Sex! Yay!

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

Author	Topic: Sex! Yay!
Or else o'erleap. Law Bringer Member # 335	written Tuesday, September 19 2006 12:05 Profile Homepage #25 Maybe I'm alone in this, but I don't care what Ash thinks. He can be a raging homophobe if he'd like as long as all his raging is silent and internal. He says and, I presume, does the right things, and that's good enough. I also think the procreation debate is backwards. There are too many people on Earth. We need fewer people. Implanting homosexuality would solve a lot of problems! —Alorael, who wouldn't mind being gay for a few days just for the novelty. Then, of course, he'd like to go back to being straight mostly because it's so much more convenient in a hostile world. All things being equal, bisexuality seems like the best way. Posts: 14579 \| Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Student of Trinity Electric Sheep One Member # 3431	written Tuesday, September 19 2006 12:22 Profile #26 That would depend on whether it's functional or obligate. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 \| Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Tuesday, September 19 2006 12:42 Profile #27 quote: Originally written by Z(n) - 1: Maybe I'm alone in this, but I don't care what Ash thinks. Are you kidding? Ashby is as human as anyone else; he labors in a world of delusion and denying him the joy of truth out of mere laziness is nothing short of criminal. Of course, we operate within fundamentally different philosophical regimes. So far as I'm concerned, sex is sex. Whatever baggage you give it is your problem, not sex's. The idea of 'converting' homosexuals is preposterous without its monstrous Jews-for-Jesus-style luggage - to oversimplify and crudify a little, a mouth is a mouth. What's so fundamentally weird about preferring that of a man or a woman? What really weirds me out is the marriage-and-missionary types who play little teasy games with each other on the say-so of a holy book. I don't go for mouths with stubble, but the premise is basically the same. But pretend it ain't there and what the hell is wrong with you? Also, why does this live for two pages and Are You A Gay get locked? Someone call Vogel's pastor lest he be condemned to Hell. Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Jewels Agent Member # 3364	written Tuesday, September 19 2006 18:21 Profile Homepage #28 quote: Originally written by Micawber: Not sure I agree with Jewels there. The way I see it, sex doesn't have a moral dimension... Which is why I tried to leave it out all together. The entirity of my moral objections to any sexuality activity stem directly from my religious beliefs which should not be imposed on the disinclined. Most know where I stand anyway, so lets talk objectively. Outside religion, sexual affairs still seem to be morally wrong. Conventionally, you've promised to be faithful to one and you decide to break that promise. Unconventional marriages, such as consenting swingers, need not apply. Then there is always rape. When one party is non-concenting sex is morally wrong. Which leads us back to where Alo fears to tread. At what age can a child really concent? The law says 16 I think. How moral is engaging in an act with someone younger even if they have said yes? There is and there needs to be some moral dimension. [ Tuesday, September 19, 2006 18:22: Message edited by: Jewels ] -------------------- "Even the worst Terror from Hell can be transformed to a testimony from Heaven!" - Rev. David Wood 6\23\05 "Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can." - John Wesley Posts: 1001 \| Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00
Ash Lael E Equals MC What!!!! Member # 5491	written Tuesday, September 19 2006 20:56 Profile Homepage #29 quote: Originally written by Slarty: Ash, I agree with your sentiments, but here's the rub. How likely would you have been to say the same thing, phrased the same positive way, if wz. As had instead said: Sounds like a slippery slope towards "rehabilitating" heterosexuals to be gay... Maybe you would have been equally likely to say it; I'm skeptical, but I could be wrong. However, because you are perceived by others (rightly or wrongly) as being overtly somewhat tolerant of but, in your heart, in opposition to homosexuality, people interpret it in a context. Thanks for being polite, but don't worry, that perception is pretty much accurate. I consider homosexuality immoral and I don't apologise for that, nor have I made any attempt to hide it. Would I have said the same thing? No. I don't believe the situations are analogous. There's no religion teaching that heterosexuality is a sin, and there are no heterosexual members of that religion who are presented with the very painful conflict between their sexual and religious identities. But there are gay Christians (and paedophile Christians for that matter), and I feel nothing but sympathy for these people, because they have a very hard road. Gays who attempt to be "rehabilitated" do so of their own choice and out of their own faith. It's not an example of fundies oppressing gays, because the gays are the fundies. And I don't like seeing people treat it like it is such an example. I feel it's demeaning to my faith, painting us as oppressive bigots, and I feel it's unhelpful for those who are actually facing this struggle. That's why I said what I did. quote: Originally written by Slarty: quote: Originally written by Ash Lael: Heck, this isn't even a hypothetical in terms of this community. We have a member who is gay, doesn't want to be gay, believes it is possible to change his sexuality, and fully intends to try. Whatever "slippery slope" ends with allowing him to do so, I'm all for it. So, hypothetically speaking, suppose we have a member who is straight, doesn't want to be straight, believes it is possible to change his sexuality, and fully intends to try. You would be just as much behind him? Personally, I would not be in favour of such a choice. But I would recognise that it's not my life, my choice, or any of my business, and keep my mouth shut. quote: Originally written by Slarty: quote: Originally written by Ash Lael: It's not like anyone goes around kidnapping homosexuals and forcing them to become straight. No. However, there are parents who force their teenage children to attend reparative therapy, sometimes even residentially. I have never heard of any parent forcing a straight child to attend therapy to turn gay. There is an argument in favor of letting parents force such therapy, to be sure. We hold up freedom of religion, but allow parents to force religion on their children; why should sexuality be any different? That's a tough question if you ask me. Religion and sexuality are both social constructs that relate to critical human needs on an individual level that can be immensely painful when improperly addressed. (This is true even in an atheistic conception of things, where religion fills certain psychological needs rather than spiritual ones; and even in an antireligious conception, the argument is just that it doesn't fill them optimally, so the comparison holds.) I would argue that it's impossible to force either religion or sexuality... you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. And given that, I would say it's misguided at best to try. quote: Originally written by Slarty: But I digress. The point is that, whether or not you think it is good or reasonable for people who aren't straight to be pressured to change their sexuality, non-straight people are pressured in profuse ways, both overt and subtle, to change their sexuality, or at least its expression. Kidnapping and brainwashing are not the only ways to influence someone. Straight people do not face this kind of pressure to change their sexuality. So I'm not sure what you are getting at with the remark I quoted. You're quite right, straight people usually don't face the same pressure to change (though as Kel points out, some girls do). But most people face other pressures of a similar nature all the time. I'm a fundamentalist Christian (and a creationist to boot!) in a society that's much less welcoming to that than the US. I get plenty of pressure on that front. Anyway, it wasn't my intention to get into a proper debate... I really ought to learn to keep my mouth shut in these topics, but I was so sure that such an unobjectionable statement wouldn't end up chewing my time... how wrong I was. :) -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 \| Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Randomizer Law Bringer Member # 6785	written Tuesday, September 19 2006 21:20 Profile #30 quote: Originally written by Ash Lael: I would argue that it's impossible to force either religion Actually it's easy to force religion. Just read about the Fox newsmen in Gaza that were forced at gunpoint to become Moslems. Of course these types of conversions last only as long as pressure is applied. Still in 1492 Spain forced mass conversions on Jews that wanted to stay in Spanish territories. Some present day families are finding out that they are Jewish descendants that were raised Catholic to protect them. After 500 years they finally understand why their families practiced certain non-Catholic rituals. Societal pressure is great at getting people to suppress certain behaviors. It isn't as strong anymore as it was 30 years ago, but people still hide sexual behavior in public. Posts: 4643 \| Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00
Ash Lael E Equals MC What!!!! Member # 5491	written Tuesday, September 19 2006 22:09 Profile Homepage #31 Religion is what you believe, not what you say you believe at gunpoint. -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 \| Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Frozen Feet Infiltrator Member # 4248	written Tuesday, September 19 2006 22:27 Profile #32 Religions are organizations ---> you can be part of an organization without believing in all what it says ---> if you say you're a moslem at gun point, you pretty much are (or have to be) until proven otherwise. Faith and religion are different things. -------------------- I have nothing more to do in this world, so I can go & pester the inhabitants of the next one with a pure concscience. Posts: 617 \| Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00
E=MC Hammered Infiltrator Member # 1092	written Tuesday, September 19 2006 22:31 Profile Homepage #33 Religion is what someone believes, or what they say they believe and they can practice it anyway they wish. Otherwise no one can just randomly create a religion, get their numbers up, fly over to the U.S and have it registered as a religion. Religion can be forced onto people, but faith cannot. I could say I believe in God and yet break every commandment, and yet still be religious. -------------------- When you think you can't get any lower in life and hit rock bottom, God hands you a shovel. Why should I say somthin intelligent when idiots like you make me look intelligent in the first place. Posts: 615 \| Registered: Friday, May 3 2002 07:00
Jumpin Salmon ? Man, ? Amazing Member # 5755	written Tuesday, September 19 2006 22:35 Profile #34 Actually, I could build a church, invite over a few fishing buddies, set up some rituals and create some dogma, and call it a religion. I would then file the correct forms with the state and federal government, and suddenly there is a new congregation of the United Church of Fishermen. It is that easy. -------------------- quote: Originally written by Kelandon: Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing. Posts: 4114 \| Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Student of Trinity Electric Sheep One Member # 3431	written Tuesday, September 19 2006 23:27 Profile #35 Building a church would be pretty hard, in fact, but I'm pretty sure you don't need to do it, since plenty of church congregations meet in homes or rented halls. Inventing a decent body of ritual and dogma isn't so easy, either; but do you really have to do that? After all, what outsiders are qualified to judge the authenticity of your religion's rituals and dogmas? So what do you really have to do to found a religion? By some arguable definitions, popularizing Talk Like a Pirate Day is founding a religion; so let's interpret 'founding a religion' to mean that you have a corporation and you want to get it treated by the tax authorities in the same way that churches (which I think are also legally corporations) are treated. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 \| Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Synergy Shaper Member # 6292	written Wednesday, September 20 2006 18:18 Profile #36 All the New Testament has to say about what “laws” believers in the gospel are to be under: Jesus: Matt 22: 35 and one of them, a lawyer, did question, tempting him, and saying, 36 `Teacher, which is the great command in the Law?' 37 And Jesus said to him, `Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding-- 38 this is a first and great command; 39 and the second is like to it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; 40 on these--the two commands--all the law and the prophets do hang.' Paul: 1 Cor 10:23 All things to me are lawful, but all things are not profitable; all things to me are lawful, but all things do not build up; I see nothing remaining in New Testament gospel which seeks to absolutely label behaviors as moral or immoral. Rather we have the statememt from Paul, to whom was given the deepest insight and wisdom into the new spiritual order, that all things have become lawful/permissible to him now in his new understanding, but not all things are profitable/worthwhile/edifying. It is left up to the mature believer and the spirit of God in him or her to discern in any moment what is profitable or permissible according to the rule of loving others, rather than some outer law written in stone to instruct specific minutae of behavior. Evidently, Christianity soon couldn’t comprehend or stomach such genuine liberty in Christ, and quickly reverted to “Judaeo-Christianity” as it is now called, which integrates Old Testament laws and rules with the message of the New Testament What we do with our physical bodies in loving or sharing with someone seems a hell of a lot less spiritually important than the attitudes of the heart which get expressed in deeds. -S- -------------------- A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator Posts: 2009 \| Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Bob. Lifecrafter Member # 6700	written Wednesday, September 20 2006 21:15 Profile Homepage #37 quote: Originally written by Synergy: {see just above} Why did you have to do that, Syn? I wanted to stay out of this thread. (Disclaimer: The following has absolutely nothing to do with sex. It is merely condtructive criticism. Read at your own peril and risk of boredom.) Syn, your analysis of Law is accurate, and yes, you are correct in assuming that in the Church Age (the Period of Grace, call it what you will), the Law no longer applies. But. You combined two quotes taken out of context to draw a conclusion. You proceeded to combine the essence of the Law with the essence of Grace, in order legislate grace. And in doing so, you made a mistake that the First Corinthians was written to address. I mean, is this the same liberty, Syn? quote: 1 Cor 5:1-2 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: a man has his father's wife! And you are proud! Whether or not I have it all wrong, and I'm comparing apples to oranges, Paul does make it clear that the Christian faith is not about Liberty. quote: 1 Cor 5:9-13 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people - not at all meaning the people of the world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case, you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater, or a slanderer, a drunkard, or a swindler. With such a man, do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the Church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you." Yes, Syn, we are free to drink to our hearts' content, we can eat food sacrificed to idols, ignore kosher, and do all sorts of things that would make a more liberal practicing Jew cringe if not flee altogether; this liberty exists because Grace nullifies the Law. (incidentally, for the sake of those who have not yet referenced the entire passage that Syn quoted, "not everything is beneficial" refers to the benefit of others. Christians are not to pressure other Christians to do anything that the other party thinks is wrong.) But there are still standards; and yes, while the "Judeo-Christian" uber-legalist sects can't deal with Grace alone, there are obviously things that need to be avoided regardless of "Legality". All may be forgiven (if one is under Grace), which is quite relieving, but not all is acceptable behavior to continue in. Sin is still sin, Syn (sorry, couldn't help myself). quote: Galatians 5:13 You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. Paul even explains what Christians should avoid (some of this should sound familiar): quote: Galations 5:19-21 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery, idolitry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissentions, factions, and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. Yes, Syn, the Law does not apply. But the lack of the law does not give us authority to decide to do whatever we dare please. I hope I didn't come across as preachy or angry or anything. I didn't mean to. It's just that the whole out-of-context synthesis rubbed me the wrong way, and I need to make a point that you can't go drawing conclusions that directly contradict the source that you're drawing conclusions from. And Syn, since you quoted scripture (though not for this particular argument), and as all scripture is for reproof... Paul does say exactly what not to do with our physical bodies. This is only the first example that I came across, but probably the plainest. Linked because I said I wouldn't talk about sex. Yeah, I suck at keeping with my disclaimers. Please don't take the linked passage as my contribution to the thread, unless as an example of the Christian standpoint. EDIT: hyperlinks annoy me. -------------------- The Silent Assassin sent me a coded E-mail stating that he won't be back from Detroit until Friday. He also metioned something about Al Capone, Jerry Lewis, and the Beatles. Or at least, that's what he said if I got the encryption right. [ Wednesday, September 20, 2006 21:23: Message edited by: Lenar, Inc. ] -------------------- -Lenar Labs What's Your Destiny? Ushmushmeifa: Lenar's power is almighty and ineffable. All hail lord Noric, god of... well, something important, I'm sure. Posts: 735 \| Registered: Monday, January 16 2006 08:00
Jumpin Salmon ? Man, ? Amazing Member # 5755	written Wednesday, September 20 2006 21:47 Profile #38 I find opinions over two thousand years old to be slightly on the stale side. -------------------- quote: Originally written by Kelandon: Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing. Posts: 4114 \| Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Ezrah, Kitty of Wonder. Apprentice Member # 3428	written Wednesday, September 20 2006 22:15 Profile Homepage #39 I'd place my bet on a combination of genetic predisposition [stress factors in the carrying mother, etcetera.], psychological modification of that predisposition [it was either frued or jung, that beleived that all people were inherently bisexual], finally topped off by a heaping helping of self-conditioning by preferential experiences. [why most people usually experiment at least a little first before becoming bisexual or gay.] -------------------- HIHI!!!! hugs indescriminantly take that, FEEL THE LOVE!!!! Posts: 47 \| Registered: Wednesday, September 3 2003 07:00
Synergy Shaper Member # 6292	written Wednesday, September 20 2006 23:22 Profile #40 Primarily in response to Lenar: The point I made and which I believe Paul was making is not that anything goes, but that the inner rule of spirit convicting in each situation within a person communing with God is the new law to follow, not outer absolute laws. Peter recoiled when the sheet of unclean animals was lowered to him in a vision, and he was instructed to eat. He refused...he couldn't accept the new liberty being offered him. If God were to lower a sheet to the average Christian today, steeped in Christian rules and traditions much like Peter was in his Jewish ones, what do you think would be on that sheet? Sexual behaviors seem the biggest stumbling block to the typical Christian today. What Christian could stomach the vision from God that what was once perceived to be unclean is not what God is actually hung up about, or what defiles a man (from the outside in.) Sexual immorality, as Paul describes it, would be that which is in some way selfish or hurtful in the context he was addressing it. That which IS edifying is not immoral or unlawful. Two people of the same sex loving each other mutually does not strike me as inherently non-edifying. Paul spoke at great length in Romans and Hebrews about being freed from the tyranny of external law and its curse (it only condemns and has no power to change people.) I don't see Paul laying down new Christian rules and laws for Christians as many take his advisements to local churche 2000 years ago...or do you think women should shut up in churches and wear coverings on their heads today? He did give timely advice to specific churches in which at the time his suggestions may have been appropriate and edifying. Blanket applications bug me. If one is to use scripture that way, then Solomon's poetic words in Ecclesiastes are also to be applied to oneself. "It's better to be a living dog than a dead man in the grave." You are right. All things occur in a context, but Paul spoke often enough about the degree of liberty believers are to have "in Christ' that the message is resoundingly clear to me. Children need Daddy to lay down all the rules in black and white and punish and reward accordingly. Israel under the law were in a state of spiritual childhood. When children grow up, they are given much greater freedom, and ultimately autonomy. The Christian experience under Pentecost is more of an adolescent phase of God's spiritual dealing with humanity, as I would see it. When are Christians going to grow up and put away childish things (like concerns over rituals, baptisms, doctrines, and sexuality?) Sin means to miss the mark. I know homosexuals who show much better "Christian" love and charity than many Christians I have known. Who is missing the mark? What do you think God would have to say in evaluating such persons? Jesus reserved his scathing words for those who bind people with their religiosity (the Pharisees.) Meanwhile, he was hanging out with the street trash (and evidently, not telling them what wretched wicked sinners they were because of what they were or were not doing.) I appreciate the tone of your comments, Lenar. Respectfully, -S- -------------------- A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator Posts: 2009 \| Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Slarty Raven v. Writing Desk Member # 261	written Thursday, September 21 2006 05:37 Profile Homepage #41 I think the title of this topic should be changed to "Sex! Oy." -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 \| Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Arancaytar Law Bringer Member # 2984	written Thursday, September 21 2006 06:58 Profile Homepage #42 Is there a joke or pun involved? Because I don't get it. -------------------- Encyclopaedia Ermariana • Forum Archives • Forum Statistics • RSS [Topic / Forum] My Blog • Polaris • I eat novels for breakfast. Polaris is dead, long live Polaris. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Posts: 8752 \| Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Drew By Committee Member # 4233	written Thursday, September 21 2006 09:23 Profile #43 Look out for those activist constructionist interpreters of the Word! They're defeatists and appeasers! Posts: 2242 \| Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Spidweb Board Administrator Member # 1	written Thursday, September 21 2006 10:23 Profile Homepage #44 IBTL -------------------- Official Board Admin spidweb@spiderwebsoftware.com Posts: 960 \| Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00