Bringing Christianity into disrepute!

[Lionel Refson]

One needs to be adult to question the faith, one should never accept anything without questioning it first, imo

Really? why? I'll meet you half way, child-like hreart with adult brain!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

First marriage for love is a modern invention.

What does this have to do with anything I said?

Second I used the term bang because the OP equates love with sex it seems you have the same misconceptions

Aren't you the one who just admitted that marriage and love are completely separate also? With that under our belt, I would argue that love and sex share somewhat the same sort of relationship with one another that love and marriage do. Emotional attachment and strong feelings make it better all the way around in BOTH situations. So it isn't like I advocate going out and having sex all over the place, with whoever you choose. What I am saying is that being educated about the safe ways to go about having sex with those you ultimately choose to due to mutual feelings is important.

No point answering the rest as you're completely ignoring the health risks associated with sex, now and in Biblical times

This can easily be tacked on to the point I raised about being "safe" from pregnancy, if that isn't the goal. Being "safe" from STDs also requires education, and the more open we are about sex, and the less of a "huge deal" it is made into, I think the better education will be, and therefore the better results we'll see in trying to increase responsibility.

Whatever the case, it is pretty clear you are uptight about sex. How is that working for you?

 

[Vinayaka]

Some extreme Christians, of the fundamentalist/Biblical literalist genre, bring the faith into disrepute with their unpleasant behaviour. Their attitude to the faith is most off putting, and is likely to have unbelievers running for the hills rather than wishing to take on board Christianity. I have been particularly disgusted by the nasty bigots who are anti-gay, they are evil, imo. There are many gay Christians in this world, as I have said before even Jesus could have been gay, as he supposedly had a disciple whom he loved. I would love to see the look on their faces if that could be proved to be correct.

When folks are indoctrinated to the point of no return, (about politics, faith, culture) it's easy to be obnoxious.

 

[Catholicus]

God is supposed to have got Mary up the duff, they didn't have IVF in those days, so sexual intercourse was the only way it could have happened. There is nothing wrong with being gay so if Jesus had been a gay I hope he had a satisfying sex life.

As long as one is in a consensual adult relationship and not cheating on one's partner there is nothing wrong with having sex, providing one takes sensible precautions, to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, or sexual disease.

All sex outside traditional, monogamous heterosexual marriage is spiritually damaging to those who perform it.

Thus warning those who have gay or non-marital relationships that they are harming themselves, is being kind.

But being unpleasant towards the people themselves is cruel and wrong.

"Hate the sin, love the sinner" (St Augustine).

 

[JJ50]

All sex outside traditional, monogamous heterosexual marriage is spiritually damaging to those who perform it.

Thus warning those who have gay or non-marital relationships that they are harming themselves, is being kind.

But being unpleasant towards the people themselves is cruel and wrong.

"Hate the sin, love the sinner" (St Augustine).

That guy Solomon had a lot of concubines, which were for his sexual pleasure, and you can bet your bottom dollar they had no choice in the matter!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

All sex outside traditional, monogamous heterosexual marriage is spiritually damaging to those who perform it.

What, exactly, is "spiritual damage?" I understand and have witnessed mental/physical/emotional damage, and I have taken on those kinds of damage myself, and so my understanding is at least somewhat fleshed out in those areas. But I have no idea what "spiritual damage" is, I am not sure I have ever experienced it myself, and I am wondering how we see it presented in others. Any ideas?

 

[Cooky]

Well perhaps they realise that historically sex was a high heath risk less so in the modern age but still risky. Or unlike you realise loving someone does not mean banging them

So in you opinion the Christians Church should change it's sex in marriage and only for reproduction stance for what good reason

People get a chip on their shoulder against religion out of what seems to be immaturity, IMO.

 

[Cooky]

Sex is a distraction. We should understand this as advanced, highly conscious beings by now.

 

[JJ50]

People get a chip on their shoulder against religion out if what seems to be immaturity, IMO.

Out of reality more like, when you consider how much damage has been done by religion over the years, especially, but not exclusively, the Catholic doctrine.

 

[Darkforbid]

Whatever the case, it is pretty clear you are uptight about sex. How is that working for you?

Fine, I became bored with sex in my mid 40's and have been celibate (apart from a few drug fueled incidents) since then, but how do you think my sex life was uptight before then? Is it just because my view is different from yours

 

[Cooky]

Out of reality more like, when you consider how much damage has been done by religion over the years, especially, but not exclusively, the Catholic doctrine.

Well, that's a half-blinded, one sided view.

 

[Darkforbid]

Sex is a distraction. We should understand this as advanced, highly conscious beings by now.

I totally agree plus the findings are just one in a long line of evidence that suggest that males live longer if they abstain from sex. In 1997, Dr David Gems, a geneticist at University College London, found that males who remain celibate are more likely to survive into a ripe old age

Which kills the active sex life is more healthy arguments

 

[JJ50]

Well, that's a half-blinded, one sided view.

What is the good view of the faith?

The Spanish Inquisition, the crimes of paedophile priests being covered up by the Catholic hierarchy, the terrible Magdalene Laundries did not do the RCC any favours at all. Yes other churches have had clergy who were sexual abusers too, but not to the extent same as the catholics.

 

[David1967]

as I have said before even Jesus could have been gay, as he supposedly had a disciple whom he loved.

You do know you can love someone without having sex with them, don't you?

 

[Kenny]

Only because it is true, like some people on this forum!

I'm not sure I agree. I mean, why are you angry? Why the offensive post? I mean, I am a Christian but have no problem eating with anybody.

On a side note, Jesus wan't gay and you don't have to be having sex with another of the same gender to love them. I love my son tremendously and a few men at the church but we certainly know that love doesn't translate into having sex.

Not to say there aren't wild and crazy people who give Christianity a bad name (Westwood Baptist comes to mind) - but then again, there are crazies in any group.

 

[JJ50]

I'm not sure I agree. I mean, why are you angry? Why the offensive post? I mean, I am a Christian but have no problem eating with anybody.

On a side note, Jesus wan't gay and you don't have to be having sex with another of the same gender to love them. I love my son tremendously and a few men at the church but we certainly know that love doesn't translate into having sex.

Not to say there aren't wild and crazy people who give Christianity a bad name (Westwood Baptist comes to mind) - but then again, there are crazies in any group.

I don't think my post is offensive, many directed at me are though. How do you know Jesus wasn't gay, or married for that matter, apart from not wishing to believe it is true? The gospels don't mention his private life.

 

[Kenny]

I don't think my post is offensive, many directed at me are though. How do you know Jesus wasn't gay, or married for that matter, apart from not wishing to believe it is true? The gospels don't mention his private life.

Because he followed the Jewish law.

 

[JJ50]

Jesus wasn't popular with the Jewish hierarchy as he was a rebel, hence the crucifixion.

 

[sealchan]

Putting aside the blasphemy of suggesting that God incarnate was susceptible to concupiscence, yet alone to homosexuality, I agree only to a point.

However, in an age of unprecedented access to information, anyone serious about the Christian faith has more than sufficient means to study it. With a mere Google search you can find the writings of the Church Fathers, detailed explanations of the Ecumenical Councils, various catechisms for multiple traditions, apologetic works and so on. To the degree that an unbeliever fails to avail themselves of these resources is the degree they are culpable of unbelief. Someone who rejects the faith on the basis of the bad example of others, or the refusal to accept the moral law (especially in regards to sexual sin) was never serious about the faith to begin with.

I would add that without studying the cultures out of which the scared stories and teachings arose, the perspectives and attitudes of its authors, the facts of the historical context...that one cant have a reasonable ground for evaluating the validity of Christian teachings to modern human experience.

 

[Polymath257]

Sex is a distraction. We should understand this as advanced, highly conscious beings by now.

In my mind, sex is not a distraction any more than any other loving interaction with another person is a distraction. In fact, I would see *all* such interactions as one of the things making life worth living.

And my guess is that 'highly conscious beings' would be able to share in a physical as well as intellectual manner and be quite compassionate and sincere.