Vigile Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Therefore, to impute onto church leaders some specific intention to suppress sexuality is misguided. They are only doing what they think is correct, and are themselves victims of the same virus.. It makes no difference. I'm not sure why you are hung up on this point of semantics. We get that many of them believe their own bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 My point is, the leaders are sheep. We are going to have to agree to disagree. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I just can't see the people at the very top not figuring it out. In my opinion once they start acting to protect the con they have to know on some level that it's a con. Which people at the top are you referring to? Outside the the Catholic church, the hierarchy tends to end at the pastor. I'm sure many pastors are just as deluded as their sheep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SquareOne Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 It makes no difference. I'm not sure why you are hung up on this point of semantics. We get that many of them believe their own bullshit. It's not semantics. There are two entirely different ideas in play. 1. Christian leaders deliberately suppress sexuality because they want to suppress sexuality. OR 2. Christian leaders suppress sexuality because they think it is the right thing to do owing entirely to a wider system of beliefs. And I am saying that, you, I, and the majority of the people in this thread, tend towards thinking the second idea is true in the vast majority of cases. I think that is a distinction worth making. That is what my original comment was driving at; as a counter to the suggestion that I perceived was being made here (and which at any rate is certainly made by many people who have no experience of the church) that Christian leaders deliberately suppress sexuality for its own sake. Because to believe such a thing, is incorrect, in relation to the vast majority of the church. (In my opinion.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 1. Christian leaders deliberately suppress sexuality because they want to suppress sexuality. OR 2. Christian leaders suppress sexuality because they think it is the right thing to do owing entirely to a wider system of beliefs. 3. Christian leaders are too victims of a belief system originally designed to control people. History bears this out. What I think others are doing here is just panning back to a broader picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 My point is, the leaders are sheep. We are going to have to agree to disagree. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I just can't see the people at the very top not figuring it out. In my opinion once they start acting to protect the con they have to know on some level that it's a con. Which people at the top are you referring to? Outside the the Catholic church, the hierarchy tends to end at the pastor. I'm sure many pastors are just as deluded as their sheep. I'm sure you are right about many pastors being deluded. However some get rich. When a pastor strikes it rich and keeps the money for himself I think it's safe to assume he isn't afraid of any God watching him. The desperate tactics of emotional manipulation that kept a struggling church alive are continued even when the Church becomes wealthy and money goes to the pastor's lifestyle and to hire his prostitutes. The most successful pastors are the ones with the most power and influence on docterine and also they are usually the ones who keep piles of money for themselves. There are, of course, exceptions to the trend. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Because to believe such a thing, is incorrect, in relation to the vast majority of the church. The vast majority of the church does not issue statements, write the Bible, edit the Bible or preach sermons. You don't have power in Christianity unless you are near the very top of a sect or "ministry". And what do we see from those at the top? The ones talking sexual repression are molesting children or seducing their own members or getting caught with mistresses or hiring prostitutes. When we talk about Christianity does X really it's about the few men who could actually influence and most of those men are dead. The few leaders alive today could modernize their church's position on sex but most of them won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SquareOne Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I'm sure you are right about many pastors being deluded. However some get rich. When a pastor strikes it rich and keeps the money for himself I think it's safe to assume he isn't afraid of any God watching him. Yes, that is true. I would not count such people as Christians though. I know that sounds pretty stupid as an atheist. But what I mean is, they do not have a sincere belief. I guess my argument advanced above is applicable to those who have a sincere (albeit misguided) belief and are not simply con-men with ulterior motives. However, actually - I think what you are saying there synthesis with what Vigile said: 3. Christian leaders are too victims of a belief system originally designed to control people.* History bears this out. *My emphasis Where religions were originally set up to control (or at least extort) people, that is comparable to the religious groups of today with the same motives. However, I would not include Jesus (or whoever wrote Jesus) or Paul of Tarsus under that umbrella. They did not seem to have a control agenda. In fact, I think it pretty hard to pin down a Christian text to an author who was trying to control people; as distinct from someone who took an existing text and used it for control purposes at a later date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 I'm sure you are right about many pastors being deluded. However some get rich. When a pastor strikes it rich and keeps the money for himself I think it's safe to assume he isn't afraid of any God watching him. The desperate tactics of emotional manipulation that kept a struggling church alive are continued even when the Church becomes wealthy and money goes to the pastor's lifestyle and to hire his prostitutes. The most successful pastors are the ones with the most power and influence on docterine and also they are usually the ones who keep piles of money for themselves. There are, of course, exceptions to the trend. I agree, but your average televangelist or mega church preacher are the exceptions to the rule I think. The vast majority of pastors are little to medium sized mom and pop operations. I've known many pastors who work second jobs and volunteer on the weekend. They don't do this for the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Well... maybe not for the money, but I don't remember an awful lot of pastors who weren't trying to build a cult of personality around themselves, who didn't really like the attention and power they got. Might not make them rich, but they had hundreds of people hanging on their every word. Some really were very humble people, but most were a rather grandiose type. But I was Pentecostal, so maybe my mileage varied there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Well... maybe not for the money, but I don't remember an awful lot of pastors who weren't trying to build a cult of personality around themselves, who didn't really like the attention and power they got. Might not make them rich, but they had hundreds of people hanging on their every word. Some really were very humble people, but most were a rather grandiose type. But I was Pentecostal, so maybe my mileage varied there. I met all brands when I was an xian. I personally knew quite a few who appeared quite sincere, even if sincerely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marycontrary Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I find it odd that society sort of projects an uptight attitude about sex, while the internet seems to have been invented to serve up porn. The face we present in the daylight is not the same face we present huddled over our monitors at night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I find it odd that society sort of projects an uptight attitude about sex, while the internet seems to have been invented to serve up porn. The face we present in the daylight is not the same face we present huddled over our monitors at night It goes deeper than that. Affairs, swinging, prostitution, orgies and all the rest are a natural part of human sexuality. This is our nature. We have an official mate who is sanctioned by society and then when nobody is looking we indulge our other behaviors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Hey, it's all about what people can do in secret. Remember that study about how heavily Christian states use the most porn? It's like that old joke about Baptists--you remember? "If you don't want a Baptist to drink all your beer when you go fishing, make sure you bring two Baptists." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Hey, it's all about what people can do in secret. Remember that study about how heavily Christian states use the most porn? It's like that old joke about Baptists--you remember? "If you don't want a Baptist to drink all your beer when you go fishing, make sure you bring two Baptists." Well I think it goes deeper - and in this thread I don't mean something bad by "deeper". I'm talking about our development as a species. I think we have one kind of breeding strategy when we were hunter-gatherers and then we switched as an adaptation to farming. I don't have the right training to go into more detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 It's a pretty recent development, agriculture, evolutionarily speaking. I've seen dietary research indicating that we haven't really adapted to diets based around agriculture yet--the grains, the cooking required, the reliance on starches. It wouldn't shock me all that much if our minds hadn't quite adapted to a number of changes brought about by agriculture's ramifications, like living in one place, not being nomadic, and making urban centers with large populations. If we haven't even adapted to the food, it's not a huge stretch to imagine that we haven't adapted emotionally. I'm not formally trained in this era of history either, but I think you might be on to something big there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wndwalkr99 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Thanks, those are some really good points, I feel less like a wannabe slut now! It's amazing what religion does really... You say "slut" like it's inherently a bad thing - why is that? Really all it means is someone who enjoys sex for its own sake and does not adhere to social mores and religious people with sticks up their asses about it. The word slut has a bad connotation, to be sure, but that is only because of the forces I named in my previous sentence. We'd all be better off if no one ever used the word again. Please also note that there is almost no male equivalent. "Rake" comes close but the connotation is more of "oh, boy will be boys" and does not carry the same expectation of shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Thanks, those are some really good points, I feel less like a wannabe slut now! It's amazing what religion does really... You say "slut" like it's inherently a bad thing - why is that? Really all it means is someone who enjoys sex for its own sake and does not adhere to social mores and religious people with sticks up their asses about it. The word slut has a bad connotation, to be sure, but that is only because of the forces I named in my previous sentence. We'd all be better off if no one ever used the word again. Please also note that there is almost no male equivalent. "Rake" comes close but the connotation is more of "oh, boy will be boys" and does not carry the same expectation of shame. When a woman is described as a "slut" it's because she is doing something considered "normal" for a man. It's time to end that double standard and realize the behavior is "normal" in women too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SquareOne Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Please also note that there is almost no male equivalent. Round these parts people sometimes say "man-whore". This is a more negative word than, for example "stud", which is usually seen as a positive. It's still basically a joke word though, used to make fun of someone behind their back, but not as negative as "slut" which is definitely negative. Do you use the word "slag" anywhere else? Around here "slag" is used a lot more than "slut". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Isn't there some fundie floating around here who throws the term "harlot" around to describe mainstream (ie not his personal quirky view of) Christianity? People who use words like that are saying a lot more than they think they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annier Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Isn't there some fundie floating around here who throws the term "harlot" around to describe mainstream (ie not his personal quirky view of) Christianity? People who use words like that are saying a lot more than they think they are. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Isn't there some fundie floating around here who throws the term "harlot" around to describe mainstream (ie not his personal quirky view of) Christianity? People who use words like that are saying a lot more than they think they are. That was JoeinourKansas. He hasn't been around lately. I hope he cleans up his mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megasamurai Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 One thing I find odd is the change in add towards premarital sex from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Doing anything else with your wang that isn't marital sex gets you killed, but premarital sex just got you a small fine and forced marraige in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, you are set on fire for all eternity. Why did the penalty become a million times worse between testaments? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SquareOne Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I think Jesus would have said you would have also been set on fire for all eternity for pre-marital sex in Old Testament times, as it was a sin. But of course, forgiveness etc too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MadameX Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I'm reading a book, 'Sex at Dawn' which is an interesting discussion of information gleaned from primatology, anthropology, and actually tons of sources, which proposes that monogamy is not at all our 'human nature.' Of course everyone and his brother is an expert on human nature, so who knows, but they make a case that our bodies evolved from living and loving in small groups of foragers/hunters. And every night was quite a party! I'll leave it to those who are interested to find out more, but everything from the shape of the human penis, to pendulous breasts, to our constant preoccupation with sex suggest that we are intensely sexual critters, very much like our horny cousins, the bonobos. Porn is a multi-billion $$$ industry and apparently an absolute fave is lotsa guys in a gang bang with one gal. The authors see this bestselling fantasy as telling a tale on us and how our libidinous ancestors may have lived. Our not-so-sucessful attempts to live as monogamous couples are presented as evidence that we are trying to force ourselves into a box that requires extraordinary effort, and is doomed to fail more than 50% of the time. Coupling became a chattel system once agriculture developed, and the necessity of protecting one's possessions encouraged our nasty controlling efforts towards private property, created poverty, led to the suffering of domesticated animals, and of course it became absolutely necessary to control those uppity women. Who knows, but speculation about these kinds of things is fun. I'll leave it to you to weigh the evidence the authors present. So back to the OP's questions - it ain't just Christianity that is so obsessed with sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SquareOne Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 it ain't just Christianity that is so obsessed with sex. MadameX, I think you hit the nail on the head there, and that's probably the best answer one could give to the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts