Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (110772)	4/22/2005 4:25:49 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 794356

I thought all branches of Christianity believed in Original Sin. Dunno. I'm out of my league. The alternative presented makes sense to me. FWIW, this is the piece that linked to what I posted. (None of this informs the matter of birth control, though, so I strayed from your argument. Sorry. FWIW, I don't get the same thing you don't get about the Catholic position. I don't see a coherent position. It reminds me a bit of the pro-life position that tolerates abortions in the case of rape. More political than logically consistent.) "The One-Flesh Union: An Evangelical View of Sex and Marriage [Note: This post was originally written in December 2003.] Shell from Across the Atlantic recently posted a “Primer on Fundamentalism” in which she outlines what “fundamentalist Christians” believe.* Overall, her post is a fairly accurate review of the basic tenets of biblical Christianity and would fit not only fundamentalists but evangelicals as well. She goes on to add another principle that she admits is not a primary doctrine but that can be deduced from such beliefs, “Sex is physical, not psychological”: <<Sex is an act. Not an identity. A person chooses whether or not to have sexual thoughts and whether to engage in sexual behavior. This is why knowledge about sex must be kept from "The Children"--if they don't know about it, they won't choose it. This is why homosexuality is a sin. If sex is an act, then you can give permission for that act to a limited number of people. If you are not lawfully married, then you don't get to have sex, just as if you don't have a legal driver's license, you don't get to drive. No masturbation, no porn, no fantasies. Sex is an act, therefore you can control it.>> No doubt this is probably what many evangelicals actually do believe so I can not fault her for the misunderstanding. But to claim that sex is either merely physical (sexual acts) or mostly psychological (sexual identity) is to reduce sex and classify it as an individualistic phenomenon. The evangelical biblical view, on the other hand, claims that sex is primarily relational. Unfortunately, most evangelical Christians tend to view sex only within the paradigm of marriage (pre – bad; post – good). While this is not exactly inaccurate, placing the emphasis on the “marriage ceremony” leads to a legalism that has a distorting effect on sexual ethics. As psychology professor Paul A. Twelker points out, it is not the marriage ceremony but the “one-flesh union” that should be our focus. “Individuals must order their lives so that they establish an authentic one-flesh union,” adds Twelker, “blessed by God once in their life (unless widowed).”" evangelicaloutpost.com