| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/25 |
| 2005/3/2-3 [Reference/Religion] UID:36484 Activity:very high |
3/2 I just found out Knuth is a Lutheran. So do the anti-religion folks
here now think Knuth doesn't use his brains? -emarkp
\_ For such a smart guy, why are you so eager to resurrect this
ad hominem trollish conversation? If the tone starts out so
hostile, do you really think you're going to change his mind? Did
his sophomoric arguments really get to you that badly? I'd think
that a deeply religious person would have developed much thicker
skin than that going to an institution like UCB.
\_ I am "anti-religion". Does Knuth use his brains? Obviously he does.
So what? This is the "appeal to authority" fallacy. A lot of famous
\_ No it isn't (it would be an appeal to authority if I
said "sine Knuth believes, so should you"). It is a
counterexample to the claim that religious people don't
use their brains. -emarkp
\_ Obviously what's meant is in the context of religion.
We have no way to know how Knuth thinks about
religion and no reason to even care.
\_ Then how is this "appeal to authority"? -emarkp
\_ you're holding up someone known for brains in
CS as an example of using brains on religion
\_ Well, he /has/ used his brains on religion.
His lectures show precisely how. -emarkp
\_ Ok I know nothing about this. But in
general his CS studies don't give any
weight to whatever religious ideas he
might have.
\_ (sigh) I /know/ that. I wasn't
claiming they did. The point isn't
that anyone should believe exactly
what Knuth believes. The point is
that you can't dismiss (say) all
Christians as not using their brains.
-emarkp
\_ But you can dismiss them as having
faulty reasoning.
\_ Why is everyone on motd so
fucking binary?
\_ Why? You're begging the
question. -emarkp
Why not? I haven't seen his reasoning. _/
Every other attempt to reason belief in Christianity
I've seen has been flawed IMO so I doubt he's
different. Anyway I'm not the one who made the
"don't use brain" assertion and I'm not willing to
defend it on its face.
\_ "reasoning belief" is practically a contradiction
in terms. some people are fine with this
contradiction. some are not. some people find
solace in faith. as long as they don't impose on
others, i'm just fine with it.
people were (at least ostensibly) religious. They may be
distinguished in their own field of study but they have no more
insight than anyone else when it comes to religion. And not long ago
it wasn't wise to admit atheism or even non-Christianity. Actually
I still don't feel comfortable admitting that as a rule, I still
come across a person occasionally who will find that shocking and
think I'm corrupted by Satan or whatever. Or for example politics
which requires all candidates to assert faith in God repeatedly.
I believe many churches are "evil" entities, in that they are greedy
and out to increase their power. This was clearly the case with the
Catholic church. Even today the Catholic church is obscenely rich.
\_ It's "clearly the case" with the Catholics? Yeah, that greedy
bastard the Pope...surely you can back that up? -emarkp
\_ Look, just do some research into the gory details of the
Catholic Church. It's a long history and far too much for the
motd. That doesn't mean the current Pope is some greedy evil
bastard. But they still extract a LOT of money from their
worldwide membership. Who controls this power? It's pretty
complex now. But if you look at the early roots of all these
religions you can see how priesthoods directly profited.
The priests described in the bible were the masters of their
tribe, receiving cuts of the holy sacrifices, delegating
power to the kings etc.
\_ Oh, I know the Catholic church has a sordid history. We're
talking about here and now though. -emarkp
power to the kings etc.
\_ Priests in the bible? The only priests described in the
bible are Jewish priests, not Catholic ones. Are some of
these Jewish priests corrupted. Yes, one is involved in
putting Jesus on the cross.
\_ I was talking about the general setup. The priest class,
regardless if it was corrupt, ran the show.
\_ Yes, that was why Jesus was against the Pharisees,
and why Martin Luther was against the Catholic
Church. However, Jesus did not reject having a
church (i.e. "organized religion"). Just because
some churches get corrupted doesn't mean we should
not have a church, which, in its purest sense, just
means a group of Christians worshipping together.
church (i.e. "organized religion").
\_ You really don't know if he did. What you think
you know about Jesus is what's provided by the
church. There's no real record of what he said.
Bible stuff was written long after he died, if
he ever existed. Martin Luther has no authority..
how could the Catholic Church be wrong? It was
a product of the apostolic succession etc.
\_ Everything Jesus said is so obviously from
the viewpoint of Heaven, that I am convinced
it is true. No mortal could have come up
with what Jesus said in the Gospels. Also,
it's not as easy as you think for your
supposed corrupt church to fake everything.
There are multiple sources, many manuscripts,
etc. Don't forget during the early years
Christians were fed to lions. For a long
period of time, there isn't a centralized,
powerful church, and I don't think they can
easily erase and fake things later on. If
the bible is edited by people bent on greed,
it wouldn't be as it is today, which reminds
me of an Abe Lincoln quote:
"If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this
one?"
\_ right. multiple sources that conflict,
sources that appeared hundreds of years
later, etc. Let's look at your other
assertions: no mortal could come up with?
Why not? There are plenty of other examples
to draw from. What about Buddha? He's not
considered holy by Xtians yet some of Jesus
stuff sounds like Buddha. There's also the
previous scripture for them to draw from,
that sets the tone. All I can say is, try
to study the early Christian history from
unbiased sources and you'll find that it
is absolutely possible.
\_ If you wish to think of it as one big
conspiracy theory, that's your choice.
I am going to go eat dinner, and then
read the bible before I go to bed.
Good night.
\_ Siddhartha does have some good stuff,
but he isn't Jesus. There is a book
called Lotus and the Cross by Ravi
Zacharias written as a dialogue between
Jesus and Buddha. It's not a bad read.
\_ Obviously he's talking about "as far as we
know". Also, IIRC Clement of Rome was a
contemporary of Peter and historical accounts
leave little doubt that Jesus /existed/. The
question is how accurate the Gospel accounts
are. -emarkp
\_ There is plenty of doubt that Jesus existed
as one person. There were a number of holy
guys running around and stories of miracle
workers etc. We /still/ have stories about
miracle workers. Nobody says they're Jesus.
There were lots of religious cults, the
Christ cult grew up as just one of many, and
many years after the supposed events.
The LDS church follows the same path. Thankfully due to long
\_ Please show how the LDS church is "greedy and out to increase"
it's power. And of course show how an organization has a will of
its own. -emarkp
\_ organisations can't have a will? the nature of organised
churches is they have authority figures dictating things.
all organisations have leaders who direct the organisation.
As for LDS, it's designed to extract money from membership
and members are directed to proselytize. Mormons are supposed
to do those conversion missions. LDS church is very wealthy.
\_ How is it designed to extract money? Who benefits from it?
Yes, members are directed to proselytize, but we believe
the teachings to be true, so why wouldn't we? -emarkp
\_ Obviously, the clergy benefit from it. Brigham Young
had 27 wives. Haha.
\_ How do they benefit? You think having 27 wives is
only a benefit? Having many women to sleep with
might sound great to you now, but keep in mind he had
over 40 children. Furthermore, polygamy in early
Utah was not restricted to the leadership. -emarkp
\_ They get money and power and respect. Young
wasn't working 9-5 and changing 50 diapers.
\_ Well, he was farming his land, which wasn't
exactly a cakewalk. -emarkp
struggle, resisting the church now doesn't mean severe hardship
or death. But if you live in a religious community then you'd still
feel "cut off" from the club and so forth. Religions take advantage
of this sense of belonging, and comforting tales of the afterlife,
to perpetuate themselves.
\_ Non sequitur. If the LDS (say) church really is true, they're
not taking advantage of anything.
\_ What? They take advantage regardless if it's true.
\_ So I'm taking advantage of you by telling you not to jump
off a cliff? -emarkp
\_ i said "take advantage of xx to perpetuate themselves".
not sure what you're trying to argue about.
\_ The consequence of jumping off a cliff is that you
get injured or killed. The consequence of sin is
spiritual death. -emarkp
\_ So they take advantage of people's fear of death.
They're not just standing there saying not to
jump off cliffs. There's a whole apparatus set
up.. they're saying unless you are part of their
organisation you're doomed. That's quite different
from merely telling someone not to jump.
\_ So now it's just "fear of death"? If the
resurrection /will/ happen, then telling people
to prepare for it isn't "taking avantage" of a
fear, but simply giving people good
information. If the spiritual consequences of
sin are in fact as dire spiritually as jumping
off a cliff is physically, then there's no
difference. -emarkp
\_ The difference is the organizations like LDS
or the CC that are run more like powerful
corporations.
\_ What does this even mean? And what does
this have to do with the above? -emarkp
\_ I'm saying you don't need a powerful
organisation to tell people not to
jump off cliffs. They aren't "telling"
people to prepare. They are saying you
have to join the group.
\_ But if it's true that you have to
join the group, then they're not
lying or levereging, etc. And was
does it even mean "to be run like a
corporation"? -emarkp
\_ It's obviously not true. Jesus
never said you have to join some
church. His supposed apostles
who started Jesus, Inc. said it.
Jesus said whoever believes in
him will have everlasting life.
This has never panned out.
Everybody kicked the bucket.
\_ Oh, it's obvious. Glad
that's settled. So you
reject the biblical account
of the apostles, but accept
the biblical account of what
Jesus said? That really
doesn't make much sense.
-emarkp
\_ Matthew 16:18 and Matthew
18:17: Jesus talking about the
church. Jesus also goes to
the synagogue to preach, and
chase merchants out of the
temple, saying they have made
the house of his Father a den
of thieves.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/HTML%20pages/peter.htm _/
\_ I've read some similar sites. If
someone wants to view things
through cynical lenses, I am sure
they can come up with a lot of
theories. But the message of the
bible speaks for itself.
\_ Just remember that the bible didn't
drop out of heaven in a miracle. It
was written by human hands in human
languages over centuries and had
revisions and additions.
\_ We believe that the bible was
written by many hands but all
under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit.
\_ Before becoming a pastor, our church's
pastor was a derivative trader making
a 6 figure salary. Now he is making around
pastor was a derivative trader making a 6
figure salary. Now he is making around
$30k per year. He is the only person
receiving a salary at our church. Please
tell me how my church is run like a
powerful corporation.
\_ I never claimed every church is.
\_ You didn't even define it. -emarkp
\_ You really don't get it, do you? I can't speak for the other
"anti-religion" people on the motd, but I have nothing against
religion or religious people as long as they don't try to force
a religious-based morality on the rest of society through law.
Also, when I see a politically conservative religious person trying
to enforce their beliefe system on the rest of us, I don't think
they're "not using their brain", I think they're evil. That's
different.
\_ You're not "anti-religion" then. I'm referring to people who say
that anyone who is religious is stupid. I knew a number of them
when I was in school. And someone posted just below:
"the same reason that people believe in organized religion:
because they don't use their brains."
-emarkp
\_ Ah, see now you're adding the word "organized" to religion.
I'm not strictly anti-organized religion either, but I
certainly view it with a lot more skepticism than pure
religion in the sense of a personal belief system. The
"not using their brains" part seems like bullshit to me
as far as that goes. I've known too many religiously devout
scientists who were as smart or smarter than me to buy that
one anymore. That sounds like pompous sysadmins blowing off
steam.
\_ What is your objection to organization? -emarkp
\_ In principle? Nothing. In practice, I think organized
religions are generally forces of evil in the world,
particularly when coupled with political power.
When Islam just means praying towards Mecca, eating
Halal food, reading the Koran, and claiming that
Muhammad was a prophet, I have no objection...but
throw in a few Clerics who claim Allah wants people
to kill Americans and Jews, and you have one of the
greatest forces of evil in todays world. Western
Christians are no longer as evil as that because of
several hundred years of struggle by liberals against
the power of established churches, but qualitatively,
they all lead toward the same evil.
\_ Interestingly, Islam is a problem precisely because
it /isn't/ organized. There's no central authority
to say "hey guys, killing innocents isn't ok".
-emarkp
\_ Sorry, not to engage in emarkp bashing, but
you're only partially correct--there may not be
any "central authority" in islam, but there is
quite a bit of decentralized authority in the
form of imams and muftis, some of whom are more
respected than others based on reputation or
family background. Obviously an imam of a huge
mosque will carry more weight than another one.
Al-Azhar and al-Quds also lay claim to strong
academic "authority". And shi'ism has a concept
of ranks among ayatollahs--if a grand ayatollah
yells about martyrs, that's some pretty central
authority there. -John
\_ Yes, I know this (and I don't consider
disagreeing with me civilly to be bashing),
but if there was a single central authority,
he could denounce the behavior. Alternatively
if he supported it, we'd know it was a holy
war, period. -emarkp
\_ There doesn't have to be a single central
authority for it to be a holy war--this
would also not insure the absence thereof,
as with bishops objecting to the crusades,
or even sects of christianity who do not
recognize, say, the pope. -John
\_ Good point. I think it would help
though, and that Islams largely
decentralized leadership is a detriment,
not a benefit. -emarkp
\_ Mmh...think "pope Ahmed Yassin", or
"pope Khomeini". Consider the
consequences. John Paul II is a
tired old mysogynist who's got some
strong convictions and has done some
good and some bad things, but he'd
be largely ignored if he told the
world's catholics to go start a holy
war. -John
\_ Uh...right. You mean like how Christian leaders
used their leadership to stop the hollocaust in
Europe when Christian Germany was trying to take
over the world for the master race? How about
the moral authority of the perpetrators of the
Inquisition? I'll say it again: that level
of evil has been largely eradicated from the
Christian world largely in *spite* of, not
*because* of church leadership.
\_ Martin Luther was a liberal?
\_ Um, the Inquisition was several centuries ago,
and the anonyomous poster said that organized
religions ARE (as in currently, not several
centuries ago) forces of evil. You'll note
that the Holocaust was organized by Hitler,
not any church. -emarkp
\_ Nice double standard. You claimed that
a problem with Islam today is the lack
of some central moral authority who could
stand up and say "terrorism is against God,
so you have to stop." My point was that
the organized church did nothing to stop
a Christian nation from commiting
crimes against humanity in the recent
past.
\_ The Holocaust wasn't done /in the name
of religion/. Islam terrorists are.
You don't see the difference? Also, you
said that they ARE forces of evil. Not
that they failed to stop forces of evil.
[reinserted after someone removed it]
-emarkp
I'll go further and say that you are
exactly wrong about Islam today. I know
American Muslims who go about their
business as good, moral people in spite of
the idiocy perpetrated by their fellows in
the middle east, in my opinion *because*
they don't have to listen to some
hatemonger from Saudi Arabia to be a
Muslim.
\_ I know some too. I also know Saudi,
Lebanese, and Egyptian muslims who do
the same. Most of my muslim friends,
though, are far more likely to fly into
a frothing rage than my non-muslim
friends over sensitive religious topics
and these are educated people. -John
\_ You have no way of knowing that. It is
just as likely that the leader of Islam
would rebuke them and tell the
equally valid to assert that the leader
of Islam would rebuke them and tell the
membership to shun terrorists. -emarkp
\_ Martin Luther was a liberal?
\_ Do you know MLK is a pastor?
\_ Abe Lincoln. Nuff said.
\_ Many of the top universities and hospitals in
asia (and elsewhere?) today were founded by
christian organizations.
\_ missionaries in England spearheaded the
movement that stopped opium trade in China.
\_ News flash, Einstein was a Jew, a JEW!
\_ The Germans claim he was German, and the French claim he was a
citizen of the world. -- ilyas
\_ But AFAIK he didn't believe in a personal God. He used the term
"God" to refer to the universe. -emarkp
\_ Actually, Einstein supposedly wanted to become a rabbi
when he was young. That obviously changed latter. I doubt
you can attribute to Einstein's personal religious beliefs
or his own personal beliefs of God (nobody can). Anyway,
how devout is Knuth as compared to Einstein? Did you now
that Darwin was and remained an Anglican?
\_ I found this out because of the book "Things a Computer
Scientist Rarely Talks About", which is his 6 lectures he
gave at MIT in 1999 about God and CS. He did a personal
project in 1985-6 called "3:16" which was an analysis of
translations of the Bible, which came from his teaching a
Bible class in his church. I'd guess he's as devout in his
faith as I am in mine. -emarkp
\_ people aren't perfectly rational, even smart ones. but i'd be
interested in seeing how many science/math/eng people adopt
religion later in life rather than being born into it.
\_ my personal guess: plenty, easier than say people in the
humanities and social sciences.
\_ I'm not anti-religion, as long as I can hang out with THESE
people:
http://www.eros-london.com/articles/2003-07-22/libchrist |
| 7/25 |
|
| www.jesusneverexisted.com/HTML%20pages/peter.htm Pope Sylvester I (314-335) This minor bishop had the grand fortune to be in office when the real 'Bishop of Bishops' Emperor Constantine took the Christian option. Sylvester was never part of the imperial entourage, and was not summoned toNicaea in 325. However, Constantine gave him a redundant palace the Lateran. This massive structure had once belonged to Constantine's wife Fausta,murdered by the emperor in 326. One of the longest reigning popes, Sylvester did nothing but enjoy his windfall, a bonanza beyond his wildest dreams. To make up for the lack of edifying heroics, invention took a hand from the5th century onwards. Admits the Catholic Encyclopedia: "The accounts given ... concerning the persecution of Sylvester, the healing and baptism of Constantine, the emperor's gift to the pope, the rights granted to the latter, and the council of 275 bishops at Rome, are entirely legendary." Pope Sergius III (Dec 897, 904-911) Deposed shortly after gaining the bishop's chair by the local monarch of Spoleto, the aristo' Sergius waited 7 years for his come back. A split in the pro-Formosus gang in 904 gave him his chance. He took Rome with hired troops, "moved by pity" murdered his two papal predecessors Christopher and Leo V who were languishing in jail, and used violence to bring the local clergy into line. He then secured his position with the local boss of bosses Theophylact, papal treasurer and commander of the garrison, by getting his 15 year old daughter Morozia pregnant. To ingratiate himself with Leo VI in Constantinople he 'over-ruled' the eastern patriarch and endorsed the emperor's 4th marriage. The only other notable event of Sergius's reign was ordering the 10 year old corpse of Pope Formosus re-exhumed, beheaded, 3 more fingers cut off and thrown back into the river Tiber! Thus secure, Sergius minted coins with his own effigy and took to wearing atiara the first pope to do so. He even managed to die peacefully in his bed, almost unique for a 10th century pope. Pope Leo X (Giovanni de' Medici) 1513-21 Abbot at 7 and cardinal at 13, Giovanni began his papacy with the words "Now I can really enjoy myself." To fund his reckless gambling and lavish parties he sold at auction more than 2000 papal appointments. A flamboyant homosexual, Leo ran his own bawdy theatre (for which he wrote risque plays) and kept a pet elephant. He had no interest in religion but did excommunicate a troublesome priest called Luther. Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia) (1492 - 1503) Everyone knows about Alexander VI, the Borgia pope he's the one 'bad' pope, compared to all the 'good' ones. Actually Alexander maintained the standards of the papacy quite well, usingthe time-honoured practices of bribery, violence and nepotism to advance his own interests and cause suffering to others. Made a cardinal at 25 by his uncle Pope Callistus III, Alexander headed up a vast ecclesiastic empire even before he bought the papal throne in 1492. One business alliance, with the Farnese family, was secured by taking the 15 year old Guilia as his mistress, although most of his many children were sired with another young woman, Vanozza de Cattanei. Fabulously wealthy Alexander lived a sybaritic existence, laced by the occasional murder, often of members of rival 'great families' or troublesome priests like Savonarola. A famous "chestnut orgy" recorded by papal aid Johann Burchard earns Alexander his place in the Party Animals Hall of Fame. To celebrate his son Cesare's marriage, "50 prostitutes danced nude, then scrambled on all fours for chestnuts, forwhich they were rewarded with silks and precious gifts." Sadly Alexander's party days were cut short when he mixed up poison intended for a redundant cardinal and killed himself! Julius II (Giuliano della Rovere) (1503 - 1513) Julius, affectionately known as "Il Terribile", is proof that not all popeswere sybaritic sloths. Not for him any 'gentle Jesus' he took his cue from the battling patriarchs of the Old Testament, put on his armour and subjected Italy to almost continuous warfare. His big break came when "uncle" Francesco made pope (as Sixtus IV) and Guiliano became an 18 year old Cardinal and boss of extensive Church businesses. Hatred for Rodrigo Borgia made it necessary for Guiliano to flee to France when his rival made pope. With Alexander's death, Guiliano returned, boughtthe papacy, and set about conquering Italy. first enemy, then ally, of Venice (and with use of Swiss troops), this ruthless, violent pontiff re-established thepapal states and made the papacy loathed and feared. He paid for his wars, luxurious apartments (and an intended rebuilding of St Peters) with an army of clerics set to high-pressure selling of beneficesand "indulgences" the final straw as far as Luther was concerned. Scandal was, he enjoyed "unnatural vice" with the gay sculptor Michelangelo and "pressured" him into painting the Sisti ne Chapel. Making a Saint out of Peter In reaction to the runaway success of Marcions Pauline Christianity, scr ibes in Rome concocted a sacred history to bolster their own claim to si ngular authority. Their chosen hero figure was Peter, first of the apos tles. It seems curious, to say the least, that a Judaean fisherman, a married J ew and the designated apostle of the circumcision, should become the i conographic, patronising and protecting hero-figure at the heart of Roma n Catholicism. With Jesus, Mary and the Father already in the pantheon, why did the church need another celestial hero? In the first three centur ies of the Christian era, Rome was not an especially important centre fo r the Faith. The great sees of the early Christian world were Alexandria , Ephesus and Antioch each a centre of early proselytising and of a la rge Christian community. Paul had lived in Antioch, for example and John, it was said, had seen out his days in Ephesus. Jerusalem, the original Christian centre of the world and anticipated v enue for Christs descent from the clouds, had been destroyed in 70 AD. To the pious mind, the pagan new town of Aelia, built upon its ruins, had lowly status and was subordinate to the see at Caesarea. Again, Caes area could claim an apostolic connection: here, Philip the evangelist had supposedly lived. In these eastern cities, the early church produced its first leaders, the Fathers who made the earliest attempts at defini ng doctrine and establishing the uniqueness of their faith. These were t he apologists who engaged in debate with Greek philosophers and compet ed with the priests of Mithra and other mystery religions. It was their stylii that wrote the earliest Christian scripture. For centuries, schoo ls of philosophy, mystics, prophets and magicians had speculated on real ity. Now that were joined by speculators in Christ, many themselves trai ned in rhetoric and classical philosophy. The Many Colours of Christianity The Christ legend, as it existed in the mid-years of the second century, was still in the process of forming. The churches of the Mediterranean w orld were functioning as a number of autonomous entities, with only a mi nimal degree of doctrinal agreement. Centuries later it would be held th at there had been some sort of orthodoxy from the very beginning and e verything else was a marginal heresy, ultimately falling by the wayside as orthodoxy triumphed. All of the Church Fathers were heretics judged by the standards of late r centuries. In their own day, they clashed violently with each other on central issues, such as: was Christ God, an emanation of God or a creat ion of God? If Christ was a creation, yet was himself a god, was Christi anity a two god faith? Jewish theologians certainly attacked the Christi ans for such an apostasy. Again, if Christ was a creation, had there bee n a time when he had not existed? If less than the creator, could his death atone for the sins of the wo rld? After all, would it not require the sacrifice of at least a god to redeem the whole of humanity? Yet if Christ was more than a normal man, could his death and resurrection be an example for normal men to follow? Perhaps Jesus was a human upon whom the holy spirit had descended or wa s he God ta... |
| www.eros-london.com/articles/2003-07-22/libchrist -> www.eros-london.com/articles/2003-07-22/libchrist/ When you think of Christians and sex, what are the first few things that come to your mind? Or perhaps, "Christians make a point of telling me I am going to hell for my sexual proclivities." Or even, "Christians think monogamy and marriage are the only game in tow n" How wrong you'd be; They're an interesting crew who are far f rom the field of those fire-and-brimstone spouting members of the Christ ian faith who would rather see you burn than be a whole, sexually comfor table (and satisfied) individual. "Promoting Positive Intimacy and Sexuality Including Responsible Non-mono gamy or Polyamory as a legitimate CHOICE for Christians and others, Expo sing false traditions of sexual repression that have no biblical basis, Promoting Intimacy & Other-Centered, Loving Sexuality" are just some of the headers on their site. Immediately I thought: wow, how different a s chool of thought than the one into which I was raised. It is interesting to note that the Liberated Christians work on the theory that if one works with the original scriptures and He brew and Greek texts, you may find that the original meanings toward sex and traditional relationships have become skewed over the years. In fact, the Liberated Christians suggest that "responsible non-monogamy, loving intimacy and other-centered sexual pleasure sharing is much more in line with Christ's teaching that love is the greatest commandment th an the repressive traditional teachings which make rules based on false foundations." So the guilt and the years of squirming under the priest's gaze on Sunday thinking he could just tell that I was being bad and far from the good girl I was supposed to be were all a big waste of time? That's alm ost oddly disappointing So where did all this misunderstanding stem from? Well, according to the site (and the numerous essays therein), the sexual morality of Christian s was not something handed down by Christ himself; rather, it was handed down by later practitioners and leaders who were more interested in con trolling the masses then following the original tenets. html), the dour views the church c urrently holds on sex probably originated with St. This charm ing fellow, in a move to distance himself from his previous life and sex ual proclivities, began to do the thing that I abhor in former smokershe becomes an overzealous, anti-sex person who preaches only about the neg ativities of his former lifestyle. His aesthetic views included the thought that sex was only valid if inten ded as a means of procreation. Any sex, even that within the holy, sanct ioned bonds of marriage, used for pleasure, was wrong, wrong, wrong, and you would burn, burn, burn for it. The idea that sex was only useful and authorized for met hods of procreation is indicative of the needs of the church at this tim e The mortality rates were frightfully high, the church needed more fai thful followers, and the socio-economic and political structures of the time were entirely controlled by the church. Fascinating to note, the early incarnations of the church even indicate t hat the clergy enjoyed polyamorous or polygamous relationships. Priests and monks were allowed to marry and have children, and often had more th an one wife. Funny how things change when money and the property of the church come into question later on. the Liberated Christians are seeking to educ ate people on the original teachings while encouraging people to revel i n what they describe as "God's gift"their sexuality. Their philosophy in cludes the belief that a fuller spirituality in every area can be enjoye d by replacing the church's indoctrination and false morality with healt hier tenets based on clearer biblical translation and interpretation. In addition, they believe that we, as spiritual, sexual creatures, can le ad emotionally and spiritually healthier lives through better sex educat ion and the "open discussion of alternative relationship styles and othe r vital issues of sex and intimacy that trouble Christians and others in our society." So, okaythey profess to believe the opposite of what most of us were taug ht in those Sunday school classeshow does this work? Known enigmatically only as Bill and Dave, the founders of this movement have pretty strong backgrounds in faith-based atmospheres. Bill was once an attendee at a well-known evangelical seminary. Dave was actively inv olved in his church and was even a deacon in his Presbyterian ministries for a while. Bill makes the statement that we are defined by our sexu ality as much as we are by any other element in our lives, which, from w hat I remember of CCD classes, seems in direct conflict with current sta ndards in Christianity. As a former student of theology, Bill studied the scriptures and biblical documents in their original languages. His studies led him to finally c onclude that what had been handed down as the "word of God" with respect to love and sex was either "false" or malformed. One of the most striking statements in his biography is his belief that t he church has divorced sexuality from spirituality. The bio used words l ike guilt-ridden and neurotic when describing the effects of the church' s judgment and moral stance upon its followers. For anyone who has been raised in a traditionally Christian family, you can surely agree with th e validity of that statement. To be a good Christian, one was discourage d from embracing your sexual, sensual nature aside from within your mari tal bed. This bold statement is coupled and perhaps compounded by the fact that Bi ll is a social nudist, and believes that acceptance of the body is one o f the keys to sexual freedom for the self. This, perhaps, helps undersco re his conviction that "God's intention for us as human beings and Chris tians is to have positive sexual self-esteem, to enjoy our sexual needs and desires and to share loving sexuality with a variety of people in re sponsible ways that conform to the New Testament's teaching." Dave, because of his upbringing and involvement in ministries, believed f or many years that the word of God was just thatthe word of God and that 's it. A chance encounter with a couple who were studying to become Luth eran ministers who felt there were obvious discrepancies between the ori ginal teachings toward sex, love, and monogamy led Dave to begin his own search for his truth. Similarly to his partner, he began to study the original Greek and Hebrew texts and came to similar conclusions on what the first teachings of Ch rist and the church were compared to current mores. He became very upset that the church would mistranslate and misapply biblical truths to prom ote an agenda which was not based on the original biblical texts. Feeling disillusioned, Dave and Bill created the Liberated Christians gro up, based upon the following four stated goals: To help people overcome false sexual guilt taught by traditional Christ ianity, but which has no biblical basis. To help people learn and share more intimate sexuality beyond just "thr usting sex." To encourage and provide group support for encouraging long-term polyam orous relationships. Placing themselves as the only Christian swingers group, the Liberated Christians have, of course, generated some media buzz but feel strongly about the group's privacy at the same time. And walking t his line has at times brought them and their belief systems into the pat h of some rather irate conservative Christians. But the boys seem to enj oy the opportunity to engage other believers into dialogue, though they admit that conversion rates are pretty low. As much as we're all seeking a little acceptance and validation of our ow n unique versions of sexuality and spirituality, it seems even Bill and Dave might have trouble in finding partners who support their belief, an d their lifestyle. Dave has made several statements on the website which pronounce his unhappiness in his inability to find a partner who unders tands, accepts, and embraces his polyamorous beliefs. But the interest group seems to have a hold on a small community in a goo d old grass-roots movement fashion. Their site offers intriguing, in formational e... |