Religious education

[Hazard]

Before any of this goes any further, I'd like to take a straw poll.

How much do you know about religion and Church doctrine?

Rate yourself HONESTLY on this scale:
1 - I am ignorant to how the churches and religion functions.
2 - I am familiar with what I have heard from others and read about religion.
3 - I was brought up in a christian family and have had lifelong exposure to religion, but never studied it in depth.
4 - I have spent 1-4 years studying the religions and Church doctrine.
5 - I could get a degree in this. 5+ years of extensive study.

Remember, without an honest answer we won't get anywhere.

My Answer: 4

[Adron]

My Answer: 4

How old are you Hazard? Whenever the question of years of study comes up, you've studied X for many years. You must be nearing retirement.... Redefine answer number 4 to give the number of study hours, as that's a more accurate measure. I've spent many years studying religions, but those weren't years of full-time study.

[Arta]

2.5

[Akamas]

2

[iago]

2.5, or myabe 2.75. 

I don't see the relevance, though.  This is a logical argument about known facts that have been stated in this thread. 

[nslay]

When I say it shouldn't be done soley for fun, I mean that your intentions to have sex shouldn't be because of the fact that it is fun alone.  You should have other reasons... If your intentions are only because its fun, then you'd be using your partner.

You're clearly thinking about this, and making points. That makes for productive discussions, so I'll jump in.

If your intention is to have sex because it's fun for yourself, and you force your partner into doing this, against his/her will, then yes, you'd be using your partner, and that is bad. I don't think that's the situation though.

What if you want to have sex because you want to give joy to your partner, and in the process getting joy yourself as well? Isn't that a very generous and admirable thing to do?

Then I see nothing wrong with that.  Your intentions aren't selfish.   As for Arta's question, it seems that if it were done selfishly by both partners mutually, that the sex would be meaningless and superficial.  You should give not take.   Again, the church approves of the conduct after marriage and it clearly doesn't only encompass procreation since you can also have sex when the wife can't concieve and not violate doctrine (again there are programs like Natural Family Planning that show you how to do this).
Regarding premarital sex:  It seems that the church requires marriage because it is a formal contract between the two individuals that each devote themselves to each other.  Then it would seem sex wouldn't be abused by either partner since their intentions are not selfish.  I think the Catholic Church reviews the couple before allowing them to marry as to prevent a mistake such as a couples marrying solely over superficialities (ie. their looks and not their personality and various other factors).  On the behalf of the couple, it makes it slightly difficult to walk away from problems that would likely drive anyone away from each other.  The most common example that I can think of is a guy impregnates his girlfriend and doesn't want to father the child, so he avoids the girl completely.  This certainly suggests that sex should only be reserved for after marriage because of potential problems.
Regarding contraception: Because couples can have sex when the wife cannot concieve, contraception doesn't necessarily seem wrong.  However, since the woman's conception is dictated by time, the couple must wait.  With contraception, the couple can have sex any time they want thus opening the possibility of abuse.  That is, the sex could become something done for selfish reasons for one or the other, or both even mutually.

As for Hazard's question:
I score: 4
I will eventually study theology when I finish my math PhD (if I can get that far!)

[Hazard]

I don't see the relevance, though.  This is a logical argument about known facts that have been stated in this thread. 

Most of what you and everyone else has said is coming from a position of relative ignorance, I think even you can see the point.

[Invert]

Hazard, you are just a product of your environment. You never cared or dare to color outside the lines. You do not allow yourself to be opened minded about this and blindly believe in what you were told.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

2

Hazard, you are just a product of your environment. You never cared or dare to color outside the lines. You do not allow yourself to be opened minded about this and blindly believe in what you were told.

And you did? Here's that condescending, I'm-superior-to-you-yet-I-can't-prove-it tone.

Put your money where your mouth is.

[Mephisto]

2

Hazard, you are just a product of your environment. You never cared or dare to color outside the lines. You do not allow yourself to be opened minded about this and blindly believe in what you were told.

And you did? Here's that condescending, I'm-superior-to-you-yet-I-can't-prove-it tone.

Put your money where your mouth is.

Many of us have.  Perhaps he was born into a largely conservative family and is now liberal due to venturing outside of the loop?  (I'm assuming you're liberal Invert since that's what you appear to be).

[Hazard]

Hazard, you are just a product of your environment. You never cared or dare to color outside the lines. You do not allow yourself to be opened minded about this and blindly believe in what you were told.

And you aren't a product of yours? Why do you seem to hate religion and faith so much? Did you have a tough time and blame God for your problems? Is it possible that someone who thinks critically still comes to the conclusion to follow Christ? Or is the only right way your way, obviously atheist? I actually was not raised in a religious family, I found my faith on my own. I've questioned my faith, my schooling and classes have absolutely demanded it. I challange you in fact, that you're too scared, that is TOO MUCH OF A PUSSY, to accept that there is something that you can't explain or understand. Thats your problem, not mine. Is it possible you're wrong Invert?

Answer my question Invert, that poll I put up. Just how familiar are you with religion? Or did you just hear somebody rant about how bad religion is and jump on the bandwagon? If anything, you're the follower.

[Invert]

Hazard, you are just a product of your environment. You never cared or dare to color outside the lines. You do not allow yourself to be opened minded about this and blindly believe in what you were told.

And you aren't a product of yours? Why do you seem to hate religion and faith so much? Did you have a tough time and blame God for your problems? Is it possible that someone who thinks critically still comes to the conclusion to follow Christ? Or is the only right way your way, obviously atheist? I actually was not raised in a religious family, I found my faith on my own. I've questioned my faith, my schooling and classes have absolutely demanded it. I challange you in fact, that you're too scared, that is TOO MUCH OF A PUSSY, to accept that there is something that you can't explain or understand. Thats your problem, not mine. Is it possible you're wrong Invert?

Answer my question Invert, that poll I put up. Just how familiar are you with religion? Or did you just hear somebody rant about how bad religion is and jump on the bandwagon? If anything, you're the follower.

Lets me show you how wrong you are. I am Jewish so obviously I would not follow Christ since I do not believe he was the son of god. I went to Hebrew Academy when I was a kid; they taught us about all religions and not only about Judaism and left it up to us. I believe that there is something (God) there; I have faith in that but not like any major religion wants me. I don't believe in "helpers" of God or holy places or houses of God (Church, Synagogues etc...)

I think God can represent himself perfectly fine without us. Every little emotion you have, every little feeling you have every little molecule in the universe is how God represents himself. That's what I believe.

Your faith is clouded by human interpretation of what God is. You should forget what it says in the Bible because God did not write that or said what is written in there; it is in FACT written by a human. How about you forget what you were told and figure out what you feel.

Also do not call me a "PUSSY" because you would not say that to my face, I would punch you in your mouth.

[Adron]

Couldn't you be a bit more specific? I was brought up in a Christian family. I was baptized, but I never took the confirmation because I didn't agree with all of the Christian beliefs. Two of my brothers have taken it though, so it doesn't apply to my entire family.

In my early years, I went to Christian introduction / socializing / schooling activities for 2 years. After that I've studied various religions during my school years. Study of religions mainly happened during six of the eighteen years of study that I have. But of course, I didn't dedicate six years to the study of religion entirely; I studied maths, languages and other things as well in those years.

Also, when studying religion, there wasn't a special focus on Christianity. Other religions were covered as well.

Does that make me a 4 on Hazards scale? I dunno... I think it's flawed

[Meh]

I suppose 2. I studied Judaism And Christianity for a GCSE at which I got a grade C.

[K]

I tend to stay away from these kind of topics because I hate the inevitable flame wars that seem to arise, but I have to throw this in:

I was born into a devout christian family and thoroughly educated in fundamentalist protestant christianity.
I have taken classes on Old Testament Theology and New Testament Theology.  The OT class was pretty much a joke.  The NT class educated us on scholarly biblical research and the differences in interpretations of key pericopes by conservative scholars and liberal scholars.

The bible was not written directly by god, nor by a man. you can say what you will about Divine Inspiration, but this is a fact.  The bible is a collection of many different pieces of literature, written by many different authors.  Many of these pieces were written long after the death of Jesus by members of conflicting sects of the newly forming christian church. 

If you analyze the gospels, for example, you'll note that Mark emphasizes Jesus' famous quote about the destruction of the temple -- for good reason: Mark was written just after the end of the first Jewish War, when Emperor Titus destroyed the temple.  John is the most spiritual of the gospels because it was written at a later date when the gnostic christians were thriving.

It's all about context.

Questioning people's credentials and forcing answers into a neat little number system isn't going to prove anything.