-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is it okay to disagree with your religion?
- Thread starter hannah969
- Start date
This comments means nothing to me.
I guide myself. What would you even mean by that comment or is it short circuited rhetoric?
Yoshua
Well-Known Member
Hi Hannah,
That would mean that God is still above us. He is still our God who guide us in all things.
Thanks
I believe it is okay to disagree with one's own religion but only with the branches, and sex is one of them. But I still believe the disagreement should not lead us to act against what our beliefs teach us. I think it only makes sense to follow the will of those who promised us things, otherwise we don't have the right to demand what they promised us nor they are under obligation to deliver. It is true that God may forgive anything (with minor difference in my beliefs as a Muslim), but that does not necessarily mean that He will. But at least I know that He will forgive what we repent as long as it is an honest repentance, which is another subject that thought I'd just mention.
If it feels so great to you, why the OP? Why post such intimate details of one's life and ask if one has to continue seeing a priest to confess this and then state it harms no one and feels great? This issue, that being Catholic guilt, has never made sense to me. Nor the drive to 'confess' to another person, this being a priest, one's alleged 'sins'. Seems to me you are asking for permission to be sexually active.
I know.
I'm pointing out that this sort of thing isn't actually as "archaic" as one might expect.
ether-ore
Active Member
This post certainly goes a long way in explaining your other op about wanting to get rid of all people of faith by suggesting they terrified little children. Were you told that you would go to hell for being sexually active? Were you terrified? And by feigning terror, do you now want to strike back at what you disbelieve in? I don't say that you need to see a psychiatrist but I do think you are a very confused person in terms of your thought processes.
If you choose to be sexually active and are justifying it by saying religion is wrong, then it seems to me that you are using the same argument as homosexuals use; except that you are hetero (I'm assuming). It makes no difference in this case either. Sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is against God's law. Of course you can use your agency to decide what to do with your life... have at it. But it is wrong to justify it by saying someone else's belief is wrong. It certainly isn't your belief and it doesn't sound like it ever was.
If you choose to be sexually active and are justifying it by saying religion is wrong, then it seems to me that you are using the same argument as homosexuals use; except that you are hetero (I'm assuming). It makes no difference in this case either. Sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is against God's law. Of course you can use your agency to decide what to do with your life... have at it. But it is wrong to justify it by saying someone else's belief is wrong. It certainly isn't your belief and it doesn't sound like it ever was.
No, I meant the completely separate post where she mentioned seeing a guy and using him for the money, while sleeping with 15-20 other men behind his back because she needs that much sex, and can't control it.
Yes, it really is.
That's probably right.
I feel like the only imperfection in my life is that I've had a Catholic upbringing that I'm at odds with.
It doesn't match up with my understanding of science and I get nothing out of it. It seems to hate women and sex too.
I agree with your first statement but aren't Muslims the most violent religion in the world at the moment?
Muslims are a collection of people, some violent, most not.
Isn't a "Muslim" an adherent of Islam? Islam being the most violent religion; Muslims being the most violent religious people.
Only if 3~400-ish years is considered "archaic", which I don't because Modern English was spoken back then. You'd be able to carry on a conversation with people, about many things that are mutually familiar, and understand each other pretty well give or take a few words. That's not middle ages at all; that's the Early Modern Era.
While there is some variation depending on who you talk to, the so-called "Dark Ages" roughly occurred between 500 AD to 800 AD, because that was a period where the historical records stopped. Now, we know what was going on during that time; that period is typically called the "Migration Age"(because many of the old Northern Tribes were "migrating" all over the place and displacing previous inhabitants, often violently), or "Early Middle Ages". The massive cultural deterioration occurred not because of the spread of Christianity, but because of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.
Personally, I refer to evangelical stuff not as "archaic", but as "puritan". Though if you'd rather stick to "archaic", even though this sort of thing is relatively new to mainstream Christianity, historically speaking, I'll stop here. Historical inaccuracies (or even conceptions that disagree with mine) that involve religion are kind of a pet peeve of mine (which means if I got anything wrong, correct me.) It's certainly creepy.
Uh... no. Islam as a religion isn't any more "violent" than any other. It just so happens that right now, the Middle East (where Islam is the dominant religion) is going through MAJOR socio-political upheaval and instability (to put it very mildly), and many of the countries involved aren't US allies. I've heard it said (though I've yet to fully confirm this) that most of the violent groups are only peripherally aware of what's actually in the Qur'an, because they're either illiterate or just not provided access to the whole thing.
Plus, we in the West are given a pretty skewed perspective on what's actually happening out there, right now. I would basically not trust anything that comes out of Western news on Middle Eastern events; not because they're making up stories, but because they present the stories they have as being a microcosm for the whole situation, and might often exaggerate the degrees to which they happen.
Agreed. And it's ironic that now everyone hates Obama when they used to hate Bush. Turns out Bush was right: Islam is violent and needs to be helped.
No, Bush was wrong. Islam is not violent, any more than other religions.
For example:
To you be your Way,
And to me mine.
Qur'an 109:6
Besides, I've been around Muslims here in the US, and they're just like everybody else.
Bush was right about pretty much everything but the media kept him down. Then Obama came along and everyone went crazy over the whole "half-white president" thing.
Bush was right; we live in a dangerous world but it's getting harder and harder to find out who the enemy is. I think Islam is just a helpful guide as to who we should be fighting because they hate us and our freedom and want to stone women like me to death. That's horrible.
I know a fair number of Muslims and have interacted with many, many more - none violent.
Same as me but it is Islam that gives them the motivation to commit various acts of terrorism.