Comments on: Green given rough ride on Question Time

By: JC/UK

JC/UK — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:45:29 +0000

"Christopher - many hundreds of years ago there wasnâ€t proof that the fundamental claims of xtianity were wrong (god creating the earth and all animals and plants thereon etc). Now there is." Tom....Really!? Perhaps you would like to share this "proof" with us?

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:44:57 +0000

I also recall that at the start of a University mission some years back, a couple of college missioners were treated dismissively by the Vicegerent of the College because he assumed they ‘must’ (being Christians) share Augustine’s and Jerome’s view of sex. Come on guys – how are we poor Christians supposed to help (or change) what people did 1600 years ago? To say that we ‘must’ agree with them, our ancestors, makes no more sense than to say that they ‘must’ agree with us, their descendants. (Not that their view was any worse than its libertine opposite.)
It’s a bit like assuming that all Americans or Brits, by virtue of being Americans or Brits, supported the war in Iraq.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:51:57 +0000

OK – the misunderstanding arises because large swathes of Christianity equate ‘the NT view’ with ‘the Christian view’. About what the NT view is, there can be some debate, but the essentials are clear. It is also clear that the NT view is distant from that of Augustine, Jerome, believers in the perpetual virginity of Mary (and those who recruited nuns for a life of celibacy with this fictional Mary as a role-model).

By: tom p

tom p — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:29:32 +0000

You’re taking on a mighty big role speaking for all christians there christopher.

You take mild offence when people here suggest that as a christian you share what are clearly pretty mainstream christian views when you actually don’t, imposing suppositions on to you, so you’ve gotta have some chutzpah to do impose your interpretation of the christian view of sex onto the rest of christianity

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Sun, 09 Oct 2005 11:14:26 +0000

Yet that’s almost exactly the opposite of my view, or the view of any Christian. Sex does fall into the category of things that are not for everyday talk, but for precisely the opposite reason. Not because it is dirty but because it is reverenced. Things that are of extreme value are inclined to be ineffable,or,at the very least,not to be spoken of lightly.

By: tom p

tom p — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 09:31:36 +0000

I was merely pointing out that the seentiment of those lyrics is not, as you said, “miles from christianity’s stance on sex”.
The cardboard box bit is just nonsense (they clearly only used cardboard so it would scan), but, as I pointed out, at one point in recent history where there was a dictatorship that was heavily christian and relied in large part on the catholic church for its strength, the scenario envisaged there was not far from the truth.

For me, though, the line “keep your dirty feelings Deep inside” is far more pertinent and representative of christianity’s views on sex and suchlike. Take, for example, you, with your appreciation of the evangelical black christian stance of not talking about bad things. It’s all cut from the same cloth, even if sometimes it’s expressed less fervently than at others

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 14:31:50 +0000

Well – at one location at one point in history. And no doubt not untypically. But why should those who hold no such view be held guilty by association?

By: tom p

tom p — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 09:14:04 +0000

Although, Christopher, during Franco’s reign in Spain, there was a law outlawing extramarital affairs, which was enacted purely to please/appease the catholic church.
If you were found to be having an affair then you could be arrested. And, given that this was Franco’s fascist dictatorship, there was a reasonable chance that you could well be shot if the cops felt like it.
I’m not saying I approve of infidelity, not by any means, but it does indicate the largest branch of the christian church’s repressive attitude to sex.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 08:48:56 +0000

That is miles from Christianity’s stance on sex,which (within the boundaries that all true freedom always has) is unremittingly positive, as opposed to the bleak negative of the lyrics
As between those who think ‘sleeping around’ is ok and those who dont, logically the latter must be the ones who assent to the proposition that ‘sex is special’. (Understatement of the year.)

Secondly, when did you ever hear a Christian assent to the commandment ‘Thou shalt not get found out’? On the contrary, the Christian stance is (tongue in cheek, but accurately) ‘If thou dost not want to get found out, that proveth that thou knowest full well that it be one of those things that thou shouldest not be doing in the first place.’

By: Marc

Marc — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:13:15 +0000

Christianity’s stance on sex reminds me of these lyrics (Pink Floyd’s The Wall):

You better run all day
And run all night
And keep your dirty feelings Deep inside.
And if you’re Takin’ your girlfriendOut tonight
You better park the car well out of sight
‘Cos if they catch you in the back seat
Trying to pick her locks
They’re gonna send you back to mother
In a cardboard box