Re: Women at Casinos
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Southern Baptists are more social, less "Puritanistic" (meaning they're not so hardcore Bible), and many a Sunday you can't really hear the Bible itself being preached in many churches.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, many of the churches that stress how closely they follow the Bible focus entirely too much on the sex, because it's the easiest way to control you.

'If a man is cold and has no coat, give him yours' has a great ring to it, but nothing about it will bring you back next week. 'Modern day whores of Babylon are lying in wait to ruin your marraige', now that gives you something to think about all week.

Cold men without coats can be hard to find, too, so your opportunities for righteousness are often far apart, while you can feel a real sense of accomplishment each night as you recall your narrow escapes from the clutches of the maurading Jezebels at Walmart.

I'm not saying you should go to a casino, and am in fact surprised that you're considering it, given what you believe is expected of you. It would please me to think, however, that you'll take notice of how often sex and temptation is brought up at your church and whether it's used to scare you.

You'd probably be very surprised by the small role temptation plays in the lives of those who aren't told of it's constant peril. I don't go to strip clubs, but I go to restaurants, bars and casinos without either my wife or myself worrying about who else might be there. Perhaps that's due to focusing on the positive parts of our lives and relationship rather than the potential pitfalls.

Martin

[/ QUOTE ]

First part-churches seem to focus too much on sex-probably true. I've talked with a lot of men of God about this, and the consensus is that the over-emphasis is due to the faulty thinking that sexual sin is worse than other forms of sin. In other words, many believers see a homosexual as worse than a liar, but both lifestyles are treated the same in the Bible.

I know there are cults which seek to control people, but biblical Christianity does not do so. I'm not talking about Catholicism which does seek to do that, or "Church of God", but more the circles I grew up in. However, you may look at them as trying to control people, I don't know. I see it as God holding everyone accountable. For instance, for the sake of hearing me out, let's fiat that the God of the Bible exists. If He does, He has made His creation to be accountable to Him. He is just in doing this because He created us, and so I, realizing I'm His workmanship, submit to Him. Some people may call this control, but in reality, I'm just doing what I'm supposed to be doing.

Einstein's problem with the Bible was that he'd have to be accountable to God. Sklanksy's problem is that he doesn't want a God who is smarter than he is. Whatever our kneejerk reaction to God, He is real, He did create us, and it's for our good that He tells us to obey Him.

Getting a little more back to the subject, I do think sex is used too much, yet I don't complain because it's a constant problem in the church. Lust is probably my biggest struggle. I'm 24 and not married, and part of me wants to have sex all the time; I am a man.

Your theory of churches scaring may be rooted in an overall view towards organized religion, that it is created to control. I shared this view when I was an athiest, and I still see it in some circles. All I can say to that is that you would probably have to see what James (in the Bible) calls "pure and undefiled religion". In other words, yes, there is defiled religion all over the place, and you have pointed some of it out. But pure religion does involve telling people that the consquence for spitting on the God who created you is hell. Luke 12:5 says that this message SHOULD scare us. We should fear God, our Creator. I know that doesn't sit well with us, but that's our dilemma as humans. We have the option to serve ourselves or to yield to God.

M

Re: Women at Casinos
 

I find myself in agreement with much of what you say, now that you've had a few chances to more fully explain your point of view.

Had you approached the subject from a "what sort of person will I be associating myself with at a casino?" perspective, with slutty women comprising only one segment, it would have raised fewer eyebrows. Women, and those of us who don't feel their presence is an affront to our wives, came off pretty badly in the initial discussion.

Martin

Re: Women at Casinos
 

[ QUOTE ]
I find myself in agreement with much of what you say, now that you've had a few chances to more fully explain your point of view.

Had you approached the subject from a "what sort of person will I be associating myself with at a casino?" perspective, with slutty women comprising only one segment, it would have raised fewer eyebrows. Women, and those of us who don't feel their presence is an affront to our wives, came off pretty badly in the initial discussion.

Martin

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, yeah, until you said that, I hadn't even realized that the post could come off offensive. I really didn't mean it that way and I'm glad you understand that-I apologize to anyone who might have been offended (Peachy maybe, lol).

M

Re: Women at Casinos
 

what is this "Bible" you speak of?

i would like to subscribe to your newsletter....

Re: Women at Casinos
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most people aren't chauvinist enough to call women meat to be ordered off a menu which will still be perused after they are being prepared for your meal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll never understand what you're describing. It's like a different language. Some kind of zealot dialect. I would never refer to women in such a manner. I would suggest that "Us and them" used by you indicates "me and everyone who takes scripture to literal extremes" and "the 99.9 % of the globe that disagrees." Leave the women out of it.

Re: Women at Casinos
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most people aren't chauvinist enough to call women meat to be ordered off a menu which will still be perused after they are being prepared for your meal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll never understand what you're describing. It's like a different language. Some kind of zealot dialect. I would never refer to women in such a manner. I would suggest that "Us and them" used by you indicates "me and everyone who takes scripture to literal extremes" and "the 99.9 % of the globe that disagrees." Leave the women out of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You made a comment something to the effect of, "Just because you've ordered does not mean you can't still look at the menu." I replied with what you quoted above, and I don't think it's unclear, and if it is, it has nothing to do with whether I'm a "zealot".

All I meant to convey was that your view of women is degrading to the point of thinking of them like meat to be drooled over, void of importance. You make marriage out to be a joke, no doubt a sentiment that leaves America with a ghastly divorce rate. I'm presenting that there is a better way to think of women and marriage. Of the over 100 responses here, yours is the only one so disrespectful. You are the 1%; everyone else is the 99%.

And work towards a more accurate number. If you think 99.9% of the globe disagrees with biblical Christianity, you need to get out and see the world. It doesn't matter if that number were true, anyway, because the Bible teaches that one day every person in the world will admit that Jesus is who He said He was, even you.

M

Re: Women at Casinos
 

I don't think him finding more than one woman in the world generally attractive to look at is in any way degrading to women in general and certainly not "a sentiment that leaves America with a ghastly divorce rate". I certainly hope that trust is a little more central to a relationship than what others around you are wearing.

And not to be the second percent who is disrespectful but frankly your views seem a little naive and somewhat blinded by your faith. At the risk of offending anyone I'll say that you must at least realize stating more or less "this is how it is" simply because you believe your religion to be how it is is not exactly a very convincing argument to anyone who doesn't share your beliefs.

Re: Women at Casinos
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think him finding more than one woman in the world generally attractive to look at is in any way degrading to women in general and certainly not "a sentiment that leaves America with a ghastly divorce rate". I certainly hope that trust is a little more central to a relationship than what others around you are wearing.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the statement was made in reference to finding other women attractive, but in the analogy that a woman is something on a menu and treated like a piece of meat.

Re: Women at Casinos
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the statement was made in reference to finding other women attractive, but in the analogy that a woman is something on a menu and treated like a piece of meat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take two blondes and a redhead, please, and make the kung pao chicken extra spicy.

Re: Women at Casinos
 

I prefer brunettes, but have no particular objection to blondes or redheads. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]