Welcome to Gaia! ::

Sometimes some people offend without meaning to. And sometimes people aren't offended by something that is meant to be offensive. Example: Some people can be offended by others when they mention that they are short, or when they mention anything about money while there are a lot of people out there who do not care if someone calls them short or mentions about how little money they have or how much money the other person has. In this case, she was wondering about your view of the Christian God. Some people do not believe that a god has much to do with anything in their lives while there are others who believe that a god is deeply involved in their lives and not only is there with that person but also that their god has known and planned out the rest of their lives. That their god will exact revenge against certain people or possibly anything else that they ask to be done.
I know that some people might have been offended with what she said or how she said it, including myself. However, by her saying that she was able to clarify that she wasn't meaning to be sarcastic but was asking about your personal view of the Christian God.

Tsukiyo, you're right; marriage is not a strictly Christian concept.

That, you got right. Unfortunately, pretty much everything else you've said is so wrong, it's almost laughable. Almost, but not quite.

Let's start with pagan. Do you know what that word means, either in the original language or in more modern context? In the modern context, it just means "not Christian" ... or, since Christianity is an outgrowth of Judaism, we'll say "not Judeo-Christian". Pretending it means Wiccan, just because a bunch of new-age Wiccans whose knowledge of their own faith only goes back as far as Crowley's contemporaries try to claim it, is ignoring history as well as reality, and it's incredibly stupid. Could be Wiccan, could be Islamic, could be Shinto, could be "follower of Roman pantheon", could be "witch doctor from some South American tribe". Now, with some of these ... yeah, sex was relegated to marriage; many of these religions have rules against extramarital sex, or at least sex with someone else's spouse. With most of them, though ... no, it wasn't. Again, look to "follower of the Roman pantheon": now think about the infamous Roman orgies.

(For the record, folks: as I understand it, originally, pagan (or "pagani") just meant the "common people", the non-Catholic natives who were in a given place before the Catholic church moved in and took over. Yeah, it's most famous as referring to Wiccans in Britain, but it also applies to the Aztecs or the Japanese. And if there's any experts here on ancient languages, I'll ask them to correct me if I'm wrong; I confess, it's been many years since my last Latin class.)

Marriage being pre-Christian ... straw-man argument. We never said it was purely Christian. You'll find the concept of marriage all over the globe, throughout history. As far as Christianity's concerned, it dates back at least as far as Cain (a pre-Jew! From Genesis!) On the other hand, it's almost always required some sort of priestly arrangement; just shacking up doesn't cut it.

I think it's closer to 75%, actually, though frankly, I'm going to hope your statistic is accurate. If anybody here is among the lucky one-quarter (or one-half, according to your statistics) who stays with their spouse until death, I'm going to hope for their sake that they honestly love their spouse. And if the Judeo-Christian God tells us to wait ... for that matter, if the Shinto priests and the Muslim imams and the Buddha also tell us to wait, I have to say that you're outranked and outnumbered.

Oh, then how blessed we are that we are so modern, so emotionally advanced, and that we have people like you to come and explain love to us! Go flip through 1 Corinthians 13 and then try to tell me that people back then didn't understand love.

Actually, sex outside of marriage was done by lots of people, not just prostitutes. Or did you think the prostitutes were just schtupping each other, 'cause they couldn't get any men? And "falling in love with someone" was often a precursor to marriage; always has been. Granted, through most of the past thousand years, that's been overlooked in the European "nobility", but it's still been active in the common people.

Yes, and it's amazing how many people use that as an excuse to re-interpret whatever they bloody feel like. Amazing, and sad. You want to ignore the Bible, that's fine, but don't call yourself a Christian when you do it -- 'cause you're lying.

No, sex is what it's always been: sexual intercourse. Even with the special chapters of the Kama Sutra, it's hard for intercourse to be anything but intercourse. Oh, sure, we can throw oral and a**l into the mix, but it's still intercourse. And sex isn't incorporated into love; sex is justified by love and marriage together. Otherwise, it's just lust. Even the most primitive of religions admits to that one. "Lust" is desire, commonly interpreted as physical desire -- that is, desire for sex.

"Common law marriage" has been eliminated in Europe, by the by; America and Canada still recognize it for convenience, but even so, the definitions and required times vary from place to place.

==========

Now, Tsukiyo, whatever faith you might claim, it sounds like you're a pagan -- or that you don't believe the Bible. And me, I'm fine with that. Frankly, I'd rather have one non-Christian here than ten Christians, 'cause it means that maybe I'll finally get a chance to do what Jesus told us to do. Oh, I don't expect you'll believe anything I say, but at least I'll get the chance. Besides, it makes for more interesting discussions ... usually. Also, I get to learn other views and attitudes ... well, I would get to learn other views, but I've seen this one before, a hundred times.

We present our view; you present yours. That's cool. I fully expect, when my view is inaccurate, for people to correct me; I expect that, and I want that, so my view will be accurate. Plan on us doing the same for you, when your view is inaccurate.

As I said, I'd rather have one non-Christian here than ten Christians ... but don't dispute the Bible, then call yourself Christian. That's lying. Calling yourself Christian and ignoring the Bible is like calling yourself American and ignoring the Constitution ... just because half the politicians do it doesn't make them right.

Valid point indeed. Nobody can know the future, save God. And I don't care how much two people are planning on getting married; it hasn't happened yet, so it might not. Thus, the person you're having sex with might still end up with someone else. Either way, if you're not married to this person at the time of sex ... call it what you want, it's still against the rules.

Thanks. I know it's hard to believe, but I am capable of having a good idea ... once in a while.

I've tried to understand mankind and it hasn't gotten me anywhere. I just end up more confused, flustered, and further away from God than I should be. I guess the only thing to do is to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself.
I guess that the best way to understand others is to just love them the way God loves them since it can make a person more empathetic towards another.

Um ... could you give me a scripture reference on that one, please? I know where it says to have nothing do to with false believers, those who claim to be believers but are not (like Tsukiyo or ... can't remember his name, but Mister Anti-Revelation from a while back), but I can't immediately recall where it says to reject all non-Christian people.

As for viewing our faith from a non-Christian perspective, the best suggestion I could give would be "learn to let go". I mean, if I stop to think about ... oh, the Jehovah's Witnesses. They don't believe in the Trinity, and criticize us for having a "three-headed god", as one of their early leaders once said (I think it was Rutherford, but I'm not sure). I can listen to this, and listen to their logic, and even admit that some of their logic makes sense ... but I'm not going to lose any sleep over their logic disagreeing with mine. I let it go when the conversation's over. The most I might do is say to myself, "okay, these are the verses they used; what verses can I use to dispute them?"

Personally, I believe it is essential to be able to view our beliefs from an outsider's perspective. It's the only way to present our views, sometimes. How can you tell a JW that Jesus is God, if you don't know how to say it in a way that they'll hear? And, as Vondra said, it can make you more empathetic ... which is to say, more loving.

In the same way, there's a number of Christian beliefs I don't hold. Hang on, folks; don't tar-and-feather me yet. I've never understood why Southern Baptists are against dancing. I don't know why the mode of baptism matters (dipping, sprinkling, or none -- that is, bath, shower, or stink). And good old Dungeons & Dragons, an instrument of Satan? Oh, please! I can draw a direct connection between my presence in this guild and my early D&D playing. So there's a lot of beliefs I don't hold ... but I've learned why people do hold them. So I can sympathize with them, even when I disagree with them. And I know not to break into dance in front of Meadow's family.

But that's just me. By your own confession, your faith is weak right now ... and I wouldn't try to force my view on you, unless you were bound and determined to be an evangelist. It might be that yours is the kind of faith that's best with comfort and familiarity, as mine is the kind that's best with some kind of conflict. We are each different.

I dunno. I used to be that way, but I think it led me away from Christ. Just trusting Him for wisdom and words is enough, personally.

And learning facts about another person's religion isn't quite the same as trying to make sense of their perspective. For instance, I don't want to empathize with a former Christian who is bitter toward God. That slightly embitters ME. Nor do I want to understand an athiests testimony for why God does not it exist. It causes me to have doubt.

I'll pursue the lost with a loving interest, but I'm not going to try to understand their reasons for not trusting God. I'm done with thinking that way.

Like I said, I used to feel that way, too. Now I realize I was making up excuses to keep one foot in the world and one foot in God's realm, which is a very unpleasant place to be.

I used to be just like Joel Osteen - I would present my view of God in a way that was pleasing to the world in hopes I would appear convincing. My argument mattered more to me than truth. In actuality, the Bible is offensive to non-believers. It's offensive to believers who think they are walking right. It's almost devastating when you realize exactly how much you fall short, and that there is absolutely nothing you can do to get into heaven. God's mercy and grace is the only thing that saves you. And if you aren't experiencing some kind of struggle in your walk with God, then I'd question myself.

This idea that we need to be open-minded leads us into deception. I'll listen to and pray for people who aren't saved, but I'm not going to try to look at the world as they do. Because I know the truth. I know what God's word says. Anything different is of the enemy, and I want no part of it.