Twisting the words of a friend
A friend of mine placed a quote on her blog today. I won't specifically link to her because I don't want any annoyed persons placing blame on her for my reaction to her post. Similarly why I brought this here rather than responding there.
Apparently 1 Peter 4:8 says, "Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins."
I will definitely put that one in my back pocket for future use. Not sure what the context is, but I will probably look at it shortly to find out. In the mean time it will be useful during one of my regular topics of passionate debate in regards to those who like to throw those snippets of quotes at you to prove their point.
In case any of you haven't already assumed where I am going with this, I will say it supports the argument I have had all along. Most specifically, though, one might say that if acting on one's homosexuality is a sin, perhaps the above quote insinuates that doing so out of a deep love for another, that sin, and a multitude of others is covered. After all, some have inappropriately stated that God is love. If that were the case, wouldn't the action be in his name anyway?
Not gonna rant to much on that subject now though. It isn't like I don't give it enough of it's own airtime. Speaking of which, did any of you notice my cute little rainbow? Sometimes, if you have an audience, you need to let it be known what you think. That's just a part of life, or something close to it.
Apparently 1 Peter 4:8 says, "Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins."
I will definitely put that one in my back pocket for future use. Not sure what the context is, but I will probably look at it shortly to find out. In the mean time it will be useful during one of my regular topics of passionate debate in regards to those who like to throw those snippets of quotes at you to prove their point.
In case any of you haven't already assumed where I am going with this, I will say it supports the argument I have had all along. Most specifically, though, one might say that if acting on one's homosexuality is a sin, perhaps the above quote insinuates that doing so out of a deep love for another, that sin, and a multitude of others is covered. After all, some have inappropriately stated that God is love. If that were the case, wouldn't the action be in his name anyway?
Not gonna rant to much on that subject now though. It isn't like I don't give it enough of it's own airtime. Speaking of which, did any of you notice my cute little rainbow? Sometimes, if you have an audience, you need to let it be known what you think. That's just a part of life, or something close to it.
posted by Wanderer at 9:32 PM
14 Comments:
love = lust?
love = sex?
I would agree with your take on that verse, "christians" might be surprised just how many sins real love covers...
yet, "acting on ones' homosexuality" is not neccessarily the same as loving ones partner faithfully
If asked, I will have to stick with calling sin sin. And I will go one loving. It's not up to me to decide which sins are covered...
Why would you jump to the conclusion instantly that I was making either of those initial associations?
Sex is one of the ways in which two people in love share their feelings. My point was the opposite of what you imply. If it wasn't simply about sex, but an extension of a love for another individual, then what does this imply in regards to the teachings of a God for whom love is apparently a priority?
In truth, as I said, I would only throw this out as a counter to equally out of place and inappropriate connections drawn on the subjects by fanatics that I argue with.
Bottom line? I don't see where God condemns these relationships as sinful, nor do I see how he could given the picture painted of him in your book. But that is an argument that will go on forever, with one side blinded by their own misinterpretations, and the other blinded by being who God made them to be.
As such, I will not argue the question of "sin" since it isn't my religion that claims this. I will keep my arguments on the political side, as in, sinful or not has no business in legality or these people's rights. Our public officials put their hand on the bible and swear to uphold the constitution, not the other way around.
hmm. we (christians) love to yatter on about which sins are 'okay' and which sins are forgiven.
we even seem to have favorite ones. pick the whole gay thing. I can be rude, arrogent, judgemental overweight, etc. but as long as I'm not Gay I'm okay.
ridiculous. which of us is not living in some lifestyle of sin? It's like a man telling his wife to 'submit'. That scripture is often misunderstood and misused. It was written for a woman, a man should never quote it. Not to mention the fact that the verse before says 'submit to one another'.
Yikes.
LYB
Seraphim
p.s. curious, do you worship the goddess as 3 aspects or 5?
Why would your god spend his creative energy giving you something that brings pleasure to humans and then tell you not to use it? What the fuck sense does that make?
"Because he said that does not mke it so."
- Voltaire
Good points from Lisanocerous and MC. Thank you Seraphim as well for weighing in.
MC - you do have to be careful, you keep hitting on points preceding similar topics in my White Wolf posts. You don't want to be accused of collaborating with me, do you? :) Seriously, though, I do appreciate the input from all of you on this and other topics I put out.
Seraphim - Maid, Mother and Crone tend to be the default aspects through which I tend to view the Goddess. (I believe this is what you were referring to in your question) While aspects of these blend with each other, even through the stages, I stick to it because it references the three component parts of the maturity of women: Pre and post pubescence and menopausal.
There are many other components that tie into the triple Goddess imagery, but I am still dealing with journeys now. I will get more into my beliefs when I am done with the foundation.
Seraphim - Maid, Mother and Crone tend to be the default aspects through which I tend to view the Goddess. (I believe this is what you were referring to in your question)
Yes exactly. I'm familiar with both the 3 and the 5. The 5 aspects would be:
Maiden, Bride, Matron, Warrior, Crone
Always glad to contribute. You make me think.
LYB
I'shalom
Seraphim
So, should I post the e-mail I sent to my boss quitting? It's sarc-tastic!
I don't think Sex is a Sin. I rather like it myself. However, statistics (and who ever believes Statisitcs, since they can easily be manipulated to prove any point)any way, statistics show that the "free sex" of the 60's led to all sorts of ills in society.
statistics show that being raised in a home with a father and mother betters the chances of a child being a successful and responsible citizen. of course my own dear sons are living proof it doesn't always work out that way...
God set down certian guide lines. Why? the same reason any good parent sets down rules for their children. Don't do this, because if you do, you will get hurt.
Don't play in traffic, don't put that screw driver into the electric outlet, don't touch the hot stove. Don't have sex outside of marriage.
MC - Feel free to post it.
Seraphim - Besides the other aspects I will get into for the triune Goddess, the bride and the warrior are aspects that are too easily redundant within one or more of the other aspects. One applies a status that would not impact the other aspects, the other a job title with basically the same (lack of) impact.
granted, what makes a marriage indeed? certainly not a piece of paper or a fancy celebration.
Biblically speaking, God set up the family unit as the best model for society, the building block of society, right from the start of humanity. I would probably accept the definition of marriage as "a consensual adult monogamous relationship". Ofcourse, by that definition, I've been married 4 times. Why does the God of the Bible warn against homosexual activity, and designate it as a sin? What harm does it do?
Sex is one of the ways in which two people in love share their feelings, true, but there are lots of people in my life, who I deeply love, that I do not, and would not have sex with.Why? I'm not sure I know the answers to these questions. I actually agree with Wanderer about the politics of it all. Churches have the right to marry whom ever they deem fit to marry, and should have the freedom to deny the sacrament of marriage to anyone they choose. As far as civil matters, I think homosexual marriage, and polygamy and prostitution while we are at it, should be legal. Christians have the right to say what ever they want to say, and to vote for whom ever they want to vote for, just like everyone else, but to continue to claim that this is a Christian Nation, and to expect it to live up to that designation, is very naive to say the least
There are many whom I care deeply for with whom I would not have sex. There is only one whom I truly and completely love about whom I would say the same.
I would think that the only damaging effect of sex outside of that one special arrangement (other than the unwanted children or illnesses issue) is that you remove the fact that your sexuality is something that is, always has been, and always will be reserved for one other person. That creates a special kind of bond. That is the only benefit.
As to the homosexual question? Even if you give that greater bonding of sex beyond just love, this only solidifies the question more. If you find that rare person that goes even that extra step, and they are the same gender as you, then what? Is the Goddess a practical joker bent on your suffering? The holiness of sexuality goes beyond the simple question of pleasure to the sharing of yourself completely with another person. This act, unlike casual sexual activities, takes a loving relationship to a deeper and more meaningful place.
I still join with Lisanocerous. How can such a deep and loving relationship be wrong? I am not just talking about pleasures that are dangerous. I am talking about a complete, deep, caring, mutually building and sustaining relationship.
As for your comparisons, MaryEllen, I will reiterate an earlier point. Polygamy causes major socioeconomic issues that could actual give the civil government reason to take issue with it.
I do not agree with the assumptions being made that sex is a divine righteous way of expressing true love and commitment.
I love sex. I do not love the people with whom I am having sex, for the most part, except for when I was with Karina. Why can't sex simply be a face-value sort of thing? Why do you insist that sex cannot be meaningless pleasure, like watching a comedy or playing a video game? As an analogy, last night at the poker room I got a massage for 20 minutes for $20 at the table. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and when it was over she moved off to he next customer and I kept playing poker. I got pleasure from it, she was glad to do it, and there was no downside. In what way is sex any different from a massage? Physical pleasure for it's own sake? The only difference I can think of is actually a positive of sex where the physical pleasure is mutual.
MC - I didn't say there was anything wrong with sex for the sake of pleasure. I just said that with the right person it can go deeper than that. I also wasn't trying to sell chastity until marriage, just pointing out a potential benefit.
Post a Comment
<< Home