pixie_pagan

If you believe some part of us lives on for eternity which do you prefer:

Your ENTIRE eternity being decided by the first seventy years (average lifespan) basically the infancy of your existence. Afterwhich you will spend the rest of your eternity in just one of two permanent states- a state of eternal punishment or a state of eternal bliss....

OR

A system where your consciousness only gets back equal effect of your actions at every stage of your existence and you have the opportunity to continue exercising your freewill to learn, grow and change the outcome at ANY TIME in your endless time stream.

Atheists, I know you do not believe in eternal existence of any part of our energy or consciousness, and you do not have to waste your time answering the question just to say that you don't.

Religious people, take time to THINK and give YOUR gut opinion, your intellectual opinion and not a canned religious response and scripture quotes.

I was watching a documentary about the purity movement and while I can appreciate the value in delaying sexual activity until one is fully able to take responsibility and handle the emotional ramifications, the entire thing struck me as EXTREMELY patriarchal, a little invasive and perverted with the father/daughter thing (one father was saying he looks forward to helping her choose her husband and feels proud it will be the only man other than him, that she will ever be close to....creepy)

The show went on to highlight some now married ex-purity women. They were virgins but their husbands were not. So, they only sexual experience they know is with their husband, if he is bad, incompatiable in bed, they have no means of knowing it. It all seems to be for the benefit of the MEN not the woman.

What do you think?

First, let me say, I do not subscribe to any religion having the ultimate moral high ground or monopoly on Divinity or anything.

I have found in my travels and experiences that there are good and bad people in ALL religions.

Most of us are normal people with an empathetic and social need to be decent to one another. It is part of our biochemical, psychological and sociological make-up to prefer to be trusted, appreciated and viewed as valuable to the group.

EXCEPT for sociopaths, psychopaths and narcissists who do not have this empathetic response. They can be found in every culture, race, country and religion.

In your opinion, which religion makes it the easiest for people with these traits to carry out their predatory actions towards other humans without getting noticed as lacking humane qualities?

In light of: 1 John 2:9-11, which basically says you cannot claim to love God yet hate your brother?

Do they convince themselves that people of another race, EVEN IF THEY ARE ALSO CHRISTIANS are not their brothers and sisters?

A LOT of emphasis is placed on marriage within most Christian denominations. It is almost an expectation of any "good Christian" to get married and have lots of kids.

Yet in 1 Corinthians 7:7-9 , 27-29, Paul said marriage was only for those who lacked self-control and a way out of having to resort to fornication to satisfy ones urges. He said the BETTER option is to be like he was- single and if you are widowed or without a spouse try and remain single.

Now, I know Paul and the Christians in his time believed the END WAS NIGH! The Gospels are full of doomsday messages like "Woe to the pregnant woman etc.!" Jesus encouraged people to forsake family and spouses for the same reason.

So I DO understand the context.

EXCEPT that modern day Christians also preach that the END IS NEAR! COMING SOON! JUST AROUND THE CORNER too.

So why the focus on marriage and baby-making? Paul said it was only for those who lack self-control, do most Chrsitians then lack the self-control to be celibate and focus on END which they say is coming any time now?

You often hear this argument against equal rights for LBGT people, "How am I going to explain to my 8 year old that two women are married etc.?" or "I don't want my child learning that it is okay for two men to have a sexual relationship."

In other words... I want my child to feel exactly the same way I do on this topic. Which is understandable in a way. What parent would not?

But is that a valid arguement against denying another person their equal rights? After all, we don't say, "Well I want my child to grow up a Christian and believing Jesus is the ONLY way, so I don't want them to know there are Hindus, pagans, atheists, buddhists out there. I don't want them to see these people being accepted in society as equal"?

What is your rating system? My rating rules regardless of whether the person is Christian, non-Christian, atheist are:

THUMBS UP- If your answer shed new light, inspired, gave accurate information, sound logic or thoroughly amused me or made a witty dig at me that I left myself wide open to

THUMBS DOWN- Insults, preaching, cut & paste sermons, answering what YOU think I asked instead of what I actually asked, overdefensiveness and assumptions about my motives or personal life or outright bullying- asking me to shut up or leave etc.

NEUTRAL- Challenging the question with worthwhile information or some new perspective or so left-field, I cannot decide what to do.

I can understand putting a criminal away in order to PROTECT everyone else from that person. Example, child molesters, maniac serial killers etc.

But much of the penal system seems to be about PUNISHMENT. We go beyond sequestering the socially disruptive and destructive from the rest of us, we actually seek to MAKE THEM SUFFER. Why? What does that acheive? And most of all, how do Christians square with that, particularly the death penality, when the bible says it is not up to them to seek revenge or dole out judgement and in the Gospels Christ said to turn the other cheek?

Then why don't current members want us to listen to their testimonies?

Isn't a testimony about how you left a religion just as valid as one about how you joined it?

Isn't it good to have the pros and the cons of any religion or group before you join?

This applies to everyone, theist or not.

What TANGIBLE evidence do you have in your daily life that your beliefs/values (whatever they may be) are actually aiding you in living a better life.

For me I know because of the amount of joy, peace of mind, gratitude and enthusiasm I have for life and how many people I can make feel happy. I sometimes look at where I am at my age compared to where my parents were as far as forgiving others, happy marriage, personal contentment and use that as a guage as well.

What about you?

California has a bill to ban these programmes in their State. So if there was ever a time for the ex-gay therapy advocates to SCIENTIFICALLY prove their programmes really turn gay people straight it is now.

Instead of using spokespeople (already biased in their favor) to give personal testimony that it worked (not falsifiable) some of which ends up later in scandal. Why not instead:

1. Get a sample of gay men.

2. Confirm they are indeed GAY (not bisexual) through rigorous psychoanalysis and penile plethysmograph ( a device that measures blood flow to the penis while the subject views a variety of visual stimulus) and now we have pupil dilation measurements as well (new studies show our pupils automatically dilate when we see someone we are sexually attracted to)

3. Establish a control. That would be gay men who do not undergo the ex-gay therapy as well as confirmed heterosexual men

4. Subject the test subjects to the designated period of ex-gay therapy.

5. Retest them with the psychoanalysis, penile plethysmograph and pupil dilation to see (1) if they have stopped automatically responding to sexually attractive men (2) they now automatically respond to sexually attractive women instead at the same levels the heterosexual control subjects do.

Do you think any of these programmes would be brave enough to ask a university research department to do it? Because I am sure many universities would be up for the task.

Before we shell out hundreds in some cases thousands of dollars to them for treatments that have been denounced by EVERY SINGLE RESPECTED MEDICAL AUTHORITY?

It would be fairly easy for an ex-gay programme to scientifically verify their claims instead of using spokespeople (already biased in their favor) to give personal testimony (not falsifiable) some of which ends up later in scandal. Why not instead:

1. Get a sample of gay men.

2. Confirm they are indeed GAY (not bisexual) through rigorous psychoanalysis and penile plethysmograph ( a device that measures blood flow to the penis while the subject views a variety of visual stimulus) and now we have pupil dilation measurements as well (new studies show our pupils automatically dilate when we see someone we are sexually attracted to)

3. Establish a control. That would be gay men who do not undergo the ex-gay therapy as well as confirmed heterosexual men

4. Subject the test subjects to the designated period of ex-gay therapy.

5. Retest them with the psychoanalysis, penile plethysmograph and pupil dilation to see (1) if they have stopped automatically responding to sexually attractive men (2) they now automatically respond to sexually attractive women instead at the same levels the heterosexual control subjects do.

Wouldn't that PROVE once and for all these ex-gay programmes actually turn gay people straight? Do you think they would be brave enough to ask a university research department to do it?

But not when a Christian answers a question asked by an atheist or non-Christian or secular discussion (medical, cultural, political) with biblical quotes and sermons?

BTW

If somone's question is clearly marked; "CHRISTIANS ONLY" I ALWAYS respect it and refrain from participating. But all other questions are fair game in my opinion.

I asked the reverse of the men earlier on here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Apbi3...

As you can see, most of the answers are sexual, basically men saying they would love all the attention and sexual advances they give to women, if it were given to them.

Somehow, I have a feeling that the aspects of manhood that women will find appealing have little to do with sex and more to do with freedom and power in the world.

I will ask the reverse later on, turnabout is fairplay. But guys go first.

And if you are a follower of The Golden Rule, whether for ethical or religious reasons, how do you justify subjecting women to any kind of treatment you would not like for yourself?

Are almost guaranteed to also be homophobic?

In all my decades of experience as a counsellor, every man I have met that was appreciative, awe-inspired, respectful of women and mutual-minded, celebratory and confident about this sexual relationships, prowess and appeal to women, and tended to have great, equally rewarding relationships with women in all spheres of life..... was also cool, tolerant or accepting of homosexuals.

Even if he may not approve of homosexuality for religious reasons. He did not have the kind of excessive rage, virulence, discomfort or distress you see some men display. Almost like they are "under attack" or TERRIFIED of being seen or treated "as a woman" by another man and/or disgusted with men who would stoop so low to allow themselves to be "the woman".

(I am well aware gay relationships do not follow that precident necessarily but that is how many people understand them).

This fear and deep aversion to being potentially looked upon as a "sexual object" by a man or disgust for a man who is "the sexual object" of another man, doesn't it suggest that many men view women and relate to women in a manner they fully well know that they would not like to be viewed or treated themselves?

Would you prefer if they went with evidencial proof beyond reasonable doubt OR their own feelings and impressions?

Doesn't this prove that in public and civil matters we do not want faith but facts to decide what laws we make regarding people's lives?

Do you often find people automatically assume you must be EITHER Atheist OR Christian depending on your question or answer?

It's like those are the only two extremes represented in Y!A.

If someone sincerely asks God to come into their life and show them the right path....and it turns out not to be the same religion as you or sometimes no religion at all?

Or do you now question whether the person TRULY asked God because if they did then OBVIOUSLY they would have been guided to your belief system?

The reason I asked is that so many people say, "Just ask God and he will show you," but I think it is with the expectation of a single outcome.

If someone sincerely asks God to come into their life and show them the right path....and it turns out not to be the same religion as you or no religion at all?

Or do you now question whether the person TRULY asked God because if they did then OBVIOUSLY they would have been guided to your belief system?

The reason I asked is that so many people say, "Just ask God and he will show you," but I think it is with the expectation of a single outcome.