India and Christianity

Threefates:

It seems that you, like Reed Lover, are fully prepared to "throw out the baby with the bathwater."  By asking me whether I can show you "anywhere else where Christ mentions sex in the context of sin," you are inferring that you only believe in what Christ actually said and did, and not in the actions and teachings of the Apostles and disciples; i.e., the remainder of the New Testament.  If that is the case, I must ask, as arcer does, but from a slightly different perspective, "What is the point of being a Christian?"

Indeed, arcer speaks volumes when he says that "Adherence to faith is, I think, not reconcilable with a pick 'n' mix blend of Christianity, new ageism and girl power, rationalised by the proposition that 'God knows I'm a good (and empowered) woman'."

Maani - You also see christianity from a pre-packaged concept.  Every religion out there comes from a pick-n-choose blend.  What do you think are the differences between Catholics & Protestants, Baptists and Angelicans...Lutherans and Episcopalians... etc, etc...

How do you explain Jehovah Witness's...??

It you reject Paul, then there is no point in providing you with the many places in which "sex vis-a-vis sin" is mentioned - and there are quite a few.  If you do not reject him, let me know and I will provide a rather extensive list of passages dealing with "sex as sin."

However, even if you believe only in what Christ actually did and said, let me offer the following:

"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile the man.  For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witnesses, blasphemies.  These are the things which defile a man..." (Matt 15:18-20; emphasis mine)

The term "defile" is the same thing as saying "sin."  Thus, Jesus does indeed admonish against "fornication," which means any sex outside of marriage. 

But see I see that differently (evidently)... I see the defining word in that scripture to be evil.  For those that fornicate with evil thoughts.. or thoughts that would use or hurt another individual, then I agree.  However, there are so many ways in which that can be read. Who's to say which is the correct way.

As for the oft-repeated claim that "I know it was basically written by men with a look at sex and women as it was in those times...submissive and without a will of our own," you clearly do not know your Scripture as well as you think.  Consider the following:

"Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.  The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does.  And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does."  (1 Cor. 7:3-4)  Certainly sounds like equality to me.

"Wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.  Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.  Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her.  That he might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word.  That He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.  So husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.  For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church." (Eph. 5:22-29)

It's funny (actually, sad) how many people know the first part of this passage, but never read past what looks like the subjugation of the wife.  Paul only uses 53 words to describe the wife's "duty" of "submission."  Yet he uses 97 words to tell men how they are to treat their wives - and those words are far stronger than the former.  The husband is expected to be like the "church": "sancitified," "cleansed," "not having spot or wrinkle," "holy" and "without blemish."  Yet he goes even further in admonishing men, by equating the wives with the husband's own body, requiring that men "nourish and cherish" their wives "just as the Lord does the church."  And how much does the Lord cherish the church?  More than any man could ever hope to love his wife: yet that is how he is called to love his wife.  Thus, this passage has much more to do with the husband's "submissiveness" (to Christ) than it does with the wife's "submissiveness" to the husband.

Actually Maani, I think most of those prove my point... rather than against it..  Oh and which wife, since wasn't the man allowed a few wives and concubines....??  How many women were allowed a few husbands??

You also seem to overlook the number of women in the Scriptures who had major roles to play, and were honored by God for those roles.  Beginning with Sarai (sarah), Rebecca, Rachel, Leah, Tamar (her story is amazing), Jochabed, Zipporah, Miriam, Rahab, Deborah (another amazing story), Ruth, Hannah and, especially, Esther (arguably the most amazing woman in the Old Testament), to Mary (Jesus' mother), Elisabeth, Anna, Mary (Martha's sister), Mary Magdalene, Pilate's wife, Tabitha, Lydia (whose house became the first "home church" in Europe) and Priscilla in the New Testament, there are any number of strong, often independent women who had critical roles to play in either the events of the Old Testament or the establishment of Christianity.

Actually you're right, many of those women did have great stories.. and they were strong and independent women.. .even tho most times they were worried about their lives because of it.  It in no way changes the way they were perceived by men. Look at what Ester went thru for instance... And Sarah... had a husband who had children by a slave living in her tent with her... now that would of made me happy ... and Rachel... she had to share her husband with her sister Leah.. and poor Leah, he didn't even love her... he was suckered into that marriage... I'm not sure how these stories are suppose to change the way I see things however...??

I obviously do not know how often you read your Bible, or when the last time you really read it was.  Perhaps a re-reading is in order.

Actually I read it all the time, usually when someone's trying to bash me....I don't think its the reading thats the problem... I think its because I translate it myself.. and you go by someone else's translation.... 

Peace.

seriously though Thre Fates, I realise my latter contributions have been flippant but I do think that you might want to re-evaluate your religious leanings.  Why, I have or see no problem with them. You are still going by some taught notion of what that should be.

It seems to me that you (as do I) try to lead a good life in which you attempt to hurt as few people as possible - an admirable and noble ambition. Indeed, this seems to be the central tenet of your adherence to Christianity and that's a great thing. It's a fantastic notion - do unto others etc ect...

However, the bye-laws of Christianity seem to pass you by. I'm not suggesting any slight by this, but you do appear to have an a la carte take on the basic rules of being a follower of Christ. It is also not enough to say 'oh well, the rules were written by men in a time of oppression of the female sex'.

Rules is rules. I'm not talking about the theologically arguable minutiae of canon law, I'm talking about the basic precepts which govern the way you're supposed to live your life. You can say that you take exception to being judged by men and governed by their warped view of women but most Christian churches still hold those precepts to be the defining laws of their religion.

Rules are never just rules... You want to check how many follow the tax laws of this country. And those rules are a lot more measureable...

I'm gonna tell you what I told Reed...I spent 14 years at the American Bible Society, working closely with the biblical scholars on 2 major translations - the re-release of the "Today's English Language or Good New Bible as it was known" (TEV) and the "Contemporary English Language" (CEV).  Even tho both of these was translated from the original Greek and Hebrew text, I've sat in on enough meetings to know that these men put their own spin on things regardless of how un-doctrinal they claim it is.... Hence why I don't think that the Bible is a perfect rulebook...

Go thru the new testament and just read the statements of Jesus... even tho those are also memories you have to depend on being correctly quoted years later by men... but just read what supposedly Christ said.  Now the only thing here on which you have to question my Christianity is on my outlook towards sex.. correct?  Show me anywhere in Christ's teachings were he says anything about sex being sinful... other than as I stated, his remarks to Mary Magdalene after saving her from being stoned to death for not living up to Jewish law...

What I am getting at in a roundabout way is why, if you feel liberated enough to ignore the ideas of the God you believe, why then is that God your God?

I'm not ignoring the ideas of my God...or the teachings of Christ.  I only have my feelings to go by and I can't logically see why God would give us something as beautiful as sex and then make it sinful to do, unless its only done in a specific way... Come on.. thats a man-made rule that was used eternally to control women.  I can not see a God that would punish you for making love to someone or giving someone else pleasure... I just don't see it logically... Thats my head!

Why not just hold true to the rules you have set yourself in order to live a good life and be done with that?

Because that would be denying a complete part of my soul... and what good would that do me.

What is the point of being a Christian if you do not follow the teachings of Christ.

Ahh.. but now there it is.  I do following the teachings of Christ...

The rules you have chosen for yourself seem pretty humanist - why not be one of those? You seem not to need a God. Or why not choose another one. A la carte Buddishm would let you live the way you wish, as would vague Taoism.

Again there is no black or white in faith.... The gray areas are very large... I'm in there somewhere!!

I know many women who feel the way you do about Christianity - but adherence to faith is, I think, not reconcilable with a pick 'n' mix blend of Christianity, new ageism and girl power, rationalised by the proposition that 'God knows I'm a good (and empowered) woman'. There is a do as I say not as you may do aspect to the whole thing.

Again, you judging that on what you were taught is religion. In my church now, which is the Reformed Church in America, we have a large gay group.  My church accepts homosexuality as a part of life... and yet its still a very christian church.  My first minister there was Norman Vincent Peale.  He wrote the best-selling book "The Power of Positive Thinking"... maybe you should read that.

By the way, I am catholic-raised and inculcated (by punch, kick and slap) but now an atheist who struggles perpetually with adherence to my chosen worldview which offers no comfort zone. Yet I try to live by my humanist principles and accept the hard part that I will not be saved but will die and rot and pass from the memory of the world. It's hard but i try to stick with the rules.

My ennui with your replies to Reed centred not on atrtacking you personally but simply  your unwillingness to thoroughly understand his arguments, which were (largely) made in a considered manner. Your responses seemed to me to be facile, dismissive and judgmental.

I find that very strange.  I'm the least judgmental.  I only criticize those who would attack my beliefs because they can't see outside the whole black/white box.  You claim to be open minded and yet you tend to be just as one-sided as the devout orthodox... I either have to fit in one box or the other... but I can't be anywhere else.... I just find that strange.  You think that if I don't abide by all the rules set by man regarding christianity, then I can't be a christian... now thats judgemental!

emdiar wrote: You poor deluded people. Only Reed seems to have successfully freed his mind from the human disease that is religion.    "There's no ghosts!  There's no God! There's a perfectly rational explanation for any phenomenon you might encounter!" , peoples poet.

Shut up Rik or I'll kill you!!!!!

You poor deluded people. Only Reed seems to have successfully freed his mind from the human disease that is religion.

 "There's no ghosts!  There's no God! There's a perfectly rational explanation for any phenomenon you might encounter!" , peoples poet.