|
|
| Is Christ the supreme authority we should live by? |
| Thy will be done. |
|
50% |
[ 6 ] |
| We're better off without it. |
|
50% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:03 am
Could it lead to the betterment of society, crushing its opposition and uniting a country under faith? Doing away with other religions and becoming the prominent authority on government and social issues, could it do away with the problems we have today concerning multiculturalism, our two party government system? Would it continue to do its good deeds to those in need such as the Salvation Army is known to do?
What are your opinions on the matter? Do you think your country would be ran better of its main source of authority was the Bible?
Now take into account you can see this as being led by both corrupted officials and by honest men and women alike. Try and view it in both lights, and offer your opinions on both.
Does this sound like your ideal society? If so, what would you do to achieve it and why? Why would you want this sort of society?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:39 am
Being vehemently anti-Christian myself, I think it's a horrible concept. And that's just from a personal perspective. From an actual historical and sociological perspective, it makes even less sense. Most of the "laws" of the Bible were invented in place of common sense, public suppression and the hatred of the predominant societies of the time that shunned them and were therefore vilified in their religious teachings which make less and less sense as time passes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:56 am
Lexia_Starr Being vehemently anti-Christian myself, I think it's a horrible concept. And that's just from a personal perspective. From an actual historical and sociological perspective, it makes even less sense. Most of the "laws" of the Bible were invented in place of common sense, public suppression and the hatred of the predominant societies of the time that shunned them and were therefore vilified in their religious teachings which make less and less sense as time passes. Pics or it didn't happen! I'm not entirely sure of the Old Testament's laws, but I believe most of it to have been written off with the new covenant Christ was said to have made with humanity. Overall I'm open to the ideas of theocracies in general. I think I would look more at the faith and its leaders of a said government rather than past examples. Much time has passed so it may not be so bad. Of course fundamentalists scare me. They'd probably wish to bring back burning people at the stake. Hmm... Your statements give me an idea for a thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:04 am
Yes, I did mean mostly the Old Testament. And yes, a lot of Christ's teachings were very good, but the churches and followers have corrupted their purpose beyond recognition, for the most part. Again, it may just be me, but most Christian ideals and laws just plain scare the s**t out of me. I mean sexual repressions, obligation to procreation, male dominance, female subservience, "obedience", personal sacrifice, servitude, worship. I mean, nothing to people who go in for that sort of thing, but to rule an entire nation by those standards is just plain backwards, in my opinion. I prefer to live my life, my way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:15 am
Lexia_Starr Yes, I did mean mostly the Old Testament. And yes, a lot of Christ's teachings were very good, but the churches and followers have corrupted their purpose beyond recognition, for the most part. Again, it may just be me, but most Christian ideals and laws just plain scare the s**t out of me. I mean sexual repressions, obligation to procreation, male dominance, female subservience, "obedience", personal sacrifice, servitude, worship. I mean, nothing to people who go in for that sort of thing, but to rule an entire nation by those standards is just plain backwards, in my opinion. I prefer to live my life, my way. Although some good may come from some of those things. Sexual repression: Is it a battle with perversion and lust? Perhaps, but if one would actually escape the internet porn and if possible medial portrayal of women as sex objects (speaking from a male perspective, female input appreciated on dealing with their lust) it could lead to... Fewer unwanted pregnancies, minimal spread of STD's, restore some sort of dignity and meaning to the act if shared with fewer partners, maybe, or maybe not reduce rape happenings. This last one is questionable. On obligation to procreation? I'm not entirely sure we're "obligated" to that. Nor am I sure there's Biblical scripture stating specifically that we should. I mean, I understand in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply, but old Hebrew scripture written for a smaller population than the U.S. and the world has today is grealty different. Not everyone is destined or designed to be married anyways. Some of us are best suited for being single and operate best that way. Paul had some rather strange ideas on women subserviance. Or did he? I was given a website maybe two months ago that answered questions I had pretty well, in a way that made things make sense. For any interested, give it a look. It may answer some of your own questions. www.gotquestions.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:38 am
Just Tony Sexual repression: Is it a battle with perversion and lust? Perhaps, but if one would actually escape the internet porn and if possible medial portrayal of women as sex objects (speaking from a male perspective, female input appreciated on dealing with their lust) it could lead to... Fewer unwanted pregnancies, minimal spread of STD's, restore some sort of dignity and meaning to the act if shared with fewer partners, maybe, or maybe not reduce rape happenings. This last one is questionable. 1) Perversion is a matter of perspective. What one may see as perverted, another may see as simply enjoyable. Outside of molesting children and animals, there really is very little that is truly perverted. Maybe eating s**t and ******** corpses, but I digress. I see nothing wrong with open sexuality or lust. Yes, there is a lot of dangers, but most stem from the puritanical view of repression which leads to a lack of education which leads to the dangers.
2) I see nothing wrong with pornography whatsoever. I honestly do not think it degrades anything or anyone or that sex ever was or ever should be "sacred" in any way. Most religious teachings touted "sexual sanctity" as little more than primitive paternity validation. Sex was only "for marriage" in order to ensure the continuation of specified bloodlines. And because so, virginity was only enforced in females. If a female was "ruined" then one could not be sure that it is her husband's children she is bearing, so she is useless to any man. Women were also ignorant to sexual pleasure so as to prevent her from seeking sexual attention elsewhere, another safeguard against paternal confusion. A man, however, was written off as "base and crude" and therefore it was expected for him to be sexual and lewd and sex was mostly just for the purpose of pleasing him and producing offspring. Brothels were more common than you'd think.
3) Rape actually has nothing to do with sex itself, it's an act of power and dominance. Just Tony On obligation to procreation? I'm not entirely sure we're "obligated" to that. Nor am I sure there's Biblical scripture stating specifically that we should. I mean, I understand in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply, but old Hebrew scripture written for a smaller population than the U.S. and the world has today is grealty different. Not everyone is destined or designed to be married anyways. Some of us are best suited for being single and operate best that way. Tell that to the people who still have 6+ kids per family. Just Tony Paul had some rather strange ideas on women subserviance. Or did he? I was given a website maybe two months ago that answered questions I had pretty well, in a way that made things make sense. For any interested, give it a look. It may answer some of your own questions. www.gotquestions.orgI'll look into it, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:58 pm
Lexia_Starr Just Tony Sexual repression: Is it a battle with perversion and lust? Perhaps, but if one would actually escape the internet porn and if possible medial portrayal of women as sex objects (speaking from a male perspective, female input appreciated on dealing with their lust) it could lead to... Fewer unwanted pregnancies, minimal spread of STD's, restore some sort of dignity and meaning to the act if shared with fewer partners, maybe, or maybe not reduce rape happenings. This last one is questionable. 1) Perversion is a matter of perspective. What one may see as perverted, another may see as simply enjoyable. Outside of molesting children and animals, there really is very little that is truly perverted. Maybe eating s**t and ******** corpses, but I digress. I see nothing wrong with open sexuality or lust. Yes, there is a lot of dangers, but most stem from the puritanical view of repression which leads to a lack of education which leads to the dangers.
2) I see nothing wrong with pornography whatsoever. I honestly do not think it degrades anything or anyone or that sex ever was or ever should be "sacred" in any way. Most religious teachings touted "sexual sanctity" as little more than primitive paternity validation. Sex was only "for marriage" in order to ensure the continuation of specified bloodlines. And because so, virginity was only enforced in females. If a female was "ruined" then one could not be sure that it is her husband's children she is bearing, so she is useless to any man. Women were also ignorant to sexual pleasure so as to prevent her from seeking sexual attention elsewhere, another safeguard against paternal confusion. A man, however, was written off as "base and crude" and therefore it was expected for him to be sexual and lewd and sex was mostly just for the purpose of pleasing him and producing offspring. Brothels were more common than you'd think.
3) Rape actually has nothing to do with sex itself, it's an act of power and dominance. Just Tony On obligation to procreation? I'm not entirely sure we're "obligated" to that. Nor am I sure there's Biblical scripture stating specifically that we should. I mean, I understand in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply, but old Hebrew scripture written for a smaller population than the U.S. and the world has today is grealty different. Not everyone is destined or designed to be married anyways. Some of us are best suited for being single and operate best that way. Tell that to the people who still have 6+ kids per family. Just Tony Paul had some rather strange ideas on women subserviance. Or did he? I was given a website maybe two months ago that answered questions I had pretty well, in a way that made things make sense. For any interested, give it a look. It may answer some of your own questions. www.gotquestions.orgI'll look into it, thanks. I'm more suited of being a loner razz I'm not an expert like Tony but I'm still learning about Christ. To me, humans are created to help others. The life of violence and death isn't something you would want to live.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:03 pm
Lexia_Starr Being vehemently anti-Christian myself, I think it's a horrible concept. And that's just from a personal perspective. From an actual historical and sociological perspective, it makes even less sense. Most of the "laws" of the Bible were invented in place of common sense, public suppression and the hatred of the predominant societies of the time that shunned them and were therefore vilified in their religious teachings which make less and less sense as time passes. That's basically on your inference. It really makes sense if you think about it. Would you want to be raped, molested, killed just on your physical appearance because on one's opinion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:15 pm
Guardian of the Heavens I'm more suited of being a loner razz I'm not an expert like Tony but I'm still learning about Christ. To me, humans are created to help others. The life of violence and death isn't something you would want to live. Don't overrate me bro. I'm not an expert at or on anything. I wouldn't even dare think of myself in that light. Pride leads to hurt feelings, or can at the least. You're as able as I am to discuss this subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:30 pm
I believe this is a terrible idea and really is one that could only still be brought up in this country. Europe is post-catholic and this isn't even an issue in the east, so something like this would make us look like we belong in the middle ages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 1:00 am
Guardian of the Heavens Lexia_Starr Being vehemently anti-Christian myself, I think it's a horrible concept. And that's just from a personal perspective. From an actual historical and sociological perspective, it makes even less sense. Most of the "laws" of the Bible were invented in place of common sense, public suppression and the hatred of the predominant societies of the time that shunned them and were therefore vilified in their religious teachings which make less and less sense as time passes. That's basically on your inference. It really makes sense if you think about it. Would you want to be raped, molested, killed just on your physical appearance because on one's opinion? I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 4:49 am
WillWintter I believe this is a terrible idea and really is one that could only still be brought up in this country. Europe is post-catholic and this isn't even an issue in the east, so something like this would make us look like we belong in the middle ages. The idea isn't pertaining to a literal Catholicism led theocracy. It could be Christians, perhaps even moderate ones, of today's standings. Things change over time with insight and learning. So I was thinking of looking at it more in terms with today's light. Of course it could be led by fundies that wish to destroy anything not of their caliber of faith, but it could also be led by others as well. The subject was meant to look at both ways of thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:50 pm
Just Tony WillWintter I believe this is a terrible idea and really is one that could only still be brought up in this country. Europe is post-catholic and this isn't even an issue in the east, so something like this would make us look like we belong in the middle ages. The idea isn't pertaining to a literal Catholicism led theocracy. It could be Christians, perhaps even moderate ones, of today's standings. Things change over time with insight and learning. So I was thinking of looking at it more in terms with today's light. Of course it could be led by fundies that wish to destroy anything not of their caliber of faith, but it could also be led by others as well. The subject was meant to look at both ways of thinking. You misunderstand my use of catholic, the word post-catholic refers to the fact that religion has little to no influence because people no longer need it. It has nothing to do with the Catholic church.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:43 am
Ok, where to begin?
This is a good subject. I believe that the basic guidelines of christianity are common sence. The majority of the U.S. population doesn't want to murder anyone, or be murdered themselfs. The same can be said for stealing, lieing, being cheated, and for those not in agreement with their spouce, adultry. At least these five of the ten comandments are a "common" sence among us, and I believe that, as base lines of laws, they would do quite well, It's my belief that people get caught up and confused as soon as the "fine print" starts comming in. Where do we draw the line? Type questions start to appear and we jump right back into the red tape of society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:05 am
Just Tony Could it lead to the betterment of society, crushing its opposition and uniting a country under faith? Doing away with other religions and becoming the prominent authority on government and social issues, could it do away with the problems we have today concerning multiculturalism, our two party government system? Would it continue to do its good deeds to those in need such as the Salvation Army is known to do? What are your opinions on the matter? Do you think your country would be ran better of its main source of authority was the Bible? Now take into account you can see this as being led by both corrupted officials and by honest men and women alike. Try and view it in both lights, and offer your opinions on both. Does this sound like your ideal society? If so, what would you do to achieve it and why? Why would you want this sort of society? No, it couldn't. There is a reason for the separation of church and state. Not to prevent religion from having a role in government but rather to prevent the government from making ONE religion/sect THEreligion. The Puritans who were some of the original colonists had experience with this in England before they got tired of trying to fix the problems from within and left to start anew. It might start with honest people but they either lose track of what they started out to do or they die/resign and somebody less scrupolous takes their place. A particular danger is that once one religion is recognized as the right religion, it tends to persecute the other religions/sect present. Also, damaging is the tendency of the state religion to split and form two similiar but different sects and fight it out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
