Phid, what about rape which is, unfortunately, rampant in some areas of the African continent? I'm not sure of the statistics, but am fairly certain this is one of the leading causes of the spread of STD's.
Those who carry HIV most likely don't even know they are carrying it. (lack of available testing). This is just an incredibly huge project, and to blame any one president for not doing anything is simply ridiculous. The fact that Pres. Bush's programs have shown any progress at all, which it has, is remarkable. And I give much credit and kudus to some of the celebrities who have taken action there as well.
It is not just on this Christian forum. Secular forums are overrun with blasphemous louts who condemn faith more fervently and religiously than an evangelist or apologist defends the faith. I try to remember, "A soft answer turns away wrath."
I was originally referring to an incident that occurred recently in the state where I live where someone did intentional sacrilege because of his own "opinions" on the matter. It was so outrageous that it was reported in the news. I think that it's one thing for them to speak such things but its another matter for them to do such things, which is what happened here.
This makes me think of that old saying, "cutting one's nose off to spite one's face" (I think I have it quoted correctly)...the person who intentionally acted out, in my view is making a "horse's patooty" of themself. There are proper and improper ways to express your opinions, yet I'm never shocked by society anymore.
Grant you this is easier said than done, but ignoring people is sometimes the best way to handle them. I figure if I "bite" at their provocation than I've lowered myself to their level.
That brings up the question: can one man have his own, one-man, private cult? ;DWhat is the minimum number? I once met a very cranky Christian who said it had gotten to the point he would only worship with his blood brother, and sometimes even the brother was a heretic.
Does a former cult become mainline after it reaches a critical mass of members, or only after its priests criticize the mass enough times? How soon after the Azusa Street revival meetings did the Pentecostals become noncultish?
Matt. 18:20 would seem to be part of the answer.
"For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst."
Yeah boeboe, but that's the question....whose name are "they" gathering in? My Jesus? Your Jesus? Phid's Jesus? Fit's Jesus? Chancer's Jesus? Saved's Jesus? Skiguy's Jesus? Bensgal's Jesus? Kyfatboy's Jesus? I submit that we all call upon the same name, but we all have differing views of who we are calling....what is more important...the name...or the interpretation of the one behind the name? You tell me.
I have to agree with you, Donald. Don't we really call upon the same name, borrowing your words, but it's the rituals and beliefs of the individual religions that set us apart? Because of the variety of religions in my own extended family, I've never doubted who each of us worship or whether we're worshiping the same name.
All of you have been helpful in your answers. I didn't realize that the people at Waco were a splinter group of the 7th Day Adventists and if possible, Phid, please give the title & author of that book you read as I'd like to do so, too.
Groups who take a commonly known religion and put their own 'spin' on it in a drastic manner fascinate me from the psychological aspect. For example, is the FLDS really going back to the roots of the Mormon religion or have the people in power used the basic tenets of the faith to satisfy their need for power? This question would probably be answered as a little bit of both, I guess.
Thank you Donald for the clarification. The term "cult" always confuses me because it's been used to label different types of groups. For instance, people refer to Manson and his followers as a cult which didn't have any religious basis to my knowledge. Now in this book, the author - a former member - refers to the FLDS as a cult which is an obvious difference when comparing it to Manson & his group.
Years ago, I remember Jim Jones and his situation; another cult with initial religious foundations? And would the Moonies be considered the same? Sorry to be asking so many questions, but this book really intrigued me with the definition of cults and why and when people make these drastic shifts in their religious thinking.
After reading a book written by a woman who recently left the Texas FLDS group that's been in the news, she referred to the group as a cult versus a religion. How is this distinction made and what are the characteristics of a cult?
My logic is that humans are a very sexually immature species and that it is prudent to curtail sexual desires or temptations as much as we can. If women dress modestly, then the temptation is reduced. I may be wrong, but it's how I feel.
Short of requiring all men to become to eunuchs by the age of 13, temptation will never stop. Dressing modestly or immodestly will never resolve the issue. There will be men who will always believe that women are the tempters and men are the victims corrupted by women. As I previously posted, women could wear burlap sacks to their ankles and there would be men who would find this indecent.
Would it be inappropriate for a woman to walk around in public with pasties and a g-string on? Yes. Is it inappropriate to wear shorts and a t-shirt while working in your yard, grocery shopping or attending your child's sports function. No. Should dresses be worn to church? Depends on the stipulations of the church.
Hey what about rugby players? What are we, chopped liver?
You're a nut, ski! Ooops! Forgot those rugby players...actually, my daughters play fastpitch softball so we're at the diamonds from March until cold weather. Most diamonds are set up for both male & female teams. As a mom, I tend to notice who my daughters are checking out and vice versa between games. Once their games begin though, they could care less if someone walks by naked. Both are intent on their game.
ooo Donald, I respect your opinions so much but...I guess the provocative dress thing is a two-way street. Girls enjoy oogling football & baseball players (tight pants & nice thighs) and they love to watch guys run track (short shorts and long legs). My point is, a woman could wear a burlap sack down to her ankles and some man will think that's "provocative". And men are just as guilty as women of using their sexuality to get what they want also. Again, it's a two-way street.
An oddly, you're the first person I've ever known to say it's a sign of "low self esteem" to use looks to mask what's on the inside. Psychologists have determined that personal appearance reflects how a person feels about themself on the inside. It's been proven that many kids who have chosen the "goth" look, for instance, were suffering from low self esteem, depression and general anxiety. When my daughters dress-up in gorgeous dresses, do up their hair and wear make-up, they feel pride in themselves and my husband & I feel pride in them. Nothing wrong with that at all and it's healthy mental attitude.
I believe the differences in you and I are a) I'm a woman, married and have daughters and b) you have a more fundalmentalist viewpoint than I do. Again, I do respect your viewpoints but knowing what it is like being a woman in society, that entire article which began this thread was just all wrong.
So really what you're saying, Donald, is that men bear no culpability and women are entirely to blame? After all, this theory pretty much sums up the thought pattern during the "Scarlett Letter" times.
Somehow, men need to owe up to their responsibilities and stop blaming others for their actions and thoughts.
and let me add this, the young girls in the Fundalmentalist Latter Day Saint or Fundalmentalist Mormon sect are EXTREMELY covered up and good God! those old perverted man that run that circus..er..."religion" are abusing those girls right and left. As soon as I can get to my book shelves I'll list a few books for you to read by women who have escaped from those communities...makes me sick to my stomach what goes on.
You should read books authored (individually) by John Douglas and Roy Hazelwood. Both men helped establish the FBI Behavorial Science Division. (the head FBI agent in the movie, "Silence of the Lambs", was modeled from John Douglas and his experiences and he was the movie's technical advisor.) They are considered legendary in the field of study of sexually deviant behavior. Each man has written at considerable length that society has always held the unfortunate and inaccurate view that women are always to blame for what men think of them and/or how men treat them. That some how, some way, provocative dress is "selling yourself" hence, a woman is "responsible" for whatever may happen to them. After many indepth interviews with such criminals as Ted Bundy, Edmund Kemper, the Hillside Stranglers - their list of interviewees is extensive - it's not about sex or provocative dress. It's about power and control. Modesty plays no part in it. A woman can be in her own home, wearing slacks and t-shirt, and some very unstable man may consider her turn-on. It's power; not her clothing.
(And saved, if you're in Church leering at the gal in the row ahead of you because she has on a skirt and sleeveless blouse, you deserve to be knocked up the side head with a hymnal.)
Yes, that's right. Blame it on the women. <eyeroll> Just like O.J. said to his ex-manager, "If Nicole hadn't answered her front door with a knife in her hand, she'd be alive today."
Ski, Personally, I prefer the Gospel of John to Genesis; it flows easier when reading it. My daughters, when they were younger, understood it better too. It was easier to explain it to them. Lame reasons, maybe, but truthful.
I can't answer the question about the concept of Creation & Hindus because we didn't delve too far into this religion in my religious studies class this semester though I'm wondering if it has anything to do with the fact that Hindus worship thousands of gods & goddesses that may overlap in their purposes, per se.
I wouldn't have a problem praying or meditating with people of other faiths. My parents are of one faith and I'm another so in some respects, this occurs often when I attend church with them.
Praying is something I believe can be done at any time, and wherever I may be but I do have an altar at home set up with candles, Icons, etc. I also use a Rosary.
In a couple of weeks I hope tgo join in again, this, for the most part, has been a good subject from you all. Sex was what created us all, it is pretty clear to me, God intended for sex to happen. Anyone would have to go very far down the food chain to say humans could exist without sex. Sex is what gives us meat, and actually, even grain to eat. That the act of sex itself, in and of itself is somehow dirty is completely outside the tenants of Christianity. It is only when sex is abused excessively that sex becomes a sin.
Saved, so what? If a person wants to wear black & white striped socks with a purple skirt to work; none of my business. You want dance naked in the moonlight in your backyard? None of anyone's business. In other words, whatever a person's sexual, religious or political preference is, it's not anyone's business. Your job should be based upon your work performance and nothing else.
Donald, I'm assuming you take the Bible to be literal in meaning, correct?
I'm having a very difficult time comprehending your rationale because marriage is one of the seven sacraments in the Catholic Church and with marriage the normal, natural human occurance is sex. And it's accepted act, not a sin. Marriage is also a sacrament of most Protestant religions, I believe.
My other problem I'm having is that you equate all sex with lust. A one night stand is lust. Including marriage and sex in the same category isn't establishing marriage as the sacred bond it is for most people.
Celibacy by Catholic priests and nuns isn't a rule by the Church. (I don't know about other religions.) St. Paul 'suggested' this as you pointed out. And those who choose to follow this path, that's great. Humans obviously have to procreate though, and I don't think my having children has made me follow God and Jesus any less than those people who are celibate.
Curious. The Bible says "the wages of sin are death." Wouldn't that make all sin mortal? Just asking not trying to start anything.
Nothing wrong in asking at all; that's how people learn. Questions are good... ..okay, here goes: a Mortal sin is one that "involves loss of sanctifying grace"...a Venial sin is one "that does not directly destroy the relationship with God, only weakens it". This weakened state can be repaired through confession. Anything that breaks a Ten Commandment is a mortal sin.
Hopefully, this gives some explanation to the categories.
There would not have been an "Irish" version of Christianity outside Roman Catholicism in the 13th Century. Perhaps they were making some other distinction between "Irish Catholic" and "Roman Catholic"? There really would not have been any distinction among Catholic groups (in terms of beliefs) by country....well at least not in the West.
There are two types, lets say, of Catholic Churches. The Roman Catholic Church or the Latin Church which is more common then the Eastern or Byzantine Churches. There are approximately 22 Rites of the Byzantine Church determined by the area of Eastern Europe, the Middle East or Africa they originated in. Eastern Catholic Churches hold to Constantinople being the center or beginning for the Church. I'm an Eastern Catholic or Byzantine Catholic and we do recognize the Pope as the head of the Church. Our Masses are somewhat similar. If you normally attend a Roman Catholic Church, you can attend a Byzantine Mass and be able to follow along pretty easily. Our beliefs are similar, yet there are a few differences here & there. This is just a basic outline of the Churches as an fyi.
Hello, BensGal, and welcome to the discussion. Yes, the Lutherans spearheaded the Reformation, along with Calvinists and others, but the rebellion was far bloodier than a mere theological debate. Entire wars were fought, with nominal Christian armies against each other, and with their kings and bishops using the sword to 'prove' theology, in vain. When the Anabaptists appeared in large numbers beginning in January 1525 (opposing Zwingli in Zurich), they insisted on the separation of church and state. That was unthinkable to over 90% of the reformers, including Luther and Calvin. Yet each of those Protestant denominations eventually lost their patronage by kings and lords of the realm, and continued without being politically established entities. I think Zwingli died in war as a fighting chaplain in battle. The Amish live on, forgiving their killers.
Thank you for the welcome. Yes, since I've gotten older and read much more about the Reformation & Martin Luther, I've learned a great deal about the entire situation. It's amazing what is left out and what is promoted within a religion about that religion.
Dear Posters, if my Intro to Religious Studies prof were reading this thread, he'd be sputtering & stuttering...lol...seriously though, we debated in class the exact time of His crucifixation and this question seemed to stir up a hornet's nest. Any comments or thoughts because we didn't resolve it in class and I haven't thought to inquire at church.
Do you want the exact time in seconds? Or mili-seconds? If so, why? Maybe the twinkling of an eye is close enough? There has never been a reason to guess about this in the past, and many people think it is of little importance. There will always be some who believe, and some who don't. There is no reason to play the game of those who won't.
No games being played. The question was asked in class - which is where questions are to be asked & hopefully, answered. <shrug> As my father has always said (and in his 82 years on earth, he should know) nothing wrong in any question being asked and all questions deserve some sort of consideration.
Personally, yes I believe in the existence of Heaven and Hell. Because the Catholic Church divides sins into two groups, mortal & venial, and I know that I haven't committed any mortal sins, I'm satisfied where I'll be going. And the same can be said for my family. For people who aren't Catholic, I know this is a difficult concept to understand but and I never try to justify it to them as it's just part of my religion.
Having been raised in the Lutheran Church - Missouri-Synod to exact - we were taught that the Reformation was a theological rebellion against Rome. Gotta love Catechism...
Show Posts
I once met a very cranky Christian who said it had gotten to the point he would only worship with his blood brother, and sometimes even the brother was a heretic. 
My Jesus? Your Jesus? Phid's Jesus? Fit's Jesus? Chancer's Jesus? Saved's Jesus? Skiguy's Jesus? Bensgal's Jesus? Kyfatboy's Jesus? I submit that we all call upon the same name, but we all have differing views of who we are calling....what is more important...the name...or the interpretation of the one behind the name? You tell me. 
