This is topic 2 short months in forum Looking for Love at The Geek Culture Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.geekculture.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000230

Posted by Mac D (Member # 2926) on April 19, 2006, 09:44:
 
Lets see where do I begin this? 2 months ago (As of yesterday) I moved out of my wifes place. 3 months ago we decided to seperate. I won't get into that I made a post around that time about it. But what has happened in that 2 months that we have been seperated?

I made a life changing dissision in this time. I decided to join the millitary. It has been something I have wanted to do for a very long time. I have never been able to since I became a single parent at the age of 17. But since I am still leagally married I'm not considered a single parent. My family is more then happy to watch my oldest son when I am gone (There is a long list of soldiers/sailors in my family it's almost like a rite of passage type thing) And my youngest son would stay with his mother, she has already made arrangements for when I am gone. I havn't gotten in yet I will find out more this month.

So why you ask did I post this here in the "Looking for love" forum. Well I am getting to that if you can just keep your pants on for a little bit longer.

In the last 2 months I have gone on dates with several girls. But none that have sparked my intrest. I've been enjoying being single durring this time. It's the first time I have enjoyed it. But I know that won't last. I'm going to be kind of gone but from all the people I know in the millitary they get to use the internet a lot and get to keep in touch with people.

So now I'm getting to the reson for posting this here. What I am looking for is someone to write to when I am away. Not necessarily from here but hey you never know now do you. Not asking for someone to wait for me to get out or anything. But as of right now the only people I am going to be writing home to is my oldest son (The youngest can't read but he will still get letters via my mother) and my mom. I will more then likley go on more dates before basic and might find someone I would like to write home to but why not keep my options open?
 
Posted by nerdwithnofriends (Member # 3773) on April 19, 2006, 14:14:
 
Brilliant! So what branch are you going into?

I know that the Navy has lots of options for continuing your education while serving, you may wish to look into them... one of them pays for your whole tuition, so long as the major meets the needs of the Navy.

Good luck! It's nice to see that your family is helping to support your decision.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on April 19, 2006, 15:09:
 
My father just left his second wife two weeks ago, leaving behind two adopted daughters, ages 14 & 15, and a whole lot of broken hearts. Divorce is horrible, but it's even worse the second time, especially when the person doing the leaving says "Now I've figured it out; this person is perfect for me," but ten years later just throws it all away.

I don't remember why you left your wife, but here's something novel: Why not write letters to her while you're away? Start as friends, then progress until you've rekindled your romance. When you married her, you promised to love her and stay faithful to her, no matter what happened. "For better and for worse," and all that jazz. If you're strong enough to be a military man, you're strong enough to do the work necessary to keep your family together like you promised.

And writing letters to your wife, even if she doesn't respond, is such a romantic gesture, she'd be a fool not to fall in love with you again!!
 
Posted by Serenak (Member # 2950) on April 19, 2006, 16:41:
 
Whilst I think Rhonwyyn (being all "loved up" as she is) might be over romantising (no pun intended) there is also a lot of sense in what she says...

You must have loved your wife once (and if you got married she most likely reciprocated that) at the very least maintaining contact by letter might help you both come to an amicable understanding - and yes it might be that (if you are lucky and want it) it might rekindle whatever spark you had in the past.

I agree that we all agree to love, honour and cherish, foresaking all others, for better or worse, etc. etc. but sometimes it just doesn't pan out like that.

I had a long term relationship in the past that failed... it broke down after 5 years and with a lot of work and effort we got it back on the rails... for another 5 years - when it went south the second time I really couldn't be fagged to put in the effort to try and ressurect it again. I have no idea what happened to her - I have never seen or spoken to her since the day she gave back the key to the house we shared - I really did love her and truly hope that whatever it was she needed or was searching for that I couldn't give her she has found.

Anyway, I digress - sometimes the grind of daily life overtakes the relationship and makes you lose sight of why you started out on the journey together and a rest can clear heads and remind us why we were are together, and sometimes it just makes you realise how much you have grown apart and the aching space that the failure of the relationship has actually left, especially if you were pretending to yourself that everything was fine (like I was... only meeting Jackie 6 months after my split made me aware how empty and lonely an existance I had been leading for the previous couple of years.

Yeah, I am rambling... point is (I think) give writing to your wife a shot... can't really do any harm and you never know it might make you think again about your relationship - or not...

If I am out of order here just tell me to butt out OK?

Either way good luck with your military career... and as Jace will no doubt say "semper fi" but I prefer "per ardua ad astra" (through difficulties to the stars - RAF)

Cheers and keep in touch as best you can...
 
Posted by Thorned0Fortress (Member # 4435) on April 19, 2006, 19:56:
 
I agree^ you should totally "court" your wife again.
 
Posted by Mac D (Member # 2926) on April 19, 2006, 21:03:
 
quote:
Originally posted by nerdwithnofriends:
Brilliant! So what branch are you going into?

I know that the Navy has lots of options for continuing your education while serving, you may wish to look into them... one of them pays for your whole tuition, so long as the major meets the needs of the Navy.

Good luck! It's nice to see that your family is helping to support your decision.

Thats funny. It IS the Navy

quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn
When you married her, you promised to love her and stay faithful to her, no matter what happened. "For better and for worse,"

She had a problem with that "Faithful" part
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on April 19, 2006, 21:20:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mac D:
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn
When you married her, you promised to love her and stay faithful to her, no matter what happened. "For better and for worse,"

She had a problem with that "Faithful" part
Oh, ouch! [Frown]

All the more reason to sweep her off her feet with lots of great letters. From the studies and books I've read, it appears that women tend to cheat because they feel a lack of emotional connection. They give sex because they think it will get and keep the emotional connection with the new guy. If that's the case with your wife, then reestablishing the emotional connection--and many women primarily relate through words, oral and written--will be a step in the positive direction.

If that's not the case, there's not much I can recommend, except to be the "steadfast tin soldier." At the very least it will set a positive example for your children.

You may find the book of Hosea somewhat interesting.
 
Posted by Mochan (Member # 5035) on April 19, 2006, 23:17:
 
quote:
Mac D
Thats funny. It IS the Navy

Oh God.... now I know why you left your wife. *flashes of the Village People are going through my mind*

<j/k mate hope you don't take it personally... if you got the reference>

Anyway all I can say is try to stick with the wife. Not very good at stuff like this, sorry. Those letters to her would be good.
 
Posted by Mac D (Member # 2926) on April 20, 2006, 05:35:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mochan:
quote:
Mac D
Thats funny. It IS the Navy

Oh God.... now I know why you left your wife. *flashes of the Village People are going through my mind*

<j/k mate hope you don't take it personally... if you got the reference>

Anyway all I can say is try to stick with the wife. Not very good at stuff like this, sorry. Those letters to her would be good.

The reson I chose the Navy is because it is #3 for technical training in the U.S. (MIT is 1st and I can't remember#2 it's one of thoes Ivy Leage schools that I couln't afford in a million years) So why not get paid to get or at leaste start my degree? Not to mention the Armed forces look good on a resume.

And as far as it goes with my wife. I won't go back to her. We are still really good friends but as far as a relationship goes it just won't work. We tried marriage councilers and every thing and nothing worked. We are just to incompatible.
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on April 20, 2006, 06:30:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Mac D:
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn
When you married her, you promised to love her and stay faithful to her, no matter what happened. "For better and for worse,"

She had a problem with that "Faithful" part
Oh, ouch! [Frown]

All the more reason to sweep her off her feet with lots of great letters. From the studies and books I've read, it appears that women tend to cheat because they feel a lack of emotional connection. They give sex because they think it will get and keep the emotional connection with the new guy. If that's the case with your wife, then reestablishing the emotional connection--and many women primarily relate through words, oral and written--will be a step in the positive direction.

What the fuck!? All the more reason to sweep her off her feet? How does that work?

"You had sex with someone else, so I'm going to be a better person!"?

I don't fucking think so. I'm sorry, but give your head a shake.

If she was worthless enough to cheat on you, she's not worth your time, energy, or letters. Be on your way, find someone new, and all the best finding someone worthy of you.
 
Posted by Mac D (Member # 2926) on April 20, 2006, 07:17:
 
quote:
Originally posted by drunkennewfiemidget:
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Mac D:
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn
When you married her, you promised to love her and stay faithful to her, no matter what happened. "For better and for worse,"

She had a problem with that "Faithful" part
Oh, ouch! [Frown]

All the more reason to sweep her off her feet with lots of great letters. From the studies and books I've read, it appears that women tend to cheat because they feel a lack of emotional connection. They give sex because they think it will get and keep the emotional connection with the new guy. If that's the case with your wife, then reestablishing the emotional connection--and many women primarily relate through words, oral and written--will be a step in the positive direction.

What the fuck!? All the more reason to sweep her off her feet? How does that work?

"You had sex with someone else, so I'm going to be a better person!"?

I don't fucking think so. I'm sorry, but give your head a shake.

If she was worthless enough to cheat on you, she's not worth your time, energy, or letters. Be on your way, find someone new, and all the best finding someone worthy of you.

Thank you
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on April 20, 2006, 07:24:
 
Rhon was right about one thing though: women do respond well to oral.

*cough*

</coat>
 
Posted by zesovietrussian (Member # 1177) on April 20, 2006, 11:18:
 
quote:
Originally posted by drunkennewfiemidget:
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Mac D:
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn
When you married her, you promised to love her and stay faithful to her, no matter what happened. "For better and for worse,"

She had a problem with that "Faithful" part
Oh, ouch! [Frown]

All the more reason to sweep her off her feet with lots of great letters. From the studies and books I've read, it appears that women tend to cheat because they feel a lack of emotional connection. They give sex because they think it will get and keep the emotional connection with the new guy. If that's the case with your wife, then reestablishing the emotional connection--and many women primarily relate through words, oral and written--will be a step in the positive direction.

What the fuck!? All the more reason to sweep her off her feet? How does that work?

"You had sex with someone else, so I'm going to be a better person!"?

I don't fucking think so. I'm sorry, but give your head a shake.

If she was worthless enough to cheat on you, she's not worth your time, energy, or letters. Be on your way, find someone new, and all the best finding someone worthy of you.

Amen to that!
 
Posted by canadiangeek (Member # 4946) on April 20, 2006, 12:13:
 
quote:
Originally posted by drunkennewfiemidget:


.
.
.
.
.
.
What the fuck!? All the more reason to sweep her off her feet? How does that work?

"You had sex with someone else, so I'm going to be a better person!"?

I don't fucking think so. I'm sorry, but give your head a shake.

If she was worthless enough to cheat on you, she's not worth your time, energy, or letters. Be on your way, find someone new, and all the best finding someone worthy of you.

Not to sound like a parrot..... but I agree with NEWF.... I can't speak for others here on GC... but I damn well wouldn't get back together with someone who cheated on me... just isn't an option.
 
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on April 20, 2006, 12:25:
 
While I might get back together with someone who cheated on me (after much counseling, etc) I do think it isn't really a reason to start you wooing all over again. Traitionally it is the offender who has to make it up to the injured party, not the other way around.
 
Posted by Flashfire (Member # 2616) on April 20, 2006, 14:57:
 
quote:
Originally posted by drunkennewfiemidget:
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn
Oh, ouch! [Frown]

All the more reason to sweep her off her feet with lots of great letters. From the studies and books I've read, it appears that women tend to cheat because they feel a lack of emotional connection. They give sex because they think it will get and keep the emotional connection with the new guy. If that's the case with your wife, then reestablishing the emotional connection--and many women primarily relate through words, oral and written--will be a step in the positive direction.

What the fuck!? All the more reason to sweep her off her feet? How does that work?

"You had sex with someone else, so I'm going to be a better person!"?

I don't fucking think so. I'm sorry, but give your head a shake.

If she was worthless enough to cheat on you, she's not worth your time, energy, or letters. Be on your way, find someone new, and all the best finding someone worthy of you.

Wow. I've never seen a clearer illustration of the difference in male and female thought processes / socialization...

Regardless. MacD - when you say "write home to", what exactly do you mean? Love letters? Or just weekly / monthly "how I'm doin'" sort of letters? If it's the second, I'm sure you have lots of platonic friends you can write to, who would be thrilled to hear from you. Your mom and your sons are also going love getting your letters.

If it's the first, then I would suggest you rethink it a little bit. It's only been 3 months since you separated from your wife -- do you really want to get into another serious relationship so soon? That, and getting letters from a lover that you know you aren't going to see for a long while does more to heighten loneliness than anything else. (I know this from experience.) Not to mention you probably won't be thinking very romantic thoughts while you're in boot. Or at least none that you'll want to write about.

So, if I were you, I'd write to just family and friends for now.
 
Posted by CommanderShroom (Member # 2097) on April 20, 2006, 16:51:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Flashfire:
Wow. I've never seen a clearer illustration of the difference in male and female thought processes / socialization...

I have to ask how?

Let's say it was a solitary indescretion. I would be willing to say, try and see if you can work things out. There may be a reason why this happened. Not all cheating is because of the person that cheated.

But that said. I have a feeling that MacD may have been given the short end of the stick more than once in that particular matter. Then it is an unforgivable tresspass. Male or female. And if a woman said the same thing, I have no doubt that the Newf would have the same answer.

edit:

MacD, I think that after 2 months I would advise that you stick with the kids and family.
 
Posted by YaYawoman (Member # 4505) on April 20, 2006, 17:11:
 
I have to ask. How is dnf's comments such an example of the difference between men and women?

Speaking as a woman I agree 100 percent with him.
Give them your pity, but dont give them anymore of your time, effort or love. They have proved that you mean as much to them as the dirt under their feet.

All people make mistakes all people make awful decisions at times. When someone you love and trust makes a mistake like that hope that they learn from it and behave properly with the NEXT person in their life.
 
Posted by supergoo (Member # 2280) on April 20, 2006, 18:25:
 
I agree with YaYa and newf here...relationships can't always be rekindled, there is just too much baggage to forget it all and say "let's fall in love again!"

Love tends to bring out the worst in all of us.

(but what do I know?)
 
Posted by YaYawoman (Member # 4505) on April 20, 2006, 20:04:
 
Ah supergoo you are right love does bring out the worst.

It also brings out the very best in us too. Otherwise none of us would ever jump back into the pool after the first bellyflop. [Wink]
 
Posted by Thorned0Fortress (Member # 4435) on April 20, 2006, 21:30:
 
I think that more people should read their Private Messages.
 
Posted by Flashfire (Member # 2616) on April 20, 2006, 22:17:
 
quote:
Originally posted by YaYawoman:
I have to ask. How is dnf's comments such an example of the difference between men and women?

Speaking as a woman I agree 100 percent with him.
Give them your pity, but dont give them anymore of your time, effort or love. They have proved that you mean as much to them as the dirt under their feet.

I'm not saying that Newf is wrong by any stretch; in fact I mostly agree with him. I'm just saying that his and Rhonwynn's reactions to the same information (someone being cheated on) illustrate the difference in the way men and women approach this situation.

More often than not, it seems that women respond to being cheated on by thinking, "What's wrong with me? How can I fix it?" Before you start yelling at me for saying this, I realize that it's a generalization and not all women react that way. Just in my experience, that's how it appears to go. I've even caught myself thinking that way after being cheated on.

Men just don't seem to think like that. I'm not a guy, so I can't be absolutely certain exactly what they think after something like that happens, but I don't think the knee-jerk reaction is "What did I do wrong?" If that's not true, I'm sorry. Maybe you guys do think that. But I have a feeling the gut reaction is something more akin to Newf's post.

That's what I was saying, not that anyone was wrong in their opinions.
 
Posted by Mac D (Member # 2926) on April 21, 2006, 03:48:
 
I will never get back together with my wife in that way. She has broken any trust I could ever have in her. I won't get into the details or anything but I will say that we are still really good friends and still hang out. We just went to the Rob Zombie concert last Friday.

Also I'm not looking at jumping into a relationship. For the most part more of a pen pal and if I gain a friend from it then awsome. If something more thats good too.

I copied and pasted this in a couple different places trying to decide what forum here at GC to put this into. I just thought this was the most appropriate.
 
Posted by ChildeRoland (Member # 3880) on April 21, 2006, 04:20:
 
quote:
Originally posted by CommanderShroom:

There may be a reason why this happened. Not all cheating is because of the person that cheated.

The cheater always has a choice. They can either sleep around, or not. How is it not their fault if they chose the former?
 
Posted by CommanderShroom (Member # 2097) on April 21, 2006, 04:42:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChildeRoland:
quote:
Originally posted by CommanderShroom:

There may be a reason why this happened. Not all cheating is because of the person that cheated.

The cheater always has a choice. They can either sleep around, or not. How is it not their fault if they chose the former?
Roland,

Hrmm. I think that once in a while I should pull out a big ol clue stick when I post. List all variables and possibilities, and then have a lawyer proofread before I click 'Add Reply'. But not without first adding a quick disclaimer.

I never said that a person that cheats is not at fault. What I am saying is that sometimes deeper issues will manifest themselves in different ways.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on April 21, 2006, 06:50:
 
I hear what you're saying, Shroom-dear, but I totally agree with Roland. There's a right way and a wrong way to draw attention to the issues that "mainfest themselves in different ways." Sleeping around--and even emotional infidelity, not just sex--is the worst option if you're serious about your marriage and the vows you promised in front of sometimes 100s of witnesses.

Infidelity is really the coward's way out.
 
Posted by YaYawoman (Member # 4505) on April 21, 2006, 07:15:
 
Hi again.

Well rhonnie and roland I am 99% sure shroom didnt mean that cheating was ok. Strike that, I am 100% sure.

I think what he meant was sometimes cheating is not about getting the bell rung, scratching an itch or dippin' some strange. The act of cheating can have some very convoluted causes. Hahahaha, to mangle Freud, Madam sometimes sex is just not about sex at all.

Cheating is always wrong. If someone is unhappy they should have the strength to try and fix it and if they feel it is unfixable they should have the courtesy, respect and balls to look another person in the eye and end it before starting any sort of new relationship.

Oh, and flashfire thank you for spelling that out for me. The first time i read through your post and saw the comment about DNF and male thought it never occured to me you were comparing DNF and Rhonnie's posts. Confusion cleared up.
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on April 21, 2006, 07:51:
 
quote:
Originally posted by YaYawoman:
Cheating is always wrong. If someone is unhappy they should have the strength to try and fix it and if they feel it is unfixable they should have the courtesy, respect and balls to look another person in the eye and end it before starting any sort of new relationship.

Bingo.
 
Posted by CommanderShroom (Member # 2097) on April 21, 2006, 09:20:
 
Ok, first off I am now totally positive that nowhere in my posts did I ever say anything about infidelity being right. The best option, or for fucks sake, good.

What I said

Is that sometimes things such as infidelity and dishonesty are manifestations of deeper issues.

Shit.

I could have sworn I posted everything in English. But if there is an issue figuring out what I mean, let me know. And then I will make a power point presentation with cute little fucking pictures, diagrams and bar graphs.
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on April 21, 2006, 10:23:
 
quote:
Originally posted by CommanderShroom:

I could have sworn I posted everything in English. But if there is an issue figuring out what I mean, let me know. And then I will make a power point presentation with cute little fucking pictures, diagrams and bar graphs.

That would be appreciated. And just so you're aware, I'm particularly partial to the 'slide' effect.
 
Posted by Serenak (Member # 2950) on April 21, 2006, 12:34:
 
especially if paired with the squealing tyres and breaking glass sound effect!!!!

[Smile]
 
Posted by Grummash (Member # 4289) on April 21, 2006, 13:00:
 
My $0.02 on the infidelity debate....

I am with those who subscribe to the idea that infidelity can be a manifestation of deep-rooted problems within a relationship and that, at the same time, this does not, of itself, make it acceptable or justifiable. But it does quite often explain why it happened.

And on a lighter note.... I would olike to thank YaYaWoman for introducing me to the delightful phrase ...dippin' some strange. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by YaYawoman (Member # 4505) on April 21, 2006, 14:48:
 
You are welcome grummash. It does have a spiffy sort of ring to it, doesnt it? [Smile]
 
Posted by Maggs (Member # 4682) on April 23, 2006, 15:38:
 
quote:
Originally posted by drunkennewfiemidget:
That would be appreciated. And just so you're aware, I'm particularly partial to the 'slide' effect.

You mean slide the PC off the table [Wink] Powerpoint is quite boring.
 
Posted by csk (Member # 1941) on April 23, 2006, 19:32:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grummash:
I am with those who subscribe to the idea that infidelity can be a manifestation of deep-rooted problems within a relationship and that, at the same time, this does not, of itself, make it acceptable or justifiable. But it does quite often explain why it happened.

Bingo. As someone who has been the cheater, I don't make any excuses for it, but the unmet needs I had in the relationship made the cheating that much more tempting...
 
Posted by FireSnake (Member # 1181) on April 24, 2006, 12:43:
 
I found this, while looking for something else:

Beyond Betrayal: Life After Infidelity
quote:
Hour after hour, day after day in my office I see men and women who have been screwing around. They lead secret lives, as they hide themselves from their marriages. They go through wrenching divorces, inflicting pain on their children and their children's children. Or they make desperate, tearful, sweaty efforts at holding on to the shreds of a life they've betrayed. They tell me they have gone through all of this for a quick thrill or a furtive moment of romance. Sometimes they tell me they don't remember making the decision that tore apart their life: "It just happened." Sometimes they don't even know they are being unfaithful. (I tell them: "If you don't know whether what you are doing is an infidelity or not, ask your spouse.") From the outside looking in, it is insane. How could anyone risk everything in life on the turn of a screw?

 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on April 24, 2006, 14:15:
 
As I get older, the less willing I become to comment on, or offer advice about any relationship, especially one that I know nothing about. The comments here though tell us more about the speaker than MacD and his ex. Rhonnie is a thoroughly loved up, committed Christian looking forward to her wedding, who cannot at the moment conceive the knots and complications that happen in the even the best of relationships. Others believe equally strongly that it is impossible and demeaning to attempt to restart a relationship where your ex has betrayed you. I think none of these things are quite so cut and dried, and I feel it would be presumptuous of me to offer advice or analyse the situation without a lengthy conversation with both parties involved, which of course is not going to happen, so all I can do is wish MacD the courage to ride through his situation and hope that in so far as he does have any contact with his his ex that he manages to keep things friendly. Everything else is up to them.

As to why people are unfaithful, that again is unanswerable, but perhaps there is a clue in the Bruce Springsteen song, "Everybody's got a hungry heart". We are driven by these things, however much we like to pretend we are in charge, so whether or not the relationship can be revived, I would tend to favour understanding and forgiveness rather than a judgemental attitude. But then hey what else would you expect from a card carrying, America hating, candy ass, bleeding heart, faggot liberal! [Wink]
 
Posted by Grummash (Member # 4289) on April 24, 2006, 14:22:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
But then hey what else would you expect from a card carrying, America hating, candy ass, bleeding heart, faggot liberal!

...you missed out 'Communist'! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on April 24, 2006, 14:31:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grummash:
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
But then hey what else would you expect from a card carrying, America hating, candy ass, bleeding heart, faggot liberal!

...you missed out 'Communist'! [Big Grin]
... and Godless ...
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on April 24, 2006, 14:37:
 
Badges of pride, all of them. [Smile]
 
Posted by Grummash (Member # 4289) on April 24, 2006, 14:50:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
Badges of pride, all of them.

Glad to hear it. [Applause]
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on April 24, 2006, 15:08:
 
Rhonnie is a thoroughly loved up, committed Christian looking forward to her wedding, who cannot at the moment conceive the knots and complications that happen in the even the best of relationships.

That's bullshit, Calli, and you know it. Do you know how many thousands of dollars I've spent in counseling trying to come to terms with my father's multiple infidelities? Do you know how much it shakes me to the core that he just left his SECOND wife a month ago and is sleeping around AGAIN (and apparently has been for the past year or so)?! After adopting TWO children? Did he NOT learn his lesson the first time around? He thought by cheating on my mother--his first wife--and then abandoning her and their four children he'd find fulfillment and happiness. Stupid git. That rarely happens. Once a cheater; always a cheater. Jonathan tells me he's committed to our relationship and more importantly, to me, but I don't believe him 100% because I believed my father when he said he'd love and honor and cherish my mother forever. If dad could walk out on us, Jonathan could walk out on me. Except for one thing: Jonathan has a stronger character than my father ever had. Still, I'll never be completely comfortable/at ease in our marriage, and that's hard for both of us to deal with.

When I posted my original statement about MacD using his time away and letters in the interim to draw his wife close to him, I was speaking to separations cause by anything other than infidelity. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer about it. I do think marriages can be restored after one or both parties has been unfaithful, but it takes a complete change of heart, a lot of pain, and hard work for it to happen. As a result, it very rarely happens.

However--and this is where you are correct, Calli--God designed marriage and loves marriage, as well as the people in marriages. He is the healer of broken hearts and the restorer of broken marriages. There's nothing impossible for Him. Sure, I struggle with knowing He can do anything, but doesn't always choose to do it, but He's sovereign God; He knows so much better than I do. So I'm entering this marriage with Jonathan with my eyes fully open. I know what can go wrong because I've lived through it. I know some of the mistakes to avoid so we don't establish patterns/habits that make a marriage ripe for infidelity. We're going through counseling as a couple to ensure we've talked about significant issues and developed excellent communication skills. And most importantly, we're seeking God's protection and guidance in our relationship. Without Him, whatever we do will fail. That may sound all "pie in the sky" and "loved up" as you put it, but it's a humble acknowledgement of our human fallibility and dependence on someone other than ourselves to achieve any kind of marital "success."

Unless you've walked every painful step in my shoes, Calli, don't EVER again tell me I don't know how marriages can fail.
 
Posted by angryjungman (Member # 2434) on April 24, 2006, 18:29:
 
All your butts are grab by me!!!11!!oneone!!11!eleventyone
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on April 24, 2006, 18:44:
 
I just find it humourous that christians/catholics/whatever can change their rules when it suits them, or when society tells them they're wrong, but they're all written in stone up until that point.

The bible suggests murdering people who use the lords name in vain, sacrificing humans & animals, and having slaves.

Those aren't cool anymore, so they've been stricken from the record, but all of those other things still remaining, like, not being allowed to be gay, no sex before marriage, etc, all get to be left alone as-is (and don't even get me started as to the number of translations and modifications the bible has inevitably gone under due to misunderstandings, misinterpretations, etc over the years).

Using the bible as a general guideline for your life is all fine and well.

Trying to live by it word by word and judging and/or discriminating against those who don't follow it exactly (by your interpretation, no less), is bullshit nonsense.

That being said, I think Rhon is in a hurry to get married because she wants to start doing all the other things that come along with marriage that other people begin doing before marriage, and is afraid her biological clock is running out (as she's not so succinctly alluded to previously), and as such, isn't willing to take the time required to properly get to know someone before getting engaged to them, which is why she's rushing into it.

Here's hoping she's made the right decision.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on April 24, 2006, 18:56:
 
You put it so well this afternoon, DNM, that I'm surprised you ridicule me for similar reasons:

quote:
[15:42] drunkennewfiemidget Which was basically one of
my main reasons for marrying her -- every woman I'd
been with before, I'd happily have seen myself railing
other women (and in some cases, did.)
[15:43] Tom-geek heh..
[15:43] drunkennewfiemidget And as perverted and
sexist as it sounds, it's part of a much bigger
picture.
[15:43] Tom-geek you've lost me
[15:43] drunkennewfiemidget She makes me feel and
think and see her in a whole different light that I
can't imagine myself being with any other woman, hence
the marriage.
[15:44] Tom-geek you mean, you measure other women by
her?
[15:44] drunkennewfiemidget .. no.
[15:44] drunkennewfiemidget There'd be no contest.
[15:44] drunkennewfiemidget What I'm saying is when I
was dating and/or fucking the other women in my past,
I'd see a hot lady walking down the street and be
like, "Yea, I'd hit that." and could actually
visualise in my head myself fucking that woman.
[15:45] Tom-geek who doesn't?
[15:45] drunkennewfiemidget And in some cases, I
pursued, and *did* fuck those other women.
[15:45] drunkennewfiemidget With Amanda, I look at a
hot lady going down the street and go, "she's hot."
and Amanda goes, "Yea, she is." and that's it. I
don't even go there.. I don't need to.

I've had enough experience with men to know when I've found a good one. Granted, I don't allow myself to think about sleeping with a variety of men, but for me, relationships are so much more than sex, and rightly so. Jonathan and I complement each other superbly. Why drag my feet about it more than we are already*? Getting married more than a year after we've first met isn't rushing into anything.

*Quite a few of our friends and family members have suggested we get married next month so my housing search would be solved. Not surprisingly, we've vetoed that suggestion. As much as we'd like to live together, we're enjoying this time of easing into an increasingly close relationship. (I'd say "intimate," but everyone's mind would immediately jump to sex, and that's one place we're not going.)
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on April 24, 2006, 19:10:
 
As I said, I sincerely hope you're right, I really do.

But if you're not, don't get overly upset if a few years down the road, you tell us, and you get some "I told you so"s.
 
Posted by Rednivek (Member # 1148) on April 24, 2006, 19:12:
 
2 questions:

1) Is the father going to hell?
2) Is Jonathan allowed to make mistakes? If not, will he also go to hell?

Okay, thats 3 questions.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on April 24, 2006, 19:27:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rednivek:
2 questions:

1) Is the father going to hell?.

From conversations we've had with him, it's looking more and more like he will. He doesn't see anything wrong with what he's done, so he's obviously unrepentant. Sexual immorality is one of the things God hates (ref. I Thess. 4:3-8, for example). If he confessed his sin and repented, God would forgive him. Until he does, though, that sin is going to stand between him and fellowship with God. However, I don't know the true state of his heart--only God knows--so don't ask me to judge him; I only know his actions, but they look more self-involved than God-involved at t his point.

quote:
2) Is Jonathan allowed to make mistakes?

Yes, of course. And I hope I am, too, 'cause it's a given that everyone makes mistakes. We need to show grace and mercy to everyone, just like God shows grace and mercy to us. However, there's such a thing as tough love. If I cheat on Jonathan, I would hope he would have the grace to continue loving me and to work out our issues. However, he's not going to condone my behavior because it benefits no one and is just downright wrong.

quote:
If not, will he also go to hell?

Let me put it in a nutshell: Everyone sins and that separates us from God, who is perfect. God punishes sinners by sending them to hell. Since God created us to be His friends, He also provided us a way to escape the punishment of sin--His son, Jesus, the only perfect person, who accepted the punishment for our sins. The illogic of that action destroyed the power of sin. When we accept Jesus' payment for our sins, we can be God's friends and escape hell. But to accept Jesus' payment, we have to confess our sins and acknowledge they exist. God wants us to be perfect just like He is perfect so we can be the best of friends. So to keep sinning without repentance is exceedingly self-defeatist.

Hmm... that might be oversimplistic, but that's basically the Gospel in a nutshell.
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on April 24, 2006, 19:50:
 
So what you're saying is that if I do what I believe is right and just in the world, and genuinely do and believe in what I think is right, your god who is perfect and forgiving is going to punish me to the depths of hell for all eternity for doing what I thought was right?

Right, thought so.
 
Posted by Mac D (Member # 2926) on April 24, 2006, 19:59:
 
I see the bible as a work of ficion for the most part. It does have some accurate historical events in it. But on that note people always write about what is happening, Just because they put some fables into it doesn't make it truth. It kind of reminds of the Steven King, he puts in acctual places and events into his stories but is anyone going to take most of what he writes about as fact?

And as far as the "No sex before marriage" thing. Do you buy a car witout taking it for a test drive?
 
Posted by Rednivek (Member # 1148) on April 24, 2006, 20:08:
 
Thanks, Rhon, for the interesting point of view.

I am assuming the use of the terms "us" and "we" refer to you and Jonathan, rather than all of us, as your faith is yours.

People may feel put upon otherwise, but I find what you believe to be interesting as I would hope you would respectfully find my opinions and beliefs, which happen to differ from yours...

For example, I believe that the only hell that exists is being remembered with hatred. Meaning that your condemnation of your father to hell actually makes it happen. You can place him there with your own thoughts. I believe what we do that affects others is ours alone, rather than G-d's responsibility to oversee. Our personal responsibility is for our actions and for our judgments...

Can you forgive your father and let him avoid your condemnation, without strings?
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on April 24, 2006, 20:17:
 
Yes, Red, and I have forgiven my father. I'm thoroughly disgusted with his behavior, but he's such a pathetic man that hating him would be a waste of time and energy. Besides which, God has forgiven me completely for my many and varied sins. Who am I to withhold forgiveness from anyone else?

On a separate note, I find it interesting that you use the conservative Jewish spelling of God: G-d. Do you consider yourself to be of Jewish heritage? (And by that I mean, were you brought up in a Jewish culture/society/religion?)
 
Posted by nerdwithnofriends (Member # 3773) on April 24, 2006, 20:52:
 
I think the actual definition of Hell (and I'm going by the Catholic definition, the Protestant definition is probably slightly different, depending on the flavour), is simply a state of being completely separated from God.

While there is biblical support for a place of Torment, most of the pop-culture images of Hell were created by various artists or writers at one point or another- see the Divine Comedy.

I'm afraid I'm also going to have to agree with DNM: the churches seem to change to suit the major beliefs of popular culture. While I don't believe this is a bad thing (would I be a member of the Catholic church if they continued the practices of 500 years ago? Methinks not), I think it substantiall harms the credibility of any church, Catholic or Protestant, because it seems like they are changing many of their view/beliefs (though this may be for the better) just to keep up membership. On the other hand, perhaps there is true acknowledgement that things have changed, many parts of the Good Book aren't so Good and are, in fact, totally irrelevant, and that the problems of the past are not the problems of the present.

But this is just my $2.00E-2
 
Posted by CommanderShroom (Member # 2097) on April 24, 2006, 20:55:
 
quote:
Originally posted by drunkennewfiemidget:
So what you're saying is that if I do what I believe is right and just in the world, and genuinely do and believe in what I think is right, your god who is perfect and forgiving is going to punish me to the depths of hell for all eternity for doing what I thought was right?

dnf.

That is the gist of it. But then again, be you a Muslim, Jew, or whatever other myriad of religions under the world. If you do what you do and it goes against the doctrines. You are pretty much doomed to an eternity of suffering. What is new about that?

Whether you believe they are just or correct. It is a fact. And Rhonnie is no more right or wrong than anyone else for their beliefs. Myself or yourself included. The way I figure it, we all will find out who was right, if anyone is, soon enough.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on April 24, 2006, 22:09:
 
quote:
Originally posted by drunkennewfiemidget:
So what you're saying is that if I do what I believe is right and just in the world, and genuinely do and believe in what I think is right, your god who is perfect and forgiving is going to punish me to the depths of hell for all eternity for doing what I thought was right?

That's about it, yes. You HAVE been warned, so when you stand before God and He asks why you did what you wanted to do instead of what He wanted you to do, you can't plead ignorance. It's like when you discipline a child. They don't know when they're exploring that it's wrong to climb on Momma's china hutch, so only a mild punishment/chastisement is in order. However, once they know it's wrong and they do it anyway, you're punishing them as much for their disobedience as for the damage they did to your china.

In adult terms, is it more fun to play with the china? Sure. But is it right? No, even if you can't see how it's right or wrong. That's where faith enters the picture. We can't see what's going to happen or why it happens, but we have to trust what we've seen... that God is a God of love and that He takes care of us. The suffering we experience on earth He uses to draw us closer to Him and to mold our character into the quality He desires. Yes, it may look like we lack tangible rewards for self-sacrifice and for looking like idiots sometimes for trusting in Him, but in the long run, we'll receive an eternity as perfect creatures living with a perfect God. There's nothing better than that.

And if it turns out God doesn't exist? The world will have been a better place for the love we've shown to others.

(And before anyone jumps on the "how is judging people showing love" bandwagon, let me say this: Christians do wrong just like anyone else; we've just confessed our sins and accepted Jesus's forgiveness. By stating that everyone needs a savior, we aren't making a judgment call; we're just stating what we know as fact. Put it this way: If you were thirsty and I had a glass of water, I'd be selfish and unkind to withhold it from you. In the same way, for me to be silent about my faith and what Jesus has done for me is to deny both of us the opportunity to share in His salvation.)
 
Posted by Jessycat (Member # 1171) on April 24, 2006, 22:14:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
We can't see what's going to happen or why it happens, but we have to trust what we've seen... that God is a God of love and that He takes care of us.

When have we seen that?
I haven't seen that. Ever.

EDIT: That was rhetorical. Please do not answer that. I've heard it all before, trust me.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on April 24, 2006, 22:23:
 
Rhon, IIRC, Red is Jewish.

I myself am areligious. To me, both heaven and hell are the products of human imagination. What matters most is how you behave towards others, including enemies and strangers, and also making peace with yourself as well. Any religion can give guidance on these things, and you can figure things out without religion either. Many paths up the same mountain, some are harder than others, yadda yadda yadda.

Edit: Jess, I am inclined to agree.
 
Posted by nerdwithnofriends (Member # 3773) on April 24, 2006, 22:40:
 
And He hath said,

"Let the flaming begin."

I know this is an open foruma and all, but can we please not go into this? I think everyone here has proven themselves sufficiently intelligent that we can assume they believe what they believe for a reason.

I disagree with Rhonwyyn on basically all aspects of the Christian faith, while maintaining that faith myself. Jessycat disagrees with Rhonny over the question of whether or not there is even a God (loving or otherwise). Just because Jessycat and I both disagree with Rhonny, does that mean that we will agree with each other? No. (though, I must admit, I believe our viewpoints are a smidge more compatible).

So I suggest we drop it. This started out as a thread about a lonely guy who's doing what he needs to do and wants something to talk to. Even if we drift away from the original topic, can we please stay away from religion? a full blown religious discussion is going to result in nothing but insults and hurt feelings. I, for one, do not want a C.P. vs. Erbo type situation, where neither side is willing to even consider the fact that the other may not be t3h evil.

So, in order to change the subject, can I get some punnage over here?
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on April 24, 2006, 22:43:
 
In my defense, I was only explaining what I believe, not insisting everyone believe that way. (You can lead a horse to water, but can't make it drink. [Razz] )

So to aquiesce to your request for punnage, I had this question:

When asking for a tonnage of punnage, how do you know if you will receive a ton or a tonne? [Confused]
 
Posted by nerdwithnofriends (Member # 3773) on April 24, 2006, 23:17:
 
I don't know, I jsut wish to alleviate the heavy atmosphere of this thread...
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on April 24, 2006, 23:24:
 
So we're just going bounce between subjects? If so, Ia go home now...
 
Posted by YaYawoman (Member # 4505) on April 25, 2006, 00:03:
 
Hehehe. You guys are pikers with the religion discussions. This is why I tend to avoid them like the plague:

I am more of an agnostic. My soon to be 13 year old daughter is a born-again pagan. Odd to mix such descriptions but trust me it works. She brings the teenager's hormonal passion and excitement. My son is being exposed through the sitter to fundamentalist christianity (free sleep on sundays, I work nights and I really have no favored religion so I snap it up)and he brings the five yearolds joy and whole body belief to it.

So life in my house sometimes resembles a strange mix of vatican II and SALT II. I get to be the diplomat running around putting out fires. hahahahaha.

No interesting discussions for me. I live it.
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on April 25, 2006, 04:25:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
quote:
Originally posted by drunkennewfiemidget:
So what you're saying is that if I do what I believe is right and just in the world, and genuinely do and believe in what I think is right, your god who is perfect and forgiving is going to punish me to the depths of hell for all eternity for doing what I thought was right?

That's about it, yes. You HAVE been warned.
First Rhonnie I apologise for my ill considered and patronising remark.

Second this is where I part company with conventional Christianity, and indeed any religion that proclaims itself as the only route to salvation enlightenment or whatever. I hope God himself also finds this kind of spiritual snobbery as impertinent as I do, as punishes those of you who believe it with appropriate severity! [Wink] I have always rather liked this (sadly fictional) epitaph

Here lie I, Martin Elginbrodde:
Hae mercy o’ my soul, Lord God,
As I wod do were I Lord God,
And ye were Martin Elginbrodde.
 
Posted by maximile (Member # 3446) on April 25, 2006, 06:26:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mac D:
And as far as the "No sex before marriage" thing. Do you buy a car witout taking it for a test drive?

That's a little tacky. I just worry that people rush to get married because they want to have sex with each other, and then are stuck in a marriage that's no good for anyone.

(I'm not suggesting that this applies to anyone here.)
 
Posted by Mac D (Member # 2926) on April 25, 2006, 07:27:
 
quote:
Originally posted by maximile:
quote:
Originally posted by Mac D:
And as far as the "No sex before marriage" thing. Do you buy a car witout taking it for a test drive?

That's a little tacky. I just worry that people rush to get married because they want to have sex with each other, and then are stuck in a marriage that's no good for anyone.

(I'm not suggesting that this applies to anyone here.)

I know a lot more girls that believe in that pholopophy the guys. Ok I don't have many friends that are guys. So havn't gotten thier oppinion on it. But i think it's important to know what you are getting into. The whole package.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on April 25, 2006, 07:49:
 
Here's Jonathan's perspective on that argument:
quote:
I noticed that the one guy used that asinine argument about not buying a car without test-driving it. Jared [a coworker] tried to use that ludicrous line. It is only a valid analogy if you have already had sex. You test drive a car to see how it performs; to understand how it performs, you must first know how to drive and what a good drive is. If you don't, then you really have no frame of reference. I have never had sex, so once I am married, my wife will be all that I know of sex. I have no one else to compare her too. There is no need for a test drive, because this is my first time driving.
That's not to say you just blindly jump into a sexual relationship with your new spouse. There's plenty of opportunity during your courtship to explore your sexuality, but in an appropriate manner. It becomes fairly obvious if you aren't attracted to your partner, who has the stronger sex drive, who has more inhibitions, etc. You just need to make sure you're engaging in open, honest communication about everything (as embarrassing as it may be at times).
 
Posted by Mac D (Member # 2926) on April 25, 2006, 08:14:
 
I can't remember the persons name. She talks about "Relationship" issues on the radio. She said that you have to have sex with at least 7 people to acctually be able to compare and enjoy it. I think this is true. From what I have found before that 7 person mark I was in a long term relationship and really looking back on it the sex was not that great. I wasn't comfterble with myself and my abillities to know. I think it does take practice with multiple people to really enjoy it. Even with new people I have been with since my wife and I broke up. I've learned to take my time and it makes it better for every one involved.

Good sex was not an issue with my marriage it was there. Her resoning behind the infidelity was that it was readily availible with me (This I can see, I had thought about it at one point or anoter but never acted on it). She had a couple of drinks at the bar when she was at her parents 3 hours away. If it would have been an old boyfriend or something like that I probably would have been more hurt about it and question myself. She did do this more then once and thats why it had to end. And to be honest since I have moved out and she gets really jelouse she still asks me to come over for sex.
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on April 25, 2006, 08:29:
 
quote:

There is no need for a test drive, because this is my first time driving.

The smartass in me wishes to point out that that's like being a first time driver, buying a Pinto w/no research, sight unseen, and raving to all your friends "This is the best thing!!! Sure, it stalls sometimes going up hills, the brakes aren't so hot in the rain, and it's noisy as all get-out...but it more-or-less gets me where I want to go. I'm going to love this car until the day it dies - nothing could be better!"
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on April 25, 2006, 08:37:
 
I'm with Calli on all of this -- Rhon likened this to the scolding of a child, because I've been warned.

What kind of nonsense is that? I mean, really.

With a child, you give the child the rules, those are unequivocally the rules.

As for religion, you can argue all you want, there are more arguments against the existence of Jeebus and god and whatever, than there are for, so trying to tell me that's just how it is is a complete and utter line of bullshit.

Following your logic, every muslim, chinese buddhist, agnostic, and athiest is going to hell.

What about those who live in rural Sudan and never even hear of your Jesus? Are they going to hell because they didn't beg his forgiveness for their bad deeds?

It all just reeks of holier than thou (pun not intended for once) bullshit.
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on April 25, 2006, 08:38:
 
quote:
Originally posted by dragonman97:
quote:

There is no need for a test drive, because this is my first time driving.

The smartass in me wishes to point out that that's like being a first time driver, buying a Pinto w/no research, sight unseen, and raving to all your friends "This is the best thing!!! Sure, it stalls sometimes going up hills, the brakes aren't so hot in the rain, and it's noisy as all get-out...but it more-or-less gets me where I want to go. I'm going to love this car until the day it dies - nothing could be better!"
Lets not forget the pinto was notorious for blowing up after taking it in the rear! [devil wand]
 
Posted by Rednivek (Member # 1148) on April 25, 2006, 08:43:
 
Xan, I was born Jewish, Irish, etc... am probably more into tradition/culture than religion, but then again Jews arent into converting people or pushing beliefs on others. Its about personal responsibility for today (not for a reward when you're dead).
 
Posted by ooby (Member # 2603) on April 25, 2006, 09:23:
 
quote:
Originally posted by YaYawoman:
Hehehe. You guys are pikers with the religion discussions. This is why I tend to avoid them like the plague:

I am more of an agnostic. My soon to be 13 year old daughter is a born-again pagan.

I was under the impression that a born-again christian was somebody who was a christian, then wasn't, but then was again. How does one fit all of that changing of religion into the first 13 years of one's life?
 
Posted by GameMaster (Member # 1173) on April 25, 2006, 11:11:
 
So what you're saying is that if I do what I believe is right and just in the world, and genuinely do and believe in what I think is right, your god who is perfect and forgiving is going to punish me to the depths of hell for all eternity for doing what I thought was right?That's about it, yes. You HAVE been warned, so when you stand before God and He asks why you did what you wanted to do instead of what He wanted you to do, you can't plead ignorance.

There are millions of religions. Many of them state that if you don't believe in their religion, you're going to hell. Ergo, we're all going to hell... Why should I believe in your book over any other?

It's like when you discipline a child. They don't know when they're exploring that it's wrong to climb on Momma's china hutch, so only a mild punishment/chastisement is in order.

And if there are several Momma's to chose from, and each with different rules about the china hutch... And we can't prove the exsistance of any of them. Which Momma do we listen to?

However, once they know it's wrong

I don't know that is wrong. Morals involve harm, and there is a lot at stake in sex, but to say that all sex outside of marraige is wrong because some book written 200 years ago by drunk men, translated and collected by men seeking power and republished in thousands of different ways says so... There are praticalities, and rules of extream prudence with regards to premarital sex. There are cases where it can dive into moral issues, but the question is not a moral in and of itself.

There is no case to use or practile application of the Catagorical Imparative in this situation.

and they do it anyway, you're punishing them as much for their disobedience as for the damage they did to your china.

You punish them so they don't do it again.

In adult terms, is it more fun to play with the china?

I don't have a plate fetish, let's talk about what we're really talking about, sex. It's not a dirty word, and we're all (well, mostly) adults here, right?

Sure.

You assume... But, yes, it is.

But is it right?

No,


Why isn't it? Set aside silly bible arguments about what "He" says. Because I can use the bible to prove that you have a responsibility to kill me (me being a witch and all -- "Suffer not a witch to live"), and that you need to sacrifice a bull every Sabat day (Exodus -- wait, Jesus took that back... But, isn't god infalable, then why did he miscommunicate with Moses?).

even if you can't see how it's right or wrong.

So, you and the town mob will be summoning me to stake, right?

That's where faith enters the picture. We can't see what's going to happen or why it happens, but we have to trust what we've seen...

We haven't seen anything. And we used to take it on "faith" that heavier objects fell faster, we know today this is wrong. We used to take on "faith" that the world was flat, and if sailed to far you'd fall off the edge of the earth. We used to take on "faith" that earth was the center of the universe, and it was orbited by crystal speres with the stars painted on them being pushed by angels. Anything that we are asked to take on "faith" or look at as "self-evident" need to be questioned, probed, prodded and examined thoughly before being accepted as "truth".

that God is a God of love and that He takes care of us.

We should take care of ourselves, and our neighbors.

The suffering we experience on earth He uses to draw us closer to Him and to mold our character into the quality He desires.

Like the suffering of the poor, that drives some to steal. I don't claim to understand why suffering exsists, but it has never drawn me closer to a christian god. I do know, that the pleasures in life wouldn't seem so great if there was not suffering.

Yes, it may look like we lack tangible rewards for self-sacrifice and for looking like idiots sometimes for trusting in Him, but in the long run, we'll receive an eternity as perfect creatures living with a perfect God. There's nothing better than that.
Yes, there is... Heaven, as described by eternal happiness and everyone all the time, sounds like it'd get boring and I'd just have to slap some of the stupid smiling faces.... I can't be bothered to happy all the time, damn it.

And if it turns out God doesn't exist? The world will have been a better place for the love we've shown to others.

And the wars, crusades, inquisitions, witch trials... Christianity has been the justification for quite a bit of senless death. And, acording to the bible, even God got in on that action (sodom and gamora (spelling both)).

(And before anyone jumps on the "how is judging people showing love" bandwagon, let me say this: Christians do wrong just like anyone else; we've just confessed our sins and accepted Jesus's forgiveness.

Great, I'll commit murder, convert and confess to a preist and be as clean as snow....

By stating that everyone needs a savior, we aren't making a judgment call; we're just stating what we know as fact.

Without any proof.

Put it this way: If you were thirsty and I had a glass of water, I'd be selfish and unkind to withhold it from you.

Not if your need for the water was greater, and if the reason I was without water was because of circumstance brought about by my own action, and your reason for having it was due to hard work and ethics.

In the same way, for me to be silent about my faith and what Jesus has done for me is to deny both of us the opportunity to share in His salvation.)

And my reason for wanting more evidence is so that we can both share in reason and rational thought.
 
Posted by YaYawoman (Member # 4505) on April 25, 2006, 11:14:
 
Hi ooby. Well in the line after the born again pagan comment I did point out that it was an odd mix. I was using the born again to symbolize her passion and her tendency to try to convert people. I guess I could have used the line about the fundamentalist pagan running smack dab into the little fundamentalist christian, but I thought the other line was funnier.

I couldnt think of a pun so this post was my silly way of trying to lighten the mood a bit on this thread. (wasted effort obviously [Wink] )

I think from now on I will stick with everyone needs to just pack a bowl and relax.
 
Posted by GameMaster (Member # 1173) on April 25, 2006, 11:21:
 
And He hath said,

"Let the flaming begin."

I know this is an open foruma and all, but can we please not go into this?


The question before us is that of conseqences of salvation or damnation in the believers eyes -- given that, shouldn't we have the freedom of debate?

The question in the eyes of the doubters (in a christian god) is that we've been preached at hundreds of times, but no one pushing for our salvation offered us logical or compelling enough reason for us.

I disagree with Rhonwyyn on basically all aspects of the Christian faith, while maintaining that faith myself. Jessycat disagrees with Rhonny over the question of whether or not there is even a God (loving or otherwise). Just because Jessycat and I both disagree with Rhonny, does that mean that we will agree with each other? No. (though, I must admit, I believe our viewpoints are a smidge more compatible).

Yes, we each have different veiwpoints, and thus the same converstion shall ensue between any other group of believers and non-believers... That's what makes people intresting, and what each think so special. I honestly think there are as many religions in the world as their are people in it.

So I suggest we drop it.
I dissagree.

This started out as a thread about a lonely guy who's doing what he needs to do and wants something to talk to. Even if we drift away from the original topic, can we please stay away from religion?

Why?


a full blown religious discussion is going to result in nothing but insults and hurt feelings. I, for one, do not want a C.P. vs. Erbo type situation, where neither side is willing to even consider the fact that the other may not be t3h evil.

I don't think religious disscussions have to be that way. I want to know why people believe as they do, and often that comes out in converstation and debate.

So, in order to change the subject, can I get some punnage over here?

Oh, so you prefer another mindless pun-fest to something that may have real value?
 
Posted by Mac D (Member # 2926) on April 25, 2006, 11:27:
 
Religion was created by governments to control the masses thousands of years ago. Why it is still around I have no clue.
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on April 25, 2006, 11:28:
 
GameMaster: Game. Set. Match.

Well played, sir.

[Applause]
 
Posted by Mac D (Member # 2926) on April 25, 2006, 11:39:
 
Ok just for the record I would like to say, When I was growing up my mother was Catholic and my Father Luthren. I went to School at St.Johns in Chaska, MN (Yes I went to a private luthren school)

Most every thing that they tought there was told to us as fact. There is no disputing anything in the bible.

If this where true why is prostitution ilegal? Barley a "Book" goes by that someone doesn't get one. They call them different things from book to book but they are there. But if it's ok to get a prostitute (According to the bible) Then why is it not ok to have pre-marital sex or infedelity? If you went to a prostitue you would be doing one or the other wouldn't you? There really is no in between.

Also we learned nothing as far as history outside of this book. When I got to public high school and started to learn of all the other stuff that happened in the world not to mention something called Science I was floored. How could I have been lied to for so long?

So yes at that time I started to doubt things I had learned and the more I looked into every thing including looking at other religions (Didn't even knew there was more then other then Christianity till I got to high school) And the more I would read and learn the more I saw this whole thing as someone elses hobby.
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on April 25, 2006, 11:44:
 
That's why religion was invented in the first place: to control the masses.

And its succeeded -- to some extent.
 
Posted by nerdwithnofriends (Member # 3773) on April 25, 2006, 11:55:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:
And He hath said,

.
.
.

[b]So, in order to change the subject, can I get some punnage over here?


Oh, so you prefer another mindless pun-fest to something that may have real value?

In this situation? Yes, I do. I have never, ever seen a religious 'discussion' come out with anything productive. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I just don't see anything good coming out of this. Perhaps if another thread was started for the sole purpose of comparing religions and getting members' viewpoints on them, but not here, where all we are really talking about is what one person thinks about pre-marital sex because of what she believes and we have a whole host of other people who will flame her from here to hell and back if the conversation keeps going.

The problem is, basically every 'intellectual' i've ever spoken with has been either an agnostic or an atheist. yes, there are exceptions, but even within our geeky circles there are the 'cool kids', and in this particular instance, all of the 'cool kids' hate christianity. Which is cool enough, like I said earlier, we probably all believe what we believe for a reason.

However, the very fact that someone might be christian seems to lower that person's respectability in everyone elses' eyes. I truly don't think there can be any real discussion about these things.

Basically, you aren't really willing to listen. From what I've seen, you just want to pick apart what Rhonwyyn has to say, and for what reason I do not know. But if you really want to understand what she thinks, why don't you just PM her or something?

This conversation has gone to 'hey, I want someone to talk to' to 'no sex before marriage!' to 'I DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE DIFFERENT BELIEFS', and now we're here.

Yes, Rhonny may have made a rather... difficult... comment when she said that Mac D should write to his ex because he is obligated to. Then she tries to support herself with what she believes. But all the evidence she's used to using, nobody will accept because to everyone else, the Bible is just another text that may or may not be true. This conversation is going to be no more successful than Rhonny would be at trying to convert you all into Evangelical Christians using nothing but quotes from the Book.

I just can't see any sincerity when you say you 'just want to understand what people believe'. If that was the case, you'd read what rhonny had to say, then reply with little more than an 'okay, I get it.' Such as it is, you are only trying to prove your beliefs as more correct or better grounded than hers.
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on April 25, 2006, 12:12:
 
nwnf: I wouldn't state as a fact that people dismiss others if they are Christian, or hold any other religous beliefs. What most of us object to is having religion shoved down our throats, without any consideration or regard to logic.

I don't dislike garlicguy...he's Christian - hell, I think he's a pretty great person. He has a rather good value system, but there's no reason that must be attributed to religious belief. He has a sense of humor, and is perfectly willing to poke fun at things that a 'fundie' might feel impossible to say.

You are correct that some of us are basically talking over each other, but unfortunately in this case, almost no one is willing to listen to the other. This is largely due to the fact that rational thought is not being employed. (Sorry, faith-based arguments are impossible to discuss rationally when presented in an "I'm right, you're wrong [and damned to hell!]" manner.)
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on April 25, 2006, 12:38:
 
Trouble is dman, religion is by it's very nature faith-based and therefore very difficult to discuss rationally, especially if you're trying to prove oe belief system better than the other. Add in the strong emotions people attach to their beliefs and you've got a mess.

The relgious discussions that I have eihter witnessed or been involved in had one of two things going for them. Either the parties involved came from the same belief system and therefore felt like they had some established facts to work with or it wasn't so much a debate as a compare/contrast type of discussion (This is what I believe...what do you believe?). The latter I rather enjoy listening in on because it's interesting to see how different groups have tackled the same basic problems of being humans.

As far as religion being invented thousands of years ago to control the masses, well, thousands of years later there's still governments and masses to be controlled. I think there is aother component to relgiion and faith in general, and that is it can explain the inexplicable and answer the hard questions. And as long as the inexplicable exists, and the hard questions remain unanswered, faith and religion will also exist.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on April 25, 2006, 12:46:
 
Wow. Did I just get called a "fundy"? And here I thought I was actually more of a liberal Christian, y'know what with hanging out with marginalized individuals and all that. But then again, Jesus hung out with marginalized people, so if that makes me "fundy," I'll embrace that label. [Razz]

MacD: I'm curious... where does the Bible say to seek out prostitutes for sex? Both the Old Testament and New Testament have passages that advise against it, but I don't know that any explicitly tell a man to seek out a prostitute. Yes, God commanded Hosea to marry Gomer, the prostitute, but he was faithful to her throughout all of the pain through which she put him. God's point was to show how the Children of Israel had been unfaithful to God, but that He would still remain faithful to them. Yes, they did have that odd practice of concubinage and multiple wives, but that became phased out over the years, particularly because of marriage/cleavage to women of foreign religions who distracted the Children of Israel from their relationship with God.

EDIT: Changed DNM to MacD.
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on April 25, 2006, 12:46:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mac D:
Religion was created by governments to control the masses thousands of years ago. Why it is still around I have no clue.

I've heard that one before. I've never actually heard any evidence/examples to back that up, though.
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on April 25, 2006, 12:49:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
DNM: I'm curious... where does the Bible say to seek out prostitutes for sex? Both the Old Testament and New Testament have passages that advise against it, but I don't know that any explicitly tell a man to seek out a prostitute. Yes, God commanded Hosea to marry Gomer, the prostitute, but he was faithful to her throughout all of the pain through which she put him. God's point was to show how the Children of Israel had been unfaithful to God, but that He would still remain faithful to them. Yes, they did have that odd practice of concubinage and multiple wives, but that became phased out over the years, particularly because of marriage/cleavage to women of foreign religions who distracted the Children of Israel from their relationship with God.

I wasn't the one that made that particular argument, I don't believe.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on April 25, 2006, 12:55:
 
Oops! It was MacD, not you, DNM. I'm sorry!! [Frown]
 
Posted by ooby (Member # 2603) on April 25, 2006, 13:13:
 
Ya: My girlfriend's roomate, a pagan, has a humorous bumper sticker that reads, "Freedom of religion means any religion."
 
Posted by Stereo (Member # 748) on April 25, 2006, 13:16:
 
And Rhonwyyn, nobody called you a fundamentalist, Dman only stated that fundamentalists may dislike some of Garlicguy's comments. Take a deep breath; because many GCers disagree with your faith (me included, I may add) doesn't mean we don't respect you.

Overall, I'm with Xanthine.
 
Posted by GameMaster (Member # 1173) on April 25, 2006, 13:20:
 
Very few here agree with my politics; and yet nerdwithnofriends, you don't step in to try and stop political debate. [edit: I realize that I get myself into the arguments in those threads, but should we ban such disscussion becuase they turn into yelling matches between ASM and TFD? Wait, maybe whould... [Razz] ]

I was posting honestly, though my tounge was a bit sharper than I planned.
 
Posted by Grummash (Member # 4289) on April 25, 2006, 14:03:
 
Ok - If nobody objects, I'll add my $0.02 [Wink]

One of the key points here was identified by, amongst others, nerdwithnofriends. I would paraphrase this idea as:
This has all got a bit shouty. and There's not much listening being done.

I do appreciate that there is not much support here for Rhonwyyn's style of Christianity, and I would be on the list of those who see Rhonnie's faith as being much more fundamental than liberal. Nevertheless, this is what she believes and she is
entitled to her beliefs. Indeed, under the European Convention on Human Rights she is, as are we all, entitled to both freedom of religious belief and freedom of expression of those beliefs.

Now, I do feel that some of Rhonnie's earlier postings in this thread were perhaps a little 'prescriptive' in tone and even maybe a bit 'preachy' - but, and this is an important 'but', they were simply a firm statement of her own beliefs and as such, we are all free to take 'em or leave 'em.

Several GCers have commented that as religion is a matter of belief, we will never change someone's faith through 'evidence'. I agree with this comment, and would suggest that if 'evidence' and 'proof' are irrelevant in this context then we are left only with reason.

Therefore my conclusion is the same as has been drawn several times already - can we just keep things reasonable, please?"

[Wink]
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on April 25, 2006, 14:34:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stereo:
And Rhonwyyn, nobody called you a fundamentalist, Dman only stated that fundamentalists may dislike some of Garlicguy's comments. Take a deep breath; because many GCers disagree with your faith (me included, I may add) doesn't mean we don't respect you.

Oh, I know, Stereo. I was actually joking about it. I feel like this has been one of the better discussions of religious belief we've had on these boards since I joined. It seems to me everyone's kept their cool and not gone off name-calling or ridiculing anyone. Very adult and very respectable, all of you! [Applause]

As far as the whole "preachy" tone, I never meant to be preachy... just to state what I believe. The "You HAVE been warned" was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, not a Bible-thumping, hell-fire-and-brimstone condemnation. I wasn't sure which emoticon to use to show that tone, so I didn't use any. Maybe one would've been better than none? [ohwell]

I've really appreciated this discussion because it's forced me to clarify what I believe... to compose a statement faith... and for that I thank all of you. You've been marvelous guinea pigs [Big Grin]

(Side note: I know it's rather uncommon to have Christians populate the sciences, but I'd hazard a guess that there are more than we know. For example, the head of the undergraduate Mathematics department at Penn State is a Ph.D. and a strong Christian. Trying to out-logic him is like trying to stop the tide... virtually impossible! Add to that at least four of my friends who are engineering graduate students, another three who work at Penn State's Applied Research Lab, one who's a computer scientist for Lockheed Martin, another who's a biochemistry Ph.D. doing research in New Jersey, and that's quite a large percentage of my friends who are both intelligent/intellectuals and Christians. But then, as a geekophile and a Christian, it's not surprising that I gravitate toward those people, aye? [Wink] )
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on April 25, 2006, 14:45:
 
Correction: there are lots of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. in the sciences. We scientists don't make a lot of noise about that though, mainly because, as far as we're concerned, matters of faith are immaterial. All that matters among us is whether or not your science is good and your ethics sound. That scientists and engineers are/should be atheistic is a popular misconception. Religion and science are not as mutually exclusive as people tend to think. The thing that gets the scientists in an uproar is when people try to use our methods to back up religious beliefs and arguments. You really can't do that and still be doing good science. There is, to date, no empirical proof that God exists. There is also no empirical proof God does not exist. It is all a matter of faith and intuition and gut instincts, which is all well and good but it isn't scientific and that may be where people get this crazy notion that to be a scientist you must be an atheist.

Now, since I've been such a good guinea pig, I would like my spinach, carrots, and apple slices. Now. Before I start squeaking and kicking soiled bedding out of my cage. And maybe some fresh hay on the side. P
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on April 25, 2006, 14:58:
 
Come with me on my commute to work and you may have all the produce you'd like! I pass an Amish farm where they sell organic lettuce, spinach, and carrots. I'm sure as more produce comes in there'll be a wider selection.

In the meantime, just looking at the colts at that farm makes me drool... they're the cutest things! The really young ones with their whiskbroom tails and wobbly legs always make me laugh... and the way they sack out on the ground to sleep... too cute!
 
Posted by Grummash (Member # 4289) on April 25, 2006, 15:07:
 
Rhonwyyn - apologies for mis-reading the tone of your posts in this thread. [Frown]

For the sake of clarity, I'll just add that I thought that your posts did a decent job of discussing ideas with people who hold very different opinions and/or beliefs. Some of the other posts failed to show any sense of discussion at all.

I much prefer it when people I do not agree with care enough to participate in an honest debate - under such circumstances we may both learn something. [Smile]
 
Posted by Spiderman (Member # 1609) on April 25, 2006, 15:09:
 
Without going into the details, I'm a Christian, and I consider myself to be an intellectual.

Will I try to enter a rational debate about my beliefs? no. That is all they are: beliefs. Does it have anything to do with the fact I grew up with parents that hammered it into me? probably.

In all areas of life, I strive to be balanced. Not extreme in one direction or another. I'll respect the opinions of those I disagree with, and will not push my beliefs on others. If someone wants to know just what I believe I'll probably cough up some information.

Addressing nwnf: no, being associated with christianity doesn't have to be an automatic turn-off. There is a group of people here that have even met me in real life, and I'm sure they won't say my "religion" affects me as a geek/programmer/thinker/person in any negative way.

Oh, and of course I'm a part of the "Cool Crowd" [Wink] [Razz]
 
Posted by Serenak (Member # 2950) on April 25, 2006, 16:10:
 
Reading back to the start of the thread I see that my posts were fairly similar to Rhonwyyn's, but without any religious comment as I am a sort of atheist/areligious/neo-pagan/born again can't be bothered with it sort of guy...

I stated that I thought it might be worth another try (and implied that I thought that it would be a good thing to do), but only if Mac D wanted to (of course that was before the more than once infidelity revelation) and actually I think my tone could be read as "preachy" though that was not my intent and really never is (unless we are talking about how to make good DTP files - then I might get preachy like some of the coders do on here about clean code...)

We all have to hold some faith (in something, or some one, or a religion or political stance, or just our own ability, or whatever) and I don't think anyone here would deny that each is entitled to that.

Where people get edgy is when faith turns to "blind faith" - the sort that will brook no discussion or challenge or question. To me that is not actually "faith" as most of us percieve it any more but a sort of mania verging on mental illness.

Strange thing is that religious scholars of all persuasions have for centuries agreed on many of the central tenets whilst their lesser compatriots fought to the death over the details...
(c.f. Crusades etc.)
 
Posted by Mac D (Member # 2926) on April 25, 2006, 19:18:
 
Drugs for sex (Mandrake is a drug)

Genesis 30:14-17

14 During wheat harvest, Reuben went out into the fields and found some mandrake plants, which he brought to his mother Leah. Rachel said to Leah, "Please give me some of your son's mandrakes."

15 But she said to her, "Wasn't it enough that you took away my husband? Will you take my son's mandrakes too?"
"Very well," Rachel said, "he can sleep with you tonight in return for your son's mandrakes."

16 So when Jacob came in from the fields that evening, Leah went out to meet him. "You must sleep with me," she said. "I have hired you with my son's mandrakes." So he slept with her that night.

17 God listened to Leah, and she became pregnant and bore Jacob a fifth son.

Sex for a goat (not with a goat where did spungo go?)

Genesis 38:13-29

13 When Tamar was told, "Your father-in-law is on his way to Timnah to shear his sheep,"

14 she took off her widow's clothes, covered herself with a veil to disguise herself, and then sat down at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah. For she saw that, though Shelah had now grown up, she had not been given to him as his wife.

15 When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face.

16 Not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law, he went over to her by the roadside and said, "Come now, let me sleep with you."
"And what will you give me to sleep with you?" she asked.

17 "I'll send you a young goat from my flock," he said.
"Will you give me something as a pledge until you send it?" she asked.

18 He said, "What pledge should I give you?"
"Your seal and its cord, and the staff in your hand," she answered. So he gave them to her and slept with her, and she became pregnant by him.

19 After she left, she took off her veil and put on her widow's clothes again.

I have more if you really want to read them. There is insest in the book, Murder, Rape, stealing ect. ect. And most of the time without punishment. Again if you would have read what I wrote I spent 8 years having to learn all of this stuff. There is a lot of sick stuff in that thing. So there is some proof of prostitution. Have you read the thing yourself?
 
Posted by FireSnake (Member # 1181) on April 25, 2006, 19:45:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
(You can lead a horse to water, but can't make it drink. [Razz] )

Oh ego, thy name is religious "righteousness" [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on April 25, 2006, 19:58:
 
MacD, you've shown that prostitution existed in the Bible. However, I see no evidence that God commanded that behavior or approved of it. If you keep reading in both of those stories, you'll see that everyone involved suffered negative consequences.

Why did Jacob have more than one wife in the first place? His uncle cheated him out of Rachel. Why did Tamar pose as a prostitute? Because Judah refused to fulfill the duties required of him--provide a husband for the widowed Tamar so she would regain honor and be taken care of. Judah's son was old enough to be given to Tamar as her husband, but he refused, so she got creative. (Why did he go to a prostitute? Not that this condones it, but his wife had recently died, leaving him without female companionship and all that entails.)

The Bible is one of the most violent and convoluted books you'll ever read, and that's because it's telling the story of a violent and convoluted people. The men of Sodom wanted Lot's male visitors to have sex with them, but instead, Lot offered his daughters. The men refused the women and later the two girls got their father drunk so they could sleep with him and get pregnant. And then there's the gory story of Ehud and Eglon in Judges 3: "As the king rose from his seat, Ehud reached with his left hand, drew the sword from his right thigh and plunged it into the king's belly. Even the handle sank in after the blade, which came out his back. Ehud did not pull the sword out, and the fat closed in over it." Oh, and keep reading... how'd Samson get the two hundred foreskins of the Philistines?! [crazy]

As far as prostitution goes, there're all the rules in Hebrew law against it, e.g., Leviticus 19-21, Exodus 34, Number 15:39, Psalm 106, Proverbs 6, 7, 23, and 29, and the obvious scorn for the practice as demonstrated in Jeremiah 1-5, Ezekiel 16, I Corinthians 6, and Revelation 17 & 19.

However, there's hope. Rahab the prostitute is listed in the genealogy of Jesus because of her faith (Hebrews 11, James 2), and Jesus himself told the intellectuals of His day in Matthew 21: "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him."

All that to say that God condemns certain kinds of behavior, but He won't condemn the people who do those kinds of behavior if they turn from their behavior: "When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. Now my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayers offered in this place." (2 Chronicles 7:13-15)

At least, that's my understanding of it all. What's yours?
 
Posted by FireSnake (Member # 1181) on April 25, 2006, 20:30:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:
But is it right?

No,


Why isn't it? Set aside silly bible arguments about what "He" says. Because I can use the bible to prove that you have a responsibility to kill me (me being a witch and all -- "Suffer not a witch to live"), and that you need to sacrifice a bull every Sabat day (Exodus -- wait, Jesus took that back... But, isn't god infalable, then why did he miscommunicate with Moses?).

Where did Jesus take that back?

This is an honest question, I'm curious, since Matthew 5:17-19 and Luke 16:17 give the distinct idea that unless specifically contravened, OT still applies. I can't think of where sacrificing a bull on the Sabat was negated?


And mercilessly cribbed from the 'Net:
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on April 25, 2006, 20:38:
 
Wow, that's a great list, FS! Number three is quite hysterical... literally. [Razz]

I do have a mild bone to pick, though:

quote:
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
Pharoah--not God--commanded the Hebrew midwives to kill all the male babies born to the Hebrew women. But as far as the tenth plague and the death of the Egyptian first-born sons? I can see how it fits into the bigger picture, but it definitely does show a side of God that's more challenging to reconcile to my understanding of God.

quote:
Exodus 1:
8 Then a new king, who did not know about Joseph, came to power in Egypt. 9 "Look," he said to his people, "the Israelites have become much too numerous for us. 10 Come, we must deal shrewdly with them or they will become even more numerous and, if war breaks out, will join our enemies, fight against us and leave the country."

11 So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh. 12 But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread; so the Egyptians came to dread the Israelites 13 and worked them ruthlessly. 14 They made their lives bitter with hard labor in brick and mortar and with all kinds of work in the fields; in all their hard labor the Egyptians used them ruthlessly.

15 The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah, 16 "When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live." 17 The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live. 18 Then the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, "Why have you done this? Why have you let the boys live?"

19 The midwives answered Pharaoh, "Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive."

20 So God was kind to the midwives and the people increased and became even more numerous. 21 And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own.

22 Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: "Every boy that is born [b] you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live."


 
Posted by Mac D (Member # 2926) on April 25, 2006, 20:39:
 
So me looking for a pen pal turned into this? [Applause]
 
Posted by FireSnake (Member # 1181) on April 25, 2006, 20:42:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mac D:
So me looking for a pen pal turned into this? [Applause]

You never know, with this group.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on April 25, 2006, 20:42:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mac D:
So me looking for a pen pal turned into this? [Applause]

Yeah... we just figured we should give you some practice writing before you actually get overseas. [Wink]
 
Posted by Mac D (Member # 2926) on April 25, 2006, 20:47:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Mac D:
So me looking for a pen pal turned into this? [Applause]

Yeah... we just figured we should give you some practice writing before you actually get overseas. [Wink]
If
 
Posted by GameMaster (Member # 1173) on April 25, 2006, 21:43:
 
Quoting FS-
This is an honest question, I'm curious, since Matthew 5:17-19 and Luke 16:17 give the distinct idea that unless specifically contravened, OT still applies. I can't think of where sacrificing a bull on the Sabat was negated?

Does this mean the GC will get free stakes every Sunday from Rhonnie? Perhaps that's why Garlic Guy needed to make the new sauces; speaking of, Rhonnie should stock up Garlic Head for the left over meat. Unless, which I don't know for sure, there is a rule against eatting sacrificed animals (in which case ship it to me, I'm a pagan after all). MMMMMmmmmmm.... Beef, it's what's for dinner.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on April 25, 2006, 22:05:
 
What kind of stake would you like, GM? A sprig of holly through your heart or a splintered 2x4? [Razz]

As far as sacrificing goes, Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, thus negating our need to sacrifice animals. And too, He elimintated our need for a priest to intercede between us and God. When He died, the veil of the temple that separated the holiest part from the rest of the people tore from top to bottom, giving everyone access to God if they want it.
 
Posted by FireSnake (Member # 1181) on April 25, 2006, 22:32:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
As far as sacrificing goes, Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, thus negating our need to sacrifice animals.

It's all well and good for you lot to keep saying it, but where does it say it in the Christian Bible? (Especially as the previously mentioned bits seem to be of the opinion that Jesus thought people should be sticking to the old stuff too, unless specifically told otherwise. I'm curious as to the verse where Jesus said it's ok to eat pigs, too, if anyone wants to share.)
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on April 25, 2006, 22:50:
 
Jesus as sacrifice, nullifying the need for animal sacrifices: Hebrews 10

What comes out of a man makes him unclean, not what goes into his mouth: Mark 7
 
Posted by Demosthenes (Member # 530) on April 26, 2006, 06:23:
 
All this talk of carrying out Old Testament commands now just makes me wish that more people out there had actually read the Old Testament.

Also, because it's on topic and I though it was timely:
quote:
Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.


 
Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on April 26, 2006, 06:44:
 
I once worked with an ultra right wing cristian coworker. We got along quite well and became friends. One day I politely asked hinm how he reconciles the fact he eats shellfish wears cotton/ poly blends / trims his beard / doesn't kill people for not believeing what he does and a host of other things that are all in the old testiment.( I mainly asked about the part wear it says men shouldn't trim their beard) He said that all those rules were a covenent between the jewish people and god. If they follow the rules the get to go to the land of milk and honey. As he was not Jewish he explained he is not part of the covenent and does not have to follow those rules. The thing is , is that the "homosexuality is wrong" thing is in the old and new testiments. I took his explanation as acceptable.
 
Posted by Mac D (Member # 2926) on April 26, 2006, 07:08:
 
Didn't you know, People just make up there own rules on every thing in every religion. Then they find a passage or two to explain there actions. Even if the whole story doesn't fit.

And by the way if you look at the broad picture Jews, Christians and muslums are all the same religion. They all worship the same thing just with a different understanding of it. So why are they always trying to kill each other?

Religion is and always has been the number one reson behind death, pain and hatred. 5000 years ago and it still holds true today.
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on April 26, 2006, 07:33:
 
"It's not so much God I have a problem with. It's his fan club I can't stand." -- Unknown
 
Posted by MacManKrisK (Member # 955) on April 26, 2006, 09:07:
 
FireSnake said:
quote:
since Matthew 5:17-19 and Luke 16:17 give the distinct idea that unless specifically contravened, OT still applies.
Demosthenes, Ashitaka, MacD, and even newf... this applies to everything you said too.
<soapbox>
quote:
For you were called for freedom, brothers. But do not use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh; rather, serve one another through love. For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But if you go on biting and devouring one another, beware that you are not consumed by one another.
-- Galatians 5: 13-15

I have a big problem with what I call "Old Testament Christians." The Old Testament was very judgemental, it is essentially the record of the attempt *by man* to codify faith, something that cannot be measured as it is individual to each person who posesses it. Moses came down from the mountain with 10 commandments, true, but the first thing humans do when confronted with rules is to try to skirt them. By the time Jesus came on the scene, Moses' 10 commandments had turned into some 400some.

Let us consider the fact that the religious eleet some 2000 years ago conspired to kill Jesus. I don't think many people stop to think exactly /why/ they wanted to kill him, to get rid of him. Jesus blasphemed, not against God, but against the establishment. His message was a simple one (instead of 400+ rules and regulations to follow), "Love one another." (John 13:34) He threatened the establishment and it's rules by showing people a new and better way, telling people (in essense): 'Screw the rules! Stop worrying about what others do and judging them for it, it is none of your worry! Just love one another and in doing so you'll have fulfilled the law!' You can see how, if you were in the business of rulemaking for fun and prophet (pun intended), that this would be seen as threatening to your established way of life.

So this is the issue I have with "Old Testament Christians." They judge people. These are the "God Hates Fags" people, and the radical Christians that blow up abortion clinics, and the Christians that tell other people that they're going to hell. What they don't see is that it's this *exact* same way of thinking that sent Jesus to his own humiliating, bloody, abusive, public death.

Have we become so blinded by our own plethoroa of rules and regulations that we've once again forgotten what it's all about?
</soapbox>
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on April 26, 2006, 09:48:
 
quote:
Originally posted by MacManKrisK:

I have a big problem with what I call "Old Testament Christians."

Yep. I often find those types very disturbing. The biggest problem is that they often ignore not only the scriptural, but also the historical context of much of the Bible.
 
Posted by Mac D (Member # 2926) on April 26, 2006, 10:16:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sxeptomaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by MacManKrisK:

I have a big problem with what I call "Old Testament Christians."

Yep. I often find those types very disturbing. The biggest problem is that they often ignore not only the scriptural, but also the historical context of much of the Bible.
Not ignore more or less think it's funny that people base their lives on a work of fiction. Yes there are some historical things in there that are true. But the city of Castle Rock is a true city too. Doesn't mean I belive every thing Steven King writes is fact.

Edit: I just thought of a great exmple. The movie Saving Private Ryan. Did WWII happen: Yes, Did the battle at the start of the movie happen: Yes, Did the story of 8 soldiers looking for Private ryan happen? Probably not. It was a work of fiction told durring a real event. Same thing in the bible. It was a mix of Fiction tied in with Fact.
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on April 26, 2006, 10:42:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mac D:
quote:
Originally posted by Sxeptomaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by MacManKrisK:

I have a big problem with what I call "Old Testament Christians."

Yep. I often find those types very disturbing. The biggest problem is that they often ignore not only the scriptural, but also the historical context of much of the Bible.
Not ignore more or less think it's funny that people base their lives on a work of fiction. Yes there are some historical things in there that are true. But the city of Castle Rock is a true city too. Doesn't mean I belive every thing Steven King writes is fact.

Edit: I just thought of a great exmple. The movie Saving Private Ryan. Did WWII happen: Yes, Did the battle at the start of the movie happen: Yes, Did the story of 8 soldiers looking for Private ryan happen? Probably not. It was a work of fiction told durring a real event. Same thing in the bible. It was a mix of Fiction tied in with Fact.

Fiction is a poor word for it. It would be better described as mythology (in the academic sense).
 
Posted by FireSnake (Member # 1181) on April 26, 2006, 11:00:
 
quote:
Originally posted by MacManKrisK:
Have we become so blinded by our own plethoroa of rules and regulations that we've once again forgotten what it's all about?
</soapbox>

MMKK, I have to say, I do like the perspective that you bring on Christianity based discussions. In the Christian God personality lottery, you wound up with the "kinder, gentler" variety.

Whenever humans turn something into an organization, with officials and rules, it gets to the point where you can't walk without stepping in some sort of red tape and obedience to the rules is elevated above devotion to the ideal that the organization was built up around.
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on April 26, 2006, 11:23:
 
quote:
Originally posted by MacManKrisK:
For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

That, sir, is something I can subscribe to.
 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on April 27, 2006, 14:36:
 
MacManKrisK wrote:
"You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Does this apply to self-mutilating/suicidal types too? 'cause I'm not sure I want them lovin' me as they love themselves...
 


© 2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0