religious justification of sex (3 Viewers)

[LaraB]

As amusing as this whole boy/girl fight is, i may as well put my input in. Personally, from what i understand, men were held in much higher esteem then women back in 'bible times'. Therefore, it makes more sense to me, that if you would want the image of God to be so mighty and powerful, you would not portray God as a lowly woman (just refering to how it was back then, i'm not having a stab at all you girly's out there).

If God were to have been portrayed in the image of a woman, it may have damped 'his' godly image, and thus, adherence to 'him' might be lessened, because being a she does not command as much social respect compared to if he was a man.

Now, some of you might argue that if God was so mighty and powerful, why would it matter if he was portrayed as a man or a woman. Well firstly, it helps give God a bit more of an identity, so as to help us comprehend just a bit better, the nature of God. As i said, 'he' helps to convey the identity of a man, and thus, at the top of the social ladder.

Secondly, why does gender matter if he's a God? Well why did the skin of the persecuted african-americans matter if they were still men, women and children like the rest of us? For that fact, why were black people all over the world looked down upon for the colour of their skin, not who they were?

For the same reason why God would not have been held quite as highly in their society if he was portrayed as a women. It was just easier to portray 'him' as a man, then try to get over the social hurdles by proclaiming him as a woman.

Thats just how i see it.

or you could look at it in t he reverse - ie, men are held in higher esteem over time partly because of the manner in which all the so called "godly" images were men...

take say, Greek mythology for example - they had male and female representations and the female ones were no less respected/feared/admired or whatever is appropriate..

if gender doesn't matter- then its fair enough to say that "god" could be female

i dno't think needing something to make 'god' more i guess, imaginable in an aesthetic sense has anything to do with the gender thing raised... if 'god' was a woman, she wouldn't be any less imaginable aesthetically...

i find ths argument interesting, because taking this train of t hought, you are in fact conceeding that Christianity is in its essence 'sexist' for want of a better word

 

[rcandelori]

i find ths argument interesting, because taking this train of t hought, you are in fact conceeding that Christianity is in its essence 'sexist' for want of a better word

Thanks captain obvious.

 

[Minifish]

yet in greek mythology, the female deities have only the love and compassion roles, nothing like war or such physical things of our world. Yet in the same greek mythology, the most powerful god, ruler over all, is zeus, a male.

And yes, one could argue that it may be taking a sexist approach, except that such a word and its social meaning was not one of use back in 'bible times'. So if we're taking my 'interesting' line of thought and thinking back in history to how things applied back then, how can it be sexist, if sexism didnt exist?

 

[The_highwayman]

but didnt jesus say god was his 'father' and jesus his mother? now since the church isnt really into lesbianism it would make sense to assume that god is male

 

[jumb]

Jesus Christ, life isn't fair. Get over it.

Fucking political correctness.

 

[The_highwayman]

i find ths argument interesting, because taking this train of t hought, you are in fact conceeding that Christianity is in its essence 'sexist' for want of a better word

The world is sexist. history is sexist. christianity is just a part of that. Christianity helped to shape this sexism by not attempting to do anything different. At the same time chritianity reflected what the world considered the norm (kings ruled over queens etc.) it was considered a social norm that men are in positions of power and control. You can tell by looking at the names of the continents: all end with the letter 'a', a reflection of the feminity personality given to them (as opposed to 'us' meaning masculine) they were named so because explorers were male and this reflected the dominion of masculinity over feminity. it still continues today. Men call their cars "she". It's all an issue of control. Men like control, women like cooperation

 

[LaraB]

The world is sexist. history is sexist. christianity is just a part of that. Christianity helped to shape this sexism by not attempting to do anything different. At the same time chritianity reflected what the world considered the norm (kings ruled over queens etc.) it was considered a social norm that men are in positions of power and control. You can tell by looking at the names of the continents: all end with the letter 'a', a reflection of the feminity personality given to them (as opposed to 'us' meaning masculine) they were named so because explorers were male and this reflected the dominion of masculinity over feminity. it still continues today. Men call their cars "she". It's all an issue of control. Men like control, women like cooperation

i don't need a lecture...

when did i say that i didn't think the world was sexist and that christianity isn't part of it?

i know that... i was simply saying it was interesting that the very same people who are going on about what a great thing it is that God did this and that and made society so great are the same people saying in effect, men are superior beings

Christianity doesn't reflect the 'world norm' - it reflects the Christian world.

regarding your example of the continents... that doesn't prove anything... they are a western construct, referred to differently in different language, english is not a gender specific language, like say, french.... that is a analysis developed by literary theorists after they were named,,, it's not like they sat around and said "hey guys what you reckon, America or Americus?" "duh America we're guys so we' should name it after guys coz guys are in charge".... its not that deep seeded.... you can't read into everything that much...

men like control, women like cooperation? sorry but what a load of crap... so what condaleeza rice is into world cooperation? Queen Margaret didn't want to rule and control the world? Queen Elizabeth I didn't tell everyone to piss off so she could becom epure and in control? Nelson Mandela didn't want mutual benefit and cooperation in South Africa?...

there's endless examples of why that theory is just an unjustified generalisation which is so off track of the point i was making in the 1st place anyway

 

[LaraB]

yet in greek mythology, the female deities have only the love and compassion roles, nothing like war or such physical things of our world. Yet in the same greek mythology, the most powerful god, ruler over all, is zeus, a male.

And yes, one could argue that it may be taking a sexist approach, except that such a word and its social meaning was not one of use back in 'bible times'. So if we're taking my 'interesting' line of thought and thinking back in history to how things applied back then, how can it be sexist, if sexism didnt exist?

http://www.mythome.org/greek.html

not so... many women were basically,, ultimate bitches i guess for want of a better word...
they were charcterised by vanity, need for revenge, egoism, violence... eg Medusa

you have obviously missed the point... duh sexism is a modern construct as a word, but sexism is not a "thing" it describes actions.. the actions have always existed whether they were called sexism or not... but you totally missed the point i was making.. i was simply saying its illogical that people say how fab god is and how great teh world is when at teh same time saying women were 'down-trodden' or whatever...

 

[LaraB]

Thanks captain obvious.

sorry - next time i'll ask your permission before i post...

if you read the discussion, i was commenting to the people posting and saying how great and wonderful God is and how fab he made the world when in teh same posts they say how it encourages male superiority....

so despite your intelligent assertion it obviously isn't quite so obvious since people are posting these contradictory statements in the same parargraphs but yet saying how correct and good both are

 

[Minifish]

the medusa was a mortal, and was slain. no god. as for the rest...well...i dont wanna read em all, just tell me which ones you were refering to, i'll read them, then believe you, ok?

and you didnt address my second bit...just thought i'd remind you

 

[LaraB]

the medusa was a mortal, and was slain. no god. as for the rest...well...i dont wanna read em all, just tell me which ones you were refering to, i'll read them, then believe you, ok?

i never said "god" - in my original post i said godly images/figures from greek mythology as these and the so called "gods" formed their religious beliefs so fall into the same category

uh..and i did adress theh 2nd bit..read the post its plain as day that its there...

even if i didn't so what - they were to separate parts of the post

 

[Minifish]

truth be told, i did miss it. i completely overlooked it. my mistake, truly sorry. i need sleep...damn physics...

anyways, i was talking about gods, you mentioned the medusa, i assumed you were refering to the medusa as a god. forgive my assumptions, again, my mistake.

 

[Minifish]

oh and yes Lara, i do see your point. i get what you're tryin to say, and it does make sense. hard thing to question with such a book as the bible, why things were written the way they were...i guess its open to discussion

 

[ella_fitzgerald]

lol yeah exactly - typical patriarchal stuff... it's just assumed its a man...

look.. ella... you can't tell people to face the facts that there is a God because you cannot prove it and just as you have your beliefs so do others.

from the start you haven't acknowledged let alone accepted that other people have different views... you seem to have set out to 'prove' that your friends are sinners or whatever because they don't do what you call the "real christian" thing.

get over it - you are not right, you're not necessarily wrong either.... but you can't prove 100% you're right so it's a waste of time and energy offending other people by treating others as if they're too stupid to aceept your version of 'truth'

you asked for opininos when you started this thread so don't get on ur high horse and tell everyone who gave their opininos with regard to your post that they're wrong - you asked for opinions, not for people to agree with you unconditionally...

ok to begin with i did say i am cool that other people dont believe.. and im not attempting to prove anything, i simply wanted to know what christians thought about christians who have sex before marriage. in the church, the idea is that if you love god you want to live his way and part of that includes no sex before marriage. no ones perfect, and fuck ups (no pun intended) do happen. but this thread was for christians to talk about those who deliberately ignore that; because of the modern/liberal society and they doubt the relevance or authority of those bits of the bible etc....

and the only people im saying are wrong are those who stand there and say weird things about a book they havent read. if they read the bible maybe they'd understand more, just like if you read the koran you'd know more about the muslim faith etc.
i have said previously that im not trying to convert. im a)protecting what i believe b)inserting facts where i know them to be true AND CAN VERIFY THEM and c) trying to get the opinions of christians about pre-marital sex; not just randoms who came here to knock the God i believe in.

 

[jumb]

ok to begin with i did say i am cool that other people dont believe.. and im not attempting to prove anything, i simply wanted to know what christians thought about christians who have sex before marriage. in the church, the idea is that if you love god you want to live his way and part of that includes no sex before marriage. no ones perfect, and fuck ups (no pun intended) do happen. but this thread was for christians to talk about those who deliberately ignore that; because of the modern/liberal society and they doubt the relevance or authority of those bits of the bible etc....

and the only people im saying are wrong are those who stand there and say weird things about a book they havent read. if they read the bible maybe they'd understand more, just like if you read the koran you'd know more about the muslim faith etc.
i have said previously that im not trying to convert. im a)protecting what i believe b)inserting facts where i know them to be true AND CAN VERIFY THEM and c) trying to get the opinions of christians about pre-marital sex; not just randoms who came here to knock the God i believe in.

that dead horse needs a little bit more of a beating

 

[The_highwayman]

i don't need a lecture...

i'm not trying to give you one.

when did i say that i didn't think the world was sexist and that christianity isn't part of it?

You didn't. did i say u did? i made a general statement

Christianity doesn't reflect the 'world norm' - it reflects the Christian world.

Ummm...at the time i was talking about, most of the western world WAS Christian. But is doesnt matter what monotheistic religion look at, men have typically been given a position of power and this is reflected in the society.

regarding your example of the continents... that doesn't prove anything... they are a western construct, referred to differently in different language, english is not a gender specific language, like say, french.... that is a analysis developed by literary theorists after they were named,,, it's not like they sat around and said "hey guys what you reckon, America or Americus?" "duh America we're guys so we' should name it after guys coz guys are in charge".... its not that deep seeded.... you can't read into everything that much...

English may not be but LATIN is! Latin is the source of the 'a' and 'us' meaning female and male. Re-read my post again. The continents were given feminine qualities as a reflection of the male 'need' for dominance. It isnt mean to "prove" anything, it is just another example to support my OPINION.

men like control, women like cooperation? sorry but what a load of crap... so what condaleeza rice is into world cooperation? Queen Margaret didn't want to rule and control the world? Queen Elizabeth I didn't tell everyone to piss off so she could become pure and in control? Nelson Mandela didn't want mutual benefit and cooperation in South Africa?...

there's endless examples of why that theory is just an unjustified generalisation which is so off track of the point i was making in the 1st place anyway

Of course, there are also endless examples to support that theory. and i never said it wasnt a huge generalisation. By grouping men and women into two boxes i assumed everyone would see that! Condaleeza Rice is a reflection of the modern woman trying to break the glass ceiling. Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth were in positions of power and so, in order to maintain this status in such HIGHLY PATRIARCHAL worlds they had to adopt masculine ideals. Nelson mandela had control over encouraging mutual benefit and cooperation in south africa, didnt he? (when he was president)

Lara, my post was not meant to be a personal attack. it was simply a reaction to what u had posted because ur post triggered somethiing in me. That fact that i quoted u was only to highlight where i had sourced such a trigger. Don't get so snappy at things like that. I understand that tone is more difficult to compose in writing than in facial expressions and voice so that is probably why u thought i was attacking u. i wasnt. i was voicing my opinion

 

[googooloo]

From Muslim to Christian

Salam, I know it's not your thing but I will say it anyways,

So I am not a christian, btu I did go to a religious school (catholic), but I converted to islam nearly a year ago. Even though we have differently names for our religion it is still the belief of god (Allah swt). The same goes for islam of course, not to have sex before marriage. You are supposed to leave it for maraige, for ht e one you love, adn thereofre making it better and more special. The western culture has a very confused lok on sex adn types of sex and what it is all about. This leads to this like masterbation and sex with odd people in odd places and i htink also gender confusion adn gay-ness.


Theya re my views any-whooo. I think It is stupid to go out there and live for sex. I think you shoudl wait. It is a sin not too

 

[Rafy]

What if you never get married?


pwah why wait? You only live once....

 

[Epiphany]

why do people who have sex necessarily LIVE for sex?

i refuse to have anyone tell me that my first time wasn't meaningful and special, just because I didn't have a ring on my finger!

if sex is what sins about, then send me straight to hell.

 

[ogmzergrush]

The western culture has a very confused lok on sex adn types of sex and what it is all about. This leads to this like masterbation and sex with odd people in odd places and i htink also gender confusion adn gay-ness.

I was fairly cool with your post till this bit. I realise they're your views and all, but honestly? Are people in "western culture" the only ones who masturbate, who have sex with odd people in odd places, or that have gender confusion issues, and that are (sometimes) gay?

Or is it that evil western culture has corrupted others, like the ancient romans, etc, and turned them gay?