is Trumpism helping or harming the position of Christianity in America?

[TheGreatBuzz]

7 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

You do know how ineffective those are, right?

Or are you one of the poor saps who suffered through sn abstinence only program?

Well condoms are about 85% effective when you account for human error.

 

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms

 

The pill is about 91% effective when you account for human error.

 

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/birth-control-pill/how-effective-is-the-birth-control-pill

 

Someone else can do the math to figure out the effectiveness when used together.  That is why I would like them to be free.  I'm also for good sex ed like showing how to use these things and explaining why they are important.  I am not an abstinence only person though I think that method should be taught also.

 

I think you and I are on the same side here.  I was just pointing out that a person that can't afford a kid should at least take appropriate precautions against having one.

[mcsluggo]

1 hour ago, Fresh8686 said:

You and other posters on here are correct that the pro-life group is not a monolith, however the other posters on here are basically saying, you may not be a monolith, but the legislative agenda and actions taken so far from the pro-life crowd are so prevalently sourced from the more extreme voices of the group, that "y'all" may as well be monolithic... so monolithic in practice if not identification, is still for all intents and purposes monolithic in wholesale.

Does that make sense?

However, I'd be open to information showing evidence of action from the pro-life crowd that runs counter to it's more extreme iterations. I'm by no means an expert on the subject, so there may be holes in my game.

 

you just highlighted THE problem here.   I posit that there are MANY people that have strong views on abortion, but are not particularly anti social programs, that end up grudgingly voting with ultra conservatives, because they have successfully set this up as a wedge issue .... and also because the loudest voices on the pro choice side are also screaming monoliths, with no interest in understanding nuanced positions on a subject that just isn't simple to most people.  

 

i find ideologues on almost every issue to be irritating.  and abortion, more than perhaps any other issue, just seems to attract screaming ideologues that are only interested in screaming at the top of their lungs at each other... on both sides.

[mcsluggo]

sadly... conservatives are ALSO against this birth control method....  that have been found to be very very effective:

 

 

 

 

as well as these OTHER highly effective strategies..... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

44 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I think you and I are on the same side here.  I was just pointing out that a person that can't afford a kid should at least take appropriate precautions against having one.

I agree with you, trust me. The reality is that the sanctity of life crowd is against that too because in their words “it promotes sex”.

So they don’t want to prevent.

They don’t want to adopt

They only want to say no.

It’s like Nancy Reagan’s profoundly successful anti-drug campaign “Just Say No”.

 

...and yes, like everything there are those extreme exceptions, too few who are willing to adopt but their few numbers only proves the rule. 

[The Evil Genius]

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

When I successfully qualify for the 2018 Presidential debates as a 3rd party candidate, I'm going to make sure to bait Trump into once again telling everyone that his favorite book is the Bible and then ask him something easy like, "How many apostles were there?"

 

Also a good catch all strategy for whenever he says that he knows the most about anything...

 

Trump: Nobody knows more about Isis than I do, believe me.

Sacks: Really? 'Cause I'll drop out of the race right now if you can tell us who's #2 in Isis's chain of command.

 

Edited April 26, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[AsburySkinsFan]

16 hours ago, mcsluggo said:

sadly... conservatives are ALSO against this birth control method....  that have been found to be very very effective:

 

No kidding!

James Dobson wrote that masturbation was fine as long as you didn’t lust while doing it....I was 19 and very devout at the time and even then I was like how the hell do you do that?! It’s no wonder so many sexually frustrated, and guilty/shamed young Christians hide their sexuality and don’t use birth control and thus wind up with a pregnancy!

[Zguy28]

28 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

No kidding!

James Dobson wrote that masturbation was fine as long as you didn’t lust while doing it....I was 19 and very devout at the time and even then I was like how the hell do you do that?! It’s no wonder so many sexually frustrated, and guilty/shamed young Christians hide their sexuality and don’t use birth control and thus wind up with a pregnancy!

So, my question for you as a Christian, does the church sacrifice holy standards for the sake of "they will do it anyway"? Or does it continue to preach biblical standards on sexuality?

[AsburySkinsFan]

13 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

So, my question for you as a Christian, does the church sacrifice holy standards for the sake of "they will do it anyway"? Or does it continue to preach biblical standards on sexuality?

What’s a Biblical standard on sexuality?

Marrying your daughter off at 13 to the family next door to gain more grazing land for your sheep? Or a brother marrying his sister-in-law after his brother dies? Or maybe Ruth sleeping with Boaz on the threshing-room floor and being told to do so by Naomi? Or forbidding remarriage for a divorcé? Or should we just go back to multiple wives and concubines?

 

Now, the question I think you meant to ask was “does the church sacrifice its Puritan Protestant standards of sexuality for the sake of “they will do it anyway? Or does it continue to preach its Puritan Protestant standards on sexuality?”

Edited April 26, 2018 by AsburySkinsFan

[Bang]

OK, so if you believe in a creator, and you believe he doesn't want you to masturbate, the fact your arms are just long enough is a bit of a cruel joke.

 

Many standards of the time were for hygenic purposes, and of course, couched in religion to make people follow it.

 

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

BTW, I think we need to bring back dowery rules, I should get paid for taking a wife into my tent. 

[Zguy28]

11 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

What’s a Biblical standard on sexuality?

Marrying your daughter off at 13 to the family next door to gain more grazing land for your sheep? Or a brother marrying his sister-in-law after his brother dies? Or maybe Ruth sleeping with Boaz on the threshing-room floor and being told to do so by Naomi? Or forbidding remarriage for a divorcé? Or should we just go back to multiple wives and concubines?

 

Now, the question I think you meant to ask was “does the church sacrifice its Puritan Protestant standards of sexuality for the sake of “they will do it anyway? Or does it continue to preach its Puritan Protestant standards on sexuality?”

So what do you consider biblical sexual standards?

[AsburySkinsFan]

5 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

So what do you consider biblical sexual standards?

That’s not my job any more.

[Fresh8686]

2 hours ago, Zguy28 said:

So what do you consider biblical sexual standards?

What do you consider to be biblical sexual standards? Do you consider them to be healthy, given what we know nowadays?

From what I can see, I don't see very healthy sexual outlooks from religious people. It's very controlling, repressive, and demonizing of natural urges, that with training and understanding don't have to be handled or characterized with such fear and vitriol. Especially, when it comes to female sexuality.

Do you agree with that characterization?


 

[mcsluggo]

1 hour ago, Zguy28 said:

So what do you consider biblical sexual standards?

 

Zguy... as a christian i note that Jesus spent almost ALL of his time talking about loving and caring for your fellow humans and neighbors, and that he reiterated over and over and over again THAT was the major way that we could demonstrate our love and respect for God.   

 

When i look at the loudest christians... i see a almost complete lack of preaching about charity and caring for our neighbors, and what can only be described as a complete infatuation about preaching "biblical sexual standards" and general morality plays that may (or may not, based on your interpretations/parsing of parable text) have been mentioned by jesus in an off-hand nature at one point or another. 

 

Jesus' focus was CRYSTAL clear ... and it ain't the same as most preacher's focus.  

[Zguy28]

9 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

Zguy... as a christian i note that Jesus spent almost ALL of his time talking about loving and caring for your fellow humans and neighbors, and that he reiterated over and over and over again THAT was the major way that we could demonstrate our love and respect for God.   

 

When i look at the loudest christians... i see a almost complete lack of preaching about charity and caring for our neighbors, and what can only be described as a complete infatuation about preaching "biblical sexual standards" and general morality plays that may (or may not, based on your interpretations/parsing of parable text) have been mentioned by jesus in an off-hand nature at one point or another. 

 

Jesus' focus was CRYSTAL clear ... and it ain't the same as most preacher's focus.  

Thankfully, expositional preaching is making a comeback among many churches. Meaning we preach what the bible says and how it applies to us, not what we want to hear, what we need to hear. To that end, I think a lot of what you hear is reactive to changing cultural norms. Sex is hot-button issue. Over a hundred years ago, the issue was alcohol, and how it destroys marriage and family, and thus many Christians championed temperance and prohibition.

[bearrock]

Any Christian who is parsing the bible for exactly where piety ends and where sin begins has seriously lost sight of the forest for the trees.  If a conflicted soul asks what exactly am I allowed to do without committing a sexual sin, the answer should be the following:

 

Romans 3:10 - As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one

 

Matthew 22:36-40 - 

 

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

 

It's not rocket science.  Do the best you can with pure intention and pure heart.  God's not smiting you because you jacked off while thinking of a hot chick.  Good grief.  Even if you can adhere by every single letter of the bible, you got Deicide going for you.  Try weaseling out of that one.

 

*This is my rant against a strawman religious zealot in a vacuum.  Not directed at any particular poster*

[Zguy28]

27 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

What do you consider to be biblical sexual standards? Do you consider them to be healthy, given what we know nowadays?

From what I can see, I don't see very healthy sexual outlooks from religious people. It's very controlling, repressive, and demonizing of natural urges, that with training and understanding don't have to be handled or characterized with such fear and vitriol. Especially, when it comes to female sexuality.

Do you agree with that characterization?


 

I consider them to be that sex is given by the Creator to be enjoyed in heterosexual marriage. What you choose to do within that is your choice, as long as its consensual. I have used birth control in my marriage, I am not against it. I'm not about controlling people however, especially in this area through law, but there is also nothing wrong with holding forth a standard and a message about what you believe is right.

5 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Any Christian who is parsing the bible for exactly where piety ends and where sin begins has seriously lost sight of the forest for the trees.  If a conflicted soul asks what exactly am I allowed to do without committing a sexual sin, the answer should be the following:

 

Romans 3:10 - As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one

 

Matthew 22:36-40 - 

 

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

 

It's not rocket science.  Do the best you can with pure intention and pure heart.  God's not smiting you because you jacked off while thinking of a hot chick.  Good grief.  Even if you can adhere by every single letter of the bible, you got Deicide going for you.  Try weaseling out of that one.

 

*This is my rant against a strawman religious zealot in a vacuum.  Not directed at any particular poster*

I agree. And would add that following the greatest commandments necessitates listening to what God says and doing it what He expects? Right or wrong?

[bearrock]

4 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

I agree. And would add that following the greatest commandments necessitates listening to what God says and doing it what He expects? Right or wrong?

 

I think real Christians should try to lead a pious life.  Not because they can, but because there is value in the right intention. It's like a child crafting the most hideous, leaky, ugly vase you can imagine and bringing it to you for your birthday gift.  The vase has no actual function.  It has no objective aesthetic value.  But it pleases you.  That's our broken attempt at a pious life.  There is no way anyone can lead an objectively pious life by God's standard (which of course is the entire purpose of the lofty standard to begin with).  Once you have Deicide against you, it's like two serial murderers arguing over who's the worse criminal because murderer A has a petty larceny charge and murderer B cashed a bad check.  

 

So, should you try your best to lead an objectively good life?  Sure.  Absolutely.  As long as the real purpose isn't to point fingers at the ugly leaky vase your neighbor just made.  I won't know what that person's real intentions are, but I bet God does.  

[mcsluggo]

to put it very simply... I wholeheartedly believe

 

A:   if you are good to your fellow man, Jesus wouldn't fret all that much if you were a tranny that had gay sex while imagining the cast of Golden Girls.

 

B:    If you are cold hearted person with both your treasure and your compassion for the plight of your fellow man ... Jesus isn't going to give you all that much credit for stoic self denial on the self lust front. (nor for putting in the motions and showing up at church for one hour a week).    

 

and i think that is OBVIOUS from his teachings. 

 

If this where a test.... many of "the pious" do the equivalent of spending all their time on the 1 point extra credit sex question, while basically ignoring the 85 point question: "how do you treat your fellow man?".  Its a bad interpretation of the overall course objectives.

Edited April 26, 2018 by mcsluggo

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

2 hours ago, Zguy28 said:

not what we want to hear, what we need to hear.

I'm a big fan of this. I think a lot of Christians need to be told some things that they don't necessarily want to hear.

[TheGreatBuzz]

24 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

to put it very simply... I wholeheartedly believe

 

A:   if you are good to your fellow man, Jesus wouldn't fret all that much if you were a tranny that had gay sex while imagining the cast of Golden Girls.

 

B:    If you are cold hearted person with both your treasure and your compassion for the plight of your fellow man ... Jesus isn't going to give you all that much credit for stoic self denial on the self lust front. (nor for putting in the motions and showing up at church for one hour a week).    

 

and i think that is OBVIOUS from his teachings. 

 

If this where a test.... many of "the pious" do the equivalent of spending all their time on the 1 point extra credit sex question, while basically ignoring the 85 point essay question: "how do you treat your fellow man?".  Its a bad interpretation of the overall course objectives.

When people find out I am atheist, they often ask "what if you are wrong?"  I usually go with I would like to believe something like your option A.  Whether or not I believe, I like to think I still live a reasonably good life and that would be a deciding factor.

[Bang]

"What if you're wrong" is a two sided question. It applies to believers as well.

 

That's a lot of masturbating to potentially be missing out on.

 

~Bangin' My Hand Without Fear

[AsburySkinsFan]

17 hours ago, Bang said:

"What if you're wrong" is a two sided question. It applies to believers as well.

 

That's a lot of masturbating to potentially be missing out on.

 

~Bangin' My Hand Without Fear

“What if you’re wrong” is a horrible reason to believe. I NEVER considered it convincing in the slightest. I can use the EXACT same logic regarding theology about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and my reason be just as sound.

Anymore I’m increasingly annoyed with lazy theology, and dogma pretending as doctrine.

Edited April 27, 2018 by AsburySkinsFan

[Zguy28]

17 hours ago, mcsluggo said:

to put it very simply... I wholeheartedly believe

 

A:   if you are good to your fellow man, Jesus wouldn't fret all that much if you were a tranny that had gay sex while imagining the cast of Golden Girls.

 

B:    If you are cold hearted person with both your treasure and your compassion for the plight of your fellow man ... Jesus isn't going to give you all that much credit for stoic self denial on the self lust front. (nor for putting in the motions and showing up at church for one hour a week).    

 

and i think that is OBVIOUS from his teachings. 

 

If this where a test.... many of "the pious" do the equivalent of spending all their time on the 1 point extra credit sex question, while basically ignoring the 85 point question: "how do you treat your fellow man?".  Its a bad interpretation of the overall course objectives.

The problem you are ignoring though in statement A is: what about the first commandment to love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength? The bible reveals God as not just loving, but also infinitely holy and righteous. It gives revelation from Him regarding His standards, which often are different than what we naturally think, since His thinking isn't skewed by sin. He reveals what He thinks and desires regarding subjects like sex (among many other things like justice and mercy). These are not minor things to God. He desires right motive and right action. Might you be substituting how you feel for what God says? God commands us to abstain or flee from sexual immorality. I am loving my neighbor by not engaging in sexual sin with him/her, even though my body or mind may be struggling with wanting to.

 

Statement B: I agree 100%. What do you do when you come to the conclusion that the sexual acts in statement A are "the plight of your fellow man"? Do you use your treasure and seek to compassionately rescue him?

Edited April 27, 2018 by Zguy28