Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2014 3:53:56 GMT -5
There was one thing that really bothered me most of the time since I had grown up. First of all, people were asked to not partake of the emblems because of their unworthiness. Then, on the other hand, partaking of the emblems was touted as some kind of a cleansing exercise for moving forward. Apparently there is something wrong with everyone, but the ones that got caught don't have the opportunity to be cleansed of it. Apparently the sin really IS in getting caught. The real underlying purpose of asking people to refrain from taking the emblems is to make an example of them, and shame them before others in order to prevent others from being caught doing the same thing. Your first sentence to me is unbiblical because Jesus Christ is all about setting captives free healing and deliverance you were right in feeling the way you did. Christ made a way for our freedom Lets say I have unforgiveness in my heart. Based on the scriptures that say through Christ I am forgiven all wrong doing when I acknowledge and repent for any ill/wrong doing taking accountability for it.
When I acknowldege/ confess/ repent he forgives me. What happens when I choose to do that and forgive the one who hurt me. The spiritual tie is broken. That spiritual tie had the right to be there because I gave it place. Once it is broken I am no longer tied to that person. Im now free from the unforgiving spirit. This is real and it works. I call it practical christianity. Yes I agree. That is how it is supposed to work, but because of our imperfections and our struggles with our own human nature, the enemy of our souls works on us too and that tends to make us weak and insecure. He worked on Jesus too in the wilderness , but he was no match for Jesus, the perfect one.He has many devices and ways to try entrap us weaklings with doubts and fears. We need to maintain a very strong faith and trust in God and in Jesus our example.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Sept 25, 2014 7:36:39 GMT -5
Has there been any period of time or area where this was not the case? Depending on the age group considered perhaps not most but certainly many. In an article published in the Magazine of History it was noted that: Marriage and birth records from the late 1700s reveal that between 30 to 40 percent of New England brides were pregnant before marriage.I was not asking about the rest of the world, but about those raised in a church, and in particular a church that is strict in so many ways and that claims to be spiritually superior to other churches. My husband grew up in a church where they were taught about these things, and most of young people (when he was in that age group) were not sexually active. My 12 year-old's church group has had a whole series of lessons on pre-marital relationships, and I'm sure they'll hear it again and again. I tend to agree with persons saying pre-marital sex is prevalent. With regards to the teaching sometimes we will hear the odd passing reference to fornication at a convention but that’s about it. Pre-marital sex could be briefly explained a little better but on the whole I’m actually glad that I haven’t heard workers attempt to teach along these lines. Personally I think this topic demands a certain level of expertise such as ability to talk about the emotional aspects, talk about STD’s pregnancy etc. I suppose if there are no other options I’d rather have parents than workers attempt such teachings.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 25, 2014 9:05:19 GMT -5
I tend to agree with persons saying pre-marital sex is prevalent. With regards to the teaching sometimes we will hear the odd passing reference to fornication at a convention but that’s about it. Pre-marital sex could be briefly explained a little better but on the whole I’m actually glad that I haven’t heard workers attempt to teach along these lines. Personally I think this topic demands a certain level of expertise such as ability to talk about the emotional aspects, talk about STD’s pregnancy etc. I suppose if there are no other options I’d rather have parents than workers attempt such teachings. Not sure I understand your post. This is the responsibility of the parents. The fact that so many parents don't/won't/can't bring themselves to talk to their children about sex highlights the reason there are so many issues regarding sex. It is one of the primary reasons why sex education was brought into the the school system - someone needed to talk to children about a very basic reproductive function in a concrete and non-judgmental way. As the designated sex-ed teacher of high-school students, I was appalled at the lack of information/misinformation I observed in the students. And it was the one subject that had almost perfect attendance. Teaching abstinence-only might seem like a good idea but if not a balanced presentation it has been shown to drive up STD and unwanted pregnancy rates. Children/young adults need to know how their bodies function and understand the possible consequences of their actions.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 26, 2014 13:48:51 GMT -5
rational Now being in your sex -ed class? That would have been a giggle.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 26, 2014 14:45:38 GMT -5
rational Now being in your sex -ed class? That would have been a giggle. Why would it have been a "giggle?"
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Sept 26, 2014 16:06:24 GMT -5
I was not asking about the rest of the world, but about those raised in a church, and in particular a church that is strict in so many ways and that claims to be spiritually superior to other churches. My husband grew up in a church where they were taught about these things, and most of young people (when he was in that age group) were not sexually active. My 12 year-old's church group has had a whole series of lessons on pre-marital relationships, and I'm sure they'll hear it again and again. I tend to agree with persons saying premarital sex is prevalent. With regards to the teaching sometimes we will hear the odd passing reference to fornication at a convention but that’s about it. Pre-marital sex could be briefly explained a little better but on the whole I’m actually glad that I haven’t heard workers attempt to teach along these lines. Personally I think this topic demands a certain level of expertise such as ability to talk about the emotional aspects, talk about STD’s pregnancy etc. I suppose if there are no other options I’d rather have parents than workers attempt such teachings. I agree that parents have primary responsibility in this and all areas. It would be awkward for members of celibate ministry to teach about premarital sex. But I do wonder why kids are not getting instruction at home? What is the solution for kids in the fellowship? Who is going to teach them if parents are not? Of course, here I mean, who is going to teach them about relationships from the spiritual perspective, the question being: why are so many professing teens engaging in premarital sex?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 26, 2014 19:28:28 GMT -5
rational Now being in your sex -ed class? That would have been a giggle. Why would it have been a "giggle?"
Lol put it down to my humour. Im sure he understood. Nothing sinister. Just him being so factual and serious me being a giggling teen.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 27, 2014 20:06:57 GMT -5
I agree that parents have primary responsibility in this and all areas. It would be awkward for members of celibate ministry to teach about premarital sex. But I do wonder why kids are not getting instruction at home? For the same reason that their parents did not, for the most part, get training. Adults do not talk about sex around the table in the evening.Hopefully they attend a school with a good sex-ed plan and their parents will give them permission to attend.Their peers have a whole lot of untruths, half-truths, true things to tell them.Because they are human. This also highlights why they are not being taught at home - sex is a biological function, not a spiritual function. The best plan is to make sex as normal as any other biological function. There is a time and a place but every one has the equipment and they need to know how it functions, what is it's purpose, and what are the possible consequences operating the equipment. For a start I would teach children the correct names and functions. Little boys have a penis and they urinate. That way everyone knows what is being talked about. Do you have children? Who educated them about sex?
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Sept 27, 2014 22:15:36 GMT -5
I agree that parents have primary responsibility in this and all areas. It would be awkward for members of celibate ministry to teach about premarital sex. But I do wonder why kids are not getting instruction at home? For the same reason that their parents did not, for the most part, get training. Adults do not talk about sex around the table in the evening.Hopefully they attend a school with a good sex-ed plan and their parents will give them permission to attend.Their peers have a whole lot of untruths, half-truths, true things to tell them.Because they are human. This also highlights why they are not being taught at home - sex is a biological function, not a spiritual function. The best plan is to make sex as normal as any other biological function. There is a time and a place but every one has the equipment and they need to know how it functions, what is it's purpose, and what are the possible consequences operating the equipment. For a start I would teach children the correct names and functions. Little boys have a penis and they urinate. That way everyone knows what is being talked about. Do you have children? Who educated them about sex? First of all, I was not talking about sex education (the biology of it), but about spiritual teaching on premarital sex. Second, as I have already told you in a different thread, this is a forum for those with a Christian background (spent some time in 2x2 church), so everybody understands that at least for Christians, anything that has to do with relationships has a spiritual dimension. (Minus the workers, of course, some of whom would agree with you that sex is only a biological function.) Third, I was engaged in conversation with those who were also talking about sex from the spiritual perspective. It is quite rude to interject statements that have nothing to do with the conversation. Please, consider that I completely understand and accept that for you there is no spiritual dimension and that you do not look at anything from the spiritual perspective. There is no need to keep repeating yourself.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 27, 2014 23:21:25 GMT -5
For the same reason that their parents did not, for the most part, get training. Adults do not talk about sex around the table in the evening.Hopefully they attend a school with a good sex-ed plan and their parents will give them permission to attend.Their peers have a whole lot of untruths, half-truths, true things to tell them.Because they are human. This also highlights why they are not being taught at home - sex is a biological function, not a spiritual function. The best plan is to make sex as normal as any other biological function. There is a time and a place but every one has the equipment and they need to know how it functions, what is it's purpose, and what are the possible consequences operating the equipment. For a start I would teach children the correct names and functions. Little boys have a penis and they urinate. That way everyone knows what is being talked about. Do you have children? Who educated them about sex? First of all, I was not talking about sex education (the biology of it), but about spiritual teaching on premarital sex. Second, as I have already told you in a different thread, this is a forum for those with a Christian background (spent some time in 2x2 church), so everybody understands that at least for Christians, anything that has to do with relationships has a spiritual dimension. (Minus the workers, of course, some of whom would agree with you that sex is only a biological function.) Third, I was engaged in conversation with those who were also talking about sex from the spiritual perspective. It is quite rude to interject statements that have nothing to do with the conversation. Please, consider that I completely understand and accept that for you there is no spiritual dimension and that you do not look at anything from the spiritual perspective. There is no need to keep repeating yourself. Well, pardon me. Only Christians have a spiritual dimension???
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 27, 2014 23:24:10 GMT -5
First of all, I was not talking about sex education (the biology of it), but about spiritual teaching on premarital sex. I am wondering how much you have worked with adolescents that you think that the biological and spiritual aspects of sex can be uncoupled. So you keep saying but the OP of this thread was denied taking the emblems only because she/they did not properly use birth control. They got caught. Actually, they were talking about both sides of the coin. While you were considering this from a spiritual point of view I interjected my opinions, rude or not, because I was also considering several surveys that show that the teen birth rate is correlated with the religiosity at the state level to a high degree(P<0.0005), and that the more religious states have a higher rate of teen birth. This, to me, speaks to the need focus on preventing teen pregnancy and religion does not seem to be holding its own against the hormones of teens. But it must be said that religiosity does tend to delay the age of first sexual encounter. So it is more a matter of what your goals are. 1) To prevent teens from having sex? 2) To prevent the spread of STDs? 3) To lower the abortion rate? 4) To reduce the teen pregnancy rate? #1 is the tough one. I think children should all be raised with a code of behavior. You probably call it a spiritual code derived from the bible or other sacred text and I would call it a moral code or moral compass that allows the person to make ethical decisions.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 27, 2014 23:25:29 GMT -5
First of all, I was not talking about sex education (the biology of it), but about spiritual teaching on premarital sex. Second, as I have already told you in a different thread, this is a forum for those with a Christian background (spent some time in 2x2 church), so everybody understands that at least for Christians, anything that has to do with relationships has a spiritual dimension. (Minus the workers, of course, some of whom would agree with you that sex is only a biological function.) Third, I was engaged in conversation with those who were also talking about sex from the spiritual perspective. It is quite rude to interject statements that have nothing to do with the conversation. Please, consider that I completely understand and accept that for you there is no spiritual dimension and that you do not look at anything from the spiritual perspective. There is no need to keep repeating yourself. Well, pardon me. Only Christians have a spiritual dimension??? It might be part of the exclusiveness.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 27, 2014 23:29:03 GMT -5
Well, pardon me. Only Christians have a spiritual dimension??? It might be part of the exclusiveness. Undoubtedly.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Sept 28, 2014 7:43:11 GMT -5
I tend to agree with persons saying pre-marital sex is prevalent. With regards to the teaching sometimes we will hear the odd passing reference to fornication at a convention but that’s about it. Pre-marital sex could be briefly explained a little better but on the whole I’m actually glad that I haven’t heard workers attempt to teach along these lines. Personally I think this topic demands a certain level of expertise such as ability to talk about the emotional aspects, talk about STD’s pregnancy etc. I suppose if there are no other options I’d rather have parents than workers attempt such teachings. Not sure I understand your post. This is the responsibility of the parents. The fact that so many parents don't/won't/can't bring themselves to talk to their children about sex highlights the reason there are so many issues regarding sex. It is one of the primary reasons why sex education was brought into the the school system - someone needed to talk to children about a very basic reproductive function in a concrete and non-judgmental way. As the designated sex-ed teacher of high-school students, I was appalled at the lack of information/misinformation I observed in the students. And it was the one subject that had almost perfect attendance. Teaching abstinence-only might seem like a good idea but if not a balanced presentation it has been shown to drive up STD and unwanted pregnancy rates. Children/young adults need to know how their bodies function and understand the possible consequences of their actions. Poor wording see strikethrough and some further clarification. Parents could take advantage of available options. For example our school first offered a sex ed course for 10-11 year olds. Parents had to give permission and (maybe?) pay a small fee. The courses organised by schools, that I have attended, have been fairly comprehensive but what was missing were any links to biblical teachings. I think parents, who believe that the bible is important, should be ready to discuss sex and relationships as mentioned in the bible. I can remember discussing as a teen with other teens about what specific activities were biblically permissible. Quite a lot of emphasis on the permissible from memory and certainly in the realm of needing some education. I don't think in the course of the conversation anybody considered that perhaps v,x,y will very probably tempt a person to end up doing Z. Nor do i think there was any thought to any spiritual or emotional connections created by v,x,y or z. So as embarrassing as it might be this is a discussion that I think is important for parent's to talk about well before the circumstances arise. I don't think workers can do this and I don't think a general comment 'the bible teaches abstinence' is going to be enough.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 28, 2014 12:34:55 GMT -5
Poor wording see strikethrough and some further clarification. Parents could take advantage of available options. For example our school first offered a sex ed course for 10-11 year olds.[/quote]But this is about 9 years too late to be starting. This is why children fall prey to sexual abuse - they have no information to go on. Nothing is presented as a platform from which to make decisions.It should be a twp pronged approach. Let the schools deal with the biological side and the church deal with the spiritual side. My experience with church groups is that they should not be in the sex education business. And you probably feel schools should not be in the spiritual guidance business either. There are certain areas where because of their culture and misunderstanding, teens engage in all forms of sexual activity except coitus because they have been told to save themselves for marriage. And "all kinds" of sexual activity really means all kinds. But they can still claim (believe??) to be a virgin so the aspect of sin is reduced or eliminated. After all, the bible does not speak out specifically against cunnilingus/fellatio not against women engaging in anal sex.It is still my opinion that these are family issues. I agree and I also think that teaching abstinence only is a grave mistake.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Sept 28, 2014 13:35:42 GMT -5
First of all, I was not talking about sex education (the biology of it), but about spiritual teaching on premarital sex. I am wondering how much you have worked with adolescents that you think that the biological and spiritual aspects of sex can be uncoupled. So you keep saying but the OP of this thread was denied taking the emblems only because she/they did not properly use birth control. They got caught. Actually, they were talking about both sides of the coin. While you were considering this from a spiritual point of view I interjected my opinions, rude or not, because I was also considering several surveys that show that the teen birth rate is correlated with the religiosity at the state level to a high degree(P<0.0005), and that the more religious states have a higher rate of teen birth. This, to me, speaks to the need focus on preventing teen pregnancy and religion does not seem to be holding its own against the hormones of teens. But it must be said that religiosity does tend to delay the age of first sexual encounter. So it is more a matter of what your goals are. 1) To prevent teens from having sex? 2) To prevent the spread of STDs? 3) To lower the abortion rate? 4) To reduce the teen pregnancy rate? #1 is the tough one. I think children should all be raised with a code of behavior. You probably call it a spiritual code derived from the bible or other sacred text and I would call it a moral code or moral compass that allows the person to make ethical decisions. Again, I don't understand where you get the idea I was talking about sex education. In reply to Ellie, you said: " It should be a twp pronged approach. Let the schools deal with the biological side and the church deal with the spiritual side. My experience with church groups is that they should not be in the sex education business. And you probably feel schools should not be in the spiritual guidance business either." I completely agree with that, and even if I didn't, that is the obvious reality. And, of course, parents should have the primary role in both.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Sept 28, 2014 13:46:09 GMT -5
First of all, I was not talking about sex education (the biology of it), but about spiritual teaching on premarital sex. Second, as I have already told you in a different thread, this is a forum for those with a Christian background (spent some time in 2x2 church), so everybody understands that at least for Christians, anything that has to do with relationships has a spiritual dimension. (Minus the workers, of course, some of whom would agree with you that sex is only a biological function.) Third, I was engaged in conversation with those who were also talking about sex from the spiritual perspective. It is quite rude to interject statements that have nothing to do with the conversation. Please, consider that I completely understand and accept that for you there is no spiritual dimension and that you do not look at anything from the spiritual perspective. There is no need to keep repeating yourself. Well, pardon me. Only Christians have a spiritual dimension??? Very funny Your spiritual dimension is actually coming through very clear even through the internet Or... was that actually a serious question??? Perhaps it's not clear that I was referring to a conversations with Rational on another thread, in which he claimed that it is erroneous for me to talk about certain issues from the spiritual perspective, because he doesn't believe that there is a spiritual aspect/dimension to anything. That's what I was referring to when I said that "at least for Christians, anything that has to do with relationships has a a spiritual dimension." I mean, think about it: if I am a Christian, that means that I believe that everyone has a "spiritual dimension," whether they believe it or not, so how could I say that non-Christians don't have a spiritual dimension??? That would be contradicting myself.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Sept 28, 2014 13:52:11 GMT -5
Well, pardon me. Only Christians have a spiritual dimension??? It might be part of the exclusiveness. Yes, in fact, from now on, I banish you to the world of matter and take away your spiritual dimension and access to the spiritual realm! I'll banish Bob too, so you have somebody too keep you company. If you stop mocking, perhaps I'll reverse that. Ahh, the power of exclusiveness!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 28, 2014 14:30:00 GMT -5
It might be part of the exclusiveness. Yes, in fact, from now on, I banish you to the world of matter and take away your spiritual dimension and access to the spiritual realm! I'll banish Bob too, so you have somebody too keep you company. If you stop mocking, perhaps I'll reverse that. Ahh, the power of exclusiveness! Poor Bob & Rational.
Sounds as if the self-proclaimed Goddess with her self-endowed power has just banished you two from her exclusive realm of imagined spirituality where she reigns supreme!
Poor lost boys!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 28, 2014 17:40:58 GMT -5
Well, pardon me. Only Christians have a spiritual dimension??? Very funny Your spiritual dimension is actually coming through very clear even through the internet Or... was that actually a serious question??? Perhaps it's not clear that I was referring to a conversations with Rational on another thread, in which he claimed that it is erroneous for me to talk about certain issues from the spiritual perspective, because he doesn't believe that there is a spiritual aspect/dimension to anything. That's what I was referring to when I said that "at least for Christians, anything that has to do with relationships has a a spiritual dimension." I mean, think about it: if I am a Christian, that means that I believe that everyone has a "spiritual dimension," whether they believe it or not, so how could I say that non-Christians don't have a spiritual dimension??? That would be contradicting myself. Yes, that actually was a serious question. And it was clear to me who you were talking to and what you said. But rational didn't say there was no spiritual dimension to ANYTHING, he said there was no spiritual dimension to sex education -- and I add: in humans or in dogs or in bumble bees. And I know what you think because you are a "Christian" -- everything is spiritual -- perhaps even washing the dishes as one worker suggested. What you're really referring to is a Christian code of moral conduct, which has no basis in sexual biology or sexuality. The problem with such a Christian concept of sex education is that they are more interested in preventing unmarried people from having sex than in the science of human biology. The equivalent to "spiritual dimension" in non-Christian lingo is "moral and ethical consciousness" -- principles above one's greedy human nature. It works every bit as well for sexual instruction as does Christian spiritual dimension -- just without the Christian judgment aspect. And from your response I am more convinced than before you answered that you were implying that non-Christians had no moral guidance when it comes to sex education. I resent that. And I assume that unless you e-mail someone privately that it was posted for everyone to read, and respond to.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 28, 2014 17:52:37 GMT -5
Not sure I understand your post. This is the responsibility of the parents. The fact that so many parents don't/won't/can't bring themselves to talk to their children about sex highlights the reason there are so many issues regarding sex. It is one of the primary reasons why sex education was brought into the the school system - someone needed to talk to children about a very basic reproductive function in a concrete and non-judgmental way. As the designated sex-ed teacher of high-school students, I was appalled at the lack of information/misinformation I observed in the students. And it was the one subject that had almost perfect attendance. Teaching abstinence-only might seem like a good idea but if not a balanced presentation it has been shown to drive up STD and unwanted pregnancy rates. Children/young adults need to know how their bodies function and understand the possible consequences of their actions. Poor wording see strikethrough and some further clarification. Parents could take advantage of available options. For example our school first offered a sex ed course for 10-11 year olds. Parents had to give permission and (maybe?) pay a small fee. The courses organised by schools, that I have attended, have been fairly comprehensive but what was missing were any links to biblical teachings. I think parents, who believe that the bible is important, should be ready to discuss sex and relationships as mentioned in the bible. I can remember discussing as a teen with other teens about what specific activities were biblically permissible. Quite a lot of emphasis on the permissible from memory and certainly in the realm of needing some education. I don't think in the course of the conversation anybody considered that perhaps v,x,y will very probably tempt a person to end up doing Z. Nor do i think there was any thought to any spiritual or emotional connections created by v,x,y or z. So as embarrassing as it might be this is a discussion that I think is important for parent's to talk about well before the circumstances arise. I don't think workers can do this and I don't think a general comment 'the bible teaches abstinence' is going to be enough. The problem with your Bible approach is that there is more non-Christian sexuality sanctioned than Christian sexual conduct. Rape, incest, fornication, plural marriage, you name it. And do you want a public school teacher explaining the Song of Solomon to your 10-11 year old. I know adults that that consider it sheer pornography. Anyway, you can take comfort in the fact that public school sex education programs have coincided acceptable with the decrease in teen pregnancies in this country.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 28, 2014 17:56:45 GMT -5
It might be part of the exclusiveness. Yes, in fact, from now on, I banish you to the world of matter and take away your spiritual dimension and access to the spiritual realm! I'll banish Bob too, so you have somebody too keep you company. If you stop mocking, perhaps I'll reverse that. Ahh, the power of exclusiveness! I wasn't mocking you. I was aghast at your Christian self-righteousness.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 28, 2014 18:05:39 GMT -5
Well, pardon me. Only Christians have a spiritual dimension??? Very funny Your spiritual dimension is actually coming through very clear even through the internet Or... was that actually a serious question??? Perhaps it's not clear that I was referring to a conversations with Rational on another thread, in which he claimed that it is erroneous for me to talk about certain issues from the spiritual perspective, because he doesn't believe that there is a spiritual aspect/dimension to anything. That's what I was referring to when I said that "at least for Christians, anything that has to do with relationships has a a spiritual dimension." I mean, think about it: if I am a Christian, that means that I believe that everyone has a "spiritual dimension," whether they believe it or not, so how could I say that non-Christians don't have a spiritual dimension??? That would be contradicting myself. Maja, would you print the post where Rational, or anyone else, for that matter; "claimed that it is erroneous to talk about certain issues from the spiritual perspective, because they don't believe that there is a spiritual aspect/dimension to anything?"
I can't seem to find such a post.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 28, 2014 18:09:11 GMT -5
Again, I don't understand where you get the idea I was talking about sex education. Well, you posted: I agree that parents have primary responsibility in this and all areas. It would be awkward for members of celibate ministry to teach about premarital sex. But I do wonder why kids are not getting instruction at home? What is the solution for kids in the fellowship? Who is going to teach them if parents are not? Of course, here I mean, who is going to teach them about relationships from the spiritual perspective, the question being: why are so many professing teens engaging in premarital sex?I think I see the source of your question. You stated that it would be awkward for the workers to teach about premarital sex. You then wondered why the children were not getting taught at home. You then asked who would teach them if the parents didn't. You then seemed to change direction and specified that it was relationships from a spiritual perspective that you were questioning. I don't see the possibility of separating the physical from the spiritual when talking to these things with children. It is not as obvious to everyone as it might be to you.How many parents do you think are up to the task? Besides the knowledge there is communication piece. Not great in all families.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 28, 2014 18:14:35 GMT -5
Yes, in fact, from now on, I banish you to the world of matter and take away your spiritual dimension and access to the spiritual realm! I'll banish Bob too, so you have somebody too keep you company. If you stop mocking, perhaps I'll reverse that. Ahh, the power of exclusiveness! Poor Bob & Rational.
Sounds as if the self-proclaimed Goddess with her self-endowed power has just banished you two from her exclusive realm of imagined spirituality where she reigns supreme!
Poor lost boys!
You need a lot more than spiritual intervention to call upon when confronted with a 13 year old lesbian prostitute, or a 14 year old who manscapes his pubes, or a 15 year old pimp who recruits in church, or the 16 year old who gets into a gang by letting the leader rape his girlfriend. And pastors' kids were AMONG the worst of them all. Christian guidance is too sterile to appropriately teach children to "HANDLE" these matters.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 28, 2014 18:15:40 GMT -5
Perhaps it's not clear that I was referring to a conversations with Rational on another thread, in which he claimed that it is erroneous for me to talk about certain issues from the spiritual perspective, because he doesn't believe that there is a spiritual aspect/dimension to anything. I don't believe I said there was not a spiritual dimension. I believe I said that addressing the spiritual side was not the way to solve the problem. You can place a spiritual dimension on everything. My experience has been that while it is something many people believe in I have not seen it solve a lot of real world problems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2014 18:19:43 GMT -5
My wife attended a funeral yesterday in an Anglican Church and she brought home the booklet with the order of service and in it is printed The Apostles's Creed. And near the end it says: I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen. So Anglicans do believe in the holy Catholic Church., according to the Apostles's creed they have adopted.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 28, 2014 18:21:12 GMT -5
Poor Bob & Rational.
Sounds as if the self-proclaimed Goddess with her self-endowed power has just banished you two from her exclusive realm of imagined spirituality where she reigns supreme!
Poor lost boys! I think this response is uncalled for. People have different positions/beliefs and when they are voiced they should be responded to, if one wishes, but personal attacks do not engender open discussion. mdm expressed her/his opinion. I think there was a slight misunderstanding in the discussion between mdm and myself that led us off track for a bit.
|
|