Are there any hypocrites out there?
- Thread starter FlamingoBlue
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
Fallen Angel - your points are all fair enough. I respect your views but I still don't agree with you. I know we're not likely to change each other's mind. That's ok.
We live in very different societies - that probably plays a part in our different attitudes. Capital Punishment was abolished here years before I was born so I've not grown up accepting it as a normal part of life.
But anyway - since I've opened this can of worms can I try to explain myself a bit better?
One thing first though - I'm only guessing but does it not cost the American tax payer just as much money to keep a prisoner on death row throughout the lengthy appeals procedure as it would to have them serving a prison sentence? I don't know much about this. I could be wrong.
Anyway - I don't think the death penalty is much of a deterrent. I'm fairly sure that the states which have the death penalty still have pretty high crime rates. Sociopaths often have a bit of a death wish, anyway, and I'm sure many of them are so arrogant they think they're never going to get caught anyway.
As far as the prison thing, my ideas are a bit idealistic. I don't think they'd be easy to put into practice.
I think that longer prison sentences should be given out for serious crimes - murder, rape and other acts of extreme violence. I think the maximum sentence should be life and that this should actually mean LIFE imprisonment.
Statistics show that prisons as they are don't tend to change offenders for the better. If anything, they tend to make bad people worse. Behavioural psychologists say that punishment isn't a very effective way of changing human behaviour. A high percentage of violent criminals reoffend after being released from prison - their crimes often escalating and becoming more and more serious.
So, if you have longer prison sentences, there's a chance you could reduce the number of violent crimes that are commited in society - basically there'll be a few less bad people out on the streets. Instead of releasing a murderer after 5 years, or whatever, for good behaviour - so they can just go out and commit another crime - why not keep them behind bars for 20 years? You'll probably find this actually costs the taxpayer less. The police must spend a hell of a lot of their time chasing the same criminals over and over again. Then there's the expense of all the court cases.
This is the idealistic bit. I think that whilst in prison all criminals - whether they have commited a minor crime or a more serious one - should be taught through various therapies and work programmes how to fit in better with society, how to become a better person. They should be encouraged to change their behaviour and learn to admit that what they have done is wrong through behavioural therapy and other techniques.
They should also be able to work in some way whilst in prison - learning new skills and putting them into practice, possibly manufacturing products that are useful to society or that generate income for the prison. Work is one thing that helps give people self-esteem. People are unlikely to change their behaviour if they have low self-esteem.
I think that even people on life sentences should be given these therapies and the opportunity to work in the prison. They should learn to feel remorse for what they have done and to accept that it is because of their own actions that they will never be released back into society.
I saw a TV programme about a progressive American prison that is run in a similar way to this. It was a strict prison that also attempted to rehabilitate prisoners through various therapeutic work programs. It wasn't flawless, by any means, but it was definitely the best model I've seen so far for a prison. Anyone have any idea which prison it is? I don't remember the name or which state it was in.
Anyway - all of what I've just written is what I believe logically but logic goes right out the window when it's your own family, friends and loved-ones that are affected.
So, I'm still a hypocrite.
We live in very different societies - that probably plays a part in our different attitudes. Capital Punishment was abolished here years before I was born so I've not grown up accepting it as a normal part of life.
But anyway - since I've opened this can of worms can I try to explain myself a bit better?
One thing first though - I'm only guessing but does it not cost the American tax payer just as much money to keep a prisoner on death row throughout the lengthy appeals procedure as it would to have them serving a prison sentence? I don't know much about this. I could be wrong.
Anyway - I don't think the death penalty is much of a deterrent. I'm fairly sure that the states which have the death penalty still have pretty high crime rates. Sociopaths often have a bit of a death wish, anyway, and I'm sure many of them are so arrogant they think they're never going to get caught anyway.
As far as the prison thing, my ideas are a bit idealistic. I don't think they'd be easy to put into practice.
I think that longer prison sentences should be given out for serious crimes - murder, rape and other acts of extreme violence. I think the maximum sentence should be life and that this should actually mean LIFE imprisonment.
Statistics show that prisons as they are don't tend to change offenders for the better. If anything, they tend to make bad people worse. Behavioural psychologists say that punishment isn't a very effective way of changing human behaviour. A high percentage of violent criminals reoffend after being released from prison - their crimes often escalating and becoming more and more serious.
So, if you have longer prison sentences, there's a chance you could reduce the number of violent crimes that are commited in society - basically there'll be a few less bad people out on the streets. Instead of releasing a murderer after 5 years, or whatever, for good behaviour - so they can just go out and commit another crime - why not keep them behind bars for 20 years? You'll probably find this actually costs the taxpayer less. The police must spend a hell of a lot of their time chasing the same criminals over and over again. Then there's the expense of all the court cases.
This is the idealistic bit. I think that whilst in prison all criminals - whether they have commited a minor crime or a more serious one - should be taught through various therapies and work programmes how to fit in better with society, how to become a better person. They should be encouraged to change their behaviour and learn to admit that what they have done is wrong through behavioural therapy and other techniques.
They should also be able to work in some way whilst in prison - learning new skills and putting them into practice, possibly manufacturing products that are useful to society or that generate income for the prison. Work is one thing that helps give people self-esteem. People are unlikely to change their behaviour if they have low self-esteem.
I think that even people on life sentences should be given these therapies and the opportunity to work in the prison. They should learn to feel remorse for what they have done and to accept that it is because of their own actions that they will never be released back into society.
I saw a TV programme about a progressive American prison that is run in a similar way to this. It was a strict prison that also attempted to rehabilitate prisoners through various therapeutic work programs. It wasn't flawless, by any means, but it was definitely the best model I've seen so far for a prison. Anyone have any idea which prison it is? I don't remember the name or which state it was in.
Anyway - all of what I've just written is what I believe logically but logic goes right out the window when it's your own family, friends and loved-ones that are affected.
So, I'm still a hypocrite.
Fallen Angel
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 22, 1999
- Posts
- 350
hyp•o•crite
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
: one who affects virtues, qualities, or attitudes he does not have
Roger you sir are no hyprocrite. I do not want to change your mind on capital punishment. I just wish I could change the world so we did not have a reason for it.
There are so few on this board that could even be classed as a hyprocrite that I still find it odd to have had the question asked. Perhaps the weeding out of the fakes is one of the reasons why it is perceived that the board is hard on newbies. We all have ideals and morals that we try and live up to. Few if any can say that they are totally satisfied with the path they have trod in life. Our attitudes and actions change as we enter new areas of our life causing us to look at the present and past decisions in a new light.
Endlessly my dear I do feel for you with the conflict of religion and freedom of expression especially when mixed with the trials of entering adulthood. Often it seems that we may hold two ideals that clash and somehow we must take the best of both and make a new ideal. I did much soul searching after I started posting and writing about if it was proper for a Christian to be on here. In the final mix I came to several conclusions.
1 It was not proper for me to be anywhere and not admit to my beliefs.
2 Freedom of expression is a precious thing and this place has it in large quantities.
3 The love, stability and peace of mind I have found in my faith was meant to be shared (not forced) with others.
4 The arguing with friends here causes me to take a long hard look at what my beliefs really are.
Am I a hyprocrite? Many in my church would think so if they knew I frequented here. There are so many smart and opinionated people here who have good reasons for the way they feel that I have used material from the BB in a Sunday School lesson on who and why people leave the church.
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
: one who affects virtues, qualities, or attitudes he does not have
Roger you sir are no hyprocrite. I do not want to change your mind on capital punishment. I just wish I could change the world so we did not have a reason for it.
There are so few on this board that could even be classed as a hyprocrite that I still find it odd to have had the question asked. Perhaps the weeding out of the fakes is one of the reasons why it is perceived that the board is hard on newbies. We all have ideals and morals that we try and live up to. Few if any can say that they are totally satisfied with the path they have trod in life. Our attitudes and actions change as we enter new areas of our life causing us to look at the present and past decisions in a new light.
Endlessly my dear I do feel for you with the conflict of religion and freedom of expression especially when mixed with the trials of entering adulthood. Often it seems that we may hold two ideals that clash and somehow we must take the best of both and make a new ideal. I did much soul searching after I started posting and writing about if it was proper for a Christian to be on here. In the final mix I came to several conclusions.
1 It was not proper for me to be anywhere and not admit to my beliefs.
2 Freedom of expression is a precious thing and this place has it in large quantities.
3 The love, stability and peace of mind I have found in my faith was meant to be shared (not forced) with others.
4 The arguing with friends here causes me to take a long hard look at what my beliefs really are.
Am I a hyprocrite? Many in my church would think so if they knew I frequented here. There are so many smart and opinionated people here who have good reasons for the way they feel that I have used material from the BB in a Sunday School lesson on who and why people leave the church.
FlamingoBlue
a simple country lawyer
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2000
- Posts
- 2,994
From what I see
some of you are very conflicted about what your religions or society in general percieves to be "appropriate" behavior. I ask, appropriate for who?
Who made up all these silly rules about sexuality that are now driving us to distraction and?or therapy? What are we as a group, fellow literotcians going to do about it? Wher's the groundswell for change?
Whan my current marriage was a bout to fold, my wife and I decided to sell our vacation home so she would have cash to buy a condo. I stayed in our other house. We are still married but we are happier than ever before. We are also monogamous and we date on weekends and holidays. Are we hypocritical? Not at all. But there are lots of people out there who frown on our relationship. So what! at least we are honest about how we feel!!!
I guess tat's what I was really getting at. Are you being honest with yourself???
some of you are very conflicted about what your religions or society in general percieves to be "appropriate" behavior. I ask, appropriate for who?
Who made up all these silly rules about sexuality that are now driving us to distraction and?or therapy? What are we as a group, fellow literotcians going to do about it? Wher's the groundswell for change?
Whan my current marriage was a bout to fold, my wife and I decided to sell our vacation home so she would have cash to buy a condo. I stayed in our other house. We are still married but we are happier than ever before. We are also monogamous and we date on weekends and holidays. Are we hypocritical? Not at all. But there are lots of people out there who frown on our relationship. So what! at least we are honest about how we feel!!!
I guess tat's what I was really getting at. Are you being honest with yourself???
G
Guest
Guest
Fallen Angel - good to see Zeke at bay there. You're right - I missused the word "hypocrite". What I'm really talking about is me having lots of conflicting views about life that don't always fit together very well.
You seem to be saying a similar thing here:
The majority of every-day church goers might see it as hypocritical for someone to be a Christian and visit an erotic stories site. But I think both yourself and Endlessly have realised that life isn't as black and white as that. You've decided to follow your instinct a bit and adapt the traditional religious attitudes to suit the modern world - to fit in better with what you instinctively feel to be the truth today. I think that's a good thing. I think it's good for ideas to change. In the past the Christian religion has seen sex outside of marriage and erotic thought as being bad and sinful. That's an attitude that doesn't make much sense in today's world. That doesn't mean that Christianity's other ideals are wrong for you.
The majority of church goers are probably still clinging rigidly to all those old ideas - scared that if they let go in any way, the whole of their faith will just crumble. They're not going to be willing to accept or understand you telling them that you have different views on sex and pornography. I don't think it's hypocritical to keep quiet about all this when you're talking to people at your church.
LOL. My mother's not a religious person but I'm still not going to call her up and say, "Hi, Mum - I've been visiting a porn site for the past four months. Oh yeah, and by the way I've met a hot American girl there. We've been talking dirty to each other.
That's not hypocricy, it's common sense. ("You can't HANDLE the truth, Mum!" Haha.)
I quite like the idea of modern religions and philosophies being kind of pic 'n' mix - custom designed to suit the individual. My own beliefs are kind of a mis-mash of things taken from modern philosophy, Eastern beliefs and psychology mixed in with a lot of Scottish down-to-earthness. It doesn't always all fit together very well but it works for me - I'm fairly happy with my views. I'm not very often stuck with moral dilemmas.
Blue Flamingo - I've not read all of your posts but I think that the reason people here have maybe seemed to attack you isn't because of your personal life and the way you and your wife have decided to run your marriage. If it's working for you both then that's a good thing. You're obviously giving each other the space you need to make things work.
I think it's just that you got off to a bad start here. You misjudged the site a little bit with your early posts. Literotica isn't like other erotic sites. I've seen a few threads like your "anyone fancy some anal?" one and they always get people's backs up - same as if you walked up to a stranger in a club and said, "Do you like getting it in the ass?". I think the only reason people have ridiculed you or been hostile is because you confused them a bit early on. They didn't know what to make of you - they didn't know that this was just your fantasy.
Anyway, don't worry about it. Just give it time. Keep on posting. Let people get to know you better and they should forget about all that.
Or you could think about coming back under another name. I don't think "Pelican Red" has been taken yet.
You seem to be saying a similar thing here:
Fallen Angel said:
The majority of every-day church goers might see it as hypocritical for someone to be a Christian and visit an erotic stories site. But I think both yourself and Endlessly have realised that life isn't as black and white as that. You've decided to follow your instinct a bit and adapt the traditional religious attitudes to suit the modern world - to fit in better with what you instinctively feel to be the truth today. I think that's a good thing. I think it's good for ideas to change. In the past the Christian religion has seen sex outside of marriage and erotic thought as being bad and sinful. That's an attitude that doesn't make much sense in today's world. That doesn't mean that Christianity's other ideals are wrong for you.
The majority of church goers are probably still clinging rigidly to all those old ideas - scared that if they let go in any way, the whole of their faith will just crumble. They're not going to be willing to accept or understand you telling them that you have different views on sex and pornography. I don't think it's hypocritical to keep quiet about all this when you're talking to people at your church.
LOL. My mother's not a religious person but I'm still not going to call her up and say, "Hi, Mum - I've been visiting a porn site for the past four months. Oh yeah, and by the way I've met a hot American girl there. We've been talking dirty to each other.
That's not hypocricy, it's common sense. ("You can't HANDLE the truth, Mum!" Haha.)
I quite like the idea of modern religions and philosophies being kind of pic 'n' mix - custom designed to suit the individual. My own beliefs are kind of a mis-mash of things taken from modern philosophy, Eastern beliefs and psychology mixed in with a lot of Scottish down-to-earthness. It doesn't always all fit together very well but it works for me - I'm fairly happy with my views. I'm not very often stuck with moral dilemmas.
Blue Flamingo - I've not read all of your posts but I think that the reason people here have maybe seemed to attack you isn't because of your personal life and the way you and your wife have decided to run your marriage. If it's working for you both then that's a good thing. You're obviously giving each other the space you need to make things work.
I think it's just that you got off to a bad start here. You misjudged the site a little bit with your early posts. Literotica isn't like other erotic sites. I've seen a few threads like your "anyone fancy some anal?" one and they always get people's backs up - same as if you walked up to a stranger in a club and said, "Do you like getting it in the ass?". I think the only reason people have ridiculed you or been hostile is because you confused them a bit early on. They didn't know what to make of you - they didn't know that this was just your fantasy.
Anyway, don't worry about it. Just give it time. Keep on posting. Let people get to know you better and they should forget about all that.
Or you could think about coming back under another name. I don't think "Pelican Red" has been taken yet.
Perhaps the real question should be...
Are we hypocrites in the world and real here? Where better could our true feelings and beliefs be brought out than in the anonimity (pardon the spelling) of cyber-world.
I only HOPE that I am the same i/r/l as I am here.
Wishful thinking?
[Edited by Enigma777 on 07-12-2000 at 07:43 AM]
Are we hypocrites in the world and real here? Where better could our true feelings and beliefs be brought out than in the anonimity (pardon the spelling) of cyber-world.
I only HOPE that I am the same i/r/l as I am here.
Wishful thinking?
[Edited by Enigma777 on 07-12-2000 at 07:43 AM]
FlamingoBlue
a simple country lawyer
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2000
- Posts
- 2,994
Thanks for the concern, Roger.
I haven't felt attacked since I got
reprimanded after that ignorant gaff I
made shortly after coming to this site. I don't feel attacked for my lifestyle or any thing else. I think I now know what is acceptable here and what isn't. I'm sure that if I get out of line that there will be plenty of you who will correct me. I know a few ladies out there who I can rely upon for discipline.
Pelican Red? You have got to be kidding! FlamingoBlue, that's who I am. I do not run and hide from my mistakes. I simply try to learn from them.
I haven't felt attacked since I got
reprimanded after that ignorant gaff I
made shortly after coming to this site. I don't feel attacked for my lifestyle or any thing else. I think I now know what is acceptable here and what isn't. I'm sure that if I get out of line that there will be plenty of you who will correct me. I know a few ladies out there who I can rely upon for discipline.
Pelican Red? You have got to be kidding! FlamingoBlue, that's who I am. I do not run and hide from my mistakes. I simply try to learn from them.
MunchinMark
You int seen me, right?
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2000
- Posts
- 6,148
I am lucky in that I do not have to hide my views. I come from a family with liberal views and live in a society with liberal views.
But everybody's opinions will change over time. And in different circumstances. moral or political decisions are usually about where on a wide spectrum of situations does wrong become right. Extreme views are normally wrong. The decisions are made by us every minute of our lives. Times change and so do we. What we thought last month may be different to what we think now, or be different depending on where you are in relation to the question. The best we can do is make those choices based on what we think is right given what we know. With any luck we know enough to make the right decisions.
But everybody's opinions will change over time. And in different circumstances. moral or political decisions are usually about where on a wide spectrum of situations does wrong become right. Extreme views are normally wrong. The decisions are made by us every minute of our lives. Times change and so do we. What we thought last month may be different to what we think now, or be different depending on where you are in relation to the question. The best we can do is make those choices based on what we think is right given what we know. With any luck we know enough to make the right decisions.
Endlessly
Corrupted Innocent
- Joined
- Dec 26, 1999
- Posts
- 1,267
Fallen, thanks for the sympathy. This is hard, and no, I don't know what to make of it. I think the cycle is probably going to continue, that one day I'll wake up and the guilt will be too much again, and I'll leave for a while.. and end up coming back when I can handle it again. Binge, purge, binge, purge.. Lovely, I'm a spiritual bullemic. *L*
Roger-- thank you for using me as an example, but I don't think it was quite correct in how I feel I'm doing. I'm not trying to adjust my belief systems to what I think the truth is now.. The truth is what it has always been, and because of its inherent.. dunno.. true-ness, it is steadfast and unmovable. There's nothing new under the sun. (Note that this is my belief system, and feel free to think as you will.)
I guess what I'm trying to do at my age-- besides to keep reminding myself I'm only 18-- is figure out what that 'truth' is.
This is the way I see christian\biblical eroticism (again, I'm not condemning anyone here, this is my interpretation of a religion, if you don't believe this religion or my interpretation, feel free to ignore): 'sinful' pleasues only exist out of wedlock. Everything sexual-- anal, oral, even BDSM-- is to the glory of God within the marital bed. Sex is the gift God has given to man as a blessing to those who have become one in spirit, so that they might become one in body and celebrate the pleasure they can give eachother and therefore please God.
The Catholics have it right on this aspect. (Hence the reputation they have for being 'kinky' or what have you.) They are not ashamed of sex, but know where its rightful place lies.
The guilt I get into with certain aspects of erotic literature\roleplay, and to a degree this BB, is in Philippians 4:8 (Cripes Endlessly, you just wrote a devotional on this *wince*): "Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."
And when I'm reading a hot lesbian story.. Or I see nonconsent stuff.. or even fantasize about ravishing some poor man out of wedlock.. I feel guilty. I wonder.. This can't be what was meant by whatsoever things are pure and just. And it bugs me.
Alot.
Wow.. I've gotten a bit off-topic here.. so I'll stop rambling now. *LOL* Yes, ladies and gentlemen, bask in the depths of guilt you never even dreamed of..
Roger-- thank you for using me as an example, but I don't think it was quite correct in how I feel I'm doing. I'm not trying to adjust my belief systems to what I think the truth is now.. The truth is what it has always been, and because of its inherent.. dunno.. true-ness, it is steadfast and unmovable. There's nothing new under the sun. (Note that this is my belief system, and feel free to think as you will.)
I guess what I'm trying to do at my age-- besides to keep reminding myself I'm only 18-- is figure out what that 'truth' is.
This is the way I see christian\biblical eroticism (again, I'm not condemning anyone here, this is my interpretation of a religion, if you don't believe this religion or my interpretation, feel free to ignore): 'sinful' pleasues only exist out of wedlock. Everything sexual-- anal, oral, even BDSM-- is to the glory of God within the marital bed. Sex is the gift God has given to man as a blessing to those who have become one in spirit, so that they might become one in body and celebrate the pleasure they can give eachother and therefore please God.
The Catholics have it right on this aspect. (Hence the reputation they have for being 'kinky' or what have you.) They are not ashamed of sex, but know where its rightful place lies.
The guilt I get into with certain aspects of erotic literature\roleplay, and to a degree this BB, is in Philippians 4:8 (Cripes Endlessly, you just wrote a devotional on this *wince*): "Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."
And when I'm reading a hot lesbian story.. Or I see nonconsent stuff.. or even fantasize about ravishing some poor man out of wedlock.. I feel guilty. I wonder.. This can't be what was meant by whatsoever things are pure and just. And it bugs me.
Alot.
Wow.. I've gotten a bit off-topic here.. so I'll stop rambling now. *LOL* Yes, ladies and gentlemen, bask in the depths of guilt you never even dreamed of..
Whew...heavy philosophizin' going on in here. Just thought I'd poke my big ol' nose in 'cause I noticed Endlessly's post...
Endlessly...you're going through something my g/f went through once, which was trying to reconcile some of her private beleifs (she's bisexual and rampantly feministic) with her public beleifs, hard core Catholicism. Hell, her uncle is a preist.
I'm not going to go on about what I personally do and don't beleive in; it has no relevance here. It's plain that you DO beleive in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and more power to you! I envy people with that level of faith.
What you have to remember is that while God - whatever you may perceive him to be - is infallible, the Church is a wholly human institution and is VERY fallible, and prone to making mistakes - burning people at the stake, denying that homosexuals and women can be every bit as holy as straight men, that one time back in the Dark Ages when there were three Popes at once...the list goes on. I'm not slaggin' Roman Catholics here - every religion has the same troubles, and it's because people are people, prone to making mistakes and thinking that they know best for everyone else.
My advice to you is to think on this; you know you're bi-curious. You know that this life online, writing and reading erotica, makes you feel good - well, what on earth is wrong with that? It's who you ARE. I don't think any deity worth his salt would condemn you for that. Don't fear that your faith is faltering, just remember where your faith truly lies - in God, not necessarily in the dictates of His church. Come to your own understanding of what your God is and how you choose to worship Him. You can do this - you are not less one of His creatures than your preist or any of the people in your church.
Never feel guilty for being true to yourself. Ever.
~Tri coughs and gets off the soapbox~
Endlessly...you're going through something my g/f went through once, which was trying to reconcile some of her private beleifs (she's bisexual and rampantly feministic) with her public beleifs, hard core Catholicism. Hell, her uncle is a preist.
I'm not going to go on about what I personally do and don't beleive in; it has no relevance here. It's plain that you DO beleive in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and more power to you! I envy people with that level of faith.
What you have to remember is that while God - whatever you may perceive him to be - is infallible, the Church is a wholly human institution and is VERY fallible, and prone to making mistakes - burning people at the stake, denying that homosexuals and women can be every bit as holy as straight men, that one time back in the Dark Ages when there were three Popes at once...the list goes on. I'm not slaggin' Roman Catholics here - every religion has the same troubles, and it's because people are people, prone to making mistakes and thinking that they know best for everyone else.
My advice to you is to think on this; you know you're bi-curious. You know that this life online, writing and reading erotica, makes you feel good - well, what on earth is wrong with that? It's who you ARE. I don't think any deity worth his salt would condemn you for that. Don't fear that your faith is faltering, just remember where your faith truly lies - in God, not necessarily in the dictates of His church. Come to your own understanding of what your God is and how you choose to worship Him. You can do this - you are not less one of His creatures than your preist or any of the people in your church.
Never feel guilty for being true to yourself. Ever.
~Tri coughs and gets off the soapbox~
G
Guest
Guest
Correct me if I'm wrong, Endlessly - I've not studied the Bible closely - but, as far as I know, Christianity's anti-sex stance was not really there in the original teachings. Was that not a later development that came about some time after the Dark Ages because religious leaders at that time wanted to emphasise monogamy and undermine non-reproductive sex?
As far as sexuality, according to Shere Hite: "...it is generally accepted by Bible scholars that the earliest Jewish tribes mentioned in the Old Testament accepted cunnilingus and homosexuality as a valid part of life and physical relations, as did the societies around them...".
I don't know if this helps you in your struggle with faith versus sex.
Haha. Please - bear in mind that I'm drunk on strong cider at the moment.
As far as sexuality, according to Shere Hite: "...it is generally accepted by Bible scholars that the earliest Jewish tribes mentioned in the Old Testament accepted cunnilingus and homosexuality as a valid part of life and physical relations, as did the societies around them...".
I don't know if this helps you in your struggle with faith versus sex.
Haha. Please - bear in mind that I'm drunk on strong cider at the moment.
Endlessly
Corrupted Innocent
- Joined
- Dec 26, 1999
- Posts
- 1,267
Roger, actually, I'm wondering where the hell Deborah is so that she can set the both of us straight.. That woman is a walking theology lesson.
Premarital sex is preached about in the new testament, and as far as homosexuality.. There's the Sodom and Gommorah incident with Lot and his backsliding wife. Those are the only examples I can think of offhand, but the church I go to is VERRRRY fundamental.. Think a baptist feeling in a Messianic Jewish theology. If it's not in the Bible, it has no place in our church. It keeps a lot of mess out, but it's not foolproof..
I'm digressing. Having a personal relationship with God is essential to me, as is working out my own salvation with fear and trembling. But the thing is.. For me, anyway, I won't assume that God will tell me anything different than what is written in His word. I'm not going to sit back and say "God thinks it's all right for me to do this, even though the Bible says not to, because this is the way I AM, it's my nature." To quote Max Lucado:
My God loves me just the way I am..
But He loves me too much to let me stay this way.
Premarital sex is preached about in the new testament, and as far as homosexuality.. There's the Sodom and Gommorah incident with Lot and his backsliding wife. Those are the only examples I can think of offhand, but the church I go to is VERRRRY fundamental.. Think a baptist feeling in a Messianic Jewish theology. If it's not in the Bible, it has no place in our church. It keeps a lot of mess out, but it's not foolproof..
I'm digressing. Having a personal relationship with God is essential to me, as is working out my own salvation with fear and trembling. But the thing is.. For me, anyway, I won't assume that God will tell me anything different than what is written in His word. I'm not going to sit back and say "God thinks it's all right for me to do this, even though the Bible says not to, because this is the way I AM, it's my nature." To quote Max Lucado:
My God loves me just the way I am..
But He loves me too much to let me stay this way.
Fallen Angel
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 22, 1999
- Posts
- 350
In Leviticus are many of the laws and rules for the wandering tribes after their departure from Egypt. The chapters 18-20 have much to say about sex and what was to be considered proper conduct. Considering what was specified and felt necessary to forbid it does make one wonder what the devil they had been doing while living as slaves in Egypt.
Endlessly I hate to argue bible with you here. Beware of the trap of saying that I follow bible no matter what. Follow the new testament and study the old. While there is much to be learned from the old it was written for and about the Israelites. I think it is only the Hasidic Jews that still try and follow all the old laws though most of the modern churches pick and choose which laws they want from the old testament.
Each person must follow their heart and beliefs in search of fulfillment.
I will end with this from the NIV since it fits the thread:
By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
Endlessly I hate to argue bible with you here. Beware of the trap of saying that I follow bible no matter what. Follow the new testament and study the old. While there is much to be learned from the old it was written for and about the Israelites. I think it is only the Hasidic Jews that still try and follow all the old laws though most of the modern churches pick and choose which laws they want from the old testament.
Each person must follow their heart and beliefs in search of fulfillment.
I will end with this from the NIV since it fits the thread:
By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
Well, since Endlessly called, can't let the girlfriend down here, now can I?
FlamingoBlue asks "Who made up all these silly rules about sexuality ...?" Who the fuck do you think did? Organized religion has done it's best to suppress sexuality, based largely on its erroneous interpretations of "the bible." FB also asks "What are we as a group, fellow literoticians going to do about it?" I dunno, FB, hire a lawyer and sue for pain and suffering?
Fallen Angel, let me preface this by saying I usually agree with you, probably more than with anyone on this BB, but you are a little off track. First, you are quoting from an NIV. No wonder you're confused. Stick to the King James like Endlessly does. Far easier to translate back to Hebrew and Greek, which is the ONLY way one can make any sense of this thang called "the bible."
Now you all go read Song of Solomon. The divergent expositions of SoS are quite extraordinary. Catholic, Jewish, Fundamentalist and all the rest of the scripture lawyer nincompoops got their own unique version of the story. Hell, they can't even figure out who is talking when. They just twist the story to fit their own narrow little doctrine. The Song of Solomon is all about erotic love and sex, sex, sex! And it doesn't have a fucking thing to do with marriage.
The purpose of Leviticus 18-20 was not to put the shackles on sexual pleasure and eroticism, it was to clearly state rules for procreation. Why? Perhaps God was concerned with pure pedigree, in particular with respect to the seed of the woman through which would come the Messiah. God made it a sin for women to engage in sexual intercourse with angels (you know, Fallen Angel, the Nephilim, the fallen angels) and beasts (but then, who is to say that some human males are not beasts?) but not a sin, for example for women to pleasure other women.
Now, what about this "F" word? Yep, "fornication." The word "fornication" appears 32 times in the New Testament, translated from the Greek "porneia." The word means utterly unchaste. The word "pornography" is derived from this Greek word. Surprisingly, of these 32 "fornications," 12 appear in Revelation, and all relate to spiritual unfaithfulness, the harlotry of the worship of false religions and false gods. "Fornication" appears 7 times in 1 Corinthians and the 13 others are scattered. NOWHERE in all these verses is there ANYTHING that establishes that sex outside of marriage is absolutely prohibited, if "fornication" is kept in the proper context and viewed within the theme of spiritual unfaithfulness and harlotry.
Well, I won't rant and ramble any more about this, but ...
My complete bible lesson on human sexuality will soon appear in the next chapter of the erotic novel "Prey for Me" and all of this I have said will be explained in detail. Can't wait, 'eh? Also in that chapter will be the further escapades of certain ladies with the Sasquatch, mutant descendants of the fallen angels, the Nephilim.
I said this before and I'll fucking say it again. No man on this earth fully understands and can fully interpret "the bible." Can't even come close. When somebody finds one for me, I'll allow somebody to beat me up with this holier-than-thou self-righteous bullshit about sex. In the meantime, I think I'll just stick to my own story about what it all means.
FlamingoBlue asks "Who made up all these silly rules about sexuality ...?" Who the fuck do you think did? Organized religion has done it's best to suppress sexuality, based largely on its erroneous interpretations of "the bible." FB also asks "What are we as a group, fellow literoticians going to do about it?" I dunno, FB, hire a lawyer and sue for pain and suffering?
Fallen Angel, let me preface this by saying I usually agree with you, probably more than with anyone on this BB, but you are a little off track. First, you are quoting from an NIV. No wonder you're confused. Stick to the King James like Endlessly does. Far easier to translate back to Hebrew and Greek, which is the ONLY way one can make any sense of this thang called "the bible."
Now you all go read Song of Solomon. The divergent expositions of SoS are quite extraordinary. Catholic, Jewish, Fundamentalist and all the rest of the scripture lawyer nincompoops got their own unique version of the story. Hell, they can't even figure out who is talking when. They just twist the story to fit their own narrow little doctrine. The Song of Solomon is all about erotic love and sex, sex, sex! And it doesn't have a fucking thing to do with marriage.
The purpose of Leviticus 18-20 was not to put the shackles on sexual pleasure and eroticism, it was to clearly state rules for procreation. Why? Perhaps God was concerned with pure pedigree, in particular with respect to the seed of the woman through which would come the Messiah. God made it a sin for women to engage in sexual intercourse with angels (you know, Fallen Angel, the Nephilim, the fallen angels) and beasts (but then, who is to say that some human males are not beasts?) but not a sin, for example for women to pleasure other women.
Now, what about this "F" word? Yep, "fornication." The word "fornication" appears 32 times in the New Testament, translated from the Greek "porneia." The word means utterly unchaste. The word "pornography" is derived from this Greek word. Surprisingly, of these 32 "fornications," 12 appear in Revelation, and all relate to spiritual unfaithfulness, the harlotry of the worship of false religions and false gods. "Fornication" appears 7 times in 1 Corinthians and the 13 others are scattered. NOWHERE in all these verses is there ANYTHING that establishes that sex outside of marriage is absolutely prohibited, if "fornication" is kept in the proper context and viewed within the theme of spiritual unfaithfulness and harlotry.
Well, I won't rant and ramble any more about this, but ...
My complete bible lesson on human sexuality will soon appear in the next chapter of the erotic novel "Prey for Me" and all of this I have said will be explained in detail. Can't wait, 'eh? Also in that chapter will be the further escapades of certain ladies with the Sasquatch, mutant descendants of the fallen angels, the Nephilim.
I said this before and I'll fucking say it again. No man on this earth fully understands and can fully interpret "the bible." Can't even come close. When somebody finds one for me, I'll allow somebody to beat me up with this holier-than-thou self-righteous bullshit about sex. In the meantime, I think I'll just stick to my own story about what it all means.
Fallen Angel
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 22, 1999
- Posts
- 350
Damn Deborah you know I think I'm going to jilt Laurel as who I would like to spend time with and make you my choice. The extent of your knowledge on so many subjects really intrigues me. Who knows maybe I would even get that kiss or better yet learn something new.
I used NIV for the quote just because it flowed better.
Wish I had one of those bibles with King James/original text?/literal translation all in columns.
I used NIV for the quote just because it flowed better.
Wish I had one of those bibles with King James/original text?/literal translation all in columns.
Endlessly
Corrupted Innocent
- Joined
- Dec 26, 1999
- Posts
- 1,267
Considering all the nasty things people at my church say about the other translations of the bible, I'd better stick to KJV. *wry smile*
Deborah, I love you, you're the best.
Let me know when that comes out? Maybe I'll leech from it for my next sunday school lession.. *L*
Deborah, I love you, you're the best.
Let me know when that comes out? Maybe I'll leech from it for my next sunday school lession.. *L*FlamingoBlue
a simple country lawyer
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2000
- Posts
- 2,994
Hey Never...
Who says they don't let you roast marshmellows in Hell. You can roast all you want. You just can't eat them.
blue
Who says they don't let you roast marshmellows in Hell. You can roast all you want. You just can't eat them.
blue
