|
|
Post by baza on Mar 1, 2017 1:23:09 GMT -5
@lwoetin
I believe AnarChristian and missus were >than 10 years but < than 20.
Two kids as I recollect, one early teenage years and one younger.
|
|
|
|
Post by darktippedrose on Mar 3, 2017 3:21:01 GMT -5
I'm not Christian, but I am religious. However, I've never really thrived in religious communities for some reason. There are some personalities that you can find at any church, masjid or synagogue and they are just toxic to me. I do better when I focus on myself and just look up lectures after researching good lecturers for myself of course.
Religiously, there are restriction in as far as sex inside of marriage. But God is not denying me sex, my husband is. After so many years my husband had decided that I should study religion and quit thinking about sex. he felt that less sex would make him a better Muslim.
After so many years, I have asked other Muslims about this and my husband is soooo terribly wrong. Sex, love and affection is encouraged between spouses. It brings them closer together and closer to God because you are avoiding sex outside of marriage.
And my husband might admit this when it applies to others, just not when it applies to me.
My husband prays a lot. He reads Qu'ran a lot. He listens to lectures a lot. Everything is a lot. But rarely interacts with me. My husband feels that because he's no longer an extremist, and a Shi'a Muslim (I am too) that all his misdeeds should be automatically forgiven and forgotten. He feels sooo entitled that he thinks that he is NOT going to beg even though it was HE who has burned all these bridges.
And while he is much nicer than he used to be, its only gone so far. He still hasn't kissed me or held me or anything. so ..... yeah.
Even if I wasn't a Muslim, I still probably wouldn't cheat because its not in my nature. If my husband knew that I masterbate, he'd consider me to be committing adultery anyways ......And if I was divorced or widowed (one can dream right?) I probably still wouldn't. I'm shy and cautious around men. And I don't just want sex. I want everything. I want cuddles and sleeping together, breakfast in bed, i want movie marathons, etc. I don't want just sex, I want love and trust and everything .......
I hope that helps a bit. I'm religious but I crave balance between religious studies and family and interest that give personal fullfillment. I consider sexuality to be something, one aspect of yourself. One thing out of balance can make it harder to keep everything going.
|
|
|
|
Post by seabr33z3 on Mar 3, 2017 3:55:11 GMT -5
I don't just want sex. I want everything. I want cuddles and sleeping together, breakfast in bed, i want movie marathons, etc. I don't want just sex, I want love and trust and everything ....... ^^^^^THIS!!^^^^^ |
|
|
|
Post by baza on Mar 3, 2017 4:26:11 GMT -5
The bloke, and his behaviour toward you Sister dtr, marks him as a prick of a person.
What religion he is, where he lives, what he does, are sidebars.
The bloke is a prick of a person.
|
|
|
|
Post by solodriver on Mar 3, 2017 21:28:08 GMT -5
I agree with Flashjohn's posts about this subject. SM and a refuser being a good, faith believing member "does not compute!"
(For all you LIS fans)
|
|
|
|
Post by Rhapsodee on Mar 4, 2017 0:34:34 GMT -5
Wow. @smartkat asked what was really a very simple question:
"What is your religion giving you that makes it worth it to obey the anti-sex rules?"
Please give us the bottom line and save the novel.
|
|
|
|
Post by eternaloptimism on Mar 4, 2017 8:16:42 GMT -5
I just find treating people as you would like to be treated is a good rule of thumb for living a decent life.
Unfortunately I'm great at treating knob heads too well!
I am not religious. I don't have any problems with other people's beliefs though and am always happy for an open discussion.
I do wonder though how science heads can truly believe in religious stories. It seems so contradictory to me?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2017 8:41:23 GMT -5
Thank you for chiming in, darktippedrose. It was good to hear a viewpoint from a non-Christian religion. |
|
|
|
Post by wewbwb on Mar 4, 2017 9:11:46 GMT -5
I just find treating people as you would like to be treated is a good rule of thumb for living a decent life. Unfortunately I'm great at treating knob heads too well! I am not religious. I don't have any problems with other people's beliefs though and am always happy for an open discussion. I do wonder though how science heads can truly believe in religious stories. It seems so contradictory to me? It depends on how one looks at it. If you are explaining something to a uneducated illiterate, (the overwhelming population at the time) whats the best way? |
|
|
|
Post by eternaloptimism on Mar 4, 2017 9:18:22 GMT -5
I just find treating people as you would like to be treated is a good rule of thumb for living a decent life. Unfortunately I'm great at treating knob heads too well! I am not religious. I don't have any problems with other people's beliefs though and am always happy for an open discussion. I do wonder though how science heads can truly believe in religious stories. It seems so contradictory to me? It depends on how one looks at it. If you are explaining something to a uneducated illiterate, (the overwhelming population at the time) whats the best way? Loud and slow? Lol! X |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Mar 6, 2017 10:11:46 GMT -5
I do wonder though how science heads can truly believe in religious stories. It seems so contradictory to me? I'm a "science head"... and I take basically all religious tales and scientific "facts" as merely "the most accurate fiction we have at the current time". I believe religious tales are largely allegorical, but there is an "underlying truth" that may facilitate spiritual growth. But I believe that about science, too: the things that science "knows" as "fact" are -- really -- just our best current understanding. Let me get really "sciency" here: The "cubic model", the "plum-pudding model", the "Saturnian model", the "Rutherford model", and the "Bohr model" were ALL attempts to describe the nature of atoms. Each had a bit of the truth; each were somewhat useful; each was an "improvement" on the former. But -- in retrospect -- none were completely accurate. How do we know? Because the modern quantum-mechanical (QM) model is better than any of them. Science "proves" that QM is better at describing and predicting atomic structure and events. But does that mean the quantum-mechanical model, is "right"? That is: is it 100% accurate, never to be corrected/improved upon? The history of science predicts we WILL come up with something "more accurate" in the future... so I can't -- as a scientist -- state with 100% certainty that QM won't someday be improved or replaced by something "more right". So if it is not "right" is it "wrong"? No, it's not wrong either. Where does that leave us? I'm comfortable as a scientist believing "it is the most accurate fiction we have at the current time". Many scientists don't realize that THAT statement is a statement of FAITH. Over time, I believe our societal beliefs -- both scientific or religious -- will become a little more accurate (closer to the underlying reality). And yet, we will never understand things perfectly. As a "science head", I feel a religion states "truths" through its "religious stories", and yet progresses in largely a similar way as science. Thank you for chiming in, darktippedrose . It was good to hear a viewpoint from a non-Christian religion. FWIW, my religion is technically "non-Christian", likewise for wewbwb 's descriptions of Buddhism. So you actually have a pretty diverse set of views here! |
|
|
|
Post by seabr33z3 on Mar 6, 2017 23:43:48 GMT -5
Wow. @smartkat asked what was really a very simple question: "What is your religion giving you that makes it worth it to obey the anti-sex rules?" Please give us the bottom line and save the novel. Smartkat's question was extremely reasonable and innnoffensive. Your attitude comes across as somewhat rude tbh. " save us the novel". A simple question doesn't always have a simple answer. Someone's perspective regarding their feelings and actions being guided by their worldview cannot always be easily explained away in bullet points. It's somewhat a case of a " you would need to have been there" scenario. From my perspective it's less about a set of rules and more about a relationship with God. As soon as I say that, if you haven't walked it you won't get it. You( one) will say " but how can you have a RELATIONSHIP with an invisible being?". That is not an unreasonable question either. No amount of bullet points or novels can adequately convey what exactly that is. I wish, Rhapsodee that it WAS easy to explain in a few short words in a way that those not walkIng the mile in the shoes could understand. Perhaps it's like a type of empathy, where you don't really 'get it' unless you've walked it. |
|
|
|
Post by Rhapsodee on Mar 7, 2017 0:26:05 GMT -5
seabr33z3, I was raised in the ultimate religious household. Bible readings and discussions - I'm sure they weren't every single evening but it sure felt that way. My parents prayed over us - loudly -before we left the house. My boyfriends had to sit through a bible reading and prayer session before we went on our date. They were good sports about it. I still have a solid foundation with god. But not the one that my parents had. I don't go to church. I avoid bible discussions. I don't even read another person's opinions or interpretation of the Bible. Why? Because faith is a very personal thing. You don't need to write a dissertation on your faith. It is part of you. You are what you are. I'm sorry I offended you, but it is really a simple question with a simple answer. Just share what you are.
|
|
|
|
Post by seabr33z3 on Mar 7, 2017 0:37:58 GMT -5
seabr33z3, I was raised in the ultimate religious household. Bible readings and discussions - I'm sure they weren't every single evening but it sure felt that way. My parents prayed over us - loudly -before we left the house. My boyfriends had to sit through a bible reading and prayer session before we went on our date. They were good sports about it. I still have a solid foundation with god. But not the one that my parents had. I don't go to church. I avoid bible discussions. I don't even read another person's opinions or interpretation of the Bible. Why? Because faith is a very personal thing. You don't need to write a dissertation on your faith. It is part of you. You are what you are. I'm sorry I offended you, but it is really a simple question with a simple answer. Just share what you are. Thank you Rhapsodee for sharing your perspective. I wasn't offended as such, I just felt that you came across as terse in how it was worded and that telling people HOW they should respond to Smartkat's question sounded somewhat arrogant, but it really is up to them as to how they choose to answer. My thoughts on reading your comment were " would this comment be made for every topic raised here or just religion?" I'm truly not wishing to be argumentative here, but sometimes it can be difficult to convey sentiment by text, which is perhaps why your comment came across as it did. No hard feelings here, I just felt that it needed voiced on behalf of all of those who tried to answer as best they could. |
|
|
|
Post by Rhapsodee on Mar 7, 2017 1:05:21 GMT -5
seabr33z3, no it doesn't apply to all questions. There are many compelling posts here. If someone asks a question involving religion, things get a bit over the top. I was really interested in people's answers to this question, but the answer got lost in their reply. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
|
|
