her. It also feels good, and is releaving. I myself used it as a stress reliever at times. I also think that one should know they are sexually compatible before committing to spend the rest of either their lives, or existence together. I think that’s one of the reason it was so hard for me to stop, because in my heart of hearts, I don’t see the harm in it. I don’t think however that people who don’t masterbate can’t be sexually compatible and fulfilled. Sexual education is still extremely important. And you can learn a lot about one another, and yourselves, by experimenting with one another in the bedroom. The wedding night is supposed to be special, after all, and not just for the guy. I think the real issue is when two virgins with no experience get together, they just haven’t got a darn clue how to do anything. There’s that excitement, nervousness, and sometimes fear that comes from suddenly being able to do this thing that’s been forbidden. And yes, if even one of you is a bit more experienced, it can illeviate that. But tenderness, selflessness, and practice can illeviate a lot of that as well. I mean, if you don’t arouse her and start slow, it’s not going to go well. If you – especially the man who isn’t going to experience the pain of a ripped hyman – can control yourself, explore a little, take your time, make sure you’re both - especially the woman – is physically and emotionally ready to “go forward”, then it’s going to go a great deal better. Heck, it doesn’t even mean you have to “go all the way” the first night. There’s a whole lot two people can do before copulating happens. And a lot of the time, that’s more than half the fun, finding out what works and what doesn’t. There are a lot of factors that go into sexual incompatability and inexperience. If one or both of you, for instance, grew up in a home where even the discussion of sex was an absolute taboo subject, that would play a part. Fear also plays a part. Self-consciousness also plays a part. The only thing is, how to learn such concepts without physical experimentation, or heck, embarrassment. I don’t know. Again, I can accept that we have been asked not to do sex before marriage, and to masterbate. And I can accept in many ways why. But I’ve used the same arguments you used Greg to justify it too. And even to this day, I’m not really convinced it’s a problem. I do think that when people shame one another or make them feel guilty about it, that is wrong and can be really damaging. How we treat people who have sinned is a huge matter, and likely who there are so many people with bad christian experiences.
Greg, I also agree that masturbation and porn on their own don’t hurt people. Neither do fleeting thoughts of lust. It is what you do with them that matter. Even while I was going through my own struggles with this, my wife and I still had a very healthy and fulfilling sex life. I didn’t fantasize about other women while I was with her. I never thought, after watching something – wow, I wish my wife looked like that. But if I had, that is where the sin comes in, because you’re replacing the person you’re actually with, even in your mind with someone else. To begin with, my wife had no idea I did that. But when she found out, she felt horrible about it. And I get that. If I’d known she was doing the same, I likely would have wondered if I really measured up too. Women in this day and age are constantly under attack by media of all types, dictating how they should act, and how they should look. It’s shameful, all of it. So why even make it something for them to worry about? Greg, you said if you did that, and she didn’t know, there’s no harm. I’d disagree completely with that. Not even just because she might find out, whether you want her to or not. Now, if she didn’t care, that’s something entirely different. If it’s something she and you were both okay with, then I have little to say. I’m only using you as an example because you brought yourself up. You say you won’t stalk or rape someone like that. Of course not. Most men wouldn’t. I think we can all agree those things are vile. And you yourself might not fantisize about her either. But that’s you, and I say congrats. But for a lot of people, pornography really is a gateway to trouble. Not even just from any Christian perspective either. There are so many things that can come about from pornography that it’s better to just avoid it entirely. I think really that’s what this boils down to, avoiding the potential. You say everything in moderation, and I agree. That’s another thing brought up in the church, though not in this context. It’s when you become addicted and enslaved, where it begins to have a negative affect on your relationships, body and soul that the trouble exists. And that doesn’t mean even just a physical relationship, either.
You said: “Religion can drive a wedge between people, but would anyone in your church have the balls to say "You should stop reading your scripture and coming to church and devoting yourself to God so much, your wife is suffering for it.” The answer to that is actually yes. Perhaps nobody would actually tell a person that, but it can indeed become a problem. Family is central to the creator’s plan. It is our first responsibility. Anything that takes away from our family should be moderated. That includes spending too much time with callings, scripture study, church meetings etc. I’ve seen people get so wrapped up in the church that they have needed to step back a bit. Keep in mind that nobody in our church gets paid at all. So everyone has to still earn a living. There are many, many callings in the church which require the approval of both the husband and wife. Lately I’ve been spending a lot of time on these boards, talking about all this stuff to you guys. In many ways it has helped me with my own knowledge of my religion, and my faith. But it’s also made me a little bit distant, because I’m spending so much time on it. My wife hasn’t said anything yet, because she’s been busy with Christmas and such, but I may need to pull back from so much discussion for that very reason. I’m neglecting other things I should be doing more with, such as her, and my writing. So yes, moderation in all things, even the really good things, like studying and pondering and serving.:)
Oh, you'll never catch me saying that masturbation or pornography are vital, or essential to a healthy relationship. they aren't, porn especially.
I guess where you and I differ is that you'd see the church saying masturbation is wrong and sorta go along even if you don't agree all the way down. I wouldn't.
And let me clarify one of my prior statements because I think I crossed a wire somewhere.
If I thought Meglet would be upset by my watching porn, I wouldn't do it, not ever, and I sure as hell wouldn't hide it, even by omission. Since I know she's essentially ambivalent about it I might not feel it necessary to tell her if I tried it sometime, that's all...and that's all I meant when I said it wouldn't hurt her. I personally don't have the urge, but that's me.
I think people can and should be encouraged gently to experiment with their own bodies to determine what they like. That way, whenever they do get into sexual situations with others, they have a better idea of what they enjoy, and might even have a better idea of how to respond when a lover does something new. Until very recently - and it's still happening - women have been seriously shamed, except in very specific circles, for being vocal, for being quote-unquote easy (by which I mean easy to please, not promiscuous), for being demonstrative, dominant and confident in the bedroom. When you tell them that masturbation is wrong, even causally via the church, you're reinforcing this, because for women even more than men, masturbation is one way they can learn. Powerlessness leads to timidity in many. It's by no means a guarantee, and I'm sure many women who have never masturbated are more than capable of feeling pleasure and figuring out both what they want and how to articulate those wants to a partner. But it's still a roadblock, and it bugs the hell out of me, so please forgive me in retrospect if I've been harsh. It's not you personally I've got an issue with, especially because you agree with me partially anyway.
This argument about pornography being a gateway though...well, we'll have to sorta agree to a cease-fire on that account, maybe. Because I've heard similar arguments made for marijuana usage, and almost every pot-smoker I've ever known never goes any further. Yes, you can get into a position where porn becomes a problem, but a large number of people don't. They use it because it's pleasurable and enjoyable. Same with pot. Same with booze. Same caveats apply: enjoy responsibly. If it starts to negatively impact your life, then obviously you need to deal with that in an immediate and healthy fashion.
We cannot dismiss all acts which might, in excess, be bad, because we'd have to dismiss most pleasurable things in the world.
Nothing to forgive, Greg. Like I say, it's a point of contention with me honestly, and I agree with the reasons you have brought up. As for your last paragraph, I agree with it too. I think, like I say, it's about removing the potential. Though you're also right in that if we were to stop doing everything that could potentially be harmful, that wouldn't leave us with a lot left
it's not about removing the potential. It's about limiting the potential for harm. This means educating people about the risks and trying to encourage them to take those risks seriously. Goes for almost anything that's worth doing, really.
coming from a Wiccan raised Christian, I believe that sin is a human construct
meant to scare others into obeying what another more powerful human wants. I
believe that humans have both the tendencies of good and evil, its just what we
do that makes what we are. Sin is something that i have noticed started to get
people to follow Christianity, like in the forced conversions and in the
reformation. They used the fear of not being a good person to get people to try
to conform to a religion. Other religious do have sin, but i personally feel that
Christianity takes it the furthest. I'm not saying that one is necessarily worse
than the other, its just a hell of a lot more emphasized in Christianity.
A Wikkan Raised Christian? Now that does sound very interesting.:)
So, what are exactly the bonds of marriage?
If you have the bonds of marriage with say 10 people, are you free of sin?
I have known, and know people that claimed to be married to get around the rule they shouldn’t have sex before marage.
They married, then after the relationship went cold, they divorced.
Married sex as actually harmed people, mainly women that are trusting the husband not to be with other men, or do drugs and such.
The men are bringing home aids to the wife.
The sin isn’t sex, but what and how it is done.
The waters get muddy when people claim something like porn, or masturbation is a sin, but then agree it isn’t bad for you. It has to be one way or the other.
Sin comes in to play when people are hiding habits from the other.
If you shared your porn with your wife, she’d not need to feel badly, because she knows. What makes her feel badly about it, is she’s taught porn is wrong.
If she were taught porn is good and should be enjoyed with your mate, she’d either enjoy it, or not, but she’d not feel badly about it especially if you weren’t going anyplace.
You can’t enjoy a video of your wife naked, or doing things that turn you on and masturbating when she’s not with you, but you’ll buy a porn movie?
The men that bring aids home to their wives do so, because they have to hide the fact they enjoy sex with men.
If they could find a boyfriend to have sex with openly when they have the need they’d not be taking risk and having sex with strangers. This would not only cut down on disease, it cut down on mistrust, hurt, and I’d say sin.
We are taut we are supposed to feel hurt when our partner desires another.
What if we were taught it is natural for a partner to desire another and us too?
People do it anyway, and struggle with it, because we are taught it is sin.
Now we are sneaking about, seeing prostitutes, strange men, and hiding our porn.
If we remove all this struggle, and our partners were with us in our desires, the issue that causes the harm and hurt would be resolved.
If you have it at home, you don’t need to seek it in the street.
Masturbation is natural. If we make it wrong, now we have sin.
We have piled guilt on a young person were there need not be any.
The young person now has a mental struggle to contend with.
This can and does cause stress and when people are stressed they act out in other ways to relieve the stress.
Do we create sin? I say we do.
Just some thoughts.
Here's the book I was speaking of. God is not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World by Stephen R. Prothero If you are really interested in how the religions view things including sin, it's a good read though a long book.
This is a really sore and contravercial topic for many people, Christians and non-Christians alike.
As far as our church – and indeed all Christian churches I personally know of are concernned, At this time, the bonds of marriage are defined as being between one man and one woman being lawfully married. At times, such as with King David in the old testament, God allowed for the marrying of multiple partners to one person. In that, David did not sin or commit adultery, as those marriages were sanctioned by God. Such things, at this time do not happen however. In David’s case, he sinned when he desired a man’s wife and sent that man to die so he could attain her. In that, he sinned greavously. This was the same man who was regarded as righteous before this point. Sariah too, with Abraham, when she was unable to conceive a child, gave him her handmaden Hagar that she may bare him a child. In this case, God allowed it, and because Sariah gave her consent, it was not a sin. Plural marriage is not usually something God permits however, and in this day and age, it is absolutely not practiced (with God’s consent at least). When it was practiced in the 1800s, there were guidelines which had to be followed. Not just anyone could or would enter into such a union.; And one of the most important rules was that if a man were to marry more than one wife, he could only do so were the wife to give her consent. The whole discussion of plural marriage demands a great deal of context and explanation, and to be honest, it’s one of those sore points I have a difficult time with.
If you’re marrying simply for the sake of sexual intercourse, that is indeed very dangerous. In such a situation sex before marriage might have helped, but you have to wonder for what other reasons the marriage failed. Marriage is a bond of trust, so is any relationship though. People who mary too hastily and for the wrong reasons may find themselves going through difficult times. That isn’t to say getting to know someone, then marrying them can’t yield the same results. Either way though, whether or not you have sex before marriage probably wouldn’t have changed the outcome of that marriage. You’re always going to be able to find an exception to every rule though.
You’re right, sex isn’t a sin in the sight of God. God didn’t create the clitoris and other pleasure sensors in our body to say “here’s this great thing that feels good, but don’t do it or else.” And certainly, hiding habbits from one another can also cause problems. That’s the whole trust thing again. I disagree with you that a person would only feel bad about porn when they have been taught it’s wrong. That would actually be an interesting question to ask the community at large, but I think, based on my experiences and the experiences of many, many others I’ve talked to or red about that it goes far deeper than it just being “wrong”. . Certainly there are people who can watch porn together. Heck, my own mother did that with her man – and that’s something I could have lived my whole life never knowing.:) Porn is bad because of the feelings it ilicits in us, feelings which are best expressed between you and the person you’re with. If you’re hiding porn from your spouce, that’s just deceitful, even if you’re doing it out of a desire to protect them. And if you’re doing it knowing exactly how it would affect them if they knew, that’s bad also. If you want to share porn together and you’re both into that, I guess that’s something you’ll have to talk about I suppose. Now there might be many reasons you entertain those feelings with someone else, but that doesn’t make it right. You can justify cheating on your spouce. People do it all the time. Hell, that nasty little Ashley Maddison sight is all about that. Abuse, Neglect, feelings of loneliness or inadequacy etc can give rise to a need for other companionship. And that, no matter how justified, is still adultery. Doesn’t mean you’re going to hell; the lord knows our hearts and circumstances as I’ve said, but it is still a greavous sin. Sexual sin in general is serious, because sexuality and the feelings and responsibilities associated with it are serious, and should be taken as such. But a lot of us don’t want to wait. We don’t feel like it’s necessary to be committed, or sometimes even in love. Heck, some don’t even think it’s necessary to be in any sort of relationship. And if religion teaches that porn is bad, the media teaches that such behaviour, especially in men – double standard much? – is okay.
You said: “You can’t enjoy a video of your wife naked, or doing things that turn you on and masturbating when she’s not with you, but you’ll buy a porn movie?” Did I ever say that? Did I imply that? If so please let me know as the answer to that is definetly “no”.
“The men that bring aids home to their wives do so, because they have to hide the fact they enjoy sex with men.” Say what now? Last I checked, AIDS, and other STDS are just as at home in women. As for a a man or woman in a relationship being okay with their partner having sex with another, either of the same gender or the opposite gender, well, I’m pretty sure the amount of people who would be okay with that is a lot less than those who would not want it. I know neither I nor my wife would not be okay with either of us finding another sexual partner. I’m pretty sure most couples wouldn’t. Sure you’ll find exceptions to that, but most of us don’t want to share, whether we’re religious or not. If you are in a position where you desire another sexually, then it’s perhaps time for some sort of intervention, such as couples’ councelling, because there may be other issues at play. There’s going to be a reason for that desire. And whether we are taught that’s okay or not doesn’t change the fact that in the sight of God, adultery is still a sin. And I think the situations you have laid out speak more to the individuals involved than God’s laws not making sense.
Masturbation on the other hand – pardon the pun – that, I personally think has its place. Like I say, sexuality is one area I struggle with. Even knowing what I do, were I not married, I’d probably have a hard time not engaging in sex without being married. I wouldn’t go out and plow anything in the field, sowing wild oats with abandon. But if I met a lady whom I believed I’d like to spend time with long term, I’m not sure how that would go. I think that’s one reason we’re encouraged to date within our faith, to find someone with the same values. That’s by no means a 100% preventative measure, and nor is it a commandment that we do so. Heck, I wasn’t LDS when I met my wife.
My statement was a question.
You had stated you enjoyed porn.
I suggested what if your wife provided you with some porn of her.
You said it be wrong or a sin, so for you to enjoy it when she was away.
I wondered if you could enjoy porn, why was it such a sin to enjoy your own wife providing your entertainment?
That is not critical, only a question.
Next, the bonds of marage is trust. Can you not have total trust in a relationship you've not gotten a piece of paper, or a ministers blessing?
In some communities, people couldn't get married by the minister, so they said vowels, or jumped a broom. Were they married?
Last, when I suggested marrying 10 people, I meant one at a time.
Between one woman one man, right? What if you do this 10 times never having sex with any of them until you have the papers, have you sined?
God never came along and told people they couldn't do as King David, or all these guys did in old, man decided it wasn't right for one man, or one woman to have more then one mate.
That is only so in our culture, but in many Eastern cultures, it is expected and normal.
Are they sinning?
Cody, you won't find me defending Paul, even if I do question his existence. I know many of our fellow skeptics do not question Paul's existence, but I'm a fan of Roman history, and I just don't see it. We've argued about this at some meetups I go to, actually.
Now as to his proscriptions on women and homosexuals, I'm not sure they were terribly uncommon for their time, distasteful as we find them. If he was schooled in Greek disciplines, as apparent by his attempts at Socratic arguments in some of his letters, he might have had a peculiarly hard time with homosexual acts on account of two things: His strict Jewish upbringing (again, if we're taking him at face value), and exposure to the common Greek pederasty of the time.
And Greek culture was particularly misogynistic. I'm using the term misogyny as I understood it growing up, a real and abiding hatred of woman. Not this crazy modern maladaptation of the term where everyone and anyone could just be labeled misogynistic for disagreeing with someone. No, Greeks including some of the great classical fathers wrote about women in such a way as to make Mencken's In Defense Of Women look positively feminist.
Now Remy I'm not going to tackle the specific topic of masturbation and porn, although my sentiments are like those of Greg here. However, I'd caution against use of the term "addiction". I'm still one of those skeptical holdouts who doubts the capacity to become addicted to porn.
Sure, someone can get quite into it for awhile, in particular if it was restricted and so you've got the forbidden fruit effect.
The problem is that in American and English cultures, we tend to call all things icky an addiction. Remember all those "internet addiction" articles produced by these soft (so-called) scientists? No self-respecting engineer would produce such watery waggly disjointed so-called proofs and expect to be taken seriously. Where are those addiction articles now? Nowhere to be found, except shared as relics on, you guessed it, social media.
Now I speak as someone who has slept with a crowbar under my bed, for good reason, because I lived in an apartment building with addicts. Addicts steal your stuff, lie, sometimes kill, all kinds of things the people who view boob shots online don't do.
Now let's consider what the problem people have with porn is: Person A gets offended because Person B is looking at and maybe aroused by something that Person A doesn't like. In fact, Person B can, under the right circumstances, ruin Person A's life, take half of Person A's stuff via the courts, and have everyone gather around them and sympathize with what a victim they are. Not because Person A *did* something, but because Person A *looked at* and *thought about* something that Person B didn't want Person A looking at or thinking about.
My voyages into porn or erotic stories over the decades has been spotty and sporadic at best. Once the forbidden fruit aspect of it wore off, much of the mystique about it was gone.
So I'll use a totally different example of something that occurs semiregularly for me. And it will show the entire absurdity of this whole problem we have with fantasy.
We all fantasize, a lot, and most of it isn't sexual. You've sat in the office, looked out the window or heard something, and couldn't stop thinking about how much you wanted to be out there in the snow or the sun or whatever.
Well, like clockwork every year, I get the kind of restlessness Rudyard Kipling's Jungle books called the "Time of New Talking". Late winter through mid to late spring, I can often think of nothing else but what it'd be like to be somewhere different. The fantasy changes over the years and decades, and doesn't even imply that I'm unhappy with muy job or my life. But like clockwork it's always come since I was around 12, and like clockwork it goes.
Now imagine that Buzzfeed or Psychology Today found ut about this and posted an article calling it an obsession? And in that article they claim all these coworkers and others around me are terribly offended, debased, humiliated and hurt, yes even objectified just to throw in everybody's favorites and be PC and leave nobody out. They're all of those things, because this goes on in my mind once a year, and how dare I think about being somewhere they didn't approve of first? Especially if they hooked machines up to me and saw that yes, during that time my heart might speed up, (whose wouldn't at the thought of being somewhere entirely different and exciting?) Then they start projecting onto me that I must be out of touch with my relationships, I must be a pervert, an irresponsible dad, a deadbeat husband because of this.
They take my computer, and looking at the history during that time and see there's articles on little-known islands in the South Pacific. There's one-man survival how-to stuff that could have come from your boyhood's adventure books. They find all kinds of things that aren't very cooperation-centric, not very financially or familially productive.
Upon interviewing me, they learn that yes, I've had this "problem" since puberty.
I didn't think I was affecting anyone except maybe being a bit restless during that time of year. But now that everyone's gotten the golden opportunity to cash in, show how offended they are, and solopsistically stroke each other / comfort each other over this "comfortable scare", now I'm told just how widespread and devastating this secret of mine has gotten, and just how terrible I really am.
You know why that won't happen? Because being restless on a semiregular basis, even if the feelings for some strange reason are extremely powerful, has no ick factor.
I used to be indifferent to the porn and anti-porn crowd, my first experience with "soft portn" being a party where there was a video of a pair of chicks having their way with some guy on the beach, laughing all of them having a good time. Us college guys seeing it knew it was fantasy. Everyone knows the difference between fantasy and reality.
Which is precisely why I've never done anything about those very strong feelings that hit me once a year for a season. And they come irrespective of my current situation, irrespective of whether I'm with someone or not.
But these days I have grown colder towards the anti-porn crowd. not for porn's sake. But I've seen them steal other people's things through the courts. I've seen them rob the benefits of tragedy without having experienced actual tragedy. They want all the benefits that the betrayed get, yes, even the raped. Failing to recognize that those benefits still leave the betrayed and the raped in deficit, the benefits never match the real tragedy, they are at best society's utmost to *attempt* to compensate.
I've seen it in churches when they get lots and lots and lots of attention over this. To be clear: over the fact that Person B *looked at* something Person A didn't approve of, probably not in Person A's presence. And now Person A wants the store. Take away the ick factor, imagine it was food the other party was looking at. It's a way to take the cultural glasses off.
Sex is special? Sacred? Apparently not to these who co-opt the status of real tragedy victims for their solopcistic pleasure.
Some people see raccoons in their yard and think, "How cute!" I see that, I think of the siding torn off, garbage everywhere, birds' nests destroyed. Because although at one point I was indifferent to raccoons, I've seen them destroy a hell of a lot, and often do so while others say "How cute!"
In terms of all of this, it’s not an easy topic for me to defend, because as I’ve said, for the most part I’m not disagreeing with you.
Now, if my wife were to provide me with some porn of her for times when we were apart, and I enjoyed myself with it. That’s actually a really good question. In that case the issues pertaining to porn wouldn’t really apply. The masturbation issue however would, because it is still “servicing yourself”.l Again, I don’t agree, and don’t really have a problem with it, and maybe there’s some nuances I’m unaware of. The issue, as I’ve said, is when you view porn of someone else as a means of pleasuring yourself, that’s where you run into potential danger. Porn can indeed become an addiction. Not to the degree of creating junkies who will steal for a fix perhaps, but it can and does create problems. I’ve been addicted, as sad as I am to admit it. And I’ve known others who have been addicted. For me it was all about arousal, not fantasy, and it didn’t interfere with my sex life in any way, but it was still an addiction, or at least a very strong habbit, and it still made my wife feel dreadful, and understandably so. But for other people it can be much more than a simple habit. Look it up, and you might be surprised what you find. But even if none of that mattered, you’re still getting stimulation from something or someone other than the person you are with. If nothing else, how’s that supposed to make the other person feel, about their bodies, their performance? Some people probably wouldn’t care, but a lot would, and do. Also, this conversation is primarily among men, at least as far as I know? I’m not saying women don’t look at porn; they do, but there’s no doubt that the industry is primarily geared towards men. I’d love to hear some women’s perspective on the subject.
That issue with person a and b, which got really confusing mid way through due to the swapping of positions,can and probably does happen. People who fall in love can certainly turn out to be vile to one another. It doesn’t matter whether it’s porn versus actually cheating, money, working too much, even mental illness. If it’s gotten to the point that person A, the “victim” is ruining person B – the accused – life, taking all their stuff during a messy divorce, that’s more a question of person A’s disposition. There’s just as many stories where Person A, even after feeling a certain way, can forgive person B their transgressions and the two move on, whether they be only thoughts, or actions. That really has nothing to do with porn, or fantasies in general. That more has to do with individual personalities, actions and circumstances which lead up to that divorce.
Leo, you said that once the “forbidden fruit” aspect wore off, it lost much of its appeal. That’s great for you.:) For many people though it’s not that way at all. And even when it is, that doesn’t change how their partner might feel about it. As to your fantasy example, while I get where you’re coming from, there’s one problem, those two things aren’t even remotely related. We’re talking sexuality versus wonderlust. Nobody says Wonderlust is a problem … unless you were wanting to wander into someone else’s pants of course. But that’s not what you’re saying. Now, if you felt the need to get away from your family because you could no longer deal with their christianness, then that might be cause for reflection. But you’re talking about having a fantasy of wondering, and not having it affect you or your family in any way. I don’t find that Porn changed my relationship with my wife, either. I didn’t want other women, I didn’t want to leave her for other women. I didn’t fantasize about other women, even the ones I watched while I was with her. Where the harm comes is from how it makes her feel, and the fact that it is still focusing my sexual attention on something or someone other than my wife. And that’s just me. I had a mild addiction, but it didn’t really interfere with my relationship. For a great many people, it’s not like that at all. Even if some people from your work got offended because you wanted to travel, that is still not on the same level. Many of us know the difference between fantasy and reality. But the issue is when fantasy does encroach on reality, or takes away from participating in reality. And that’s where the issues arise. And porn is so much different than your example Leo simply because sexuality, and the need to vacation are in vastly different camps. Sex may not be treated as special and sacred by many people, but by God it was intended that it be so. If you don’t believe in God, or what the scriptures teach, then you might not be able to see that. I do believe, and even I had trouble following it. That was due to my own weakness, not because the commandment didn’t have sound value. Sexual constraints aren’t made to make us miserable, but to bring us closer to our partner, and because that intimacy, and the ability to create life is so essential to human destiny.
Now, Marriage., you can have total trust in one another without that “piece of paper”.” Heck, lots of marriages have very little trust. But that’s a whole other issue. You can spend your whole life living with someone out of wedlock and be content. You can even do that and be Christian. But that doesn’t change the fact that your union is not ordained of God. For us in the LDS church that matters even more because of the eternal marriage aspect. In the case of couples who truly want to be married, but who are in circumstances where someone without the authority to marry – clergy or otherwise – is unavailable … That’s a really good question. If you’re married to each other in your hearts, and if you are true to one another, and simply can’t “get that piece of paper” well then what? I actually have that question with my grandfather and his second wife, who were together my entire life, but whom I just discovered weren’t legally and lawfully wed. All I can assume – and at this time I have no basis on this – is that God must have thought of this, and has some sort of contingency in place for such things. I can say that we are really living in a time where the idea of classical marriage is severely under attack, but for those who do get married, it’s about a lot more than just a little piece of paper.
I think I’m still a bit confused about the ten people question. I’m sorry for the original misunderstanding. If you marry ten people, one at a time and don’t have sex, is that a sin? No. We do believe in divorce, though we urge people to leave it as a last resort if possible. We realize to that there are just times where that is “not” possible. And in that case, whether you have sex or not, you’re not sinning. Sex is not a sin when set within the bounds the Lord has given us.
Actually throughout the scriptures, God has specifically said that marriage is to be between one man and one woman. There are certain times where he has seen fit to alter that law, but on the whole, it has been that way. Of course, that will depend on which Christianity you follow.:) or learn about. As for it being “normal and expected” in eastern cultures, that doesn’t equate with right. In other cultures it’s also okay to treat women as property and cut off parts of their genitalia. I mean don’t get me wrong, women aren’t equal in the US and Canada either yet, but still. Is all that right? I guess that depends on perspective, doesn’t it? God, at least as far as I understand him, would say no. As for male versus female circumcision, those are two whole different things with different implications. And we’ve already discussed that.
On the existence of Paul, I can’t comment. I like history, but I don’t particularly trust it a lot. I don’t necesarrily discount it all the time, but I find It’s too maluable and easily edited. That’s just how I feel. As for what Paul said about Women, I think Leo might be pretty close to the truth. You have to remember that he was a heavy persecuter of Christians, likely brought up in vastly different values. I don’t know specifically how women were treated in that time period, but considering their treatment in many cultures throughout most of the history I know about, I’d not be surprised that during that time, it wouldn’t be favourable. So, paul has this amazing conversion, and he suddenly – for the sake of conversation – decided that Jesus Christ is real, and that he’s going to devote his life to spreading the gospel. It takes a long time to “unlearn” behaviour. And it can be hard not to bring our own pre-conceived values into a new framework of belief. I went through that myself as I said. So, while he certainly may have been inspired to write to different peoples, I can’t help wondering, especially considering “how” the bible was compiled – how much of Paul’s writings were Paul, and how much were the words of the lord. Probably blasphemy in the eyes of some Christians, but I still wonder. Regardless, times were very different. Paul wasn’t writing for our culture, but for that of the time. So speaking of women in his oh so special way might have made more sense back then. Admitedly, I don’t like Paul, mainly for the things he says about women. God instructs us on ways we can understand. His overall gospel doesn’t change so much, but some things are molded to fit the times. One need only look at the old testament, new testament and – if you are LDS – the restoration to see how, while much has changed, the core doctrines of God have really not.
Since Remy wanted to hear women's thoughts on porn, here are mine.
I've watched porn before. At the time, that's all it was to me--watching porn; nothing more. However, I see things much differently since I've grown in my relationship with the Lord. I can honestly say that if I'm ever in a serious relationship again, I wouldn't betray the man I was with in such a way. Instead of viewing it as simple porn-watching, I think of how I would feel if he watched porn. I'd feel like I wasn't pleasing him enough, I'd question what we really had, and ultimately, I'd wonder where I went wrong. Because, while those who watch porn will likely never meet the pornstars they watch, watching it can and does cause problems in relationships.
Whether Paul existed or not, someone using that name wrote a lot of the New Tastament. The thing I find so puzzling is that a good bit of Paul's writing is in direct conflict to the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the four gospels. Yet, it is Paul's teaching Christians turn to and quote constantly. Are they Christians, or are they Paulists? The two philisophical views are not entirely compatible.
Pasco I totally agree with you and must confess that when I was a Christian, it was Paul's letters (save the proscriptions against women in leadership) that I mainly relied upon. Your contention here is completely and utterly fair, in my opinion.
Chelsea, thanks for speaking up on this. Porn is one of those areas where you can't really talk about it in any circles without somehow getting vilified, so I applaud your courage.
Remy sorry about the typo where I misplaced the two people in the porn scenario.
I'm not going to argue with what you're saying, certainly not with your experience.
But what I wonder about is this: Is the issue maybe trust?
By way of example: My Wife at one point told me She didn't want me going to Hooters. Bear in mind I'd never been, and if I had been, I would not be so callous as to come home and say "whoa ho! hot chicks there!" I'd probably have just gone with friends.
Now, She asked me never to go, I haven't been. If I did, it would be going back on my word and doing something She deliberately asked that I not do. So if I did go, in my opinion the wrong wouldn't be eating the wings, drinking the beers, and being waited upon by scantily clad hot chicks way out of my league. It would be having gone after consenting to abide by Her wishesw and never go. In its own way, it would be a dishonorable act of betrayal. The dishonorable act would be the violation of the agreement. This is also why, when I traveled on business, when the sales boys would start mixing it up with the women at the hotel, I'd grab me a Scotch on the rocks, maybe a beer, maybe a cigar, beat feet and retreat. It was a way of me remaining trustworthy, which is why I never flirt or engage in other similar activities. It's not the activity or the specific prohibitions that even matter to me; that got me in all kinds of trouble at the churches. It is pure and simple her trust, and my personal honor. I recognize that is not really good enough for many theists, and I believe I understand why.
But back to the Hooters situation: If I went against Her wishes, it might not garner the attention of porn viewing, because we don't have a whole industry of men waiting to rescue the poor delicate lady from this horrible terrible lech who went to Hooters and had a few beers and half a dozen wings. I did say "men," yes I did. Because we boys are the ones complicit in this whole situation. Playing to a victim's narrative, infantilizing the woman in the situation, wanting to prove to everyone around that we're the one good man and look at that horrible lech there, let's rescue the pretty crying lady from this horrible distress. I have been one of those disgusting self-effacing puppy-dog men pining for absolution and trying to prove I was "one of the good ones," and meanwhile all we ever accomplished with that pathetic little behavior was to infantilize otherwise intelligent women who were perfectly capable of being smart enough to figure out for themselvs without someone else bringing along a victim narrative for them to play the infantile role in. After all, would these pathetic puppydogs (including what was once me) have been so supportive if there was a situation where there was no absolution? Where the woman made it clear she wasn't playing Roman Tragedian, wasn't going to sound like a World War II Air Raid siren, wasn't ging going to demand the government and men do her little bideding? In other words, if she was going to act like an adult in the situation, and be realistic about what the violation actually was? We fools wouldn't have been so supportive then, would we?
I learned a term recently, it's called "learned helplessness". Any of you versed in psychology could fill in the cracks here as quite obviously I'm pretty skimpy on that topic. But as I understand things, learned helplessness is where a person or a group has a narrative handed to them that they're the victim, and they need to be rescued. I don't mean a victim like I've been recently trained to help during disaster, nor rescued like us removing concrete block that fell on someone's house. But it's an imagined state of hurt. You have to project onto the other party all sorts of intentions to make this work.
The one who has learned this helplessness is actually "objectified" if you will, because she, in this situation presuming it's a she, must live out the damsel in distress part of this fantasy. That's the only way to the proverbial cookie, and once he's been duly punished and probably wrung dry of resources by male competitors, she is dispensed with unless perhaps she takes up with one of the competitors.
Now how this relates to the wing Hooters situation. As an adult, my Wife would most probably be upset if I did violate that agreement. As an adult, not an infantilized object for others' rescue fantasies, she might well understand there could be varying reasons for it happening. So if I said that we'd been at a nearby sports bar nearby. My friends wanted to go to Hooters, I'd initially stood outside in the rain waiting for a train, then decided to wait inside Hooters. Then had another beer and sat down and waited for the train. That's not really much of an argument, after all there are lots of places one could go inside and wait out of the rain. But it is a *decidedly different* argument than "My buddies wanted to go, so yeah we went just once." Or worse: "I set up the trip myself because John just came to town."
The infantilized rescue object that was once a woman would not be able to make this kind of a differential, because she's learned to be helpless in this situation and so no longer operates with the reasoning of an adult. Reasoning is, after all, totally meaningless unless it serves to triumph over the immediate hurt in any given situation.
This is probably why I've never really gotten close to the sex part of the porn issue, as odd as that probably sounds to some people. Because this infantilization and rescue fantasy is something that always caught my attention be it with male feminists at university or churchmen wanting a promotion or to be seen in better standing among their own kind. Sure, sex and sexual fantasy are very powerful biological desires. What red-blooded male wouldn't admit to this. But apparently, running a rigged conn game where you infantilize people as objects of rescue, seems to be at least as powerful or more so in many people. And then you have ridiculous chickenshits like I was who are complicit, don't speak up against the probmes, don't defend someone's character, and let the knights in shining, if aluminum, armor run over some fellow who was caught with a boob.gif file on his computer.
I hopeany women reading this ponder that perhaps these guys don't love you enough to rescue. They love the *idea* of rescuing a particularly infantilized you, a you who can claim a whole host of atrocities against your person, especially if that atrocities list would be pleased to grow with time.
Thank you for your perspective, Chelsea. I agree with Leo in that it’s hard, especially among people of faith at times, to talk about things like Porn and Masturbation without immediately being judged.
Pasco I agree with you for the most part. I’m not much of a studier of Paul, but I’ve found that his teachings really don’t mesh in some areas with Christianity as I follow it and believe in it today. I don’t think I could ever live treating people in the manner Paul proscribes, even if it turned out it “was” what God wanted. I don’t believe in such treatment.
I think your hooters example is an interesting one, and I do think in that sense, it would be dishonourable to go against your wife’s wishes. I think there are many nuances in relationships. Some wives would be fine with their husbands going there, while others would really not. In some cases Ithink that would be trust. Other times due to insecuritiy, and others simply about respect. It’s not a lot different than your wife going to a male strip show. It’s unlikely she’d – and I’m using general terms here – want to “get with” the stripper. It’s the fact that she’d go, maybe get turned on, maybe not. Then comes the wonder. Am I, clearly not a stripper at my peak of perfection, still attractive enough. That’s just one example, and it is in this case an issue of insecurity which is more the other person’s problem .. if you’re callice anyway. That leads to the issue of respect. In this case4, you don’t go to Hooters, not because you have any intention of cheating with one of the … hostesses? But because it makes your wife uncomfortable. That is simply honourable, just as you’d probably want her to respect your wishes in regards to things which would make you uncomfortable. In that sort of case, one runs into three choices, acceptance, rejection or some sort of compromise.
The whole issue of victimization and learned victimization frankly makes me sick. We shouldn’t have to make people feel like they have to feel a certain way when victimized. Nor should women, by default, be in the right in issues where children are concerned for instance. But people can be victims. I think we can all agree on that. It all goes down to equality. Not that men and women have to be the same; that’s not going to be, because men and women aren’t “the same”. But they are equal in that they each should the rights afforded to the other gender. Case and point, my issues with children. Or even at ther Doctor's offices. I don’t know about the US, but in Canada there is a clear distinction to how women are treated by doctors and how men are, at least by the “older” generation. Essentially women aren’t taken as seriously. As for the work industry, the equality of pay in many areas is inferior to their male counterparts. That’s inexcusable. And, going back to the victimization, while it’s far less common now I think, it’s still not out of the question for a woman to be blamed for her own rape. As for being an adult and dealing with your situation esponsibly, yes, I think that’s important no matter what gender you are. Women aren’t helpless because they’re women. Women can be just as strong as men, even while, as a whole, operating differently. I’ve gotten off on a tangent I fear and have probably missed the point of what you’re saying entirely, Leo. But I do think people, men and women both, need to be able to handle a situation in a way where they can see it from all angles. For instance, if your spouse catches you – or if you tell her – that you’re viewing Porn. In an ideal situation, the two of you should be able to sit down and have open communication about the reasons behind it. The only problem is it’s often hard – for both sexes – to be objective when their own emotions are involved. Then the women could get with her friends and be told “you don’t deserve that,” or some such things. Same thing could happen with the man. “Oh, she’s just being controlling.” We let ourselves often be influenced by what others think, and that makes us feel like the victim when we might otherwise not. I think, in some round about way, I’m finally making it around to your original point, Leo. I will admit, in my younger days, to having a bit of a “Hero” complex. I wanted to be the good one. I wanted to be the one girls could turn to when they were in trouble. It’s why I used the name “Blind Guardian”; out of some sense that I could be that very thing. Many of the girls I dated had some sort of thing I thought I could help them through. Not something “wrong with them that I had to change, but things genuinely wrong. I needed to be needed and I tried so hard to help. Wasn’t until I got older that I realized I couldn’t help anyone; I could only be there and lend my support. I did genuinely care about – and even love – the girls I was with. Truly, Even after all this time I can say that. But when I realized I couldn’t do anything, I found it hard to continue. It wasn’t fair to them, and I left a lot of broken hearts which haunt me to this day. But it has helped me in understanding myself, and my wife, and led me to a ten year relationship which is pretty much quadruple my record. I think in situations such as we’re describing here, the worst thing you can do is lay blame, or victimize yourself more than necessary. I’m not saying people can’t feel bad about things; that’s bound to happen. But ideally, and again this is hard, try to understand the underlying issues when trouble arrises. Find what needs to be fixed, figure out if it’s you, them, or a combination. Doing so will help ease through the troubled times, and in cases where it really is the other person’s fault, help you not to dwell on all the things you think you did wrong.
Thanks for your post, Remy.
I do caution against the "What would you think if she ..." argument.
Here's why: If my Wife went out after work and they saw some big hunk at a bar, sorry, it's just not gonna make me that insecure. Why? I've lived my whole life knowing that I am at best an average. I don't have, and never have had, any illusions about myself. If there was a big hunk that attracted Her, I could only assume She'd find him attractive. I've got no illusions about being a Don Juan in bed or anywhere else. Again, I know my strengths and weaknesses. If she saw a porn or a stripper, she'd be viewing a professional at work.
I think the gatekeeper aspect really factors into it; in the West all issues of consent and such revolve around the woman. Who decides when we're having sex generally revolves around the woman. That doesn't make the woman particularly controlling, it means culturally she's the proverbial "gatekeeper'. Since I'm not gatekeeper, and I already know who She is, I wouldn't particularly care if I found She'd looked at something.
Here's another side as men, Remy. There's a saying: "Women are born, men are made." You remember being a boy. Now you probably tell your girl that she's beautiful and smart and so on, no matter what she does. You were never told that, and I'll go out on a limb and say no boy has ever been told that. In Western culture at least, the girl is always number one. Boys? Well, most of us know from very early on how it is to be at the end of the line. Not picked for sports team during P.E. unless you're one of the big ones. If you get anything, you'd better prove you earned it. And sure, fond memories of someone trusting you enough, as you got older, to give you more responsibility because you'd earned that trust.
I learned the hard way raising a girl, saying things like "You're getting to be a young woman now, so I can trust you with this," don't fly. It doesn't have the same kinds of results. Not the same kind of swelling up with pride you'd maybe hoped to see her have. Because they're already number one. They're already special.
How this plays into your topic? We ain't special. We've got no illusions of being anything near that. Recent studies show that 80% of women only find 20% of men remotely eligible. Us in the other 80%? Asking oursevlves why they thought they needed a study to show that?
We're happy to be with the one we're with, appreciative for those of us who are with someone who loves and cares about us. But we're not enthroned. When she watches a romantic movie where the man says all the right words, the ones we never say at the right time? The guy who memorized the script and responds to the scripted tears and stress as though it were real? We already know it's a movie. So, although we'll never be remotely as good as that, we're not insecure about her watching that. You can't dethrone what's not on a throne, which is probably why a great many men simply don't care if she's seen some porn or has noticed there's another attractive guy.
Reminds me of the first time I was introduced to the term "Glass ceiling" in class at college. We were all asked to respond, and when it came my turn I guess my response was a bit subversive: "Glad you guys could figure out it's glass. Cause from all the way down here, we wouldn't know if it's glass or thatch."
Sorry ladies, us 80 percenters just aren't that complex. Sure, your 20 percent eligible men would probably have the right to become jealous and try to control what you saw. But for the rest of us lot? If you accepted one of us, well, if you love and accept us and don't nag us too much, we pretty much have no complaints. We just don't think in that space. In a real no-sh*t patriarchy, where the man is actually king? those story books where you hear about boys being told they're number one from day one? Those guys would probably be a lot different.
So I'm not sure it works to say "How would you feel if ..." because we boys are not on the throne. Not the majority of us anyway.
Dunno if that makes sense to anyone or not. But I think it describes much of the disparity between perspectives here. I would probably not have known had I not raised a daughter, and made the requisite mistakes in doing so.
Leo, I think your post is interesting. I think what we’re talking about here is the idea of finding someone attractive, and dwelling on their desirability. It’s one thing to appreciate the male or female form. That might cause some problems in some relationships to find someone else physically good looking, but that’s more an issue of self-consciousness than anything inherently sinful or problematic. Where the issues lie is when that attraction leads to lustful thoughts involving that other person. When that attractive person supplants the desire you feel for the one you’re with, and especially when you dwell on those thoughts, that’s much different. I think that’s really what Jesus meant when he said that whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already with her in his heart. And of course, the same goes for women. Now with porn, the people are “real”, even when much of what they do is staged. You’ll likely never meet the person you’re watching. But when you start thinking” I wish my wife – husband, lover, whatever – looked like that, or could do that or wha have you, that’s when you’re crossing the line I feel. Sometimes it’s hard to control our thoughts. But there’s a difference gbetween having a thought, and dwelling on or entertaining it. Porn is problematic because of its blatent sexuality.
So then, Remy, why is it okay for women to look at romances and wish their
partner could also behave as the professionals do? Say the right things at the
right time, respond just so, and so forth? There is no prohibition against that
because, I would posit, there is no ick factor involved.
Since Victorian times onward, human females have had ready access to
"emotional porn" know as romance novels, and in the 20th century and later,
romance movies. That is as unrealistic as sexual porn. And yet there is no
prohibition against this. And any man who ad a problem with her watching
romances, seeing and hearing the professional actors in just the right way,
would be called weird and a control freak. If you think porn is a lucrative
market, and indeed it is, romance is at least as lucrative. Only it has no black
market history.
But logically there's no actual difference here.
I'm all for things being equal. But those who would shame one and elevate the
other are not looking for equality. There's nothing particularly elevated or
transcendent or noble about being told all the right things at exactly the right
time, or being treated exactly how you wanted without ever having to speak
your mind, or any other false notions brought up by romantic fantasy. But, it
does feel good, it's just as "fleshly" if you will, just as carnal. Just because it's
largely from the neck up doesn't make it any less sensuous.
If the same value system was applied to both, I would have a lot easier time
taking the arguments seriously. Again, not for porn's sake, but for sake of
equality; something many people have died for.
I agree with that post Leo.
I think the problem is it is sex, not romance people can’t deal with.
I have and truly enjoy going to a male/female strip club with a woman. We both enjoy the show, and can take that excitement home to share.
You can’t have these people unless you meet them outside of work.
They are normal folks earning a living.
You don’t have to be viewing porn to wish your mate looked like this or that. Spend a few hours at the gym working out, and you’ll see a body you like.
Because sex brings so much pleasure to some, people have to label it a sin, unless it is with the mate, and even that has problems.
Some sectors of your church, have the woman cover herself in a sheet, so her husband’s body doesn’t touch her during sex.
Sex is to make the kids.
You make a man sleep with a sheeted woman, he’s going to need some porn and masturbation. Smile.
Sex with yourself is a sin, but for the life of me, I can’t see why, or how?
I found the more opened minded I was about sex, the less I lusted.
I can go to a Hooters, enjoy the women if I could see or touch them, have a beer and go home.
In some strip clubs, because I was blind, I was allowed to touch one girl. Fine, she was nice, and it was fun, but after I left, it didn’t make me lust or want to abuse women.
A naked woman is only exciting to me when I have permission to have her.
Otherwise, she’s nice, but depending on the situation, can be sexual, or just naked, if I’m making sense.
Again, sin is man created I believe.
Women are to be enjoyed only is that woman wishes to be enjoyed by you. If not, she is to be respected and all that jokes and such about her body are just in bad taste.
Leo, you didn't ask for my thoughts on the porn/Hooters issue, but I'll share them anyway.
You asked if in both cases it was about lack of trust of a significant other that people don't wanna view porn, or a lack of trust that your wife doesn't want you to go to Hooters, but neither of those things demonstrates a lack of anything. It's simply about respect: respect of your wife's wishes, and respect for myself as a Christian as well as respect for the man God intends me to be with for life. Because, for your wife, it sounds like if you were to go to Hooters, that would violate a boundary she's clearly set with you. The same applies for any future man I'm with, cause whether he's set a boundary with me or not, it's simply a matter of respect for one another.
Chelsea I can see that. I, for one, don't actually believe one can "restore" as the
wife calls it, trust or any of that, so I protect it with my life, and would never go
against Her wishes. I know my view isn't Christian as you guys actually believe
broken things can be "restored" or fixed, but anyhow you all aren't using it as a
license. But I just could not violate that, personally.
Wayne I agree with you. The more you tell someone not to think about
something, the more it's on their mind, even if it's just the thought of not
thinking about it. Don't think about a pair of wooden shoes. Clog clog clog can't
move silently but no! don't think about that you naughty boy!
See?
Now I think about such things less often now that I'm not particularly guilt
ridden or shame ridden about it. Ironically Christianity is not the only religion
that does this. Feminist thought is a religion too , where male sexuality is
completely shameful and boys are the de facto problem.
Wayne, I agree with you about a woman when you are not welcome sexually.
This is why I could not "teach a man not to rape" as the feminists say, because I
don't understand how one would be attracted to such things. Biologically
speaking being not invited is a proverbial cold shower, but then again I am not a
"chaser" so.
The prohibitions and making people feel nasty is silly to me. But I cannot
understand, like you said, going against a denial of invitation.
I've actually never been to Hooters. I understand the food sucks.
If I did go, I'd not get any pleasure from the breast, unless there good chicken. Smile.
If they won't allow me to touch them, it won't do anything for me.
It wouldn't me either, it was merely Her wishes that I not go. I'm not missing
anything. Only have had to tell my brothers I wasn't going when they were. But
that's not a big deal to me.
Chelsea, you said "It's not a lack of anything ..." That is actually pretty profound
and food for thought. Thank you.
Honestly I don't mean this as a troll at all. but with a lot of christians I knew, particularly where I grew up so much of what was and was not sin was dictated by cultural and political norms. Unless of course the prohibitions were too unrealistic, inconvenient or you were in a position of power. And at that point, it was basically 1 group or person saying This is wrong because god, w says and... and then you have another group saying no, that's actually OK because god says... And then, both groups say that other things are not OK, and a third group disagrees with both groups 1 and 2 on some issues but agrees with 2 on some and 1 on others. They all claimed to have their reasons, and all thought they were correct in saying god chose their particular set of rules as the only one that would get you saved.
So enter things like gods loophole the subject of a particular garfunkle and oates song. People may think its unrealistic that people actually believed this, but nope. I've heard both high school kids and adults use the term.
and weather they're right or wrong to say this...Neither side has a more logically consistent valid or reasonable argument than the other. Because they're all working with translations of a translated and modified book we don't have original copies of anyway. So in the end, it all comes down to a bunch of people saying "I believe i am correct and that you are wrong" while a lot of others believe the exact same thing about every other group purely based on beliefs that we can't objectively compare and contrast.
You can't prove or disprove them the way you can demonstrate gravity exists.
and with over 30000 denominations of christianity, those are some really, really, really long oddseven before you add in everyother religion and denomination that currently exists, or that did in the past.
In the end, it all comes down to controlling people, IMO.
Here's the song I mentioned above. I'd say it rather accurately reflects the meaning of sin where I grew up. That may or may not offend people but I'm not posting it with that intent. Everything came down to sex and sexual guilt, and controlling who why and how people had sex. People were so afraid of sexual sin we didn't even get propper sexual education. But our school did ask us to fill out paperworkabout our sexual habbits and sign purity pledges.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS4wptwMfwQ
It does seem this way, doesn't it?
Yes 570, you've hit the proverbial nail with that post. heck, that's one of the reasons my church even exists, is out of one man's utter confusion with which church even approached "true." I’m not saying I’m right, but that’s one of the many reasons it works for me. Which begs the question of course, if “any” religion is the “right” religion, how in blazes can we possibly know? They all say so many different things, and many of their people often “do” somethings entirely different. No wonder there are so many atheists and agnaustics out there.
Remy, I'll add to that; we've heard tale of this notion that "all religions lead to
the same place." Constantly trumpeted as the enemy tactic by the evangelicals.
I think it must border on straw man argument, if not completely so.
The notion that all religions are equal is stupid. That's like claiming Radian and
Socratic philosophies are equal.
I suppose if I even thought the argument existed for real, I might have still
remained Christian. The Evangelical apparently think that it's a real argument as
they claim against it. But how could fundamentalist Christianity, fundamentalist
Islam, the Mormon Church and the Catholic church all point to the same god?
Wrap in Hinduism, something I can't understand much of, and Buddhism, and
you can clearly see not all religions are of equal stature or lead to the same
ends. Especially the monotheistic big trio, they are similar in characteristics
only. Their gods are exclusive. Nobody goes to the Christian heaven by believing
in the Jewish god, or praying to Allah. While the Qur'an calls Christians and
Jews "people of the book", they are not under the umbrella of Islam and in the
Christians' case at least, considered polytheists.
So, when considering "sin" you must consider a particular, exclusive deity. With
30,000 sects of Christianity, from the western protestant evangelicals, to the
Coptic non-trinitarian Christians of parts of Syria and the surrounding area,
clearly we have different gods. It can't be concluded these are different
understandings of the same god; that would be like applying the same atomic
number and characteristics to both lead and iron.
So, sorry evangelicals, I know you love to trumpet on about this faux "all roads
lead to heaven" as your enemy. But either you're engaging in straw man
arguments or you are so hopelessly illogical in your conclusions that you
probably can't be helped.
The gods of my European ancestors are very different from the gods of the
East, who are different from one another.
So if one uses a classic interpretation of "sin", one has to start by figuring out
which deity among the thousands of disparate ones is the correct, not most
popular, one. And after that, determine what that deity wants because deities,
like college SJW's, are just so easily offended that their person can get very
upset at some distant and remote activity by its lessers.
Religions without a sin construct in this manner don't have a delicate, insecure
deity who apparently never outgrew its teenage college radical days.
So no, trying to make all religions lead to the same end results in a
mathematical null set which makes my brain hurt. And I find it logically
implausible that any of us could ever determine among the thousands of
available options which one would be the correct one. Bearing in mind that
"correct" has nothing to do with empire, popularity, conquest of prior deities,
establishment of cultures and traditions, etc. That one or ones is / are
technically there or not there, irrespective of all the cases made for each by
special pleading. For my part, I tend towards the "not there".
Again, unlike what the evangelicals proclaim, this is not borne out of a "desire
to do my own thing," as they constantly trope on about. The deity, like Uranium
238, either exists or it doesn't. And if it or they exists, it / they would have
measurable characteristics and properties understandable by all, clearly
distinguishable from all other entities. It is this dedication to enlighten-period
rationalism that creates a fixed gulf, if you will, between the likes of me and the
kiddies in the Atheism Plus community.