Extremist Religions and Personal Damage

In my own opinion, none of this necessarily has anything to do with religion. People get to decide how they want to live their own lives. If they use religious principles in this process then that's fine. People have the right to refuse medical treatment. This has nothing to do with religion. People have the right to abstain from sexual behavior. Again, religious beliefs are unnecessary to make this decision.
That's all.
Jack

 

You're right... except for when the underlying reasons have to do with religion.

 

Yes, you've made a good point. Do you have an example?

The hard part (for me) is knowing which principle supercedes the other. Here's a (true) story (I'm vague on the details):

It was in the news several years ago. I'm pretty sure it was in Texas. A man from the mid-East (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc) was enrolled in a grad program at a well known, large state university (I don't remember which one). He lived in a local neighborhood and the neighbors gradually came to know the 12 year old girl living in his home. The arithmetic didn't quite work and eventually it became clear that this "girl" was not his sister or cousin or daughter, she was his wife. This was legal and religiously sanctioned in the mans country of origin. It's illegal everywhere in the USA. What to do? What is "right?" Who decides? What is the primary principle? No matter what you decide you must agree that there's no universal "right" answer here.
What would you do?
Jack

 

This is perhaps the most sensible and reasonable post regarding this thread!

 

Poetic justice dished out by Ted. I won't be correcting anyone's grammar again!

 

Oh, but the Tedmeister forgot the apostrophe (') in "werent," now, didn't he?

 

No I haven't... That's because it isn't true. I am actually quite tolerant of many different viewpoints. But this much I can tell you - I can recognize extremism when I see it. And JW's refusing medical treatment based on some silly-ass religious principle that they made up in 1945 (!) (apparently before that, blood transfusions were OK) is certainly one of them.

And, for that matter, so is a highly passionate beautiful woman's denial of her God-given right to have sex because of some dumb religious value that says she has to be married first (which has no basis in reality, practice, or even what is healthy for her)....

Can any of you bible thumpers find a single reference in the holy scripture that says you can't have sex before (or outside of) marriage? And if you have to go back to Deuteronomy to find them, then also recall that we've had other arguments here where some of you have said that the laws propounded in Deuteronomy either are not in context or were "made whole" by the arrival of the Messiah/Jesus and thus no longer strictly applicable. Which is why you eat pork and don't stone your teenage daughters for attending Yoga classes.... So how come "adultery" and "fornication" is still proscribed???

I find it amusing that some of you paint me as "the extremist" when all I'm doing is trying to ensure that human beings live a happy, prosperous, and fulfilled life without the bondage of religious constraints that have no basis in modernity, and in fact are quite evil in the ancient effects they have on our truly modern world.

 

Originally Posted by Carl_Reginstein

OK Carl, I'll give it a shot.

1Corithinthians 7:8-9, "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, the should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

1Cor 7:2-3, "But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, likewise the wife to her husband."

The KJV says, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. "

The dictionary defines fornication as "Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other"

The "God's Word" Translation does a very good job, "But in order to avoid sexual sins, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband. Husbands and wives should satisfy each other's [sexual] needs."

I think that directive is fairly clear, though I doubt we will agree on the exegesis.

 

Thanks!

We don't agree on the exegesis, but thanks for the research and the passages. I appreciate your honest response to my provocation, "bible thumper" though you may be....

 

Originally Posted by Carl_Reginstein

Carl, What would be your interpretation of 1Cor 7:2-3 if not a prohibition on pre-marital sex?

BTW, I might just change my login to "Bible Thumper" - I kinda like that

 

Simple. I disagree that sex outside of marriage is of necessity immoral. It is only immoral if it results in harm to others, as in adultery that damages a family stability, etc. And even that is a judgment call, because many "adulterous relationships" are simply cries for help/rescue from a non-productive and possibly even abusive marriage/relationship.

 

Even a sadder story about damage caused by JW.

A fellow/friend at the chess club that I used to visit had a badly disformed body. He suffered continuously from back pain. He could only mumble, I guess because his voice box was malformed. He got polio as a baby and his JW parents wouldn't take him to the doctor. Crippling an innocent child is a crime in my view.

 

Originally Posted by Carl_Reginstein

OK, you gave me your opinion on pre-marital sex, I appreciate that, but I can't find defense of your position in 1Cor 7:2-3. I was wondering how you read/interpret those verses? What do you think they mean, if they are not a prohibition on pre-marital sex?

 

Here's the actual quote...

1 C o r i n t h i a n s 7 : 2 - 3 Because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman should have her own husband. The husband should not deprive his wife of sexual intimacy, which is her right as a married woman, nor should the wife deprive her husband.

Carl's interpretation.... Notice that the verse says "each man should have his own wife and each woman should have her own husband". That's all good. Nothing wrong with that, I wholeheartedly agree. I also agree that the husband should not deprive his wife of sexual intimacy and vice versa - but I do not see that the verse necessarily says that that sexual intimacy can ONLY occur with the other spouse!! In other words, if I allow my wife to have sex with my neighbor (consent all around) I do not see that as a violation of this verse, and perhaps I even see it as reinforcing the intention of the verse, which is to ensure (as my wife's husband) that she is getting enough sexual intimacy to keep her satiated.

A far-out interpretation I admit - but nevertheless the verse can easily be construed that way, in particular if you re-examine our own cultural interpretation of "sexual immorality", which can mean different things to different cultures....

 

Carl,

As you and I have demonstrated, two people can walk away with different directives/conclusions from the same Scripture.

I understand your position (and appreciate your taking the time to explain), but I think you have to admit that this verse provides a valid reason for a Christian to conclude that sex outside of marriage (pre-marital and/or adultry) is forbidden.

Additionally, I don't believe it is an extreme interpretation.

While my exegeis may indeed be wrong, shouldn't I be given the latitude to draw what is certainly a reasonable conclusion and live my life accordingly. I think the same should apply in second example.

If she denies her sexual impulses/desires due to her new found faith in Christ and sees that self-denial as a means of honoring and obeying God -- living a more "moral" existence (according to the new rules she has adopted for her life), shouldn't you be excited for her and provide encouragement, even if you do not agree?

 

I believe in

1. Physician assisted suicide laws.
2.The right to die with dignity without government inference.
3. The right to refuse treatment for any reason
4. The right to follow the teachings of your religion as long as it does not physically harm anyone other than yourself. Believe me, most religions have their odd practices that someone, someplace will think is wrong.

I do not believe in

1.Helmet or seatbelt laws. If you want to be stupid, then it should be your choice.

To call Christian Scientists, Mormons, JW, or even Scientologist’s beliefs wrong is just wrong itself.

I think both the Democrats and Republican’s have gone way overboard when trying to “protect us” from ourselves. Too much government regulation (The Cons pass as many restrictive laws as the Libs – don’t fool yourself). – We need to get back to basics with the federal government interested primarily in interstate commerce and defense.


I have a question for all of those “god fearing” Christians (no offense): What is with this need to be a “god fearing” person? Is your god so bad that you have to fear it for some reason? My god is a good god; I don’t have to fear it.


Carl: Usually I think you are right on the money with your posts. I cannot agree with your stance as the people you described are adults and should be able to make the decisions that are right for them (without goverment babysitters). If this means these people die for no other reason than their religous beleifs, then it is their choice. Do you really want the government involved in your religious convictions? I don't.

 

What is this? Bluecollar TV or something??

 

Originally Posted by Mr. Engineer

The phrase does not mean "be afraid" it means "a reverence of" or a "respect for".

The phrase came from Psalm 111:10, "The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

When you hear a Christian use the term "God-fearing" that is the what we are talking about, not that we are afraid of Him.

(My) God is a Great God!

 

I am so confused!

 

Oh - I see. Thanks for the clarification.