I feel an explanation is necessary

**KukriKhan** · 03-25-2009, 04:56

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I'm not sure who's I have these days.

Yours'. As it's always been, of course.

The salvationiststas, and the chirpy songstresses's: peripheral, as you've figured already.

You've (maybe secretly) made up your own mind about you and god. So have those salvationists and songers; they all have value, something to contribute, to our greater understanding of things/persons/gods bigger than us.

**ICantSpellDawg** · 03-25-2009, 15:48

The Church's line on condoms is biblically consistent. The rationale is there and it is distinct from secular rationale.

He is not saying that people should have sex without condoms, he is saying that people should not have sex unless in monogamous, committed relationships. Condoms are viewed as false security, coaxing people into engaging in risky behaviour counterindicated by Biblical instruction.

It's a catch 22.

If people would actually listen and adhere to the message, they wouldn't need condoms. It is a The perpetually aghast secular critics claim people adhering to the message are the problem when it is precisely the opposite.

**Fragony** · 03-25-2009, 16:11

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

he is saying that people should not have sex unless in monogamous, committed relationships.

He sure says that but why wouldn't you.

**Don Corleone** · 03-25-2009, 16:19

I'd like to take a moment to recognize Mousapherre being such a thoughtful and considerate fellow to start a thread like this in the first place. If anybody's religion gets based around here, it would be his. For him to then take the time to start a "no offense intended thread", that speaks volume about the depth and quality of his character, no matter how unnecessary it was, as it wasn't his original post or his discussions in the course of the locked thread that gave offense in the first place.

I think that's what Frag was on about, but I'm not 100% what he meant.

As for insults & barbs... one thing I think we the believers need to remember is that there's scant reason to take offense (no, not being a hypocrite, I am indeed looking in the mirror when I say this). If God is God, what could the creator of the universe possibly care about some swarmy zinger levelled against Him/Her in an online forum dedicated to the discussion of a series of strategy/simulation of a martial & historical theme? Ditto for the Pope. If he really is God's annointed chief agent here on Earth, why do we let ourselves get so worked up? (Yes, me included). Contradict,where appropriate, illuminate facts in error... but I think we all need to remember the scope of the discussion. If we the churched are correct, it's the equivalent of two fleas arguing over whether the elephant they're riding on really exists.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 03-25-2009, 16:22

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Yours'. As it's always been, of course.

The salvationiststas, and the chirpy songstresses's: peripheral, as you've figured already.

You've (maybe secretly) made up your own mind about you and god. So have those salvationists and songers; they all have value, something to contribute, to our greater understanding of things/persons/gods bigger than us.

See, really struggle with this perception. I agree that everyone has a unique experience (everyone has a different table, as the saying goes) but I believe in right and wrong answers.

That means some people must be more right than others.

**Rhyfelwyr** · 03-25-2009, 16:27

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

See, really struggle with this perception. I agree that everyone has a unique experience (everyone has a different table, as the saying goes) but I believe in right and wrong answers.

That means some people must be more right than others.

Yes I think this gap in understanding has been causing some trouble in my recent debate thread.

Of course, I am right and you are all wrong (well not so much you PVC)!

Seriously though, I can't believe that poeple are just part right. They can of course be ultimately correct in believing in what they do, even if they do not interpret it correctly (so I would not claim that my interpretation of Christianity is correct.

**rasoforos** · 03-25-2009, 16:47

The problem is that, as society turns more towards mutually-exclusive religions (i.e religions that exclude all others as false deities or heresies), people subconsciously identify their own beliefs with what they perceive to be the will of their God. Combine this with power hungry people with aspirations of grandeur and you end up with the bad side of religion.

I theorize that in those good old days of Polytheism, religious violence (verbal or physical) (and even conversations like this one) was not a really popular thing. Even if people identified their beliefs to the ones of their Gods, still they would acknowledge that different Gods have different opinions.

i.e.

Joking On

Person A: - My Gods say you shouldn't use contraception.

Person B: - My Gods say you should so you don't end up with 12 kids and a loose wife.

Peson A: - Cool, damn you are lucky! (Instead of 'You shall burn in Hell you heathen!')

Joking Off

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 03-25-2009, 16:53

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Yes I think this gap in understanding has been causing some trouble in my recent debate thread.

Of course, I am right and you are all wrong (well not so much you PVC)!

Seriously though, I can't believe that poeple are just part right. They can of course be ultimately correct in believing in what they do, even if they do not interpret it correctly (so I would not claim that my interpretation of Christianity is correct.

Nah, I'm the most philosophically opposed to you, really.

It's worth thinking about though.

If you are a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Hindu/Buddist/Sikh/Zorastrian/Wiccan/etc that is your way of viewing the world, not merely a comforting story you tell yourself in the dark (though it can be that too).

In my case that means I see a loving a benevolent force working not just through people, put through every part of our reality. Between you, and me, the rock and the tree (sorry, couldn't resist).

**Rhyfelwyr** · 03-25-2009, 16:59

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Nah, I'm the most philosophically opposed to you, really.

It's worth thinking about though.

If you are a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Hindu/Buddist/Sikh/Zorastrian/Wiccan/etc that is your way of viewing the world, not merely a comforting story you tell yourself in the dark (though it can be that too).

In my case that means I see a loving a benevolent force working not just through people, put through every part of our reality. Between you, and me, the rock and the tree (sorry, couldn't resist).

Now I must disagree over whether or not we disagree (man, you would think this is a joke)! We do acknowledge each other as Christian, right? That's pretty central to our worldview. We just differ on God's involvement in this world.

But yeah, on the last two paragraphs, I agree. Even when people say that our religious beliefs are just part of a greater understanding, that is in itself a worldview, usually no more open to question than our own (unless they convert or go for nihilism or something).