h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Della!
"I have noticed that many ex-Christians (as you have said you are) have left over the issue of sex."

That isn't the reason I left. (not that you were saying it was).

" An example would be a man called Gerrard..."
I haven't read this book, and it may be that he left because he could not agree with the view of sex. However, in my experience, it takes quite a lot to shift one's perception to such an extent that one leaves the Church. whilst sex may be the proximate cause, in those I have spoken with, it was only the ultimate cause in one case. In all the others it was one cause amongst others. I don't think anyone's later attitude towards the church's attitude on this one subject should be confused (and, again, I'm not saying you do this) with why anyone left the Christianity.

"As I've said, there is statistical reason to believe that the 'vast' instance of paedophilia in the church (especially the Catholic church) is exaggerated to a ridiculous degree for what can only be political reasons."

I'm more interested in the attitude than the numerical instances. For example, as Christinaity is seen as (a) an appropriate institution to run Children's Homes and (b) self governing, this creates an enclosed system which enables sexual harrassment to flourish *if* the chruch protects the harrassers. Which, unfortunately, it has been seen to do on most (though statistically small) occasions. This does not exclude the same thing from happening in state institutions, and we know it has done so - however, the shocking thing is that state insitutions do not necessarily have a moral framework which is meant to govern the attitude of those in power, whilst the Church professes such a moral framework. So, to protect a harrasser, once the allegation comes to light to the church hierarchy, appears particularly inappropriate in a Church insitution.

You're genetically similar. It is possible for one's siblings to be very genetically different to oneself, and this is even without allowing for chromosome crossovers and rules of independent assortment.

"I rather enjoy debating with you, Heathen. I'm sure you'll come up with some useful rebuttals."

Why, thank you, Jordan. It is a shared pleasure, on account of what appears to be a mutual pleasure in polite, rational (as far as we are capable - and I'm sure your logical powers exceed mine) conversation.

"(Does that make me bisexual? )"
Only if you practice with both! It certainly seems to make you balanced in your attitude, in this respect. Your sexuality appears to me entirely within the normal range. But then, I am aware of many of the extremes of sexual activity practised by people, and so my parameters are not necessarily within the 'normal' range.

" But what are you trying to say about Christianity? Simply that sex undermines the power it [a church] has on people as a powerful, uncontrollable force which is naturally aligned to compell people to act contrary to Christian moral doctrines?"

Yes.

" If so, I wouldn't say so much that Christianity can't cope with sex as that Christian ethics strikes an immediate disharmony with natural impulses."

Is this a difference? I could redefine Christinaity as 'the Church' and say that individual Christians may act without that problem, but I do believe that the way 'the Church' as a whole prefers to treat the authority of the bible in this matter (or its own traditions, such as ex-cathedra statements or the equivalents in non-RC churches) puts pressure on Christians to view sexual expression (acts or attitudes) in certain ways. And I have not, up to now, come across any Christian with a tolerance level of sexual expression as wide as my own. Most are extremely narrow, staying within, or just without, the Churches view. So, within my experience, a tolerant Christian will usually not personally condemn the person they know who commits adultery of homosexuality, but will condemn other, less usual, sexual expressions. They may also hold the opinion that adultery and homosexuality are wrong in themselves (even if they would not personal condemn their friends who practise such) - or they may not. But the views of sexual expression are within a fairly limited range as defined by the Church or the Bible. Once outside this range, most Christians will condemn the range of sexual expression out of hand by seeking to classify the activity within the range they understand, e.g. as adultery or homosexuality, without attempting to explore the subject further.

For example, what might be the Christian position on zoophilia i.e. fornication with animals? It is not, AFAIK, mentioned in the Bible, nor in Christian traditions. Conservative Christians would probably condemn it because it is not within God's plan of man-woman sex to produces children. Liberal Christians may say it is unethical because an animal cannot consent, but that is not an argument I recall being used in the bible or tradition and, if used, where does it leave the slaughter of animals without their consent for food? I am not using what appears to be an extreme example to be offensive, but because it seems a useful debating point. (Actually, if one looks at the 'net, bestiality is not extreme).

"Several churches - the Catholic church not included - make it clear that it is not non-reproductive sex, but unbiblical sex which is disallowed, meaning simply adultery. Of course, this simply declares homosexual coition, for example, to be sinful by definition, a paragon example of begging the question."

Is not the sin of adultery confined to one of the parties being married? I had thought that, if both parties were unmarried, it was fornication? However, you are probably right to use the term adultery as it would seem that at least half the men who cottaged (visited places used for the purpose of gay sex, often public toilets) were otherwise straight, married men. In my personal experience, I have known two straight married men who had, at least on one occasion, done this. One of these was a stalwart of his local church and was, unfortunately for him and his family, caught in the act by the police.

'I have a problem with the entire Christian view of sex.'
"Is that including the position taken by some modern Christian churches, which believe homosexual marriage should be permitted, spiritually and legally? I can see the general objection, but not always the specific."

I think the position taken by those churches on that subject is laudable. However, that should not be confused with the parameters still placed, even by those churches, on sexual expression generally. Even those churches might baulk at individual christians within their congregations who lead a more various sexual life - enjoy mild BDSM, for example, or have a number of partners - even if they and their partners are all unmarried and no threats to a family are evident.

"Or perhaps because now that the Christian stranglehold on morality has broken down to an extent, sexual sins are far more rampant?"

I don't think there is evidence for this. History would surely teach us that sex has been rampant in all ages and cultures, in various ways? But this also begs the question of the particular focus on sex, rather than on the destruction caused by sins of wealth and oppression.

"I have heard of paedophilia mainly with respect to the Catholic and Anglican churches, so I doubt you can simply make such a sweeping statement unless you mean the Catholic Church, for example. Can you recall a JW paedophile?"

Accepted. However, that doesn't mean they don't exist - simply that their organisation is such that it does not so easily (or they run far less institutions which) support the perversion of pwer which enables this.

"Regardless, paedophiles exist in the Boy Scouts, schools, GP practices and in almost any other organisation in which impressionable, maleable children come into contact with adult leaders. So I wonder, what consequence does your statement have? At least, in the context of being a specific instance of a general problem?"

See my posting above to Della, which covers this.

Have any of you read the Kinsey report, and do you know where to find it if you have?

Heathen,

<>

Have you not read what Jane Austin has posted here on several occasions? She is a Christian. She follows the teachings of Christ, which do not (as far as I know) say anything about homosexuality - that is OT stuff. And although she has no tolerance for active paedophiles she is certainly tolerant of people expressing their sexuality, be it heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual - between consenting adults. Really, she is a breath of fresh air when it comes to Christians being accepting and tolerant of other's sexuality.

re: fornication with animals

<>

Fair enough. But killing to eat is seen more as a means of survival (though vegetarians will disagree). Bestiality serves no survival purpose.

I have a personal theory (putting on my tin hat) that most people would be bi-sexual if they didn't have social pressures put onto them from birth to 'behave' in very girl-boy pre-ordained roles. I think we are kind of like dolphins, who mate to reproduce but also have homosexual experiences. I have never thought that having sex with someone of the same sex made one 'less' a woman or man. And although I have never felt sexually attracted to another woman I don't ever rule this out as a future possibility. Because, basically, I don't know if this would ever happen. Given that I don't feel sexually attracted to every man I meet I cannot rule out that, just like finding a special man I might feel attracted to, this might also, perhaps, end up being a woman. I certainly don't feel sexually or personally threatened by that possibility, it is more a question of what will be will be.

Jordan said - "Or perhaps because now that the Christian stranglehold on morality has broken down to an extent, sexual sins are far more rampant?"

I don't agree that sexual differences or sexual abuse (I don't believe in sin) are more rampant than before. The main difference now is that information is much more readily available to us thanks to various media formats and the internet. Two thousand years ago, who would have ever heard about a man sexually abusing his daughters or sons or his sheep?

Heathen, you make a good point about sexuality and how it is seen within the Church. What I cannot understand is why so many people find sex and sexuality so personally frightening.

az

Roadkill. I read Kinsey long ago. Public libraries should have it. I don't think the full text is on the net. Some flavour of it can be found here: http://soundingcircle.com/newslog2.php/_d195/_v195/__show_article/_a000195-000207.htm

Toxx
what sound do vibrating atoms make.

Moth. 'Vibration' is an approximation. Sound is actually alternate waves of rarefaction and compression. What is involved tends to be molecules rather than individual atoms.

As to the sound. Everything you hear is conveyed by the molecules of the air for the most part. So the whole range is there. Consider the vibrations imparted to the air by a loudspeaker and you have your answer.

toxx

Sceptic

>>IMO Christianity can't cope with sex, period. <<

It can't cope with periods either...

OK

Sniping apart, has this thread got itself back on religion differences rather than on the existence of gods?

Can there ever be more than a subjective answer to any of this? We seem to have exhausted all the physical and philosophical methods of trying to solve the conundrum.

My gods exist. I am prepared to believe that the gods of other religions exist. But not - in the case particularly of the gods of the monotheistic religions - that they have the attributes associated with them.

Maybe I should start a subthread -

--Gods, are they required to be triple O?--

Because, you see, mine do not claim to be.

They may be, of course, and they may choose not to present themselves in that manner to us...

<jez stands back and gets a and some

Jez - polytheist heathen and non-Shakepearean witch

Hi, Jez. The way I do this stuff, there is no requirement, in advance of anything else, for God to be triple O. However, contemplation of what would be coherent might well lead to that conclusion. Then we can go beyond coherence to check whether our theory stands up to various tests, more intellectual than observational.

I have offered a perfectly good argument in my many postings concerning the kalam. We do not need to resort to subjective answers. Nobody has managed to argue conclusively against the kalam, so it stands for now at least.

toxx

Thanks for the link toxx.

Triple O?

Roadkill

We all got fed up with typing...

Omnipresent
Omniscient
Omnipotent

...not to mention the spelling problems.

So TripleO means Omni-everything, which is what monotheists typically claim as attributes of their god.

Polytheists generally tend to see their gods as closer to reality, and as having personalities, problems, skills...

So, my gods are not TripleO.

Jez - heathen and witch

Like Classical Theist? I just wrote an entry on that. A1113445 for those interested.

Moth

>>what sound do vibrating atoms make.<<

Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Sorry, couldn't resist that...

Jez - heathen, witch and frequently galdor-singer...

Roadkill

>>Like Classical Theist? I just wrote an entry on that. A1113445 for those interested.<<

Well, three-fifths like ...

But you see, this thread discusses god with a small g as well as God with a BIG G. Classical seems an odd term to descirbe a god that classical paganism would not have recognised.

The classical nations/cultures of Greece and Rome were pedominantly those of polytheistic pagans whose gods were definitely not Classical by your definition.

Jez - heathen and witch

I'm not going to dive into the depths of this discussion (like a Miltonic devil considering predestination) but I will offer two bits concerning the sound of vibrating atoms:

Did some one already mention that "Om" is thought by some believers to be the sound the universe?

and

Here's a wav file of the sound of a whole lot of atoms vibrating: http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/BBSound.html

'Did some one already mention that "Om" is thought by some believers to be the sound the universe?'

Yes, I recall reading it in Umberto Eco's 'Focault's Pendulum'. A wonderful book about connections, subjective reality, mysticism and the frailties of the human mind.

- Jordan

Toxx

I know this;
As to the sound. Everything you hear is conveyed by the molecules of the air for the most part. So the whole range is there. Consider the vibrations imparted to the air by a loudspeaker and you have your answer.

I want to know more about this;

'Vibration' is an approximation. Sound is actually alternate waves of rarefaction and compression. What is involved tends to be molecules rather than individual atoms."

Jordan

Sex. If it is consentual; it is acceptable, if if it exploitive it is not.
Sex with animals, children and the weak comes into the second, do we really need a bible to tell us this?

Jez

Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
I like that !