Anyone who’s ever seen an Ingmar Bergman film knows that sex and religion are intimately connected, at least in a certain sector of the (Swedish ?) popluation, but I think that some of us may be surprised by the results of the following poll....
Henri, your recent foray into chick tracts should have confirmed the numbers your poll listed for the US. Some of my fellow "recovering roman" friends share a laugh over the subtext in the education we received: sex is the worst possible sin ever! Save it for the one you truly love!
Too bad your poll didn’t have a sidebar on what proportion of each nationality believes in/participates in some sort of psychoanalytical therapy… :)
[quote author=gailr link=board=omni;num=1099136920;start=0#1 date=10/30/04 at 11:01:25]... Some of my fellow "recovering roman" friends share a laugh over the subtext in the education we received: sex is the worst possible sin ever! Save it for the one you truly love!
... :)
Gailr, from what I could see of the wares being offered, the eponymous (anonymous ?) Mr Chick (Jack T. Chick) to be precise) is not too pleased with Ecclésia, quae una est, sancta, catholica et apostolica. Thus the summary of one of the tracts listed
Last Rites
When this Catholic dies, he learns that his church couldn’t save him.
so you are specifically referring to Catholics as religious, not Hindu, Buddhists, shintoists, seventh-day adventists? I just like to know just who you are bashing….
[quote author=KatyBr link=board=omni;num=1099136920;start=0#3 date=10/30/04 at 13:35:01]so you are specifically referring to Catholics as religious, not Hindu, Buddhists, shintoists, seventh-day adventists? I just like to know just who you are bashing….
Katy, I’m not bashing anybody—with the possible exception of Jack T. Chick, assuming there’s a real person behind that monicker. If you click on the link marked «wares» in my previous posting, I think you’ll be able to discover who’s doing the bashing….
[quote author=M._Henri_Day link=board=omni;num=1099136920;start=0#4 date=10/30/04 at 13:55:52]
Katy, I’m not bashing anybody—with the possible exception of Jack T. Chick, assuming there’s a real person behind that monicker. If you click on the link marked «wares» in my previous posting, I think you’ll be able to discover who’s doing the bashing….
Henri
I was reacting to the word religious, I believe many different religious groups can be very sincere, austere, and zealous; all hallmarks of the ‘religious’ peoples(including certain scientific circles; not just L.Ron’s either), not just Catholics. (btw I am definately NOT Catholic except in the universal sense, hence my concern for equal time)
[quote author=KatyBr link=board=omni;num=1099136920;start=0#5 date=10/30/04 at 14:41:00]I was reacting to the word religious, I believe many different religious groups can be very sincere, austere, and zealous ...
Katy, I quite agree, having known not a few religious people (and non-religious people) who were quite sincere about their beliefs (but perhaps not always so very austere). My problem is primarily with the last of the three adjectives you employ - when members of these groupings not only sincerely but zealously believe that they alone possess the key to the Truth (and are thus willing to prosecute others who don’t accept this Truth), then we have a problem….
Henri,
since it is a thread marked Sex and religion I believe one needs all three of the adjectives I employed.
zealously believe that they alone possess the key to the Truth
this is new and please remember you did have a bash in mind as you introduced this.
and since you dropped the hypocrit banner in this go ahead and run with it. I just wanted to interject the fact that many "religions" require austerity, and much lip-service is given.
Actually, Katy, it was the poll to which I provided a link in my first posting which interested me here, not bashing opportunities. Please try to believe me when Scotty gets around to beaming you up !...
[quote author=M._Henri_Day link=board=omni;num=1099136920;start=0#8 date=10/30/04 at 15:45:10]Actually, Katy, it was the poll to which I provided a link in my first posting which interested me here, not bashing opportunities. Please try to believe me when Scotty gets around to beaming you up !...
Henri
I was merely clarifing who it was you were finding so ‘interesting’.
Thank you for noticing my Latin which I put there just for you.
Katy
in fact I save cool Latin quotes to post just for you to translate for us.
Wow—I leave you people alone for one day and you almost get into fisticuffs over s&r… :)
Henri is correct that Mr. Chick believes that only a very small proportion of people should be looking forward to the afterlife; fortuitously, he [Chick] is one of them! I find some of his rants to be quite hilarious, having been born into a religion whose top bananas have tried desperately for 2 thousand (give or take a few) years to bludgeon the entire population of the earth into believing that it’s their way or the down-only stairway, buddy. I still have many kind relatives and friends who have remained with The Church and, happily, none of them buys this tunnel-vision attitude.
It is both amusing and sad to see each upstart sect go through the same phase, although fortunately, most outgrow it more quickly. The monotheistic religions seem more susceptible by definition, but extremist—or even fundamentalist—views can be found in any religious system. (Mr. Chick doesn’t hold out much hope for them, either… :))
Tonight I was in the adult escort group for a friend’s trick-or-treating child. One particular house in his neighborhood always hands out the most heinous chick tracts with the candy. I forgot to bring along the spoof version I printed out from another site, so that he would have something to hand them as well. Perhaps it is just as well. [insert "evil" smiley here] Ah well, there is always next year…
I don’t understand why someone thinks that somebody else tries to bash something. To me, the poll is perfectly neutral in all aspects.
It must be difficult to outdo the Chick tracts in lack of tolerance. Sincere Christians should be among the first to criticize, reject and generally bash them.
Perhaps the survey tells us something about the nature of religion. If religion does not impact on every thought, speech and act, it is shallow. Being religious is different from being a bigot. I admire a person who can fully embrace religion; I do not admire a bigot. The thought came to the fore with the rejection of Rocco Buttiglione by the European Parliament - was he simply being religious, or being a bigot? All I could gather from the news reports was that he seemed odd and had found himself in an undesirable political situation (he was disliked, far from friends, and the chosen whipping boy). He seems like a bigot, and I wouldn’t want him speaking for Europe. However, I worry that it is the bigots who proudly carry the religious label. Can we have a round of applause for religious liberals, please?
I googled Rocco Buttiglione, foiund he was close to the Pope, excomminicated, said his views, (not to be allowed if said views are, at present, unpopular) What is the consensus of his ‘crime’ among those here who know him better that my google searches reveal?
