|
Post by mdm on Sept 30, 2014 12:33:25 GMT -5
Again, that was just a funny way to answer a question that came across to me as weird and uncalled for. To answer your question, NO, I would not be offended, upset or accuse you of being condescending for telling me what you believe or think, in this case that there is nothing in me that exists independent of the body and that lives on after the death of the body (spiritual dimension). How could your belief affect me?? And why would I chose to participate in a forum pertaining to a religious group, with participants of different persuasions or You still don't get it, maja.
It isn't to do with you telling me what you believe, -it isn't to do with me telling you what I believe. It is the phrase that you now keep leaving out of your original statement.
You tell us what you believe, "that you believe that everyone has a "spiritual dimension." Ok. I have no problem with that. If that is what you believe, -that is what you believe!
It is the add-on phrase which you conveniently now ignore, "that everyone has a "spiritual dimension," whether they believe it or not,....."
I simply do not like to be told by anyone that just because they believe something is true, in this case, "that everyone has a "spiritual dimension," that indeed I do have what they claim "whether I believe it or not......"
It is as if it simply doesn't matter what I believe!
What is so "funny" or "weird" about my question? I had hoped that if I could made a like statement of your original statement, that you would be able to see how another person might feel.
I also don't understand how you think that this has anything to do with having a sense of humor.
I was not referring to your question there. Since reactions to my attempts to explain only prove my conclusion that there is no genuine intent to understand, I will stop here.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 30, 2014 13:07:17 GMT -5
You still don't get it, maja.
It isn't to do with you telling me what you believe, -it isn't to do with me telling you what I believe. It is the phrase that you now keep leaving out of your original statement.
You tell us what you believe, "that you believe that everyone has a "spiritual dimension." Ok. I have no problem with that. If that is what you believe, -that is what you believe!
It is the add-on phrase which you conveniently now ignore, "that everyone has a "spiritual dimension," whether they believe it or not,....."
I simply do not like to be told by anyone that just because they believe something is true, in this case, "that everyone has a "spiritual dimension," that indeed I do have what they claim "whether I believe it or not......"
It is as if it simply doesn't matter what I believe!
What is so "funny" or "weird" about my question? I had hoped that if I could made a like statement of your original statement, that you would be able to see how another person might feel.
I also don't understand how you think that this has anything to do with having a sense of humor.
I was not referring to your question there. Since reactions to my attempts to explain only prove my conclusion that there is no genuine intent to understand, I will stop here. THEN WHAT WERE YOU REFERRING TO, IF NOT MY QUESTION? My question was: if I were to say, "I mean, think about it: if I am a atheist, that means that I believe that no one has a "spiritual dimension," whether they believe it or not,....." it might help you understand better how one might feel.
YOU replied. "Again, that was just a funny way to answer a question that came across to me as weird and uncalled for. To answer your question, NO, I would not be offended, upset or accuse you of being condescending for telling me what you believe or think, in this case that there is nothing in me that exists independent of the body and that lives on after the death of the body (spiritual dimension). How could your belief affect me?? ----------------------------------------------------------- NOW, you are trying to tell me that you WERE NOT referring to my question?!
You have explained nothing, yet you just want to stop talking about it, laying the blame onto me saying that you have " concluded that there is no genuine intent to understand?!"
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 30, 2014 16:36:03 GMT -5
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. Where exactly does the bible sanction rape? I probably don't want the average public school teacher giving that explanation. Perhaps one day I'll be having a crack at explaining the Song of Songs so feel free to laugh in advance. It is a beautiful piece of literature though IMO. FWIW: (1) average public school teachers do NOT teach sex education, and (2) there is nothing in the Song of Solomon included in a public school sex ed. course. The only Biblical sex topics that are discussed in sex ed. classes are (1) CSA and (2)rape, and such classes do indeed condemn those sexual practices as well as advise kids how to deal with it -- contrary to Biblical instruction on them (or notorious lack of it) in the Bible. On the other hand, you don't have a clue what your kids are learning on the playground, on the school bus, in the school restroom, or anywhere else your kid is out of your eyesight -- a lot of Biblical stuff being taught there too.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 30, 2014 17:24:38 GMT -5
But you did call me making a post rude when I responded to one of your posts in a way that you did not think fit into the conversation as you thought it should. Different things pust people's buttons in different ways. You are absolutely right. I should not have said it was 'rude.' I apologize. I was not looking for an apology nor is one required. Just making note of the situation. This is a discussion board and if people are standing on ceremony it will most certainly limit the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Oct 1, 2014 18:41:58 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. You've about summed it up right! It really is all about the control the elder have over the younger...as in who's in charge and who's the newest convert, etc. I feel that if the workers had been very verbal about holding me back, I would not have reprofessed...but they just said for me to not take the emblems for a time until I could show my honest efforts at being true in my profession or some such words.....and then I got forgotten and went on longer then I should have! Partly my own fault I guess for not speaking up.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Oct 1, 2014 18:48:05 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 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. I would say that most of the workers, esp brother workers, likely would be able to speak about premarital sex...but likely would prefer to speak only to the male species...they might speak to the ladies alone also......there are more workers who know about this kind of thing then any of us can guess......the only thing they have not experienced is how premarital sex affects marriage. OR STD's etc. I think back to my teenage and early 20's years and I never knew of one young person within the 2x2 religion who had had pre-marital sex. However, I've found out just in recent years just how out of touch I was with the general mass of young adults in the 2x2 religion!
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Oct 6, 2014 5:58:07 GMT -5
Where exactly does the bible sanction rape? In 2 Samuel 12 the victims were delivered to the neighbor who had sex with them in view of everyone. Of course you could argue that David's wives went willingly but I think it would be a difficult thing to support. And then there are a number of times when god said kill everything but the virgins and they could keep them for themselves. In Judges 21 after they divided the virgins some of the men did not have one so they went and hid in the vineyards and kidnapped the young women to fill the gap. Sanctioned is a good word. Or condoned. They both would be accurate. Thanks. Women as property IMO.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 6, 2014 8:42:09 GMT -5
In 2 Samuel 12 the victims were delivered to the neighbor who had sex with them in view of everyone. Of course you could argue that David's wives went willingly but I think it would be a difficult thing to support. And then there are a number of times when god said kill everything but the virgins and they could keep them for themselves. In Judges 21 after they divided the virgins some of the men did not have one so they went and hid in the vineyards and kidnapped the young women to fill the gap. Sanctioned is a good word. Or condoned. They both would be accurate. Thanks. Women as property IMO. Yes. Probably rank somewhere below cattle in value.
|
|