Reconciling the imposition of the "White Man's" religion

Ethyl

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Posts
5,194
Media
19
Likes
1,717
Points
333
Location
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
horribleperson said:
nothing like good old time religion to bring out the best in people.

Reminds me of when my Sunday School classmates and I decided to rewrite an old hymn:

Give me that ol' time religion
give me that ol' time religion
give me that ol' time religion
'cause it's good enough for me (Chorus)

It was good for Zeus and Gaia
It was good for Zeus and Gaia
It was good for Zeus and Gaia
and it's good enough for me.

(Repeat chorus)

It was good for Thor and Odin
It was good for Thor and Odin
It was good for Thor and Odin
and it's good enough for me.

(Repeat chorus)

Everyone feel free to add your favorite gods/goddesses:biggrin1:
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Wow, like most of the threads here having to do with religion, this one has sure turned out some gems. I've been away for a while, but this is one thread that I've continued reading, even though I haven't been posting, so I'll thank you, Stronzo, for giving us some food for thought.

The thing that's great about coming in late is that I can now just tell you all how much I appreciate your insights and passions. Freddie, as always you have been a reliable source of information on what Christianity could and should be, while some newer members like losangelastim and Mkymkus just cut to the heart of the matter, at least for me. "Religion" in it's current form is an abomination, and here I am referring to those who practise faith in a concept they don't bother to fully understand, regardless of what religion they are preaching- clearly this points to MOST of the "faithful".

As to the actual topic of why Africans absorbed Christianity rather than rejecting it, I think it's mainly exposure. While I am not fully aware of what faith they would have practised prior to being brought here, it is not so surprising that they would have blended the faith they brought with them in with the faith of the land. Historically, any dominant power imposes it's faith upon it's subjects, the thing unique here is that Americans didn't take over their country, they brought them here. The Aztecs took over the faith of the Mayans, renaming their gods and reshaping their stories, the Romans did it, and yes, the bloody fucking Americans. Despot rulers claiming power from God Almighty are a fearsome lot, and the weaker amoung the cultural setting have little choice but to conform or die. Most will conform.

As blacks gain social standing (it takes a fuck of a long time, doesn't it?), we are seeing a larger section of black people practising Islam, perhaps as a rejection of White Man's Christianity, I don't know. America is still an experiment, I'm not aware of many cultures in the past who made much realistic attempt to allow it's citizens to practise multiple faiths and preserve multiple cultural beliefs and rituals. For all our fucked up failures, you have to give us that.

We aren't where we ought to be, not by a long shot. You'd think with all the blessings of natural resources we have, and all the brilliant minds that went into planning this country, we'd be a lot further along. Religion hinders rationality, I don't care who disagrees with me on that. We have thousands of years of seeing it's effects in multiple cultures not to acknowledge that.
Religion compels men to believe in things that are nonsense, therefore paving the way for them to believe in nonsense in general. If this aspect of life was to be eliminated altogether though, the average man couldn't take the pressure of dealing with reality on it's own terms.

Human beings are still basically in our infancy stage, we are n00bs on the planet in evolutionary terms. We're still afraid of the dark. We don't like things that go "bump" in the night. Religion fills in the blanks for us where science has not yet given us satisfying answers. We can't just live with the concept of "I don't know, nor do I personally have the capacity to know". We can't accept our own irrelevance, so we give ourselves power by claiming a connection to the Master of the Universe, not realising how completely stupid we are for doing so.

Of course we are connected to our creator, how could that not be so? Whomever or whatever caused our world to be, we are a part of that. Our right to be here is justifued by the fact that we are. Finding relevance in our lives is the responsibility of each of us as INDIVIDUALS until such time as a more effective grasp of our reality is discovered, but it won't be coming from one special group's writings or beliefs that exclude everyone else, that's just stupid. Wherever we came from, we ALL have the same origin, we are ALL brethren. To believe that some are better in the "eyes of God" is nothing more than your ego talking and your insecurity is written all over your brow.

For myself, I would love to live in a society that was based on rationality rather than any religion. Sadly, such a place does not exist. The thread that ties all human cultures together is that we ALL create stories to explain whatever it is we wish to know, and we ALL follow leaders who claim to know, whether or not they are good.
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
143
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
prepstudinsc said:
Considering that the spiritual you refer to was sung by African-Americans about Biblical characters, I guess that they felt that the Judeo-Christian religion was good and was not imposed on them.

Perhaps if called back further in time than historical memory that "old time religion". Suppose? :33:
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,611
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
mercurialbliss said:
Reminds me of when my Sunday School classmates and I decided to rewrite an old hymn:

Give me that ol' time religion
give me that ol' time religion
give me that ol' time religion
'cause it's good enough for me (Chorus)

It was good for Zeus and Gaia
It was good for Zeus and Gaia
It was good for Zeus and Gaia
and it's good enough for me.

(Repeat chorus)

It was good for Thor and Odin
It was good for Thor and Odin
It was good for Thor and Odin
and it's good enough for me.

(Repeat chorus)

Everyone feel free to add your favorite gods/goddesses:biggrin1:

Give me that ole time of "doing it"
Give me that ole time of "doing it
Give me that old time of "doing it"
And it's good enough for me.

It was good for Lex and Matthew
It was good for Lex and Matthew
It was good for Lex and Matthew
And it's good enough for me.

It was good for Bill and Monica
It was good for Bil and Monica
It was good for Bill and Monica
And it's good enough for me

*Slight change in meaning and context I'm sure you noticed.*
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,611
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
madame_zora said:
Freddie, as always you have been a reliable source of information on what Christianity could and should be, while some newer members like losangelastim and Mkymkus just cut to the heart of the matter, at least for me. "Religion" in it's current form is an abomination, and here I am referring to those who practise faith in a concept they don't bother to fully understand, regardless of what religion they are preaching- clearly this points to MOST of the "faithful".

Of course we are connected to our creator, how could that not be so? Whomever or whatever caused our world to be, we are a part of that. Our right to be here is justifued by the fact that we are. Finding relevance in our lives is the responsibility of each of us as INDIVIDUALS until such time as a more effective grasp of our reality is discovered, but it won't be coming from one special group's writings or beliefs that exclude everyone else, that's just stupid. Wherever we came from, we ALL have the same origin, we are ALL brethren. To believe that some are better in the "eyes of God" is nothing more than your ego talking and your insecurity is written all over your brow.

For myself, I would love to live in a society that was based on rationality rather than any religion. Sadly, such a place does not exist. The thread that ties all human cultures together is that we ALL create stories to explain whatever it is we wish to know, and we ALL follow leaders who claim to know, whether or not they are good.
Zora you are so kind in your comments about me and my reflections on Christianity.

Then you go and explain what you believe it should be. That part is in bold as well. The truth of the matter is that Christianity is SUPPOSED to be exactly what you described as the ideal religion. Is Christianity like that? Sadly, in many instances, no. But if one really studies the Bible and its philosophy, one would find Zora's concepts as being the ones found in the New Testament.

At least that is my understanding of it all. People aren't as far apart in beliefs as it sometimes appears except for the super indoctrinated ones that can't see anything but what has been spoon fed them.
 

playainda336

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Posts
1,991
Media
223
Likes
2,365
Points
443
Location
Greensboro (North Carolina, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Yeesh...so much hate for Christianity...

Though, I know this thread wasn't created (IMO) to bash Christianity rather to understand certain things, aspects, etc...of my beliefs and others with possibly similar beliefs and structures to my own.

Well, let me start off by replying that while the Bible was used to oppress Black people in the past, it was done so more in miscontruing of texts and less of literal texts. White people in slavery times used the texts "Slave obey your masters", but it never said "Black people obey your White masters"...in the same right the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is "an abomination".

---------------------------------------

Christianity isn't supposed to be about people being "better" than the others around them. It is the very reason Jesus said "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." And I do disagree with Christians who feel because they go to church and sing on the choir every Sunday that they are better than everyone else and going to heaven. The Bible says "Feed the Hungry, Clothe the Naked, Free the Opressed" and "Love God" and "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."

It doesn't say "Love your neighbor less if he is gay." Which should be the true arguement for anyone arguing for acceptance of homosexuals. Even still it's a "condone the person and not the act" kind of thing.

---------------------------------------

What I don't understand is why it is so wrong for me to be straightfoward and truthful to say that I disagree with a man penetrating another man's rectal cavity AND I don't hold that against a person in how much I respect them as a human being. People are human and people do things. I feel you shouldn't judge people based on certain acts they do, but where their heart is.

---------------------------------------

As Freddie53 has clearly stated, Christianity on paper is WAY different from Christianity in act. I try to act on Christianity on paper. I'd like to consider myself non-conformal...especially since most Christians don't think like I do.

---------------------------------------

Regardless, it'd be nice is more people practiced more philosophical morally sound doctrine. Because in any moral theory acts must be able to be universalized and bashing my religion is just as bad as bashing homosexuality. And it really isn't making anything better.

._.;
 

dreamer20

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Posts
8,029
Media
3
Likes
27,078
Points
693
Gender
Male
playainda336 said:
Yeesh...so much hate for Christianity...
playainda336 said:
Though, I know this thread wasn't created (IMO) to bash Christianity rather to understand certain things...

Well, let me start off by replying that while the Bible was used to oppress Black people in the past, it was done so more in misconstruing of texts and less of literal texts. White people in slavery times used the texts "Slave obey your masters", but it never said "Black people obey your White masters"...in the same right the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is "an abomination".
The oppressors did not misconstrue the text.
As you said in your sentence that followed the meaning of the text was clear.
The text endorsed slavery. The slave owner had licence to mistreat and beat slaves, even to the point of death, without impunity.
It stated that women shouldn't have the right to own property, including their own bodies. In short they were the commodity of a man.
Incest was overlooked, e.g. the case of Tamar, afterall it's all in the family. Seth, Cain , Able, Isaac, Lot's offspring and Moses were all the offsping of incest.

When Moses headed the fertilty cult of Yahweh there were many other acts and things that were named "abominations". But I 'm sure that many Christians are still eating pork. Not to mention coming into contact with menstrating women. etc. etc.


... bashing my religion is just as bad as bashing homosexuality. And it really isn't making anything better.
It is important that we critique the religion and see that it did support immoral practices and even showed instances of God supporting the evil acts of man. Futhermore Christians need to recognize that Christ would not endorse religious-based bigotry and stop its practice forever.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl.htm

http://www.jesusmcc.org/go/wouldjesus.html

dreamer20
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
143
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
playainda336 said:
Yeesh...so much hate for Christianity...

No. It's the corruption of Jesus to which this thread addresses itself. It's to that end many thoughtful and insightful posters have seen it for what it is; an attempt to understand why so many so-called "Christans" do the bashing.


Well, let me start off by replying that while the Bible was used to oppress Black people in the past, it was done so more in miscontruing of texts and less of literal texts. White people in slavery times used the texts "Slave obey your masters", but it never said "Black people obey your White masters"...in the same right the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is "an abomination".

No misconstruing playainda. It's right there sanctioning slavery. That was convenient to this argument!! Well done.

But dear GOD man! Why don't you see the same phenomenon when it's applied to GAY PEOPLE??? Is your reality to this misuse only valid when self-applied? As Mkymkus stated it also says "stoning errant children" is also a cause for drastic action - (putting them to death!). But you guys still insist on taking only those texts that bolster your fear and loathing for the homosexuals among you.

But more than that do you realise how much your Bible has morphed over centuries of reinterpretations and rewrites at the hands of patriarchal men who have a need to adapt those very word (though perhaps originally God-inspired) to fit the social morals of the day??? The Bible is clearly as much a social phenomenon as it is a spiritual one in its existing form.

---------------------------------------

Christianity isn't supposed to be about people being "better" than the others around them. It is the very reason Jesus said "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." And I do disagree with Christians who feel because they go to church and sing on the choir every Sunday that they are better than everyone else and going to heaven. The Bible says "Feed the Hungry, Clothe the Naked, Free the Opressed" and "Love God" and "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."

It doesn't say "Love your neighbor less if he is gay." Which should be the true arguement for anyone arguing for acceptance of homosexuals. Even still it's a "condone the person and not the act" kind of thing.

Now you're repeating your offensive "hate the sin, love the sinner" line. I've covered already just how offensive this it to homosexuals. God your memory of your own historical background is conveniently short!:eek:

We get it already playainda; you want to use vague scriptural reference to marginalize and relegate gay peoples to the borders of this society. How nice for you that you're able to feel included now that your own generation of black Americans has an element (though tentative in truth) of acceptance in this (originally) white man's means of social (not religious) manipulation.

How nice of you to close that door and lock it behind you. My mother always taught me to hold the door for those behind me.... but nevermind.:rolleyes:

---------------------------------------

What I don't understand is why it is so wrong for me to be straightfoward and truthful to say that I disagree with a man penetrating another man's rectal cavity AND I don't hold that against a person in how much I respect them as a human being.

You don't need to 'agree' or 'disagree' with a 'man penetrating another man's rectal cavity'. You need to mind your own business about it. It has zero to do with you. And goodness knows I'd hardly attempt to tell you where to put that great big beautiful schlong of yours in the privacy of your own sexual experience and orientation. Count on it.

And for you to equate homosexuality with solely that sexual activity speaks volumes about your preconceived notion of what gay men do in bed.

---------------------------------------

As Freddie53 has clearly stated, Christianity on paper is WAY different from Christianity in act. I try to act on Christianity on paper. I'd like to consider myself non-conformal...especially since most Christians don't think like I do.

Au contraire. In my opinion most self-proclaimed "Christians" think precisely as you do. Please never compare yourself with Freddie. I know the man and he's Jesus' representative on this earth like few others.

---------------------------------------

Regardless, it'd be nice is more people practiced more philosophical morally sound doctrine. Because in any moral theory acts must be able to be universalized and bashing my religion is just as bad as bashing homosexuality. And it really isn't making anything better.

I don't care if it 'makes things better' or not. Playainda, your 'religion' is way up there on top of the bashing machine. I'm living proof and so are you. And the old saying "if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen" applies here.

Christianity is not beyond criticism or reproach. It's especially not now since many denominations of it have postured themselves as the morality police to the present generation. To that I say "Physician heal theyself".

** excuse me but does anyone see an available altar boy snuffing out candles and putting away the Communion wine??:rolleyes:

Unbelievable the hypocrisy....
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
143
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
dreamer20 said:
It is important that we critique the religion and see that it did support immoral practices and even showed instances of God supporting the evil acts of man. Futhermore Christians need to recognize that Christ would not endorse religious-based bigotry and stop its practice forever.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl.htm

http://www.jesusmcc.org/go/wouldjesus.html

dreamer20

Perfectly stated dreamer.

My fear is that those who "think" like playainda prefer the safety and comfort of a biased and uninformed view of the historical Bible rather than to see it in its totality.

The irony of this thing (and the thing that truly pisses me off beyond pissed off) is that people who've suffered due to the selective interpretations of that very Book would now use it to ostracize others.

Again, I'm just naive enough to believe in the goodness of man in that he would; understand other oppressed peoples since he was oppressed himself.

**disclaimer I use the pronoun "he" in the traditional all-inclusive sense when I write.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Stronzo said:
The irony of this thing (and the thing that truly pisses me off beyond pissed off) is that people who've suffered due to the selective interpretations of that very Book would now use it to ostracize others....
Stepping outside the religious context for a moment if I may, which after all is just one example of this kind of Human behaviour. I read some work by Paulo Freire on the 'relationship' between oppressor and oppressed in his work "Pedagogy of the Oppressed", while he is I would say writing from a more socio-economic aspect, for me his ideas resonate here :

"Status, power, and domination of the oppressor are not possible without the existence of the oppressed. The oppressor is dehumanized by the act of oppression while the existential reality of oppression and the internalization of the image of the oppressor dehumanize the oppressed."

Freire defines oppressors as those who deny personal freedom and equality to others and deny them the power to fully direct their own lives.

Often the oppressed or those formerly oppressed (getting to your premise here at last) will attack members of their peer group. Ultimately they may become 'attracted' to their current or former oppressors behavour and may try to mimic it. They want to have what their oppressors have. People naturally want to have things and behave in ways they associate with happiness, success and power. They want to be 'like' their oppressors; simply because they believe this will provide all the components of happiness. Hence the cycle repeats.

Stepping back into the religious context, while the majority of Christians may consider themeselves true followers of Jesus (who demanded non-violence), many really worship what Walter Wink refers to as the “myth of redemptive violence.”

As a non 'practicing' Christian and it's not directed toward any individual I just found the following interesting; to quote from an article by the Clifton Unitarian Church :

"This myth speaks for God; it does not wait for God to speak… It misappropriates the language, symbols, and scriptures of Christianity. It does not seek God in order to change; it embraces God in order to prevent change. Its God is not the impartial ruler of all nations but a tribal god worshipped as an idol. Its metaphor is not the journey but the fortress. Its symbol is not the cross but the crosshairs of a gun. Its offer is not forgiveness but victory. Its good news is not the unconditional love of enemies but their final elimination..."

I think I alluded to this general way of thinking earlier. I can't say it's definitive of course. In any sociological issue as complex as this I doubt there are few if any absolutes.
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
143
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I value the philosophy of what you've posted dong. I value everything you have to say since you're a considerate man. As I read through the quoted passages in a social context of oppressor versus the oppressed I saw some good foundation at understanding the phenomenon as it mutates (and takes on) a religious context.

However, I suspect I fall into the same place Dr. Rock and Madame Zora do. If I may paraphrase what they'd say to this perhaps; "Oh screw 'em. I'm sick of excusing their shit. They're all justifying bullshit" (sorry you two if I'm a bit off on your sentiments).

I'm afraid I'm increasingly in that camp. We tweak and contort that damned book to somehow make it reasonable and get to its "original intent". But that's an apologist's approach. I'm tired of it all. What I see is generally the further isolation of peoples and the endless pitting of one against the other. I'm at a place where I just want to say "stop the madness" and pitch the freaking thing into the Tiber (the River Jordan?:rolleyes: )

Time for new rituals based on decency and human kindness I say. I'm so over the Bible and the reason I discuss it is, truth be told, is purely to expose it as the "fly in the ointment" it is to the betterment of the human condition. All one need do is look at its impact on my American culture to see proof positive of it.

I find it a monstrous obstacle to human societal and spiritual growth in all honesty.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Stronzo said:
I value the philosophy of what you've posted dong. I value everything you have to say since you're a considerate man. As I read through the quoted passages in a social context of oppressor versus the oppressed I saw some good foundation at understanding the phenomenon as it mutates (and takes on) a religious context.

Thanks....All I've tried to do is express a possible explanation for such behaviour placing it into other terms. It's probably something that defies understanding beyond generalistic.

Stronzo said:
However, I suspect I fall into the same place Dr. Rock and Madame Zora do. If I may paraphrase what they'd say to this perhaps; "Oh screw 'em. I'm sick of excusing their shit. They're all justifying bullshit" (sorry you two if I'm a bit off on your sentiments).

............

I'm afraid I'm increasingly in that camp.

I've been in that camp since my early teens, and I rarely excused their shit. In its current, conventional sense I see religion as being perhaps the single biggest barrier to any hope of a shared set of real, 'Human' values in any practical, working sense rather than in the abstract.

stronzo said:
Time for new rituals based on decency and human kindness I say.
........
I find it a monstrous obstacle to human societal and spiritual growth in all honesty.

I agree. As for the Bible, while I think the basic humanitarian themes it contains have intrinsic value, in over 2000 years, in general, as a species all we have managed to do with any consistency is twist the rest into whatever whipping stick we needed it to be at the time.

I'd say we're into penalty time; we need to throw out 'conventionality' and bring in a new rule book, fortunately I believe I'm in good company in thinking this.:smile:
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,611
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
I don't think a new rule book will help. The problem is not really the Bible. It is the people reading and interpreting the Bible. We will still have people doing the interpreting and people still setting rules for "others' to follow. Rules that they themselves don't come close to following.

The Bible says nothing against abortion. Aboslutely nothing. Yet, any new rule book written for modern 20th century America most definitely would have a whole book written on the terrible wickedness of abortion.

The new rule book would have another section on why capital punishment really worked and was one sure fire way to stop murder in our land.

The new rule book would condemn homosexuality and make it clear that people who even think such thoughts would go to hell in a handbasket with no hope of redemption.

The new rule book would outloaw divorce for any reason. It would glorify the use of force to get a God blessed nation, America, to get its way in the world.

Problem with a new rule book is who is going to write it. If it is by consensus or majority rule, the book I have been describing would most assuredly be the one that would prevail.

I'll take my chances with the Bible. I know what it says. I know that people have misused it for personal gain or whatever. Same thing will happen to any book written to take the Bible's place.

A new rule book won't change people who twist anything and everything to meet their own agenda.

To understand a person is to know their agenda. If their agenda is screwed up, it won't matter what if any rule book is adopted or is in place. If a person's agenda is to mess with other people's lives, then it willl happen. The person may rationalize it or they may so who the fuck cares. But the end result is the same. Most people will sacrifice more of their soul than their are willing to admit just to further their hidden or not so hidden agenda.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Freddie53 said:
I don't think a new rule book will help. The problem is not really the Bible. It is the people reading and interpreting the Bible. We will still have people doing the interpreting and people still setting rules for "others' to follow. Rules that they themselves don't come close to following.

Freddie, in essence I agree, however 2000 years of abuse in it's name suggests otherwise. Of course, people will be crappy to each other no matter what, but do we need to give those people an instruction book? The good in the Bible (et al) lives within us not without, and we shouldn't need a set of 2000 year old rules to stop us treating each other so badly.

freddie53 said:
The new rule book would have another section on why capital punishment really worked and was one sure fire way to stop murder in our land.

The new rule book would condemn homosexuality and make it clear that people who even think such thoughts would go to hell in a handbasket with no hope of redemption.

The new rule book would outloaw divorce for any reason. It would glorify the use of force to get a God blessed nation, America, to get its way in the world.

Problem with a new rule book is who is going to write it. If it is by consensus or majority rule, the book I have been describing would most assuredly be the one that would prevail.

Such cynicism and sarcasm is atypical of you Freddie...:confused:

freddie53 said:
I'll take my chances with the Bible. I know what it says. I know that people have misused it for personal gain or whatever. Same thing will happen to any book written to take the Bible's place.

I respect that freddie I do, I just don't share your 'faith', not right now anyway.

freddie53 said:
A new rule book won't change people who twist anything and everything to meet their own agenda.

To understand a person is to know their agenda. If their agenda is screwed up, it won't matter what if any rule book is adopted or is in place. If a person's agenda is to mess with other people's lives, then it willl happen. The person may rationalize it or they may so who the fuck cares. But the end result is the same. Most people will sacrifice more of their soul than their are willing to admit just to further their hidden or not so hidden agenda.

Your last statements underscore my point; the Bible does not do those things yet we still attempt to make it do so because it suits our needs.

By a new rule book I was talking in a metaphorical not literal sense, by a new rule book I mean, as a species, we must grow beyond the narrow constraints of needing any one 'rule book' to define our basic Humanity, the Bible included.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Freddie53 said:
The new rule book would outloaw divorce for any reason.
No, actually the new rule book would not have that because the divorce rate for conservative Christians is higher than the average couple in America. So they will leave that one out.

By the way, why is it that fundies say homosexuality is the biggest threat to the institution of marriage when half of all marriages end in divorce. With that statistic, shouldn't the marriage police spend more time on that one?
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,611
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
JustAsking said:
No, actually the new rule book would not have that because the divorce rate for conservative Christians is higher than the average couple in America. So they will leave that one out.

By the way, why is it that fundies say homosexuality is the biggest threat to the institution of marriage when half of all marriages end in divorce. With that statistic, shouldn't the marriage police spend more time on that one?
The fundies are on a roll on this one. Please don't let the true facts get in the way of the way they want to write the story.:biggrin1:
Not only is divorce rate higher among conservative Christians than the rest of the population. But the rate of teen pregnancy is higher. I suspect the actaul rate of abortion is higher as well. The rate of alcoholism is also higher. I've also read that the rate for child molestation and child abuse (non-sexual) is also higher.

Why? Economics. Not religion. By and large many so called fundies are in the lower socio-economic class. In general, the higher the socio-economic level the lower the rates are for the above mentioned situations.

There is nothing quite like sitting in a fundie church and hear the preacher ranting on about how teens should save themselves for thier wedding night and half the older teens oresent were either parents or expectant parents. I try not ot get into a fundie situation anymore often as possible.
 

Shelby

Experimental Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
2,129
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Location
in the internet
I reckon I'll go ahead and put my head on the chopping block here.

The closest I've ever been to experiencing 'rapture' was while attending poor black church services in the deep south.
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
143
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Shelby said:
I reckon I'll go ahead and put my head on the chopping block here.

The closest I've ever been to experiencing 'rapture' was while attending poor black church services in the deep south.

Perhaps Shelby you confuse rapture with rupture.
 

Shelby

Experimental Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
2,129
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Location
in the internet
Stronzo said:
Perhaps Shelby you confuse rapture with rupture.

Huh?

My post was serious. I grew up attending a sterile Presbyterian church. The overriding theme seemed to be we're all bad. The black church I had the privilege to attend on occasion wasn't like that at all. It was about love. I know it's probably cliche to say this but what the fuck - it was spiritual.