Well... a large aspect of most religions is abstinence from things that most people take pleasure from, and impose inconveniences. Sex before marriage, alcohol, drugs, meat, ... right down to... not being able to leave the house without a turban on, or not being able to have a shower without a pair of shorts on, not being able to header the ball in a game of football incase your turban comes off, not being able to use contraception, not being able to choose who you marry(because you can only marry into your own religion).
So my question is this... don't you ever feel like you're missing out on life? Not having childhood sweethearts, young love, and having to consider religion in everything you do, not being able to have a nice steak, not even being able to live in the same house with someone who does eat meat?(in essence, vastly limiting who you're allowed to fall in love with, and move in with) ?
All these restrictions and inconveniences for something that you can't physically be sure is a worthy cause. So... how do we fell?
- Technically, where abstinence is advised or commanded, it is (usually) for a positive end such as enjoying a thing's full potential and full scope of pleasure. E.g. abstaining from sex prior to marriage is advised because sex is beautiful and so is your partner, so wait and enjoy at the right moment. That is a positive statement, quite distanced from "God doesn't like sex", or something of such ilk. So, again, technically, abstinence is a large part of the Christian religion at least in as much as enjoying life and desiring God is a large part of it; an altogether more positive rationale.
- I can drink alcohol.
- I can eat meat (especially a steak...).
- I don't have to wear a turban.
- I shower naked...
- If I thought football was in any way entertaining, I would be able to header the ball.
- I can use contraception and indeed intend to, come the time.. as it were.
- I can choose who I marry (and I choose not to date/marry a non-Christian because I don't think possessing entirely different worldviews and one partner placing the other second to Christ is a very healthy basis for matrimony).
- I have had childhood sweethearts.
- I have and still have 'young love'.
- I consider Christ in all that I do, not religion, and I savour Him and love Him.
- I live in the same house as people who eat meat.
- No I don't feel like I'm missing out - not only because I do most of the things you said, but where abstinence is worked through into my day to day life, it is done from a deep sense of liberty and enjoyment of life. And on that note, if anything, I feel like I enjoy life more than some of my non-Christian friends. I love laughter, I love a fine whisky or an even finer cigar, I look forward to loving sexual pleasure with the one who I love more than any other besides my God, who I also love; I love His creation, I love the arts and the intellectual enterprise which I believe He's given us to enjoy. I love my family. I love my brain, and whilst I don't like being a few pounds overweight (dammit!), I love my body too. I love sunrises and sunsets, I love the smell of rain after a hot day, I love thunderstorms, in fact I just love weather, full stop. I love creation. I love food (oh gosh do I!) - and I love my friends. I love my vocation. I love being able to love, and although I weep at suffering it is that 'power of love' (huey lewis, anyone?) that informs my whole praxis. There is not a whiff of melancholy in my meta-vision of life, and more than that, where I abstain for reasons of love and liberty, I love my abstinence too
So er... I'm not really sure what you're getting at!
You would if you'd only bothered with the ones that are actually applicable to you. Ofcourse you're not going to see the point in it when you use the ones from Islam that don't matter to you, it means there were only 2 or 3 points that actually limited you and you were answering a list that you're free to choose either way on.
The ones that did matter to you, you gave long answers on, so you obviously did understand what he meant by them.
You ever heard of being 'facetious'? It's applicable here. It's also called being 'playful' (yeesh...)
Fact of the matter is, the force of the OP's contention is blunted by the fact that most of the 'restrictions' don't apply to Christians, and not only that, but those that do apply aren't/weren't fully accommodatory of what 'abstinence' actually is in the Christian tradition.
And what's more - the OP didn't categorise and classify, so neither did I. Highlighting the fact that I can header a ball, or that I can eat steak, or that I can drink, is actually quite useful in illustrating what it's like to live as a Christian in light of what the OP charges.
- Technically, where abstinence is advised or commanded, it is (usually) for a positive end such as enjoying a thing's full potential and full scope of pleasure. E.g. abstaining from sex prior to marriage is advised because sex is beautiful and so is your partner, so wait and enjoy at the right moment. That is a positive statement, quite distanced from "God doesn't like sex", or something of such ilk.
Surely sex is beautiful even if you and your partner are not married? Surely, if two people are going to get married, and they are right for each other, then the sex will be the same whether they're married or not. With the added bonus of knowing that they're sexually compatible before engaging in a commitment to that person and their sex for the rest of your life...
So, again, technically, abstinence is a large part of the Christian religion at least in as much as enjoying life and desiring God is a large part of it; an altogether more positive rationale.
- I can drink alcohol.
- I can eat meat (especially a steak...).
- I don't have to wear a turban.
- I shower naked...
- If I thought football was in any way entertaining, I would be able to header the ball.
- I can use contraception and indeed intend to, come the time.. as it were.
- I can choose who I marry (and I choose not to date/marry a non-Christian because I don't think possessing entirely different worldviews and one partner placing the other second to Christ is a very healthy basis for matrimony).
- I have had childhood sweethearts.
- I have and still have 'young love'.
- I consider Christ in all that I do, not religion, and I savour Him and love Him.
- I live in the same house as people who eat meat.
Christianity is not quite as extreme as it used to be. And even then it isn't as extreme as a lot of other modern religions. My question wasn't aimed at a particular religion. But there are religions in which all of these things are prohibited.
- No I don't feel like I'm missing out - not only because I do most of the things you said, but where abstinence is worked through into my day to day life, it is done from a deep sense of liberty and enjoyment of life. And on that note, if anything, I feel like I enjoy life more than some of my non-Christian friends. I love laughter, I love a fine whisky or an even finer cigar, I look forward to loving sexual pleasure with the one who I love more than any other besides my God, who I also love; I love His creation, I love the arts and the intellectual enterprise which I believe He's given us to enjoy. I love my family. I love my brain, and whilst I don't like being a few pounds overweight (dammit!), I love my body too. I love sunrises and sunsets, I love the smell of rain after a hot day, I love thunderstorms, in fact I just love weather, full stop. I love creation. I love food (oh gosh do I!) - and I love my friends. I love my vocation. I love being able to love, and although I weep at suffering it is that 'power of love' (huey lewis, anyone?) that informs my whole praxis. There is not a whiff of melancholy in my meta-vision of life, and more than that, where I abstain for reasons of love and liberty, I love my abstinence too
So er... I'm not really sure what you're getting at!
You ever heard of being 'facetious'? It's applicable here. It's also called being 'playful' (yeesh...)
Fact of the matter is, the force of the OP's contention is blunted by the fact that most of the 'restrictions' don't apply to Christians, and not only that, but those that do apply aren't/weren't fully accommodatory of what 'abstinence' actually is in the Christian tradition.
And what's more - the OP didn't categorise and classify, so neither did I. Highlighting the fact that I can header a ball, or that I can eat steak, or that I can drink, is actually quite useful in illustrating what it's like to live as a Christian in light of what the OP charges.
I specified in the thread title that it was a question for "ALL religious people"... it's not aimed at a particular religion. Although I do expect more interesting answers from muslims, sikhs, etc, than I do from the less extreme religions such as Christianity. (although Christianity can be as extreme as you wish to make it - most people don't bother...)
[quote=Mush]That's if you believe that spiritual gains and the gains in this life are inversely proportional to each other ...
Why should it be impossible to have both in large amounts?
Why does the criteria for being eligible for "spiritual gains" involve losses in this life?[/QUOTE]
1. some religions only believe in one life..
2. Only a deity can decide which 'goods' are greater, in many religous texts these goods are worship, kindness, keeping religous law etc...therefore many religous people believe that this is the better life
2. Only a deity can decide which 'goods' are greater, in many religous texts these goods are worship, kindness, keeping religous law etc...therefore many religous people believe that this is the better life
3. therefore it IS impossible too have both
Only a deity can decide, yes. But the fact of the matter is there are so many deities to choose from... and there are so many possibilities outside what each religion specifies. Although it is in a religious text, that does not mean it is set in stone... religious texts were written by men, not deities. And religion was created by man, not God.
That's my point actually. Don't you feel like you're missing out on a lot of lifes wonders, because you have chosen to believe something which has just as much chance of being false as any of the other millions of theories for the spiritual world?
I think its a matter of faith, so just because we cannot be sure that there is a God out there that people are abstaining from things for, it does not mean that people should not abstain from these things.
It could just be that people feel like they are living their life to the full by following these religious teachings and so do not feel that in any way they are missing out on anything.
I would agree that it is hard to believe that people enjoy this way of life and do not feel they are missing out on things. There would simply not be as many followers of world religions if this was the way people felt.
Personally I could never live with so many restrictions but could understand why people would, I think it may offer some form of comfort to people.
Nope I'm pretty happy. I don't derive emotional and mental fulfilment from eating a steak or having meaningless sex in the first place!
Why do you feel that the best things in life are "being able to show everyone your hair!" "being able to take drugs!" "being able to be naked in the shower!"
woooowww! those are what make life worth living right?
Nah, there's spirituality, intellectual fulfilment, art, poetry, music, sport, friendship, literature, language, culture, meditation, reflection, introspection, compassion, creativity, cinema, love. As such it's perfectly possible to have a fulfilling life without the things you described, which are meaningless and transcient in comparison.
Surely sex is beautiful even if you and your partner are not married? Surely, if two people are going to get married, and they are right for each other, then the sex will be the same whether they're married or not. With the added bonus of knowing that they're sexually compatible before engaging in a commitment to that person and their sex for the rest of your life...
I don't share our culture's obsession with sex and the bizarre 'demand' that one be 'sexually compatible', which usually is translated as, 'will X do Y to me and not grumble?' - and I also can't comment on whether sex is 'beautiful' or not for non-Christian couples. The point is thoroughly theological - sex is to be regarded as not only 'beautiful' in the sentimental sense, but as utterly divine, too. The scriptures talk of God's image being fully revealed in both male and female together, not in some vague individualistic sense. When they come together in sexual union, the love that forces them together reflects the love shared within the Triune Godhead, between the Father, Spirit and Son. The physical pleasure experienced in sex not only reveals God's gift of embodiment (with a nod to His plan to take flesh in Christ), but it also reveals the visceral and ineffable pleasure felt by God in creating. The union reflects the unity of the Godhead, and the (eventual) baby reflects the very act of creation itself. In that sense, sex is to be seen as reflecting some of the most fundamental Christian theological truths and to wait for marriage, that time when spiritually and socially one makes a vow of unity with the 'other', is to be seen as most consistent with how the Bible (positively) views human sexuality.
The rationale makes no comment on those non-Christians who have sex prior to marriage, and it makes no reference to negative, victorian mentalities of sex being 'dirty'. Sex is beautiful not because butterflies fly out of your ass, or because Hallmark's bank account is credited when you have it, but because it reveals some amazingly profound truths not only about humanity, but about the very God who ordained it, who brought the couple together and in whose image of love we reflect. Marriage is the rubric, theological and social, under which this is to be understood and appreciated - a cultural, inter-personal and eventually physical unity, in which we find the very image of the divine.
Only a deity can decide, yes. But the fact of the matter is there are so many deities to choose from... and there are so many possibilities outside what each religion specifies. Although it is in a religious text, that does not mean it is set in stone... religious texts were written by men, not deities. And religion was created by man, not God.
That's my point actually. Don't you feel like you're missing out on a lot of lifes wonders, because you have chosen to believe something which has just as much chance of being false as any of the other millions of theories for the spiritual world?
but your question was directed at religous believers...so...all your doing is arguing against religion, and not letting anyone answer your question
Discuss theological issues, which are issues inherent to a religion, not their political manifestations.
Just a question for all religous people...
?
