NationStates Jolt Archive


Hypocritical Mess

Uldaedia
16-03-2005, 21:21
:confused: Okay, religious people out there: Explain something to me.

I was watching a show a few nights ago called Wife Swap. Basically, in case you haven't seen it, it's when they switch two mothers that live completely different life styles for two weeks. So they switched a Chritstian Mother with one mother of a lesbian couple.

So here's what I don't understand.

During the whole first part of the show when they're showing how each family lives, the Christian mother kept saying how her one golden rule was to "treat others as you wish to be treated." Then, when she found out she was switched with a lesbian she started calling them "sexual predators" and ridiculing them because they didn't live like she did, telling them their daughter was going to grow up a pervert and all sorts of stupid stuff.

This isn't the first time I've seen this. I know lots of religious people and they all act the same way. So tell me: If God gave us free will, then what's so wrong about being gay? And if "treat others as you wish to be treated" is really something you believe in, why do you treat some people the way you do? And what ever happened to "God loves all of his children"?
Neo Cannen
16-03-2005, 21:29
1. God loves all sinners, he hates sin

2. What you are basicly saying here being "If God gave us free will, whats wrong with being gay" can be changed to "If God gave us free will, whats wrong with [insert sin here]". Its a sin, the fact that we have the ability to commit sin does not excuse us.

3. I agree with you, the women should have not insulted the girl for being a lesbian. If it came up, she should simpley have said that she believed homosexuality is a sin and that the girl was free to believe whatever she liked.
Uldaedia
16-03-2005, 23:34
But WHY is it a sin? You're right, that statement could be changed to fit anything, I agree with you, but what's wrong with loving another person, no matter what gender you are? They're not hurting anyone else. Seriously, if God is really so against Homosexuality I think I'd rather go to hell anyway then spend my afterlife with him.
Bolol
16-03-2005, 23:40
But WHY is it a sin? You're right, that statement could be changed to fit anything, I agree with you, but what's wrong with loving another person, no matter what gender you are? They're not hurting anyone else. Seriously, if God is really so against Homosexuality I think I'd rather go to hell anyway then spend my afterlife with him.

That, my friend...has been debated to death. The only resource the religious have against homosexuality is a 3000 year old book.

And what were the executives smoking when they came up with THAT pairing?
Zotona
16-03-2005, 23:42
That, my friend...has been debated to death. The only resource the religious have against homosexuality is a 3000 year old book.

And what were the executives smoking when they came up with THAT pairing?
No, it was an awesome idea! And I missed it! Now I'll have to wait for the Wife Swap Season 1 DVD set!
Ut-Jor
16-03-2005, 23:42
The first hypocritical thing she did was switch spouses to be on TV. That goes against every marriage vow I've ever heard.
God has given us free will because He loves us and doesn't want us to be free. That isn't to say that anything we do with free will is right or good. Just cause God allows something to happen doesn't mean it's what He wants you to do.
Yes, the woman was being hypocritical. She really jumped to conclusions there calling the woman a "sexual predator" without even meeting her. Love the sinner, hate the sin.
God does love all His children. But just like any father loves his child, he tries to steer them away from that which he knows would hurt them. God is just, and the laws He has given are just. Thus, even though He loves us, he binds himself to those laws, and the blessings and punishments that come with them.
But WHY is it a sin? You're right, that statement could be changed to fit anything, I agree with you, but what's wrong with loving another person, no matter what gender you are? They're not hurting anyone else. Seriously, if God is really so against Homosexuality I think I'd rather go to hell anyway then spend my afterlife with him.
Loving another person is fine. But you're limiting love to physical expression. The primary reason for sex is procreation, pleasure is secondary. Sex between married people that is free and open to the possibility of children is nearly sacramental. But sex that does not allow for the possibility for children, or is between people who are not bound in holy matrimony, is not sacramental but carnal expressions of lust. Non-marital sex may not appear to hurt anyone, but it abuses the gifts God has given us: mortal bodies, which are sacred temples where the Holy Spirit dwells, and sexuality, which should be expressed sacramentally within marriage.
Illich Jackal
16-03-2005, 23:56
Loving another person is fine. But you're limiting love to physical expression. The primary reason for sex is procreation, pleasure is secondary. Sex between married people that is free and open to the possibility of children is nearly sacramental. But sex that does not allow for the possibility for children, or is between people who are not bound in holy matrimony, is not sacramental but carnal expressions of lust. Non-marital sex may not appear to hurt anyone, but it abuses the gifts God has given us: mortal bodies, which are sacred temples where the Holy Spirit dwells, and sexuality, which should be expressed sacramentally within marriage.

Sex (under normal circumstances) doesn't hurt anyone; it only makes them happy. And what is bad about lust? it doesn't go against the "don't hurt anyone"-rule, which is basicly the only important rule in religion that is moral from my point of view (it being a part of my morality). For some reason you have a rule in religion that says "lust and pleasure are bad things".
Uldaedia
17-03-2005, 00:01
Apparantly I will never ever understand religion, because I completely disagree with everything you said on the bottom of your post, Ut-Jor. Pleasure is not secondary. It's a part of every human. It's simply a part of life. To have pleasure with the one you love is not a sin, at least in my eyes. What if a married couple is done having kids? Are they supposed to not ever kiss or have sex again?

*head in hands* I am SO glad my parents saved me from this weird place you call church.
Pantylvania
17-03-2005, 03:42
does the Bible say it's wrong to be a lesbo?
Nekone
17-03-2005, 04:04
here we go again... yes, Pantylvania, it does... while it does not name 'Lebos' specifically, there are Versus and that speak out about Men laying with Men as they would with a woman. they even speak out against Incests and Beastiality.

Uldaedia then if it gives a person pleasure to sleep with children, you will support and protect his right to do so? What if it would please someone to have another person killed because he is Black, or Spanish... or handicapped in some way. "Pursuit of Happiness" from the US Constitution/Bill of Rights!

where does the line get drawn?
Lries
17-03-2005, 04:06
Rather than laugh at the Christian for her incredible bigotry and close-mindedness, I'm going to laugh at you for watching Wife Swap. :p
Katganistan
17-03-2005, 04:12
Wife Swap is not about the women sleeping with another woman's husband -- it's about sending the two wives to different living situations so that the families learn to appreciate the original wife they had, and the wives learn that there are different ways to do things.

For instance: in one case they sent a laid back messy woman to live in a house run by Neurotic cleaning woman.... and NCW to live in the messy woman's house/menagerie with pets all over.

NCW learned to loosen up a little. Messy woman learned to clean up a little.



That said, attacking the daughter of the couple was low, and completely UnChristian in my opinion. Lead by example.
Chechle
17-03-2005, 04:16
I don't believe homosexuality is a sin and I'm Christian. I believe that being Christian is more then reading words and memorizing quotes, it's what you do. The bible isn't the religion, it's the book that people of that religion wrote a long time ago as thier opinions. Even thought they were disciples didn't make them right. Many chapters contradict each other because the bible was written by many different people. God didn't write it himself. I know I just contradicted myself a lot in this paragraph, but that's just how life is, I guess...
Haloman
17-03-2005, 04:17
Rather than laugh at the Christian for her incredible bigotry and close-mindedness, I'm going to laugh at you for watching Wife Swap. :p

Touche, salesman.
Haloman
17-03-2005, 04:18
I don't believe homosexuality is a sin and I'm Christian. I believe that being Christian is more then reading words and memorizing quotes, it's what you do. The bible isn't the religion, it's the book that people of that religion wrote a long time ago as thier opinions. Even thought they were disciples didn't make them right. Many chapters contradict each other because the bible was written by many different people. God didn't write it himself. I know I just contradicted myself a lot in this paragraph, but that's just how life is, I guess...

Good first post.
Dontgonearthere
17-03-2005, 04:19
Ah, y'see, what you have encountered is 'reality' TV, they have these things called 'scripts'.
The idea is that people will like to watch idiots doing stuff. Apparently this is entertainment.
For some reason I doubt that the lady you refer to is actually religious at all, or if she is, she is most likely only saying these things because shes being paid lots of money to do it.
There is a slim chance that she is a REAL Chrstian, but if this is the case, she is in the minority.
Personaly, I am in favor of lesbians. Theyre hot.
>_>
<_<
Lries
17-03-2005, 04:19
Wife Swap is not about the women sleeping with another woman's husband -- it's about sending the two wives to different living situations so that the families learn to appreciate the original wife they had, and the wives learn that there are different ways to do things.
I know what Wife Swap is, I just think it's mind numbing reality crap.
Chechle
17-03-2005, 04:20
Good first post.
Thanks. Uh... Poor second post. Oh well.
JuNii
17-03-2005, 04:21
I don't believe homosexuality is a sin and I'm Christian. I believe that being Christian is more then reading words and memorizing quotes, it's what you do. The bible isn't the religion, it's the book that people of that religion wrote a long time ago as thier opinions. Even thought they were disciples didn't make them right. Many chapters contradict each other because the bible was written by many different people. God didn't write it himself. I know I just contradicted myself a lot in this paragraph, but that's just how life is, I guess...ok, going off topic here... but isn't the bible suppose to be a guide on how to live the Christian life... you have Jesus's teachings as well as the teachings of the Apostles as well as the prophets. and were there versus that contradicted the ones about Homosexuality being a sin?
Chechle
17-03-2005, 04:28
ok, going off topic here... but isn't the bible suppose to be a guide on how to live the Christian life... you have Jesus's teachings as well as the teachings of the Apostles as well as the prophets. and were there versus that contradicted the ones about Homosexuality being a sin?
Like I said, it's more then reading words. So in other words... I don't know which verse does. Well, I guess the whole philosphy contradicts that believe. It says love your enemies as well as your friends. (Don't know the verse) So technically you should love the devil and his demons. And when the ten commandments were realeased, these were the ONLY sins. But then about 100 other things are sins. Now, I'll admit, I barely know the bible, but the philosophy, basically love everyone, is the only thing I follow. Not agnostic because I believe Jesus was the messiah. Why? I don't know. Why do you believe in Hawaii if you're not there at this moment? How do you really know it exists. I mean, how do you REALLY know?
Xenophobialand
17-03-2005, 04:45
:confused: Okay, religious people out there: Explain something to me.

I was watching a show a few nights ago called Wife Swap. Basically, in case you haven't seen it, it's when they switch two mothers that live completely different life styles for two weeks. So they switched a Chritstian Mother with one mother of a lesbian couple.

So here's what I don't understand.

During the whole first part of the show when they're showing how each family lives, the Christian mother kept saying how her one golden rule was to "treat others as you wish to be treated." Then, when she found out she was switched with a lesbian she started calling them "sexual predators" and ridiculing them because they didn't live like she did, telling them their daughter was going to grow up a pervert and all sorts of stupid stuff.

This isn't the first time I've seen this. I know lots of religious people and they all act the same way. So tell me: If God gave us free will, then what's so wrong about being gay? And if "treat others as you wish to be treated" is really something you believe in, why do you treat some people the way you do? And what ever happened to "God loves all of his children"?

Well, different Christian thinkers have come up with different responses, but all of them would have objected directly to your initial question by first pointing out that there is no necessary connection between "free will" and "good choice." Your will can be entirely free, and yet you still do something ridiculously stupid/harmful.

Now, as for the direct question of why being gay is bad, Augustine and Aquinas (the two predominant Christian religious thinkers) would have come to slightly different ways of saying the same thing: it's wrong. Augustine would have said that homosexual sex is just like any sex, and sex in general is immoral. Ergo, homosexual sex is immoral. Beyond that, he'd probably have pointed to passages in Levitican law, as well as passages in Romans that either explicitly (Leviticus) or implicitly (Romans) condemn it.

Aquinas would have argued somewhat differently. He would say that before you know whether an act is just, you must first know what the act is, and to know what an act is, you have to know what the purpose or end to which that act moves. The conclusion he reached on the topic of sex was that the end to which sex naturally progresses is procreation. Homosexual sex not only does not, but cannot result in procreation. Thus, Aquinas concluded, homosexual sex is not only immoral, but unnatural as well.

Now of course, these are both, when actually presented, fairly easy to debunk. Augustine never really presents a reason why he thinks sex is prima facie evil, aside from the fact that he did a lot of it when he was young, and in retrospect he thought what he'd been doing was evil. He tries to present some additional rationales, but given the fact that he never read any Plato or Aristotle, he was not exactly the most thorough-going of all philosophers, he's fairly slipshod in his logic, and most of his attempts end up more hysterical than impressive.

Aquinas is very, very well-versed in Aristotle, and most of his strengths (and unlike Augustine, Aquinas IMO does have some very big strengths) come from the fact that he's largely piggybacking on one of the most brilliant minds in history. That being said, Aquinas here diverges from Aristotle (who argued for moderation in all things, sex included) when he argues that the only end to which sex progresses is procreation. This doesn't even require a counterexample involving homosexuality in animals to debunk: people who cannot have children, or are past child-rearing age still have sex, and it still seems to serve some natural purpose. Ergo, there must be some natural end that Aquinas didn't consider.

As for the second question, I'd go out on a limb and say that both Augustine and Aquinas would have some problems with what that mother did, although of all things Aquinas less so than Augustine. Whether they would outright condemn it, I am not sure, but they would have had reservations.
Pantylvania
17-03-2005, 05:03
here we go again... yes, Pantylvania, it does... while it does not name 'Lebos' specifically, there are Versus and that speak out about Men laying with Men as they would with a woman. they even speak out against Incests and Beastiality.That's nice. Do you know which part says that there's something wrong with a woman having sex with a woman?
Uldaedia
17-03-2005, 05:29
Uldaedia then if it gives a person pleasure to sleep with children, you will support and protect his right to do so? What if it would please someone to have another person killed because he is Black, or Spanish... or handicapped in some way. "Pursuit of Happiness" from the US Constitution/Bill of Rights!

where does the line get drawn?

IF both people agree to the pairing, AND NO ONE is getting hurt, then yes, I agree with it. The reason sleeping with children is not good is because there have been several scientific studies showing that a child's reasoning capabilities are not yet up to par, plus that fact that in most cases the child, even if they are too afraid to say so, doesn't want it to happen. EVERY law that I know of in America has something to do with not letting people get hurt.

Chechle-Chrisitians like you Rock :D

Lries-Knowledge is power, I'm good at collecting it. Whether that knowledge comes in the form of Wife Swap or not I don't really care.
Aluminumia
17-03-2005, 05:39
Xenophobialand, good post.

Lries, I'll join you in that laugh. :D

Originally posted by Chechle
Like I said, it's more then reading words.

That is absolutely correct. This was the very reason that the pietists came into being in the Christian church's history.

So in other words... I don't know which verse does. Well, I guess the whole philosphy contradicts that believe.

You should probably cite yourself. If you want to search the Bible to find the passages, there are plenty of sites with the complete Bible and a search option.

It says love your enemies as well as your friends. (Don't know the verse) So technically you should love the devil and his demons.

I like that it seems you did think about that, and don't worry, Matthew 5:43-45 does say that. ;) The problem is that you are taking this passage out of its contextual intent, though I admit it is not a hard thing to do. Jesus is responding to how the Jews have been taught for centuries: to love their friends and to hate their enemies. This was on a human-human scale because, like love, hate is more than just a profession. Hate involves action. There is really nothing we can do, as human beings, to demons or Satan. In addition, however, read verse 45 with the one you quoted. It talks about God bringing the sun and rain on both the righteous and unrighteous. This is only characteristic of those terrestrial beings on earth. Demons and Satan, being of another realm, are not being discussed. It was a good inquiry, though. It is good to ask hard questions.

And when the ten commandments were realeased, these were the ONLY sins. But then about 100 other things are sins.

Yes, but not for long. That was just the introduction of the Law, which can be found throughout Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. However, the first law from God was to Adam. It was simply obedience. Laws revealed in different times are just revelations of the character of God. In essence, those at the beginning of time had it easiest. They had few laws and those few laws were then the plum line for their obedience to those laws as a result of their faith. Read about Noah, Abraham, or Job. This is how they were recognized.

Now, I'll admit, I barely know the bible, but the philosophy, basically love everyone, is the only thing I follow.

This is not, unfortunately, what Christianity is. When asked what the greatest commandment was by the Sadduccees, Jesus replied that it was first to "love the Lord God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment." (Matt. 22:36-38)
It then does go on to say that loving others is the second most important, however, before anyone, I am to love God. To love Him, I am to obey Him. (John 14:15) If He recognizes homosexuality as sin, then I should as well, and not practice it. It was blatantly wrong how this woman acted, and I would have a hard time believing her to be a true Christian. It is fine to recognize the lesbian counterpart as one who is practicing a sinful lifestyle. It is another to chastize her daughter and practically beat the slippery slope fallacy to death.

Not agnostic because I believe Jesus was the messiah. Why? I don't know. Why do you believe in Hawaii if you're not there at this moment? How do you really know it exists. I mean, how do you REALLY know?[/I]

Empirically, you don't. That is the problem with only believing what you can sense. However, you take the word of eyewitnesses who say it is there. GO ahead, call someone in Hawaii. They will tell you it hasn't gone away. ;)

The fact is, christians everywhere act the way this woman did. That kind of thing is what give us Christians an unfair reputation. On the other side, christians that have no idea why they believe what they believe give us Christians the reputation that all we do is believe what we feel and what is all warm and safe and fuzzy.

The cross was not warm, safe, or fuzzy. Sin is not warm, safe, or fuzzy. Fallenness is not warm, safe, or fuzzy. The truth is, those who have been redeemed through the death of Christ are compelled to believe it, because it is not a warm, cute little message that you put on an Easter greeting card. The message of salvation is that man is infinitely sinful, to the point that he can never save himself from damnation in hell. He needs God to save him, through Christ. In order to do that, he must surrender his will to be, figuratively, killed, so that it is the will of God that is reflected by his actions.

Not so warm and fuzzy, is it? The truth is, a lot of the words I just used were offensive. I know that. They offend me as well. Sin is offensive. Hell is offensive. The fact that to be saved, I must recognize that I am doomed without surrendering my will, my free will, to God, as He will then save me. Paul wrote, in Romans, "I have been crucified with Christ; therefore I no longer live. Not I, but Christ lives in me." This is to say that I, my selfish will and sinful nature that is, are surrendered to be rendered inoperative. That is not to say that I become perfect. It is just to say that when I do sin, it is not because I am without the will of God, but that I choose to try to operate a sin nature that no longer controls me.

This woman was not reflecting a Godly will with her actions. Maybe she is just being stubbornly selfish in our attempt to appease our own desire to be better than others. Maybe she just professed to be a Christian, but was really what I (and others on here, it seems) call a christian. They like the title. They don't like the life that comes with it. Sometimes I don't like it either, but dispite that, I cannot help but cling to it anyway, because I know better than to just believe what I want to believe. I believe what I am compelled to believe, regardless of what I want.

I would love to talk to you more, Chechle. My e-mail is jbcora@yahoo.com. Feel free to send me a note and I will give you the AIM name I use as well as talk with you about anything.

Pantylvania, the word that has been translated 'man' in the English Bible was actually a word that was not gender-specific. Because of the time in which the KJV was written, the masculine term was used to describe either, similar to many languages today that still do such. Spanish does, for instance. If there is any reference to a group where there are any men, it is given the masculine form. It doesn't even matter if there is only one man in a huge group.

The word, 'îysh, is not masculine. It refers to humankind as a whole.
Chechle
17-03-2005, 06:29
Wow, that was a great post. I would type other stuff, it's 11:30 P.M. here and my brain hurts. Plus America's Funniest Home Videos is on.
Aluminumia
17-03-2005, 08:57
That's fine. It is now 3 AM here and I am exhausted. Unfortunately, I am forced to stay up and work on something. Needing a break, I decided to check the forums. Glad you enjoyed the post.
Tuesday Heights
17-03-2005, 09:08
If it came up, she should simpley have said that she believed homosexuality is a sin and that the girl was free to believe whatever she liked.

Actually, technically, the woman should've witnessed to the lesbian and tried to explain to her the virtue of living through Christ as the Bible dictates you to do as a Christian regardless of what sect you belong to in fellowship.
Aeruillin
17-03-2005, 11:15
And what were the executives smoking when they came up with THAT pairing?

Their ratings.

Honestly, can you think of something that will cause more controversy/suspense? Their ratings are going to skyrocket from that (or already have, probably). The only better thing I can think of is switching some Texan with a liberal living in NYC. :-D
Greedy Pig
17-03-2005, 12:42
Actually, technically, the woman should've witnessed to the lesbian and tried to explain to her the virtue of living through Christ as the Bible dictates you to do as a Christian regardless of what sect you belong to in fellowship.

Not all Christians are so open minded.
Aluminumia
17-03-2005, 13:18
Originally posted by Greedy Pig
Not all Christians are so open minded.

Just a slight tweak. It doesn't even take an open mind to do that. All it takes is a knowledge of the gospel of Jesus and a knowledge of his teachings in the synoptics (though the gospel of John would likely be valid, as well). All it really takes is knowing the doctrine of what they profess. Basically, they claim to be Christians and have a poor understanding of who Christ was and is. Sometimes, depending on the situation, I even call into question whether they are actually Christians, which shouldn't be so.

This is the true "religious right." They are usually simply attaching biblical references to further their political views (You would probably be surprised at how many of those views I share, but I will NOT use my faith to further my agenda and justify my ignorance.).

They certainly don't make it any easier for us who are actually putting forth an effort to actually know the Bible and be able to discuss it with others.

Pardon my rant, but that really does irk me. I can't believe they don't notice how much harder they make it to have an impact on the world around them.
UpwardThrust
17-03-2005, 13:35
here we go again... yes, Pantylvania, it does... while it does not name 'Lebos' specifically, there are Versus and that speak out about Men laying with Men as they would with a woman. they even speak out against Incests and Beastiality.

Uldaedia then if it gives a person pleasure to sleep with children, you will support and protect his right to do so? What if it would please someone to have another person killed because he is Black, or Spanish... or handicapped in some way. "Pursuit of Happiness" from the US Constitution/Bill of Rights!

where does the line get drawn?
God I hate pulling this one up again

But in the same breath as men laying with men (and you might want to go into it with grave_n_idle about this because he has some issues with the translation) but in the same breath (and by breath I mean book) it also condemns eating shellfish and wearing cloths made up of more then one fiber ;) (so everyone wearing a t-shirt out there is going to hell)

Ya cant pick and choose … if you hold Leviticus to be valid (as far as I can tell nothing Jesus said specifically overrode the fiber or shellfish so the institution of the new testament should not interfere with them all being held valid … unless you are one of the ones that say the WHOLE OT is invalid by the new covenant … in which case why do you still hold the 10 commandments to be true lol)

Anyways Leviticus is more then a little questionable and usually “picked” through by Christians taking the rules they like to quote to support their viewpoint and leaving the rest
Katganistan
17-03-2005, 16:46
I know what Wife Swap is, I just think it's mind numbing reality crap.

Apparently, the person who stated that it was against every marriage vow did not know what it was about.

I agree. I watch very little television at all; my mother tells me about this stuff because she finds it entertaining.
Zemcraft
23-03-2005, 19:07
Apparently, the person who stated that it was against every marriage vow did not know what it was about.

I agree. I watch very little television at all; my mother tells me about this stuff because she finds it entertaining.

Which goes to show that I could find more entertainment being experimented on then watching tv. Sad really. I could find more entertainment picking blu-tac off walls.

@ Xenophobialand and Aluminumia, good posting. All the stuff I'd have sprouted had you not got here first. :D Sorry I can't say more, my keyboard is beginning to stick...
Whispering Legs
23-03-2005, 19:12
:confused: Okay, religious people out there: Explain something to me.


I'm religious (a Pentacostal Christian) and I don't act that way.

Maybe you don't get out enough.
Neo-Anarchists
23-03-2005, 19:13
Sad really. I could find more entertainment picking blu-tac off walls.
Blu-tac is awesome. There are so many things you can do with it!
Now that I think of it, blu-tac is pretty hardcore. Why even bother comparing it to a television show like that, it would obviously win...

:D
Bottle
23-03-2005, 19:18
:confused: Okay, religious people out there: Explain something to me.

I was watching a show a few nights ago called Wife Swap. Basically, in case you haven't seen it, it's when they switch two mothers that live completely different life styles for two weeks. So they switched a Chritstian Mother with one mother of a lesbian couple.

So here's what I don't understand.

During the whole first part of the show when they're showing how each family lives, the Christian mother kept saying how her one golden rule was to "treat others as you wish to be treated." Then, when she found out she was switched with a lesbian she started calling them "sexual predators" and ridiculing them because they didn't live like she did, telling them their daughter was going to grow up a pervert and all sorts of stupid stuff.

This isn't the first time I've seen this. I know lots of religious people and they all act the same way. So tell me: If God gave us free will, then what's so wrong about being gay? And if "treat others as you wish to be treated" is really something you believe in, why do you treat some people the way you do? And what ever happened to "God loves all of his children"?
i have found that many people, religious and otherwise, don't actually believe in the principles they claim to support. they just say they do because it sounds nice. the best way to judge somebody's character is to see how they respond when they don't get their way...that's when you really learn what principles they actually hold to.
Whispering Legs
23-03-2005, 19:19
i have found that many people, religious and otherwise, don't actually believe in the principles they claim to support. they just say they do because it sounds nice. the best way to judge somebody's character is to see how they respond when they don't get their way...that's when you really learn what principles they actually hold to.

Rather like a politician.
Domici
23-03-2005, 20:00
Apparantly I will never ever understand religion, because I completely disagree with everything you said on the bottom of your post, Ut-Jor. Pleasure is not secondary. It's a part of every human. It's simply a part of life. To have pleasure with the one you love is not a sin, at least in my eyes. What if a married couple is done having kids? Are they supposed to not ever kiss or have sex again?

*head in hands* I am SO glad my parents saved me from this weird place you call church.

Not to mention that almost everything in nature that is pleasant is also beneficial. Lack of sex, even without the intention of having childrend, had negative health consequenses. Virtually every pleasant tasting food (not including those that are artificially processed to taste like something they're not) is also very nutritious. Almonds for example. Tastey and a good source of plant protien. Wild Almonds, bitter as hell and deadly poison.

Clearly if anyone is under Satan's influence, it is not those who share love and pleasure with one another, it's those who try to demonize those who do.